Defence Signals Directorate (DSD)

As in previous years I visited the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) headquarters regularly to receive briefings on the work of the Directorate and to conduct spot checks on the way in which the Directorate is carrying out its functions. I also visited the new DSD facility at Geraldton, Western Australia, and examined the arrangements for ensuring that the facility adheres to the rules relating to signals intelligence and Australian persons and companies.

The Government changed the rules on foreign signals intelligence and Australian persons in 1992 to permit, under strictly controlled arrangements, the collection and dissemination of foreign intelligence involving Australians. The Government asked me to audit the operation of the new rules to ensure that they protect the privacy of Australian persons as much as possible consistent with intelligence requirements.

I therefore conducted a major review of the operation of the new rules and reported to the Government in April 1993.

I was very reassured by what I found.

DSD has put in place highly effective systems to ensure that the privacy of Australian citizens is protected. An infinitesimally small number of breaches of the rules occurred, most of which concerned the naming in intelligence reports of organisations that are publicly well known. I regard these as little more than technical breaches. All breaches were corrected promptly.

The rules are designed chiefly to protect the privacy of ordinary Australian citizens. From my review of their operations, I have concluded that they do this very well indeed.

The Government has asked me to continue to monitor the operation of the rules.

I received two complaints against DSD from members of the public and these are currently under examination. Brief summaries of the complaints follow.

Did DSD discriminate against an applicant for a job?

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission referred to me a complaint against DSD from a person who had applied unsuccessfully for a position with the Directorate. The complainant alleged that DSD uses discriminatory practices in recruitment and that, because of this, she was treated unfavourably. In particular, she alleged invasion of privacy and discrimination on the grounds of gender and marital status, claiming that this occurred in an interview conducted by the Australian Army Psychology Corps, on behalf of DSD.

Did DSD discriminate against an employee because her partner was of the same sex?

In November 1992 a DSD employee complained via the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that the Directorate had refused to provide her with full compulsory transfer benefits when DSD moved from Melbourne to Canberra because her partner was of the same sex. She alleged discrimination because of her 'de facto' homosexual relationship. If her 'de facto' or 'de jure' partner had been of the opposite sex, she would have been entitled to transfer benefits as for a married couple. She received compulsory transfer entitlements for a single person only.

Office of National Assesments (ONA) and Defence Intelligence Organisation (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 a particular personnel problem and I offered informal advice on possible ways of resolving it.

Overseas visitors

During the past year, I met with and briefed a number of overseas visitors with an interest in national security and intelligence matters. These visitors included a delegation from the German Parliament and representatives from Canada and Sweden.

The Paliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO

Following the March 1993 election, I met the new Presiding Member of the Committee, Mr Russ Gorman NW. Subsequently I briefed the Committee on the work of my Office.

In September 1992 I made a submission to the Committee's inquiry about the way in which ASIO performs its function of giving security assessments.

Managing the office

There was one change to my Office's permanent staff with Mr Matthew Collett joining us on promotion from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In addition, my Office had the services of officers seconded for short terms from other departments and agencies. These secondments have been essential in enabling us to deal with some of the lengthy and involved investigations which otherwise could not have been conducted. Even with this external help, however, I am concerned at the length of time that some of these inquiries have taken to finalise.

In past years, I have assigned seconded staff to help me with major inquiries but have found that more often than not the period of the secondment ended before the inquiry had been completed. This caused disruption and further delay as someone fresh to the inquiry had to pick up the threads. I have concluded that seconded officers are not the answer to this kind of inquiry and as a consequence I have had to allocate my permanent staff to such cases. This absorbed them for lengthy periods and pointed to the need for a larger permanent staffing establishment.

My office shares the same accommodation as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and as a result many administrative benefits and efficiencies occur.

Equal Employment Opportunity

By arrangement with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity Plan applies to the staff of my office. The principles laid out in the Plan ensure my staff are selected on merit and are encouraged to participate in development and training courses.

Industrial Democracy

The Office's Industrial Democracy Plan ensures that staff members have access to all relevant information and that their views are taken into account when decisions about workplace issues are made. The aims of the Plan have been met during the year.

Occupational Health and Safety

I have arranged with the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for my Office to be incorporated into that Department's Occupational Health and Safety Plan. Since my Office and the Department are accommodated in the same building, this arrangement permits our obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to be met in the most appropriate and practicable way.

Training Guarantee (Administration) Act 1990

The Office's payroll for 1992-93 was $348 000, which required the minimum expenditure on staff training at the stipulated 1 per cent rate to be $3480. Eligible training expenditure was $4370 or 1.25 per cent 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 Matthew Collett
  • Personal Assistant to the Inspector-General.. (Administrative Service Officer Class 5)
    Ms Kerrie Dwyer (until 18 December 1992)
    Ms Sandy Thomas (from 11 January 1993)
  • Clerical Assistant/Personal Assistant to the Assistant Inspector-General
    (Administrative Service Officer Class 3)
    Ms Sandy Thomas (until 8 January 1993)
    Ms Robyn Kelly (from 8 June 1993)
  • Temporary staff seconded for short periods to the Office
    Mr Geoffrey McDougall
    Mr David Roberts
    Ms Robyn Myers
    Mr Tony Watson
    Ms Sue Neal
    Mr Paul Lee