Home       Previous newsletters

29 May 2007

1. News briefs
2. Crime prevention grants at ‘grassroots’ level
3. Climate change as a national security threat
4. ALP issues climate change warning
5. APEC Security Test
6. Future military options for the ADF
7. Further details on APEC security
8. Update on the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database
9. Bio-Terrorism Grant
10. Chlorine truck bombs a new terror risk
11. Publications
    Report on lessons of London bombing
    Terrorism Discussion Paper open for submissions.
    NSW Ombudsman review on state anti-terror laws
12. Events
    eServices-eSecurity: The Growing Challenge for Critical National Infrastructure
    Safeguarding our international trade a top priority in Sydney in June
    PARARI 2007
    SCADA Workshops
    Critical Security Risk Issues 2007
    Emergency Management Conference 2007
    Call for papers on intelligence analysis

News briefs

ACT Chief Police Officer announced
Assistant Commissioner Andrew Hughes will become the interim Chief Police Officer for the ACT, Minister for Police and Emergency Services Simon Corbell and Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty announced last week.

“Assistant Commissioner Hughes brings a wide range of qualifications and skills to this position, as well as a sound knowledge and expertise of policing at local, national and international levels,” Commissioner Keelty said. “These skills were demonstrated during his two-year tenure as Deputy Chief Police officer of the ACT and his position as Commissioner of the Fiji Police Force.”

The appointment arose following the sudden death of former ACT Chief Police Officer Audrey Fagan on 20th April.

Australia gives grant to Nuclear Security Fund
Australia has contributed $300,000 to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Nuclear Security Fund, Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer announced last week. The money will be directed towards nuclear and radiological counter-terrorism activities in the South East Asian and Pacific Islands region.

The contribution coincided with the Asia-Pacific Seminar on Combating Nuclear Terrorism held in Sydney on 17-18 May.

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs to address Australian Homeland Security Research Centre
On 5 June, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Robert McClelland, will address the AHSRC.

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Robert McClelland will discuss the importance of cooperation between civilian and military agencies in preparation for pandemic disease and disaster management. Avian flu, HIV aids and natural disasters like tsunamis or earthquakes can potentially be as significant a threat to our national security as terrorism.  Mr McClelland will discuss what Australia should do to better prepare Australia and the region for dealing with these challenges.

Information here.

Crime prevention grants at ‘grassroots’ level
Almost $6 million in grants to prevent local crime have been made to community groups Australia wide, Justice and Customs Minister David Johnston announced this month.

Forty-seven grants were made under the National Community Crime Prevention Programme to enable communities to undertake crime prevention at a grassroots level.

“The Australian Government recognises that the most effective way to fight crime is
at the grassroots level,” Senator Johnston said.

 “Crime and the fear of crime rate highly amongst the concerns of the Australian
public and the Australian Institute of Criminology estimates that crime costs Australia
around $32 billion per year.”

Community groups involved in the programme include Mission Australia, the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association and the Constable Care Child Safety Foundation.

Climate change as a national security threat
The issues of climate change as a national security threat was raised in Senate Estimates last week to both the Office of National Assessment and the Australian Federal Police.

In response to the question on “Has the AFP done any work … about how climate change is going to impact on the security environment and therefore the work of the AFP?”, Mick Keelty, Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police responded with the following comments:

We are doing work as part of our environmental plan that will touch upon climate change. We are reaching into the academic world as much as the other government agencies. We have not got a formulated position on climate change and its impact on crime at this point in time, but we are working on it.

What we are looking at, obviously, are predictions of the impact on crime and our preparedness to deal with that. Of course it does not just affect the AFP, but we are hoping that we can join with other law enforcement agencies of a similar nature to ours to try and look at the issue and analyse it.

When asked whether the Office of National Assessment has done any work on the implications of climate change for national security and international relations in the region?”, Mr Peter Varghese, Director General, the Office of National Assessments, made the following comments:

In the past six months we have produced five reports that focus primarily on climate change, including a national assessment, which is the most substantial type of report that we write, which we produced in April. We have also produced two strategic assessments on climate change. Our work on climate change goes back quite a long way. In fact, in 1981 we did our first national assessment on fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect.

