Tag Archive for: Tony Abbott

Cyber security: the new captain’s pick

At the launch of ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre in 2013 I fielded a question from the audience: ‘What will help advance and grow the nature of the discussion on cyber security within Australia?’ My rapid response was ‘it requires a prime minister who will be prepared to champion the issue and spend some time talking about it with those that can make a difference’.  Admittedly, I had reservations: cyber security certainly hadn’t been a topic that previous prime ministers had wanted to invest more than a cursory sentence or two in. But, it’s pleasing to be able to say that that has now changed with Prime Minister Abbott chairing a Cyber Security Summit in Sydney on 8 July, involving some of Australia’s top CEOs and business leaders in an intense three hour exchange.

The meeting took place within the context of the Australian Government’s Cyber Security Review, announced by the PM in November 2014, alongside the launch of the Australian Cyber Security Centre; the review panel is due to report back in the next few months.  A key thrust of the Review is underlining the important role that cyber security will play in the increasingly digitised economy of the future.  The logic follows that as more of our goods, services and transactions are facilitated online we’ll need to be increasingly cognisant that there are a range of nefarious actors who would like nothing more than to profit from those actions, be it through criminal or espionage activities.  So cyber security needs to be a priority for us all.

The business representatives gathered in the room spanned various sectors: banking, mining, telecommunications, aviation, retail, consultancy and broader manufacturing. (This is in and of itself is a rarity as those groups don’t often get the chance to meet and talk, let alone about cyber security.)  The effort illustrated to CEOs that they too need to prioritise the issue in the boardroom, as the PM is doing with his Cabinet. Beyond this, the meeting sought to identify the various ways that Government and Australian businesses can collaborate on this issue, to both strengthen the economy and national security.

The first point of discussion was the question of how businesses and Government could work together to build skills and education programs to ensure a steady flow of  skilled workers to address the shortfall in the cyber security profession. The current shortfall in the workforce—and the research and development base which compliments it—can only be fixed through investment in sound policy and a long-term education plan that targets high schools and universities to promote careers in the cyber security profession. Programs need to be established to identify talented pupils, especially females who are noticeably fewer in number in the industry, that show aptitude for the sciences, maths and computing; such initiatives should ensure that there are pathways into higher education courses which teach the right content and technical skills in both the classroom and the workplace, and illuminate opportunities for employment in both the private and public sectors. Building cyber security in Australia will also require psychologists, law enforcers, corporate strategists and risk managers.  Additionally other professions such as lawyers, accountants and other business leaders need to be able to understand cyber security in order to assess, manage and mitigate the business risk of cyber threats.

The second focus of the summit was an examination of how those around the table could assist in strengthening Australia’s cyber defences through voluntary cyber security standards and cyber ‘health checks’. There was discussion around how government and the private sector could improve their threat information sharing arrangements. Creating a two-way exchange of timely and usable threat information will be no easy task, and the parameters of this arrangement will have to be thought about intensively before embarking on any practical work, but it was clearly one of the key issues for the room.

The most significant element of this meeting was the symbolism of the Prime Minister investing his time and attention in the issue.  It demonstrates that he and his Government believe cyber security is an issue of importance for Australia’s future, and indicates that it’ll be prioritised in the coming months and years. We saw the UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron hold court with business leaders back in 2010, but he’s not spent nearly as much time on the issue as Abbott—a decision that has had a great impact on the way that the UK has prioritised cyber security. We have also observed how President Obama and President Xi have both made cyber security a priority for their nations. It’s likely that we are seeing the beginning of something similar in Australia.

A telemovie or an information campaign?

Australia’s federal government has commissioned a $4.1m telemovie for release this year

How does a government dissuade someone half a world away from making a life threatening decision? Australia’s federal government has commissioned a $4.1m telemovie for release this year, designed to dissuade asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat. Set to be broadcast in Syria, Afghanistan and Iran, it will include storylines about asylum seekers drowning at sea.

It’s a good idea that we’re trying to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. Boats carrying asylum seekers regularly sink, almost always leaving little trace of those who have died. These victims are more often than not simply seeking safety and security.

Accepting asylum seekers is an international legal and moral obligation. But this obligation must be discharged carefully. There’s no silver bullet in managing the challenge of irregular maritime migration: each policy option involves complex and unintended consequences.

Strong border security could result in the world’s most vulnerable people remaining in dangerous situations. But weak border control policies may encourage risk taking amongst people smugglers and asylum seekers, and increase the number of lives at risk.

Strategies involving Australian naval vessels undertaking proactive maritime rescues saves lives but may encourage risk taking amongst people smugglers and asylum seekers; and again increase the number of lives at risk.

Complex border controls create high-profit opportunities for organised crime groups. These border controls force asylum seekers to secure the assistance of costly people smugglers to exploit policy or legal loopholes.

It’s because of the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem that public information campaigns that discourage maritime arrivals and prevent people smugglers from profiting from the desperation of asylum seekers are so important. People smugglers sell a narrative to their desperate clients that focuses on a positive vision of the future. And in doing so underplay the risks involved in travelling to Australia by boat.

The Australian government must create a counter narrative to try to prevent people from endangering their lives through participation in dangerous boat travel. This counter narrative needs to be focused on delivering an unbiased message to those at risk: that travelling to Australia by boat is dangerous. But it’s unclear at the moment whether audiences of the telemovie would know it’s an Australian government-funded film.

In light of the increasing conflict in Iraq and Syria, the federal government’s ‘stop the boats’ telemovie is timely. The Refugee Council of Australia’s President, Phil Glendenning, however, told ABC’s Lateline that the telemovie is unlikely to deter desperate people.

