Jonathan Milne: Time for a good hard look at our domestic security

At 11.30 on Thursday night, Prime Minister Helen Clark emerged from the Beehive into Wellington's drizzle.

She wore a trim green jacket but no coat, her press secretary Mike Munro at her side in a sweatshirt as they walked a few metres up a dark and empty Lambton Quay to the TVNZ newsroom.

For the third time in her premiership, terrorists had struck and she was faced with the potential for New Zealand fatalities. Other prime ministers around the world were already raising security alert levels. But New Zealand's size and seclusion provides a certain illusion of safety, allowing Clark to walk up the street in the middle of the night without any bodyguards, and without any police.

And so the Prime Minister sat down in the studio - no time for make-up - and was hooked up to an earplug to tell the camera of her shock at Britain's deadliest terror attack. "I think what this reminds us is that terrorism is an ever-present threat and you can't ever let your guard down," she said afterwards.

The following sounds cynical, but it is not intended to be: politicians on both sides of the House will now be watching the public response to the bombing carefully, assessing when the mood will allow them to engage in a debate about what this means for domestic security.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it took more than a week before it was acceptable to even discuss the agendas behind the terrorists' actions: essentially discontent at perceived US imperialism in the Middle East.

Clark, asked on Friday about likely reasons for the attack, refused to even engage: "I don't want to speculate on any perverted reason anyone might give. There's nothing that justifies it."

And of course nothing justifies such an attack - but those responsible do have their own rationales, however abhorrent they may be to the rest of the world.

It seems likely that the attack was again the work of an al Qaeda affiliate, reacting against the intervention of America, Britain and their allies, first in Israel and Palestine, then in Afghanistan, then in Iraq.

New Zealand is less likely to be a target because it is remote, and because it did not send fighting forces to Iraq. But it is still a "friend" of the US, and sent SAS forces to Afghanistan and army engineers to help rebuild Iraq. The fine distinctions drawn by New Zealand politicians may seem petty and irrelevant to those who would mount such attacks. And it is clear that the terrorists, as with the Bali bombing, have again chosen a "soft" target: Britain had thrown 12,000 police at protecting the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in Scotland, while reducing the focus on its capital city.

New Zealand, despite increased spending on border controls, inevitably remains a soft target - and yet a potentially attractive one at times like this when we have thousands of Britons visiting, and even the heir to the British throne. Prince William and the Lions supporters will be gone this week, but other opportunities may present themselves that look attractive to terrorists.

So Clark will accept that she must answer questions - which will inevitably come from National, Act and NZ First - about the Government's readiness for an attack. This is an opportunity for a strong Prime Minister to show leadership at a time when the country unites in concern for both New Zealanders and Britons in London, gaining credibility in an election year without resorting to crass politicking.

But in a week when departing American ambassador Charles Swindells warned that the US-New Zealand relationship was "starved of trust" because of the nuclear ships stand-off, do we have access to the all-important overseas intelligence that might warn us of an attack on our shores?

Do we have the trans-national links with enforcement authorities to allow us to investigate and prevent such an attack? And do we have the capacity in our emergency services to respond, should we wake up one morning to find our worst fears have been realised?

The intelligence community uses "rain" as a metaphor for intercepted communications indicating a terrorist threat.

If intelligence agencies advise that there is a torrential downpour in New Zealand, do we have a raincoat?