Thread by @stilgherrian

Here’s where that livestream will be shortly, at 1800 AEDT. “Securing Australia: In conversation with Michael Pezzullo”

Fine minutes to go.

“Five minutes” that was, obviously, but it’s only one minute now.

It’s on. National Security College boss Rory Medcalf introduced VC Prof Brian Schmidt to do all the formalities. Head of ADF, heads of ASD and ASIS and others in the audience.

Schmidt: “Our speaker has previously described COVID-19 as a stress test for Australia’s resilience and its institutions.”

Pezzullo up.

Pezzullo is saying that security shouldn’t be associated with fear and anxiety. And yet over the decades we’ve had fears and anxiety about nuclear war, 9/11 and terrorism, and now natural disasters etc. He cites some philosophers on fear, and is now onto Hobbes’ “Leviathan”...

... in which Hobbes explores the concept of the war of all against all. And now onto Foucault.

(Have I mentioned that Pezzullo is very well read and likes to see himself as an intellectual in these matters. Indeed, he is well educated and not dumb.)

Onto the theory of using violence, which should be constitutionally grounded, codified as far as possible, and employed proportionately.

But who is the enemy, who is the target for force, in natural disasters? In a global electromagnetic storm which knocks out communications, “Who do you attack? The Sun?”

Pezzullo is powering through the philosophy too quickly for me to paraphrase let alone quote, even with the transcription tool.

Core questions for security: “The first question to be asked is actually what is to be secured, as opposed to against? Whom is it to be secured? Or put another way, what is the unit of security? Who is banding together? Which capacities are being pooled and to what extent?”

He’s now looking at it in the context of the nation-state. Again, this is a really high-level look at the issues.

“We need to establish a means of calculating the value of security and agreeing how best to effect it choices are made within the units of security about which security risks are to be created...

“... and how as an expression of for instance the resources to be expended on for instance, military capability countering terrorism, dealing with climate change. Motor Vehicle Safety and preventing cancer, diabetes, obesity, or suicide.”

I’m just copy-pasting from an otter.ai live transcript here, so check against the recording before quoting.

See what I mean about powering through? The AI can’t even figure out where to punctuate this stream.

“Only through the generation of material effects can security be constituted and reproduced within government. We need to integrate all of our tools of national power in the pursuit of security effects.”

“The approach that I should like to suggest this evening is to be distinguished from the mobilisation of society in the economy, during times of total war, such as was seen during the Second World War...

“... at least in periods that there were there were theatres of combat the home front Civil Defense industrial mobilisation, the protection of sea lanes ports and harbours, and the rationing of food and supplies and so on...

“... The mobilisation of which I speak here tonight is altogether different.”

(As an aside, I have seen elsewhere that Pezzullo sees us approaching a new kind of global conflict involving all of society. He seems to be setting out this view in some detail.)

“In the face of the discussion recently about grey zone conflict. The basic tenets of which are sound and for which flow logically coherent conclusions for action...

“There is a temptation however to move intellectually to a model of societal warfare. With the whole of society being mobilised to counter threats...

“However, our society is not a battle space. It’s where we live, is not human terrain over which security effects are impacted...

“There has been a concerning tendency in my opinion in recent years to import the language and the strategy of counterinsurgency practice, and its underpinning orientation of fighting quote wars amongst the population into domestic society. This is dangerous.”

“We should take an altogether different approach. One which starts with a deconstruction of the triangular opposition' between security, economic prosperity, and social order or social unity...

“... and which allows us to take a unified approach which brings security, economic and social functions together into a single conception and mechanism with national resilience, with social and economic systems are characterised by continuity redundancy and adaptability.”

“We should, as a matter of national philosophy, practice adaptability and plan to recover from shocks, always more strongly.”

(He’s weaving this back to philosophy and social cohesion and risk management and a whole range of things. I can’t keep up.)

Of course the chat is exactly what you might expect.

These are interesting thoughts. Again, this is an AI’s live transcript to be careful with close reading.

“I am in favour ... of emphasising concepts such as self reliance and sovereign capability in national policy discourse, which would require the closer integration of security, economic and social policy.”

Now he’s listing the risks to national security, updating his speech “Seven Gathering Storms” homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/spe…

OK, a bunch of transcript screenshots now...

There’s LOTS of typos in this.

And in this.

I like the phrase “killer asteroid complacency is certainly not warranted”.

Shout out to David Kilcullen’s latest book.

I’ve skipped a bit, but he’s starting to wrap up with his concept of the “extended state” for security.

Final line: “Security is more than a question of protection or of survival. It’s a question of how we should band together, and pool our capacities for living.”

The full text of the speech will be on the Home Affairs website. The video is on YouTube.

And now onto the Q&A.

I see otter.ai is having trouble with Rory Metcalf saying the word “Australia”.

Pezzullo praises ACCC for suspending anti-cartel rules for Coles and Woolworths so they could stock each other’s stores in the early days of COVID-19, firming up supply chains.

Q: “How can we as a democracy have the conversation that’s necessary to maintain that security? It’s all well and good to call it jurisdictional or jurisprudence advice, but especially given what’s going on in say our close friends in the US, especially in places like Portland.”

A: [Paraphrased summary] In how many jurisdictions would you have all these heads — ADF, ASIS, Home Affairs, ASF, ACIC etc — in a room with no black SUVs outside or guys in bulky suits talking into the cufflinks?

“I don’t want to get emotional about or sentimental about it. But in Australia I think we hold our institutions in about the right level of reverence i.e. not very much.”

“Just enough to say OK we know you’re busy and OK we’ll address you as Prime Minister, but otherwise, you know, this is what I need from you.”

“You know, we have as wonderful and as open a democracy as, I suppose I should I should say probably New Zealand.”

“The notion that somehow the colleagues that I’ve just identified, myself included, are tyrannical, despotic plotting behind closed doors to oppress the Australian population [defended by] the altruistic fourth estate is frankly just an exaggeration of character ... a trope.”

“Let’s have a sensible, a sensible discussion.”

“A Royal Commission... could roll into my organisation, into anything we’re doing, at any time and out [?] whatever they want. And that’s frankly liberating because you’ve got that self-restraining self-censoring idea of, you’ve got to do the right thing anyway.”

(I note, en passant, that NSW politicians know that ICAC could roll through at any time, but they don’t seem to have this self-restraining instinct.)

And... we’re out.

If anyone wants to watch that speech by and Q&A with Michael Pezzullo, it’s at .

The text of the speech only will appear on this page I reckon. homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/spe…

If you found my Twitter thread useful, here it is unrolled. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1315907…

You might also like to chuck a few bucks into the tip jar at stilgherrian.com/tip. Please consider.

See?

https://twitter.com/jodiem/status/1315940022881669120

Here’s one take on tonight’s speech: “Australia’s home affairs secretary says state security must be ‘ubiquitous without being oppressive’” theguardian.com/australia-news…

Last night’s speech by Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo is now all online.

Text and video (latter includes Q&A):
homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/spe…

Podcast (inc Q&A):
play.acast.com/s/the-national…

My full thread from last night:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1315907…

https://twitter.com/stilgherrian/status/1315907311462883328