Policing, public trust and the perils of performative oversight

The Canberra Times‘ recent series on ACT Policing raises serious questions – not just about police conduct, but about the integrity of public discourse on policing.

At a time when public trust in law enforcement is fragile, the greatest danger may not be misconduct itself but how it is portrayed.

Trust is the lifeblood of policing. Without it, officers cannot do their jobs effectively, and communities become less safe.

There is no excuse for police abuse of power. Every allegation must be investigated with rigour and transparency. But these investigations must be fair, thorough, and grounded in the reality of frontline policing.

The overwhelming majority of ACT Policing’s 100,000-plus public engagements each year are conducted with professionalism and restraint. Officers deal with violence, mental health crises and social collapse. They are often not just first responders, but the last safety net when all others fail.

Critiquing a use-of-force decision from the comfort of a courtroom or newsroom is easy. It is much harder to make that decision in a dim hallway, amid chaos, with limited information and a split second to act. That reality must inform our commentary. Oversight must acknowledge operational complexity, not ignore it.

Yes, we must scrutinise. But we must also resist the rise of gotcha journalism that privileges outrage over truth.

Reporting isolated cases of misconduct as indicative of systemic rot distorts reality. It erodes public confidence. It undermines the trust that allows police and the community to work together. And, most dangerously, it suggests to the public that accountability does not exist when it does.

ACT Policing is already subject to multiple layers of independent scrutiny.

Professional standards, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, coronial inquests and judicial oversight all play a role.

These mechanisms are working. Those incidents that have come to light and are under investigation are not evidence of failure but of function. Cameras and complaints do not signal the absence of accountability. They reflect a system actively engaged in it.

More bureaucracy is not the answer. Adding another oversight body may provide a veneer of action, but it risks duplication, confusion and reduced effectiveness.

We need better resourcing of existing mechanisms, stronger public communication, and procedural consistency. The current system can be improved. However, reform should be based on evidence, not performance politics or social media pressure.

Civil settlements are not admissions of guilt. Not every complaint will end in prosecution. And yes, some complainants will remain dissatisfied. But dissatisfaction is not the same as injustice. The rule of law means fairness for all parties, not just the loudest voice.

Police must be accountable to build and maintain trust, but they must also be treated fairly. Justice requires both scrutiny and context. The community deserves transparency, but it also deserves truth unshackled from sensationalism.

If we care about the safety of our communities and the integrity of our institutions, we must stop reducing policing to headlines and start engaging in serious, balanced reform. We need less theatre and more substance.

Once public trust is lost, it is not easily regained, and no society can afford to police without it.

Can Canberra and Jakarta be more than ‘friends’?

As Anthony Albanese prepares to travel to Jakarta for his first state visit in his second term, the symbolism is clear: Indonesia remains a cornerstone of Australia’s foreign policy.

Since taking office, the Albanese government has prioritised Southeast Asia, laying important groundwork through initiatives such as the 2024 Defence Co-operation Agreement with Indonesia and the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy. But the tangible reality of the relationship with Indonesia remains limited by diverging strategic visions, misaligned expectations and a reluctance to address hard topics.

This means the Prime Minister’s visit must go beyond symbolism. If this partnership is to mature, both sides must start talking honestly about where they differ, where they want to go and how best to get there in lock-step. That’s because beneath the surface of two democracies, the two countries have taken different paths when it comes to issues such as dealing with Russia post the 2022 Ukraine invasion and the region’s most pressing strategic question: how to deal with China.

Since entering office, the Albanese government has approached its China policy through the prism of stabilisation – along with the formula of co-operating where we can, disagreeing where we must, and engaging in the national interest. At the same time, through AUKUS and its support for the Quad, Canberra has doubled down on its alliance with the US and its commitment to a balance-of-power strategy in the Indo-Pacific. It believes US military presence is essential to maintaining regional stability, and it is prepared to take risks to preserve that status quo. Indonesia does not see conflict as inevitable. Instead, it wants to keep both the US and China engaged in multilateral diplomacy, with ASEAN as the central platform. It sees minilateral groupings such as AUKUS and the Quad as challenges to ASEAN’s relevance and Indonesia’s role as a regional power.

