IGIS Annual Report 1994-95

Performance Criteria

27. The effectiveness of my Office may be assessed against a range of performance criteria:

 

Timeliness of Inquiries

28. At the beginning of this reporting period, the Office had 27 substantive complaints either under inquiry, or awaiting an opportunity for inquiries to commence. For the remainder of 1994, and to a lesser extent the first three months of 1995, the resources of the Office were almost exclusively dedicated to the demands of the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS, with the result that many already outstanding cases experienced further delay. Our investigations focussed on those complaints involving ASIS, so that the outcomes could be taken into account by the Commission of Inquiry. This necessitated the formation of a small task force of four investigation officers seconded from the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Trade Practices Commission and the ACT Attorney-General's Department.

29. As my predecessor has noted, the inquiry process is prolonged by the requirements of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. Aside from the time taken by the routine investigative processes of file examination and interview, the statutory obligation to consult with any parties affected by potential criticism and to submit drafts of reports for comment by agencies is time consuming.

30. The ASIS Commission of Inquiry considered this problem of processual delay and made a number of recommendations for streamlining of the IGIS inquiry process, most of which were accepted by the Government.

30. On assuming office, I reviewed all current cases and made my own assessment of whether further investigation was warranted in the light of the circumstances of each case. While this was an instructive and indeed necessary experience for me, it also helped the Office to take a fresh perspective of some of the more intractable cases with which it had been grappling, and helped to bring most to resolution.

31. By the end of the reporting period, all but three of the cases carried forward from previous years had been finalised, and the remainder were close to completion. No substantial complaints had emerged in the closing months, giving the Office some welcome "breathing space".

32. The expanded responsibilities I have been given for monitoring the activities of the agencies mean that I will need to carefully balance the resources applied to this function and to complaints investigation. I hope that careful analysis of complaints at the preliminary inquiry stage will ensure that those deserving of full inquiry can be identified relatively quickly and processed in a focussed and timely manner, without detracting from my capacity to respond to the demands of my other duties.

 

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

34. In the case of complaints against ASIO, I am pleased to report that there has continued to be broad acceptance of inquiry outcomes by complainants and by the Organization itself.

35. My predecessor and I handled 12 complaints against ASIS during the reporting period. Of these matters, five involved former or serving members of ASIS, and the remainder were from members of the public.

36. In three of the five cases involving staff grievances the agency accepted the outcome of the inquiry. In one case, there were protracted discussions with ASIS about the procedures used by the Office in investigating the case, and about the proposed conclusions and recommendations, which the Director-General accepted only in part. In another case, the Minister and the Service rejected my predecessor's major conclusions and recommendations, but was prepared to accept the minor conclusions and recommendations. In two cases, where the complaints were largely dismissed, the complainants wrote to me expressing dissatisfaction with the outcomes. I wrote to both indicating that I felt that the matters had been dealt with fully and fairly.

37. All public complaints against ASIS resulted in findings that the agency had done nothing which was illegal, improper or in breach of human rights. I hope that the conclusions reached provided reassurance to the complainants involved.

38. Of two complaints against DSD, one has resulted in acceptance by the complainant of an explanation and apology from the Directorate. As far as I am aware, the complainant has not disputed the outcome of the other case, which supported DSD's position.

Acceptance by Ministers of Recommendations

39. In nearly all cases, Ministers have accepted the recommendations arising from reports completed during the year. As referred to above, however, the Foreign Minister declined in one instance to take up the major conclusions and recommendations.


Level of Assurance

40. Notwithstanding the relatively short period that I have been Inspector-General, I am able to advise Ministers that, based on my exposure to the agencies' activities so far, I have formed the initial impression that all agencies are conducting their activities with proper regard to propriety, legality and compliance with Ministerial guidelines.

41. In my contacts with the agencies, both for general briefing and in the course of conducting inquiries and monitoring activities, I have been impressed with the care and attention they all appear to be devoting to achieving and maintaining a high degree of compliance with the law, with Government directions, and with established policies and practices.