For the moment the boats have stopped. This outcome appears to be linked to the Abbott government’s message that, even if they arrive in Australia by boat, asylum seekers won’t get to live here permanently. The messages do appear to have a deterrent effect. And it is currently strong enough to counter people smugglers’ narratives.

What about arguments that $4.1 million is a lot of money? How much is a life worth? If the telemovie prevents even one family from risking their lives by engaging the services of a people smuggler that’s money well spent.

But the Refugee Council’s Glendenning is right: a telemovie on its own won’t result in a widespread change in asylum seekers perspectives on the risks of travelling by boat to Australia; or any other destination. But a consistent counter narrative will most certainly disrupt the current messages being sent by those who profit from irregular maritime ventures.

The producers of this telemovie will need more than an Oscar-worthy script and slick production to ensure they achieve the Australian government’s aim. They’ll need to really understand asylum seekers, including their attitudes and motivations to travel to Australia.

Changing the attitudes of a distant, geographically and culturally diverse audience is no easy task. And it’s unlikely to be achieved through a single measure. The telemovie needs to be part of a comprehensive, well-researched communications strategy. The government needs to communicate its messages to asylum seeker communities using a range of appropriate communication channels.

Without such a broader information campaign the telemovie risks being viewed as a political stunt. Meanwhile, like Senator Nick Xenophon, we’ll wait to see who the stars are

The JSF and the issue of ‘new money’

The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, AO gives the Prime Minister, The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, a tour of the cockpit of the 'mock-up' of an  F-35A Lightning II aircraft at Defence Establishment Fairbairn.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister and Defence Minister travelled to Fairbairn airbase to announce Cabinet had approved the purchase of a further 58 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of $12.4 billion. It should have been a red-letter day for the Abbott government; an election promise fulfilled, Australia’s defences strengthened, and work aplenty for local industry. But it didn’t quite work out that way.

To start with, confusion abounded at the press conference about where the money was going to come from. An increasingly perplexed media tried to make sense of statements like

…this is not new money, it’s money which successive governments have carefully put aside to ensure that our nation’s defences are strong.

 We have been putting the money away, a line item called ‘air combat capability’ and it’s been there, it’s been building up and it’s in the Budget.

 So, this is not new spending today, in the context of a tough Budget, this is spending money that we need to spend that has been sensibly put aside in the past to ensure that our nation’s defences remain strong.

The successive quotes (there are more I could’ve used) reflect persistent questioning by incredulous journalists. You can read the transcript for yourself here.

Read more

Why values count

Prime Minister Tony Abbott with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

As regular folks in Canberra were closing down for the summer break, Graeme Dobell was on a writing roll for The Strategist. He questioned the still freshly minted Prime Minister’s attachment to values in Australia’s foreign policy in four parts. By ‘joining values and interests’, said Dobell in the first of these pieces:

Abbott is breaking the rule repeatedly preached by the political master who made him, John Howard. The Howard mantra was always about the need to focus on the interests that united China and Australia, keeping these completely separate from their differing values.

And Mr Abbott wasn’t just guilty of linking values and interests. He was also connecting them to the valuable cargo of Australia’s alliance policies. By turning Japan into an Australian ally as well, Abbott had stretched the claim about common values beyond its normal Anglosphere confines. He’d also managed to antagonise China with whom Australia actually had quite a few shared interests to cultivate.

In his final segment, Dobell says that he doesn’t want to suggest that values are unimportant. It’s just that Australian leaders need to avoid emphasising values that divide the region. Even so, he’s clearly still recommending that the interests side of the house should take the lead. Read more

A new bilateral rupture?

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono delivers a speech in a joint session before the Australian parliament, in the Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday (10/3) afternoon.For nearly ten years as Indonesia’s leader, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has presided over the most stable and productive era in the tumultuous diplomatic relationship between Jakarta and Canberra.

Australia’s extraordinary $1 billion act of generosity in the wake of the 2004 tsunami helped recast the pattern of official engagement between these two utterly different neighbours. Since then, government-to-government links have deepened and widened and now include a web of agreements negotiated under the provisions of the 2006 Lombok Treaty agreed by President Yudhoyono and John Howard.

Read more

Not dead yet: White Paper 2013 clings on

Australian War Ships sail through Sydney Harbour and pass by HMAS Leeuwin to be reviewed by Her Excellency, The Honourable Quentin Bryce, AC, CVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, during the International Fleet Review 2013.

Speaking at the Sea Power Conference earlier this week, an apology was necessary to Shakespeare when I mangled his line in Julius Caesar: ‘I come to bury the 2013 White Paper, not to praise it.’ The organisers asked me to evaluate the White Paper and to say what parts of it might survive the change of government. In this, the first of two blog posts, I set out the positives and negatives of the 2013 statement. In the second post I’ll offer some thoughts on how the Abbott government should develop a new defence white paper.

Released in May, the 2013 defence white paper always seemed destined to have a short shelf-life. We knew the government was heading for a September 14 election. Opinion polls suggested a Labor defeat was likely which meant the white paper was likely to appear as a legacy statement. Read more

Table of the week: how much is 3%?

Just to put into perspective what a 3% real increase in the Defence budget amounts to over a decade, the table below shows how a baseline budget of $25 billion would evolve over ten years under that arrangement. All figures are in billions of this-year dollars.

  Yr 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Total
Base 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 275
+ 3% 25.0 25.8 26.5 27.3 28.1 29 29.9 30.7 31.7 32.6 33.6 320.2
Extra 0.00 0.75 1.52 2.32 3.14 3.98 4.85 5.75 6.67 7.62 8.60 45.19