Performance

Outcomes and outputs

In program budgeting terms, OIGIS has one specified outcome. The fact that the office has only one outcome reflects our relatively small size and the comparatively narrow focus of our activities (i.e. OIGIS is 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”.⁴⁵

The approach to achieve this outcome is set out under item 2.1.1 of the OIGIS Budget Statements and commits OIGIS to:

continue and expand the Agency’s inspection activities, which involve proactively monitoring and/or reviewing the activities of the AIC agencies, and
where appropriate, investigate complaints about the activities of the AIC agencies, and when appropriate initiate ‘own motion’ inquiries (as provided for under the IGIS Act).⁴⁶

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 office’s unique role and functions:

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 regard to human rights.

Levels of complaint and inquiry

At the conclusion of 2006–07 two full inquiries and one preliminary inquiry remained open and were thus carried over into 2007–08.

The first of the on-going full inquiries referred to above was an own motion inquiry I had initiated on 14 February 2007 into the statutory independence of ONA’s assessments⁴⁷, which was concluded on 5 December 2007.

The second of the on-going full inquiries was an own motion inquiry which I had initiated on 5 June 2007 into Organisational Suitability Assessment processes in DIGO, DIO and DSD. This was concluded on 15 February 2008.

The one outstanding preliminary inquiry carried over into 2007–08 related to a complaint about ASIO which had been made by a member of the public, which I was able to conclude on 27 July 2007.

I commenced three new own motion inquiries in 2007–08.

More broadly, OIGIS received 298 approaches from individuals with new or continuing complaints against a nominated AIC agency.

This global figure of 304 compares with 152 complaints/inquiries which were actioned in the previous reporting period. The 304 approaches described above can be broken down as follows:

three inquiries carried over from 2006–07. (All of which were completed)
three new own motion inquiries, compared to three in the previous reporting period. (Two of these inquiries remained open as at 30 June 2008)
15 new complaints leading to preliminary or full inquiries, compared to 10 such complaints in the previous reporting period. Two of these complaints concerned the timeliness of ASIO’s immigration related security assessment processes which I had initially dealt with administratively (in 2006–07) but which I decided to pursue as preliminary inquiries in July 2007. Of the 15 new complaints leading to inquiries during the reporting period only one of these remained open as at 30 June 2008. In the previous reporting period 10 complaints led to preliminary or full inquiries⁴⁸
15 complaints about alleged delays by ASIO in conducting immigration related security assessments which were either carried over from 2006-07 or where a former complainant contacted the office again seeking further assistance
193 new complaints about alleged delays by ASIO in conducting immigration related security assessments that were handled administratively rather than as preliminary or full inquiries. (This figure compares to only 17 such complaints in 2004–05, 26 such complaints in 2005–06, and 71 complaints of this kind in 2006–07⁴⁹
25 approaches from persons who have previously been in contact with OIGIS who were either seeking a re-examination of their original complaint or who wished for an inquiry to be conducted into a new matter of complaint. This figure is compared to 28 in the previous reporting period, and
50 approaches from individuals who have not previously been in contact with OIGIS who wished to lodge a complaint against a specifically identified an AIC agency. There were 37 such complaints in the previous reporting period.⁵⁰

Some of the above figures require clarifying comment to place them in a proper context.

Since the creation of the office in the 1986–87, the average number of new matters or complaints which were formally pursued as preliminary or full inquiries averages out at 20.63 per annum. In the five year period between 2002–03 and 2006–07, the average was 23.6 per annum.

In 2007–08 I commenced 18 preliminary or full inquiries (i.e. 3 own motion inquiries and 15 complaints).

As can be seen from the above figures, the number of preliminary and full inquiries which were commenced in 2007–08, is just below the long term average (18 compared to 20.6), but there is a bigger differential when compared with the current five-year average (18 inquiries compared to 23.6).

As was indicated in my previous annual report, this gap is linked to how I have chosen to handle some of the more straightforward matters, particularly the upsurge in complaints I have received about the timeliness with which ASIO is conducting security assessments on applicants for various forms of visas.

In 2004–05, I received a total of 31 complaints on immigration related matters and pursued 14 of these as preliminary inquiries.

In 2005–06, I received a total of 34 complaints on immigration related matters, pursuing six of these as preliminary inquiries and two as full inquiries.

My decision to process 22 immigration related complaints in the period between 2004 and 2006 as either full or preliminary inquiries rather than administratively, has served to increase the five-yearly average number of preliminary and full inquiries.

By way of contrast in 2006–07, I received a total of 71 complaints on immigration related matters. I pursued all of these complaints administratively, while in 2007–08 the office received 193 separate complaints of this kind.

A more detailed explanation of the spike in the number of immigration related security assessment complaints we have received is provided elsewhere in this report, in the chapter devoted to ASIO.

Suffice to say that I will continue to monitor ASIO’s performance in this area and adjust my approach as necessary.

While immigration related complaints increased markedly in the reporting period, OIGIS also received 75 non-immigration related complaints where an AIC agency was named, or where reference was made to the AIC as a whole, which I chose to handle administratively.

Wherever possible my office processes complaints about AIC agencies which do not proceed to preliminary or full inquiry within a few days.

In addition to the 304 cases identified above, 34 other individuals contacted the office with concerns which did not directly refer to or involve an AIC agency (this is compared to a total of 30 in 2006–07). Each of these contacts was handled administratively.

As I have reported in previous annual reports, a significant proportion of the complaints or contacts received from members of the public come from individuals who are clearly suffering from genuinely held but nonetheless imaginary concerns.

These delusions have many forms but frequently involve the complainant expressing an unshakeable belief that one or other of the AIC agencies, or some other agency of the state, is using mind control or other advanced technologies (including surgical implants) to adversely affect their behaviour and quality of life.

