Performance

Resource allocation

The work of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (OIGIS) is largely divided between conducting inspections and pursuing inquiries or investigations. In recent years, however, increasing resources have also been allocated to assisting in the development of legislation affecting the AIC, and subsequently reviewing the impact of that legislation.

In 2005–06 the resources of the office (apart from what was necessary for corporate and administrative matters), were allocated so that approximately 60% of the efforts of the office were spent monitoring the day-to-day activities of the intelligence community, approximately 30% was devoted to handling complaints or inquiry related activities, and 10% was spent on policy development, legislative review and presentations.

The breakdown of funds/allocation of responsibilities will differ from year to year because while inspection and monitoring activities can normally be scheduled with some confidence, this is not true of the inquiry and other work of the office.

The primary focus of OIGIS is and will continue to remain on conducting regular monitoring and inspection activities (even though this has a lower profile than our inquiry activities). This is because I am firmly of the view that a thorough and rigorous inspection program can identify and defuse issues of potential concern before they become entrenched and also because regular inspection activity has a substantial normative effect on agency staff.

Outcomes and outputs

In program budgeting terms, OIGIS has one outcome and one output. The fact that the office has only one outcome and output reflects its small size and the relatively narrow focus of our activities (i.e. a small specialist review agency operating within a well defined niche).

The planned outcome for OIGIS is to offer (where possible and appropriate) “assurance that Australia’s intelligence agencies act legally, ethically and with propriety”.¹⁶

This outcome is achieved through a single output which is to “inspect, inquire into, and report on, the activities of the intelligence and security agencies.”¹⁷

Performance indicators

The effectiveness of the office in achieving its objectives can be assessed against several key performance indicators. The following measures take into account the unique role and functions of the OIGIS:

the time taken to deal with complaints and conclude inquiries
acceptance by ministers and agency heads of recommendations arising from inquiries
the responses of agencies to issues raised arising from inspection activities, and
the level of assurance the Inspector-General can provide that the agencies are conducting their activities legally, with propriety, and with regard to human rights.

Levels of complaint and inquiry

At the commencement of 2005–06 one full inquiry and four preliminary inquiries remained open. Each of these inquiries related to the activities of ASIO. The full inquiry was concluded in October 2005, while the four preliminary inquiries were finalised in the early months of the 2005–06 reporting period.

In addition to the five matters which were carried over into 2005–06, we received 97 approaches from individuals with new or continuing complaints against a nominated agency. I also initiated two own motion inquiries. This global figure of 99 compares with 91 complaints/inquiries in 2004–05. It is important in making this comparison to note that seven of the 99 matters related to one issue. This was the security assessment made in respect of Mr Scott Parkin, the inquiry into which is detailed in the ASIO chapter of this report.

The 99 approaches comprised:

2 own motion inquiries and 18 new complaints leading to preliminary or full inquiries. Of these inquiries four remained open as at 30 June 2006, and the own motion inquiries were suspended—see Annex 1, Table 1. (In 2004–05 31 complaints led to preliminary or full inquiries, and I also initiated two own motion inquiries).
19 approaches seeking a previous complaint be reviewed or a new inquiry be conducted (compared to 13 in 2004–05)
34 new complaints where an agency was specifically identified, which were dealt with administratively—see Annex 1, Table 2. (There were 28 such complaints in 2004–05), and
26 complaints about alleged delays by ASIO in conducting immigration related security assessments that were handled administratively rather than as preliminary or full inquiries—see Annex 1, Table 3. (This compares to 17 such complaints in 2004-05).

Wherever possible we try to process complaints about AIC agencies which do not proceed to preliminary or full inquiry within a few days. As at 30 June 2006, we had one immigration-related complaint about ASIO which we were handling administratively. This complaint was finalised shortly after the commencement of the 2006–07 reporting period.

In addition to the 104 cases referred to earlier (ie. five carried over plus 97 new or resumed complaints and two own motion inquiries), 61 other persons contacted the office with concerns which did not directly refer to or involve an AIC agency (compared to 56 in 2004–05). Each of these contacts was handled administratively.

It is sadly the case that a significant proportion of these 61 contacts were from individuals who were clearly suffering from delusional or imaginary concerns.

