unfinished business...

Do you remember that letter I sent Ruddock back in October last year? Well, I got a reply. It arrived middle January, but due to blogitis, I didn't post it here till now:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK

[date stamped 11 Jan 2006]

[my name and address]

Thank you for your letter of 26 October 2005 regarding the process under which the tourist visa held by American citizen Scott Parkin was cancelled. I note your previous correspondence and apologise for the delay in responding.

If any member of the public has any concerns about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's (ASIO) conduct or activities, these can be directed to the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). The IGIS regularly reviews ASIO's actions and has the ability to initiate inquiries or investigate complaints. The IGIS recently initiated an investigation into the treatment of Mr Parkin by ASIO.

The inquiry concluded on 29 November 2005 that the adverse security assessment which formed the basis for cancellation of his visa was based on "credible and reliable information" and met the legislative requirements.

This included the finding that ASIO had acted ib accordance with section 17A of the "Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, which requires that the functions of ASIO must not be carried out so as to "limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent and the exercise of that rightshall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security". This requirement is a very importaant one - a vibrant democracy thrives on lawfuladvocacy, protest and dissent.

The report by the IGIS, Mr Ian Carnell, also concluded:

• ASIO did not have, at the relevant time, information which would have justified recommending against the grant of a visa and took a close interest in Mr Parkin becasue of information received about his activites once in Australia

• there is no evidence or reason to think that ASIO's security assessment in respect of Mr Parkin was influenced from esewhere within the Australian Government or by external bodies, and

• ASIO did not act improperly in the course of speaking to Mr Parkin about the possibility of an interview with him.

Finally, Mr Carnell noted one of the difficulties in inquiring into intelligence and security matters and reporting outcomes to be that much of the material is, by its nature, very sensitive. The protection of collection methodologies and various sources means that there are appropriately circumstances in which disclosure cannot be made. In balancing security aspects against natural justice considerations, there are circumstances where it has traditionally been accepted that it is in the overall public interest for security considerations to be given precedence.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]

Philip Ruddock

So there you have it...

Any suggestions?