That bon mot was coined by W.E. Deming, professor of statistics at New York University from 1946-93 who developed the use of statistical analysis to achieve better industrial quality control. In 1950 he was invited by Japanese business leaders to teach that nation's executives and engineers about the new methods.

Over half a century has past and Australia is governed by a Coalition which gives every indication of subscribing to professor Deming's statement rather than his intention. And the consequences are blatantly apparent in two governmental initiatives currently the focus of the popular media, the promulgation of the new anti-terrorist legislation and the projected doubling of staff for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

On October 15 Prime Minister John Howard announced extra funding in next year's budget for the intelligence agency and the intention to increase ASIO staffing from its current complement of 980 to 1860 by 2010-11 -- over three times the agencies numbers in 2001.

Of particular interest was Mr Howard's emphasis on Intelligence. "It's one thing to have a capacity to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack ... but it is entirely of another order to have the capacity to anticipate events. Particularly, as we now know the threat of home-grown terrorism is very real."

Good point, but it immediately brought up the question, "where you gonna get these 980 highly competent newbies?" And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) wasn't slow off the mark and got onto Michael McKinley, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Australian National University whose research interests centre on strategic studies, Australian foreign policy and regional security.

"[T]he current university system...,"Dr McKinley said, "is producing graduates of lesser analytical capability in the area of political science and international relations," and added that ASIO needs experts with backgrounds in politics, sociology and the economic concerns that underpin terrorism. "It's not just in the area of terrorism studies that it needs to be addressed but as many people have been pointing out - and as the Government keeps denying - the standard quality of graduate which is coming out of the Australian universities now is ... markedly less than it was say 10 or 12 years ago."

Ten days passed until Dr McKinley's assessment got another airing -- this time in The Australian. He told Brendan O'Keefe that graduates hoping for a career in the security services needed analytical skills, which weren't on offer in any degree short of a five-year course including a year of masters by research. "You need to have this deep knowledge of society and culture, politics and international politics and then into that you put your study of terrorism and counter terrorism. To do it any other way involves an incomplete understanding and you start acquiring your knowledge opportunistically and that's a recipe for disaster. [The security agencies] need people who are capable of conducting quite high-level research using information which frequently is contested and ambiguous. I don't believe that that skill level is available [and] one of the consequences which arises; we simply don't have the resources when we need them and that's because of structural problems in tertiary education".

And what's the cause of those "structural problems"? Dr McKinley was quite diplomatic when he told the ABC that by adequately increasing resources for universities the problem can be overcome, but he gave no estimate on how long it might take.

To date the Federal Government has not made public just where it intends to obtained the highly competent individuals it must have if it is going to do anything other than just put bums on ASIO chairs. And to date neither Labor, nor the Australian Democrats, nor the Greens have pointed out the effect that the decimation of tertiary education is having on the nation's security.

As a highly placed executive who heads a US information technology firm of note put it, "When you need a wagon to be pulled, you don't round up a thousand chickens."

Which brings up the matter of the anti-terrorism legislation shortly to be introduced by the Government into Federal Parliament. What evidence has the Prime Minister or any of the appropriate ministers to indicate that the legislation would actually assist in enhancing the nation's defences against terrorist attacks? Mr Howard has said not once but on a number of occasions that a key issue if not the most important one is the obtaining of intelligence. "It's one thing to have a capacity to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack ... but it is entirely of another order to have the capacity to anticipate events."

So what effort has the government made to analyse the effect on national security of the proposed laws and their effect on the overall well-being of the population. For example have they done any computer modelling. They certainly haven't said so and the maneuverings and contortions that they've gone through over the past fortnight suggest the lawmakers have hardly drafted carefully worked out legislation.

And as regards computer modelling of the possible effects of legislation the question is not, is it possible to do but rather why hasn't it been done. That's what risk assessment is all about. Of course you do need the personnel to develop the models and algorithms to allow computer analysis and there is that problem brought up by the government's chief statistician over three years ago, July 11, 2002 to be precise, that he has been unable to get top people, but then perhaps things have changed.

In any case the introduction of legislation of increased severity doesn't increase the intelligence of either those who make the laws or those who enforce them.

Recruiting individuals who are more able and have been well and appropriately educated does.

In this regard the Coalition Government has been unconscionably delinquent while the Labor Opposition seems to be out to lunch.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web