In his first year on the job, the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has overseen a rapid expansion of the agency and intensified cooperation with its overseas counterparts. He spoke with TIME's Rory Callinan about the role of intelligence in the war on terrorism, cooperation with Australia's largest neighbors, and the risk of homegrown terrorism in a country that has so far been spared an attack.
How likely is a terrorist attack in Australia? The threat of terrorism is as real here as it is elsewhere. The experience here and overseas has been that there are people who are intent on causing harm to other members of the community through lethal attack. We cannot guarantee that they will be known [in advance].
Is the biggest terrorist threat to Australia homegrown or from overseas? It's not a sort of mathematical equation. People could come here with a self-contained capacity to inflict harm, as we've seen. People could come here and try and get local supporters; we've seen that too. In Melbourne and Sydney, 22 people were arrested between November 2005 and March 2006 and charged with terrorism offences in Australia. If those prosecutions are successful, that would be an example of the straight-out homegrown type. I don't think you can say one of those three possibilities is greater than another.
Has Australia's role in Iraq put it at greater risk of an attack? Australia and Australian interests remain under threat from a range of sources, and there is no sign that the threat is abating. We were at risk before Iraq, and the threat will likely persist for as long as we can envisage. Is ASIO doing enough to keep Australia secure? The job of security intelligence is never finished. [After a bomb attack that nearly killed then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,] the IRA said: "We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky all the time." That is the problem with the struggle against terrorism. It is never-ending.
How concerned are you about terrorists taking advantage of failing states in the Pacific? That's a concern, but I don't want to exaggerate it. When governments in the Pacific deteriorate, one of the sad consequences is that policing, law enforcement and security intelligence also fray.
Is Indonesia's Jemaah Islamiyah a spent force, as some experts have suggested?The Indonesian authorities have been successful in eliminating and detaining the JI leadership, but I think they also say that at the same time they are seeing proselytizing and expansion of the organization. I think you should be cautious about making some sort of generalized assessment.
Do you think there are still some Australians going overseas to train as terrorists? I'm not prepared to go into that sort of thing.
Are Australia's anti-terrorism laws too tough, or not tough enough? That's a decision for the government. On balance, the current structure of the law is adequate for our purposes. If the government wishes to strengthen [counterterrorism laws] over time, it is a matter for them to decide.
Are Indonesia and the Philippines doing enough to combat terrorism? Indonesia and the Philippines are important partners for Australia in the fight against terrorism. Australian intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have established strong relationships with their counterparts in Southeast Asia, and the Australian government has provided support for regional capacity-building initiatives. This regional cooperation has continued to disrupt terrorist operations and planning activity.
ASIO and the Australian Federal Police have grown rapidly since 9/11. Are the two agencies cooperating effectively? The relationship between evidence and intelligence is a tricky issue and always has been. It's clearly something we have to keep working away at so both our agencies are efficiently cooperating and being clear on our respective roles and how they can gel. But having said that, I don't think there's a big problem. Day to day, I think we cooperate effectively.