The Year in Review

9. In the period covered by this report I received 18 complaints and referrals. This figure compares with an average over the last 10 years of 21 cases per annum. Of the 18 complaints received in 1996-97, 15 related to the activities of ASIO, a decline from the 20 complaints about ASIO which I received in 1995-96.

10. I have previously observed that ASIO can be expected to attract the most number of complaints because its core activities make it the agency with the closest contact with members of the Australian community. 1996-97 was no different in this regard.

11. While care needs to be exercised in not over-emphasising the significance of small changes in the number of complaints received from year to year, the total this year continues a downward trend observed in recent years, and is the lowest since 1988-89. I attribute this to:

  • a gradual decline in public concern in the post-'Cold War' era, that ASIO is, or may be influenced by, politically partisan considerations;
  • strong leadership within the Organization on ethical issues;
  • improved internal policies and procedures for dealing with grievances and complaints; and
  • better communication with the public, particularly in the run-up to the Sydney Olympic Games, about the roles and functions ASIO is required to perform.

12. At the end of the financial year there were only four complaints outstanding, each of which were of recent origin. Further comments on the performance of my Office in handling complaints/inquiries appear later in this report.

13. The slight fall in the number of complaints made to my Office had the positive effect of allowing me to increase the amount of time I devoted to monitoring the activities of the intelligence collection agencies, and also ensured that current casework was dealt with more expeditiously.

14. Since the inception of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (OIGIS), it has always been envisaged that the Inspector-General would devote a reasonable proportion of time to visiting the agencies and observing aspects of their activities, so as to be able to give assurance to Ministers that the agencies are acting appropriately.

15. The Commission of Inquiry into ASIS found that OIGIS had become too complaints oriented to the detriment of its self initiated monitoring activity. In consequence, in the course of the year I have consulted with and received the agreement of the heads of the collection agencies to an expanded program of monitoring of key activities of the agencies. The form that this expanded monitoring role has taken during the past twelve months is recorded elsewhere in this report.

16. In my last report, I touched on the change of Government which occurred in March 1996, and spoke of briefing each Minister responsible for an intelligence and security agency on the role of my Office. In the intervening twelve months I have met again with each of these Ministers in order to bring them up to date with outstanding cases and current issues associated with their particular agency or agencies. In so doing I was able to continue developing a personal relationship with the Ministers and their staffs, which is an important part of my role, given that my statute requires me to consult with Ministers in certain circumstances as well as giving me direct access to the Ministers and to the Prime Minister, should I consider this to be necessary.

17. There have been several significant changes in the leadership of the agencies, since my last report. Mr Dennis Richardson has replaced Mr David Sadleir AO, as Director-General of Security, Major-General Bill Crews AO has replaced Major-General Jim Connolly AO, as the Director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, while Mr Richard Smith AM, took up the post of Director-General of the Office of National Assessments, following the promotion of Mr Phillip Flood AO, to be Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

18. I am pleased to advise that I enjoy good relations with each of the current agency heads. The importance of this to the effective performance of my duties should not be underestimated. Last year I reported a growing level of openness in my relations with all agencies. This continues to be the case.

19. The existence of open and cooperative relationships with the agency heads is reflected in me and my staff having freedom of access to the organisations. This gives me greater confidence to be able to report on the activities of the bodies, believing that the knowledge of my Office of the internal working arrangements of the agencies is as good as it could be. It also reflects a stronger sense of awareness, by the agencies, of the importance of working within an accountability framework which includes external checks and balances as a normal feature of the management arrangements.

20. In 1996-97, as in past years, ASIO, ASIS and DSD invited my Office to attend or contribute to a number of training sessions and staff induction courses. These opportunities are welcomed as they enable my Office to emphasise to a range of staff of the agencies, the importance of the accountability arrangements in place within the intelligence and security community. They also provide me with valuable feedback on the tensions and pressures which can arise in the challenging operational environments which the agencies work within.

21. While I consider that speaking at 'in-house' agency training sessions to be most important, it is also important that related sectional interests, as well as the wider community, become more familiar with the roles and function of my Office.

22. With this in mind, I presented a paper at the Australian Council for Civil Liberties conference on 'Standing Commissions on Crime and Corruption in Australia', in Brisbane, in April 1997.

23. In May 1997, I attended a conference of various law enforcement agencies and telecommunications providers, on the subject of the use of special powers to obtain criminal and security intelligence.

24. Taking up on the theme of improved communications, in February 1997, my Office published an information pamphlet, entitled Can the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security help you? Copies of the pamphlet were distributed to all members of the Federal Parliament, to each of the agencies I oversee, and to other complaints handling bodies such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

25. The pamphlets are also given to complainants to my Office, so they may have an enhanced understanding of my roles and functions, before an inquiry into a complaint is commenced. The pamphlet is available to any person who wishes to contact my Office.

26. In the period covered by this report, I was contacted by various electronic media and print reporters seeking public comment on specific cases. In each instance I declined, as is my normal policy, on either privacy grounds, or on the basis that it is generally inappropriate for sensitive national security and defence matters to be aired in public. Notwithstanding this general policy, I reserve the right to make public statements, in the public interest, when questions of balance or accuracy arise in public debate.

27. Most Western countries with intelligence and security services, have external monitoring or oversight bodies with similar powers to my own. In August/September 1996, I visited a number of like bodies in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.

28. In July 1996, two senior officers from the Canadian Privy Council Office, with responsibility for security and intelligence issues visited my Office. The visitors to my Office, and my visit overseas, enabled me to learn at first hand how oversight arrangements are working for our closest international partners and has provided me with very useful personal contacts with counterpart organisations overseas.

29. Over recent years there has been an international trend for governments to make intelligence and security agencies more accountable for their actions. In some cases this has reflected changes which have directly affected the intelligence and security community such as the changed circumstances following the end of the Cold War, in other cases the agencies have been included in enhanced accountability measures applied to government bodies as a whole. For example, in December 1996, New Zealand established its own Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and Canada in mid-1996, created an office of Commissioner to oversight its Communications Security Establishment.

30. I have written elsewhere in this report of my appreciation of the support provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I believe there is scope for some further efficiencies to be achieved through greater sharing between the Portfolio department and my small agency. The Secretary of the Department, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, has agreed with me and a review of administrative support arrangements is now under way.

31. In the course of the reporting period my Office was asked to contribute to a number of inquiries and reviews. These included:

  • Australian Law Reform Commission in regard to its review of the Archives Act 1983, and its recommendations paper on Complaints Against the Australian Federal Police and National Crime Authority;
  • Commonwealth Paedophile Inquiry in regard to its draft Code of Conduct for Australia's Representatives Overseas;
  • Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board regarding their draft National Functional Competencies for Fraud Prevention, Detection and Investigation;
  • Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority (NCA) regarding the handling of complaints made against the NCA.

32. On 1 February 1997, my Office celebrated the 10th anniversary of its establishment. This occasion provides a natural point to reflect upon the reasons why the Office was established and to do a little crystal ball gazing. My reflections on 10 years of oversight are provided in a separate chapter, elsewhere in this report.

33. Finally, I wish to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Mr Philip Moss, who after many years as Assistant Inspector-General and nearly 10 years of service to my Office, has taken up employment elsewhere. He provided sterling service to each of the three Inspectors-General over this period and we wish him well in his new endeavours.