We need a national security agency for critical years ahead

The bad news for Anthony Albanese is that there is a void at the centre of government where a national security agency should be. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

The week just past highlighted the complexity the Albanese government faces on national security. What marks out the difficulties of dealing with China, climate change, cyber security, pandemics, foot-and-mouth disease and the rest is that none of these issues can be dealt with by a single minister or a lone government agency.

These are, to use the Canberra-approved phrase, whole-of government problems. They require action across several government agencies, and that takes co-ordinated thought and steering.

The bad news for Anthony Albanese is that there is a void at the centre of government where a national security agency should be. The only place in the country where complex whole-of-government policy thinking happens is around the table of the national security committee of cabinet.

Too often the NSC becomes an exercise in herding cats. Departments bring their tribal baggage to the table. The absurd 2015 lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company for 99 years is a case in point. Defence saw its role was to assure the operation of its tiny naval base in Darwin, not to offer government a national security perspective.

No department accepted a remit to think beyond their portfolio responsibilities. That leaves it to the prime minister and ministers to think strategically. Occasionally that happens, but politicians generally are not strategists. Complex problems call for quality advice from the national security departments. Too often this has been missing in recent years.

Three security challenges imposed themselves on government last week.

The first was China’s decision to try to damage the AUKUS alliance by running an international campaign claiming this was a stealthy way for Australia to acquire nuclear weapons by harvesting weapons-grade uranium from submarine nuclear reactors.

Beijing’s claim is nonsense, but the government must refute it by mounting an international campaign showing that building nuclear-propelled subs is not a nuclear weapons proliferation risk. That requires a diplomatic effort from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assisted by Defence and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and help from the technology suppliers, the US and Britain.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: Getty Images

Second, we learned Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will become a permanent member of the national security committee of cabinet. That is sensible; the knock-on effects of climate change do affect security.

Southeast Asia is already dealing with heightening cross-border competition over access to potable water; an increased rate of intense climate events such as typhoons will stress responders; and access to protein from declining fishing leads to clashes at sea.

Domestically, Australia will face more bushfires and floods. Whatever one’s view on the causes of these events, the need for disaster response is unarguable. After years of reacting to natural disasters piecemeal, where is the whole-of-government strategy to shape a more effective response?

Finally, last week the threat of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease coming from Bali raised questions about the adequacy of the government’s rather low-key response. Yes, it’s important to take Indonesian sensitivities into account if travel to Bali is temporarily halted, but consider the devastation to the livestock industry if foot-and-mouth takes hold and the knock-on effects on food supply and the cost of living.

This is yet another wicked problem for the NSC with diplomatic, border control, aviation, veterinary health and economic dimensions. Where is the whole-of-government strategy?

Part of the answer here is to follow the US and British approach to develop a national security strategy. In effect this is a plan to strengthen national resilience, cut through bureaucratic processes and recognise that security isn’t just about maintaining a small one-punch defence force.

We must address our industrial needs, strengthen national infrastructure and reduce dependencies on vulnerable international supply chains.

Senator Jim Molan has written a book arguing precisely for this step. To be released on August 3, Danger on Our Doorstep is an urgent call for Australia to prepare for the increasing likelihood of a conflict with China in the mid-2020s.

I share Molan’s concern, as do many in the national security community. He ruefully notes his “limited success in convincing people that national security needed more attention” in the Morrison government, notwithstanding the government’s success with AUKUS and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

Molan’s overall judgment is that “there is no co-ordinated national security strategy from any government that aims to produce an ADF that is lethal, sustainable and large enough in any time frame. Neither does there appear to be a plan to produce a resilient and self-reliant Australia in anything like a reasonable period.”

He is right. Moreover, the government won’t get such a plan by sticking to the same routine of business in the national security committee of cabinet, where agencies guard their turf and whole-of-government policymaking is agonisingly slow and pitched to produce unimaginative outcomes.

Molan notes “a written national security strategy is not popular with Coalition leaders, who prefer some government policy to remain much more informal”.

Henry Kissinger pictured at his home in Connecticut.

It’s true: considered strategy does get in the way of politicians making stuff up. But creativity on the fly gets governments only so far. The challenge China, in particular, presents to Australian security demands a much more systematic approach to strengthen all our national capabilities as fast as possible.

A national security agency and a secretary-level national security adviser empowered by an act of parliament to shape whole-of-government policy advice on security for the Prime Minister is the missing piece of policy machinery that Australia desperately needs.

There will be resistance. Some departmental secretaries will see the position as encroaching on their turf. Some ministers may resent a national security adviser with the broad authority to shape whole-of-government policy. But ultimately ministers get to make the decisions.

Better policy advice will shape better decision-making.

Troy Bramston’s fascinating interview with one of America’s greatest national security advisers, Henry Kissinger, in The Weekend Australian last Saturday gives some insight into the challenges of the job. Kissinger says that working in the Kennedy White House “showed me the complexity of the process of decision-making”.

I doubt that any post-war Australian prime minister has faced a more complex security outlook than Anthony Albanese. He could strengthen his capacity to deal with Australia’s big national security challenges by creating a national security agency and mandating that a national security strategy is produced for government by the end of this year.

The Prime Minister should read Molan’s book. It is chilling but a necessary statement of the truth that the region is heading to conflict and Australia is not well prepared to defend itself.

Peter Jennings is a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, having stepped down after a decade as executive director. He was previously deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department.