Our work has traversed the economic, scientific, political and strategic implications of climate change. More recently we have focused on analysing the international politics of climate change: how the positions of the major emitters may be developing; what are the views of key developing country emitters such as China and India and what their attitude to a global regime would be; and the effects of this issue on the developing world. We have done some analysis of global public opinion on climate change and we have also done work on the role of technology in dealing with climate change.

We have done some work on the strategic implications of climate change, and that
obviously has a regional focus because that is where our strategic interests are most actively engaged. But our more recent reporting and the focus of our national assessment were on those other issues that I mentioned.

In framing our national assessment we involved key agencies, as we always do with national assessments. We had Environment, Industry and obviously the central agencies—PM&C, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Treasury—and our report would have gone to them.
My very strong view on an organisation like ONA producing public versions of their assessments is that it is the surest way of dumbing down their work.

ALP issues climate change warning
Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Robert McClelland warned about the national security risks of climate change at an address to the University of Melbourne’s Asialink Centre on Thursday.

The talk addressed many security issues including the danger to Australia’s diplomatic relationship if the Kyoto protocol isn’t ratified, the impact of heightened natural disasters, and the increased health risks due to the extension of tropical zones and drought areas. A recurrent theme was the effect of inactivity by the Howard Government and the lost opportunities this results in.

“The global response to climate change is creating new markets and new industries that will in time be worth hundreds of billions of dollars every year,” Mr McClelland said.
“A Labor Government can position Australia to be ahead of the rest of the world and ready to seize this change as an opportunity not as an impediment.” His address is available here.

APEC Security Test
A two-week exercise to test security measures during the upcoming APEC Leaders Week in September, is currently underway in Sydney.

Blue Luminary II started last week with a series of drill-style exercises focused on motorcades and multi-agency responses. This week will involve a series of discussions and high-level exercises focused on strategic decision making.

“We know that continual testing of our arrangements is crucial to ensuring we can respond effectively should an attack occur in Australia,” Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock said.
“Blue Luminary II is helping our security agencies to ensure Australia's excellent reputation for hosting major events continues with Leaders Week in September.”

The Government has allocated close to $170 million over six years for APEC security measures, including $77.8 million to enhance New South Wales Police presence and provide a state-of-the-art mobile command post.

Future military options for the ADF
Australian Defence Force (ADF) chief Angus Houston released a future military operations paper envisioning a new direction for the ADF, on Friday.
Joint Operations for the 21st Century outlines an ADF of the future which is “characterised by its adaptability and agility to handle the full range of military operations”.

“That will require a measured and orderly transition from a force heavily weighted to countering a conventional threat against Australian territory to a more adaptable and agile force that can conduct mid- to low- intensity operations as readily as it can high-intensity ones,” the paper said.

Air Chief Marshal Houston welcomed the paper saying it highlighted a variety of shortfalls in the ADF.
“There is clearly a need for greater clarity in our accountabilities; there is a need to be more responsive in supporting our ministers and the government of the day; we need to continue the development of our long term planning; we need to streamline our governance systems so that we come up with a better way of making decisions; and we need to better understand our business systems and processes, most particularly in the area of service delivery and Information and Communication Technology,” he said.

A full copy of the paper can be accessed here.

Further details on APEC security
Senate Estimates have produced further details on APEC security.

Martin Studdert, Executive Director, Protective Security Coordination Centre, described the planning responsibilities for SPEC which is split into three tiers.

Tier 1 is called venue security, which in this case is primarily the responsibility of the task force. It consists of things like access control, accreditation and venue security measures. Tier 2 is the state or territory jurisdictional overlay, which in this instance is the responsibility of New South Wales Police. It involves things like venue search, dignitary protection and those sorts of jurisdictional based issues. Tier 3 is the national Commonwealth overlay, and that is the responsibility of the Australian government. It is coordinated primarily by the Protective Security Coordination Centre and it includes things like airspace management, border control, intelligence and national counterterrorism response arrangements.

Additional comments included:
A total of $169.1 million has been allocated to APEC for security. The government allocated $0.8 million in the budget of 2004; $75.1 million in the budget of 2005; additional funding of $22.7 million in the 2005 additional estimates; $68.2 million was allocated in the budget of 2006; and an additional $2.3 million was allocated in the budget of 2007 for tier 1 security. Tier 1 security is venue based security.

