9 June 2001. Thanks to Anonymous.
This provides Australian Senate discussion over two days on the leaked Blunn Report on the suicide of an Australian intelligence officer Mervyn Jenkins. Most of the discussion took place on 6 June 2001, with a lesser amount on 4 June.
See the Blunn Report: http://cryptome.org/blunn-rep.htm
Source:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s4918.pdf
(897KB)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE
Consideration of Budget Estimates
MONDAY, 4 JUNE 2001
CANBERRA
[Excerpts]
Senator SCHACHT—Before Admiral Barrie makes his statement, I want to clarify something with the officials at the table. I have some questions dealing with the Jenkins matter at the Washington embassy. I asked questions about this at the February estimates. At some stage during the next few days, I trust there will be the appropriate officers present to answer further questions about the Jenkins matter.
Dr Hawke—Yes. Martin Brady, the chairman of the Defence Intelligence Board, would be the best person to handle that.
Senator SCHACHT—Thank you.
...
Senator SCHACHT—Fine. The other question I wanted to ask, since you will not be here tomorrow, is about the Jenkins case—I wanted to ask you, even though Mr Brady will be appearing. Did you approve the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade would conduct the investigation and interview with Mr Jenkins about a possible breach of security at the Australian Embassy?
Dr Hawke—No, I did not.
Senator SCHACHT—Who approved that in Defence?
Dr Hawke—It was before my time. Mr Brady will be able to answer that question.
Senator SCHACHT—Can you ensure us that he can answer that? Is it unusual that a Defence officer, about whom there is a claim of breach of security, would be investigated by an official of another department, though obviously interested in foreign affairs, defence and trade issues?
Dr Hawke—I think it is unusual, but I do not know what circumstances were prevailing at the time when whoever it was took that decision.
Senator SCHACHT—You say ‘unusual’; I think it is unusual too. I know you are very busy, this is before your time and you have enough on your plate, but have you been able to make any inquiries about why Foreign Affairs did the investigation?
Dr Hawke—It was in the past. I am more interested in where we are at now and where we are going.
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Hawke, we have the Blunn report before us, and we have had some press coverage—I think it was a Four Corners program a month or so ago, during the period you were secretary—of the circumstances of Mr Jenkins and his death. Do you think they have raised issues that, even though it is before your time, for the sake of the institutional memory of the department you may wish to have a look at?
Dr Hawke—No, I am satisfied that the issues are being dealt with appropriately by Mr Brady and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Mr Blick.
Senator SCHACHT—In future, if a defence department official were under investigation, would you insist that the investigation be conducted by the defence department rather than by a member of another department?
Dr Hawke—That would be my preference.
Senator SCHACHT—Do you think that Mr Brady might be able to give me a reason why that did not happen on this occasion?
Dr Hawke—I am not sure that he would be able to give you a reason, but he would be able to explain to you what the facts were at the time.
Senator SCHACHT—I appreciate the fact that you have put that on the record, and that is an appropriate response, but it does seem to be a very strange set of circumstances. Normally, I would not worry about chasing down a bureaucratic dispute between departments, but, if someone has taken their own life in circumstances that are very unfortunate, I do not think it is something that we can avoid asking further questions about.
...
Source:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s4920.pdf
(681KB)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE
Consideration of Budget Estimates
WEDNESDAY, 6 JUNE 2001
CANBERRA
[Excerpts]
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Mules, since the estimates committee last met in April of this year, an episode of the ABC program Four Corners was given over to the so-called Jenkins case in the US embassy where Mr Jenkins committed suicide after being interviewed by an officer from Foreign Affairs about possible security breaches. A number of allegations and comments were made in the program. On the ABC web site associated with that program, you can now get copies of the Blunn report without the deletions. Has the foreign affairs department taken any action against the ABC over publishing the confidential document?
Mr Mules—The interview that was conducted in Washington was conducted by an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and an officer of the Department of Defence as part of an agreed joint investigation into the allegations that had been made about Mr Jenkins.
Senator SCHACHT—I will come back to that in a moment.
Senator Hill—Simple questions; simple answers.
Mr Mules—The answer to your question, Senator, is no.
Senator SCHACHT—On the second point you have raised, at the estimates hearing earlier this week with Defence, I asked the secretary of the defence department, Dr Hawke, whether he agreed that it was appropriate for an officer of the defence department to be interviewed in a process led by the foreign affairs department. To paraphrase his response, he said that it was before his time as head of the department but, if a similar situation arose again, the investigation would be conducted and led by the defence department, not by another department.
Senator Hill—So what is the question?
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Mules raised the issue of this being a joint investigation. It is clear from an inference—and no more than that—that certainly Dr Hawke does not agree that it was an equal investigation. Being responsible for one of his own officers, I think he believes that the initial investigation should have been conducted by people within his department.
Mr Mules—As I understood Dr Hawke’s comments the other day, he did point out that he had not been aware of the details of the case.
Senator SCHACHT—You have straightened him out now, have you?
Mr Mules—I think you asked whether he thought an investigation of a Defence officer should be undertaken by a Defence officer. I think that if Dr Hawke were invited to comment on—
Senator Hill—I do not think that you should be answering questions on what your view is of what Dr Hawke might think and I do not think that it is appropriate—
Senator SCHACHT—I think he should keep going, Minister, as far as I am concerned.
Senator Hill—I do not think it is appropriate for the question to be asked of this officer what he believes, or to comment on the views of an officer—
Senator SCHACHT—I did not raise the matter.
Senator Hill—in another department. He was trying to be helpful by reminding you that it was a joint investigation.
Senator SCHACHT—All right. It was a joint investigation.
Mr Mules—And if I may say, it was a joint investigation which was readily and quickly agreed at deputy secretary level between the two departments at the time the allegations were made.
Senator SCHACHT—In the Blunn inquiry report that was published with the deletions, and the material in the Four Corners program, and now in the document that is circulated which you have not taken the trouble to take action against—a confidential document being circulated in that way—
Senator Hill—It is not a question of taking trouble. You asked a question of this officer as to whether a certain action had been taken and he said no.
Senator SCHACHT—Fine. No action has been taken.
Dr Thomas—It is not a DFAT document.
Senator SCHACHT—Defence is on tonight, so I can assure you that we will ask questions there.
Senator Hill—You ask the questions there.
Senator SCHACHT—In the evidence in the Blunn report, Mr Jenkins indicates that he believed that what he was doing with AUSTEO documents was no more and no less than what other officers had been doing informally in a similar position in the American embassy for a number of years, and he believed, from his interpretation of discussions with his superiors, that that process would continue. Does the foreign affairs department accept that staff in the American embassy have for a long time—even before Mr Jenkins was appointed—as a matter of carrying out their tasks, informally exchanged AUSTEO material with American colleagues?