Even as Indonesian officials cautiously welcome some aspects of these arrangements, such as the potential for technology sharing or regional deterrence, they remain uneasy about their long-term impact. This divergence is not academic. It affects how each country responds to crises, how they define regional order and how they prioritise partnerships.

Australia is comfortable with hard-edge strategic competition. Indonesia is not. This difference in world views can’t be papered over with warm language or economic initiatives. It needs to be acknowledged, discussed and managed. The recent controversy over claims (subsequently retracted) by outgoing opposition leader Peter Dutton that President Prabowo Subianto had publicly announced a request by Russia to host a naval base in Biak is a case in point. The episode revealed a deeper problem: a lack of trust in how each country interprets and communicates security concerns. In Indonesia, the hosting of any foreign military base – whether Australian, American, Chinese or Russian – is politically toxic and constitutionally restricted.

Suggesting otherwise touches a raw nerve. But not talking at all about the extent of Indonesia’s diplomatic and military relationships with China and Russia is not in Australia’s interests either. If both sides don’t learn to talk more candidly about these issues, they risk fuelling misunderstanding, strategic surprise and backlash.

Beyond differing approaches to strategic competition, the Australia-Indonesia relationship remains hampered by persistent misperceptions. In Indonesia, Australia is still often viewed as a “deputy sheriff” of the US, with lingering suspicions about its intentions toward Indonesian sovereignty. Conversely, many in Australia continue to see Indonesia as vulnerable – both in terms of susceptibility to elite capture and manipulation by malign powers, as well as being too sensitive to any uncomfortable diplomatic discussions. This is why Albanese’s visit must be more than ceremonial. It should mark the start of a more honest phase in the relationship – one where the differences are not hidden but worked through. Albanese and Prabowo must reflect on how their “comprehensive strategic partnership” can become more strategic rather than just comprehensive; characterised by enduring, persistent and tangible gains.

There is plenty to celebrate. The DCA institutionalised what has been a growing defence partnership, including joint training, maritime co-operation and disaster response. It also allows for a larger number of joint exercises. Economically, Australia’s Southeast Asia strategy acknowledges Indonesia as a top-tier priority, backed by new investment and commercial ties. In this context, Albanese’s decision to return to Jakarta sends the right signal. It shows Indonesia matters.

Prabowo’s positive view of Australia also creates a window of opportunity. He has spoken warmly of Australia in the past, often referencing Canberra’s support for Indonesian independence. His new role as President gives him a chance to reset the tone in Jakarta, after a decade in which relations were cordial but limited in strategic depth. Albanese and Prabowo both want to work together – but goodwill alone is not a strategy.

That means augmenting the standard regular, senior-level dialogues and engagements on strategic affairs, not just trade and investment, to deliver tangible solutions to common threats and challenges. These should address hybrid threats, climate security, and the misuse of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. In the past, Australia and Indonesia have successfully co-operated on issues such as counter-terrorism and people smuggling – there’s no reason we can’t do the same on today’s emerging risks, risks that will determine future sovereignty and prosperity for both countries.

Tangible co-operation breaks down misperceptions and builds strategic trust – so capability, distinct from intent (on both sides), is consistently understood. This gives Indonesia space to confidently articulate its concerns about regional order. And it allows Australia to assure Indonesia it does not seek to fuel bloc-based confrontation. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to shape how the Australian system conceives of Indonesia – not as a reluctant participant or passive neighbour, but as a strategic partner in its own right.

Rudd and Shearer aren’t enough. Washington needs to see more Australian heavy hitters

We need more than two Australians who are well-known in Washington.

We do have two who are remarkably well-known, but they alone aren’t enough in a political scene that’s increasingly influenced by personal connections and therefore reputations.

The two are ambassador Kevin Rudd and the director-general of the Office of National Intelligence, Andrew Shearer. In dozens of meetings with officials, politicians, industry and think tanks in Washington on a recent trip, I repeatedly heard people mention Rudd and Shearer – but rarely other Australians.

What happens when one or both of those people are no longer in office? This country should systematically promote other people with strong reputations and work on developing more heavy hitters for the future.

Australia’s overriding national security issue is the risk that China dominates our region, establishes its authoritarian political system as the norm and uses coercion to extract what it wants from other countries at the expense of their liberty and prosperity.

While Australia must do what it can to look after its own security, we are much better placed with a strong US commitment to our region and to the alliance. It is therefore essential that our voice is heard in Washington.