In broad terms it is going to be spent on security, but some of the money is allocated to the New South Wales police for their marine area command, traffic, dignitary protection, dog squad, mounted police, aviation support, State Surveillance Branch, intelligence and advance technical sections.

Guarding contracts awarded have included:

• Sydney Night Patrol, provided guarding services for the first senior officials meeting in Canberra in January for $440,000?
• Australian Event Protection for the Perth meeting at $285,000
• SECUREcorp for the SME meeting in Hobart at $285,000
• Weslo for the transport ministers meeting and SOM2 in Adelaide at $127,000.

Update on the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database
The Senate Estimate hearings last week provided interesting information about the challenges of establishing a security database across jurisdictions.  Below are the questions and answers between Senators and Ben McDevitt, Chief Executive Officer, CrimTrac and Miles Jordana, Deputy Secretary, Criminal Justice and Security, Attorney-General’s Department.

McDevitt—I am very pleased that since the last time I appeared before this committee some significant progress has been made on the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database. In fact, we now have five of the nine jurisdictions across the country matching to some extent with their DNA profile information. We also have tens of thousands of profiles now loaded to the NCIDD that we did not have loaded only a few months ago. You are aware of the changes to the Commonwealth legislation which occurred in November 2006, which dealt primarily with an obstacle around the legal status of the NCIDD. That legislation recognised that the NCIDD is a national database that comprises an amalgam of all or parts of jurisdictional DNA databases. That removed the significant impediment. In saying all of that, we do not yet have full interjurisdictional matching across the country. We have significant effort—and enthusiasm, I might add—going into achieving that. Considerable work has been done by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, in concert with their state and territory colleagues. I take every opportunity I can to continue to ensure that there is a lot of focus on this issue
Senator LUDWIG—Thank you. We were talking about the DNA database, but I think the next issue we were going to talk about was interjurisdictional matching. You mentioned that five out of the nine were matching to some extent. I think you said ‘extent’ but I have written ‘degree’. Are you able to say which jurisdictions have signed up, which jurisdictions have not signed and, to the extent that the jurisdictions have not signed up, why. Could you help me through that if you are able to. Would you also indicate where the problems are with the interjurisdictional matching. If that is too long a question you can certainly take it notice. I thought I would just put it out there.
Mr McDevitt—I will give you the key dates at which certain jurisdictions started participating in interjurisdictional matching. Bear in mind that, aside from interjurisdictional matching, a number of the jurisdictions have been using the NCIDD for intrajurisdictional matching for some years. But the more important area is the interjurisdictional matching, obviously. In June 2005 Queensland and Western Australia began interjurisdictional matching. I might add that when that occurred we got some fairly immediate results from those jurisdictions matching.
Senator LUDWIG—Yes, I think there were news stories around that issue.
Mr McDevitt—That is exactly right. Obviously when jurisdictions that do not share a border start to get results like that, it makes us even more anxious to see full interjurisdictional matching right around the country. In October 2005 Queensland and the Northern Territory began interjurisdictional matching, and in January 2006 Western Australia and the Northern Territory also did so. December 2006 saw Queensland and the Commonwealth begin their interjurisdictional matching, followed in January 2007 by Western Australia and the Commonwealth, in March 2007 by New South Wales and the Commonwealth and, also in March 2007, by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. So there is a growing, increasing, degree of interjurisdictional matching occurring. The issues have been legislative ones. As I stated earlier, a significant one was resolved with the passage of Commonwealth legislation in November of last year in relation to the legal status of the DNA database. Various jurisdictions have had to amend their own legislative regimes to be able to participate in the interjurisdictional matching. CrimTrac and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department co-hosted a meeting in November of last year, at which we brought together police representatives, forensics representatives and legal representatives from around the country to discuss trying to resolve the residual issues and impediments. As a result of that meeting, seven recommendations were formulated and they went to the Australasian Police Ministers Council in November of last year. All seven of those recommendations were endorsed by the APMC, and the key thing there was about having a single ministerial arrangement for the exchange of DNA data and related information via the NCIDD rather than continuing down the path of having multiple ministerial arrangements. So we basically moved from the situation in which we might have needed in the order of 36 ministerial arrangements to an aim of having just the one ministerial arrangement. The situation at the moment, as I understand it—and colleagues from the AGD might correct me if I am wrong—
