Ivanus and Inspector-General Intelligence and Security

[2005] AATA 1232

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1232

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   N2005/1313

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		Vasile Ivanus

Applicant

And Inspector-General Intelligence and Security

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Professor GD Walker, Deputy President

Date14 December 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision Application No N2005/1313 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

..............................................

Professor GD Walker
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

JURISDICTION of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – decision of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security – investigations into the activities of ASIS in relation to the applicant – whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an application for review of the decision – the application is dismissed.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 42A(2)

Intelligence Service Act 2001

REASONS FOR DECISION

14 December 2005 Professor GD Walker, Deputy President

1.      On 12 October 2005, the applicant lodged at the Sydney District Registry of the Tribunal an application for a review of a decision of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security dated 20 September 2005.   On 21 March 2005, the applicant wrote to the Inspector-General regarding a possible investigation of him by Australian and Romanian officials following an incident which occurred on 27 October 1989 in Perth, Western Australia.  He believed that certain Romanian expatriates supportive of the then communist regime in Romania had falsely informed the Australian authorities that he was an agent of the Securitate secret police sent to spy on Romanian refugees in Australia.  An Australian Federal Police incident report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) tended to support that belief.

2.      By letter of 23 March 2005, the Inspector-General acknowledged receipt of Mr Ivanus’ correspondence and informed him that the Inspector-General’s office does not have jurisdiction over the actions of overseas intelligence agencies or Australian or foreign police services and that if the applicant believed that he had been investigated by ASIO and “wished to clear his name” that the Inspector-General “would be happy to send a copy of the certificates that you have sent to my office to ASIO on your behalf”.  On 12 April 2005, the applicant forwarded two certificates from the Romanian National Council for the Analysis of the Archives of the Romanian Intelligence Service (CNAS) to the Inspector-General with authority to hand them onto ASIO.  The Inspector-General acknowledged receipt of same by letter of 15 April 2005.

3.      Mr Ivanus sent further facsimiles to the Inspector-General on 29 March, 31 March and 1 April 2005.  By letter of 6 April 2005, the Inspector-General advised the applicant that “from the information you have sent to my office there does not appear to be any grounds to investigate possible actions of ASIO in respect of you”.

4.      On 12 May 2005, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security wrote to the applicant, acknowledging receipt of all correspondence received by him, and advising him that he had concluded his investigations into Mr Ivanus’ concerns and that he was “completely satisfied, based on my inquiries that ASIO has not engaged in any illegal or improper activity in respect of you”.  He noted that he had sent the two CNAS certificates to the Director-General of ASIO for him to translate and consider.  The Director-General had informed him that the certificates were indeed from CNAS and that they stated that Mr Ivanus had never been a Securitate agent or informer.

5.      By letter dated 14 September 2005, the applicant again wrote to the Inspector-General requesting the Inspector-General to investigate his file held by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.  On 20 September 2005, the Inspector-General wrote to Mr Ivanus advising him that:

…

I am satisfied that ASIO has not engaged in any illegal or improper activity in respect of you.

Your latest letter suggests you have been the subject of an investigation by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS).   The primary focus of ASIS is to obtain and distribute intelligence information about the capabilities, intentions and activities of individuals and organizations outside Australia, which may impact on Australian interests and the well being of its citizens.

…

Bearing this in mind, there is nothing whatsoever in your profile to indicate that ASIS would taken an interest in you and your activities or that ASIS is somehow involved in your difficulties.

I feel that I have provided all assistance I reasonably can in relation to this matter and will proceed to close this office’s [sic] [file].

6.      On 12 October 2005, the Deputy Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) wrote to the applicant stating that there did not appear to be any provision giving the AAT power to review the matters raised by the applicant.  He was invited to give in writing, within 14 days, reasons why he thought the tribunal in fact had jurisdiction and offered to arrange a preliminary hearing to decide the issue.

7.      On 17 October 2005, the Sydney Registry received a letter from the applicant stating “I can not show theat [sic] the tribunal has the power to review the decision, and I believe the tribunal has no power to investigate my application … I am waiting for your decision”.

8.      Neither the applicant’s letter, nor his submissions at the jurisdiction hearing held on 8 December 2005, disclosed any basis on which this tribunal could exercise jurisdiction. The application therefore should be dismissed pursuant to s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

I certify that the 6 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Professor GD Walker, Deputy President

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  9 December 2005
Date of Decision  14 December 2005
Representative for the Applicant               Self-represented
Representative for the Respondent           Mr R Wood, Australian Government   Solicitor’s office