|
IGIS Annual Report 1990-91 |
In my last annual report I discussed at some length the role and responsibilities of my Office and the ways in which I had sought to carry out my functions; I gave details of some of the cases I had handled during the year and I described my work program for the following year.
My role and responsibilities have not changed. No new guidelines affecting my responsibilities were issued by Ministers although there were some temporary changes made to the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) Rules on Foreign Signals Intelligence and Australian Persons for a period during the war in Iraq. However, the work of the office has been heavily skewed towards activities of a staff counselling/personnel nature, particularly involving members of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO). Largely because of this, the work program that I described last year has had to be changed as the year progressed and as more ASIO officers sought our help.
I said in my last annual report that if my office had to conduct more than one major inquiry at any given time, we would be swamped. My fears that this could well happen during the year under review were realised, and at times we found ourselves facing a dozen or more significant inquiries at once. We were able to keep our collective head above water and to achieve as much as we did this year largely because of the assistance that we received from staff whom we borrowed from the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and I wish here to record our thanks to those organizations for the help that they gave us.
Towards the end of the financial year I sought Government approval to increase the staff of the office by one and to upgrade two of the present three staff positions so as to enhance our research capacity. This should help us to cope with foreseeable demands, although I would still see the need for the occasional short-term attachment of additional staff when particularly complex or demanding matters are being investigated.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL
The role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is mainly set out in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. Briefly, I am to help Ministers oversee the activities of Australia's intelligence and security agencies to ensure that the agencies act legally and with propriety, comply with Ministerial guidelines and directives and respect human rights.
My responsibilities vary from agency to agency, broadly in accordance with the degree to which the agency concerned has the potential to intrude into the lives of Australian citizens. Thus I have:
- Limited responsibilities and powers regarding the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and the Defence Intelligence Organization (DIO), neither of which collects intelligence. Apart from matters relating to human rights and grievance procedures, which I can investigate of my own motion, I can conduct inquiries only at the request of the responsible Minister, that is, the Prime Minister in the case of ONA and the Minister for Defence in respect of DIO. The thinking behind giving me the power to investigate human rights violations is to meet the need for such matters to be examined by an independent authority with unrestricted access to classified information.
- Substantial responsibilities and powers regarding DSD and ASIS. As well as having the power to investigate human rights and grievance procedures, I can conduct inquiries into the legality and propriety of acts by these bodies. I can do this in response to a complaint, at the request of the responsible Minister, that is, the Defence Minister in respect of DSD and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in the case of ASIS, or of my own motion.
- Greatest responsibilities and powers in respect of ASIO, where I have the same responsibilities as I have for DSD and ASIS but also have the power to protect the rights of a person who has no recourse to the Security Appeals Tribunal and against whose interests ASIO has furnished an adverse report, and to review certain directions given to ASIO by the Attomey-General. In respect of the latter, the Attomey-General cannot over-ride the opinion of the Director-General of Security on the question of whether the collection or communication of intelligence concerning a particular individual is justified on security grounds, except by a direction in writing setting out the Attorney's reasons. I have the function of inquiring into such directions, relevant to security. I can also, of my own motion, investigate ASIO's procedures that are designed to ensure that the Organization acts legally and with propriety. (I can conduct such investigations into the procedures of the other agencies only if the responsible Minister asks me to do so.)
I also have significant responsibilities for various staffing matters in respect of ASIO and ASIS. I can, for example, inquire into complaints concerning employment-related matters such as promotions, termination of employment, discipline or remuneration, although I can conduct such inquiries only if the complainant has first tried to resolve the problem by using the agency's internal grievance procedures.
I regard this staff counselling/grievance function as very important. Members of ASIO and ASIS are not public servants and they cannot use the normal mechanisms and structures that are available to members of the Australian Public Service. They cannot, for example, appeal to the Merit Protection and Review Agency nor to the Public Service Commission nor to the Department of Industrial Relations. They are not permitted to join together in a union and if they have problems, they must sort them out in-house. Although both organizations have their own staff associations, these do not take the place of unions and their office-holders are part-time officeholders only, who are expected to carry out their normal duties and to work for the Association in their spare time. For all of these reasons, I believe that the management of closed bodies such as ASIO and ASIS has a greater duty of care towards its employees than the management of open bodies where various checks and balances exist to ensure that staff get a fair go.
ARE THE AGENCIES ACTING LEGALLY? DO THEY COMPLY WITH MINISTERIAL GUIDELINES AND DIRECTIVES?
I asked this question last year and I answered it by saying that while no-one, including the Inspector-General, could ever be 100 per cent sure, I believed on the basis of all that I had seen and done during the year that the agencies were indeed acting legally and that they were complying with Ministerial guidelines and directives. This resulted in a headline in The Canberra Times that Spies' watchdog unable to guarantee their propriety.
At the risk of attracting another such totally misleading headline, my answer this year is the same as the one I gave last year.
I base this conclusion on what I have learned as a result of:
- my program of regular visits to all ASIO, ASIS and DSD offices throughout Australia to obtain briefings and to examine in depth particular aspects of the work of these agencies;
- my investigations into the activities of the agencies, either of my own motion or in response to approaches by members of the public or to public expressions of concern about the activities of an agency;
- numerous spot-checks that I have conducted on the way in which the agencies are carrying out their functions;
- and my extensive discussions with staff members, staff representatives and the senior managers of the agencies.