Towards a National Security Strategy for Australia
Abstract
This article examines the need for a National Security Strategy in Australia. The author looks at what is meant by the term, discusses what a National Security Strategy should achieve, and outlines how such a strategy should come about in Australia.
The debate over the need for, and shape of, a National Security Strategy (NSS) is analogous to the debate over an Australian Republic. The post-mortem conducted by the Australian Republican Movement after the 1999 referendum indicated that ‘the majority of Australians know that we will become a Republic and want it to be so’; however, it acknowledges that change in Australia is a difficult endeavour, and that the question of how the republic would work was the limiting factor.1 Similarly, there appears to be broad support for an NSS across Australian academia and think-tanks, yet the concept has never been adopted as government policy, and there are differences of opinion on the shape and content of an NSS.
Calls for an NSS are not new. The Australian Defence Force Journal published an article in 1997 that called on the Australian Government to espouse, develop and coordinate a National Security Policy.2 In 2000 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Government develop and maintain a national security policy.3 Both of these were published before the more complex security environment of post-11 September 2001. The need for a coordinated national approach to security is greater now than ever before, and previously divergent voices now agree.4 This article will discuss what is meant by an NSS and what it might achieve, before analysing how an NSS could be devised and implemented in Australia.
A Strategy for Security
There are many aspects to national security. It could simply be described as the territorial integrity and political independence of a state,5 or the definition could be broadened to include the protection of a states people, values, institutions, interests and prosperity.6 This broader definition appears to have been favoured by most commentators in the debate about an NSS.7 They cite phenomena such as globalisation and transnational crime as justifications for a close link between the security of the world, the region and the state, and the reason for the involvement of less traditional apparatus of the state (such as education and health) in ensuring national security. This will be the approach taken in this article.
A strategy is simply a long-term plan to achieve a goal. A good strategy articulates the end that is to be achieved, the way in which it will be achieved, and the means by which it will be achieved. This articulation of ends, ways and means is also apparent in good policy. For this reason, the terms ‘national security strategy’ and ‘national security policy’ are often used interchangeably. Both refer to coordinated statements of how a state sees its place and role in the world, how it intends to realise and secure this position, and what means it will use to ensure this. In Australia the parliamentary white paper has been the customary vehicle for such statements.
While the importance of national security is something agreed by most, there is little in the way of a long-term focus on the challenges that national security presents. Michael O’Connor is not alone in the opinion that:
Australians generally lack a genuine strategic view of national security, relying instead upon short term responses to events over which they have no control. Thus, most politicians, commentators and even professionals currently discuss national security policy in terms of the response to terrorism.8
A scan of current security policy documents and departmental annual reports indicates that the term ‘national security’ primarily encompasses countering the twin threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with adjunct consideration given to issues such as border protection. National security is, however, broader than just those three points; it also encompasses economic and resource security, the environment, and regional capacity- and nation-building, etc.
Critics have argued that the current national security policies are reactive and suffer from ‘short-termism’.9 A properly structured NSS would provide guidance on what the Government views as national security issues as well as the roles and responsibilities of agencies in a coordinated environment. This is important in todays world of joint, inter-agency and multinational operations. It would ensure that there are fewer gaps and overlaps between departments, and provide leadership on development priorities across departments.
A Unified Approach
An NSS can be seen as either a single, holistic document or a series of texts, statements, institutions, policies and processes that interact to become a strategy. For example, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has twice (in 2000 and 2004) recommended an NSS as a single document to guide Australia’s national security apparatus. In its review of the Army released in 2000, the Committee recommended that:
the Government develop and maintain a national security policy. This policy should, amongst other things, guide the Defence Forces on their role in an integrated national concept for promoting and achieving international prosperity, peace and security.10
This recommendation was agreed to by the then Government, with qualification, in their 2003 reply—although which part of the recommendation was agreed to is difficult to determine. The response cites the formation of the National Security Committee of Cabinet and the Secretaries Committee on National Security as the mechanisms by which ‘Australia maintains a coordinated policy approach on national security issues’.11
The 2004 Standing Committee report, Australia’s Maritime Strategy, also recommended that ‘the Government develop a national security strategy (NSS)’ that should ‘clearly articulate and demonstrate that there is a coherent and coordinated approach by Government to securing our national interests’.12 The Howard Government responded to the 2004 report in 2006 by highlighting eight policy documents,13 the role of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, the establishment of the National Security Division within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the ‘network of formal Inter-Departmental Committees that provides a venue for inter-departmental coordination of agencies with national security responsibilities.’14 From this, it would appear that the former Government viewed an NSS as a series of policies and coordinating structures rather than a single holistic entity.
