Performance Criteria

30. I have given further consideration to the criteria that might be used to assess the effectiveness of my Office. It seems to me that there are five main ones.

  • the timeliness of inquiries;
  • acceptance of the outcome of inquiries by complainants and agencies;
  • Ministers' acceptance of my recommendations;
  • the level of assurance that I can give Ministers and the public that the agencies are conducting their activities legally and with propriety; and
  • the extent to which there has been change within the agencies as a result of my Office's activities.

Timeliness of Inquiries

3 1. In my 1989-90 Annual Report, I said that if my Office had to conduct more than one major inquiry at any given time, we would be swamped. At that time my staff resources, excluding myself, consisted of three permanent officers. In 1990-9I the number of new substantive complaints I received jumped to 15 (from 11 in the previous financial year). As a result, I and my staff were faced with a dozen or more significant inquiries at once. In response I borrowed staff and was also successful in obtaining one extra staff position and upgrading two others. Nevertheless, some inquiries took a long time to finish. These long delays are unsatisfactory to all involved, the complainants, the agencies concerned and my office, which finds itself under great pressure from many complainants. They are also unsatisfactory from a security point of view because complainants are likely to become frustrated and may be tempted to pursue their complaints through other channels, including the media.

32. The charts opposite (a more detailed summary is included at Annex (B) tell the story. At present I have 27 substantive complaints either under inquiry or awaiting the opportunity to start inquiring into them.

33. Unfortunately, delay is built into the inquiry process that I must follow under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. It is very much a consultative and inquisitorial process as distinct from the adversarial process typical of court and tribunal proceedings. For example, the Act requires me to consult with the agency that is complained against if it is my intention to criticise that agency. The agency has the right to put its views to me and I am required by the Act to reflect in my final report those of the agency's comments that are relevant. Likewise, if I intend to criticise an agency I am required to give the responsible Minister a reasonable opportunity to discuss my proposed report with me. If I intend to criticise a person I must also give that person the opportunity to put submissions to me, unless doing so would prejudice security, the defence of Australia or Australia's relations with other countries.

34. The response that I give to a complainant must also be agreed between me and the responsible Minister, again to ensure that it will not prejudice security, the defence of Australia or Australia's relations with other countries. In the first place I would normally consult with the head of the agency concerned to ensure that the proposed response met this requirement of the Act.

Complainant/Agency Acceptance of my Conclusions/Recommendations

35. In the case of complaints against ASIO, there has been broad acceptance of my conclusions by the complainants and by ASIO itself

36. With the complaints against ASIS, in two cases what appeared to be initial reluctant acceptance on the part of the complainants has turned into rejection. Another complainant appeared to accept my role and my conclusions even though these were not favourable to him. In another case the complainant rejected outright the outcome of my inquiry.

37. ASIS has accepted the recommendations resulting from my inquiries and has implemented them.

Acceptance by Ministers of Recommendations

38. In nearly all cases, Ministers have accepted the recommendations I have made in my reports on my inquiries. In one instance the Attorney-General declined my suggestion that he should issue guidelines to ASIO concerning that agency's responsibilities under the Archives Act. In another case the Attorney-General indicated that I may have been too soft on ASIO.

39. In the case of certain complaints against ASIS, the Foreign Minister told a Senate Estimates Committee that he thought those cases had been fully and fairly resolved. He also said that a judgement made in these cases was a generous judgement in the circumstances. On another occasion, in responding to my report on a particularly difficult complaint against ASI.S, the Foreign Minister thanked me for

"the sustained and systematic effort you have put into resolving this matter"

Level of Assurance

40. The level of the assurance I can give to Ministers and to the public that the agencies are conducting their activities legally and with propriety and complying with Ministerial guidelines is closely related to the extent of my contact with individual agencies. I have made judgements in past annual reports about such matters. These judgements are based on various types of contact, including contact arising from my inquiry activities, contact with staff associations, monitoring of guidelines, discussions with individual members at all levels in agencies, visits to agency establishments, and regular discussions (both formal and informal) with Commonwealth and State government agencies, eg those agencies with which the intelligence agencies have dealings: (see p.4 of my 1990-91 Annual Report). Comparing ASIO and the other intelligence collection agencies, I have always been able to give a relatively higher level of assurance about the former. This is because I and my office have had a closer and more multi-layered association with that agency than with the others.

