Australia (still) needs a dedicated and public-facing national security adviser
In the week of Australia’s 3 May election, ASPI released Agenda for Change 2025: preparedness and resilience in an uncertain world, a report developed for the next government and to promote public debate and understanding on issues of strategic importance to Australia. This is an edited version of an article from that report.
In the early months leading up to the 2025 federal election, Australia’s public debate was dominated by domestic issues with the ‘cost of living’ crisis looming largest of all, as well as the actions of US President Donald Trump, in particular his global tariffs. But, in late February, a task group of Chinese ships from the People’s Liberation Army Navy conducted unannounced live-fire drills near Australia, disturbing both domestic politics and the notion that military intimidation was only for nations far from our shore.
It’s believed it was the first time a PLA Navy task group had circumnavigated Australia, and it took an unsuspecting public very much by surprise. Beyond standard remarks and occasional speeches from foreign and defence ministers, parliamentarians don’t often talk to the public about geopolitical developments regarding China, and that’s especially true when it comes to Chinese military activities.
At times during this episode, politicians and senior officials appeared to be caught off guard, sometimes providing the public with slightly different timelines and explanations for the PLA Navy drills. It was clear early on that the situation had the potential to unravel quickly as a scramble kicked off to fill the information gap left by the government.
And unravel it did. When Senate estimates was held five days later in Canberra—and was used to extract a wealth of information about the drills, including who knew what, and when—the story blew up across all major media platforms. Sydney Morning Herald and Age journalist Matthew Knott wrote:
The government initially downplayed the seriousness of what took place, providing Australians with a whitewashed and, in some crucial respects, misleading version of what occurred. In fact, we would probably still be in the dark about what happened were it not for the lucky coincidence that Senate estimates hearings were scheduled in Canberra this week.
This episode—which continued to gain media coverage into April as a Chinese Government research ship travelled around Australia—confused and distracted Australians. It meant there was less public coverage of the election topics that both political parties had planned to discuss. The nature of the discussion and the criticism of the Australian response can’t have been what the government would have wanted. The situation again highlighted that there’s a gap within national-security policymaking, especially in relation to high-level strategic communications and coordination.
Instead of the outcome we all watched, as it played out publicly over many weeks, what if a senior and public-facing National Security Adviser (NSA) had been supporting the Prime Minister, the parliament and the bureaucracy? Most countries—including our most important partners—have an NSA, and it’s almost certain Australia would have ended up with quite a different result if we’d had one.
An Australian NSA would have advised the Prime Minister, coordinated strategic communications and been able to inform and update the Australian public as needed. The Prime Minister may have decided to ask the NSA to provide Australians with factual, clear and concise information about the PLA Navy task group as it neared the Australian coast, but before it engaged in live-fire exercises. Doing so would have taken away the element of shock, reducing confusion and frustration, and taking the heat out of the media coverage. There would have been less public backlash and more support for the Prime Minister and other ministers with an NSA on the front foot.
A public-facing NSA doesn’t preclude ministers from engaging publicly on any national-security matters—in fact, far from it. The public expects to hear from its politicians on an almost daily basis. But, in an era when Canberra’s heads of departments and agencies rarely talk publicly, ministers have found themselves spread too thinly, expected to be able to connect with voters, stay across enormous detail in their portfolios and also increasingly perform a ‘spokesperson’ function. That last role isn’t the best use of their limited time and, frankly, can expose where there’s a lack of expertise or coordination with other ministers and their departments, especially in times of fast-breaking global developments.
How is this going to continue in an era when we’ll continue to see tensions and instability rise?
It’s clear the Australian public needs to feel more informed and secure. The PLA Navy task group, as well as the early decisions of President Trump including in relation to Ukraine, the Middle East and China, have only re-emphasised the need for a dedicated, senior and public-facing Australian NSA to help Australia navigate through what could be a very difficult decade.
The world has continued to change since I first outlined why an Australian NSA is needed and others have made valuable and complementary contributions over recent years.
The arguments for why Australia needs an NSA remain the same today and, in fact, have only strengthened of late given the need for Australia to navigate and influence an unpredictable Trump administration. And in the next decade, the intersection of technology with geopolitics and national security—especially the challenges and risks of AI as it continues to advance rapidly—will have unexpected consequences for our society, economy and security. Technology will become a major area of focus for all future Australian NSAs, as it has become for the NSAs of our close partners over recent years.
At the moment, in NSA meetings around the globe, Australia can only imagine what is being said, what information is being shared, and what is being proposed and decided. There will of course be times when, after these engagements, we will be provided with read-outs. But when you’re not setting the agenda and you aren’t in the room, it’s near impossible to influence the outcome. Now, more than ever, the government needs to seize every opportunity available to shape and influence global conversations and outcomes.
The months following the 3 May federal election offer the next Prime Minister and the 48th Parliament a window of opportunity to announce the appointment of a dedicated, senior and public-facing National Security Adviser—someone who can immediately connect with NSA counterparts thereby tapping into one of the world’s most important and influential networks, talk to and inform the Australian public when required and support the Prime Minister in effectively and strategically advancing Australia’s national interests, both at home and abroad.