Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)

I continued to conduct regular spot-checks on the way in which ASIS was handling any foreign intelligence received about Australian persons and companies. As noted in earlier reports, ASIS meets the Government's requirements in this area. A tiny number of mistakes are made each year, but the total is so small as to be of no consequence.

It is unusual to receive complaints from members of the public against ASIS. This is as it should be because ASIS – like the other agencies - should be acting legally and with propriety, and in any case the main thrust of ASIS's activities is overseas. I investigated six complaints this year, five of them (summarised below) being from ASIS members or ex-members. The sixth related to allegations of harassment by ASIS, which I investigated and concluded were unfounded.

As was the case last year my staff and I continued to have contact whenever necessary with ASIS staff, both individually and in groups. This is important if ASIS officers, who are not employed under the Public Service Act and who do not therefore have access to the normal public service mechanisms for the resolution of grievances, are to feel confident in approaching my office if they have employment-related problems. We have also maintained our links with the ASIS Staff and Welfare Association.

Some members of ASIS approached me unofficially during the year to seek my informal advice about work-related problems they were experiencing. Because the discussions were in confidence I feel unable to enlarge further on their content in this report.

I addressed various ASIS training courses about the role of my Office and its place in the general accountability arrangements for the entire intelligence and security community.

The following are summaries of the five cases we are investigating regarding ASIS staffing matters.

Cases 1 and 2:

In my last annual report I mentioned that I had been acting in a "good offices" role between ASIS management and an ASIS officer and his wife. Since my report, ASIS has completed its internal investigation into allegations made against the officer. The officer was unhappy with the outcome of the investigation, and asked ASIS to convene a grievance panel. The panel found in favour of the officer. However, the Director-General did not accept all of the panel's findings. The officer was dissatisfied with the Director-General's response to the panel's report, and made a formal complaint to me.

Under my legislation I cannot conduct an investigation into matters that occurred overseas or before the commencement of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act unless I obtain the approval to do so of the relevant Minister. This was such a case. I therefore sought and obtained the approval of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to conduct a full inquiry into the officer's complaint. Subsequently, the officer's wife made an additional complaint on her own behalf. I decided to conduct a full inquiry into her complaint also. My inquiry into these complaints is close to completion.

Cases 3 and 4:

A former ASIS officer has complained to me about the circumstances surrounding his early recall from an overseas post and his subsequent departure from the Service. His complaint is related in part to a breakdown in relations with his senior Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) colleagues and the conduct of a joint ASIS/DFAT investigation into the particular situation. After conducting a preliminary inquiry I sought and obtained the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to conduct a full inquiry into the matter.

Another former officer complained to me in similar terms about her early recall from the same overseas post and a number of aspects relating to the management of the closure of the particular post by the Service. I am also conducting a full inquiry into this complaint.

At the time of writing both these inquiries were entering their final stages.

Case 5:

A former long-serving ASIS employee complained to me about a number of aspects relating to his time with the Service. His complaint primarily concerned his entitlements, which were apparently subject to several changes during his long period of service, but he also made various allegations of bad management. At the time of writing I have decided to commence a preliminary inquiry into his complaint in accordance with section 14 of my legislation and am yet to decide if a full inquiry is warranted.

DSD

I visited the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) headquarters in Melbourne regularly to receive briefings on the work of the Directorate and to conduct spot-checks of the way in which the Directorate is carrying out its functions. I continued to monitor the Directorate's adherence to the rules relating to signals intelligence and Australian persons and companies and am pleased to be able to report that the Directorate again made very few mistakes in this area. Almost always when a mistake was made it was quickly rectified so that the breach remained technical and no damage was done. The Government changed the rules in January 1992 and I am to report to Government at the end of the year on the way in which the new rules have operated.

I received no complaints from members of the public about the activities of the Directorate.

ONA AND DIO

There were no requests from Ministers to conduct investigations into ONA and DIO, and there were no references regarding these agencies in relation to human rights. As was the case in the previous year, therefore, my dealings with these agencies were limited to keeping in touch with the Directors and staff of both.

I was approached by one staff member of the Office of National Assessments and by the management of that, Office about specific (different) personnel problems that each was facing and I offered informal advice on possible ways of resolving them.

Staffing and administration

There was one change to the permanent staff of my office with Ms Sandy Thomas joining the office from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The office also gained one additional staff position at the Senior Officer Grade C classification. Two other positions were upgraded from Administrative Service Officers Grades 4 and 2 to Grades 5 and 3 respectively. These changes in the office's staffing establishment have reflected our increased workload and the complexity and sensitivity of the matters with which we deal.

In addition the office has had the services of officers seconded from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Attorney-General's Department. The need for temporary officers to join my staff arises when specific complaints require lengthy and involved investigations which could not be conducted without external help. I expect this trend to continue. However, I would like the arrangements concerning such secondments to change. To date my office has had to seek funding through the Additional Estimates process for the costs associated with engaging extra staff. In future I hope that with those complaints which I cannot investigate without first obtaining the approval of the responsible Minister, the resources needed to undertake an inquiry will accompany the approval. I have specifically in mind complaints concerning events which occurred overseas or before the commencement of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act.

It is worth noting that in the past year there were four staff secondments to my office. This has been an important factor in enabling us to keep our collective head above water.

Industrial Democracy

The objectives of the office's Industrial Democracy Plan have been met during the year. The size of the office is conducive to maintaining an awareness of industrial democracy and its application, consulting on issues of industrial democracy and the involvement of staff in decisions concerning the workplace. The office also participates in the small agency network on industrial democracy.

Equal Employment Opportunity

By arrangement with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity Program also covers the staff of my office.

Occupational Health and Safety

Since my office is collocated with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet I intend to seek an arrangement with the Secretary of that Department for my office to be incorporated into his Department's Occupational Health and Safety Plan. To do so would enable my Office to fulfil its obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the most appropriate and practicable way.

Training Guarantee (Administration) Act 1990

The office's payroll for 1991-92 was $315,000, which required the minimum expenditure on staff training at the stipulated 1% rate to be $3,150. Eligible training expenditure was $5,336 or 1.7% of payroll.

All my staff, both permanent and temporary, participated in training programs recognised for the purposes of the training guarantee legislation.

Composition of the Office

  • Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
    (Statutory Office-holder, Secretary equivalent)
    Mr Roger Holdich
  • Assistant Inspector-General
    (Senior Executive Band 1)
    Mr Philip Moss
  • Executive Officer
    (Senior Officer Grade C)
    Mr David Roberts
  • Personal Assistant to the Inspector-General
    (Administrative Service Officer Class 5)
    Ms Kerrie Dwyer
  • Clerical Assistant/Personal Assistant to the Assistant Inspector-General
    (Administrative Service Officer Class 3)
    Ms Lyn Holt (until 30 October 1991)
    Ms Sandy Thomas (from 2 January 1992)
  • Temporary Staff Seconded to this Office
    Ms Sally Anderson
    Ms Annette Keenan
    Mr Geoffrey McDougall
    Mr Matthew Collett