Senator Hill—You are asking what are common practices in relation to intelligence arrangements, and I do not think that is an appropriate question.
Senator SCHACHT—A man is dead. I want to find out whether the circumstances of his suicide were contributed to by the way that the Public Service of Australia conducted an investigation.
Senator Hill—That is a very serious matter, it is true. I do not quarrel with the right of the parliament to test the circumstances relating to the investigation, but I do not think it is appropriate for this official to be confirming or denying that it is usual practice to pass documents that have a high Australian security classification.
Senator SCHACHT—The reason I raise it is that the widow, Mrs Jenkins, is seeking compensation from the Australian government. I do not know whether it is with the department of foreign affairs or the Department of Defence, but I understand some negotiations have begun at some level, and I understand she will seek compensation. So there is a payment that may be made. It may not be enough; it may be too much. But these are actually estimates issues. How much money would be paid, if any? And why would we have to pay compensation for her claim?
Senator Hill—You are sort of answering your own questions. Has there been a claim, and has there been a settlement?
Mr Mules—Not involving the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Senator SCHACHT—I will take it up with your colleagues in Defence. Mr Mules, in paragraph 159 of the Blunn report it says:
There are however more liberal views about dealing with information bearing the AUSTEO caveat. Statements made to the inquiry indicate that it is not unknown for foreign officers to be provided with information contained in AUSTEO documents and in some circumstances for caveated documents to be shown to foreign officials. However, even the most liberal view did not extend to condoning handing over possession of AUSTEO material without the appropriate approval. That said, the suspicion remains that there is some traffic in AUSTEO material. It is stated to be a two-way traffic.
Senator Hill—If you are putting that as a question, that is the same question that you put a moment ago, and I said that it is inappropriate to answer.
Mr Mules—I am very happy to answer a question about the handling of AUSTEO material if that is appropriate.
Senator Hill—I have said that it is inappropriate to ask, and I will make that judgment.
Mr Mules—Of course.
Senator SCHACHT—That is the view of the foreign affairs department—that you are not going to let them answer any questions dealing with the background to why a man committed suicide.
Senator Hill—If it relates to the passing of classified information, that is right.
Senator SCHACHT—This is absolutely germane to the circumstances of Mr Jenkins’s death. There may be a claim from his widow for compensation. Are you saying that the parliament does not have a right to know what the circumstances are, even though compensation may be offered—not by your department but by Defence?
Senator Hill—What I am saying is that, without taking considered advice, I am not going to say that it is common practice or otherwise to pass classified information between security agencies. Your next question would then be, ‘Well, in what circumstances is it common practice?’
Senator SCHACHT—No, I understand—
Senator Hill—So I am not going to go down the burrow. If you are determined to pursue that path, there are more appropriate mechanisms to do it in than in this estimates committee.
Senator SCHACHT—Can you advise me where?
Senator Hill—I will, outside these estimates.
Senator SCHACHT—But that is not transparent process, is it? It is a matter of a wink, a nod and a nudge. And you hope that I can be quietened by being provided with quiet information. What about Mrs Jenkins’ rights? How does she get access to the same information?
Senator Hill—It is always difficult when there are personal and national interests and they might not in all circumstances accord. I have great sympathy with the individuals concerned in this matter, and I also understand and accept that it is the right of parliamentarians to investigate allegations that some administrative action might have contributed to a death. However, firstly, I do not think this estimates committee is the appropriate place to do that, and secondly, I do not think that any of the issues relating to intelligence matters should be canvassed.
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Chairman, other than when I was a minister, I have been on this estimates committee since 1987. I have absolutely respected the confidentiality of the national interest on security matters. Occasionally, for the record, I have asked for issues about ASIS which are in the one-line appropriation, knowing that all governments, quite rightly, will say that they are not going to comment. At the estimates hearing in February, I put a question to the defence department—the question I just put to Mr Mules—without access to the document on the web site, and Mr Brady, the head of DIO, who I think employed Mr Jenkins, did not have any trouble answering this very same question.
Senator Hill—You might find the minister tonight has a different view. I am taking a cautious approach, I accept that. That is the approach I am taking.
CHAIR—Do you expect me to make a response?
Senator SCHACHT—No, I am addressing the questions to the minister.
CHAIR—Well, you addressed your remarks to Mr Chairman.
Senator SCHACHT—Sorry, Mr Chairman, I was speaking through you to the minister. I was following the practice of the Senate.
CHAIR—Well, in these circumstances, the response I would give would be exactly the same as the minister’s. As you know—you have been on this estimates committee much longer than I have—you can ask any question you like, Senator Schacht. As to whether the question will be answered or not, that is solely within the preserve of the minister. In this case, he has decided that the question will not be answered. Let us not argue about whether he is going to answer it or not. He has told you what he is going to do.
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Chairman, the minister made a comment about confidentiality, security matters and so on, and said that this is not the proper place. I always accepted that until this particular case turned up, because in my 14 years on estimates I do not think I have ever dealt with a matter where an officer of the Australian Public Service has committed suicide a short period after being interviewed by officers of the foreign affairs department and the defence department. That makes this case uncomfortable and unique, but it cannot be swept aside.
Senator Hill—I am not trying to sweep anything aside. I have made the point that I think it is very difficult where individuals are concerned when there may be an interest of national security that clashes with that individual interest. But there are proper processes of investigation. There are other processes which I think are more appropriate for parliamentarians to pursue.
Senator SCHACHT—I think in this case we are going to have to agree to disagree. You will tell officers not to answer when I ask questions; I accept that, but I think I have the right to put the questions. Therefore, minister, we will see how we go on a couple of questions. I do not want to belabour this, or take up time un-necessarily. You have made the comment that in another forum you may care to deal with some of these matters; I am happy to have that discussion—without prejudice to my rights here in the estimates—so long as you accept that without prejudice to the issues that I am raising about the rights of Mrs Jenkins and what happened to Mr Jenkins. The lead person who conducted the interview in Washington: was that person appointed specifically to the interview because of their knowledge and skill in doing similar interviews in their previous or their existing career?
Mr Mules—In the case of the DFAT officer, the answer is yes.
Senator SCHACHT—But you cannot answer for Defence? I will put that to Defence separately. How long had the officer been with DFAT?
Mr Mules—Approximately four years, I understand.
Senator SCHACHT—Where was the officer before that?
Mr Mules—At the Australian Federal Police.
Senator SCHACHT—I noticed in the published document of the Blunn report—which I do not think we can have any argument about, minister, because this is what you have released—there is mention that the use, in the interview, of there being a breach of the Crimes Act was unnecessary in the way it was used. Does the department have—
Senator Hill—I am sorry, I do not understand your question.
