|
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00 |
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS36. The effectiveness of the office may be assessed against a range of quantitative and qualitative performance indicators, including:
- the time taken to resolve or deal with complaints to the Inspector-General;
- acceptance by ministers and agency heads of recommendations of the Inspector-General arising from inquiries;
the level of assurance I can give that the agencies are conducting their activities legally, with propriety, and with regard to human rights; and
- the willingness of the agencies to respond positively to issues the office raises arising from inspection activities.
Timeliness
37. At the commencement of the 1999-2000 reporting period, three inquiries involving ASIO remained open, while there was one outstanding complaint about DSD (see Annex).
38. Three of these cases were concluded during the reporting period. The other outstanding case was effectively concluded in August 1999 with the completion of a draft report that has been accepted by the Director-General of Security. This case, however, remained technically open at the end of the 1999-2000 reporting period pending resolution of several issues associated with a compensation settlement.
39. During the reporting period 49 individuals contacted the office with new or continuing complaints. These comprised:
- 12 new complaints leading to preliminary or formal inquiries;
- 31 complaints which were dealt with administratively; and
- 6 approaches from individuals seeking review of matters that had been previously considered.
40. Of the 12 new complaints leading to preliminary or formal inquiries, three remained open at the end of the reporting period. Two were formal inquiries requiring substantial resource input, while I anticipated completing the other outstanding case early in the next reporting period (see Annex).
41. In the five years between 1 July 1995 and 30 June 2000, the average length of time for preliminary/full inquiries to be dealt with to conclusion was 105.45 days per case.
42. The average time taken to conclude a preliminary or full inquiry during the 1999-2000 reporting period was 107.75 days per case compared to 47.66 days for the previous reporting period.
43. Although any increase in the time it takes to respond to complainants and/or conclude formal inquiries is regrettable, this increase is attributable to the completion of one long running case and several factors beyond the control of the office (eg. requests to complainants for additional information, slow or delayed consideration of draft reports etc).
44. The office's capacity to reduce the time it takes to conclude its investigations will continue to depend on the complexity of the cases that come to our attention and the responsiveness of others. The office is adequately resourced for the current workload.
Acceptance of recommendations
45. During the 1998-1999 reporting period I made one formal recommendation to the Attorney-General, concerning the ability of persons who but for an adverse or qualified security assessment by ASIO would be eligible for protection visas, to obtain a merits based review of the security assessment.
46. The Attorney-General raised this issue with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs during the 1999-2000 reporting period. I understand that the minister did not support the recommendation.
47. In the 1999-2000 reporting period I recommended in a draft report that ASIO should compensate an individual who was kept in immigration detention for a significant period of time as a consequence of a flawed security assessment (see paragraphs 153-167). The Director-General has indicated that he will accept this recommendation and steps are in train to effect a settlement.
Responsiveness to issues raised in inspections
48. In the course of inspection visits to each of the collection agencies, I made a number of informal suggestions on how procedures could be streamlined or improved. These suggestions were generally accepted and acted upon. In cases where they were not, I accepted that there were good reasons for not doing so.
49. The intelligence and security agencies also increasingly sought views on draft policies and procedures where issues of propriety and/or legality arose, or were likely to arise.
50. The willingness of the agencies to seek and accept input from the office is a healthy development demonstrating a concern to conduct their activities legally and with propriety.
Level of assurance
51. Based on my experience as Inspector-General to date, I can confidently state that each of the agencies that I oversee is very conscious of its obligation to operate within both the letter and the spirit of the law.
52. There have been minor human errors and technical mistakes but I have come across no evidence to suggest that the intelligence and security agencies have deliberately acted, or wish to act, beyond their authority. Nor is there evidence of systemic deficiencies that would lead to breaches of propriety, the law, or the human rights of Australians.
53. Despite occasional public comments to the contrary, the Australian public can be confident that the intelligence and security agencies are:
- focussed on achieving the objectives which are set for them by the government;
- responsive to ministerial direction;
- aware of the limits of their authority; and
- concerned to conduct their business in a professional manner.