Australian Secret Intelligence Service

Monitoring Activities

74. The Office's routine monitoring during the year of ASIS's handling of foreign intelligence information concerning Australian persons produced similar results to last year, insofar as very few breaches relating to ordinary Australians came to light. The Rules are designed to ensure that ASIS does not collect and report information on the overseas activities and interests of Australians. While information of this nature does come to notice from time to time, the Rules cover the manner in which ASIS is required to handle this type of information. The Service is careful to ensure that the Rules are adhered to and only three breaches where Australians were named unnecessarily in reports were detected during the year.

Complaints about ASIS

Did ASIS act with propriety in dealing with one of its operational assistants at an overseas post?

75. In his last annual report, my predecessor mentioned that his inquiry into this complaint, made by an ex-employee of ASIS, was continuing.

76. My predecessor submitted his final report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Director-General of ASIS in December 1994. His main conclusions and recommendations were that ASIS had improperly exposed the complainant to undue risk, and that the complainant deserved an apology, a commendation and a performance bonus. My predecessor also recommended that ASIS make some changes to its internal procedures to help ensure that the situation which gave rise to the complaint did not occur again; and that ASIS should establish some scheme to recognise exceptional performance by its employees.

77. The Director-General of ASIS and the Foreign Minister rejected my predecessor's conclusion that ASIS was at fault. They also rejected his recommendations concerning an apology and formal recognition of the complainant's efforts. However, ASIS indicated that it was looking at establishing a scheme to recognise exceptional performance by its staff, and that it had reviewed its procedures for closing overseas stations.

78. This case was reviewed by the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS. The Commissioners concluded that while there were some shortcomings in the employer/employee relationship, on both sides, the difficulties which arose were not of sufficient weight in the circumstances to constitute a matter of grievance.

Was a female ex-employee of ASIS subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination during her employment?

79. In September 1994, an ex-employee of ASIS made a complaint to the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination between 1985 and 1992, when she left the Service suffering from a work-related stress condition. She also claimed that ASIS management permitted this conduct to occur, and that it failed to respond to her complaints in an appropriate way. The Commission of Inquiry referred the complaint to my predecessor for investigation.

80. Having read my predecessor's proposed report and the other material collected in the course of the inquiry, I decided that it was unnecessary to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matters examined by my predecessor. Accordingly, I accepted my predecessor's conclusions and recommendations, which were that:

the behaviour of a former senior officer of ASIS was inappropriate and amounted to sexual harassment, although it was not possible on the material available to say whether the incidents referred to were isolated, or whether they were symptomatic of more frequent behaviour of a similar kind;

  • ASIS should formally apologise to the complainant; and
  • she should be compensated for the consequences of the senior officer's behaviour.

81. I noted that changes to ASIS's procedures and culture since the complainant left the Service (and changes which are planned for introduction) should help to ensure that, in future, a more appropriate work environment will exist within the Service, and that a situation similar to that experienced by the complainant (if it arises in the future) would be dealt with in a more satisfactory way.

82. At the time of reporting the Minister had indicated that he agreed with the thrust of my recommendations and the report had been passed to the Director-General of ASIS for action.

Did ASIS officers behave improperly towards an ex-operational assistant?

83. In his last annual report, my predecessor referred to an inquiry he was conducting into allegations that an ex-employee of ASIS was subjected to improper behaviour while she was overseas.

84.My predecessor completed his inquiry into this matter in April this year. He concluded that an unfortunate series of misunderstandings had occurred and that, save in one relatively minor instance where an apology was warranted, ASIS had not acted improperly.

Did bias on the part of a senior manager of ASIS have a detrimental impact on the "translation" of an officer to a new structure? Was the report of an internal Grievance Committee investigating the "translation" process flawed in its conclusions?

85. My predecessor received a complaint from a serving officer of ASIS that a senior manager of the Service had held a longstanding hostile bias toward him and had discriminated against him over a number of years. The officer claimed that the manager had influenced a decision by ASIS management not to "translate" the officer's former position to a higher level in line with the approach followed in a similar restructuring within the Australian Public Service (APS). The officer also complained that an internal Grievance Committee, which had been convened to investigate his earlier grievance on the "translation" process, was flawed in its conclusions and biased toward senior management.

86. The inquiry into this complaint was largely complete when I assumed office. I reviewed my predecessor's proposed report in the light of material collected in the course of the inquiry, and decided to adopt that part of his report dealing with the allegations of bias. On the matter of the "translation" process itself, however, I decided to conduct further inquiries of ASIS and the Department of Industrial Relations.

87. In my final report, I agreed with my predecessor that the complainant's allegations of bias and discrimination by the senior manager had not been substantiated. With regard to the "translation" process, I concluded that ASIS management's decisions regarding the manner in which the APS restructuring exercise was extended to ASIS (with some modifications), and the consequent abolition of the position occupied by the complainant, were decisions which ASIS management was entitled to take and were not affected by personal bias or prejudice towards the complainant on the part of any member of senior management. While the complainant believed that these decisions had an adverse impact on his prospective salary entitlements, I concluded that they were lawful and proper.

88. In the light of these findings, I also concluded that the internal Grievance Committee had examined the complainant's earlier grievance in a thorough and objective fashion. I considered that the Committee had properly confined itself to determining whether there was any substance to the individual's grievance, rather than reviewing de novo the appropriateness of management decisions on restructuring the Service. I also noted that the complainant had declined to pursue before this Committee the allegations he subsequently made to my predecessor regarding bias and discrimination.

Did ASIS hold scurrilous records relating to an Australian journalist?

89. Another case mentioned in my predecessor's last report was one which concerned allegations by a well-known Australian journalist that ASIS held records on him which were of a scurrilous and ludicrous nature, and that the material in question had been circulated within ASIS.

90. Following inquiry, my predecessor concluded that there was no information held by ASIS of the kind alleged by the complainant.

Did a named person carry out illegal or improper activities on behalf of ASIS?

91. The Inspector-General was asked to investigate allegations that a person who had received publicity in several national magazines, had carried out activities on behalf of ASIS, which, if true, would have amounted to illegality and impropriety.

92. Following preliminary inquiries, my predecessor concluded there was no evidence to suggest that there was any truth in the allegations and decided that it was not necessary to conduct a full inquiry into the claims. A similar conclusion was subsequently reached by the Commission of Inquiry.