Senator SCHACHT—In the Blunn report on the review of the whole Jenkins process, in the first interview the officer from DFAT apparently raised the issue that there was a possible breach of the Crimes Act. There has been some suggestion—and I am not sure that it is elsewhere—that there may be other mentions, of treason and so on. I am not sure that that was raised by the officer, but the Blunn report makes it clear that Mr Blunn was not entirely happy with the way the interview was conducted with Mr Jenkins at the time. Has the department had a chance to review the published document of the Blunn report, and is it going to make available to the parliament its response to the recommendations and the comment contained therein?
Mr Mules—You have raised a number of issues there. I might say that the interview was conducted in the manner of all such interviews conducted as part of security investigations in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It draws its procedures from the Protective Security Manual endorsed by cabinet, and, flowing on from that, the Commonwealth fraud investigation standards package, which spells out quite specific and detailed ways in which these investigations and interviews should be conducted. The key features of which is that they must, firstly, preserve the integrity of the information gathered and, secondly, conduct the interviews with regard to the interests of the individual being investigated. One of the key aspects of that is to ensure, in a completely neutral and unthreatening way, that the individual being interviewed is told under what circumstances and conditions they are being interviewed.
Senator Hill—Natural justice, I would have thought.
Senator SCHACHT—I agree.
Mr Mules—This process has been used in about 140 interviews in the department of foreign affairs in the last two years.
Senator SCHACHT—One hundred and thirty-nine people have not committed suicide at the end of their interview, have they?
Mr Mules—That is correct.
Senator SCHACHT—Which you might take as a success rate. The one you have lost is actually—
Senator Hill—That is offensive.
Senator SCHACHT—Of course; a death is offensive.
Senator Hill—Yes, but it is also—
Senator SCHACHT—Paragraph 35 of the—
Senator Hill—No, the way you put that is offensive of these officers as well.
Senator SCHACHT—If it is offensive, I apologise. Paragraph 35 of the Blunn report that is published says:
There is an issue about the continued references to the Crimes Act provisions in situations where it is almost certainly not going to be applicable.
Is that directed at the interview that took place with Mr Jenkins in Washington?
Senator Hill—Is that a fair question to ask?
Senator SCHACHT—I am asking it out of the Blunn report that you have published. I want to find out if this is reflecting that comment in paragraph 35.
Senator Hill—Does the department have a view on that particular issue?
Mr Mules—The department does have a view on that issue. The Blunn report was commissioned by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Blunn report has, of course, not been referred to or adopted in any formal way by the government. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has some reservations about some aspects of the Blunn report, including those parts of it which refer to what Mr Blunn calls a disciplinary approach to the investigation. It is our view that the way the investigation and interview were conducted was entirely consistent with those aspects of natural justice that the minister referred to.
Senator SCHACHT—The recommendation in paragraph 37 in the published document states:
That all manuals and instructions on investigations be reviewed to ensure that appropriate emphasis is placed on the characterisation of investigations and on the differences between different types of investigation.
You would disagree; the department believes that that recommendation is not necessary?
Mr Mules—The department is always interested in any suggestions for improving procedures, and the department is taking an active part in discussions among agencies about these matters. We are going to be involved in a working group convened by the Attorney-General’s Department, which will hopefully produce some ideas for better uniform procedures across the Public Service. That does not necessarily imply, though, that either the administrative processes or the elements of procedural fairness in our existing procedures are inappropriate.
Senator SCHACHT—Are you trying to suggest to me that Mr Blunn would not write that recommendation without some reference to the fact that he was investigating the circumstances that led to the death of Mr Jenkins?
Senator Hill—He did not say that at all. He said that the recommendation has been made and it will be taken into account in a review of policy that is apparently taking place between agencies, but that, on what the department knows, they do not necessarily accept that the way in which this investigation took place was not consistent with what Mr Blunn would wish to see, according to that recommendation.
Senator SCHACHT—To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they?’
Senator Hill—Every investigation is a different exercise.
Senator SCHACHT—It is a different kettle of fish, but I will not waste my time going around and around over this. The fact that it is a recommendation, after he investigated the circumstances of Mr Jenkins’s investigation and death, indicates to me that you would not put it there unless you had some context—Senator Hill—It should be taken seriously—I agree with that—but the officer said that they are taking—
Senator SCHACHT—They dispute it.
Senator Hill—When were they—
Senator SCHACHT—They do not quite agree with it, then.
Senator Hill—They do not quite agree with the assessment of fact that has led to it, but they do not dispute the merit of what is said. They argue that they already do that, but they are now going to see if there are other ways in which they can do it more effectively.
Senator SCHACHT—In the Blunn report, Mr Mules, there are a number of findings that seem pretty stark. For example, paragraph 33, states:
The relationships between DIO staff in Washington during that period but particularly after June 1998 were dysfunctional.
You will say that they are Defence people, they are not in the foreign affairs department, therefore it is not a matter for you, I presume. Is that the response?
Mr Mules—That is correct, Senator.
Senator SCHACHT—Isn’t the ambassador in charge of any embassy in charge of all the staff and the good running of the embassy, and that is a foreign affairs person?
Mr Mules—The ambassador has a whole of government role, not just a Foreign Affairs role.
Senator SCHACHT—Yes. If there was a dysfunctional section—it might be in Immigration; it might be in Defence; it might be in the environment department, if they have a couple of people over there—
Senator Hill—We do not have people there.
Senator SCHACHT—I know you do not have the luxury yet, do you Minister?
Senator Hill—Might be a good idea, though.
Senator SCHACHT—It would be a good idea—it would be another couple of appointments you could make to get rid of some enemies in the Liberal Party.
Senator HOGG—He doesn’t have any!
Senator SCHACHT—Any area that shows dysfunctionality in the operation of the staff in any embassy would have to be of concern to an ambassador.
Senator Hill—I think that is fair to say.
Senator SCHACHT—Although it is DIO, it is an issue that you may care to look at in your review: how better management procedures could be adopted so that this dysfunctionality does not occur again in such a circumstance which, reading the public report of Blunn, does seem to be a bizarre range of goings-on.
Mr Mules—I understand that the Department of Defence are pursuing their own activities in response to it, but it is certainly not for me to comment on that.
Senator SCHACHT—They will be questions I will put to Defence later on today. Do you agree that the ASIO assessment, in paragraph 27, is that ‘ASIO is satisfied is that Mr Jenkins’ actions involve no suggestion of espionage’?
Mr Mules—Yes.
Senator SCHACHT—In paragraph 26, it says:
It is not clear that all the security management aspects of the issues investigated have been adequately addressed.
