Why Labor can’t be trusted on national security

31/08/10

By Phillip Ruddock MP

The arrest by Indonesian police of Abu Bakar Bashir is a timely reminder of national security issues and of the great importance that Australians get a government which is competent and can be trusted in this area – arguably the most important area of government policy. 

Bashir is notorious to Australians as the co-founder and so-called spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, the terrorist group responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.  The authorities allege that he is a key force behind a new terrorist network in Indonesia which was planning to launch a bombing campaign across the country. That would threaten all innocent people in Indonesia, including Australians.  Over half a million Australians visited Indonesia in 2009.

Can Australians trust the Rudd-Gillard government with national security?  All the signs suggest they can’t.

Advice that Prime Minister Julia Gillard, when Deputy Prime Minister, regularly sent a junior staff member to the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSCC) has been greeted with dismay in the United States. The NSCC deals with top level security matters. That alone should ring alarm bells here in Australia.

Brad Norington, Washington correspondent for “The Australian”, writes on Thursday 5th August 2010 that “…Dr Patrick Cronin, a senior adviser with the Centre for a New America Security observed that the United States and Australia shared a close security relationship but it assumed a great deal of high-level trust”.  He is reported to have commented that the alliance with the United States would suffer if downgraded.  Adding, “If you ignore it and delegate it, it will atrophy”.  His views were reportedly confirmed by other senior United States sources.   

Separately Greg Sheridan, writing on the same day, observed that British officials are also not very thrilled at the approach taken by the Rudd team on national security.

Their reservations about Rudd no doubt deepened after he treated the British security establishment with the same cavalier disregard that he and Gillard treated our NSCC – after seeking and being offered the rare privilege of a briefing in London by Britain’s security chiefs in late 2009, he cancelled at the last moment and didn’t send an apology.  Whitehall officials have made no secret of the fact that they were not impressed and would plead diary clashes if Rudd were to repeat the request.  His inconsiderate behaviour has probably damaged our relations with one of our two most important overseas security and intelligence partners – at least for as long as Labor remains in office.

Ms Gillard’s revelations about her approach to NSCC meetings indicate not only that the junior staffer attended NSCC meetings in her stead, but that he took notes to advise her of the proceedings.  This appears to breach Cabinet rules which specify that any notes taken by officials other than the designated notetakers must only record actions required and that there must be no disclosure outside the Cabinet Room of the nature or content of discussions in Cabinet committee meetings.

Ms Gillard’s defence of apparent breaches of important Cabinet rules raise major questions about whether Australians can trust her on national security issues.

Having served for six years on the NSCC under former Prime Minster John Howard, I know that cavalier treatment by NSCC members to its meetings and its agenda would have led to dismissal.  John Howard expected a conscientious approach to the most important activity in his Government.  The NSCC was the senior Committee of Cabinet:   its membership included the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence, as well as the Attorney-General.  Other members of Cabinet might be co-opted for specific discussions.  Its agenda dealt with most major foreign affairs decisions, commitment of Australian defence forces abroad, border security and defence acquisitions.  The Heads of the Prime Minister’s Department, Foreign Affairs and Defence attended ex-officio, along with the Chief of the Defence force and the heads of relevant intelligence agencies.

I could not envisage any meeting of the NSCC being non-crucial. 

Nevertheless it appears the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd excused his absence from some meetings on the basis that they were not crucial.  Not to be outdone, Prime Minister Julia Gillard sent a junior staff member in her stead for reportedly half of the appointed meetings of the Committee. 

I cannot recall any meetings of the Howard Cabinet or its Committees where staff attended in lieu of a Cabinet Minister.  Yet it appears that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard saw fit to delegate their participation at NSCC meetings.

What signal does this send to other Committee members?  It would appear that attendance is optional.  How can you have informed discussion and sensible decision-making with optional participation? What does it say to the Australian public about the Rudd-Gillard Government’s view of securing the safety of Australia?

Marginalising national security in this way serves Australia very poorly. Of even greater concern is the negative conclusion of Australia’s allies with whom we work, when they see a lack of respect for NSCC processes. 

The Howard Government put a great deal of effort into enhancing the relationship with our major defence partners to ensure that all meaningful intelligence was shared.

Well informed decisions are essential, in particular when considering the commitment of our troops to actions abroad.  When lives are at risk the expectation of the Australian community is that discussions on such matters will be informed and treated with utmost priority.

Since 09/11 when al-Qaeda targeted the United States, when Jemaah Islamiyah killed numbers of Australians in Bali, when our Mission in Jakarta was bombed and when Australian troops were committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, national security has assumed greater importance than at any time since the Second World War.  The allegations against Abu Bakar Bashir suggest these circumstances have not changed. 

Australia is not well served when its leaders fail to understand their duties and responsibilities when dealing with these threats and operations.