Extent to which there has been change within the Agencies as a result of our Activities

41. Many complaints I have investigated have resulted in recommendations directed at changing the procedures of an agency. Furthermore, in some cases these changes have led to continuing interest by my Office in that particular aspect of the agency's operations. Ongoing monitoring has been the result.

42.ASIO's Archives Procedures: Concern about ASIO's operations under the Archives Act led to an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO and also led to complaints to me. As a result of a major inquiry which I conducted into these complaints, ASIO changed its procedures and allocated more staff and technical resources to enable it to meet its legal obligations in this area. ASIO also established informal communication links with researchers and improved its liaison with the Australian Archives. Huge backlogs of requests are now being overcome because of these changes.

43. I now regularly monitor ASIO's performance relating to its statutory archives obligations.

44. ASIO/Police Exchanges: In the course of an "own motion" inquiry I discovered that just under 50% of information passed from the Queensland Police Service to ASIO was not relevant to security. The cause was an outmoded inter-governmental agreement under which the exchange occurred. As a result of my inquiry all agreements relating to exchanges between ASIO and the various State and Territory Police Services have been or are being renegotiated.

45. Registers of such exchanges have been established and I examine them during my regular visits to ASIO regional offices. I also discuss the exchanges with the Police. Where one exists, State oversight authorities conduct a reciprocal activity for police records.

46. Links with the ASIO and ASIS Staff Associations: I have placed emphasis on developing and maintaining links with the staff associations of ASIO and ASIS. In my view an active, well-informed staff association can do a lot to alleviate tensions that occur in the closed environment of an intelligence agency. Through regular contact with the executives of such bodies I can lend moral support to those officers engaged in this difficult and sometimes thankless task.

47. I was very pleased recently to receive a letter of thanks for the work of my Office from the now-retired President of the ASIO Staff Association. In thanking me for our work on behalf of the staff of ASIO, the President said,

"I know, as few others do, how crucial your wise intervention in some issues was to the welfare of ASIO. Keep it up"

48.ASIO and ASIS Personnel Management: Following my investigation of a series of complaints made to me by ASIO officers in 1991, ASIO has now made a number of significant changes to its personnel arrangements, including the appointment of an independent chair of ASIO's grievance committees. These committees were subsequently given determinative powers instead of the recommendatory powers previously vested in them. Also, an internal Ombudsman was appointed to help in resolving staff grievances, and a full-time person has been provided at the Organization's expense to work on Staff Association matters.

49. The improvements in ASIO's personnel management arrangements are perhaps the most significant results which have flowed from any of my inquiries. As a result of my work in 1991, I was able to alert the Minister to a very serious situation regarding staff management and morale.

50. As regards ASIS, a number of changes to their personnel procedures were made as a result of recommendations by my Office, flowing from a major inquiry into a complaint against ASIS. We have also contributed to the development of the ASIS grievance procedures to the point where I have now determined that they are "adequate and effective" in the terms of section 11(5)(a) of my Act.

51. ASIO and Community Interviews: Following expressions of concern by me about the way in which (ASIO) conducted community interviews (ie among particular ethnic groups in the community), ASIO revised their training syllabus to take account of my concerns. (A community interview serves two basic purposes. It provides intelligence about the view of the particular community but it also demonstrates that ASIO is watching them.) Their new training syllabus has a very heavy emphasis on ethics and propriety and this, combined with the issue by the Attorney-General of his Guidelines on the Collection of Intelligence, has substantially reduced my worries about the way in which ASIO conducts this activity. In writing to me about this, the Attorney-General commented that 

"... these are encouraging developments which, I believe, demonstrate to value of your Office"