|
IGIS Annual Report 1994-95 |
Australian Secret Intelligence Service
Monitoring Activities
74. The Office's routine monitoring during the year of ASIS's handling of foreign intelligence information concerning Australian persons produced similar results to last year, insofar as very few breaches relating to ordinary Australians came to light. The Rules are designed to ensure that ASIS does not collect and report information on the overseas activities and interests of Australians. While information of this nature does come to notice from time to time, the Rules cover the manner in which ASIS is required to handle this type of information. The Service is careful to ensure that the Rules are adhered to and only three breaches where Australians were named unnecessarily in reports were detected during the year.
Did ASIS act with propriety in dealing with one of its operational assistants at an overseas post?
75. In his last annual report, my predecessor mentioned that his inquiry into this complaint, made by an ex-employee of ASIS, was continuing.
76. My predecessor submitted his final report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Director-General of ASIS in December 1994. His main conclusions and recommendations were that ASIS had improperly exposed the complainant to undue risk, and that the complainant deserved an apology, a commendation and a performance bonus. My predecessor also recommended that ASIS make some changes to its internal procedures to help ensure that the situation which gave rise to the complaint did not occur again; and that ASIS should establish some scheme to recognise exceptional performance by its employees.
77. The Director-General of ASIS and the Foreign Minister rejected my predecessor's conclusion that ASIS was at fault. They also rejected his recommendations concerning an apology and formal recognition of the complainant's efforts. However, ASIS indicated that it was looking at establishing a scheme to recognise exceptional performance by its staff, and that it had reviewed its procedures for closing overseas stations.
78. This case was reviewed by the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS. The Commissioners concluded that while there were some shortcomings in the employer/employee relationship, on both sides, the difficulties which arose were not of sufficient weight in the circumstances to constitute a matter of grievance.
Was a female ex-employee of ASIS subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination during her employment?
79. In September 1994, an ex-employee of ASIS made a complaint to the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination between 1985 and 1992, when she left the Service suffering from a work-related stress condition. She also claimed that ASIS management permitted this conduct to occur, and that it failed to respond to her complaints in an appropriate way. The Commission of Inquiry referred the complaint to my predecessor for investigation.
80. Having read my predecessor's proposed report and the other material collected in the course of the inquiry, I decided that it was unnecessary to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matters examined by my predecessor. Accordingly, I accepted my predecessor's conclusions and recommendations, which were that:
the behaviour of a former senior officer of ASIS was inappropriate and amounted to sexual harassment, although it was not possible on the material available to say whether the incidents referred to were isolated, or whether they were symptomatic of more frequent behaviour of a similar kind;
- ASIS should formally apologise to the complainant; and
- she should be compensated for the consequences of the senior officer's behaviour.
81. I noted that changes to ASIS's procedures and culture since the complainant left the Service (and changes which are planned for introduction) should help to ensure that, in future, a more appropriate work environment will exist within the Service, and that a situation similar to that experienced by the complainant (if it arises in the future) would be dealt with in a more satisfactory way.
82. At the time of reporting the Minister had indicated that he agreed with the thrust of my recommendations and the report had been passed to the Director-General of ASIS for action.
Did ASIS officers behave improperly towards an ex-operational assistant?
83. In his last annual report, my predecessor referred to an inquiry he was conducting into allegations that an ex-employee of ASIS was subjected to improper behaviour while she was overseas.
84.My predecessor completed his inquiry into this matter in April this year. He concluded that an unfortunate series of misunderstandings had occurred and that, save in one relatively minor instance where an apology was warranted, ASIS had not acted improperly.
Did bias on the part of a senior manager of ASIS have a detrimental impact on the "translation" of an officer to a new structure? Was the report of an internal Grievance Committee investigating the "translation" process flawed in its conclusions?
85. My predecessor received a complaint from a serving officer of ASIS that a senior manager of the Service had held a longstanding hostile bias toward him and had discriminated against him over a number of years. The officer claimed that the manager had influenced a decision by ASIS management not to "translate" the officer's former position to a higher level in line with the approach followed in a similar restructuring within the Australian Public Service (APS). The officer also complained that an internal Grievance Committee, which had been convened to investigate his earlier grievance on the "translation" process, was flawed in its conclusions and biased toward senior management.
86. The inquiry into this complaint was largely complete when I assumed office. I reviewed my predecessor's proposed report in the light of material collected in the course of the inquiry, and decided to adopt that part of his report dealing with the allegations of bias. On the matter of the "translation" process itself, however, I decided to conduct further inquiries of ASIS and the Department of Industrial Relations.
87. In my final report, I agreed with my predecessor that the complainant's allegations of bias and discrimination by the senior manager had not been substantiated. With regard to the "translation" process, I concluded that ASIS management's decisions regarding the manner in which the APS restructuring exercise was extended to ASIS (with some modifications), and the consequent abolition of the position occupied by the complainant, were decisions which ASIS management was entitled to take and were not affected by personal bias or prejudice towards the complainant on the part of any member of senior management. While the complainant believed that these decisions had an adverse impact on his prospective salary entitlements, I concluded that they were lawful and proper.
