Previous comments and articles about the need to build relationships between government and business have generated some discussions.
Clearly, something needs to change and relying on the government simply will not do.
The conversation, however, repeatedly returns to who should speak on behalf of the security profession?
Part of the problem is the nature of security. A head of security for a major corporation, for example, could hardly speak out on security issues for fear of falling foul of their media/communications/branding/marketing department (or communications prevention department, depending on your viewpoint).
In other industries the role would fall to the likes of industry associations or institutes.
The Australian Security Industry Association Limited (ASIAL) performs well in providing member services to primarily small to medium size security providers. ASIS — despite attempts at rebranding as an international organisation — remains resolutely US-centric in content, American in outlook, and swallows up fees without investing in local operations.
The effectiveness of other institutes and associations wax and wane depending on individuals championing their cause. None could claim to be a political force.
The solution would be a platform for meaningful dialogue with a view to communication and cooperation across a range of public and private organisations and issues.
But the dialogue needs to take place between those who know about security and those with the power to do something about it in order to ensure that Australia is prepared to respond and recover from an incident, regardless of the cause.
It is also a dialogue sadly silent today.
Safeguarding Australia 1017 National Security Summit will be addressing the issue of trusted information sharing ina special pre-summit workshop and during the summit proper. Mr Alastair Milroy, former head of the National Crime Authority, will chair the workshop. To find out more, visit: http://safeguardingaustraliasummit.org.au