Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Free flowing security statement

By Peter Coates - posted Monday, 15 December 2008


The classic case occurred in 2003 under the Howard government where an absence of intelligence data and hopeful rumour were held up as “proving” that Iraq was hiding WMDs. We should all worry when a Prime Minister sends Australia to war based on a new realm of intelligence reality politically agreed between our senior allies. Australia’s commitment under American pressure to nation building in a highly reluctant Afghanistan may one day be seen as symptomatic of yet another joint intelligence disconnection.

Movement of some security co-ordination tasks from the Attorney-General’s Department (AGs) to PM&C also risks exposure to Rudd’s increasingly famous round the clock micro-managerial style. Australia’s security co-ordination officers are already on-call as part of their job but constant questions and reviews from a driven leader could potentially chip away at morale and cause dangerously high staff turnover. Rudd’s close advisers have already left in droves apparently due to his current style.

One of the more encouraging sections of the Security Statement appears to open the way for increased examination of the terrorism laws:

Advertisement

… the Government’s responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests while preserving our civil liberties and the rule of law. This balance represents a continuing challenge of all modern democracies seeking to prepare for the complex national security challenges of the future. It is a balance that must remain a conscious part of the national security policy process. We must not silently allow any incremental erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

Hopefully some concrete action will come out of that comment.

Time and consensus will tell whether Kevin Rudd’s First National Security Statement is a reflex reaction to the Mumbai attack, farseeing enunciation of ideas, routine bureaucratic rearrangement, or a timely creation of the National Security Adviser position. In burying the notion of a Department of Homeland Security the Security Statement has achieved something already.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Coates has been writing articles on military, security and international relations issues since 2006. In 2014 he completed a Master’s Degree in International Relations, with a high distinction average. His website is Submarine Matters.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Coates

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Coates
Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy