Skip to main content

Reporting and Accountability

As an accountable public agency, we are committed to transparency, accountability and compliance with legislation and Government policy.

The Office’s financial statements are available in the annual report.

The Office’s Portfolio Budget Statements are available on the website of the Attorney-General’s Department.

Pursuant to the Senate Order on agency contracts, the following sets out contracts entered into by the Office which provides for consideration to the value of $100,000 or more and which (a) have not been fully performed as at the reporting date, or (b) which have been entered into during the 12 months prior to the reporting date.

The IGIS’s Senate Order listing on procurement contracts is published on AusTender and can be accessed by the Senate Order link.

The accountable authority of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has assured that the listed contracts do not contain any inappropriate confidentiality provisions.

Recent Senate Orders for Entity Contracts:

Senate Order for Entity Contracts - 1 January 2023 - 31 December 2023

Senate Order for Entity Contracts - 1 July 2022 - 30 June 2023

Senate Order for Entity Contracts - 1 July 2021 - 30 June 2022

Senate Order for Entity Contracts - 1 January 2021 - 31 December 2021

Directions from the Attorney-General about the provision of legal services to the Australian Government require that ‘the agency’s legal services purchasing, including expenditure, is appropriately recorded and monitored and that, by 30 October each year, the agency makes publicly available records of its legal services expenditure for the previous financial year’ (Legal Services Directions 2005, 11.1 (ba)).

Use of the Australian Government Solicitor for national security matters is a requirement specified in the Attorney-General’s Legal Services Directions (issued pursuant to section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903).

Expenditure on legal services for the Office of the IGIS fluctuates from year to year and is largely dependent on the nature of inquiries undertaken. Expenditure for each financial year is provided in the annual report.

In 2022–23, expenditure on legal services by the Office was:

  • Australian Government Solicitor: $56,889 for tied work pursuant to the Commonwealth Legal Services Directions

In accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission's guidelines on gifts and benefits, agency heads (including departmental secretaries) must not accept gifts or benefits which might reasonably be seen to compromise their integrity.

Agency heads must publish a register of gifts and benefits they accept, and all gifts or benefits accepted (valued at over $AUD100 ex GST) must be publicly disclosed. The register is updated quarterly.

View the Gifts and Benefits Register

The Office makes public the annual value of consultancy services let of $10 000 or more. This information is available through AusTender.

Senate Order 12 for production of indexed lists  (Harradine Order) requires all Australian Government departments and agencies to table before parliament a letter of advice that an indexed list of the titles of all relevant files, including new parts of existing files, created in the preceding six months commencing on 1 January and on 1 July, respectively, has been placed on the internet. The production of the list is intended to make the operations of government more transparent to the Australian public.

In accordance with the Order, the list does not include:

  • files transferred to the National Archives of Australia
  • files essentially related to the Inspector-General's internal administration (staff or personnel, accounts, training, or general administrative matters)
  • case related files (for example personal representation or dealing with the personal affairs of complainants).

In accordance with the Order, some information in file titles is deleted, such as:

  • commercially confidential information
  • personally identifiable information, and any security classified information which is disclosed in or which could reasonably be established from a file title.

File lists:

July - December 2023
January - June 2023

July - December 2022
January - June 2022

July - December 2021
January - June 2021

The IGIS Audit Committee is established in accordance with the PGPA Act. The Audit Committee’s role is to provide independent assurance and advice to the Inspector-General on the appropriateness of the Office’s financial and performance reporting responsibilities, system of risk oversight and management, and system of internal control.

More information about the membership and functions of the IGIS Audit Committee is available in the IGIS Audit Committee Charter and the annual report.

The APS employee census (the Census) is an annual opinion survey and an important tool to collect information about each agency’s workforce. The Census collects information on important workforce issues, such as:

  • job satisfaction
  • employee engagement
  • performance management
  • leadership
  • general impressions of the APS.

We have considered the 2023 Census Results for IGIS. Given the unique circumstances of the size and purpose of our agency, we wanted to understand the results better and identify areas where we could continuously improve.

We consulted with staff who provided useful insights and ideas that we have built into our Census Action Plan. Sharing the agency’s outcomes and actions reflects our commitment to delivering on our results.

The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) is committed to the safety and wellbeing of children and to creating and maintaining a child safe organisation. The Office currently has nil interactions with children in our day-to-day business; however, we recognise that it is the shared responsibility of all government agencies to prevent child exploitation and abuse. The Office has zero tolerance for child abuse and exploitation, and any allegations and concerns for the safety of children and young people will be treated most seriously. IGIS is committed to the implementation of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations, and compliance with the Commonwealth Child Safe Framework.

A risk assessment undertaken in 2023 rated the Office’s child safety risk as LOW. IGIS staff generally have no interaction with children; however, there may be very rare occasions where an IGIS officer works or engages directly with a child or children in the course of their duties. Such possible occasions include:

  • An IGIS officer attends an ASIO interview of a minor undertaken under a questioning warrant issued pursuant to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979;
  • A person under the age of 18 applies for employment with IGIS;
  • A person under the age of 18 makes a complaint to IGIS regarding an intelligence agency within IGIS jurisdiction; or
  • An IGIS officer delivers a presentation to university students, some of whom may be under the age of 18.