In addition to persons with manifestly delusional concerns we also received contact from persons who wished to raise matters which fell outside of our jurisdiction, or otherwise sought to provide “tip‑off” information.

In the case of matters falling outside of our remit, it is our practice to refer complainants to an appropriate review body which does have the power to investigate their complaints (this is frequently the Commonwealth Ombudsman or a State-based Ombudsman).

All tip-off information we receive which may be at all credible is passed to the National Security Hotline (NSH), or other agencies as appropriate.

As the NSH is geared up to disseminate security related tip-offs to appropriate government agencies in a more timely manner than OIGIS, we encourage persons with information of this kind to contact the NSH directly on ph. 1800 123 400 (this is a free call from anywhere within Australia).

Of course, if the information to be imparted concerns allegations of illegality or impropriety on the part of any member of the AIC, it is still appropriate for these matters to be brought to the attention of this office.

Timeliness

It is not possible or desirable to apply rigid target times for completing preliminary or full inquiries, and to use performance against such deadlines as a gauge of effectiveness. This is because a variety of factors, many of which are beyond the powers of this office to control or influence, have an impact upon the timeliness with which a complaint is disposed of.

Such factors include but are not limited to, the complexity and range of issues raised by the complainant, the accessibility of relevant files and documents to be reviewed, the availability of agency staff, and fulfilling other requirements associated with procedural fairness. Notwithstanding the above, it is our objective to minimise the time taken to complete inquiries.

In the five years between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2006, the average time taken for inquiries to be completed was 104 days.

The average time taken to finalise preliminary and full inquiries in 2005–06 was 81 days (ie. 19 cases completed in 1542 days).

Longer term trends

As OIGIS is nearing twenty years of operation it is perhaps timely to briefly reflect on some trends which have emerged since the inception of the office.

Since the office commenced operations on 1 February 1987 it has pursued 387 full or preliminary inquiries, which equates to roughly 20 such inquiries per year. In 2005-06 the office initiated 20 new preliminary or full inquiries.

The past 20 years can perhaps be broken into four distinct periods during which various legislative or environmental factors had an impact on the number of IGIS Act inquiries being undertaken.

In the first four years the office was in existence (ie. 1987–1990) there were on average 11 new formal inquiries pursued per annum. This relatively low number reflected that IGIS was a newly established body of which people may not have been aware, as well as the relatively smaller size of the AIC compared to its present size.

In the six succeeding years (1991–96) IGIS pursued an average of 24 new full or preliminary inquiries per year. The increase in complaints reflected a significant increase in personnel/employment-related grievances, particularly from ASIO staff, as their conditions of service were modernised.

The IGIS was not primarily established to handle staff grievances (but rather to monitor the operational activities of the AIC and to handle complaints from members of the public), and other mechanisms have developed to deal with the employment related grievances of AIC agency staff.

In the third era (1997–2001) the average number of new inquiries pursued was 14 per annum (similar to the office’s foundational years). The decrease in inquiries reflected the absence of staff grievances being referred to this office for investigation.

The fourth period (2002–2006) saw an increase in the immediate wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and a subsequent upsurge in the operational activities of Australia’s intelligence collectors and substantial increases in the size of the AIC. The number of inquiries initiated in this period has averaged 26 per year.

In this fourth era, my immediate predecessor and I initiated a number of inquiries into the execution of ASIO entry and search warrants, and more recently, into the timeliness with which ASIO conducts security assessments on persons seeking permanent protection visas.

With the benefit of experience derived from these inquiries and more streamlined processes, I am tending to process new complaints of this kind administratively rather than as preliminary or full inquiries. This in turn has led to a decrease in the number of new preliminary or full inquiries initiated by this office from the five year average of 26 down to 20 in 2005–06.

formal enquiries

Of the 387 inquiries pursued between 1 February 1987 and 30 June 2006, 315 of that total have related to the activities of ASIO (81%), 38 related directly to ASIS (10%), 24 concerned DSD (6%), and 10 related to the other agencies individually or the AIC in toto (3%). That ASIO should attract the largest proportion is not a surprise given that it is domestically focused and has much greater contact with Australians.