Does Foreign Affairs agree with that?
Mr Mules—I am not sure exactly what he is getting at in that, Senator.
Senator SCHACHT—Security management in the—
Senator Hill—The answer is that it is somewhat ambiguous. It even seems ambiguous to me.
Senator SCHACHT—In the Blunn report, there is mention that certain correspondence between Mr Jenkins and people back in Australia—I think perhaps more in the defence area—has not been able to be found. Is that only correspondence from the defence department or does any of it deal with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade?
Mr Mules—I understand that there is some material which has not been located that was part of the substance of allegations.
Senator SCHACHT—In the foreign affairs department?
Mr Mules—Some material that forms part of allegations, part of the material which was alleged to have been handed over, has not surfaced. But I think that probably the missing documents that you are talking about are Defence documents.
Senator SCHACHT—But there was some material that may have gone missing or cannot be found that relates to Foreign Affairs administration?
Mr Mules—Not relating to Foreign Affairs administration, no. Foreign Affairs documents which were alleged to have been attempted to be handed over illegally were not available for inspection. Senator SCHACHT—Has the department, in conjunction with Defence, investigated what may have happened to that material?
Mr Mules—We have asked, yes.
Senator SCHACHT—You have asked Defence?
Mr Mules—No, we asked the people involved.
Senator SCHACHT—What is their answer?
Mr Mules—It has been destroyed.
Senator SCHACHT—Did they give you a reason why they destroyed it?
Mr Mules—No, Senator.
Senator SCHACHT—Did you ask them why they destroyed it?
Mr Mules—Yes.
Senator SCHACHT—What did they say to that?
Mr Mules—I do not recall. I do not have any further details about that. May I say that it was one small part of the total amount of material that was being discussed.
Senator SCHACHT—But, as I understand it, it was reasonably germane to the defence that Mr Jenkins would put about how he was being treated. I am surprised that you cannot remember the justification for someone destroying material that was involved in what might have been a security breach.
Mr Mules—It was before my time in this job—it is not a matter of not remembering; I have not had access to that.
Senator SCHACHT—Who was in the job when all this was going on?
Mr Mules—My predecessor.
Senator SCHACHT—Your predecessor is who?
Mr Mules—Mr Crichton.
Senator SCHACHT—Where is he, in Albania or somewhere?
Mr Mules—No, he has retired.
Senator SCHACHT—Early?
Mr Mules—I am very happy to have a look into that issue.
Senator SCHACHT—I would appreciate it if you would.
Senator Hill—I think there was an imputation in that comment.
Senator SCHACHT—It was a humorous imputation, Minister.
Senator Hill—Well, as long as you say it was humorous.
Senator SCHACHT—I said Albania. We do not have an embassy in Albania. That is why I said it humorously.
Senator Hill—We have thick skins but there are others who are not in a position to defend themselves.
Senator SCHACHT—We do have thick skins but I thought I said it in a way that could only be taken humorously. In the Blunn report that is published, there was mention about the fact that ASIO was not informed at an early stage and should have been brought in to check whether there were obvious breaches of that act. Is that an area of procedure you have now accepted ought to be changed—that in the future an appropriate body like ASIO would be brought in at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr Mules—The relevant provisions of the Protective Security Manual say that serious apparent security breaches should be reported to ASIO. At the time we were discussing a joint investigation with Defence, we said to Defence, ‘We assume you are telling ASIO,’ and we subsequently had confirmed by them that they had done so.
Senator SCHACHT—This was in June 1999 at the time of Mr Jenkins’ death.
Mr Mules—At the time the investigation was being set up.
Senator SCHACHT—What about a year before in 1998 when some allegations were made that Mr Jenkins may be breaching security? Why wasn’t ASIO informed then?
Mr Mules—You would have to ask the Department of Defence. At that time the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had no indication of those allegations. The first time the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was made aware of the 1998 allegations was in May 1999 when the additional allegations were made.
Senator SCHACHT—You said before, when I asked a question about the dysfunctionality of DIO staff, which led to some of the problems which Mr Blunn talks about, that that is a matter for Defence. If it is a matter for Defence, why did the foreign affairs department seek to become very rapidly involved in conducting the investigation?
Mr Mules—There are two reasons for the very serious concern held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Firstly, the allegations concerned a quantity of DFAT cables with the AUSTEO caveat attached to them and, secondly, DFAT has a level of overall responsibility for security at our overseas posts. But I would say the primary concern for DFAT was that that there was quite a large amount of DFAT material involved.
Senator SCHACHT—Did the decision for the department to take a rapid and active involvement in this matter come from the secretary of the department?
Mr Mules—The secretary was involved in that and held that view, as did the then deputy secretary responsible, Mr Cooper.
Senator SCHACHT—Who is handling the Blunn report now in the department and this issue of your reviewing the recommendations and providing advice? The advice is confidential, but who is actually handling it? Are you handling it, Mr Mules, or is the secretary of the department in charge of it, or is there a committee or an IDC with Defence handling it?
Mr Mules—Within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it is my responsibility. There are a number of interdepartmental activities which are not directly related to the Blunn report but are all aimed at improving the security of information.
Senator SCHACHT—In paragraph 21 of the Blunn report he says:
When the decision was made in the very early stages to pursue the investigation in Washington insufficient regard was had for the possible implication and consequences of DIO involvement in the events of 1998.
Does the department have a view about that comment?
Mr Mules—Yes, Senator. As I mentioned, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was first made aware of the 1998 allegations in May of 1999 when the joint investigation was agreed upon. The investigators’ first task was to be in touch with DIO and find out what Mr Jenkins had been told about what he might or might not have authority to hand over. At that time, the DIO security officer told the investigators that Mr Jenkins had been warned in writing in 1998 to cease passing AUSTEO material to US nationals, and that was the clear and unambiguous advice that the investigating team had when they left for Washington. During the interview, Mr Jenkins confirmed that he had received such an instruction in 1998.
Senator SCHACHT—But in the evidence, even in the Blunn report, there seems to be also, at the same time, a different level of advice that he believed, in some usual practice, meant something different from what was in the published document of the Director-General, which is in dispute with the Director-General I know, but he clearly believes he was given some different encouragement.
Mr Mules—There is some question over what Mr Jenkins may or may not have believed at the time that the 1998 alleged mishandling occurred. However, by the time the allegations about activities in 1999 were made there is no doubt that Mr Jenkins had been unambiguously instructed not to hand AUSTEO documents to foreign nationals.
Senator SCHACHT—Has the American defense department or the secretary of the department of state made any formal comment to Australia about the circumstances of Mr Jenkins’ investigation, his death and the subsequent report of the Blunn inquiry that this is embarrassing to our powerful and friendly allies, the United States of America?