Where appropriate, the Office has mitigations in place to further reduce the risk to child safety. These mitigations include multiple officers being present when an interaction is identified to involve a child, activity-specific risk assessments being completed when an activity is identified to involve a child, and officers receiving training on trauma-informed practices when relevant to their work. With these mitigations in place, the 2023 annual risk assessment identified that each of the Office’s activities pose a LOW or VERY LOW risk to child safety.

In 2023, the Office developed a child safety policy to provide guidance to staff regarding their obligations, relevant training, suitable mitigation strategies, and the Office’s approach to maintaining compliance.

IGIS will continue to embed child safe initiatives into our culture and work practices, and will undertake an annual risk assessment to identify, evaluate, and manage any risk to child safety in IGIS activities.

I, Christopher Jessup KC, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, establish these procedures under subsection 15 (3) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) (PS Act).

These procedures commence on the date this document was signed.
Signed by: Christopher Jessup
Date: 11 June 2024

Application
  1. These procedures must be complied with when determining:
    1. whether a person who is an Australian Public Service (APS) employee of the Office of the IGIS (OIGIS), or who is a former APS employee who was employed at the OIGIS at the time of the suspected misconduct, has breached the APS Code of Conduct (the Code) in section 13 of the PS Act; and
    2. any sanction/s to be imposed on a current OIGIS APS employee, in accordance with subsection 14(a), where a breach of the Code has been determined.
       
  2. These procedures apply in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by a current or former OIGIS APS employee, or the actions of a current or former APS employee prior to commencing employment at the OIGIS, in respect of which a determination is to be made.
     
  3. Not all suspected breaches of the Code may need to be dealt with by way of a determination. In particular circumstances, another way of addressing a suspected breach of the Code may be more appropriate.
     
  4. In these procedures, a reference to a breach of the Code by a person includes a reference to a person engaging in conduct set out in subsection 15(2A) of the PS Act in connection with their engagement as an APS employee.
     
  5. In these procedures, powers afforded to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) under legislation (eg powers to suspend or reassign duties or determine a breach) may be delegated to other OIGIS employees.  For information about delegations, this procedure should be read alongside the OIGIS’s Employee Administration Delegation.
Availability of Procedures
  1. These procedures are made publicly available on the IGIS website in accordance with subsection 15(7) of the PS Act.
Breach decision-maker
  1. The role of the breach decision-maker is to determine in writing whether a breach of the Code has occurred.
     
  2. These procedures do not prevent the IGIS, or a person listed at clause 16 of these procedures, from appointing themselves as the breach decision-maker.
     
  3. The breach decision-maker may undertake the investigation, or seek the assistance of an investigator, who may be external to the OIGIS. The investigator may investigate the alleged breach, gather evidence and make a report of recommended findings to the breach decision-maker.
Sanction delegate
  1. The delegate determining whether a sanction should be imposed for any breach of the Code is referred to in these procedures as the sanction delegate and will be the IGIS or hold a delegation of the power under subsection 15(1) of the PS Act.
     
  2. These procedures do not prevent the breach decision-maker from being the sanction delegate in the same matter.
Suspension delegate
  1. The delegate determining whether an employee should be suspended from duties is referred to in these procedures as the suspension delegate and will be the IGIS or hold a delegation of the powers and functions under section 28 of the PS Act and section 14 of the Public Service Regulations 2023 (Cth) (PS Regulations).
     
  2. Where suspension from duties is being considered, appointing a separate delegate from the breach decision-maker is preferable.
Breach decision-maker and sanction delegate to be independent and unbiased
  1. The IGIS or that employee taking action under clause 16 will take reasonable steps to ensure that:
    1. the person who determines whether a current or former OIGIS APS employee has breached the Code is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased; and
    2. the person who determines any sanction to be imposed is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased.
       
  2. The breach decision-maker and sanction delegate must advise the IGIS or that employee taking action under clause 16 in writing if they consider that they may not be independent or unbiased or if they consider that they may reasonably be perceived not to be independent or unbiased; for example, if they are a witness in the matter.
Decision to commence investigation
  1. As soon as practicable after a suspected breach of the Code has been identified, the IGIS or one of the following OIGIS employees will consider if it is appropriate for a preliminary assessment to be conducted to assess whether the suspected breach of the Code should be formally investigated under these procedures:
    1. Deputy Inspector-General
    2. any Branch Head
    3. Executive Director, Enterprise Management Unit.
       
