Defence

Wordsmith

Flood's findings - on track with implementation

 

Ric Smith, Secretary

Intelligence is a critical capability for Defence, just as it is for the other parts of Australia's national security apparatus. Good intelligence enables us to better understand the intentions of those who might wish to do harm to Australia's national interests and to Australia's citizens and institutions. Good intelligence provides us with information about the capabilities possessed by other actors in Australian affairs, be they states, individuals, non-state organisations and, of course, extremist and terrorist groups.

In 2004, Mr Philip Flood AO was commissioned by the Government to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the agencies that comprise the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC). The ensuing Flood Report, which was released in July 2004, was a seminal review of this critical element of our national security capability.

The Flood Report has led to significant changes in the business of intelligence and will continue to drive change into the future. As it is now just a little over a year since the Report's release, I thought it would be timely to make some observations about the Report and what we've done in Defence to implement its recommendations, and to offer some thoughts on the future.

Defence is a key actor in the intelligence community: three of the six AIC agencies are in the Defence Portfolio. They are the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO), the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) and the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO). The other agencies are the Office of National Assessments, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Before looking into what the Flood Report recommended for the Defence agencies, a brief word on contestability in the provision of intelligence advice to Government is important. Contestability is vital to ensure that Government receives diverse perspectives on the intentions and capabilities of those who may wish us harm, in order for it to make the choices that direct our efforts to secure our national interests and protect Australian citizens. Diversity helps prevent one view dominating all others resulting in the exclusion of a critical but less accepted view that proves to be right: history is replete with examples where the dominant view about intentions and or capability proved to be fatally flawed.

So what did Flood recommend?

He made 22 recommendations (some with several sub-parts), covering the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. Of these, Defence has sole responsibility for four, while the remaining 18 apply to Defence to a greater or lesser extent. Many of the recommendations call for joint action by the intelligence community to improve communication and coordination and to develop community-wide strategies for intelligence collection.

The four Defence specific recommendations required us to formalise DIGO's functions and accountabilities; to formalise and enhance functions, structures and accountabilities for DSD and its links to the military intelligence systems; to refocus DIO on clearly supporting Defence strategic policy and meeting the strategic assessment needs of the Australian Defence Force (ADF); and to build a customer engagement strategy for DIGO.

What have we done since July 2004? Quite a lot is the answer. To date we have:

• Re-written DIO's charter;
• Addressed shortfalls in posting ADF personnel to DSD, DIO and DIGO. These steps have served to further improve the ability of Defence intelligence agencies to support military operations;
• Restructured current arrangements to ensure the Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security is supported by adequate resources to undertake an effective coordinated role for the Defence intelligence agencies;
• Reorganised DSD following the appointment of additional Senior Executive Service staff;
• Improved resources and systems for DIO, DSD and DIGO, although these will take time to reach full maturity; and
• Actively participated in implementing the recommendations that apply across the intelligence community.

In addition and consistent with Flood's recommendations, when Frank Lewincamp completed his service as Director of DIO we appointed an ADF officer, Major General Maurie McNarn to the position. We have also created - or re-created - the position of Deputy Director, and appointed Dr Paul Taloni to it.

Challenges remain for the future. Technology continues to develop at a rapid rate. This gives us opportunities to improve what we can do, but it is at a cost. Resourcing will remain a challenge for some time. Our opponents are also not standing still, indeed technological developments are giving 'the man on the street' - and others less benign - access to satellite imagery through open source material that is very good.

Attracting and retaining skilled staff will be an ongoing issue for many years to come. The demand for skilled staff is likely to increase and this will test us to remain competitive. Accountability and contestability will remain a constant for us - we must learn to accept and indeed thrive in an environment where we will be questioned about our performance.

DIO, DSD and DIGO all have good track records in providing quality intelligence products to Government and to Defence. We have first rate people in each organisation. We are working cooperatively and effectively with the other members of the intelligence community in contributing to Australian national security.

Good intelligence will not, and can not of itself, solve all our security problems, but it certainly can make a difference.

The public version of the Flood Report may be accessed at:
http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/index.htm

[ top of page ]