 Senator LUDWIG—I have no doubt about that!
Mr McDevitt—Yes. Perhaps I will go through specific areas. Late last year New South Wales indicated that it was going to be unable to sign the single ministerial arrangement and that its legislation would require a specific arrangement with CrimTrac and then separate ministerial arrangements with each of the other jurisdictions. So we signed an agreement between CrimTrac and New South Wales on 27 February this year, and a ministerial arrangement between New South Wales and the Commonwealth allowed matching to begin between those two jurisdictions on 22 March. New South Wales still needs to go through the process in terms of recognition of existing ministerial arrangements with other jurisdictions, and where there are any issues or impediments identified then new ministerial arrangements will have to be developed. That is essentially the case with all of the jurisdictions. So we are getting to the stage now where we will host another meeting—I think it is in June—to again try to resolve the remaining issues around ministerial arrangements. They are the sorts of issues that you would imagine: around specific wording of the arrangement and so on. There has been a lot of toing and froing on that. I am hopeful that the majority of jurisdictions will sign the single agreement. Those that do not sign the single agreement will then need to go through the process of setting up bilateral arrangements with the other jurisdictions.
Senator LUDWIG—My understanding is that, with the intrajurisdictional matching, they upload the profile; so Queensland is online, it uploads its profiles and then that is available for Queensland?
Mr McDevitt—That is correct.
Senator LUDWIG—And so on around the states. All the states have signed up to that extent. Is that right? Mr McDevitt—To further complicate the issue, a number of jurisdictions had, and still do have, their own state DNA database. So a number actually utilise the NCIDD, the national database, and just have a partition—
Senator LUDWIG—Yes, a window for themselves—
Mr McDevitt—within it for themselves. Others have just used their own DNA database up until now, but are now at the stage of uploading the profiles from their own database onto the national DNA database. Senator LUDWIG—About another 30 questions come to mind. It is easier if you can provide—if you do not mind, through the minister—a snapshot of what the issues are and what the problems are. It seems that there are multiple problems; there are problems now identified in terms of intrajurisdictional matching, problems with databases that have not been uploaded and may need to be uploaded, the compatibility of data and issues surrounding that. The databases might not be compatible, then you have got matching problems, you have got legislation in a state that might also have certain profiles. I suspect you are working through that. Perhaps you could provide an overview or a snapshot of where this is at now and the way forward. Certainly with the interjurisdictional matching there seems to be an encouraging sign that we are working through ways of people being able to share the data.
Mr McDevitt—I guess there are probably some lessons here in relation to the building of databases and so on. If you look at the fingerprint situation, there is a single national fingerprint database for the whole country. Jurisdictions do not have their own fingerprint databases and so on. Whereas, in this case, in the history of the way it evolved, a number of the jurisdictions did build their own DNA databases to use for intrajurisdictional matching. We are now at the stage where you build a national DNA database but it needs to be recognised by the independent jurisdictions and they want and need all of the protections in terms of the data that they put onto the national system and subsequent disclosure of that data and security and integrity of the data and so on, which leads to the need to have a strong, robust policy framework which consists of arrangements between ministers for the sharing and exchange. That really is what we are grappling with at the moment. As you say, considerable progress has been made recently and it is very pleasing. I am confident as to the residual issues, which are not technical issues, by the way—so if you are under the impression that there are technical impediments, there are not.
Senator LUDWIG—There are not matters where there are databases that hold the data in a particular way that then prevents it being uploaded. So all of those matters are capable of being addressed?
Mr McDevitt—That is exactly correct. I can tell you now that every jurisdiction other than South Australia has loaded their profiles onto the national database. I will give it to you quickly: ACT has put on about 3,000 profiles; the Commonwealth, 900; New South Wales, 35,000; Northern Territory 11½ thousand; Queensland, 102,000; Tasmania, 22,000; Victoria, 32,000; Western Australia, 78,000; and South Australia at the moment is in the process of preparing themselves to be in a position to upload their data. So there are no technical issues in relation to getting the data onto the system. And I suspect that in time we will probably get to the stage where the need for jurisdictional DNA databases will have passed and we will have a single national DNA database.