88. In the light of these findings, I also concluded that the internal Grievance Committee had examined the complainant's earlier grievance in a thorough and objective fashion. I considered that the Committee had properly confined itself to determining whether there was any substance to the individual's grievance, rather than reviewing de novo the appropriateness of management decisions on restructuring the Service. I also noted that the complainant had declined to pursue before this Committee the allegations he subsequently made to my predecessor regarding bias and discrimination.
Did ASIS hold scurrilous records relating to an Australian journalist?
89. Another case mentioned in my predecessor's last report was one which concerned allegations by a well-known Australian journalist that ASIS held records on him which were of a scurrilous and ludicrous nature, and that the material in question had been circulated within ASIS.
90. Following inquiry, my predecessor concluded that there was no information held by ASIS of the kind alleged by the complainant.
Did a named person carry out illegal or improper activities on behalf of ASIS?
91. The Inspector-General was asked to investigate allegations that a person who had received publicity in several national magazines, had carried out activities on behalf of ASIS, which, if true, would have amounted to illegality and impropriety.
92. Following preliminary inquiries, my predecessor concluded there was no evidence to suggest that there was any truth in the allegations and decided that it was not necessary to conduct a full inquiry into the claims. A similar conclusion was subsequently reached by the Commission of Inquiry.
Monitoring Activities
93. The Inspector-General continued to monitor the extent of DSD's adherence to the Rules relating to signals intelligence and Australian persons and companies.
94. I can confirm the continuing high level of effectiveness during the past year of DSD's system for ensuring that breaches of the Rules are kept to an absolute minimum and are promptly corrected when they do occur. This year there were 14 breaches, two more than last year. Considering the volume of material handled, they represented an extremely small proportion of DSD's output. None were of a substantive nature.
Did DSD act lawfully, properly and with regard for human rights by refusing to pay transfer benefits to an employee in a same-sex relationship?
95. On coming to office as Inspector-General, I took over a case involving an employee of DSD who had been transferred interstate in the course of employment. The gist of the employee's complaint was that DSD had refused to pay transfer benefits in respect of the employee's same-sex partner. As such benefits would have been payable if the partner had been of the opposite sex, the complainant alleged that DSD had been discriminatory on the basis of sexual preference. The complainant further alleged that such conduct was in breach of Australia's international obligations under an International Labour Organisation Convention (as now incorporated in the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity legislation).
96. My conclusions in this case were that:
- decision not to pay the complainant spouse-related transfer benefits was a reasonable and lawful one, bearing in mind that it was correct in applying existing Australian Public Service conditions which DSD was not at liberty to vary; however
- in cases similar to this one, the Federal Human Rights Commissioner had previously informed the Government that he had formed the view that the denial of allowances to employees with a partner of the same sex constitutes discrimination on the ground of sexual preference; and therefore
- in view of my jurisdiction over human rights, it was appropriate for me to draw the view of the Human Rights Commissioner to the attention of the Minister for Defence.
Did DSD discriminate against an applicant for a job?
97. My predecessor received from an unsuccessful applicant for a position in DSD a complaint that she had suffered discrimination on the basis of gender and marital status, and an invasion of her privacy, during a selection interview conducted on behalf of the Directorate by the Australian Army Psychology Corps. The complainant sought compensation for her experience. The interview took place in Canberra and occurred prior to DSD transferring from Melbourne to Canberra.
98. On assuming office, I reviewed the inquiry into this complaint and was satisfied that, while the manner and content of the questioning during the interview had been considered by the applicant to have been intimidatory and inappropriate, the final decision to reject the complainant's application had not been made on the basis of the interview (the report of which was favourable to her), but rather on the basis of her performance in a separate aptitude test. I concluded that, as her claims for selection had not been affected by the interview experience, there was no basis upon which I could recommend any compensation. In response to the inquiry, the Director of DSD acknowledged that there had been problems in the interview and offered his apology to the complainant.
99. DSD, since moving to Canberra, has of its own initiative reviewed its recruitment practices and has decided it no longer needs to utilise the services of the Australian Army Psychology Corps in future recruitment campaigns for civilian staff.
Office of National Assessments (ONA)
Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO)
100. There were no requests from Ministers to conduct investigations into ONA and DIO, and there were no references regarding these agencies in relation to human rights. As was the case in the previous year, therefore, my dealings with these agencies were limited to keeping in touch with the Director-General and Director respectively and staff of both.
101. After five and a half years as Inspector-General, Mr Roger Holdich AM submitted his resignation to the Governor-General on 9 February 1995. His resignation took effect on 5 April 1995. The Prime Minister released the following statement on 21 March:
The Government has decided to recommend to the Governor-General in Executive Council the appointment of Mr Ron McLeod AM, Deputy Secretary in the Department of Defence, as the next Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It is proposed that the appointment will take effect on 6 April 1995. The Leader of the Opposition has been consulted on the proposed appointment.
