Print this page
Defence Intelligence Organisation
What DIO does
DIO is Australia’s strategic level, all-source Defence intelligence assessment agency. It provides intelligence assessment to inform the decision-making of the Department of Defence and the ADF, and the broader Australian Government.
DIO’s assessments cover strategic, political, defence, military, economic, scientific and technical issues which have the potential to impact on Australia’s security interests. DIO plays a critical role in assisting with the planning, command and conduct of current and potential operations by the ADF. It assesses the strategic posture, policy and intent and the military capabilities of countries relevant to Australia’s security.
DIO focuses on overseas developments and does not concern itself with domestic concerns or situations within Australia. DIO is an assessment agency rather than an intelligence collection agency.
DIO also has the responsibility of developing and maintaining a defence intelligence capability for use in time of crisis and conflict.
Further information about the role and functions of DIO can be found on the Department of Defence website.
Privacy guidelines
My predecessor, Mr Blick, proposed in October 2003 that ONA and DIO should develop arrangements to regulate their dissemination of intelligence information regarding Australian persons. While not a frequent issue for assessment agencies, it nonetheless seemed anomalous that these two agencies could, theoretically at least, disseminate intelligence information about Australian’s more widely than the collection agencies.
This issue was included in the 2004 administrative review of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA), coordinated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The review recommended that DIO and ONA develop privacy guidelines in consultation with the Attorney-General and the IGIS, and that these guidelines should be in place by the end of 2005. It also recommended that compliance with these guidelines be monitored by the IGIS.
These recommendations were accepted by government.
The guidelines that were developed for DIO are consistent with the rules made under section 15 of the ISA that apply to ASIS, DIGO and DSD. The guidelines apply to references to personal information about Australians in external communications – including reports, briefings, emails and advice – emanating from DIO.
On 2 December 2005 the then Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, endorsed DIO’s privacy guidelines. I was consulted by DIO in the development of these guidelines and was also formally consulted by the minister prior to the guidelines receiving his endorsement. A copy of the DIO privacy guidelines is at Annex 6.
As well as providing advice during the development of the guidelines, my office also worked closely with DIO during the implementation of the new privacy guidelines. This helped to ensure that the guidelines were applied in a manner consistent with use elsewhere in the AIC.
DIO embarked on an organisation-wide program to educate analysts on applying the guidelines and reporting on compliance with the guidelines. The implementation of the privacy guidelines at DIO was conducted in a thorough manner and for the most part analysts appear to be clear about the process and how it is now a part of their responsibilities as analysts. I am satisfied with the progress DIO has made on this issue, both in the period leading up to, and after, the endorsement of the privacy guidelines on 2 December 2005.
For the reporting period 2005-06 I was able to conduct one inspection in April of DIO’s use of the privacy guidelines. Even though this was the first inspection of its kind, I was pleased with the overall quality and level of detail contained in the documentation.
I intend to conduct inspections relating to DIO’s use of the privacy guidelines every three months.
Complaints and inquiries
I received no complaints about DIO during this reporting period which required inquiry action.
An individual did approach the office with concerns about security processes at DIO but we established that these concerns were related to the Defence Security Authority rather than DIO. As this case fell outside of my jurisdiction, the individual was referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.