|
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00 |
IGIS Annual Report 1999-00
DEFENCE SIGNALS DIRECTORATE
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
Scope and reporting arrangements
210. Inspection activities involving DSD during the 1999-2000 reporting period have included
- monitoring compliance by DSD with the Rules on Foreign Signals Intelligence and Australian Persons (the nationality rules);
- examining requests by other agencies for information held by DSD;
- inspecting DSD collection activities at its various Australian facilities;
- examining DSD's written submissions to its minister
- examining DSD's handling of applications for access to its records under the Archives Act.
211. The Director and I have agreed that following each inspection activity, members of my staff or I would discuss any concerns with an appropriate senior manager or liaison officer and any matters needing to be put in writing would be addressed to the Director.
212. In addition to the above, I follow up all such discussions with a letter outlining any issues raised during the inspection. In each instance where this has occurred, DSD has provided a satisfactory response.
213. We have also agreed procedures that would operate should I form the view that any matter arising from an inspection needed to be brought to the attention of the Minister for Defence or the Prime Minister. No such matters arose during the reporting year.
Communications involving Australians - rules
214. As indicated above, DSD is a foreign intelligence collection agency not an assessment agency.
215. In discharging its function as a collector of foreign intelligence DSD produces and distributes a significant number of reports daily. The vast majority of these reports do not name or otherwise refer to Australian persons.
216. Where Australians are mentioned in DSD reports, they are generally referred to in a way that does not permit third parties to identify them. If another agency has a legitimate need to know an identity, it may make a request to DSD, which will only release the details if the request is made for a particular purpose directly related to the legitimate operational needs of the requesting agency.
217. DSD must keep records of all instances where other agencies request access to the names of these persons.
218. The nationality rules also require DSD to keep records of any material retained from the inadvertent collection of communications involving Australians, and of all instances where an Australian has been deemed to be an agent of a foreign power.
Communications involving Australians - results of inspections
219. We visit DSD Headquarters approximately every eight weeks to inspect these records and to otherwise examine DSD's compliance with the nationality rules.
220. In inspecting the various registers that DSD keeps, we noted that although DSD can target the foreign communications of Australians in prescribed circumstances, this is only done so in a very small number of cases. Those cases where this power was used were supported by ample justification.
221. We saw no evidence that DSD was abusing its powers under the rules. To the contrary, we noted that DSD management and staff adopt a very proper and cautious approach with regard to its collection and reporting activities.
222. Having said that, we noted a small number of cases where the rules were breached. In each instance the breach was either inadvertent or beyond the control of DSD, and immediate and appropriate corrective action was taken.
223. I also found no evidence to suggest that breaches were being hidden from scrutiny. If anything, the reverse was true.
224. In addition to conducting on-site inspection visits, the office has on-line access to DSD reporting which my staff monitor for compliance with the rules on a daily basis.
225. Our inspection visits and monitoring activities brought to light several issues which resulted in correspondence with the Director DSD. Some of the issues were procedural in nature, while others were more substantive.
226. In one instance, our on-line monitoring turned up a report naming an Australian that we believed should be cancelled. Our concerns were relayed to the Director, the report was immediately cancelled, and a written explanation provided detailing how the report came to be erroneously issued. This was the only such occurrence.
227. I also raised questions about the amount of supporting material that should be provided by agencies, by way of justification, before DSD agrees to supply information which would identify an Australian named in a report.
228. DSD takes an appropriately conservative attitude in such cases, and will not release the information without being satisfied that there is a direct nexus between the requesting agency's functions and the information sought.
229. Towards the end of the reporting period, however, I decided that where requests of this kind come from agencies within the IGIS's jurisdiction, I should in some circumstances examine the relevant cases files in the requesting agency, to assure myself that the request to DSD reflects a substantial intelligence need. This will continue to be the approach in 2000?2001. There are, of course, requests from other agencies, such as law enforcement agencies, over which the IGIS does not have jurisdiction.
230. In summary, our experience is that DSD staff involved in collection and reporting activities take a very rigorous attitude towards compliance with the rules. It is also clear that this culture is strongly promoted by the Director and is reinforced at all levels.
Collection activities
231. SIGINT collection is a challenging and dynamic arena. Professional SIGINT agencies must be alert to changes in the environment in which they operate otherwise their effectiveness is rapidly diminished.
232. Agencies such as DSD also need to be in the vanguard of, or at least keep pace with, emergent technologies or risk being left behind. DSD therefore engages in development of projects involving different approaches to collection of intelligence.
233. DSD regularly informs me of the nature of such projects and we discuss any issues that might arise concerning legality or propriety. My main concern in such cases is to ensure that adequate attention is given to such issues, including DSD obtaining legal advice where necessary.
234. In addition to receiving briefings at DSD Headquarters, I also inspected some of DSD's other facilities. I am confident, based on these inspections, other inspection activities and discussions with DSD staff at all levels, that its collection activities do not involve spying on the communications of the Australian community.
Ministerial submissions
235. The Director DSD maintains a register of all written submissions from DSD to the Minister for Defence. I review this register on a periodic basis.
236. The submissions presented to the minister contain well-considered advice and sufficient information factual information about DSD's operations.
Archives
237. The office receives regular reports from DSD about the activities of its archives unit. These reports provide a statistical summary of access requests that are referred to it and the timeliness with which these requests are dealt.
238. These reports also discuss archival issues of current or ongoing interest to DSD, such as its sentencing program, manuscript clearance procedures, requests for information etc.
239. In addition to these reports, inquiries sometimes require access to DSD's archives.
240. I am satisfied on the basis of these interactions that DSD is providing appropriate attention to this function.