  2. Once a decision is made to formally investigate the suspected breach under these procedures, the IGIS or that employee taking action under clause 16 will appoint a decision-maker (the ‘breach decision-maker’) to make a determination under these procedures.
Reassignment of duties or suspension from duty
  1. A current APS employee who is under investigation for a suspected breach of the Code may be:
    1. reassigned to alternative duties, either for a temporary period or on an ongoing basis, under section 25 of the PS Act; or
    2. suspended from duty by the suspension delegate under section 28 of the PS Act and section 14 of the PS Regulations.
       
  2. In reassigning duties of a current APS employee who is under investigation, the suspension delegate will:
    1. notify the current APS employee who is under investigation of the proposal; and
    2. give the person a reasonable opportunity (usually, 14 calendar days) to respond before any decision to suspend is taken.
       
  3. Sometimes urgent action may be required that will not allow for the notification and response as outlined at clause 19. In such cases, the suspension delegate may invite the current APS employee who is under investigation to comment after the decision has been made. Depending on their response, the suspension delegate has the flexibility to consider alternative arrangements, including suspension.
     
  4. In suspending a current APS employee who is under investigation, the suspension delegate will:
    1. notify the current APS employee, in writing, of their preliminary intention to suspend them, and the reasons for this proposal; and
    2. give the person reasonable opportunity to respond (usually, 14 calendar days) before any decision to suspend is taken.
       
  5. Sometimes urgent action may be required that will not allow for the notification and response outlined at clause 21. In such cases, the suspension delegate may invite the current APS employee who is under investigation to comment after the decision has been made.
     
  6. To remove any doubt, clauses 18 to 22 also apply to SES employees.
Breach determination process
  1. The process for determining whether a current or former OIGIS APS employee has breached the Code must be carried out with as little formality, and as much expedition, as a proper consideration of the matter allows.
     
  2. The process must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.
     
  3. A determination may not be made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by a current or former OIGIS APS employee unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
    1. inform the employee or former employee of:
      1. the details of the suspected breach (including any subsequent variation of those details); and
      2. in the case of a current OIGIS APS employee, the sanctions that may be imposed on the employee under subsection 15(1) of the PS Act; and
    2. give the employee or former employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to each suspected breach (or subsequent variation to any initially suspected breach).
       
  4. The statement referred to at clause 26(b) may be a written or oral statement and must be provided within 14 calendar days or any longer period that is allowed by the breach decision-maker.
Variation in Investigation
  1. If during the course of an investigation it becomes evident that there is a material variation in the nature or extent of the alleged breach notified to the employee, the employee must be notified in writing of the variation and any variation in the range of sanctions that may be imposed if the employee is found to have breached the Code of Conduct.
     
  2. The employee must be provided with a reasonable opportunity (usually, 14 calendar days) to make a further statement or provide further evidence before a determination is made.
Sanctions
  1. The process for imposing a sanction must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.
     
  2. If a determination is made that a current OIGIS APS employee has breached the Code, a sanction may not be imposed on the employee unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
    1. inform the employee of:
      1. the determination of a breach of the Code; and
      2. the sanction or sanctions that are under consideration in accordance with subsection 15(1) of the PS Act; and
      3. the factors that are under consideration in determining any sanction to be imposed; and
      4. give the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to each sanction/s under consideration.
         
  3. The statement referred to at clause 31(a)(iv) may be a written or oral statement and must be provided within 14 calendar days or any longer period that is allowed by the sanction delegate.
Record of determination and sanction
  1. If a determination is made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by a current or former OIGIS APS employee, a written record must be made of:
    1. the suspected breach;
    2. the determination;
    3. in the case of a current OIGIS APS employee, any sanctions imposed as a result of the determination that the employee breached the Code; and
    4. if a statement of reasons was given to the employee or former employee regarding the determination in relation to a suspected breach of the Code, or, in the case of a current employee, regarding the sanction decision, that statement of reasons or those statements of reasons.
Additional procedural requirement for current OIGIS Senior Executive Service employees
  1. If a current OIGIS Senior Executive Service (SES) employee is suspected of breaching the Code, the IGIS, or his delegate, must comply with the requirements at section 64 of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2022 (Directions) to consult with the APS Commissioner, or a delegate of the APS Commissioner, for the purposes of this requirement:
    1. on the process for determining whether the employee has breached the Code; and
    2. if considering imposing a sanction, before imposing the sanction.
Procedure when an employee seeks to move to another APS agency during investigation
  1. If a current OIGIS APS employee seeks to move to another APS agency after they have been formally notified that they are suspected of breaching the Code but before the matter has been resolved, any move between APS agencies will generally be deferred, under subsections 42A(1) and 46(5) of the Directions, until:
    1. after a decision has been made about whether or not the employee has breached the Code; or
    2. it is decided that such a determination is not necessary.
Review
  1. Where a determination has been made that a non-SES OIGIS APS employee has breached the Code, they may be eligible to seek a review of the action under section 33 of the PS Act.  A review may also be sought in respect of a sanction decision, unless the sanction was termination of employment.
     
  2. Applications for review shall be made to the Merit Protection Commission directly. The Fair Work Act 2009 provides a review process for termination of employment.