Traditionally, a person’s access to US officials was determined mainly by his or her position, though reputation and contacts have always been important. But, even before the re-election of Donald Trump, reputation and contacts were pulling ahead of office as influential factors.

I saw in Washington in March and April that they were now dominant. My discussions took place in the usual departments and sensitive compartmented information facilities (known as SCIFs) but also in cafes, restaurants and bars. If you are a government official and work only 9 to 5 on Monday to Friday, on Monday morning you will be behind and scrambling to catch up.

Business these days is done everywhere all the time, and when it’s done away from the office, it’s more likely to be arranged at a personal level.

We are lucky to have Rudd and Shearer, who are well known by Republicans, Democrats and senior bureaucrats. They have both done excellent jobs in building their international networks over many decades, especially in Washington, the hub for international, security and defence debates. It shouldn’t be missed that both have spent time in think tanks and have diverse work experience across government and non-government.

Rudd is seen as a globally recognised, Mandarin-speaking expert on China. He also has great prestige as a past prime minister, which is a stronger factor in the United States, with its presidential system of government and respect for former leaders, than is generally appreciated in Australia.

Shearer is further elevated by being seen in Washington as the Australian official who is most nearly a national security adviser, a position that grabs attention in Washington.

It’s not his job that gives him this status, but his reputation for understanding global security issues. It isn’t hard to understand that we need to offer more than two people whom influential Americans are keen to meet, especially with Shearer based in Canberra.

Behind Rudd and Shearer, the bench is not deep. There are former and current intelligence chiefs, for example, who are listened to globally and have built strong relationships in the US intelligence community, including ASIO boss Mike Burgess.

Why do we have so few others of the status of Rudd and Shearer? The best explanation is the increasingly domestic focus of Canberra. Serving ministers and responding to a 24-hour media cycle is busy, urgent work. Talking points, possible parliamentary questions, Senate estimates, meeting records and minutes, reams of briefs absorb enormous resources.

I don’t exaggerate too much in saying that we’re incentivising the development of bureaucratic clones.

Yet we do have people in the public service with potential to become heavy hitters internationally. For the medium term, say, the 2030s and beyond, we should identify and begin cultivating them now, putting them in positions in which they can build reputations.

Foreign and security policy requires big picture strategic thinking, an understanding of defence, diplomacy, economics, politics and culture. People with this stature globally have worked through the major crises and twists of recent history.

They’ve built the confidence to be risk managers, not risk-averse. They’ve been mentored by the previous generation of giants. They’ve stood at the shoulders of influential leaders, ready to provide whispered sober advice at moments when an ability to see the forest rather than just the trees was most crucial.

They painstakingly earn their reputations, which then precede them through the doors into the most powerful rooms on earth.

We must identify those Australians who are already on their way to developing strong reputations – perhaps people in government but particularly in academia, business and think tanks.

ASPI is only one of several suitable hosts for the task, but we are also the only one with an office in Washington. Unfortunately, support for our DC office was cut in a government review of national security think tanks.

It’s poor timing to have fewer Australian voices and less convening power in Washington, which is why we aim to keep the office open.

One move that is guaranteed to deliver short-term results is for the next government to create a position of national security adviser. American officials notice that we don’t have one. So do friends in Europe and Asia.

All of our Quad partners, for example, have the role and they meet regularly, with no Australian at the table. In general, a job title may have lost its lustre in gaining traction in Washington, but the job title of national security adviser hasn’t.

Moreover, its lustre will stay with its office holder after he or she has moved on to other things.

So it’s a national priority: create people who, in an increasingly personalised Washington, are attractions not because of their jobs, but because of the wisdom for which they’re recognised. That’s what, and who, we need more of.

As Trump sacks scientists, let’s hire them. His drain is our brain gain

President Donald Trump, his powerful offsider Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are slashing public spending in an effort to save US taxpayers anywhere between $US500 billion ($793 billion) and $US2 trillion.

Caught up in these enormous cuts are scientists, researchers, medical experts, technologists and PhD scholars who are losing jobs, grants and scholarships at an unprecedented rate as funding streams are cancelled or put on hold.

To date, DOGE has allegedly made only $US105 billion of cuts. This means they have, at minimum, hundreds of billions to go. In the science and technology sector, these early cuts may be just the beginning.