42. The staff with whom I have spoken in all agencies, both at management and working levels, appear to me to have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and obligations and a keenness to avoid any criticism that their agency is exceeding its charter or acting improperly.

43. My predecessor, in handing over, spoke of his general experience that while errors occur from time to time, largely due to lapses or oversights, most of the work of the agencies was conducted in a way which raised no cause for concern either about its legitimacy, or in terms of ensuring that there was no adverse or improper impact on the lives of Australian citizens.

44. The heads of the agencies have a crucial role in ensuring that their agency operates appropriately. I am confident that this leadership is being given.

45. In a recent address to staff, which I attended, the Director-General of Security portrayed ASIO as being acutely aware of its obligation to conduct its activities in accordance with the law and prevailing community standards. He stated that Australia deserved a world class security and intelligence body, dollar for dollar, and that there was no reason why this goal could not be achieved, given the expertise and quality of staff of the Organization.

46. Similarly, the Director-General of ASIS made it clear in submissions he made to the Samuels Inquiry and subsequently in addresses to his staff (the texts of which I have seen) that he placed great weight on implementing those recommendations of the Commission accepted by Government aimed at enhancing the accountability of ASIS and in improving internal management. It should also be noted that the Director-General had taken steps to improve management practices in ASIS before the Commission of Inquiry was established.

47. Giving expression to such matters sets the highest standards for these agencies and predisposes them to act legally, with propriety and in accordance with human rights.

48. Equally, the Director of DSD has taken great care on several occasions recently to ensure that the requirements placed on DSD by the law and Ministerial directives are met to the fullest extent possible. For example, the Director took the initiative to invite the Inspector-General to monitor an activity in circumstances where he was not obliged to, in the interest of demonstrating the high standards the Directorate sets for itself in operating within the law, and in being seen to do so.

49. In such a context, there is ground for every confidence that these three intelligence agencies which, because of their character, have the potential to infringe unlawfully or improperly on the lives of ordinary Australians, are acting in accordance with their charters and within the expectations the community has of them.


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

50. My predecessor and I have made a number of recommendations directed at changing the procedures of an agency, as the result of problems revealed by complaints. In some cases, this has also involved continued monitoring of the effectiveness of the changes. Some examples appear below.

51. ASIO and ASIS Personnel Management: In his last annual report, my predecessor noted that ASIO and ASIS had introduced changes which, in his view, had led to improvements in the personnel management of those agencies.

52. In reporting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on an inquiry involving allegations by an ex-ASIS employee of workplace harassment and discrimination, I made the point that ASIS's procedures and culture had changed since the complainant left the Service in late 1992. Other changes underway or planned aimed at creating a more appropriate working environment for ASIS staff should ensure that problems such as those faced by the complainant would, if they arose in future, be dealt with in a more satisfactory way.

53. ASIO/Police Exchanges: As a result of an earlier inquiry by my predecessor, all agreements relating to exchanges between ASIO and the various State and Territory Police Services have been or are being renegotiated. South Australia is now the only jurisdiction which has not signed a final agreement with the Commonwealth.

54. Registers of such exchanges have been established which the IGIS examines during visits to ASIO offices to ensure that the material passed to and from the police is relevant to ASIO's security intelligence function. The exchanges are also discussed with the police and where they exist, police oversight authorities conduct reciprocal monitoring.

55. Links with the ASIO and ASIS Staff Associations: My predecessor gave some emphasis to developing and maintaining links with the staff associations of ASIO and ASIS. While the IGIS role in handling staff grievances is to diminish, I see value in maintaining contact with these bodies, as I will retain an important external review function in relation to such matters.

56. The agencies all appear to accept the positive contribution the Inspector-General can make in acting as an independent watchdog and in fulfilling an external quality control role. I have been pleased with the cooperative and cordial manner in which I have been received and the openness and frankness displayed in discussing and dealing with issues