Australian Secret Intelligence Service

What ASIS does

ASIS was established in May 1952 and operated under a series of government directives until it was put onto a statutory footing in October 2001, with the coming into effect of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA).

ASIS’s various functions are set out at section 6 of the ISA, and its activities are regulated by a series of ministerial directions, ministerial authorisations (MAs) and privacy rules, made pursuant to the ISA.

ASIS’s primary function is to obtain and distribute intelligence information which is not readily available by other means, about the capabilities, intentions and activities of individuals or organisations outside Australia.

ASIS’s other functions include communicating such intelligence in accordance with government requirements, conducting counter-intelligence activities and liaising with intelligence or security services, or other authorities, of other countries.

So as to discharge its functions ASIS generally relies on human sources to collect relevant foreign intelligence. This intelligence information is then transformed into intelligence reports and related products which are then made available to key policy makers and select government agencies with a clear and established need to know.

The foreign intelligence collection priorities for ASIS and other members of the AIC are established in a planning document that is endorsed and regularly reviewed by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

Further information is available on the Australian Secret Intelligence Service website.

Significant issues

New Minister

When the Rudd Government was sworn in on 3 December 2007, the Hon Stephen Smith MP replaced the Hon Alexander Downer MP as the Minister for Foreign Affairs

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Smith also automatically assumed executive responsibility for ASIS.

I am aware through our inspection and review activities, and other senior level briefings, that ASIS has devoted considerable effort to providing detailed briefings to the new Minister, and to put in place secure systems so that they might communicate with him as necessary when he is not located in Canberra.

Growth and expansion

ASIS, like the other AIC agencies, continues to remain in a period of expansion and growth.

The total appropriation granted to ASIS in the 2008–09 Commonwealth Budget was $199.2 million,⁶⁶ compared to $162.5 million⁶⁷ in the 2007–08 Budget.

In the case of ASIS I have sought and received updates on the rebalancing of organisational structures and priorities within ASIS flowing from this, and on recruitment, training, and accommodation issues.

I like to maintain a watchful eye on the organisational health of each AIC agency and do this by periodically seeking access to, or being briefed about, staff survey findings and results. I did so with respect to ASIS during the 2007–08.

Special briefings

In seeking to fulfil my various duties as Inspector-General I have regular dealings with the Director-General of ASIS, his senior managers, and a range of less senior officers who hold key positions.

I have now worked with Mr Irvine for an extended period and found him to be candid and forthright in our various dealings, but also a strong supporter of the role and functions of this office.

In addition to our regularly scheduled inspection visits (some of which are described elsewhere in this chapter), I met with senior ASIS officers on at least 18 separate occasions during 2007–08.

These briefings covered a wide variety of issues ranging from personnel management issues to particularly sensitive operational activities.

Due to the inherent sensitivity of these subject matters, I am not able to make further comment in this report.

I continue to appreciate the responsiveness of ASIS to my various requests for briefings.

Visits and contact with staff

In the four years since my initial appointment as Inspector-General, I have tried to meet with senior ASIS officers prior to the commencement of their overseas postings.

The purpose of these meetings is to remind each ASIS officer of the role and functions of this office, and to stress the expectations being placed upon them.

I believe that these meetings serve an important purpose by reinforcing with ASIS officers that their actions are subject to on-going external scrutiny no matter where they are posted, and that they are obliged to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner at all times.

I also meet occasionally with heads of mission who are being sent to posts where ASIS officers are present, to discuss any issues they might have prior to their departure. This is a useful means of sharing information relevant to our respective functions.

Training

During 2007–08 I delivered several presentations to ASIS’s new intelligence officer trainees, to explain the role and functions of my office and to talk generally about governance and accountability structures.

Members of my staff and I also regularly make presentations to ASIS officers when we speak at AIC training courses at which they are participants.

The frequency with which we make these presentations is less than for ASIO and DSD, but is nonetheless at an appropriate level given the respective sizes of these agencies and the interests of this office.

I am hopeful that in the coming reporting period members of my staff and I might either directly observe or be involved in several training activities involving ASIS personnel so that we might obtain a greater depth of understanding of the work of the Service.

Access to AUSTRAC data

ASIS has entered into an MOU with AUSTRAC which sets out the terms and conditions under which it may in the future obtain direct access to financial transaction reporting information via various AUSTRAC databases.

I had several meetings with representatives from AUSTRAC and ASIS during 2007–08 with a view to mapping out appropriate future inspection activities for this office.