Senator LUDWIG—Are the individual states uploading all of their data? In other words, do they have a backlog of data to clear, or have they provided all the data and it is up to date?
Mr McDevitt—It is reasonably resource intensive. For example, the first batches of data that New South Wales has uploaded are obviously those relating to serious crime, cold case investigations—those sorts of matters. It also relates to the issue of the matching table to ensure that we work towards a single matching table with categories of offenders, suspects, convicted offenders, crime scenes and so on.
Senator LUDWIG—Is the legislation in the various states and the types of profiles they capture consistent? For argument’s sake, my recollection—and correct me if I am wrong—is that federally there is a voluntary database of people who have committed offences and there are different ways for the data to be structured and held, and that you can then use it for certain purposes and you cannot use certain profiles for other purposes.
Mr McDevitt—That is correct.
Senator LUDWIG—Is that consistent around the states?
Mr McDevitt—There is consistency in that there is recognition of eight separate categories, if you like. You have suspects; crime scenes; offenders; volunteers, which fall into two categories—being limited purpose volunteers for specific crimes and unlimited purpose volunteers; missing persons; unknown deceased; and a non-volunteer category, which I think is specific to the Northern Territory.
Senator LUDWIG—Can you tell me what a non-volunteer is?
Mr McDevitt—I will need to correct this if I am wrong, but my sense is that it would be somebody who is not clearly in the position of being categorised firmly as a suspect. They are not a volunteer but may well be a person of interest who has not graduated to the point of being recognised as a suspect. I will need to correct myself if that is not right, but I think that is what it is.
Senator LUDWIG—There is relative consistency around that, so it seems to me that we have to go through the process of signing up, if we use another colloquial phrase, to get them to have interjurisdictional matching.
Mr McDevitt—I think we are quietly confident that we are getting pretty close to that.
Senator Johnston—We are working our way through those issues.
Senator LUDWIG—Is there a timetable on that, which I will hold you to?
Senator PAYNE—It is a rigorous estimates process to deal with.
Mr McDevitt—There will be another meeting of officials prior to the next meeting of the police ministers, which is scheduled for 28 and 29 June. The officials will meet on 14 June with a view to finalising the single ministerial arrangement.
Senator Johnston—We should tell you that the state and territory attorneys-general met about three or four weeks ago here in Canberra. Mr McDevitt made a presentation on DNA database matching across states and territories with Commonwealth coordination, and the attorneys did not resist the proposition that we need to get this in order. Rather than having more than 20 bilaterals, we need one agreement that canvasses all of the issues between the states so that we have a model that we can go forward with confidence on such that everybody can access the information with reasonable expediency in a coordinated way. There is no opposition to that, so we are now bringing everything together. There are minor issues between the states on certain things, but none of those appear to be insurmountable. We are just putting the dots on the ‘i’s and the crosses on the ‘t’s at the moment.
Mr Jordana—We already have a number of jurisdictions which are matching with each other which are, in a sense, already operating within the zone. Both the ACT and Victoria have indicated that they require legislative change to enable this to happen. The commitment is there but they need to get the legislation onto their own legislative timetable and get it through their respective systems. As Mr McDevitt said, New South Wales has said that they would find it difficult to use this single ministerial arrangement; they might have to do bilaterals with each of the jurisdictions, although I know they are looking at that again. When we can say the whole thing is up and running will depend to a certain extent on when some of the jurisdictions are able to finalise their own legislative requirements.
Senator LUDWIG—That is to allow interjurisdictional matching, not intrajurisdictional matching?
Mr Jordana—By way of example, already Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory are matching with each other. That is already happening.
Senator Johnston—And the Commonwealth?
Mr Jordana—The Commonwealth is matching with New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. You can see that, as new people switch into the system, depending on the arrangement and the basis on which they are coming in, either they will be able to match with everybody else who is in the system or, using New South Wales as an example, they might be brought in jurisdiction by jurisdiction as they reach agreements with them. It is a matter of putting the jigsaw puzzle together.  

