Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Feb 17, 2014

Tony Abbott's highly revealing lie about why we spy

The latest Snowden revelations about Australia reveal how surveillance is aimed at economic espionage - despite the Prime Minister's claims otherwise.

User login status :


One of the interesting consequences of the latest round of Edward Snowden revelations by James Risen and Laura Poitras of The New York Times is that Prime Minister Tony Abbott immediately, blatant and demonstrably lied about Australia’s intelligence-gathering.

Risen and Poitras’ article revealed that:

  • In early 2013 the Australian Signals Directorate was spying on Indonesian officials engaged in trade talks (at that point, probably relating to disputes over clove cigarettes and prawn exports) with the United States, including the Indonesians’ discussions with a US law firm;
  • ASD approached the National Security Agency via its Australian liaison officials over the surveillance; they sought advice from the NSA’s legal area (the nature of the response is unclear). The surveillance continued and the information was handed to the NSA “providing highly useful intelligence for interested US customers”;
  • ASD’s collaboration with the NSA primarily relates to China and Indonesia: NSA has given to ASD metadata from Indonesian telco Indosat and nearly 1.8 million encryption keys from another telco, Telkomsel, a mobile service provider; and
  • ASD needed “mentoring” from the NSA in 2003 over how to decrypt the communications of the defence forces of Papua New Guinea.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, responding to the story yesterday, said “we use it [surveillance] for the benefit of our friends. We use it to uphold our values. We use it to protect our citizens and the citizens of other countries, and we certainly don’t use it for commercial purposes.”

As the NYT documents demonstrate, Abbott’s last statement is plainly false: the ASD was spying on Indonesian trade officials and offered the information to the NSA, which passed it to “interested US customers”, which in turn found it “highly useful”. Unless there are Islamic terrorists lurking among Indonesian trade negotiators, or perhaps in the Chicago offices of Mayer Brown, the law firm caught up in ASD’s surveillance, it’s hard to see how the spying was anything but for commercial purposes.

The Prime Minister also appears to be woefully badly briefed on the remit of our intelligence services. The relevant acts for both ASIO and ASIS specifically permit the collection of intelligence for “Australia’s national economic well-being”.

The significance of this isn’t so much that Abbott so blatantly lied, but why he lied — to maintain the fiction that the vast global internet and telecommunications surveillance network established by the NSA and its associates in vassal states like Australia is only about terrorism and national security. Time and again Snowden’s revelations have demonstrated that the NSA’s surveillance is conducted for the purposes of economic espionage — so much so that the review panel commissioned by United States President Barack Obama in response to the whistleblowing specifically recommended that surveillance of non-Americans “be directed exclusively at the national security of the United States or our allies” and “must not be directed at illicit or illegitimate ends, such as the theft of trade secrets or obtaining commercial gain for domestic industries”.

That is exactly what the ASD has been caught out doing — just as Australian spies, using the cover of an aid program, bugged the East Timorese cabinet room for the commercial gain of Woodside in 2004.

That this surveillance machine is operating for the benefit of corporate interests also discredits the fulminations of Attorney-General George Brandis last week, when he insisted that Snowden’s revelations had harmed our national security and placed Australian lives in danger. Placing the profits of US shrimp producers in danger doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it, Senator? Nor, alas, can Brandis dispatch the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to try to hush up the NYT, as he did with the revelations about East Timor.

The revelations are a profound embarrassment to the Australian intelligence community and particularly ASD, caught out conducting a low-level economic war against Indonesia, a country our politicians are so insistent is so important to us, in which even trivial matters like prawn exports to the US are considered fit for surveillance. And there’s something humiliating in hearing how ASD, or Defence Signals Directorate as it was then, had to be “mentored” by the Americans in breaking into the communications of PNG’s tiny defence force, ranked 151st in the world.

The story also reveals the danger intelligence agency surveillance poses for one of the most basic legal principles of a democracy: legal privilege. The only reason ASD contacted the NSA was because it was a US firm caught up in its surveillance and other US companies stood to benefit, not out of concern for the legal niceties of violating attorney-client privilege. And all for some dodgy durries and cheap prawns.

When intelligence agencies spy on what clients are telling their lawyers, and share that information with each other, it makes it harder to hold governments legally accountable or to use the courts to make them obey the law. It’s more than just economic espionage; it destroys the rule of law.

Bernard Keane — Politics Editor

Bernard Keane

Politics Editor

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s political editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Bernard Keane


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

30 thoughts on “Tony Abbott’s highly revealing lie about why we spy

  1. Brendan Jones

    Confidential data collected by government *will* be abused.

    Particularly in business, confidential data is confidential because it confers a competitive advantage upon the owner.

    It’s naive to expect government will not use confidential information they collect to advantage party donors or government business partners.

    An actual case: A Defence DSTO scientist offered a “confidential” commercial evaluation of 11 software products which he promised would help vendors promote their products within the Defence Department. What he didn’t reveal was the DSTO had been working on their own rival product. The information he collected was a commercial gold mine, including the competitors’ pricing.

    Even if it’s for dodgy durries and cheap prawns, the information still has a commercial value.

    Under the law using any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official … with the intention of … (i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person” is Abuse of Public Office; an Offense under Section 142.2 of the Criminal Code, punishable by 5 years imprisonment.”

    The AFP are quick to charge whistleblowers for talking to the media, but when (if ever) has the AFP charged a public official for supplying government-collected confidential information to a favoured company?

    On the Rule of Law: “Australia’s system of government is based on the rule of law. This means that everyone has to obey the law; that no-one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law. This means that the law applies not only to citizens but also to organisations and to people in government including the Prime Minister, the heads of government departments, and members of the armed forces”

    The ultimate deterrent is the risk of being caught. But if public officials can abuse confidential information without any fear whatsoever of being caught or charged, why wouldn’t they?

Leave a comment