Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ANDREWS () (): I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that since it was established by the previous Government in 2017 the Department of Home Affairs, as it was structured, has been important in keeping Australians safe and secure;

(2) acknowledges the vital work of the law enforcement and national security agencies that have worked very closely together under the Home Affairs portfolio;

(3) notes that the Department of Home Affairs was fundamentally changed by the current Government, as announced on 1 June 2022; and

(4) calls on the Government to ensure that these fundamental changes to the department will not reduce the operating budgets of our national security and law enforcement agencies.

Nothing is more important or fundamental than the security of the Australian people, and the first and foremost job of government is to keep Australians safe. That was certainly my approach as the Minister for Home Affairs in the previous coalition government. Having served in that role, I have seen firsthand how the department and our national security and law enforcement agencies, that have traditionally worked together since the portfolio was formed, dedicate themselves to that task.

I believe one of the great strengths of the portfolio as it was previously structured was that it brought together our agencies in a powerful and a proactive manner. National security and law enforcement are of course intertwined. They always have been, but they are especially so with the rise of transnational serious organised criminal gangs that not only run criminal operations, trafficking drugs and firearms, but are often mercenaries for sale, engaged in espionage, terrorism and cyberwarfare.

The threats to our nation are more sophisticated and complex than ever before, which is why I was alarmed that one of the first acts of this government was to dismantle the Home Affairs portfolio, to put a raft of agencies, including the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, under the Attorney-General's portfolio, effectively siloing them from ASIO, Australian Border Force and the department, which runs a range of policies including cybersecurity.

I am yet to see any justification for why they chose to gut the Home Affairs portfolio and perhaps during this debate Labor MPs will be able to enlighten us on that. I can't see how this improves the working relationships between our national security and law enforcement agencies and I can't see how this makes Australians safer. Perhaps there was no-one within the government that the Prime Minister felt had the depth of experience to manage the full portfolio. Maybe it was the outcome of factional negotiations. Whatever the reason or the reasons for that change they have never ever been articulated. But one thing I do know is that you shouldn't change such a critical portfolio on the basis of who gets a bigger share of the spoils of government. That's no way to run national security policy.

I am deeply concerned, and we're seeing signs in a range of different policy areas, that the incoming government is driven by ego and ideology. Ideologically national security seems to be fairly low down the list of priorities for Labor. The national security policy that they took to the last election could fit on an A4 sheet of paper—leaving plenty of white space. Perhaps they don't have a national security agenda to speak of. Perhaps national security under the Labor government will be reactive rather than proactive.

We do know that the last time they came into office they gutted the then immigration and customs portfolio to pay for their social spending promises. Perhaps that's their plan going forward. But I, along with others on this side of the chamber, will be watching closely how they allocate funds in the October budget. As we face increasing global uncertainty, we cannot afford to let our law enforcement and national security agencies wither.

I am very proud of the fact that the coalition provided record funding, including an extra $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and boosting the Australian Federal Police's annual budget to more than $1.7 billion. I encourage any of the hardworking individuals within the Home Affairs portfolio, as it was, to contact my office if they find there are issues as a result of this move by the government. I will respect their confidentiality. We can't afford to be complacent in any way when it comes to the safety of our nation. I call on members of this place who share the very sensible view that the safety and security of Australians should be the priority of any government to support this motion.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say a few words in response to the member for McPherson's motion. There were some fine words there from the member for McPherson, but in all the things the coalition do we should look at that yawning chasm between their fine words and their deeds because this is the same person who as a minister on election day saw a complete compromising of Australia's security for short-term political gain. She has fled from the chamber now. Where was her voice on election day when we saw, for the sake of short-term political gain, an attempt to compromise those fine public servants who do keep Australia safe?

I noticed that the member for McPherson kept using the word 'gutting' about public servants, when that is not what the Albanese government has done at all. It was only five years ago that Malcolm Turnbull crunched together Australia's immigration, border protection, law enforcement and domestic security agencies into the Home Affairs portfolio. Remember: this was a purely political reorganisation, not prompted by any obvious need or any demands of the public servants, the ones actually most affected by the changes. At the time, Nicholas Stuart wrote in the Canberra Times:

Instead of having to justify why the new arrangements would make us any safer than the current division of responsibility (which has worked so well), the new requirement forces the existing offices to explain why they should continue to exist independently.

The key question that needed answering five years ago was: was this reorganisation in any simple and obvious way to improve the Public Service or benefit our democracy?

