{"id":84309,"date":"2023-12-20T14:30:15","date_gmt":"2023-12-20T03:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=84309"},"modified":"2023-12-20T14:41:49","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T03:41:49","slug":"yes-australia-does-need-a-national-security-adviser","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/yes-australia-does-need-a-national-security-adviser\/","title":{"rendered":"Yes, Australia does need a national security adviser"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

After 40 years in national security in Australia, I find myself agreeing with Danielle Cave\u2019s view<\/a> that the national security architecture is not quite right and merits fixing. I also agree that there\u2019s a need for a national security adviser (NSA)\u2014ideally, a statutory appointment with clear responsibilities and accountabilities\u2014to harness the full suite of capabilities across government, to initiate desktop wargames at the strategic level, to harmonise information strategies and to test individual department and agency plans. The existence of such an office would clarify the primacy of coordination and help orchestrate a close and continuing affinity to the national interest.<\/p>\n

What would be the distinguishing features of a small, experienced NSA staff? For starters, the NSA needs to guard against some of the more perverse features of modern government\u2014specifically, the tendency towards cognitive dissonance and groupthink. The former tacitly urges consistency of policy at all costs, when consistency isn\u2019t in the nature of the world in which we live. The latter describes psychological pressure towards conformity. History is littered with instances of conformity in national security that places incredible, almost existential, pressure on the nation-state.<\/p>\n

A uniquely Australian approach could look like this. The secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet would play a less prominent role in dealing with national security matters. He or she would, of course, be the nation\u2019s principal public servant dealing with all residual issues. The NSA (a statutory five-year appointment) would be the principal public servant dealing with national security matters. The NSA staff would operate within the framework of the cabinet secretariat and as an adjunct office within PM&C.<\/p>\n

The NSA would be a civilian and, ideally, a former senior official of the defence or intelligence establishment, a senior official of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, a senior academic with extensive experience in strategic studies, or an outstanding and widely respected public figure with extensive experience in government.<\/p>\n

The Secretaries Committee on National Security contains sensible people. But I would contend that we need a senior official well versed in intelligence, military and security matters able to refine and distil a whole-of-government effort and, on occasion, play a red-teaming role to test assumptions for the prime minister and government.<\/p>\n

The NSA\u2019s core staff would comprise a deputy NSA and senior principals with proven expertise in intelligence, military affairs, diplomacy, Southeast Asian affairs, South Asian affairs, Pacific affairs, US affairs and Chinese affairs, along with an economist, a scientist, a technologist, a media expert and an anthropologist. Each would have a small staff, so the office of the NSA would number 40 to 50.<\/p>\n

The roles and responsibilities of the NSA staff would include:<\/p>\n