Other typical beliefs include conspiracy theories linking various government and non-government bodies together to subjugate the rights of individuals, and more commonly, the purported use of bugging and other forms of surveillance to silence persons with unusual or unorthodox views.

While my office considers each case on its merits and attempts to deal with all complainants in an honest and respectful manner, the fantastical nature of some of the claims which are presented to this office are such that there is little to be gained by engaging in a full scale investigation, and indeed it would only serve to fuel delusions of this kind if we were to do so.

In addition to persons with manifestly delusional concerns the office is also contacted from time to time by persons who wish to raise matters which clearly fall outside of our jurisdiction, or who wish to provide “tip-off” information and are unsure where else to turn.

In the case of matters falling outside of my 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).

Any tip-off information received which appears credible will ordinarily be passed to the National Security Hotline (NSH), or other agencies, as appropriate.

As the NSH has the capacity 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 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 my office.

Timeliness

In the five years between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2008, the average time taken for inquiries to be completed was 104.31 days. The average time taken to finalise preliminary and full inquiries in 2007–08 was 100 days, compared to 95 days for the previous year.

The five day increase reflected above is largely explained by the intensive and in-depth nature of the ONA statutory independence inquiry, and the Organisational Suitability Assessment inquiry completed by this office during the reporting period.

More generally, I do not believe that it is 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 an inquiry can be handled.

Such factors include but are not limited to, the complexity and range of issues raised by the complainant or to be considered in the course of an own motion inquiry, the accessibility of relevant files and documents to be reviewed, the availability of agency staff, and fulfilling other procedural requirements.

Notwithstanding the above, it must always be my objective to be as timely as possible in completing inquiries and I will endeavour, if feasible, to reduce the average time taken in 2008–09.

Acceptance of recommendations

It is not usual for an agency to reject recommendations which are made by an Inspector-General following the conclusion of an inquiry.

There are many reasons why this is the case but this situation usually pertains because recommendations for change are not made lightly, generally involve prior consultation with the agency which is directly concerned and hopefully reflect a practical response to a particular issue or concern.

In all instances where I made formal recommendations in reports of inquiries which were concluded during 2007–08, these were accepted by the relevant agency.

Responsiveness to issues raised

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

I also meet on a regular basis with senior members of the collection agencies and use these meetings to discuss topical issues, or to follow up on issues raised in correspondence.

During 2007–08, I made a number of suggestions for procedural changes and reforms. These suggestions were generally accepted and acted upon.

I should also note that the intelligence and security agencies continue to seek the views of my office on draft policies and procedures. Where I have an interest or a concern about a particular activity, which cannot be adequately canvassed in our periodic meetings, I do not hesitate to seek a specific briefing.

In the vast majority of cases where I have sought such briefings, or additional information, my requests have been agreed to without question or qualification.

I am generally 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

I can state unequivocally that the number of persons contacting my office is greater now than at any time during which OIGIS has existed.

While this might be regarded by some as an outward sign that the AIC is under stress or is problematic, having analysed these various contacts I am reassured that this upward trend does not indicate that the AIC agencies are running out of control, or that their activities are causing more offence. Rather, to date it is a by product of the AIC’s increasing size and public profile, its greater engagement with the community, and its increasing operational tempo as it seeks to respond to new challenges.

I also believe that the increasing number of contacts made to this office reflects a greater knowledge of the existence of my office and a greater preparedness by some elements in the community to invest their trust in it. (This is especially true in regard to complaints about the timeliness with which security checks are undertaken for immigration related purposes).

My staff and I make a significant number of presentations on the role and functions of this office, within the AIC, and also to community groups who sit outside the AIC and I believe that this also encourages more people to make contact when they have a concern about an AIC agency.

As reflected in the above figures 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 Internet website 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.

I have been planning a redesign of the office website to make it even more accessible and user-friendly. This project did not advance as quickly as I would have liked during 2007–08 because of the demands of other work, but I am committed to seeing it concluded in 2008–09.

Summary

As indicated in “The Year in Review” chapter of this report, I noticed an increase in the number of contacts and complaints received from current or former members of the AIC, or applicants for positions with AIC agencies, raising personnel management related grievances or concerns about recruitment practices. When viewed in isolation these complaints could easily be written off as being of limited significance but when taken together may provide some evidence that the AIC agencies are experiencing varying degrees of organisational stress as a consequence of their growth. At the same time it must be acknowledged that the number is not large in a relative sense. This is naturally something which I will continue to monitor.

There was a marked increase in the number of complaints to my office about alleged delays by ASIO in making immigration related security assessments. ASIO was not at fault in a significant number of these matters, but it is one area of significant ongoing challenge for ASIO.

I can report that during the course of my office’s inspection activities, and as a consequence of my inquiry related work, relatively few substantive concerns were identified and each of these was corrected or addressed by the relevant agency. A somewhat greater number of procedural issues were raised, particularly through the office’s inspection activities, and these were also corrected or addressed satisfactorily.

I am very appreciative of the efforts of my staff in responding to the increasing demands placed on OIGIS and in fulfilling the planned program.

Footnotes

45. PM&C Portfolio Budget Statement 2008–09 – Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, p. 177,
(available on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PDF 137KB) website, accessed on 29 July 2008).

46. ibid, p. 177.

47. The conduct of periodic inquiries into ONA’s statutory independence had been recommended Mr Philip Flood in the report of his review into Australian Intelligence Agencies published in July 2004, and is also specifically provided for under section 8(3)(c) of the IGIS Act.

48. Tabular information relevant to these two dot points is provided at Annex 1, Table 1.

49. Summary information relevant to these two dot points is provided at Annex 1, Table 3.

50. Summary information relevant to these two dot points is provided at Annex 1, Table 2.

content