Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation

What DIGO does

DIGO is responsible for the acquisition and analysis of satellite and other imagery and for the development, acquisition and exploitation of geospatial data, in support of Australia’s defence and other national interests.

This means that DIGO collects and analyses images of foreign and domestic subjects (eg. landforms, waterways, disputed territories etc.), and develops mapping and imagery intelligence products for the ADF and a range of other Commonwealth clients.

DIGO also has the capacity to combine imagery with other available sources of data to prepare highly accurate topographical maps and other aids that are of value in the preparation of plans relevant to national defence and security.

Further information about DIGO can be found on the Department of Defence website.

Significant issues

Growth and expansion

An outline of the history of Australia’s indigenous military mapping and imagery capability was given in the IGIS annual report 2004–05 (p. 34).

Since its formation in 2000 DIGO has focused on:

consolidating its role as Australia’s lead imagery/geospatial agency
developing its collection and analytical capabilities
forging close links with similarly focused international agencies
educating its customers about its actual and potential capabilities
contributing to a ‘whole of government’ approach to various issues
transforming its disparate components into a unified management structure, and
establishing itself as a full member of the AIC in its own right.

DIGO has grown substantially since it was created and it continues to grow.

In recognition of the leading role that it plays in imagery related matters, additional functionality and responsibilities were transferred from the ADF to DIGO in November 2005.

Flood Review implementation

As discussed in detail in my previous annual report, Mr Philip Flood conducted a significant inquiry into Australia’s intelligence agencies in the later part of 2003-04 and delivered the report of his inquiry to the government in July 2004.

Mr Flood viewed DIGO’s rapid development in a very positive light, but also identified several issues which he believed required attention so that DIGO could fulfil its potential, including:

formalising DIGO’s functions and ministerial accountability arrangements by inserting it into the ISA
including DIGO within the remit of the retitled Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
formally including DIGO within the remit of IGIS by amending the IGIS Act
making the Director DIGO a full member of the Foreign Intelligence Coordination Committee, and
requiring DIGO to develop and implement a comprehensive customer engagement strategy.³⁸

The government accepted these recommendations in July 2004 and DIGO has worked cooperatively with a variety of other agencies since then to bring these recommendations into effect.

Legislative amendments

The legislative vehicle which gave effect to Mr Flood’s recommendations was the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (ISLA Act) which commenced operation on 2 December 2005.

As a result of the passage of the ISLA Act, a clear statement of the full range of DIGO’s functions was made public for the first time through the insertion of section 6B into the ISA. DIGO’s collection activities are consequently limited to the matters provided for in section 6B of the ISA.

As a consequence of DIGO’s formal inclusion into the ISA, the Minister for Defence was required to issue Ministerial Directions to the Director DIGO on matters pertaining to its functions for which a ministerial authorisation must be obtained.

The Ministerial Directions issued to the Director DIGO are classified, but there is a statutory requirement that all such directions must be provided to the IGIS as soon as practicable after the direction is given.³⁹ This requirement has been met.

The practical effect of the requirement for the Minister for Defence to issue a Ministerial Direction is that it is now the case that the Minister for Defence, rather than the Director DIGO, is the authorising authority for certain collection activities.

The Minister for Defence was also required to make written rules regulating the communication and retention by DIGO of intelligence information concerning Australian persons. The then Minister for Defence did so by endorsing the DIGO privacy rules, which came into effect on 2 December 2005. A copy of the DIGO privacy rules is provided at Annex 5 of this report. (The privacy rules are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this chapter)

Accountability arrangements

The ISLA Act also consequentially amended section 8(2) of the IGIS Act. The effect of this amendment was to formally place DIGO within the oversight of the IGIS, on a par with ASIS and DSD.

In simple terms this means that the Inspector-General can conduct inspections into the full range of DIGO’s activities, conduct inquires at the request of the Minister for Defence, or on the Inspector-General’s ‘own motion’, and respond to complaints made by Australian citizens or permanent residents about DIGO.

The amendment to the IGIS Act has given statutory effect to what was previously an administrative arrangement endorsed by the Minister for Defence, that IGIS should treat DIGO as though it were formally incorporated into the IGIS Act.

New legal framework – preparation for transition

My staff and I engaged frequently with the Director DIGO, DIGO Special Counsel and DIGO’s Director of Policy and Compliance during the period leading up to DIGO’s incorporation into the ISA.

All staff were kept fully informed of the consequences for DIGO of its transition to the ISA legal framework, comprehensive training was delivered to key personnel, and internal mechanisms were established or adjusted to ensure compliance with the ISA and the new DIGO privacy rules.

I was impressed with the amount of preparation undertaken to ensure that this transition occurred with a minimum of fuss, or disruption to DIGO’s operational activities.

Operational activities

Although the successful transition of DIGO to the new ISA legal framework was of great importance, I saw no evidence of any neglect by DIGO of its regular operational activities.

Although it is not possible in a public document to provide specific details of these activities, I can say that DIGO did devote significant effort and resources to supporting various ADF operations around the world, as well as providing assistance in security planning for several major events conducted within Australia.

Inspection activities

In addition to the special briefings I received from key DIGO staff on the implementation of the Flood recommendations and the transition to the new ISA regime, I visited DIGO headquarters periodically during the reporting period to review materials relating to DIGO’s collection activities and to discuss other issues of mutual interest.

I had initially programmed these visits to occur every three months but as the reporting period progressed decided to increase the frequency to once every two months.

In conducting these inspections I closely examined all tasking requests DIGO receives which might impact upon Australian persons or interests.

Prior to 2 December 2005, these tasking requests were undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Rules Governing DIGO’s Activities in Respect of Australia and Australians. After this date tasking was undertaken in accordance with the ISA.

The key difference between these regimes is that the rules applicable prior to 2 December 2005, dealt with both collection and reporting, while post 2 December 2005, collection activities are governed by the ISA, and reporting by the new DIGO privacy rules.

The adoption of the new privacy rules (which are essentially identical to the privacy rules applying to ASIS and DSD) has presented some challenges which are unique to DIGO. These challenges principally arise because ASIS and DSD reporting is largely text based, while DIGO’s reporting is predominantly image based. My staff and I will continue to work with DIGO to address these issues.

While my staff and I raised some procedural issues flowing from these inspections I was satisfied that all necessary approvals had been obtained under the Rules Governing DIGO’s Activities in Respect of Australia and Australians when they were operational.

I am also satisfied that post 2 December 2005, systems have been put in place by DIGO to obtain ministerial authorisations where this is necessary, and that other collection activities are being properly overseen and authorised by the Director DIGO.

In addition to these formal inspection activities, the Director DIGO has arranged for me to be briefed by a different functional area whenever I visit DIGO headquarters. These briefings have greatly assisted my depth of understanding of what DIGO does. I should thank the staff involved for the time and effort they had put into their various presentations.

Training

I did not make any specific presentations to DIGO staff during 2005-06, but did incidentally speak to those DIGO staff who attended the cross-AIC induction and senior officer courses at which I spoke.

During the reporting period, two of my staff attended information/training sessions run by DIGO staff on the impact on DIGO of the transition to the ISA regime.

Complaints and inquiries

The office received one complaint about DIGO during the reporting period, which was handled administratively.

Footnotes
38 Flood, op. cit., p. 180-182.
39 Section 32B of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986

content