Bringing ASIO and the AFP together in one department and away from the Attorney-General was considered by some to be a fraught move. The Australian Federal Police Association has been calling for the AFP to be returned to the A-G's portfolio for a number of years. Remember that the police association are the actual people who understand policing and caring for police. That's why the Albanese government moved the AFP to the Attorney-General's portfolio. I am sorry that the person who moved the motion isn't here to listen to the response from the government MPs. She asked for it and then fled the chamber. This move was supported by the association, who have long held the view that the Commonwealth's law enforcement agency should be closely aligned with the portfolio that makes the laws in Australia. The police association has consistently argued for the Turnbull change to be reversed, saying that it compromised the AFP's organisational integrity and its ability to carry out investigations without government influence.

I'm sure everybody remembers the compromised situation that the agency was placed in during the then Attorney-General Michaelia Cash's Australian Workers Union raid and the au pair cases. Do you remember those? In the case of the au pairs, Federal Police searched the offices of fellow portfolio agency the home affairs department. And who can forget that dastardly behaviour on election day, when the coalition compromised the integrity of border protection for short-term political expediency, to their great shame?

This motion from the member for McPherson does not call on the Albanese government to reverse these portfolio changes, but what it does is question the ability of our national security agencies to work collaboratively. It also implies that national security and intelligence agencies only started to cooperate with each other when the previous government created the Department of Home Affairs, completely ignoring the work of these agencies for the many, many years of collaboration under the Howard government, the Rudd government, the Gillard government and the Abbott government, all prior to the formation of Home Affairs.

The Albanese government has complete confidence in the ability of the AFP to fight crime and to keep Australians safe. The Centre for Counter-Terrorism Coordination remains in the Department of Home Affairs and manages counterterrorism on behalf of the Commonwealth. It will now include delegated Attorney-General's Department officers in line with the administrative arrangements orders. The Albanese government will not treat national security as a political plaything. We will always respect and support our outstanding national security agencies and the men and women who actually keep Australia safe. We will not stand for the political interference shown by those opposite.

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

I want to thank the member for McPherson for bringing us a debate about the Department of Home Affairs and the government's important changes. I do acknowledge her genuine interest as a former minister, now shadow minister—long may she continue in that position—notwithstanding her bizarre speech and the pathetic politicisation of national security that we continue to hear from those opposite in and outside the chamber. Quite simply, the government's changes to Home Affairs and the national security administrative arrangements are an improvement, including by moving the Australian Federal Police and criminal law enforcement policy to the Attorney-General.

In contemporary times Australia has no doubt benefited from well-run and professional security and law enforcement agencies, and I thank them for their work over many years in keeping Australians safe. But given the motion raises implicit concerns or criticisms and what we have heard from those opposite, let's get a few facts out. The previous government's creation of Home Affairs was not properly considered and was largely a power grab by the now leader of the opposition. Let's be blunt: in a desperate bid to keep his own job former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull caved in to pressure from Dutton—I mean, the now leader of the opposition. They then piled in the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and anything else they could get in a smash-and-grab raid that he and the secretary could grab into a super security agency. The changes were rushed and half baked, and they were opposed by cooler, wiser heads in the cabinet then, including Julie Bishop and Malcolm of course until he caved in. Of course, Malcolm's desperation to stave off the now leader of the opposition was doomed to failure. In his own words, 'you cannot negotiate with terrorists'—in this case of course the political kind. They never like to talk about what ever happened to poor old Malcolm, do they? But the changes to Home Affairs made by the former government broke the long and prudent practice of properly constituted reviews done before major changes are made to administrative oversight and coordination of law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. Turnbull's 2017 review did not recommend the creation of Home Affairs neither did—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Standing orders do not apply to how I refer to former prime ministers, if that is what you are going to say.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff on a point of order.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former members should be referred to by their correct titles. Former prime ministers deserve that respect.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, can I make clear that the previous point of order was not in fact a point of order. Whilst it's appropriate that members are referred to with respect, the point of order was not valid.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for McPherson for bringing this motion to the House and, of course, I speak in favour of it. This is a fundamental issue to do with the structure of the national security of our nation, and a major change that the new government has, peculiarly, decided to put in place to dismantle the cooperation and coordination that we created in government through the creation of the Home Affairs department. Previous speakers have talked about the agencies that were brought together under that one single umbrella. In particular, to me, whilst many are reflecting on the past, I think the most important thing about the Home Affairs department is the future and the challenges that we will face as a nation into the future that are still developing and emerging as we speak.