Mr Mules—No.
Senator SCHACHT—There is nothing written? Has there been any informal verbal communication?
Mr Mules—No, to my knowledge, none.
Senator SCHACHT—So it has not affected, fortunately, our relations with the American defense department, security establishment or state department?
Mr Davis—I run the risk of stepping outside my area of responsibility in saying no.
Senator Hill—No.
Senator SCHACHT—I have to say I would have been staggered and surprised if you had actually had any evidence that they were very upset and that there had been a breach of security that compromised their interests as well as ours.
Senator Hill—That is not a question.
Senator SCHACHT—I am just saying I would have been surprised, the Americans being mature about these matters. When do you expect to complete the work of reviewing the issues in the Blunn report?
Mr Mules—I am sorry, Senator, there may be some misunderstanding. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is not actively reviewing the specific recommendations of the Blunn report. The Blunn report is not a report which has a formal official standing outside of, I assume, the Department of Defence which commissioned it. We are taking part in a number of activities which are, as I said, designed to improve the way security is handled and one of those areas is investigations. One thing we have taken a very active role in is the review of the caveat AUSTEO, and I can say that the existing rules about AUSTEO, which are that it should not be given to any foreign national, have been reaffirmed and reconfirmed by the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
Senator SCHACHT—There is a suggestion in the Blunn report that the AUSTEO classification has been overused. That is one of the problems—it appears to be almost like something out of a John Le Carre novel—because to give more weight or worth to what you are writing, you put the highest classification on it to try and show that it has got more weight. Therefore, if you have got access, you put an AUSTEO stamp on it—and I know there are other classifications higher than that—and you use it in that way to make it look more important.
Senator Hill—I don’t think you can really ask that. It is not a security issue. How can you ask this officer whether that technique, as you describe it, might be utilised by people across the Public Service?
Senator SCHACHT—I am not asking about the technique. The Blunn report talked about the issue of overuse, although necessary use, of AUSTEO as a classification. I give that as an example that flowed out of the Blunn report about maybe one of the ways it is overused. I do not know whether or not that is correct. I am asking the officer: you talked about the AUSTEO use; is there going to be a review to make sure that it is not used in a capricious way that is not necessary in our national interest?
Senator Hill—The question as to whether the use of the AUSTEO classification is going to be reviewed is a fair question. Is it being reviewed or not? It either is or it is not.
Mr Mules—No. What it means has already been reviewed.
Dr Thomas—DFAT has reaffirmed its interpretation of AUSTEO. We are very clear about it.
Senator SCHACHT—I know what it means. What are you doing—
Dr Thomas—We do not accept that it is overused within DFAT.
Senator SCHACHT—You do not accept that it is overused?
Dr Thomas—On DFAT documents, no, it is not.
Senator SCHACHT—On DFAT documents it is not overused?
Dr Thomas—I cannot speak for other departments.
Senator Hill—This is not a debating club.
Senator SCHACHT—I am asking questions about it. If it is not overused in Foreign Affairs—I accept that—are you concerned that it may be overused in other departments? The foreign affairs department is in charge of international diplomacy on behalf of Australia; do you think Environment overuses AUSTEO stamps on the minister’s kangaroo protection memo or something?
Dr Thomas—I have no idea, Senator. I do not see those documents. I would be very surprised.
Senator SCHACHT—As a result of this matter in the Blunn report, apart from AUSTEO, has there been any other review by the department of the use of other classifications?
Mr Mules—No, Senator.
Senator SCHACHT—I hope that, if I ask this question, the answer you give will not compromise our national security in any way. Do you have any idea each year how many documents produced in the foreign affairs department end up with ‘AUSTEO’ stamped on them? I want to get some idea. Is it 1,000, 500 or 10? Take it on notice.
Senator Hill—I think we should reflect on that question. It might be okay but it might also have some significance.
CHAIR—Senator Schacht, you have now been on this matter for an hour.
Senator SCHACHT—No, 45 minutes actually. I timed myself. We started at 3.45 p.m.
CHAIR—Senator Hogg has a number of questions and I do not know whether Senator—
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Chairman, I will finish. I was getting close to the finish. Thank you for reminding me about the time. I have one final question. Has the department in any way expressed sorrow, sympathy or an apology to Mrs Jenkins and the family?
Mr Mules—The minister, as you may know, was in Washington at about the same time and publicly expressed his sympathy and that of the department. The department has subsequently repeated that sympathy. I understand that the secretary to the department was in Washington not very long after the event and personally did the same to Mrs Jenkins.
Senator SCHACHT—The department, in all its public comments, in no way accepts a direct correlation between Mr Jenkins’s death and the activities of the investigation that took place.
Mr Mules—That is correct, Senator.
CHAIR—Senator Hogg, have you got any questions on 1.2?
Senator HOGG—Yes, I have one question. I refer to the new secure network system. With respect to ADCNET, is that still operating?
Dr Thomas—Yes it is, overseas. SATIN, as the new system is called, is already rolled out in Australia and it interlinks with ADCNET its predecessor. The intention is to roll out SATIN overseas and replace ADCNET over the next 12 to 18 months.
Senator HOGG—Right. So ADCNET will be replaced by SATIN in the next 12 to 18 months. SATIN is currently rolled out in Australia. Can you tell me the funding arrangements for that?
Dr Thomas—In the budget this year, $35.9 million has been provided to DFAT over the next 3 years to help replace that ADCNET system. In addition the department itself, from its own internal rejigging of funds, will put in $24 million towards the cost of that roll out.
Senator HOGG—So that is $35 million—
Dr Thomas—Plus $24 million.
Senator HOGG—That is greater than what I thought—that is $59 million. I think the PBS says $54 million. I am not going to split hairs.
Dr Thomas—It is probably the difference between some cash figures and some accrual figures.
Senator HOGG—So there is a substantial contribution from the department.
Dr Thomas—Very much so.
Senator HOGG—Is that impacting on the budget of any other areas of operation of the department?
Dr Thomas—SATIN has always been high priority for us in terms of replacing our old system and we have been making some provision for that for some time. It has always been intended that we would contribute a certain amount to the new system but the equity injection we have had or the extra funds from the budget were very necessary on top of that.
Senator HOGG—I noticed in the PBS that your extra government funding is over four years. Is there any reason for that?
Ms Hazell—The contribution from the government is for the capital purchase of the equipment and obviously that is required earlier rather than later in the process of the roll out.
Senator HOGG—You say that in 18 months that will be operational overseas?
Dr Thomas—In most posts. Yes.
Senator HOGG—Right. And it runs, I presume, compatibly with ADCNET until is overtaken.
