Performance Criteria

18. The effectiveness of my Office may be assessed against a range of performance criteria, namely:

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

Timeliness of Inquiries

19. I consider it important that the Office deal with complaints/inquiries as expeditiously as possible. However, I have only a very small staff to assist me. The volume of cases and their complexity, which can vary considerably, are also important factors in the length of time it takes to deal with a matter to finality. Statistical comparisons can be misleading and need to be approached with some caution. Nevertheless, it is considered that overall trends have some value as a broad indicator of the productivity of the Office in dealing with its case load.

20. At the commencement of the 1995-96 reporting period, three long running complaints (ie. cases which had been outstanding for more than 12 months) and three complaints which were lodged in the last reporting period remained open. Each of these cases has since been closed (see Annex 1 to this report.)

21. My Office also received 21 new complaints/referrals in the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996 (see Annex 2 to this report). Of these complaints/referrals, 20 were directed towards ASIO and one towards DIO. Seventeen of the new complaints were made by members of the public, one was made by a current employee of an agency, one came from an agent/ex-agent and two referrals were received from Ministers. Of these 21 new cases, seven remained open at the conclusion of the reporting period, and most of these were of relatively recent origin.

22. Since 1991-92 the average length of time taken for a complaint to be dealt with by my Office has been 250 days (ie. measured from the date of initial receipt to the date that the outcome is notified to the complainant.

23. The data contained in Table 1 shows that in most years the average period for a complaint to be dealt with to resolution has been about 190 days. The exceptional figures for 1994-95, when the average duration jumped to 487 days, reflects the completion of quite a number of long running cases in that reporting period and the additional pressures placed on the Office by the ASIS Commission of Inquiry.

Table 1

(Table Unavailable)

24. In 1995-96 the average duration of cases finalised was 204 days. This figure was inflated by three very long running cases which I have now closed. Given that none of the seven cases which remained open at 30 June 1996 was older than eight months, it can reasonably be anticipated that the trend towards improved timeliness achieved in 1995-96, will be reflected in the next and future reporting periods.

25. A number of less complex cases were dealt with more quickly than the average would suggest, but equally some longer running cases took considerably longer than the average period to settle. I believe that with my current resources it is reasonable, as a rule of thumb, to consider that an inquiry of moderate complexity should be capable of resolution within about 4 months. A more involved case will take longer. I therefore intend to use this as a rough guide to the level of responsiveness desired in the future.

Complainant/Agency Acceptance of Inspector-General's Conclusions/Recommendations

26. Of the 21 new cases/complaints referred to my Office during the reporting period, 20 concerned the activities of ASIO. This is not surprising because the nature of ASIO's activities makes it the agency most likely to come into contact with Australian residents on a day to day basis.

27. Since the inception of my Office, ASIO has been the predominant focus of complaints/referrals (92%), 6% have concerned ASIS, while the other agencies have attracted the remainder (2%) - (see Table 2).

Table 2

(Table Unavailable)

28. The number of complaints made about ASIO to my Office has remained fairly static over the last five years (see Table 3). In 1991-92, 9 of the 29 complaints lodged in respect of ASIO were employment related complaints made by current or former employees. Since then there has been a significant change and improvement in ASIO's internal grievance review procedures and I have received significantly less employment related complaints in later years (see Table 4).

Table 3

(Table Unavailable)

Table 4

(Table Unavailable)

29. I am pleased to report that with regard to complaints made about ASIO there has, with some minor exceptions, continued to be broad acceptance of inquiry outcomes by both complainants and by the Organisation itself.

30. I also conducted an inquiry into an aspect of the activities of the Defence Intelligence Organisation at the request of the then Minister for Defence. My conclusions and recommendations, which carried the agreement of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force and the head of the agency, were accepted by the Minister.

