Defence Intelligence Organisation

What DIO does

DIO is Australia’s strategic level, all-source Defence intelligence assessment agency. It provides intelligence assessments to inform the decision-making of the Department of Defence including the ADF, and the broader Australian government.

DIO is an assessment agency rather than an intelligence collection agency.

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 also plays an important 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 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.

Analytic Integrity

As discussed in the “ONA” chapter, since the amendments made in late 2005 to the IGIS Act allow the IGIS to initiate inquiries into matters relating to ONA and DIO without ministerial referral, I have conducted both inspection and inquiry activities in relation to ONA’s statutory independence.

As a logical next step, on 29 February 2008, I advised the Minister for Defence, the Deputy Secretary Intelligence, Security and International Policy and the Director DIO of my intention to conduct an own motion inquiry into the propriety of the assessment activities of DIO (as per section 8(3)(a)(iii) of the IGIS Act).

While DIO does not have a statutory basis, unlike ONA, I consider that the concept of propriety clearly covers the notion of “integrity” of the assessment process.

Integrity of the assessment process requires that assessments are made objectively, dispassionately and free from improper external pressure/direction, and on the basis of intelligence that is considered to be both reliable and valid.

The methodology used in conducting this inquiry has been informed in part by the approach taken to the inquiry into the statutory independence of ONA.

I commenced this particular inquiry by developing a set of principles that articulate what analytic integrity at DIO is and is not. I then held a series of focus groups with DIO analysts to refine these principles. In addition to providing a ‘yardstick’ for this inquiry, I anticipate that the principles will continue to be a useful reference for analysts. A copy of these principles is provided at Annex 4.

As with the ONA inquiry, I decided to canvass the views of DIO staff, through a survey, on matters relating to DIO’s analytic integrity. I also held seven focus groups (consisting of small numbers of analysts and managers) with DIO staff to outline the review, to hear their thoughts and suggestions and gain an appreciation of the various experiences of individuals across the branches and at different classifications levels in DIO.

At the end of the reporting period this inquiry was close to being finalised. Further details of my findings will be reported in my next annual report.

Privacy guidelines

The DIO privacy guidelines, implemented in December 2005, govern the use of references to personal information about Australians in external communications – including reports, briefings, emails and advice – emanating from DIO.

Since implementation my office has conducted 10 inspections (including four in this reporting period). I have observed improvements in the administrative practices that underpin the guidelines in that time.

Overall I was pleased with the quality and level of detail contained in the documentation. There is a continued gradual increase in the sophistication of analysts’ appreciation of the privacy guidelines.

This is due in large part to DIO’s ongoing organisation-wide programs and training to educate analysts on applying the guidelines and reporting on compliance with the guidelines. DIO’s commitment during the reporting period to ensuring that privacy guidelines training is regularly undertaken by all analysts was evident. I will continue to monitor DIO’s provision of privacy guidelines training over the coming year.

I was particularly pleased by the increasing sophistication of DIO’s own audit procedures concerning conformance with the privacy guidelines. DIO conducts an annual audit. The audit uses a sampling methodology focussing on material produced by a randomly selected section of the organisation. I regard this initiative as a positive one as it provides for increased confidence in the overall accuracy of DIO’s audit activities.

I intend to continue conducting regular inspections relating to DIO’s use of the privacy guidelines at quarterly intervals.

Training

I have continued to raise awareness about my office and also encourage greater interaction between my office and DIO. In addition to my presentations to the AIC common induction and senior officers courses, to which DIO staff are regularly allocated places, I made two presentations to staff at DIO during the reporting period.

Information about the role and functions of my office is also accessible on DIO’s internal web pages.

Complaints and inquiries

I received no complaints about DIO which required inquiry action during this reporting period. Four matters were handled administratively.

As mentioned in the “DSD” and “DIGO” chapters, I finalised an own motion inquiry into the OSA process in these three Defence agencies. A copy of the executive summary of the report is provided at Annex 5 of this annual report.

content