<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8"></HEAD><BODY>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --> Hi All</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Below is a story from AM about the Defence Force's attempts to intimidate
Dr Clinton Fernadez from publishing his PhD do it being highly critical of the
federal government. Clinton's thesis examined the role of Australia in East
Timor's struggle for independence. Clinton is also a Major in the Australian
Army and was a member of military intelligence in 1999. I met him in early
1999, when he attended a talk I gave in Sydney on the East Timorese independence
movement.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris Latham</DIV>
<H2 class=headline>Defence accused of attempting to stop critical book</H2>
<DIV>AM - Thursday, 13 October , 2005 09:12:33</DIV>
<H4 class=infoline>Reporter: Nick McKenzie</H4>
<DIV class=storytext>PETER CAVE: The Defence Force is being accused by one of
its own of misusing national security and secrecy laws to stop the publication
of a book, because it was deemed overly critical of the Federal
Government.<BR><BR><EM>AM</EM> has learnt that Major Clinton Fernandes has
complained to the Defence Inspector General that the Government was behind
efforts to stop him publishing a book about East Timor's road to independence.
And while that attempt failed, he's complained that his career has since been
sabotaged.<BR><BR>In letters obtained by the ABC, Major Fernandes accuses senior
Army figures of intimidation and ignoring his assertion that he wrote the book
in an entirely personal capacity and relied only on open sources. <BR><BR>Nick
McKenzie reports.<BR><BR>NICK MCKENZIE: In 2004, Major Clinton Fernandes
completed a four year PhD project the Army had approved. He approached a
publisher, who in turn asked him to turn his PhD thesis into a book.<BR><BR>He
completed the manuscript of <EM>Reluctant Saviour</EM>, an extended essay on
Australia's role in East Timor's struggle for independence, and sent his Army
superiors a copy.<BR><BR>Major Fernandes also sent an assertion that the book
relied solely on publicly available information.<BR><BR>The resulting
correspondence between Major Fernandes and some of the Army's most senior
officers became increasingly heated and it ultimately prompted the 36-year-old
major to complain to the Defence Force's Inspector General that the Army had
inappropriately invoked national security and information secrecy laws to stall
or stop him publishing the book.<BR><BR>He alleges this was done because of
concerns the book was highly critical of the Government and because the
Government influenced the actions of the Army hierarchy.<BR><BR>The ABC has
obtained some of the letters that formed the basis of Major Fernandes'
complaint.<BR><BR>In an initial letter, dated the third September last year, the
Deputy Chief of the Army, Major General Ian Gordon, tells Fernandes he must
adhere to defence policy on the publication of material of a political
nature.<BR><BR>Major Fernandes responds that he's done so.<BR><BR>Words of
CLINTON FERNANDES: The book is a private, non-military and scholarly activity
undertaken as a private citizen. All material states that I am a Melbourne-based
historian. No reference is made to my position in the Defence Force.<BR><BR>NICK
MCKENZIE: Two weeks later the Chief of the Army, Peter Lay, wrote to Major
Fernandes, asking him not to publish the book because:<BR><BR>Words of PETER
LAY: Your book is at times overly critical of Government policy. While you are
entitled to such a view, I don't think it is professional to express them in
public or print.<BR><BR>NICK MCKENZIE: But the letter also notes the Army could
not prevent the book being published. Three days after that, a month after the
Army received the manuscript, and just over a week before its publishing
deadline, Major Fernandes received another letter, again from the Deputy Chief
of the Army. It refers to Major Fernandes' time in the Army's Intelligence Corps
in the late 1990s and raises concerns about his access to sensitive information
about East Timor.<BR><BR>The letter then refers to laws about prejudicing
national security and disclosing confidential information.<BR><BR>Words of PETER
LAY: Section 79 of the Crimes Act makes it a criminal offence to disclose
classified information without authorisation. In addition, Section 70 makes it a
criminal offence to publish information.<BR><BR>Your manuscript is not cleared
to be published. Defence will raise any particular concerns with you once the
review is completed.<BR><BR>NICK MCKENZIE: Major Fernandes' response accuses the
Defence Force of intimidation and harassment. <BR><BR>Words of CLINTON
FERNANDES: My book uses information only in the public domain. The threatening
statements are individually intimidatory. The intimidatory effect is very clear
when the letters are considered cumulatively.<BR><BR>NICK MCKENZIE: <EM>AM</EM>
has obtained an internal letter from the Defence Department to the Army
regarding Major Fernandes' book. This internal document raises no concerns about
breaches of national security and critically, it was sent to the Army almost
three weeks before the Army raised its concerns about national security and
information secrecy laws.<BR><BR>In the letter, Ron Benighton, the Defence
Department's Deputy Secretary of Intelligence and Security states
that:<BR><BR>Words of RON BENIGHTON: Major Fernandes' manuscript has been
examined by the defence intelligence agencies and DFAT, and while it is strongly
critical of the Government and especially Foreign Minister Downer and DFAT,
there is no basis to preclude publication on grounds of national
security.<BR><BR>In relation to his use of classified material, Major Fernandes
appears to rely carefully only on information that has already been published in
the press, or other open sources.<BR><BR>NICK MCKENZIE: Another Army document, a
point-by-point deconstruction of the book focuses on political
criticisms.<BR><BR>For instance it states:<BR><BR>"Page 36 contains an implied
criticism of the Howard Government. Page 45 to 55 contains criticisms of Mr
Downer."<BR><BR>Despite the advice from the Army that he may be in breach of
national security laws and thus face criminal charges, Major Fernandes decided
to go ahead and publish <EM>Reluctant Saviour</EM>. It was published in early
October last year.<BR><BR>Apart from a failed attempt to censure Major
Fernandes, there's been no other official action taken by the Army in connection
with the book.<BR><BR>Indeed, students at the Defence Force Academy are now
encouraged to read it. But Major Fernandes has told the Defence Force watchdog
he's still being targeted.<BR><BR>He's alleged that he was forced to move
inter-state to fill a high priority vacancy, which had already been filled when
he arrived.<BR><BR>To fight the ultimately unsuccessful effort to discipline
him, Major Fernandes supplied the Army with an opinion from a Professor of
Ethics at Melbourne University. After he'd reviewed the Army's letters and its
policy, Professor Tony Coady concluded the Army's actions were not based on
genuine concerns about conduct, but rather a desire not to annoy its political
masters.<BR><BR>Indeed, one of Major Fernandes' complaints suggests that the
Professor's finding fits into a pattern of earlier treatment he received in the
Army.<BR><BR>He was part of a group of officials, including former Lieutenant
Colonel Lance Collins, investigated for the alleged leaking of information in
the late 90s about East Timor.<BR><BR>The then Captain Fernandes was suspended.
When he was eventually reinstated he was moved into Personnel, where he's been
for the last four years. In that time, he's been promoted to major, but
according to his complaint, it hasn't stopped him being mistreated, with actions
Major Fernandes claims crossed the line when he moved to turn his PhD into a
book.<BR><BR>PETER CAVE: Clinton Fernandes declined to speak to <EM>AM</EM>
about his complaints or his book. In response to a list of detailed questions,
the Defence Department told <EM>AM</EM> it could not comment about the matter
because it is the subject of an internal defence review. The Inspector General
of the ADF also told <EM>AM</EM> he was unable to comment on an open complaint.
</DIV></TD></TR></BODY></HTML>