A weakness of this decentralised approach lies in the fact that white papers and other policy documents and statements are generally produced by separate departments; they are often vertically aligned with little regard to interaction between departments. In the security sphere there have been some notable exceptions to this, such as Protecting Australia Against Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Australia’s Role in Fighting Proliferation (though this is a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade document). Many of the criticisms of the current structure and the subsequent recommendations for an NSS have centred on this stove-piping and the absence of a unified statement of national security objectives.
A number of individuals and organisations outside of the public sector have commented on the need for an NSS, and couched it in terms of a unifying document. The Australia Defence Association believes that there needs to be an ‘integrated national security white paper’.15 Professor Alan Dupont describes the need for a ‘grand strategy’ that involves a range of agencies including, but not limited to, Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade. For him, it would become a ‘road map for prioritising our national security objectives and identifying the most effective instruments and policies for achieving these objectives’.16 A recent Kokoda Foundation paper, National Security Community 2020, provides six practical recommendations for creating a national security community, beginning with a feasibility study into a national security strategy. It stops short of recommending the development of an NSS, with the author claiming that even a green paper would be ‘too sensitive to employ’.17 The Kokoda Foundation has also published an article by Allan Behm, a former senior Defence official. He is highly critical of the ‘pragmatic handling of security-related issues,’ outlines the case for an NSS, and provides some planning principles to ‘maximise national security while remaining affordable’.18
Institutional Policy
At a national level, Defence White Papers need to be used in conjunction with other departmental policies when developing higher levels of defence planning in the absence of an overarching strategy. The Defence Update 2003 states that ‘the changed strategic and security environment requires responses from a number of government agencies’,19 and the Defence Update 2005 includes a chapter on ‘Whole of Government Responses’.20 The Defence Update 2007 provides a little more explanation as to when and how Defence will operate as part of an integrated, whole-of-government response; however, it does not provide guidance to any other agencies.21 These Defence Updates could be criticised for being statements of what has been done rather than articulating any future developments or providing guidance on a way forward. There is still uncertainty as to what the other departmental approaches are, or at least should be. Even though the new Government has promised that the Defence White Paper will be re-written,22 an effective NSS would better communicate the Governments priorities and improve departmental coordination to reduce this uncertainty.
An example of the issues that could be clarified by the initiation of an NSS is the relationship between Defence and organisations such as the Australian Federal Polices (AFP) Operational Response Group and the Australian Customs’ Border Protection Command. In the Operational Response Group’s case, it is difficult to see from the existing literature how this agency will coordinate with Defence, particularly since the recent authorised increase in the size of the group from 500 to 1200 and the planned procurement of armoured vehicles for the group. The ADF and the AFP have taken steps to improve interoperability,23 though this just serves to highlight the ad hoc nature of inter-departmental arrangements that are born out of necessity rather than strategic guidance. In the Border Protection Command case, is Defence’s commitment a permanent one? How should Defence’s capability planners respond to a loss of assets such as AP-3Cs, a capability that is finding increasing operational utility? Project Air 7000 includes manned and unmanned maritime patrol and response aircraft to eventually replace the AP-3C, yet the Defence Capability Plan 2006–2016 makes no mention of inter-agency operations or requirements.24 In a true, whole-of-government environment, the requirement to work with agencies such as Border Protection Command need to be considered. Indeed, by considering the requirements of all departments, synergies and economies of scale could be created. In all cases, it is not clear if there are gaps or overlaps, and what funding implications there are. Again, an effective NSS would communicate priorities and improve communication in order to clarify development priorities.
When it comes to national security, supporting institutions such as state governments and private industry must currently develop their policies on fragmented information, public opinion and market forces. Academics, when participating in national discourse on security, do not always get a clear understanding of overarching government policy, so an important input to policy development is stifled. An effective NSS would improve the links between the federal Government and the other institutions that influence national security, thus developing the whole-of-nation approach to national security.
Improving Outcomes
Above all, an NSS should improve the performance of governments with respect to national security. The former Prime Minister John Howard cited national security as the ‘first responsibility of Government’,25 so analysing the performance of the agencies involved in national security should be a high priority. The framework for the assessment of performance is through the federal budget process, specifically the Outcomes and Outputs framework provided by the Department of Finance and Administration. According to the guidance, the framework helps answer three fundamental questions: what does the Government want to achieve? (outcomes); how does it achieve this? (outputs and administered items); and how does it know if it is succeeding? (performance reporting). The framework has two basic objectives: improving agencies’ corporate governance and enhancing public accountability. In Defence, the White Paper and other elements of strategic guidance cascade through a series of planning frameworks that, among other things, results in a Portfolio Budget Submission, and then the Budget. Portfolio Budget Statements support the Budget once it is tabled in Parliament, and Annual Reports then provide the mechanism by which Parliament can assess the performance of an agency. It does this predominantly through the parliamentary committee system, including committee reviews of Annual Reports and Senate estimates committees.
