|
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00 |
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00
AUSTRALIAN SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICEINSPECTION ACTIVITIES
Scope and reporting arrangements
177. Since becoming Inspector-General I have instituted the following program of inspection activities with regard to ASIS:
- 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;
- reviewing all submissions made by ASIS to the Minister for Foreign Affairs; and
- examining ASIS's handling of applications for access to its records under the Archives Act.
178. The Director-General and I have agreed that following each such activity my staff or I would discuss any concerns that might have arisen with an appropriate senior manager or liaison officer. We also agreed that any concerns needing to be put in writing would be addressed to the Director-
General.
179. In addition to these arrangements, I follow up each inspection with a letter outlining any issues raised during the inspection. In every case the Director-General has provided a satisfactory response.
180. 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 - rules
181. The government endorses the nationality rules.
182. The rules require that ASIS not collect, retain or disseminate information on Australians except in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances include where there is an apparent threat to the life or safety of a person and where the intelligence relates to the commission or intended commission of an indictable offence against Australian law.
183. In many instances, even when ASIS legitimately collects information about Australians under the rules, it does not name them in generally distributed reports, but only releases the names to agencies with a particular need to know.
184. The nationality rules also require ASIS to record instances of collection and reporting on Australians, and provide the records to the Inspector-General for examination.
Intelligence on Australians - results of inspections
185. Members of the office and I undertake regular inspections, both of these records and of the reports themselves. In addition, we conduct a daily cross-check of ASIS reporting, to which we have on-line access, to establish whether the Service is effectively identifying all instances of reporting on Australians.
186. The results of this cross-checking exercise led me to take up with ASIS a number of instances where it appeared that reports identifying Australians by name had not been recorded for our inspection. In some of these cases, those named ultimately proved not to be Australians and in others the naming was not in contravention of the rules. There was no instance that raised substantive concerns about infringements of the privacy of Australians.
187. In addition to the above, our regular inspections at ASIS headquarters led me to take up a number of issues with the Director-General. While it is not appropriate to comment in detail on these matters in a public report, some of the issues raised included:
- the circumstances in which Australian names, withheld from reporting (see paragraph 183), might be released to other agencies on request - we agreed that requesting agencies must demonstrate a genuine need related to their functions;
- how much research should be undertaken to establish the nationality of individuals and the ownership of publicly listed companies before using a name in a report - we agreed on checks that should take place; and
- the appropriateness of including the telephone numbers of Australians, if known, in report abstracts and summaries. Telephone numbers are only rarely included in the body of a report, when ASIS judges, for example, that another agency might wish to obtain a warrant for law enforcement purposes. ASIS agreed that they should not be included in abstracts and summaries but might be provided on request if the requesting agency demonstrated a need.
188. The nationality rules permit reporting where the information relates to the views or capabilities of foreign governments in respect of Australians and Australian interests. A judgement still needs to be made in each instance, however, that there is a significant intelligence value to the report.
189. Following consideration of a case involving reporting the views of a member of a foreign government about an Australian, I suggested to the Director-General that a decision to report such matters should only be made on the basis that the information will add, or has the potential to add, significant value to a government activity. If there is any doubt about this, it is preferable to err on the side of not reporting.
190. Also, of course, any such reports should be carefully drafted to ensure that they contain only information meeting the intelligence need.
191. The Director-General indicated that he fully accepted these principles. I was satisfied that they had applied in the case under consideration.
192. I also raised several procedural issues concerning the format of report cover sheets, the correct citation of the rules, and whether material distributed outside the formal reporting system should fall within the scope of the rules.
193. In each instance I received a satisfactory response from the Director-General.
194. As will be evident from the above, we saw no evidence that ASIS was breaching its responsibilities under the rules. In fact during the reporting period ASIS significantly improved its internal procedures to ensure that its reporting staff were constantly reminded of the rules, how they should be applied, and the views of my office on issues relating to reporting.
Operational file examination
195. Approximately every two months, one of my staff and I spend up to a week reviewing current operational case files. The purpose of these reviews is not to influence operational planning and decision-making but rather, to monitor the legality and propriety of these operations.
196. These inspections prompted me to raise a number of issues with the Director-General of ASIS, each of which received a considered and satisfactory response.
197. While there were some minor queries in individual cases, in overall terms, the operations we reviewed were managed with due respect for the law and a proper regard for issues of propriety.
198. The Director-General indicated to me that he found our queries and observations valuable.
Ministerial submissions
199. The Director-General of ASIS maintains a central file of all written submissions from ASIS to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which I review at least annually.
200. I have suggested to the Director-General, and he has agreed, that copies of all ministerial submissions and approvals should be placed on pertinent case files as a matter of course, so as to ensure that each file displays the full context of the case.
201. The submissions to the minister contain well-considered advice and sufficient factual information about ASIS's operations.
Archives
202. An examination of ASIS's handling of access applications and other archives related requests revealed that appropriate resources are currently being devoted to this function.