The year in review

52. This year has been dominated by matters connected with ASIS. I completed my inquiries into complaints against ASIS by an ex-member of the Service and by a then-serving ASIS officer, and continued my investigations into two other complaints by ex-members of ASIS. Four other complaints were received against ASIS, one from an ASIS officer, another from an ex-officer and two from members of the public. I commenced inquiry into each of them. I also undertook two "own motion" inquiries into certain aspects of ASIS's activities, and I continued my regular monitoring of the way in which ASIS handles secret intelligence to ensure that it meets the Government's requirements which are designed to ensure that the privacy of Australian persons and companies is not abused. I was also consulted by the Director-General of ASIS about the Service's grievance procedures and I made a number of suggestions for change., these suggestions were accepted and I was able to endorse the new ASIS procedures as "adequate and effective" in accordance with section 11(5)(a) of my Act.

53. During the year a campaign was mounted against ASIS, my Office and me personally, by certain ex-ASIS officers and others. It involved the briefing of members of parliament and the media by the ex-officers, and culminated in a long television program on 21 February, 1994, in which two of the ex-officers made various claims about illegal or improper activities allegedly conducted by ASIS. The campaign against my Office and me took the form of criticism of my findings in cases involving an ex-officer and his spouse, allegations by another ex-officer that I was a "lackey" of ASIS and/or the Foreign Minister, and threats that if I did not resign as Inspector-General my reputation would be so blackened that the Government would be forced to replace me. While much of this criticism was made to parliamentarians and the media, I and my office received abusive and threatening telephone calls, especially from one of the ex-officers.

54. The Government subsequently announced the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS by Commissioners Samuels and Codd. Since then my office has spent a considerable amount of time preparing statements for the Commission and giving evidence before it. The Inquiry will report by 31 December, 1994.

55. Apart from matters connected with ASIS, I continued my normal monitoring activities in respect of ASIO and DSD, and progressed my inquiries into a number of complaints against both bodies but especially ASIO. However, because of the increasing pressures on my office and the limited resources at my disposal to deal with them, many complaints that I had hoped to finalise remain on our books. This is unsatisfactory for all concerned: the complainants, the agencies that are complained about and my office.

56. Despite facing some problems, ASIO seems to be operating well. The recent reorganisation has produced beneficial results and, with the current more consultative type of management and the improved arrangements that are in place for the resolution of grievances, the Organisation is well set to concentrate its energies on its primary functions. Much of the credit for this rests with the current Director-General of Security, but the ASIO Staff Association has also played an important part in achieving this present state.

57. DSD has settled well into its new premises in Canberra and last year improved its already excellent performance in the way in which it met the Government's requirements regarding the handling of secret intelligence containing the names of Australian persons or companies.

58. I have discussed earlier in this report the reasons why I am able to give greater reassurance to the public and the Government about ASIO's activities than about the activities of ASIS and DSD. Briefly, the reasons are that virtually all of ASIO's activities fall within my purview while only a small part of ASIS's and DSD's activities are capable of examination by the Inspector-General, that ASIO has to abide by various Acts and Ministerial directives etc, all of which provide standards which enable me to check whether ASIO is in fact acting legally and with propriety, while there are fewer such checkpoints against which I can measure the activities of the other two collecting agencies. Having said this, however, I have seen nothing during the past year that causes me to believe that any of the intelligence and security agencies covered by my Act are behaving other than legally and with propriety.

59. During the past year, as in previous years, members of my staff found themselves becoming involved in providing informal counselling or support to complainants, many of whom find the situations that have given rise to their complaints stressful and trying. I am concerned that my office should not become by default an informal counselling service for members, former members, their spouses or agents of the intelligence agencies. Counselling is quite distinct from the role I play in helping people to decide the best course of action they should follow in relation to a matter that is troubling them. This kind of activity usually, and rightfully, precedes the making of a complaint under the InspectorGeneral of Intelligence and Security Act. What I am concerned about is any situation that may develop where people seek support from this office where they are not contemplating a complaint, or continue to seek support from this office beyond the finalisation of their complaint. Thus in one matter, a complainant repeatedly rang up to make unsubstantiated allegations. In the end I had to ask that these further allegations be put in writing and that future communications be in this form. In another matter, I recommended that the agency concerned should contribute to the cost of ongoing counselling that a complainant needed as a result of his association with, or action taken by, that agency.

60. Finally, in this general section, I raise again the question of resources for my office. During the year the Department of Finance agreed to increase the staff of my office by two permanent officers, to seven. One additional temporary officer was also agreed, for six months, to help the office meet the demands of the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS.

61. The Commission of Inquiry has questioned me about the adequacy of the resources that are available to me to carry out my statutory functions. I have told them that substantially more resources are needed if the Office is to deal with the increasing number of complaints we have received in a timely and thorough manner, while continuing to carry out our normal monitoring activities. I discuss later in this report the demands that the Commission of Inquiry is making of us, and my efforts to establish a temporary task force to enable us to meet those demands. The only additional point I wish to make at this stage is to emphasise the disproportionate amount of time and energy that a small office like mine needs to devote to administration (including to document cases for increases in our resources).

62. I expect that the Commission of Inquiry will make recommendations to Government about the scope and shape of my Office. It seems best to await the Commission's report before deciding whether to press for an expansion of my Of'fice.