Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)

My regular spot-checks on the way in which ASIS was handling any foreign intelligence received about Australian persons and companies revealed that ASIS continued to treat such material in accordance with the rules set by the Government.

Two particular complaints against ASIS, by a serving ASIS officer and his spouse, took up an extraordinary amount of my time and that of members of my Office during the year. The complaints are discussed below. As a result of my recommendations flowing from these inquiries, ASIS has brought in a number of significant changes to their management practices and procedures. These include expanded and regularised consultative arrangements, new grievance procedures and the appointment of an independent ombudsman. All of these changes should contribute towards making ASIS a more efficient and satisfying Service for its members.

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. I and my Assistant also 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.

My handling of three of the complaints by ex-members of ASIS against the Service that I referred to in my last annual report suffered because of the need to set priorities on the handling of complaints. These are referred to briefly below. Another complaint by a serving ASIS officer was received during the year and was dealt with as a matter of urgency; this complaint, too, is discussed below.

Did ASIS dispense natural justice when investigating allegations against an officer and his spouse?

In my last two annual reports I mentioned that I was investigating complaints against ASIS by an ASIS officer and his wife. For the most part, their complaints related to allegations made about the officer and his wife while they were serving overseas, and two internal investigations into those allegations.

I considered it was inappropriate for me to determine whether the allegations were of substance or, alternatively, whether they were defamatory as alleged by the complainants.

However, I was able to conclude that the way in which ASIS conducted its investigations into the allegations was improper and resulted in the complainants being denied natural justice. (My view was substantially the same as that reached by an internal grievance panel; however, as I noted in my last annual report, the panel's recommendation that the officer be allowed to leave the Service on generous terms was not accepted by the Director-General.)

I formed the view that compensation should be paid to the complainants and, on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department, recommended an appropriate amount. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade accepted my recommendation.

I wrote to the officer's wife to say that I was aware of and regretted the suffering which she had endured as a result of allegations against her.

In the course of my inquiry, I identified a number of personnel management issues which needed attention. The underlying principle behind these issues was that ASIS, like other closed organisations, owes a special duty of care to its employees. In relation to these personnel issues, I recommended that:

  • the Minister issue a directive to ASIS setting out principles for the conduct of internal investigations;
  • ASIS appoint a staff ombudsman;
  • ASIS be more active in monitoring the performance of posted officers; and
  • ASIS ensure spouses are fully briefed, and that it warn officers when it thinks spouses are becoming too heavily involved in operational matters.

The Minister accepted these recommendations, and the Director-General of ASIS has taken steps to implement them.

ASIS has provided me with a draft of its new proposed internal grievance procedures. I am currently examining them to determine whether they are 'adequate and effective' within the meaning of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act.

Did ASIS act legally and with propriety in its dealings with an officer who was being investigated by the Australian Federal Police?

A serving member of ASIS was suspended on full pay in March 1992 when the Australian Federal Police (AFP) decided to investigate allegations that he had committed breaches of Australian law while carrying out duties at an overseas post.

The ASIS member complained to me in November 1992. He said that his suspension had continued for too long; that it was uncertain when, if ever, the police investigation would be completed; and that he should be reinstated, promoted and posted overseas.

After I received the complaint, new allegations came to light concerning the officer's professional conduct.

I conducted a full inquiry into the complaints. My findings were:

The officer's suspension had continued for too long. However, I accepted the Director-General's assurance that it would not be in the interests of security to allow the officer to return to work.

ASIS's decision not to conduct a parallel investigation into the alleged criminal matters was sound. However, at the time the AFP began its investigation, ASIS should have appointed an 'authorised officer' who would have been able to conduct an internal investigation into allegations of misconduct in the event that the AFP found there was insufficient evidence to found a criminal charge against the officer. This was not improper; however, the Public Service Commission has recently emphasised that this is desirable in practice, and ASIS should bear this consideration in mind in any future cases.

ASIS was obliged to tell the officer what the new allegations about his professional conduct were, and to investigate them in a full and timely manner. It proceeded to do so.

ASIS dealt with this matter legally and with propriety.

Did ASIS act legally and with propriety in dealing with an officer and his assistant who were withdrawn from an overseas post?

These cases concern a former ASIS officer and his assistant who were recalled (for different reasons) from an overseas post. The ex-officer's complaint is related in part to a breakdown in relations with his senior Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) colleagues and the conduct of a joint ASIS/DFA investigation into the particular situation, and in part to the level of support that he received from ASIS during and after his overseas service. The former assistant's complaint relates to the circumstances surrounding the termination of her posting and of her return to headquarters. These complaints have had to be given a lower priority than some others.

Did a long-serving member of ASIS receive appropriate departure entitlements on his retirement?

This case concerns the departure entitlements of a long-serving ex-ASIS member. It, too, has had to be given a lower priority than some other cases before me.