Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong has signalled the national security community needs to undergo “rejuvenation and transformation” if it is to rise to the challenge of dealing with disruption, and complex new threats.

In a provocative speech delivered to the inaugural women and national security conference in Canberra on Tuesday night, Wong said there was a need for a careful reconsideration of what security is fundamentally about.

She added the male-dominated community could generate fresh thinking and innovation by overcoming “the somewhat clubby character of the intelligence and security community” and ensuring “gender equality and ethnic diversity are put to work to drive change.”

“I’ve previously made the point that we live in more than interesting times,” Wong told the conference. “Indeed, I’ve suggested that the circumstances we confront go beyond uncertainty, or even discontinuity, and that this period is best characterised as one of disruption.”

“Whatever nomenclature one uses, I suspect we might find broad agreement around this central proposition – that we are unlikely to successfully deal with today’s problems by simply replaying our past responses.”

“There is a need for a careful reconsideration of what security is fundamentally about and whether our national responses to security issues are the most appropriate for uncertain times.”

“The paradigm change that may be necessary in our approach to security questions is only possible if the security community itself undergoes rejuvenation and transformation.”

“One of the best ways to generate fresh thinking and innovation in any business is to ensure that gender equality and ethnic diversity are put to work to drive change.”

Wong argues in the speech that much of the public discourse about national security is grounded in “hard” responses to threats – such as CCTVs, bollards, static barriers and armed guards.

The shadow foreign minister says there is no doubt such responses are necessary, but the question she wants to pose is “whether they are sufficient.”

Wong suggests the security conversation needs to elevate discussion of the values we seek to preserve as “an open and inclusive society” – equality, co-operation, tolerance and compassion.

She also argues security challenges are best met by working with others “rather than turning inwards.”

“History reminds us of the risks that inward-looking, disengaged societies pose risks of misunderstanding, tension and conflict,” Wong says, adding that the One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson’s desire to ban Muslim immigration, “is a reminder of the risks we face.”

“Her call to ban Muslim immigration was rightly condemned by the prime minister as doing exactly what the terrorists want.”

While deferring to the expertise of her audience in determining “whether the language we use to talk about security issues deals with them accurately and intelligently” – Wong says most Australians would express a broad definition if you asked them to explain the concept of security.

She says people would include economic and financial security, affordable health care, job and income security, quality childcare and the promise of a dignified retirement.

“In other words, security has a much broader connotation than the more threat-based protective and response concepts on which a lot of public policy concentrates,” Wong says, noting “this in no way diminishes the work that you all do.”

But she says if the national security community broadened the terms of the security conversation, it could “expand the range of tools at your disposal and the effectiveness of the programs you design and implement.”

Wong says there are calls by commentators for governments to deal with the root causes of politically motivated violence. “Of course, few of those commentators actually identify what those root causes are.”

“But what we do know is that the so-called root causes lie at the intersection of the economic, social, cultural, ethnic and ideological forces that lend movement and colour to human collective activity.”

“And the agent who acts at the intersection of these forces is always an individual person.”