-
Revealed: Protesters at the Maules Creek coal mine
construction site discovered an undercover operative among them, after
years of suspicion.


Burly and bearded, Tony Groves arrived at the camp at Maules
Creek in northern NSW, declaring a passion for the environment and an
exotic, hidden past.



The former military intelligence officer and Harley Davidson
enthusiast called himself Tony Allen, and fitted in at first with the
ragtag community of greenies and landowners who had been protesting for
three years against the dramatic expansion of coal mining in the area by
Japanese mining giant Idemitsu and Whitehaven Coal.




It soon became apparent that something was odd. He would
disappear suddenly and frequently and suggest protest actions that were
highly risky and potentially damaging to the cause. Somewhat
implausibly, Tony had explained he was facing weapons charges, a
fugitive from a bikie gang which he had left amid threats of
retribution.



''He was just completely neurotic about being in a photograph,'' says Ben Solity, one of the protest leaders.




A Fairfax Media investigation this week uncovered the fact
Groves was part of an extraordinary undercover operation against the
activists who are known as the Leard Forest Alliance or Front Line
Action Against Coal.



For five months, former military and intelligence personnel
took on assumed identities with elaborate backstories and rotated
through the camp, taking notes, reporting back on any planned actions,
profiling the leadership and trying to uncover whether the protesters
themselves had spies inside the mines.



It failed. Several agents were identified, and at least one directly confronted.



Groves was a senior figure. His company - the Centre of
Intelligence and Risk Management (CIRM) - wrangled the spies for the
clandestine operation. He reported to Tyrone Clark, a former Australian
Federal Police officer, whose company C5 Management Solutions received
the intelligence, distilling it and passed it on to the mining companies
via their security arms.



Following Fairfax's first report on the espionage on Monday,
Idemitsu admitted it had contracted C5 Management Solutions and another
firm understood to be involved, the mysterious Strongs Security
Services. After years of suspicions among activists, it is the first
time that such an operation has been verified.



These kinds of ''black ops'' may seem like something from a
modern spy novel or a Hollywood blockbuster but have been long
documented overseas and speculated about here.



And the exposure of the clandestine project raises important
and uncomfortable questions about corporate power, privacy and the right
to protest.



Such outright deception is widespread among a plethora of private security firms, intelligence firms and detective agencies.



It is almost certain there have been attempts to infiltrate
protest groups and NGOs, but the practice of deception and false
identities extends to other private investigation work, including spying
on workplaces, people in legal disputes and even divorce.



Using a false identity to obtain information on a ''target''
is known as ''pretexting'', says Wayne Edwards, a 31-year surveillance
veteran who runs Harjan Investigations.



''It's something that's commonly used within the industry,'' he said.



Mr Edwards describes an industry where regulation is weak and
often flouted, and where ''manipulation, intimidation and bullying are
rife''. It is a sector where big companies dominate and subcontract work
to smaller firms.



''You're only as good as your last job and subcontractors are
put under pressure by some companies to step outside the boundaries of
the code of practice - including things like pretexting - to get
results.''



New entrants to the industry are coming from the ranks of
former soldiers, police and spies who took up lucrative private
contracting work in Iraq and Afghanistan. People like Tony Groves, who
worked for the international security giant Garda Global. With the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down, work is more scarce and techniques
used in the conflict zones are being deployed in Australia.



Companies like C5, CIRM and Strongs Security Services operate
in the shadows. All refused to respond to calls from Fairfax Media and
only C5 publicly lists its contact information.



Their corporate paymasters adopt a ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy that borders on laughable.



Asked about the security operation, Idemitsu's chief
operating officer, Rod Bridges, said: ''How they found out all this
information [about the protesters' activities] … Well we didn't ask
questions.'' Mr Bridges said he had little knowledge about Strongs
Security despite the lucrative contract it was awarded about six months
ago, although he believed it was headed by an ''ex-French foreign
legionnaire''.



Whitehaven Coal - already facing a public relations disaster
as its former owner Nathan Tinkler is accused of illegal political
donations during Independent Commission against Corruption hearings -
insists it had no knowledge or involvement in the exercise.



But multiple sources indicate that its security staff, at
least, were aware of the infiltration project and benefited from the
information it uncovered.



''The protest at Maules Creek has been non-violent and
open,'' wrote Phil Laird, a local farmer whose family has been in the
district for 160 years. ''If the coal industry wants to know our plans,
then perhaps they could engage with the protectors rather than send in
undercover security agents to ingratiate themselves around the
campfires.''



The activists' aim is to draw attention to the impact of
Australia's $60 billion-a-year coal industry on climate change, build
popular support to halt its expansion and eventually end it.



''It is an industry with rapidly diminishing social license
and, in fact, only last week AMP Capital banned coal from its
responsible range of investments, joining the likes of armaments,
gambling and pornography,'' Solity says.



The companies retort that coal underpins economic prosperity
and drastic security measures are required. It's a workplace safety
issue, they say, as the protesters trespass on the mining site, threaten
to sabotage equipment and thwart building works.



But there's something bigger at stake. It's no coincidence
that the spying campaign at Maules Creek began as both Idemitsu and
Whitehaven began construction of their new mines.



The exposure of the black ops at Maules Creek and Boggabri
inevitably raises questions about any role of government intelligence
and law enforcement agencies.



ASIO, the AFP and NSW police all denied they had engaged
private firms to infiltrate activist networks, although they do use them
to monitor ''open source'' material such as internet sites and social
media.



As for deploying their own undercover officers to observe protesters, the situation becomes murkier.



ASIO director general David Irvine said the domestic spy
organisation ''does not limit, or seek to limit, the right of persons to
engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent''.



But in campaigns of civil disobedience, laws are often
broken. Hundreds of protesters at Maules Creek have been arrested for
offences such as trespass.



Does that mean protests like this qualify as ''unlawful'' and therefore a legitimate target of scrutiny for ASIO or the AFP?



It seems it very well might, especially if it involves
''energy security'', according to a letter written by then
attorney-general Robert McClelland to his colleague, resources minister
Martin Ferguson, in 2009.



''While I recognise the right to protest, when actions
jeopardise energy security and the delivery of essential services, it
is important that measures are taken to prevent and deter unlawful
activity,'' McClelland says.



ASIO, he tells Ferguson, does monitor protest activity and
provides intelligence reporting when there is ''actual, or potential,
for violence''.



The AFP, he writes, ''continually monitors the activities of
issues-motivated groups and individuals who may target establishments
through direct action.''



Whether commercially funded or government endorsed, few doubt
that the level of surveillance of activists, NGOs and whistleblowers
has been as high, or more intrusive.