ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Countering Terrorism in Australia Through CoordinationBy Lindsay Hansch.IntroductionWhere did it all begin? Although some arrangementswere in place in Australia during the1970s, it was the bombing of the Hilton Hotel duringthe Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting(CHOGM) in February 1978 that gave the necessaryimpetus for some positive, coordinated action. Theincident, although a relatively minor event by terrorismstandards overseas, was the beginning of a newera in counter terrorism preparedness in Australia.Perhaps the major outcome was the ProtectiveSecurity Review by Mr Justice Hope. In his review,Hope identified many shortcomings in the nationalcapability to deal with acts of terrorism. This promptedthe government of the day to act and it did so in apositive way. Among the arrangements subsequentlyput in place was the establishment of the StandingAdvisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Cooperationfor Protection Against Violence (SAC-PAV) as the overall coordinator of the nationalarrangements. A highly trained counter terrorist forcewas also set up within the Australian Defence Force,and the Commonwealth Government machinery fordealing with the day-to-day aspects of counter terrorismcoordination was also put in place. One of thepriority tasks facing SAC-PAV after its formationwas the development of the National Anti TerroristPlan (NATP). This plan has been in place since 1979and. while it has been updated five times since, it haslargely stood the test of time as the major guiding andplanning document for the national arrangements.by academics seeking to make their contribution to aparticular debate. A common purpose of all definitionsis that they are generally designed to support aparticular interest. Simply adopting someone else'sdefinition is therefore often not an appropriate solution.It is perhaps not surprising that it took some time togain agreement between all governments in Australiato a definition of "terrorism" Nevertheless a definitionthat is acceptable has been adopted and it now formsthe basis of the arrangements outlined in the NATP.The definition of terrorism that satisfies Australia'sneeds is:"Acts or threats of violence of national concern,calculated to evoke extreme fear for the purpose ofachieving a political objective in Australia or in aforeign country. This definition includes seriousacts or threats of politically motivated violencedirected:• against visiting VIPs or resident foreign diplomats;• against Australian VIPs:• at influencing government policy or overthrowinggovernments or the system of government:• at aircraft or civil aviation; or• at engaging in or supporting hostile activities ina foreign country." 1 .This definition closely resembles the definition ofpolitically motivated violence in the ASIO Act 2 . Thisis not surprising since terrorism is a form of politicallymotivated violence. However, it does not necessarilyfollow that all politically motivated violence is terrorism.While the motive may be the same, the meansmay differ considerably.StrategyTerrorismWhat is terrorism? One of the problems with tryingto develop definitions is getting agreement betweenall parties concerned. This is often exacerbated by theextraordinary number of definitions in use. somedetermined and shaped by foreign policy and othersAn essential element of capability is strategy. Whatis strategy? It often depends on where you function inthe overall structure of an organisation. Generally itinvolves the definition of ends and means and thisusually occurs at the highest level. However, if youare