Mr McLeod has had a long and distinguished public service career. He has served the Government in a number of senior positions, including most recently as Deputy Secretary, Budget and Management in the Department of Defence and, during 1994, as Chairman of the Review Group which reported on possible changes to the Public Service Act.
The office of Inspector-General was set up by the Government in 1986 following the second Hope Royal Commission into Australia's security and intelligence agencies to ensure that the agencies act with legality and propriety. It occupies a central place in the arrangements for the accountability of Australia's security and intelligence agencies. The office is a demanding one requiring the highest standards of ability. I am confident that Mr McLeod's skills and experience make him well suited to the task.
Mr McLeod succeeds Mr Roger Holdich AM, who has almost completed two terms as Inspector-General. Mr Holdich has decided to resign his appointment some six months early in order to give his successor time to settle in before he is required to put into effect whatever changes the Government decides upon as a result of any recommendations concerning the office of Inspector-General that may arise from the Commission of Inquiry into ASIS.
Mr Holdich has had a long career of public service, including in my department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Public Service Commission. As Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security since 1989 Mr Holdich has served the Government with distinction and integrity and has made a particular contribution to the further development of arrangements for accountability in the intelligence community. I wish him well in his retirement."
102. Being a small agency, the Office relies on the assistance of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in handling staff and other administration issues and in providing general support. We would like to record our grateful thanks for this assistance.
Significant Developments
103. In June 1995, work commenced on installation of a secure Local Area Network (LAN) in the Office. The system is being provided on loan by the Department of Defence. The new LAN will enhance the security of electronic information processing in the Office, and will also improve the Office's efficiency. We are grateful for Defence's assistance, and particularly thank the staff of DSD who arranged the installation and provided invaluable support during the project.
104. In response to our request, the Australian Archives began appraising records which have accumulated since the Office of the Inspector-General was created in 1987. Discussions are continuing on the form and content of an appropriate disposal schedule and authority to assist with long-term management of the records of the Office.
Internal and External Scrutiny
105. The Office continues to meet all requirements for internal and external scrutiny of its finances and administration.
106. In line with the requirement that all Government agencies have a fraud control plan which is regularly reviewed, the Office undertook an updated risk assessment, with the assistance of PM&C, to enable revision of the existing plan.
107. The Office received assistance from Ernst & Young in the preparation of its financial statements for the year ending 30 June 1995, and received an unqualified audit report from the ANAO in relation to that statement.
108. The Assistant Inspector-General represented the Office at hearings of the relevant Senate Legislation Committee during the year.
109. In the first half of 1994-95, the Office received considerable assistance from temporary staff members who were brought in to work on the ASIS Task Force, and from the IGIS's legal advisers, Mr Ross McClure of the Australian Government Solicitor's Office, Melbourne and Mr Peter Hanks of the Melbourne Bar.
Composition of the Office
110. During 1994-95, staff of the Office comprised:
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
(Statutory office-holder, Secretary equivalent)
Mr Roger Holdich (until 5 April 1995)
Mr Ron McLeod (from 6 April 1995)
Assistant Inspector-General
(Senior Executive Band 1)
Mr Philip Moss
Senior Investigation Officers
(Senior Officer Grade C)
Mr Matthew Collett
Mr Rod Tier
Ms Tracey Wilson (acting from 31/3/94 until 31/12/94)
Personal Assistant to the Inspector-General
(Administrative Service Officer Class 5)
Ms Sandy Thomas
Executive Officer
(Administrative Service Officer Class 5)
Ms Tracey Wilson (from 1/1/95 until 31/1/95)
Administrative Assistant/Personal Assistant to the Assistant Inspector-General
(Administrative Service Officer Class 3)
Ms Robyn Kelly
111. The following staff provided temporary assistance to the Office during the year
Ms Kathleen Brigdale
Ms Pam Davoren
Ms Pam Dean
Mr Ross Laing
Ms Helen Lu
Ms Rossel Mangulabnan
Dr Wendy Southern
112. During the 1994-95 financial year, two members of staff were paid performance pay.
Social Justice; Access and Equity
113. The Office continues to be committed to the Government's Social Justice Strategy and to the concept of Access and Equity within the Australian Public Service.
114. Because of the Office's small size and its co-location with the Department of the PM&C, the Department's EEO Plan applies to this Office by agreement between the IGIS and the Secretary of PM&C.
Occupational Health and Safety
115. The Office is covered by PM&C's Occupational Health and Safety Plan. In the reporting year, steps were taken to acquire new work stations and ergonomic furniture for the Office's administrative support staff.
116. The Office has its own Industrial Democracy Plan, which continues to be implemented.
117. All members of staff undertook some form of personal development during the year. Courses attended covered computer-based training, financial administration, investigative skills and management training.
118. Ernst & Young provided assistance with the preparation of the financial statements in this report.
Advertising and Market Research
119. The Office incurred no expenditure on general advertising during 1994-95.
120. No market research and no advertising campaigns were undertaken by the Office during the reporting period.
122. This Office is an exempt agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.