It is my intention to institute regular inspections of ASIS’s records during 2008–09 to ensure that ASIS complies with the conditions under which its access to AUSTRAC derived financial transaction reporting information has been provided to it.

Inspection activities

Range and scope

During the reporting period I maintained many of the features of the usual inspection program. Inspection activities undertaken during the reporting period included:

reviewing all MAs issued to ASIS
reviewing all submissions made to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
reviewing and reconciling weapons related authorisations
regularly inspecting current operational files
on-going monitoring of compliance with the ASIS privacy rules, and
conducting regular roundtable meetings to discuss issues of common interest.

Review of Ministerial Authorisations

Section 8(1) of the ISA requires the Minister for Foreign Affairs to issue a written direction to the Director-General of ASIS setting out the circumstances when ASIS must obtain the Minister’s authorisation to undertake certain activities.

Ministerial Directions are reviewed periodically to ensure their currency, when external circumstances change or new priorities emerge, or when there is a change of Minister or both.

In those instances where there is a change of Minister, pre-existing Ministerial Directions have continuing legal effect until such time as they are formally revoked, or overridden, by the issue of a new, properly authorised, direction.

Mr Smith issued several new Ministerial Directions to ASIS, in accordance with section 8(1) of the ISA, in January 2008.

The directions are similar in nature to those which were in place prior to him becoming the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Section 32B of the IGIS Act requires that when directions of this kind are issued a copy must be provided to the Inspector-General as soon as practicable after the direction is given. This occurred.

These directions are classified and therefore cannot be released publicly.

My office reviews all MAs to ensure that they conform to the requirements of the ISA and the terms of the Ministerial Directions to which ASIS is subject.

During 2007–08 six inspections were conducted during which several issues were identified about which clarification or comment was sought from the Director-General of ASIS. Most of these issues were of an essentially technical and administrative nature and of minor concern.

I was satisfied that the MAs examined by this office were appropriate and in conformity with the requirements of the ISA.

Ministerial submissions

Whenever my staff and I conduct a review of MAs, we also review all of the other submissions which the Director-General puts to the Minister.

The content of these submissions is necessarily sensitive, dealing as they do with a wide range of topical subjects affecting ASIS upon which the Director-General believes the Minister should be kept informed.

As a consequence of reviewing ASIS’s ministerial submissions I sometimes seek briefings from the Director-General.

I am grateful to the Director-General for providing me with continuing access to these documents.

Authorisations related to training in/or use of weapons for self-defence purposes/self-defence techniques

Subclause 1(5) of Schedule 2 of the ISA requires the Director-General to provide me with copies of all approvals issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in respect of training in the use of a weapon for self-defence purposes, the provision of a weapon for self-defence purposes, or the delivery of training in other self-defence techniques.

I am confident that I had visibility of every authorisation which was issued during this reporting period.

While I cannot report the precise number of authorisations which were issued I can advise that it was not an excessive number, and in my view each request for an authorisation was soundly based and proportionate to the requirements of ASIS.

I am satisfied that the powers afforded to ASIS under Schedule 2 of the ISA are being used professionally and as intended.

Clause 3 of Schedule 2 of the ISA also requires the Director-General to provide me with a written report should a weapon allocated to an authorised person for self-defence purposes be discharged in specified circumstances (other than during training). This requirement was fully satisfied during 2007–08.

Operational file review activities/use of former IGIS as a consultant

During 2007–08 I continued the practice of many years of devoting significant resources to regularly reviewing ASIS’s operational case files.

I believe this is a very important inspection activity as the information contained in these files provides insight into the operational environment in which ASIS’s field officers operate, some appreciation of the special pressures they are placed under, and the extent to which their activities are being directed and controlled by headquarters staff.

I continued the consultancy arrangement I have with my immediate predecessor, Mr Bill Blick AM PSM, to assist me in the on-going review of ASIS’s operational activities.⁶⁸

Mr Blick typically spends two days per month intensively reviewing ASIS’s operational case files in the company of one of my senior staff, and then reports back to me at the completion of each inspection with a list of issues and findings.

Mr Blick brings a critical rigour to this task which derives, in part, from his extensive experience as a former Inspector-General.

The task of reviewing ASIS’s operational files is never complete, but I am keen to cycle through as many files as possible each year in a targeted way.

While I cannot report the nature and range of issues which have come to light as a result of this particular inspection activity I can assure readers of this annual report that our examination of this material is rigorous and thorough.

