Homeland Security plans under review
National Affairs editor, Ernie Davitt reports that all eyes are on the new Australian Labor Government as its implements its national security policy.
The Rudd Government surprised many security observers with an announcement just days after its election win that it will be reassessing its commitment to create a separate Homeland Security Department.
In the lead-up to the election, Labor indicated a broad bipartisan approach in terms of its (non-Defence) national security agenda – counter-terrorism, border protection, intelligence, law enforcement, aviation, land and maritime security – but foreshadowed many structural and legislative changes.
Establishment of a Homeland Security (HS) Department and a new Coast Guard organisation have been major planks in the ALP national security policy for some years.
But surprisingly, within days of being elected, Mr Rudd announced his new ministry which included the axing of former Homeland Security (HS) spokesman, Arch Bevis and the proposed HS Department.
Australian Security Magazine learned that the incoming government started having second thoughts after receiving advice from senior public servants in its first couple of days after the election that a separate department was unnecessary, would lead to confusion and would be very costly to implement.
This would not sit well with a new Government looking to pare back the Federal bureaucracy to help fund its commitments to introduce expensive major reforms in health, education and other areas.
Mr Rudd said he had not given up on a homeland security portfolio in the future and he still intended locating a national security adviser within the prime minister’s portfolio.
He said that before the middle of 2008 there would be policy discussion within Government on how the homeland security proposal could be advanced.
Potential participating agencies would put their submissions to an external commissioner with parliamentary experience who would report back and the Government would then implement the recommendations.
The Australian HS proposal was loosely modelled on the US Homeland Security Department which has been the subject of mounting criticism about inefficiency, wasting money and an overly bureaucratic structure and approach.
Leading Australian national security academic, Clive Williams, said he believed Mr Rudd’s approach was sound, given the experience of the US with implementation of its super Department of Homeland Security.
Adjunct Professor at Macquarie University’s Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism and a Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Prof Williams told ASM:
“Pre-election, Labor’s Department of Homeland Security was promoted as a significant policy development to enhance Australia’s national security. But it was always likely to prove difficult to implement, and do we really need it?
“We lack the competing inefficient megastructures of the US system. In the US case, the Department of Homeland Security has simply added another layer of bureaucracy to the equation, and not improved national security much - if at all. (Witness the ongoing shambles of Katrina.)
“I believe the Rudd inquiry proposal is sound, given that a DHS was not a great concept in the first place. That is not to say that we don’t need to improve the way we handle national security, but perhaps a National Security (Fusion) Centre, with involvement from all relevant areas, would be a better and less contentious option.”
Calling for submissions
Prof Williams said that calling for submissions from the areas concerned was a waste of time "because any proposal which threatened the existing bureaucracy would get panned, and the smartest bureaucrats would end up with more resources."
He said the inquiry needed to come from outside the public service, "with reasonable judgments made about any new coordination structures, and sensible suggestions made about appropriate allocation of resources (Some areas already get more than they need to deal with credible threats.)"
“We also need to focus on new issues like the national security implications of climate change - which did not even rate a mention in the 2007 Defence Update,” he said.
Former NSW Attorney-General, Mr Bob Debus, was appointed Minister for Home Affairs which, according to the new administrative arrangements, would be broadly similar to the previous Government’s Ministry for Justice and Customs, within the Attorney-General’s portfolio, which is to be headed by Robert McClelland, who sits at the top of the national security ladder.
Mr Rudd has foreshadowed that following development of a Labor Defence White Paper, he would write a more comprehensive National Security Statement, clearly articulating the strategic rationale and capability requirements for all our security, intelligence and related agencies.
Labor is expected to overhaul much of the legislation underpinning Australia’s national security, with an emphasis on addressing laws seen as too draconian or where there are serious human rights concerns.
One area where there is expected to be major investment is in the AFP. During the election campaign, Mr Rudd, said a Labor Government would commit $200m for an additional 500 Federal Police to help keep Australia safe from terrorism and other crimes.
"I believe the Rudd inquiry proposal is sound, given that a Department of Homeland Security was not a great concept in the first place."
About the author: Ernie Davitt is the National Affairs Editor for Australian Security Magazine.