Senate debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Questions on Notice

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 1871)

Photo of Lee RhiannonLee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 June 2012:

In regard to claims made by Mr Wilson, a former Wall Street resource analyst, of ongoing interference by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) since authoring a research report in 1996 and associated comments on the shooting deaths of seven Indigenous protestors at the Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Grasberg mine site in West Papua in 1994:

(1) How has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of interference by ASIO with his employers, family, friends, peers, neighbours and business.

(2) Has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of inappropriate and inadequate oversight and review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) of this matter; if so, how was that investigation carried out and what was the outcome.

(3) Has the Minister requested any information from ASIO, IGIS or from other sources in considering Mr Wilson's request for an investigation into the allegations concerning ASIO and IGIS; if so:

(a) when and to whom was the request made;

(b) what details were requested; and

(c) was a response provided; if so, can details or a copy of that response be provided.

(4) Why has IGIS decided not to investigate any matters raised, despite Mr Wilson providing substantive additional allegations and detailed information concerning inappropriate ASIO interference subsequent to IGIS's preliminary investigation in 2004.

(5) What did the preliminary investigation conducted by IGIS in 2004 consist of, and in regard to this:

(a) Was ASIO asked if there was any substance to the complaints raised by Mr Wilson about ASIO abuse and interference;

(b) Were any of the people named by Mr Wilson contacted or interviewed; and

(c) Was evidence against Mr Wilson that depended on the provision of intelligence by a foreign intelligence service, such as the United States of America, independently verified and corroborated by ASIO.

(6) Has Mr Wilson ever been, or is he currently, the subject of an ASIO investigation.

(7) Has ASIO ever targeted Mr Wilson's family, friends, peers, neighbours, lawyers or business associates.

(8) What other Australian agencies are, or have been, involved in investigating and/or the interference with Mr Wilson since 1996, as outlined in his complaints about ASIO and IGIS.

Photo of Joe LudwigJoe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | | Hansard source

The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Mr Wilson was advised that the appropriate body to investigate his concerns regarding ASIO was the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS).

(2) As the IGIS falls within the Prime Minister's portfolio, the Prime Minister or her Department are best placed to respond to this matter.

(3) On 8 March 2011 the Attorney-General's Department wrote to Mr Wilson and suggested he contact the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security regarding his concerns about the activities of ASIO.

(4) As the IGIS falls within the Prime Minister's portfolio, the Prime Minister or her Department are best placed to respond to this matter. The Office of the IGIS has advised that:

“It is not the usual practice of the Inspector-General to discuss individual complaints which have been made to her office. However, as Mr Wilson has previously self-disclosed that he has made complaints to the IGIS, in these circumstances the IGIS has advised that she and one of her predecessors have previously examined Mr Wilson's claims and determined that there were insufficient grounds on which to proceed to a full inquiry.”

(5) See answer to question (4).

(6) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.

(7) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.

(8) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.