Bio-Terrorism Grant
The Australian Government has funded research of a gel to contain and neutralise biological hazards. The product being developed in Melbourne will help detect and contain biohazards and decontaminate equipment, facilities and the environment.
The gel incorporates antibodies to the biological hazard. Emergency workers apply the gel onto an affected area and it stops the biohazard spreading. The antibodies in the gel assist in decontaminating the area.

The $480,000 grant to Melbourne-based laboratories Anadis Limited is funded jointly by Emergency Management Australia, part of the Attorney-General’s portfolio, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Research Support for Counter-Terrorism Program.

Once developed and tested, the gel is expected to be made available to hazardous materials (HAZMAT) specialist officers in the State and Territory fire agencies who are trained to deal with incidents involving chemical or biological agents.

Chlorine truck bombs a new terror risk
The American Department of Homeland Security has announced new chemical security regulations in response to the increasing occurrence of chlorine truck bombs.

“This regulation is going to impose for the first time, comprehensive federal security regulations for previously unregulated high-risk chemical facilities,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.
“This is not the first step we're taking to regulate chemical plants, but it is part of a series of steps closing the gaps and making sure that we have covered security for chemicals literally from cradle to grave – from manufacture to transportation until they reach their storage destinations.”

Chlorine bombs have become increasingly regular in Iraq, with an explosion on 16 May killing 32 people and injuring 50, as well as two additional incidents which occurred over the weekend.
Chlorine bombs are particularly harmful because, as well as the initial explosion, the fumes are lethal.

Publications

Report on lessons of London bombing
Emergency Management Australia has released a report on the lessons learned from the London bombings of July 2005. 

The analysis has been compiled from a workshop held by St John Ambulance Australia and Emergency Management Australia (a Division of the Attorney-General’s Department). The Canberra workshop – attended by more than 140 representatives of defence, police and emergency services from around Australia – featured five senior officers from London’s ambulance, police, fire, and planning authorities.

The report recommends that the following issues be considered:

• the concept of a National Resilience Committee should be investigated, possibly combing the work of a number of high-level committees, to conduct national level planning for response and recovery
• State and Territory governments and major Australian cities need to consider adopting a whole-of-city approach to their planning; this planning should involve the Australian Government. The plans should be supported by whole-of-city exercises on a regular basis
• Comprehensive and challenging exercises are required to test all levels of plans and to develop strong working relationships between the agencies and individuals involved.
• There is an issues - the tyranny of distance - in developing strong relationships between individuals from different jurisdictions, particularly when the jurisdictions are not neighbours. This issue needs to be addressed through strategic investment in planning across governments and planning for prioritized exercises.
• It is imp0ortant that volunteers who have decision-making roles participating in planning, training and exercises
• information management needs further development at all levels. This includes testing protocols in exercises, improved governance in committee structures and ensuring protocols provide consistency in advice to government, the media and the public.
• funding procedures and processes for disasters should be investigated at State and Territory and Australian Government levels. A national disaster funding mechanism, to be managed by coordinating agencies, should be considered.
• Further work is needed in providing direct and rapid assistance to people and families of people involved in an event.
• Potential deficits in communications systems should be identified and measures taken to overcome them.
• The concept of a national cache of specialist equipment, as well as equipment that is difficult to obtain or replace quickly, should be investigated.

Terrorism Discussion Paper open for submissions
The Attorney General’s Department has opened submissions for a Discussion Paper on Material that advocates terrorist acts.

The paper sets out a proposal to amend the national Classification Code and Classification Guidelines to limit material that advocates terrorist acts.

Submissions are due to the Attorney General’s Department by 29 May, 2007.

The paper is available here.

NSW Ombudsman review on state anti-terror laws
The NSW Ombudsman is inviting submissions on preventative detention and covert search warrant powers under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002.

“Our review will focus on how the legislation has been implemented by the relevant agencies and whether those exercising the powers are complying with their legislative obligations,” NSW Ombudsman Mr Barbour said.

To access a copy of the issues paper, click here.