Believe it or not, there is enormous opportunity for Australia in this unusual situation. If the government acts quickly, this is a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity.

Australia should take a two-pronged approach. We should attract some of our best and brightest back home from places such as Silicon Valley while also offering fast-track visas to top US-based scientists and researchers who are newly out of a job or low on the funding they need to keep their start-up or scientific lab running.

Australia’s ability to keep up with rapid advances in scientific developments and critical technologies will determine the shape and size of our economy for decades to come. Most of our strategic partners – the US, Japan, the UK, the European Union and South Korea – are larger and have globally competitive tech sectors they’ve spent decades building. In recent years, these have included artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum and biotechnology.

As a mid-sized mining and tourism-dependent economy, Australia has long known we need to diversify our economy and increase our low national spend on research and development, which sits well below the OECD average. We also know we need greater self-sufficiency so we don’t continue to become overreliant on any one single market for access to technologies we have deemed “critical” to our future. Building greater sovereign capability in our science and technology sector is a more important goal than ever.

But we are struggling to keep pace with others. We haven’t spent decades investing in building up our tech sector or making big technological bets when we’ve had the opportunity. Things are now moving so quickly that we’re increasingly in danger of being completely left behind.

Coming from behind doesn’t mean we can’t catch up. It does mean, however, that we need to prioritise innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, and we must take more risks.

In early 2025, we find ourselves in an unusual situation where our closest ally has, rather unexpectedly, flooded the global market with science and technology talent. The cuts are ongoing and broad, impacting everything from medical schools advancing cancer prevention to high-performance computing and the use of AI in national security work.

Other countries will respond to this opportunity quickly. As public funding into universities declines and US universities reduce PhD admissions, top Chinese universities are already proactively recruiting overseas students, allowing undergraduates to skip traditional pathways to fill up PhD programs in areas such as mathematics, engineering, computer science and environmental science.

Canada, seen as a global leader for attracting technology talent, is likely to be a key beneficiary of this talent flood. Its variety of visas, low processing times and proactive talent recruitment campaigns is one reason it recently saw 10,000 foreign tech workers in the US apply for permanent residence in Canada in one 48-hour period.

For decades, the US has provided funding and a home for many of our scientists, entrepreneurs and technologists. Now there’s a unique opportunity for us to reverse that brain drain while also increasing our investment in US talent and technologies. In doing so, we’d be contributing to greater burden-sharing in the US-Australia alliance (specifically AUKUS Pillar 2), noting that Australia has long benefited from – even piggybacked – on US scientific advancements and breakthroughs made in everything from health to renewable energies to defence technologies.

In order to identify the types of scientists, researchers and technologists that would be of greatest benefit to Australia and the potential visa options open to them, the Department of Home Affairs should work with our diplomats, defence, CSIRO, intelligence community and others to form a small, agile taskforce.

Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke should work with parliamentary colleagues and his department to quickly explore options to expand and fast-track visas. Visa options must be fast and flexible, or we’ll lose out to other countries vying for their expertise.

US ambassador Kevin Rudd and his team are well-placed to provide a picture of which top scientists have lost funding. They could work with others in government to promote Australia as a top destination for technology talent while also working collaboratively with the US government to explain how these investments would also benefit them.

The government can play a key knowledge broker role by helping to link up scientific labs and start-ups with grant opportunities, universities and venture capital firms open to investing in them. In exceptional cases, wealthy individuals should make an extraordinary contribution to Australia’s national interests by partnering with the government to attract outstanding scientists and their teams. This public-private investment may end up helping Australia through the next pandemic, provide us with a leading edge in AUKUS Pillar 2 technologies, or devise a cure for Alzheimer’s. It could unearth new methods for environmentally sustainable and cost-competitive extraction of critical minerals. All would provide shared benefit to our alliance with the US and close partnerships.

Knowing Musk’s cuts will continue, the winner of the Australian election should assess and expand this talent drive, particularly given the inevitable benefits to our job market and national prosperity.

In 2025, in the concerning global environment we find ourselves in, a “business as usual” approach won’t cut it. Australia must be ready to jump on rare opportunities as they arise, take more risks and make big bets. An enormous opportunity is here now. Soon it will be staring us in the face. It’s time for our parliamentarians to jump.