Like any performance management system, the outputs are only as good as the inputs and the criteria by which the reporting is done. Given the link between the Defence White Paper and Parliament’s performance management system for agencies, an NSS that clearly articulates which agencies are responsible for national security—and their role within this responsibility—should also link to the Budget and to Annual Reports. This would reduce the gaps and overlaps between agencies and lead to better performance and accountability. In line with this, personal accountability frameworks can also be informed by an NSS. Ministerial Directives to departmental and agency heads, and the flow-on Organisational Performance Agreements, could refer to outcomes of an NSS and specify results to be delivered in order to achieve the guidance from an NSS.
Implementing Change
As has been stated above, there are numerous justifications for the development of an NSS. Potentially the most difficult problem is how it could be achieved, and many commentators are curiously silent on this. There are a number of issues to be considered here. Who would be responsible for writing and maintaining it? What would the scope be and which agencies would be included? What format would it take and what would it say? These questions will be examined in turn.
Writing and Maintaining an NSS
In an article published by the Kokoda Foundation in 2006 (though it appears to have been written in 2001), Anthony Forestier cites a number of individuals and organisations that recommend the formation of a National Security Agency, and does so himself.26 These recommendations pre-date the establishment of the National Security Division within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Others have recommended the creation of a Department of Homeland Security or the establishment of a Coordinating Minister for National Security. The Australia Defence Association does not believe that there is a requirement for a Department of Homeland Security (as in the United States); however, it does believe that there is a requirement for a National Security Council. In his speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in August 2007, the then opposition leader Kevin Rudd announced that, if elected, an Office of National Security would be established within the Prime Minister’s portfolio.27 The Australian Strategic Policy Institutes Dr Anthony Bergin and Dr Mark Thompson believe that it is this organisation that should develop an NSS (before the re-write of the Defence White Paper).28 This makes sense. The stated role of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is to achieve good connections in this government and good connections between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments,’ and the closest organisation at the moment to an Office of National Security—the National Security Division—provides ‘advice on national security issues and plays a coordinating leadership role in the development of integrated, whole-of-government national security policy.’29 In the existing structure, it would appear that the National Security Division is best placed to write and be responsible for an NSS. If formed, the Office of National Security, with a National Security Advisor as its head would be the organisation to lead the creation of an NSS. This may involve the requirement for additional staff, but more staff would be preferable to an existing, subordinate, department taking a lead, or a new department being established, as departmental parochialism is one of the criticisms of the current system.
The Scope and Breadth of an NSS
As seen within the definition, national security can cover a broad range of areas. There is a breadth of current policy that both directly and indirectly affects national security, and there is hardly a federal agency that cannot lay claim to being involved in national security. In 2006 the then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, discussed the close link between national security and international security. He also stated that ‘capacity building and nation building are crucial elements in any national security strategy’, before providing some examples of areas in which Australia is providing this support. Agencies included Defence, Immigration, Customs, Transport and Regional Services, Australian Federal Police, various intelligence agencies, Treasury, Department of Finance and Administration, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and AusAID. He also discussed economic security, defence, law and order, border protection, health, and the environment as elements that affect national security.30 Mark Thompson, in attempting to determine the extent of national security spending, included funding from agencies such as the Australian Federal Police, AusAID, Australian Secret Intelligence Service, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Immigration, and the Office of National Assessments.31 He also mentions the role of Customs. There is no easy or definitive answer to the question of scope of agencies to include, which may be the biggest reason for calls for an NSS going unheeded.
A detailed discussion of scope is beyond the means of this article, though the elements outlined in the current Defence White Paper—Defence 2000—would be a good start. The first sections outline the ends to be achieved by, and the ways of achieving, the Defence strategy. Later sections then reinforce this and provide the means by which the strategy will be achieved. In its first iteration, an NSS should harness existing policy and machinery as much as possible, thereby reducing the friction that inevitably follows. As far as the inclusion of agencies is concerned, there are some, such as Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade, that seem self-evident; however, the role of departments such as Health and Education cannot be underestimated. Any NSS should therefore include statements for every federal department, and it should outline their role as part of the national security framework. It must be a living document.
Format and Content of an NSS
Once the scope has been determined, the other difficulty is format and content. Good strategy, and good policy, should articulate ends, ways and means. There are a number of examples of security-related policy that can be examined and critiqued to inform this part of the debate. Alan Dupont points to The National Security Strategy of the United States of America as an example to inform thinking for an Australian NSS. The United States NSS is interesting in that it is aspirational policy, and appears devoid of the means to go with the stated ends. Despite having an NSS, a lack of coordination across US agencies has been blamed for failures in Iraq32 as well as failures in the response to Hurricane Katrina.33 The United States NSS makes scant mention of any of the Departments of State nor provides clarity of roles. For these reasons, the United States NSS does not provide the coordination that is called for within Australia. In the Australian sphere, Defence 2000 and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade White Paper—Advancing the National Interest—provide an interesting contrast. Defence 2000 attempts to clearly articulate ends, ways and means, where Advancing the National Interest does not and is more along the United States NSS lines of aspirational policy. Any Australian NSS needs to go beyond aspirational policy or a list of what has been achieved to date. It needs to ensure that it coherently outlines the ends, ways and means by which security of the nation will be achieved.
