says<\/a> that the government can\u2019t be held responsible for a contractor\u2019s lax security. But Pyne\u2019s sentiments contradict the PSPF, which specifies that \u2018[government] agencies must ensure the contracted service provider complies with the requirements of this policy and any protective security protocols\u2019.<\/p>\nOwing to the PSPF, training courses accredited by the Attorney-General’s Department and delivered by the Protective Security Training College in Canberra and the Australian Emergency Management Institute in Mt Macedon, Victoria, aren\u2019t offered any longer. Security practitioners argue that this has led to a deskilling among government security professionals.<\/p>\n
The risk-based model also led to a downsizing of the Protective Security Coordination Centre, which was historically charged with formulating security policy. More recently, the responsibilities have shifted to Emergency Management Australia (EMA). With EMA\u2019s transfer to the newly established Home Affairs Portfolio, it now falls under the remit of Minister Peter Dutton.<\/p>\n
The incidents above tells us that Australia\u2019s PSPF isn\u2019t satisfying government\u2019s protective security requirements. More than a few commentators and policymakers will be quick to argue that a fully digitised information architecture\u2014which would provide a tighter grasp on information flows\u2014could be the trick to improve security. However, there\u2019s a broader imperative for a reformed protective security doctrine.<\/p>\n
At a time when the security threat is so diverse, the nation\u2019s protective security arrangements need to be independently reviewed as soon as possible. Such a review would need to examine the full spectrum of physical, information and personnel security policies that form the framework of our protective security strategy. The terms of reference would also need to address such issues as security cultures, awareness, training and education.<\/p>\n
To be very sure, finding and punishing the public servant responsible for the Cabinet files\u2019 will have no impact on national security, nor produce any lasting improvement in security. The rot is entrenched in the system and must be exorcised.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For over a decade, both of our major political parties, in the face of uncertain times, have been going forth \u2018getting tough on security\u2019. It would seem that General Melchett, Stephen Fry\u2019s character from …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":310,"featured_media":37739,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[932],"class_list":["post-37384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-security"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Security is not a dirty word | The Strategist<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n