Key points

• Significant attention was paid in the reporting period (by way of own motion inquiries) to the two assessment agencies,
  the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO).
  A detailed inquiry into the independence and integrity of ONA assessments in the 12 months to September 2007 was
  completed in December 2007. I concluded that the culture and processes support independence and integrity, with
  some minor suggestions for strengthening made. There was no evidence or indication of improper pressure or attempted direction from ministers or their offices in that period. While policy departments very occasionally could press their arguments in a way which bordered on undue pressure, ONA’s final judgements did not appear to have been affected in an improper way.
• As a logical follow on from this scrutiny of ONA, I commenced an own motion inquiry into the integrity of DIO assessments. This was still under way at the close of the reporting period, as was an own motion inquiry into the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in respect of Mr Izhar Ul-Haque and related matters. The latter was triggered by criticism of ASIO in R v. Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251 and raised serious allegations about the legality and propriety of certain actions by ASIO officers which occurred in 2003.
• Another inquiry completed in the 2007–08 reporting period concerned the Organisational Suitability Assessment process in the Defence intelligence agencies. I made a number of recommendations for enhancement to the process which were accepted positively and are being implemented.
• Inquiries were also initiated in the reporting period as a result of 15 complaints of various kinds. These ranged across operational interactions between ASIO and members of the community, the handling of archives requests, concerns about recruitment experiences, concerns held by former employees, issues to do with the assessment of security equipment, and a small number of immigration related matters.
• The number of complaints received by the office increased markedly in 2007–08. This was primarily driven by matters pertaining to the timeliness of ASIO’s security assessment process for visa purposes. A total of 193 new complaints of this type were received and actioned administratively in the reporting period. This compares to 71 new complaints of this kind being received and actioned administratively in 2006–07 and 26 immigration related complaints processed in this manner in 2005–06.
• There was also some increase in the number of contacts and complaints which my office received from current or former members of the AIC raising personnel management related grievances, and from applicants for positions with AIC agencies expressing concerns about recruitment practices. However, the number is not large relative to the size and growth of the AIC.
• The office’s inspection program continued to grow in size due to increased levels of activity by the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) agencies. I am very appreciative of the efforts of my staff in responding to the increasing tempo and fulfilling the planned program.
• The inspection program paid close attention to ASIO warrants and investigative approvals; AUSTRAC checks by ASIO; the privacy rules and ministerial authorisation requirements for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO) and Defence Signal Directorate (DSD); the privacy guidelines applicable to DIO and ONA; and sensitive operations by ASIS. Although substantive concerns identified were relatively few in number, I was pleased that each was corrected or addressed suitably by the relevant agency when raised with them. We raised a somewhat greater number of procedural issues, particularly through our inspection activities, and these were also corrected or addressed satisfactorily.
• As in previous years my staff and I also presented at agency seminars and training courses and at common AIC courses, reaching around 1250 staff in approximately 40 sessions. We impress upon agency staff the importance of the rule of law and the need for them to have the trust and confidence of the community through being professional and judicious in the use of powers and capabilities.
• The portfolio arrangements under the new Government elected on 24 November 2007 involve the Cabinet Secretary and Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon John Faulkner having general administrative responsibility for my office, consistent with his responsibility for other accountability and integrity agencies such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.
• We continued to develop our relationships with other accountability and integrity agencies, and pursued targeted outreach activities to the community.
• Despite the recruitment of two new staff during 2007–08, there was no net gain in staff numbers as had been budgeted for, due to two departures. As noted earlier, the planned 2007–08 visits and inspections program was still achieved by dint of the commitment of staff to the work of the office. Further recruitment action was under way at the close of the reporting period.
• The office received an unqualified report on its financial statements for 2007–08 from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).