|
IGIS Annual Report 1992-93 |
Introduction
I said in my first annual report (1989-90) and have repeated in subsequent ones, that if in future more than one major inquiry were to be conducted at any given time my Office's capacity would be swamped'. We were well and truly swamped in 1991-92 and 1992-93.
The cause of our present difficulties has been a significant expansion of our workload. There are more spot checks to be undertaken to ensure that the collecting agencies are acting legally and with propriety; there are more Ministerial guidelines applying to ASIO that create additional demands on my Office; and there are more complaints from members of the public.
I drew attention to the latter trend last year.
The number of 'substantive' complaints received by my Office since its inception has shown a generally steady increase.
1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 8
12
13
15
27
33
25
Many of these cases are very difficult and time-consuming to resolve. For example, this year one particular case, involving complaints against ASIS by an officer and a spouse, required the full-time attention of half of the Office's total permanent professional staff. This is a significant proportion of our resources.
We sought permission to take on more permanent staff to enable us to overcome the problem, and approval has now been given for my Office to be complemented by two as from October 1993 and January 1994 respectively. This, with a temporary officer who has been assigned to us until the completion of our investigation into ASIO and the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney in 1978, should enable us to get on top of the backlog of cases that we currently have and to keep pace with the continuing demands on the Office.
During the year, Ministers considered, and rejected, a request by the Finance Minister that they examine alternative funding arrangements whereby Ministers would provide the funds for any inquiries that I might undertake with their approval. (I need Ministerial approval to undertake inquiries into complaints against actions which may have occurred overseas or before the commencement of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986.) In the meantime, I reluctantly decided during the course of the year that I had no option but to set priorities for the handling of complaints. I did so on the basis that complaints which are given a lower priority in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act, that is, those that relate to actions that occurred overseas or before the commencement of the Act, would be given a lower priority for investigation. Other complaints would be dealt with in order of receipt, excepting that complaints where the complainant seemed to be suffering significantly would be given the highest priority. This has resulted in some cases that I had confidently hoped to finish being set aside for the time being.
During the year, I maintained varying degrees of liaison with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the police services of the States and the Northern Territory, the Inspector-General of the New South Wales Police Service and the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission, and the various Councils for Civil Liberties. I also met with a delegation of parliamentarians and officials from Germany who were interested to examine the arrangements we have for ensuring that our intelligence and security agencies are accountable.
Apart from our efforts to improve our staffing situation, the highlights of the last twelve months have been the completion of the inquiry into complaints against ASIS by an ASIS officer and his spouse, the continuation of work on the inquiry into ASIO and the Hilton Hotel bombing, the progress of our investigation into a complaint against ASIO by an ex-agent of that Organisation and the completion of a major review for Cabinet of the operation of the new DSD rules for the handling of material involving Australian persons. These, together with other matters dealt with during the year, are discussed more fully later in this report.
The nature of my Office is such that there is an inherent tension in our relations with the agencies which we oversee. However, the Directors-General of both ASIO and ASIS have assured me that they share my strong desire to maintain a close and professional working relationship, and I welcome their assurances.
In this regard, I was pleased when the Director-General of ASIS told me that he had noted 'an increasing realisation within the senior ranks of ASIS and within the Service as a whole of the helpful role that your office has to play'. Similarly, I welcomed the Director-General of Security's comment that, since assuming office, he had set out quite deliberately to ensure there would be no difficulties in my working relationship with ASIO.
The Defence Signals Directorate, having settled into its new headquarters in Canberra, is operating smoothly and efficiently in the areas of prime concern to my Office. ASIO continues to experience difficulties in the personnel area partly caused by significant changes in the workplace environment and partly by staffing upheavals resulting from the need to shed staff. ASIS has made, or is making, as a result of my recommendations, a number of important changes in its personnel management arrangements which should bring benefits to the Service in due course.
However, a number of unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations against the Service have been made by a group of ex-ASIS officers, and this is a matter of continuing concern to me (and to the Director-General of ASIS). But, unless and until the allegations are made more specific and unless and until the group authorises me to raise them with the Director-General as part of a preliminary inquiry under section 14 of my Act, there is nothing that the Director-General or I can do about them. I have made this point to the ex-officers concerned.
I draw attention to one other matter that is increasingly worrying. During the past year some complainants have put great pressure on my Office to have their cases expedited, or have refused to accept my conclusions when I have completed my inquiries. Threats which I have done my best to disregard - have occasionally been made against me and my staff. In my view, this sort of behaviour is quite improper.