The S.I..S. ‘bible’

Press, 14 June 1983, Page 21

The S.I..S. ‘bible’

“No, no, no. Oh no. Now why should anyone think that? I can’t understand why they would. No one should make such an assumption.” The director-designate of the Security Intelligence Service, Mr John Smith, rises to his feet, seizes two white publications from the desk, and plonks himself in a chair next to the reporter. During the past few minutes John Smith has been puzzling over two irreconcilable views of the personal constraints and professional problems his new job might offer.

The country’s new S.I.S. boss is a friendly, formal man who insists his new position should not mean any drastic changes to his lifestyle or his enjoyment of easy social mixing. After all, he indicates, he will be just another permanent head. Nothing so intimidating about that, was there?

No need for anyone in his presence to be careful about expressing unpopular or extreme opinions.

Why on earth should they feel the slightest discomfiture or reticence? It is pointed out that the first S.LS. director, Brigadier Bill Gilbert, felt lonely in the job and that his successor, Paul Molineaux, recently recalled that his introduction was inclined to silence strangers at cocktail parties. Brigadier Gilbert said he always needed to be very careful about choosing his company. “Why?” asks John Smith, with seemingly genuine surprise. Perhaps those former directors of the “organisation” recognised that the nature of their work demanded a certain social distance?

“But, why?” repeats Mr Smith. His predecessors bad apparently not felt any need for long explana-

tions about why they would not expect outsiders to be entirely relaxed in their company. Because the S.I.S. had a statutory duty to spy there was mistrust about the scope and style of its covert operations.

The recent scandal over the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation might have reinforced those suspicions. Mr Smith surely appreciated that many political activists seemed almost determined to believe that the SJ.S. held files on their activities?

At this point in the conversation Mr Smith hurriedly collects his white publications and sits shoulder to shoulder with the reporter. “No one should make such an assumption,” he repeats anxiously. “It’s true that I haven’t started the

job and there haven’t been briefings or anything like that. Actually, I haven’t done any more than call in to say hello to the service people. “But I’m absolutely sure that all this is . . .”

He pauses, flicks through his publications, traces a forefinger down pages in search of proof. “You’ve read these? The Amended S.LS. Act and Sir Guy Powles’ report on the service’s operations. Due to Sir Guy the modem charter has been laid down

so clearly. Oh, it’s good. My bible, you know. It’s why I feel comfortable going into the job.” (In 1975, a former Secretary of Industries and Commerce, Dr W. B. Sutch, was acquitted on spying charges. Public controversy led to

an investigation of the SJ.S. by the former Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles. The Powles report recommendations formed the basis of the 1977 SJ.S. Amendment Act. Some of the amendments — especially those allowing telephone tapping and mail interception — were widely criticised.) “You see, these publications make it quite clear that unless you are engaged in espionage, subversion, or terrorism . . . “Ah, here it is!” He lays a triumphant, soothing hand on your sleeve. “Now, look here. It is quite unequivocal. It says that the S.I.S. is not to be involved with the class of person engaged in lawful protests or dissent. You can’t get anything clearer than that. I'm certain the service abides by these rules. “This,” he waves the S.I.S. Amendment Act, “and this,” he waves the Powles report, “are my great joys.”