AUSTRALIAN SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
WHAT ASIS DOES
308. ASIS collects foreign intelligence, relying on human sources to obtain information. It produces and disseminates intelligence reports to key government decision-makers.
309. ASIS was established by executive order on 13 May 1952. Until 29 October 2001 it operated under government directive. Nationality rules applied to its reporting intelligence on Australians.
310. Since 29 October 2001 ASIS’s intelligence collection and reporting activities have been regulated by the Intelligence Services Act, ministerial directions made pursuant to the Act and privacy rules, also made under the Act.
311. Among other things the Act prohibits ASIS from engaging in activities involving violence or the use of weapons. There is also a prohibition on activity for the purpose of furthering the interests of political parties.
312. Targeting priorities for the Australian intelligence community are established in a planning document that is endorsed and regularly reviewed by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
313. Further information about ASIS is at http://www.asis.gov.au.
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
314. Inspection activities involving ASIS during the reporting period have included:
• monitoring compliance by ASIS with the privacy rules and, until 29 October 2001, the administrative rules then in operation;
• examining current operational files;
• reviewing all submissions, including requests for ministerial authorisations, made by ASIS to the Minister for Foreign Affairs; and
• examining ASIS’s handling of applications for access to its records under the Archives Act.
315. The Director-General and I have agreed that following each inspection activity, we would discuss any concerns with an appropriate senior manager or liaison officer. I have also made a practice of following up each inspection with a letter reporting the results and outlining any issues raised during the inspection.
316. We have also agreed procedures that would operate should I form the view that any matter arising from an inspection needed to be brought to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister. No such matters arose during the reporting year.
Intelligence Services Act and privacy rules
317. The first eight months of operation of the Intelligence Services Act and the privacy rules made under the Act are discussed in a separate chapter of this report, which contains details of inspection activities relating to application of the Act and the rules.
Review of operations
318. A member of the office and I review a selection of current ASIS operational case files at ASIS headquarters approximately every eight weeks. We normally devote three days to this task.
319. The purpose of these reviews is to monitor the legality and propriety of these operations.
320. While this necessarily has a retrospective focus we sometimes comment on very recent actions.
321. For the most part, the cases we reviewed were well planned, well run, tightly controlled, and delivered outcomes which were of significant benefit to the national interest.
322. We did, however, raise some issues with the Director-General. While it is not possible to comment in detail on each of these matters in a public report, they included:
• the appropriateness of sharing commercial “gossip” with human sources; and
• ASIS’s policy on the creation and use of fictitious characters and pseudonyms for operational purposes.
323. The Director-General provided comprehensive and thoughtful responses on every issue arising out of these inspections. In addition to this I have, at the invitation of the Director-General, met with senior managers in ASIS to discuss issues of common interest.
324. The Director-General indicated to me that he found our queries and observations valuable in reinforcing ASIS’s own checks and balances in relation to its obligations to act legally and with propriety.
Ministerial submissions
325. I regularly review all written submissions from ASIS to its minister. I am satisfied that these submissions contain sufficient information for the minister to make well-informed decisions.
Archives
326. I have sought and received advice from ASIS in relation to the archives issues they dealt with during the reporting period.
327. I am satisfied that ASIS is devoting appropriate effort and resources to this function and is handling it professionally.
Contact with staff
328. Most ASIS officers meet with me prior to their postings. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss any issues which may have arisen in the immediate pre-departure period or which might arise at a particular post, and to remind ASIS representatives of the role and functions of the office.
329. In addition to these pre-departure meetings I regularly attend training sessions for ASIS officers and inductees, addressing them on accountability issues and the work of the office.
330. In conjunction with an overseas visit for another purpose I took the opportunity to visit two ASIS stations at overseas posts.
331. ASIS officers also occasionally initiate briefing on matters where issues of legality or propriety could arise.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
332. Four complaints about ASIS led to preliminary or full inquiries. Five other complaints were handled without need for inquiry action.
333. Three of those that led to preliminary or full inquiries are summarised below. The fourth was also about DSD and is summarised in the DSD chapter.
Separation grievance
334. A former ASIS officer complained about the manner in which his employment with ASIS was terminated more than a decade previously.
335. It was evident that a specialist body with expertise in considering employment related matters would be better placed to deal with these concerns and I therefore discussed with ASIS how this could be accomplished.
336. Section 37 of the Intelligence Services Act provides for consideration of grievances relating to employment in ASIS, including the establishment of grievance review panels chaired by an independent person. The Act also requires that the Director-General implement a determination of a panel to the extent that it is within his power to do so.
337. The complainant was ineligible to access the statutory procedures because they only apply to matters postdating the Intelligence Services Act. The Director-General agreed, however, to deal with the grievance as though the actions took place after the Act came into operation, although based on the personnel management standards applying at the time.
338. There were special circumstances in this case because the complainant had first raised the issue with the then Inspector General at the time of the separation. The Director General and I agreed that this meant that the case did not set a precedent for other former officers to avail themselves of the grievance mechanism described above.
Publication of the privacy rules
339. The ASIS and DSD privacy rules, made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence, were not published immediately they were made and it was not long before we received an approach from someone who had not been able to obtain them from DSD or ASIS.
340. I wrote to ASIS and DSD, asking each agency to consider publishing its rules.
341. Each agency agreed that there was nothing of security sensitivity in the privacy rules that precluded their publication and sought the endorsement of their ministers to publish the rules. This was quickly obtained and the privacy rules were published on each agency’s website within several days of the matter being raised.
Termination of relationship with human source
342. A complainant alleged that ASIS terminated its relationship with him in a premature and unsatisfactory manner, contrary to undertakings it had given him. As a consequence, he claimed, he had been left with obligations he could not meet.
343. The inquiry into this complaint was ongoing at the end of the reporting period.