Defence Signals Directorate

Monitoring Activities

93. The Inspector-General continued to monitor the extent of DSD's adherence to the Rules relating to signals intelligence and Australian persons and companies.

94. I can confirm the continuing high level of effectiveness during the past year of DSD's system for ensuring that breaches of the Rules are kept to an absolute minimum and are promptly corrected when they do occur. This year there were 14 breaches, two more than last year. Considering the volume of material handled, they represented an extremely small proportion of DSD's output. None were of a substantive nature.

Complaints about DSD

Did DSD act lawfully, properly and with regard for human rights by refusing to pay transfer benefits to an employee in a same-sex relationship?

95. On coming to office as Inspector-General, I took over a case involving an employee of DSD who had been transferred interstate in the course of employment. The gist of the employee's complaint was that DSD had refused to pay transfer benefits in respect of the employee's same-sex partner. As such benefits would have been payable if the partner had been of the opposite sex, the complainant alleged that DSD had been discriminatory on the basis of sexual preference. The complainant further alleged that such conduct was in breach of Australia's international obligations under an International Labour Organisation Convention (as now incorporated in the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity legislation).

96. My conclusions in this case were that:

  • decision not to pay the complainant spouse-related transfer benefits was a reasonable and lawful one, bearing in mind that it was correct in applying existing Australian Public Service conditions which DSD was not at liberty to vary; however
  • in cases similar to this one, the Federal Human Rights Commissioner had previously informed the Government that he had formed the view that the denial of allowances to employees with a partner of the same sex constitutes discrimination on the ground of sexual preference; and therefore
  • in view of my jurisdiction over human rights, it was appropriate for me to draw the view of the Human Rights Commissioner to the attention of the Minister for Defence.

Did DSD discriminate against an applicant for a job?

97. My predecessor received from an unsuccessful applicant for a position in DSD a complaint that she had suffered discrimination on the basis of gender and marital status, and an invasion of her privacy, during a selection interview conducted on behalf of the Directorate by the Australian Army Psychology Corps. The complainant sought compensation for her experience. The interview took place in Canberra and occurred prior to DSD transferring from Melbourne to Canberra.

98. On assuming office, I reviewed the inquiry into this complaint and was satisfied that, while the manner and content of the questioning during the interview had been considered by the applicant to have been intimidatory and inappropriate, the final decision to reject the complainant's application had not been made on the basis of the interview (the report of which was favourable to her), but rather on the basis of her performance in a separate aptitude test. I concluded that, as her claims for selection had not been affected by the interview experience, there was no basis upon which I could recommend any compensation. In response to the inquiry, the Director of DSD acknowledged that there had been problems in the interview and offered his apology to the complainant.

99. DSD, since moving to Canberra, has of its own initiative reviewed its recruitment practices and has decided it no longer needs to utilise the services of the Australian Army Psychology Corps in future recruitment campaigns for civilian staff.