The time taken to process preliminary or full inquiries undertaken by the IGIS (ie. from receipt to conclusion) has fallen substantially from 179 days per case (the average over the last 15 years), to 104 days (the average over the last five years). The average for 2005–06 was 81 days.

Acceptance of recommendations

It is most uncommon for an agency to reject recommendations of the Inspector-General. This is because recommendations for change are not made lightly, generally involve prior consultation and hopefully reflect a common sense response to a particular issue or concern.

In all instances where the Inspector-General made a formal recommendation in 2005–06, these were accepted by the relevant agency.

Responsiveness to issues raised

Following inspection visits to each of the collection agencies, it is the agreed practice for the IGIS to write to the relevant agency head on the outcome of the visit, and where appropriate, offer suggestions on how procedures could be improved.

During 2005–06, I made a number of suggestions for procedural changes and reforms. These suggestions were generally accepted and acted upon.

I can also advise that the intelligence and security agencies continued to seek the views of my office on draft policies and procedures. During the reporting period we devoted significant effort to assisting DIGO develop and implement its privacy rules, and ONA and DIO to establish and implement privacy guidelines.

Where I have an interest or a concern about a particular activity, I do not hesitate to seek a briefing. On all occasions when I have sought such briefings or additional information my requests have been agreed to without question or qualification. Indeed, it is more often the case than not that the agencies proactively offer to brief my office on particular issues.

I have been encouraged by the willingness of the agencies to seek and accept input from this office and believe that it demonstrates a genuine and continuing commitment on their part to conduct their activities legally and with propriety.

Level of assurance

As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, after a lift in complaint numbers in the period following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, the average number of complaints to my office each year (that is complaints leading to inquiries plus complaints that are handled administratively) has been fairly steady.

Given that in this same period the AIC has grown substantially and engaged in increased community activity, and that a suite of complex new legal arrangements have been put in place, this generally reflects well on the governance and training arrangements of the AIC.

I do not believe that the stabilisation in the number of complaints made to my office about AIC activities is a by-product of lack of awareness about this office.

Individuals with a complaint about the AIC seem to have no trouble in identifying that an office of this kind exists and then making appropriate representations. This process is aided considerably by our presence on the Internet Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security which makes information about the role and functions of the IGIS readily accessible to a larger number of people than has ever previously been the case. Indeed, while we still receive substantial numbers of letters, faxes and phone calls to our office, most individuals with a matter they wish to pursue now contact us initially via e-mail.

In addition to the above, I have taken other steps as outlined in ‘The Year in Review’ chapter of this report to ensure the visibility of the office.

As I have noted previously, as various community groups achieve a greater understanding of the role of this office and hopefully achieve greater comfort levels in approaching a government office on matters affecting security, it is possible that complaints to my office will rise rather than decrease.

Summary

As a result of the various inspection and inquiry activities conducted during 2005–06 a small number of instances were found where the agencies acted beyond their authority.

These cases were very much the exception rather than the rule and in all instances appropriate remedial action was either already initiated by the affected agency, or put in train immediately an agency was made aware of a problem.

While any instance where an intelligence agency has acted without authority is a matter for concern, the instances detected were almost invariably due to technical or human error.

In those instances where an error within the control of an agency led to it exceeding its authority to collect intelligence, the common reaction was one of genuine disappointment and regret, and a commitment to put in place measures to ensure no repetition occurred.

There was no evidence that the intelligence and security agencies, or individual members of the agencies, have knowingly acted, or wish to act, beyond their authority.

Based on the various monitoring, inspection and inquiry activities undertaken by my office during 2005-06, I am satisfied that there is no evidence of enduring systemic deficiencies that would lead to breaches of propriety, the law, or the human rights of Australians.

I am therefore able to reaffirm the assurance I provided in last year’s annual report that the intelligence and security agencies continue to be focused on achieving the objectives set for them by the parliament and the government, responsive to ministerial direction, aware of the limits of their authority, and concerned to conduct their business in a professional manner.

Footnotes
16 PM&C Portfolio Budget Statement 2006-07 – Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (PDF 170KB), p. 195, (accessed on 1 September 2006).
17 Ibid, p. 195.

content