Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is no such standing order. You are wasting your time. Nevertheless, governments should only make changes that strengthen national security, addressing critical deficiencies without needlessly distracting agencies. Both previous speakers said they had heard no rationale, so let me state two important considerations that the smash-and-grab power raid to create Home Affairs did not give regard to. Firstly, the principles of the Hope royal commissions in the 1970s and 1980s affirmed in numerous reviews in the previous decades. I'll quote Dennis Richardson in the intelligence legislation review:

Secondly, the importance of collective cabinet level decision-making in our Westminster system of government.

In my view, there are many problems with the former government's arrangements. Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition's lust for power reduced contestability and diluted the Westminster system. Healthy contestability is enhanced by a principle of diffused power between ministries and authority between ministers, agencies and departments. Concentrating intelligence and law enforcement activities under one secretary and one minister, who is not even the first law officer, carries enormous risks. Serious policy attention should be brought to the cabinet to be debated and decided by democratically elected ministers. Trying to get a single position on major security issues in a superdepartment is inherently unhealthy.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition's overconcentration of power posed risks to democracy. Far too much power was concentrated in one minister, one department and one secretary. Again, in a democracy this creates the risk of creating the conditions for a police state. Home Affairs became a national security elephant competing with the ONI's role in oversighting the national intelligence community.

Thirdly, as a consequence the Liberals hurt community trust—and that's critical, particularly when agencies are getting new and intrusive powers—especially under its initial leadership duo that drove an unhealthy culture seeking every more power. But different leadership is not inherently enough of a safeguard and the government's changes rebalance things.

Finally, the oversecuritisation of migration policy, which has hurt Australian families and the economy. Of course migration policy has critical security elements but it's also a key economic and social domain. Oversecuritisation combined with a toxic departmental culture and budget cuts has led to 'the department of human misery and economic carnage,' which we inherit with regard to its migration functions. It will certainly take more resources and, sadly, years to clear the visa backlogs that this mob built up. (Time expired)

See this speech in context