31. No complaints/inquiries were generated during the year involving ASIS, DSD or ONA.

Acceptance by Ministers of Recommendations

32. In all cases, Ministers have accepted the recommendations arising from reports completed during the year.

Level of Assurance

33. Having been Inspector-General now for about 18 months, I consider that I have a good understanding of the culture and operating practices of each of the agencies. I am confident that all agencies are very conscious of the need to operate within the law, in accord with Ministerial guidelines, and with due regard to propriety and human rights.

34. From time to time errors and omissions are detected, both by the agencies themselves and as a result of external inquiries and the monitoring program conducted by my Office. My experience is that the agencies have responded quickly and positively to these lapses and where warranted, have been very diligent in reviewing and modifying internal operating policies and practices.

35. I consider the internal operating procedures of the agencies to be comprehensive and well developed. Where problems have been identified they have generally been associated with a lack of detailed adherence to detailed procedures.

36. The three collection agencies (ASIO, ASIS and DSD) have the greatest potential to interfere with the rights of Australian citizens. Each of these agencies, during the year, consulted with my Office in the course of reviewing certain internal operating procedures. I was able to make some suggestions which were adopted in all cases. This is a good example of the current willingness of the agencies to seek outside support and is a confirmation of their desire to be above reproach in terms of the lawfulness and probity of their activities.

37. The heads of the agencies continue to give positive leadership in terms of setting the right tone and directions within their organisations.

38. I have been present at courses and meetings run by ASIO where the Director-General of Security and his senior staff have stated unambiguously that the Organisation has an overriding obligation to conduct its activities in accordance with the law.

39. Similarly, the Director-General of ASIS, has shown a high regard for complying with Australian law as it affects the activities of his agency. He brought to my notice an infringement which occurred at a lower level in his agency when staff acted in ignorance of the proper requirements. When the matter came to notice, he responded quickly to rectify the situation and he took steps to ensure that the activity only continued with proper authorisation. The staff involved were suitably instructed as to how the situation should have been handled.

40. The Director DSD continues to show sensitivity to the need to minimise intrusion into the private affairs of Australians. During the year he sought my Office's involvement in monitoring certain activities to provide independent corroboration that the agency had operated strictly in accordance with the law and Ministerial directives.

41. These instances, and there were others, helped to reassure me that while human errors will occur from time to time, the management arrangements and work based cultures of the agencies are continually being reinforced to ensure that the agencies operate appropriately within their approved charters, and that the grounds for criticism are kept to an absolute minimum.

Extent to which there has been change within the Agencies as a result of my Office's activities

42. A number of recommendations were made aimed at improving the internal procedures of the agencies in the course of the year, in some cases, as a result of inquiries I conducted, or in others when the Office responded to requests for assistance or advice from the agencies. During the year, the agencies accepted all of the recommendations or suggestions emanating from the inquiries I concluded.

Statistical Trends

43. Since 1986-87, my Office has dealt with an average of 22 complaints/referrals per annum. In the current year, my Office dealt with 21 cases.

44. Table 5 shows a steady growth in complaints to my Office in the first five years of its existence, peaking in 1991-92. In the years since 1991-92, the number of complaints has trailed off slightly and for the last two years has been at, or close to, the mean annual number of complaints. The slight decline in cases dealt with since 1991-92 is largely explained by the fact that I am now receiving fewer employment related complaints because the internal grievance review procedures of ASIO, as presently structured, precludes me under my legislation from becoming involved and ASIS's procedures have been reviewed and become better accepted.

Table 5

(Table Unavailable)

45. Table 6 provides data on the source of complaints/referrals to my Office since its inception. The data contained in this table reveals that 63% of the complaints were generated by members of the public, 26% came from employees or ex-employees of the agencies, 9% of cases were initiated by the Inspector-General or referred by a Minister, and 2% came from agents/ex-agents.

Table 6

(Table Unavailable)

46. In overall terms, the level of complaint to my office has been relatively static in the last couple of years. Those complaints which I do receive are generally from the public and mostly concern the operations of ASIO. The average length of time taken to deal with these complaints is significant but is reducing.