Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just can't believe he just spent two minutes playing the man rather than arguing the policy position which has been put forward in this private members' motion by the member for Canning, because it is important. Home security, the home affairs department and the Home Affairs portfolio are too critical to get wrong.

What we have seen under this Labor government is an erosion of the Home Affairs portfolio, and, if ever national security were being played as something of a game, it was when we as a nation outsourced national security to a Virgin pilot who realised and alerted our authorities to the fact that there were live-firing exercises off the Australian coast. If that weren't bad enough, what we're seeing on diplomatic stage at the moment is nothing short of an embarrassment. It truly is. What we're seeing is a dismantling of the Home Affairs portfolio and department and a watering down of this. It's simply not good enough that, when the shadow minister puts up a very serious topic for discussion for the home of democracy, we find a member sent in here with his talking points who spends the first two minutes playing the man and rubbishing somebody who has so much credibility in this area. It's almost just embarrassing to listen to him.

The machinery-of-government changes were never put to the Australian people, and this is what we are seeing time and time again with this Labor government. We're seeing ministers let the department run the show rather than the other way round. We've just saw it last week with the beef situation. What we're seeing here, unfortunately, is the government watering down what is a very important portfolio area, a very important department. We saw in the Dural caravan situation, we've seen it with the live-firing exercises off our coast. National security—if we listen to the Minister for Defence, the member for Corio—is at a critical juncture, and what we are seeing is the government not taking it seriously enough. This is just another example of this.

Take, for instance, the listing of a terrorist organisation. Now, this was a straightforward process under the previous government. The previous for 10 years placed the national security interests of citizens first and foremost, as you would expect a good government to do—and we were a good government, make no mistake. The member for Robertson can come here, after that government was completed, and he can get his taking points from the Labor dirt unit, and he can spruik all he likes about what we did or didn't do, but facts matter. Facts are important. What he just spruiked then was certainly not based on facts.

Unfortunately, on this Prime Minister's watch, the listing of a terrorist organisation has become sluggish and convoluted. The new process requires the Attorney-General's and Home Affairs departments to go backwards and forwards with advice and take submissions between each other and their ministers. As a consequence, the time for ministerial consideration of a terrorism listing has blown out. That's just one example.

The member for Canning is right, the member for Canning has experience in in regard, and the rubber is starting to hit the road. What we are seeing is a complete devolution and dilution of the Home Affairs portfolio, and it's simply not good enough.

See this speech in context