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 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 at <http://www.defence.gov.au/dio/>.
Privacy guidelines
The DIO privacy guidelines, endorsed by the then Minister for Defence Senator the Hon Robert Hill on 2 December 2005, govern the use of references to personal information about Australians in external communications – including reports, briefings, emails and advice – emanating from DIO.
After the introduction of privacy guidelines at DIO, I was able to conduct one inspection in April 2006 and forecast in my last annual report that I intended to conduct inspections every three months during this reporting period.
I conducted five inspections of DIO’s use of the privacy guidelines during the reporting period.
Overall I was pleased with the quality and level of detail contained in the documentation. The implementation of privacy guidelines at DIO has been conducted thoroughly and it is clear that DIO staff take seriously the responsibility to document application of the guidelines. I have also noticed that during the reporting period DIO staff have developed a more nuanced appreciation of the privacy guidelines and, for the most part, appear to understand the process and the importance of meeting the requirements of the guidelines.
DIO has continued its organisation-wide programs and training to educate analysts on applying the guidelines and reporting on compliance with the guidelines. DIO is making good progress in this regard with a high percentage of staff having undertaken training. I will continue to monitor DIO’s commitment to ensuring that privacy guidelines training is regularly undertaken by all analysts.
I intend to continue conducting inspections relating to DIO’s use of the privacy guidelines every three months.
Analytical Integrity
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. This means that of my own motion I can inquire into matters which include:
- the compliance by DIO with the laws of the Commonwealth and of the states and territories
- the propriety of particular activities of DIO, or
- the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures of DIO relating to the legality or propriety of the activities of DIO.
As mentioned in the chapter on ONA, the legislative amendments also specifically required me to inquire into the statutory independence of ONA. There is no equivalent provision in respect of DIO, not least because DIO does not have a statutory basis.
However, I consider that the concept of propriety clearly covers notions that DIO assessments must be formulated in an objective manner and without improper external pressure or self-censorship to conform with policy positions. Another way of expressing this is to refer to the “integrity” of the assessment process.
I am certainly not suggesting that the sort of review undertaken by my office in respect of ONA is readily transferable to DIO. Obviously a key difference is the statutory independence of the Director-General of ONA compared to the DIO Director’s position in the Defence management structure.
I have sought a detailed briefing on how DIO ensure the integrity of its assessment process and look forward to receiving this in the next reporting period.
Training
I made two presentations to staff at DIO during the reporting period.
Complaints and inquiries
I received no complaints about DIO which required inquiry action during this reporting period. Three matters were handled administratively.
As mentioned in the DSD and DIGO chapters, I have commenced an own motion inquiry into the OSA process in these three Defence agencies.