Dr Thomas—Yes. It is fully compatible.
Senator HOGG—That is all I had on that issue. Thank you.
Senator SCHACHT—You may refer this, Minister, as something that should go to Defence rather than Foreign Affairs, but does Foreign Affairs have any involvement with the operation of the Echelon network? Or is that a DIO matter?
Dr Thomas—I am not in a position to answer anything on that?
Senator Hill—We cannot answer that question.
Senator SCHACHT—Because it is the wrong department or just generally like it is ASIS?
Senator Hill—Generally.
Senator SCHACHT—I just put it on the record, Minister, that there have been press reports appearing around the world that Echelon ought to be revised because of claims that millions of ordinary e-mails and faxes across Europe are being spied on every day. I appreciate that you are not going to make any comment but I have raised it.
Senator Hill—You have put it on the record.
Senator SCHACHT—I have put it on the record. I do not expect a response, but I would expect that you would, at least internally, check whether the system is not breaking any of our own laws about the rights of privacy and about the rights of the citizens of this country being spied upon without judicial warrant and without the appropriate arrangements that the law of this country makes.
Senator Hill—We have noted your comments.
...
CHAIR—I have indicated to Senator Schacht that he has 15 minutes to ask questions on the Jenkins matter. If there is some more time at the end of your further questions, Senator Hogg, we can come back to Senator Schacht.
Senator SCHACHT—Mr Brady, at the estimates hearings in February I asked you a question in relation to the Jenkins case. I asked whether you were aware of the fact that it was asserted that there was a practice of DIO officers and other similar officers in our Washington embassy informally providing AUSTEO material to their equivalents in the American intelligence services—security and defence, whatever. You unequivocally said that you were unaware of the speculation but that there was absolutely no basis to that matter. Do you remember saying that in the estimates hearings in February this year? I think I challenged you twice as to the accuracy of your words, and then I stopped. Do you remember that?
Mr Brady—I do not have the transcript in front of me. I would need to refer to that to confirm that they were the words that were used.
Senator SCHACHT—A well placed ministerial adviser, or someone from corporate, has given it to you. Would you care to read it out? I have just misplaced my transcript, unfortunately. I am getting tired.
Mr Brady—I am happy to read that out, and I think I should start at the beginning.
Senator SCHACHT—Yes, of course.
Mr Brady—Your first statement was:
Senator SCHACHT—Isn’t it true that the matter that led to the unfortunate death of Mr Jenkins related to a dispute within the defence and intelligence establishment at our embassy in America over what should formally be provided to our powerful and friendly allies, the Americans, and what was provided on a wink, a nod and a nudge?
Mr Brady—I have heard those claims made. There is no substance to those claims.
If I could add to that, my reference there was to the claims that there was a dispute over what was to be provided. You went on and said:
Senator SCHACHT—I beg your pardon?Mr Brady—There is no substance to such claims.
You said, in a questioning manner:
Senator SCHACHT—There is no substance to the claims—
Senator Macdonald intervened at that stage and said:
That is what he said twice.
You proceeded to say:
I just want to make this absolutely clear: there is no substance to the claims that what Mr Jenkins may have been doing as a practice, although not within the rules of what was provided, had been a practice that, for many years, officers had informally done with our American allies—informally providing access to classified material from the Australian government. With respect to such material, which had been classified as not to be shown to anybody else, it had been accepted informally for many years that it would be provided to our powerful and friendly ally.
My response to that was:
To the best of my knowledge, Senator—and I have reviewed this matter carefully—there was no such understanding and no such practice.
Senator SCHACHT—On the next line, I then say:
Mr Brady, I will not take the matter any further in this venue, but I will make some comments elsewhere. But I have to say I am surprised by your answer.
That is on the record. Since then, Mr Brady, Four Corners on ABC television did a program on the Jenkins affair, to use that phrase. In that program they asserted something similar to what I raised. Subsequently, they put on the ABC Internet, which is freely available, those parts of the Blunn report that had been excised before being released to the public. Has the defence department, which commissioned the Blunn report, taken any action against the ABC for releasing, in a public way—the Internet is public—such material?
Mr Brady—I have a very strong belief that we should not and we do not comment on material that is purported to be classified material. I simply will not comment on whether the material quoted by the ABC was accurate or not.
Senator SCHACHT—I can understand that proposition; it is the usual variation of neither confirming nor denying anything in this area. I understand that that has been the practice for all governments of all persuasions for a long time. That is why I ended the discussion and why I did not take it any further at the February hearings. Although I, like many others, am somewhat concerned that, as a result of an investigation, it appears that an officer of the Australian Public Service took his own life within a matter of a day or so, at the most, of being interviewed by a representative of the Australian foreign affairs department and the Australian defence department in Washington. I normally do not tread into this area but, in view of the fact of the seriousness of the circumstances, I am obliged to raise with you a bit more of this information.
Mr Brady—Can I make an observation about one of the—-Senator
SCHACHT—No, let me finish and then you can make an observation. I just want to finish this point. I expect that you will refuse to confirm or deny something that is on the Internet, even something that has come from a prestigious organisation such as the ABC, which is also funded by the government. If Senator Kemp had his way, I expect it would have no funding at all; nevertheless, it is funded by the government.
Senator Kemp—That is not correct, Senator. I am not quite as fulsome in my praise—
Senator SCHACHT—The Blunn report, which was released to the public earlier this year, states in paragraph 159:
There are however more liberal views about dealing with information bearing the AUSTEO caveat.
Then there is a deletion, possibly of a sentence. It then continues:
However, even the most liberal view did not extend to condoning handing over possession of AUSTEO material without the appropriate material.
There is then another deletion; I presume it is another sentence. Paragraph 159 in the ABC’s web site reads:
There are however more liberal views about dealing with information bearing the AUSTEO caveat. Statements made to the inquiry indicate that it is not unknown for foreign officials to be provided with information contained in AUSTEO documents and in some circumstances for caveated documents to be shown to foreign officials. However, even the most liberal view did not extend condoning handing over possession of AUSTEO material without the appropriate approval. That said the suspicion remains that there is some traffic in AUSTEO material. It is stated to be a two-way traffic.
That completes paragraph 159. In view of what Mr Jenkins said when he was interviewed, and in view of the material that is on the record officially, his defence was that this was a practice that he believed he had an informal approval for from the director general of DIO or an appropriate official. That is disputed in the Blunn report, most certainly. I find in this tragic circumstance that, if we want to get to the bottom of this and see that this never occurs again, it is unfortunate that I have to refer to that excised extract to get to the nub of Mr Kemp’s defence. Do you still wish to say that you know of no circumstances where AUSTEO material was exchanged with officers in the American defence establishment?