Following each inspection I provide the Director-General with a detailed letter setting out our findings. These letters frequently pose questions relevant to the conduct of the operations under review.

Towards the end of 2007–08 I initiated a project whereby Mr Blick was to review this office’s operationally related correspondence with ASIS over a four year period, to discern any pattern or trends, and to ensure that each issue raised had been dealt with satisfactorily and to finality.

I am appreciative of the efforts of those ASIS officers who have provided assistance during these inspections, have provided briefings, or have been involved in the preparation of responses to my questions.

Privacy rules

Section 15(1) of the ISA requires that written rules exist to regulate the communication and retention by ASIS of intelligence information concerning Australian persons.

The then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Mr Alexander Downer, issued a set of privacy rules to ASIS in October 2001 to coincide with the coming into effect of the ISA.

A copy of the ASIS privacy rules was published in the IGIS Annual Report 2001–02⁶⁹and can also be accessed via the ASIS website⁷⁰.

The extant ASIS privacy rules have continuing legal effect until such time as they are formally revoked, or overridden, by the issue of new privacy rules.

The ASIS privacy rules are important because ASIS generates and receives a significant amount of secret intelligence information some of which refers to Australian persons.

Intelligence information of this kind can only be included in ASIS reporting if the information serves a clear purpose linked to Australia’s overarching national interests.

If it is determined that intelligence information about an Australian person should be included in a report, it can then only be circulated to appropriately cleared addressees with a demonstrated need to know this information.

My office devoted significant resources in the first half of 2007–08 to regularly reviewing every report which either directly or indirectly referred to an Australian person, to ensure that such reporting was properly justified in accordance with the requirements of the ASIS privacy rules.

I temporarily suspended this review activity in April 2008 because I have confidence in ASIS’s internal compliance mechanisms and continuing the activity, at least for a period, did not represent best use of OIGIS resources.

It is my intention to review this situation in the forthcoming reporting period. In such a review I will weigh the merits of conducting sampling and spot audits, rather than the 100% compliance checking in which the office was previously engaged.

Periodic roundtable meetings

As mentioned at various places throughout this annual report, I place significant importance on meeting with key staff in each of the intelligence collection agencies on a regular basis, so that we might discuss issues of common interest or concern openly and candidly.

I meet with ASIS in a roundtable meetings of this kind approximately every six weeks.

My ordinary practice is to circulate an agenda approximately one week before each meeting and invite officers who are involved in policy development, legal affairs and intelligence production to attend.

I find these meetings to be of great utility as they frequently involve discussion of practical issues and concerns at the desk officer level.

Use of assumed identities

Section 15XUA of the Crimes Act 1914 requires ASIS to, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, provide me with a report for the preceding 12 months on:

the number of instances in which formal alternative identity documentation has been obtained
a general description of the activities undertaken by approved officers and approved persons when using their assumed identities, and
whether or not any fraud or other unlawful activity was identified by the agency when auditing use of the assumed identity documentation.

ASIS continues to satisfy this requirement by providing me with six-monthly reports on the above matters.

Complaints and inquiries

I received three new complaints about ASIS during the reporting period which led me to initiate preliminary inquiries. These complaints related to allegedly deficient selection and recruitment practices. Each of these preliminary inquiries was concluded before 30 June 2008.

In addition to these matters five other people contacted this office with queries or concerns about ASIS which were handled administratively.

Four of these complaints were from current or former employees of ASIS and raised a variety of issues or concerns.

I took each of these five complaints seriously and engaged ASIS senior management a number of times in respect of the issues which had been raised.

I had chosen not to initiate preliminary or full inquiries into any of these five complaints as at 30 June 2008, either because the complainants’ personal circumstances had changed, they were pursuing remedies within ASIS, or they were contemplating other options.

I will maintain a watching brief on these complaints in case it becomes necessary to take any of these matters forward in a more formal manner.

Footnotes

66. DFAT Portfolio Budget Statement 2008–2009, ASIS statement available on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (PDF 155.99KB) website (accessed 9 August 2008).

67. DFAT Portfolio Budget Statement 2007-2008, ASIS statement available on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (PDF 229.09KB) website (accessed 9 August 2008).

68. Information on this arrangement is set out at Annex 2 of this report.

69. IGIS Annual Report 2001-02, Canberra, October 2002, Annex 4, pp. 91–92.

70. See Australian Secret Intelligence Service website (accessed on 9 August 2008).

content

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security