Conclusion
Up to this point, no Australian Government has formally adopted an NSS. The position of the previous Coalition Government was that the existing policies and mechanisms were sufficient to coordinate and develop national security. The recently elected Labor Government has promised that it will re-write the Defence White Paper, establish an Office of National Security within the Prime Minister’s portfolio and produce a National Security Statement, but it has not said that it will develop a full NSS. The arguments for the status quo are strong—do not fix what is not broken—and those who oppose an NSS would say that that the current system works. Yet there are many prominent security analysts who have argued for a unifying NSS. They argue that the current system is reactive, stove-piped, only looks at a narrow range of threats and contingencies, and suffers from ‘short-termism’. More does need to be done in order to ensure that Australia’s security apparatus operates with unity of effort and continues to develop to a common end. A national security strategy is the logical start point for achieving this. The problem is how it is to be achieved.
It is clear that the agency to lead the development of a more coherent NSS should be the Office of National Security if it is formed, or in the current structure, the National Security Division. These agencies are uniquely (and deliberately) placed as overarching and coordinating bodies that can overcome parochialism and make the hard prioritisation decisions that are required. The NSS should include statements of ends, ways and means, and provide strategic guidance to all departments on their contribution to national security. Whether this is done in a single white paper or with capstone and subordinate documents is immaterial. What needs to be avoided is a non-committal policy that departments can evade if it does not suit their perceived purpose.
The contest over an NSS is not new and is far from over, much like that which surrounds the idea of Australia becoming a republic. The benefit in an NSS may not necessarily be in the final product, but in the process of debate, analysis and change that goes with the effort.
Endnotes
1 James Terrie, Make the Process Inclusive: The Republic is back on the Agenda, Australian Republican Movement, 2000, accessed at <http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/archives/2000/spa…
2 M A Ablong, ‘Enunciating a Security Policy for Australia: A Holistic Approach to Defence Planning’, Australian Defence Force Journal Iss. 127, November/December 1997.
3 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, From Phantom to Force: Towards a More Efficient and Effective Army, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2000.
4 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Australia’s Maritime Strategy, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2004, pp. 25–31, accessed at <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/maritime/report/chapter3.pdf
5 Mark R Amstutz, International Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to World Politics, McGraw-Hill College, New York, 1999, p. 175.
6 United States Government, A National Security Strategy for a New Century, United States Government, Washington DC, 1997.
7 For examples of the broadening definition, see: Australian Homeland Research Centre, Voters’ guide to national security: Evaluation criteria’, National Security Briefing Notes, August 2007; Julian Burnside, ‘Howard’s Australia: Unfair Go’, NewMatilda.com, 2006, accessed at <http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1527&HomepageID=138
8 Michael O’Connor, Australia’s Vulnerabilities’, Defender, Winter 2006, p. 19.
10 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, From Phantom to Force, p. 181.
15 Australia Defence Association, ‘Current Key Issues’, accessed at <http://www.ada.asn.au/key_issues.html
18 Behm, ‘The Need for an Australian National Security Strategy’, pp. 9–23.
22 Australian Labor Party, Labor’s Plan for Defence, Australian Labor Party, Canberra, 2007, p. 2.
27 Rudd, Fresh Ideas for Future Challenges.
30 Downer, Inaugural Lecture on National and International Security.
33 ‘Emergency management’s greatest challenge is improving coordination among its parts as the number of disaster-related organizations grows along with the kinds of hazards, including terrorism and pandemic disease in addition to natural and industrial disasters,’ and ‘if individual emergency managers understand their jobs as part of an “all hazards, all phases” process, they might make decisions based less on turf claims and more on a desire to reduce the damage that disasters wreak on citizens who deserve better from their governments’. Patrick Roberts, ‘FEMA after Katrina: Redefining Responsiveness’, Policy Review., No. 137, June/July 2006, accessed at <http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3402076.html> on 18 June 2007; ‘Coordination problems between proliferating and overlapping federal bureaus impede efficient decision-making, which is clearly the case with both intelligence and disaster response.’ Chris Edwards, ‘Know Thy Place: Federalism is a good strategy, even, if not especially, in disasters’, nationalreviewonline, 2005, accessed at <http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/edwards200509260807.asp