Mr Brady—In my experience, Senator? Absolutely I stand by the statement I made to you on the previous occasion and in my knowledge of the operations of the intelligence community. Let me state to you that I was an officer, a senior executive, in the Defence Intelligence Organisation, as the head of the assessment staff in the period 1986 through to 1990. I again returned to the intelligence community and served for 5½ years as the Director of the Defence Signals Directorate. At no time during that experience or any other experience I have had in defence or in the intelligence community have I been aware of—let alone participated in—any disclosure of AUSTEO material to people not authorised to receive it. I might add that there was an extra element in this particular case, because the material concerned was not produced by the Defence Intelligence Organisation. It was material that was produced by another agency.
Senator SCHACHT—Foreign Affairs?
Mr Brady—As Director of DSD, if I may refer to that experience, I had the authority to authorise the release of material by its downgrading from AUSTEO to another level, if that were appropriate. I did not have, in either that role or any other role that I have held in the intelligence community, the authority to release material that had been classified by another Australian agency with the AUSTEO classification. And nobody else in the Australian government has the authority to downgrade material that does not belong to their agency and has been classified by another agency.
Senator SCHACHT—I know that they do not have the formal authority, but this matter apparently had been going on for some time. This informal arrangement had been going on for some time. Although you will not comment about the leaked document, if that is the comment of Mr Blunn—I accept that it seems to be a reasonably fitted exercise of putting those sentences in—the independent inquiry has stated that there is a suspicion that this has been a standard practice. If that is a suspicion, what is the department going to do to stop it from happening in the future?
Mr Brady—In relation to the specific point you make, the government has made a decision that reinforced the strength of the AUSTEO caveat. I was surprised by Mr Blunn’s comments in regard to that matter, but I accept them. The government therefore decided that it needed to reinforce the strength of the AUSTEO caveat, and it has done so. That has been implemented within Defence and in the wider Australian government.
Senator SCHACHT—And our powerful and friendly allies, the Americans, have been informed that this informal practice will no longer proceed?
Senator Kemp—Mr Chairman, I think Mr Brady has made his views very clear.
Senator SCHACHT—Have the Americans been informed—
Senator Kemp—Just hold on, Senator; let me finish. Mr Brady has stated his views at least twice—perhaps three times—about the understanding of the situation that he has had and from his own experience. Senator Schacht is now attempting to hypothesise that—
Senator SCHACHT—No, no, no.
Senator Kemp—All I am saying is that I do not think that Mr Brady should be required to respond constantly to the same type of issue.
Senator SCHACHT—If he was saying that the Defence establishment has reaffirmed the AUSTEO caveat, out of courtesy to our American friends, have you informed them as a matter of course that, as a result of the Blunn inquiry, what may have occurred in the past, even accidentally or informally, will no longer occur in the future? Have our American friends being informed of that?
Mr Brady—Yes, in one particular aspect. There was one change in government practice and policy and that related to the position that applied to US personnel integrated into the Australian Defence establishment. The practice under the previous regime applying to AUSTEO material was that an exemption could be granted so that such personnel could have access to AUSTEO material because they were working within the Australian government and it was necessary for them to perform their duties.
Senator SCHACHT—Who would grant them that approval? Would it be your level?
Mr Brady—I will defer to Mr Brown on this question.
Mr Brown—There was a process for approval for this integree officer, the shorthand for that description, whereby—
Senator SCHACHT—A what officer?
Mr Brown—An integrated officer—an integree. The integree would have to be sponsored by a one-star or above officer or equivalent APS level. That would come to the Assistant Secretary Security with an undertaking by that officer not to disclose to his home country any material provided to him in that capacity. That would then be reviewed, and that undertaking would be taken, and it would also be restricted for the purpose of the posting, and only to those matters directly relevant to the job.
Senator SCHACHT—And the Americans accept that restriction on their own citizens?
Mr Brown—Yes. When they are integrated into the Australian—
Senator SCHACHT—When they are integrated, of course.
Mr Brady—Let me continue to provide the details of what happened with the change. When the government reviewed this issue, it decided that AUSTEO material should be strictly limited to Australian citizens. In order, therefore, to deal with the circumstances of the integrated officers, and I think in what was a better policy generally, the government agreed that Defence could introduce a new category of classified material which was designated ‘Australian government access only’ or AGAO to use the acronym.
Senator SCHACHT—I thought you were going to say, ‘One eye only’ or something.
Mr Brady—In practice, since that change has been made, the great majority of material that requires an Australian government restriction within the Defence organisation now bears the AGAO restriction. Senator SCHACHT—Has there been any announcement about that change?
Mr Brady—I referred to that change extensively at the press conference at which Mr Moore released Mr Blunn’s inquiry.
Senator SCHACHT—Thank you for that. I appreciate it. That is obviously a good and positive development out of this sorry saga. Mr Brown, you are the assistant secretary for security. Have you conducted any investigation into the leaking of the material in the Blunn report to the Four Corners program?
Mr Brown—We did an initial examination and the material, given the wide distribution of that report, would have made an active investigation difficult, if not wasteful of resources. It would also have been what is a third-party disclosure and the likelihood of getting any outcome from that inquiry would have been minimal so we did not take it further than that.
Senator SCHACHT—But if you could have nailed them, you would have?
Mr Brown—I would pursue any breach of classified material from Defence.
Senator SCHACHT—So the document is freely circulating.
Mr Brown—That is not to say that we are not commenting on it as—
Senator SCHACHT—You do not like it circulating and you do not automatically agree that this material that I have read out is actually—
Mr Brown—Thank you, Senator.
Senator SCHACHT—Yes, I understand that that is a given in all of this, but we not have to keep repeating it. Mr Brady, when I read out the quote that I claim is from the document, you said you were surprised by Mr Blunn’s comments. Have you not accidentally confirmed that what I read out was actually from the formal document?
Mr Brady—I have no comment.
Senator SCHACHT—I will not push the matter any further on that particular angle. In the published document that Mr Blunn put out, there was a range of recommendations and comments. Mr Moore has said that there was a press conference at which the Blunn report was published and spoken to. Since then, has the defence department prepared any material about whether it will accept, reject or amend any of the comments or recommendations of Mr Blunn that have been published and put on the public record, as far as processes within the department are concerned?
Mr Brady—Let me make two points. One is that the Department of Defence advised the minister, and the minister announced in his press statement of 1 December 2000, that the Department of Defence accepts the criticisms made of Defence in Mr Blunn’s report. The second point I would make is that we have been implementing the recommendations that Mr Blunn made. I think I can say that all of the recommendations that are within the province of the Department of Defence have been implemented already, or are well on the way to being implemented. A number of the recommendations fall outside the sole scope of the Department of Defence, particularly regarding the conduct of investigations in future and the appropriate amendment of the protective security manual. The lead agency for those recommendations is the Attorney-General’s Department, which is considering and making progress in dealing with those recommendations.
