The First Hope Royal Commission In 1974 the Australian Government established the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (‘the RCIS’, also known as First Hope Royal ‘the Commission’), which was conducted by Justice Robert Hope.. The terms of reference for the RCIS required a broad-ranging inquiry into the past activities, and recommendations for reform, of Australia’s security and intelligence agencies. For ASIO, the focus was on improving accountability, including in terms of ministerial accountability and financial management. The RCIS was the principal catalyst for the current ASIO Act. The RCIS recognised the need for ASIO to maintain secrecy surrounding its activities. This was evident in the recommendations and the manner in which the RCIS itself was conducted (largely privately rather than publicly) and reported (with sections redacted). For example, Part IV of the ASIO Act deals with assessments’, a form of ‘security advice about security that ASIO provides to government bodies relating to certain administrative action. In accordance with RCIS recommendations, many security assessments are subject to administrative review on the merits by an independent tribunal, initially the Security Appeals Tribunal, subsequently the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). There are, nonetheless, various special rules and procedures in Part IV of the ASIO Act and in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) that attach to the notification and review of security assessments. These are designed, broadly, to ensure that notification and review of security assessments does not prejudice security. One aspect of the security assessment regime involves assessing whether people should be given access to information, access to which is controlled or limited on security grounds (for example, highly security-classified information). Such assessments relate to the fitness of persons to be so-called insiders’, so far ‘trusted as access to such information is concerned. The December 1984 Report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, part of the Commission into Australia’s Security and Intelligence Agencies (‘the RCASIA’, also known as Second Hope Royal Commission’) reconsidered this ’the aspect of security assessments. In this context (specifically, the question whether such security assessments should involve matters going to a person’s reliability, as well as to the person’s loyalty) Justice Hope commented that:
The First Hope Royal Commission In 1974 the Australian Government established the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (‘the RCIS’, also known as ‘the First Hope Royal Commission’), which was conducted by Justice Robert Hope.. The terms of reference for the RCIS required a broad-ranging inquiry into the past activities, and recommendations for reform, of Australia’s security and intelligence agencies. For ASIO, the focus was on improving accountability, including in terms of ministerial accountability and financial management. The RCIS was the principal catalyst for the current ASIO Act. The RCIS recognised the need for ASIO to maintain secrecy surrounding its activities. This was evident in the recommendations and the manner in which the RCIS itself was conducted (largely privately rather than publicly) and reported (with sections redacted). For example, Part IV of the ASIO Act deals with ‘security assessments’, a form of advice about security that ASIO provides to government bodies relating to certain administrative action. In accordance with RCIS recommendations, many security assessments are subject to administrative review on the merits by an independent tribunal, initially the Security Appeals Tribunal, subsequently the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). There are, nonetheless, various special rules and procedures in Part IV of the ASIO Act and in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) that attach to the notification and review of security assessments. These are designed, broadly, to ensure that notification and review of security assessments does not prejudice security. One aspect of the security assessment regime involves assessing whether people should be given access to information, access to which is controlled or limited on security grounds (for example, highly security-classified information). Such assessments relate to the fitness of persons to be so-called ‘trusted insiders’, so far as access to such information is concerned. The December 1984 Report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, part of the Commission into Australia’s Security and Intelligence Agencies (‘the RCASIA’, also known as ’the Second Hope Royal Commission’) reconsidered this aspect of security assessments. In this context (specifically, the question whether such security assessments should involve matters going to a person’s reliability, as well as to the person’s loyalty) Justice Hope commented that:
impact-s35p-journalists.docx