|
IGIS Annual Report 1998-99 |
AUSTRALIAN SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
108. The program of inspections of ASIS activity has involved:-
- examining ASIS reporting to ensure that it complies with the Rules for the Retention and Communication by ASIS of Foreign Intelligence Information Concerning Australian Persons (the nationality rules);
- conducting audits of operational files held in ASIS's central office;
- examining ASIS's handling of applications for access to its records under the Archives Act.
109. The Director-General and I have agreed that following each such activity I or my staff would discuss any concerns with an appropriate senior manager or liaison officer and any concerns needing to be put in writing would be addressed to the Director-General. In addition I have made a practice of following up such discussions with a letter outlining any issues raised during the inspection, to which I have in each case received a response from ASIS.
110. 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 on Australians
111. The principal function of ASIS is to collect foreign intelligence according to a set of government-determined priorities. It disseminates the intelligence to other agencies in the form of written reports.
112. The nationality rules, which are endorsed by the government, require that ASIS not collect, retain or disseminate information on Australians except in certain limited circumstances. One example of such circumstances is the commission or intended commission of a serious criminal offence. ASIS must not retain or disseminate any information about Australians not strictly related to the performance of ASIS's functions.
113. The rules also require that ASIS record instances of collection and reporting on Australians, and provide the records to the Inspector-General for inspection.
114. I undertook regular inspections, both of those records and of the reports themselves. In addition, my office conducted a cross-check of ASIS reporting, to which we have on-line access, to see whether ASIS is effectively identifying all instances of reporting on Australians.
115. The inspections gave rise to a number of procedural issues which ASIS was able to deal with satisfactorily. For example, it has improved procedures to require the authors of reports identifying Australians to nominate precisely which section of the nationality rules permits the identification. Also, in cases where there is any doubt about a person's nationality reasonable steps must be taken to exclude the possibility that the person is Australian before naming him or her and, where a name is concealed, the person must not be described in the report in terms which would nevertheless assist identification.
116. The results of the cross-checking exercise led me to take up with ASIS a small number of instances in which it appeared that reports identifying Australians had inadvertently not been recorded for inspection. In some cases those named proved not to be Australians and in others the naming was not in contravention of the rules. There were none which raised substantive concerns about infringements of Australians' privacy. The exercise did, however, reinforce within ASIS the importance of identifying and recording all such cases and my office will continue to monitor its performance in so doing.
117. As mentioned in last year's annual report, the nationality rules were substantially revised in 1998 to make them clearer and more useful to those who have to work with them. ASIS has provided further assistance to its staff by developing, in consultation with my office, guidance notes on the rules to deal with issues of interpretation.
118. In writing to me towards the close of the reporting period the
Director-General said that he continued to see strict adherence to the
nationality rules as an important element of ASIS's obligations to meet community standards and government expectations and that ASIS was undertaking further training to that end. I have no doubt that this is a high priority for the Director-General and his staff, based on the inspection work we have undertaken.
Operational File Examinations
119. In informing the Director-General of my proposed workplan for the year I said that I intended to try and examine every current operational file over the three year term of my office. In order to do this I have increased the frequency of such examinations and now conduct them approximately every two months.
120. Inspection of the operational files raised some minor issues of process but overall the material we inspected demonstrated a high degree of professionalism on the part of ASIS officers.
Archives
121. Examination of ASIS's handling of archives applications revealed an appropriate degree of responsiveness.
Contact with Staff
122. My predecessor met with all ASIS officers proceeding on posting and I continued this practice. I and a member of my staff also attended training sessions for ASIS officers including newly appointed graduates and addressed them on the work of the office of the Inspector-General.
Complaints
123. There were no complaints about ASIS.
| 1998-99 |