Senator SCHACHT—Have you had any discussion with Foreign Affairs about the implementation of these recommendations in the Blunn report?
Mr Brady—Yes.
Senator SCHACHT—Have they been cooperative? They did not seem to be very cooperative at estimates before mid-afternoon. They seemed as though this was all your problem: ‘Talk to Defence about implementation.’ I found it a very arrogant attitude, typical of Foreign Affairs sometimes on these matters.
Mr Brady—I have no comment on that, Senator, of course.
Senator SCHACHT—I wouldn’t mind if you gave them a kick round the head occasionally, Mr Brady. Senator Kemp—Senator, you have asked the question. Perhaps you might allow Mr Brady to respond.
CHAIR—The minutes are ticking away.
Senator SCHACHT—I know. Mr Brady has been a very useful witness.
CHAIR—Yes, and you said 15 minutes. It is coming up for 26.
Senator Kemp—This must be the first time that Senator Schacht has exceeded the limit time.
Senator SCHACHT—Absolutely. I am glad you agree with me.
Senator Kemp—I can never remember another occasion, Senator, when you have done that.
Senator WEST—Minister, don’t you compound any problems.
Dr Kemp—I am praising him, Senator West. You were not listening.
CHAIR—He has never had a chairman who he works so closely with. He knows that, come nine o’clock, it will be Senator Hogg’s turn. Mr Brady.
Mr Brady—Earlier this year, I convened a meeting in Defence which I am very certain—unless Mr Brown corrects me, because I think he was present—Foreign Affairs attended, to consider the recommendations that Mr Blunn had made. We reached agreement on the way forward in regard to each of those recommendations.
Senator SCHACHT—I wish they had said that this afternoon. I cannot see any reason why they wouldn’t have. Will you, in the end, make a report to government—I accept it would be a classified report in some senses—that you have completed the implementation of the report?
Mr Brady—We will. There will be issues which will require amendment of the Protective Security Manual, or at least consideration of the way in which the protective security manual ought to be amended. The Protective Security Manual is traditionally approved by the national security committee of cabinet, so any recommendations that would involve a change in the manual would need to go to the national security committee.
CHAIR—I am going to cut you off there, Senator Schacht.
Senator SCHACHT—I will have to come back with three or four more questions to conclude later on. CHAIR—That is all right. Senator Hogg, have you got any questions upon output 6, Intelligence?
Senator HOGG—I have just a quick question on the Jenkins family. I do not know whether Senator Schacht has raised this? Has there been any claim for compensation by the Jenkins family?
Mr Brady—Yes, there were two claims. The first was lodged with Comcare some time last year. The Comcare claim is at arm’s length from the Department of Defence.
Senator HOGG—Are there any claims on the department?
Mr Brady—Perhaps you could just let me just finish that and then go on to the next point. When the Blunn inquiry was completed and available, we made the full version of the report available to Comcare so that they could finalise their claim. Secondly, a writ was taken out in Supreme Court of the ACT—I think that was in December of last year. The writ was against the Commonwealth, and service was accepted by the Department of Defence. It was a claim for damages in respect of this matter. The Commonwealth appointed the Australian Government Solicitor as its representative to handle the matter. I understand that the Australian Government Solicitor then sought further and better particulars of the claim from the lawyers representing Mrs Jenkins. Those further and better particulars have recently been received, and consideration is now being given to the Commonwealth’s response.
Senator HOGG—By whom?
Mr Brady—Initially by the Australian Government Solicitor. The Australian Government Solicitor has indicated that they will be seeking further instructions from the Department of Defence, but they have not yet done so.
Senator COONEY—Do you know whether the Commonwealth has put a defence in yet?
Mr Brady—No.
Senator HOGG—The other issue, the Comcare matter: whilst you supplied them with the full version of the report and you said that they were going to determine the matter, do you know whether it has been determined by Comcare?
Mr Brady—I do not know the answer to that.
Senator COONEY—Do you know whether it is being defended? Do you know whether the Commonwealth accepted liability for the Comcare case? It would be a widow’s claim, I take it. Mr Brady—Comcare operates at arm’s length from the department.
Senator COONEY—But there would have to be witnesses; do you follow? I thought you might have known about that. But I am not going to anything secret there; that is just a plain question. I take it that the claim is in respect of the death; that would arise, I would have thought, within this department. Comcare would have to get evidence to proceed. I thought that they might have asked you what the position was. Do you know whether there has been a payout or whether they are fighting it before the AAT, or anything like that?
Mr Brady—I do not know what the final resolution was. I can answer your question I think by saying that the Department of Defence put no material, in the sense of a defence, to Comcare in relation to the matter. We left it entirely to Comcare to resolve it in accordance with Comcare’s—
Senator COONEY—And waited for them to ask you questions if they wanted any information?
Mr Brady—Yes.
Senator HOGG—Just following on from my question: do you know whether Defence have made an offer to the Jenkins family at this stage?
Mr Brady—No, no offer has been made.
Senator SCHACHT—It would not be unreasonable if you did make some modest offer to at least lean on the side of generosity, I would have thought.
Senator Kemp—I do not know whether the officer needs to respond to that.
Senator SCHACHT—No, he will not comment on it, but I want to put that on the record.
Senator COONEY—You would be awaiting some advice from the Australian Government Solicitor about that matter, I take it.
Senator HOGG—I will get off that issue now. Perhaps I can get on to another issue that was raised in Foreign Affairs today and has been a topical issue elsewhere. Is Defence aware of the recent report by the European parliament into the echelon systems and the concerns they have that the US is using, for commercial purposes, intelligence that has been gathered? Can Defence give a guarantee that Australian citizens’ privacy is not compromised by Australia’s involvement in this system?
Mr Brady—Yes. The relevant question here relates to the Defence Signals Directorate, which is the signals intelligence organisation for the Australian government. It operates under a strict charter and a set of rules designed precisely to protect the privacy of Australian citizens.
Senator SCHACHT—Given your answer, what is your response to the recent report by the European parliament into the Echelon system?
Mr Brady—I have no comment on reports made by the European parliament.
Senator HOGG—Thank you very much. I have no further questions other than those that I might put on notice.
Senator SCHACHT—I do not want the officers to go, because I might get a chance to ask a couple more questions on this matter.
CHAIR—I ask Mr Brady and his colleagues to stay in the building until 10 o’clock in case we have some more time to question them further.
...
HTML by Cryptome.