Counter-Terrorism White Paper: No surprises in new paper
by Ernie Davitt, National Affairs Editor, ASM
There’s good news with fresh investment in the high end of the Australian security industry, but despite a tweaking of counter-terrorism (CT) strategy, there were no real surprises in the thrust of the Federal Government’s new Counter-Terrorism White Paper.
Albeit an important public statement about the current government’s position on this vital element of national security, it could have gone much further.
With the exception of a couple of decisions related to the structure and coordination of CT within government, greater use of biometrics, and a slight change in strategic direction, almost all of the other elements, including the focus on home-grown terrorism, have been in the public domain or under development for some time.
The key news is that this year will see the creation of a new Counter-Terrorism Control Centre within ASIO to better integrate Australia’s overall counter-terrorism intelligence capabilities, as well as a National Crisis Coordination Centre and Parliament House Briefing Room to provide what the Government terms “holistic, real-time support to senior decision-makers during a crisis”.
A white paper is an all-embracing position paper designed to state a government’s approach to or philosophy about a subject, with a technical explanation of the architecture, framework, and general means which will be followed to implement it.
The Federal Opposition claimed the CT White Paper was issued prematurely, saying it had been rushed out to divert public attention away from the then embattled Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, who was under the hammer over deaths and safety concerns related to the Government’s home insulation grant scheme. Garrett was subsequently demoted.
Compared with the Defence White Paper, for example, the new CT White Paper lacks detail and an idea of intended future levels of spending.
Given the long delays in getting it published and some of the Government’s own hype on the subject, some national security insiders found it disappointing.
The CT Control Centre flows on from the Prime Minister’s National Security Statement issued last December which said greater interoperability, integration and collaboration were needed in the area of national security.
An Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Policy Analysis paper entitled Homeward Bound: Australia’s new Counter-Terrorism White Paper by Anthony Bergin and Carl Ungerer described the White Paper as an important milestone in Australia’s evolving national security policy framework.
It fastened on (mainstream) media reporting on the White Paper which it said had missed a fundamental aspect of the document – a change in strategy.
“Without fanfare, the Rudd government has re-cast the four major elements of our counter-terrorism strategy from prevention, preparedness, response and recovery to the slightly more ambiguous analysis, protection, response and resilience,” they said.
“The previous approach was at the heart of the Federal–State agreement on domestic counter-terrorism policy following the creation of the National Counter-Terrorism Plan in 2005.
“The work of the States and Territories in each of these four streams will now need to be reviewed and possibly revised.”
They said analysis was an activity which underpinned all four components of the strategy.
“This is quite different from the previous White Paper’s focus on prevention, although it’s possible the term analysis was adopted to emphasise to the wider community that all aspects of our counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence led and evidence based,” they said.
On the question of creating a new Counter-Terrorism Control Centre, they said it was not yet clear whether another layer of bureaucracy would necessarily improve the flow of information beyond existing arrangements.
“A more effective approach for sharing terrorism information may be to harness Web 2.0, which utilises the internet as an effective communication tool for improving knowledge and fostering collaboration,” they said.
“The US intelligence community has created Intellipedia, a Wikipedia-style portal for information sharing, and A-Space, a MySpace equivalent for intelligence analysts to connect with colleagues working on similar topics.”
The Smith Review of Australian Homeland and Border Security last June argued for better coordination among existing agencies and better mechanisms for strategic planning while rejecting the need for a separate Homeland Security Department.
The review also emphasised the importance of information sharing to achieve a ‘more joined-up’ security community.
The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Attorney General Robert McClelland and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith launched the White Paper, saying the first responsibility of government was the protection of Australia, Australians and Australia’s interests.
They said in a joint statement: “No government can guarantee that Australians will be free from the threat of terrorist attack. But this Government will take all necessary and practical measures to combat the threat.”
“This White Paper forms part of the Government’s national security reform agenda. It is a further step in delivering a safer, more secure Australia.”
At the very least, the White Paper recognises the importance of counter-terrorism in the national security armoury, outlines a number of improvements in tactics and brings together for the first time Australia’s response to domestic and global terrorism.
A copy of the Counter-Terrorism White Paper can be downloaded from the White Papers section of this website.