Events

eServices-eSecurity: The Growing Challenge for Critical National Infrastructure
IACITS-2007, the third Indo-Australian Conference on Information Technology Security, will bring together leaders from both countries to examine these vital factors, from legal frameworks to security technology, particularly from a national policy development perspective.

Dates:9-10 July, 2007
Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
IACITS 2007 Web Address:  http://www.isi.qut.edu.au/events/conferences/iacits07/
Elizabeth Hansford, Tel:  (07) 3138 9573, Email:  e.hansford@qut.edu.au

Safeguarding our international trade a top priority in Sydney in June
Counter terrorism experts, business representatives and government officials from across the Asia-Pacific will meet in Sydney in June to explore cost-effective solutions for the safe and secure movement of people and trade in our region.

Under the theme of "Mitigating Risks: Containing Costs," the Fifth Secure Trade in the APEC Region (STAR V) conference will feature high profile speakers from international organisations and leading international companies who will join senior representatives from APEC economies in discussing issues such as:

• future directions for the security of trade;
• latest tools and technology in security;
• security of personal identity;
• securing the supply chain; and
• strengthening regulatory capacity in developing economies.

These issues are vital to maintain the stable regional environment essential to encourage trade and development and should be of major concern to business.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is hosting STAR V in Sydney from 27-28 June 2007.  In recognition of the new threats and costs facing our trading environment, the conference will be chaired by Mr Mike Smith, Australia's Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism, with Mr Brian Storms, Chairman and CEO of Marsh Inc, of Marsh and McLennan Companies Inc, New York to give the keynote address at the conference gala dinner.

The annual STAR Conferences were established by APEC Leaders following terrorist actions that included the September 11 attacks.  They provide an opportunity for government and business to cooperate on issues and concerns relevant to the secure movement of people and trade within the APEC region and form a key part of APEC's counter-terrorism agenda.

Additional information including how to register is available at: www.apec2007star.org

PARARI 2007, the 8th Australian Explosive Ordnance Symposium, is jointly hosted by the Australian DOD’s Directorate of Ordnance Safety and Thales Australia. Authors come from a variety of backgrounds including military strategy, insensitive munitions design and testing, UXO disposal and management, EO safety, manufacturing, storage, transport and logistic support.
PARARI REGISTRATION:
Fax: +61 (0)3 5742 2204
Email: parari@thalesgroup.com.au
Attention: Ms Vicky Long.

SCADA Workshops
The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is holding a series of workshops on Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) issues throughout June.
SCADA and other industrial control systems are essential for automated control and monitoring functions for essential services.

The workshops are open to owners and operators of critical infrastructure and industrial or distributed control systems, and vendors of SCADA equipment, software and hardware. Executive briefings will also be available senior staff and research academics.

The agenda, registration and other details for this program are available here.

Initial enquiries can be made on (02) 6271 1238 or scada@dcita.gov.au.

Critical Security Risk Issues 2007
ASIS International NSW is holding its annual Critical Security Risk Issues conference in Sydney on 29 May.
The conference will address issues such as preparing for APEC, counter-terrorism, natural disasters and organised crime.
Speakers include Tony Pearce, Stuart Page, Nick Kaldas, and Richard LaMonica.
Registration details are available here.

Emergency Management Conference 2007
The seventh annual Emergency Management Conference will be held in Melbourne on 21-22 August.
Registration details are available here.

Call for papers on intelligence analysis
The University of Adelaide has put out a call for papers as part of its Intelligence Analysis in the Asia-Pacific Conference 2007 in conjunction with the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
The conference topics will include:

• The Culture of Intelligence – Organizations to Individual Analysts
• Intelligence Cultures across the Asia-Pacific
• The Culture of Analysis: Cognitive Frameworks of the Intelligence
  Analyst
• Open Source as an intelligence tool
• Intelligence and Technology
• Practical Analysis Problems in a Complex World
• Achieving regional security

Applicants should forward a 200 word abstract of the paper and a brief biography of the author to Assoc. Prof. Felix Patrikeeff at felix.patrikeeff@adelaide.edu.au and Charles Vandepeer at charles.vandepeer@student.adelaide.edu.au

More information can be found here.