Fundamental rethink needed on intelligence
One of the models being looked at in the Federal Government’s Homeland Security review echoes the UK system under which most agencies come under a separate Ministry for Home Affairs.
Under current arrangements, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, has responsibility for the areas covered by the former Minister for Justice and Customs but lacks a single Home Affairs Department to support him.
One sticking point seems to be which elements, if any, of the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) – ASIO, ASIS, ANO and the Defence intelligence agencies – would be included in any new department. The AIC, because of its importance is now the responsibility of the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, a Cabinet minister.
Asked whether he thought a Homeland Security Department was now off the cards, the Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Australian National Security Project, Dr Carl Ungerer, told ASM:
“I don’t think the Rudd Government is interested in a continuation of the status quo on national security, and therefore I think we will see quite substantial changes to the doctrinal and bureaucratic arrangements in this area.
“That said, the question of a HS department remains open – given the recent experience in the US system.”
The HS review, being undertaken by former Defence Department head, Ric Smith, is due to finish this month, but as Dr Ungerer points out, it is just one of many inquiries into the same general area.
“The Smith review is one of four separate reviews currently underway that touch upon national security issues,” he said.
“For example, there is a great deal of overlap between the review of homeland security and the National Security Statement being prepared by (Deputy Secretary) Duncan Lewis at PM and C.
“Coordinating these reviews and identifying a common strategy will be an important part of the overall approach adopted by the Rudd Government.”
Dr Ungerer told ASM he believed a fundamental rethink about the structure and functions of the intelligence community was needed.
“The six national intelligence agencies were created during the Cold War for a different set of strategic circumstances and a very different set of threats. The fact is, Australia missed the emergence of radical Islamists in Indonesia during the 1990s because no-one believed terrorism was a threat to Australian interests.
“The recent Street Review showed how bureaucratic silos and a culture of not sharing information can undermine national security interests. It was only through the series of royal commissions in the 1970s and 1980s that governments were able to implement genuine reform to the intelligence community.
“I hope that the current review and reform agenda will deliver a similar outcome.”
In a recent policy analysis paper, The Intelligence Reform Agenda: What Next
, Dr Ungerer said the new national security environment, in which threats to Australian interests could emerge quickly and without warning, required a fundamental rethink about the structure and functions of the intelligence community.
He said intelligence was now at the forefront of our national security effort. Recent reforms had delivered more money and more people to the intelligence community but limited structural changes.
He argues that reforms to the coordination mechanisms, community engagement, education, training and accountability regimes are necessary to ensure that intelligence continues to play a central role in Australia’s national security.
Across the board, Australia now spends in excess of $1.3 billion each year on intelligence. And the cost is growing. But simply throwing more money at intelligence was not the answer.
Four years after the government-commissioned Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies (the Flood review) the reform agenda had stalled, Dr Ungerer asserted.
“While the Rudd Government has inherited an intelligence community that is well-resourced, better integrated and more capable than at any time in its history, it also lacks overall direction and has been bruised by recent intelligence inquiries,” he says.
“The end result of the Flood inquiry is that the Australian Intelligence Community is larger and better resourced, but it looks and acts remarkably similar to the way it did in 2001.
“In particular, the continuing division between foreign and domestic intelligence appears increasingly at odds with the nature and evolution of national security threats.
“And despite some improvements in cooperation and communication across the community as a whole, there is still no primary point of contact for the Prime Minister or the public on intelligence matters.”
Further incremental adjustments to the AIC would not be sufficient to meet the expectations of either policy makers or the public.
“Australia’s national security architecture needs to adapt to the 21st century. Born of a different era and designed for a different set of security threats, the intelligence community has been reluctant to move quickly into the new security environment,” he says.
“Further reforms to the coordination mechanisms, community engagement, education, training and accountability regimes will ensure that the AIC can continue to play a central role in Australia’s national security.”
About the author: Ernie Davitt is the National Affairs Editor of Australian Security Magazine.