As technology changes and other capabilities change we will see agencies needing to work together more than ever before. Different complex criminal capabilities around cyber et cetera and new ways and technologies that criminal enterprises will have access to will mean that our agencies that exist in law enforcement and border protection—intelligence gathering—will need to have an ability to collaborate together in an even more enhanced way into the future, and that's why it's so disappointing and regrettable that we're taking this backward step in separating apart these agencies from one common department.

Let's be clear, firstly, that these agencies are still standalone agencies. There is a Commissioner of the Federal Police, a Commissioner of Border Force and so on. The people who hold those roles are very distinguished people who are not, in my experience, at all susceptible to being bullied by a department head or being pushed around by anyone from the political class or from the departmental level. The independence of those agencies is one of the reasons that they are held in such high regard in this country and around the world. To suggest that by being in a department like Home Affairs the Federal Police Commissioner is in some way at risk of being subjugated by the head of that department and of not discharging their statutory responsibility is patently ridiculous. But what we are missing out on by dismantling this department is the natural opportunity for these agencies to have that enhanced level of collaboration in working together in a uniform structure within a single department.

I've certainly had experience with cross-agency matters, both at the Commonwealth level and the state level in South Australia. Of course, all of our agencies are exceptional, but in times of emergency, such as national security matters—but even in times of emergency management et cetera—there is a very high value in taking every opportunity to bring different agencies together to work as closely together as they can when major challenges face the nation. That might be from a national security point of view. That might be from an emergency management or disaster relief point of view. The point is that by having all these agencies together in one department we gave ourselves the best chance of them working as collaboratively together as possible. What this decision by the new government says to me is that that is not their priority. There are clearly internal tensions within the government and between cabinet ministers that have meant that someone has to be given some of these agencies in their department so that they can feel some sense of more significance in the role that they hold than they would have if they didn't have those agencies allocated to them, but that should not be the priority when it comes to matters of national security. We should not be making decisions for the vanity benefit of particular ministers.

Suggestions in this debate about super departments and the cabinet process are really a reflection of concerns that members opposite have about their own ministers. The suggestion that they couldn't trust a minister to hold a portfolio of Home Affairs and have all of those responsibilities under the one person, because apparently the culture in their government is that that person couldn't be trusted to operate within the confines of the Westminster system, couldn't be trusted to operate within the structures of cabinet government and couldn't be trusted to properly inform the Prime Minister and the National Security Committee of cabinet, is a reflection of the standards of the people that they've appointed to these positions in their government. But it's certainly regrettable that, because of that, the most important thing, which is the best national security interests of this nation, is being sat on the back seat to the challenges they've got in managing the personnel in their own cabinet. That suggests to me that the people in those positions should be reconsidered by the Prime Minister. He should reconstitute this department and he should prioritise the national security issues of this nation over any others.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for McPherson for moving this motion, not for her overt politicised content of the motion—certainly not for that—but really for the entertainment value, for the gall, for the brazenness, for the chutzpah she demonstrated in waltzing into this chamber and bowling up such a politicised motion that was so true to form for that mob over there when they were in government and which continues for them in opposition. Remarkably, they just can't help themselves.

Before I go on, I want to acknowledge the incredible work our national security agencies and the Department of Home Affairs play in keeping Australians safe and secure. Every day outstanding women and men across this portfolio protect us from those who would do us harm: terrorists, child sex offenders, violent extremists, traffickers, serious and organised crime groups and people smugglers. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting these men and women in their work. We respect them and we are grateful for the important work they do. The same cannot be said for those opposite me. Why? In the past fortnight we have heard about how the former government and the former minister, the member for McPherson, disgracefully attempted to trash the impartiality of those very same public servants working to keep us safe. The former minister, on election day, 21 May, risked the lives of those people who are keeping our country safe, with one motivation only—not the success of the operation, not the safety of those involved, not the interests of Australia's national security or our national interest; no, their only motivation was political. This has been their hallmark, using our foreign policy, our national security and our national interest as a political football that they can kick around as long as they can to protect their own jobs. They acted only in their interests, the interests of the Liberal Party, in a pathetic, craven, last-ditch effort to hold onto government.

The former government pressured public servants to make the ongoing operation public, leaked the operation to the media and then spammed voters with fearmongering text messages. In doing so, they showed nothing but utter disrespect and contempt for the uniformed officers that keep Australia and Australians safe. They put lives at risk.

The department's report found that the former government sabotaged operational protocols that protect Operation Sovereign Borders for their own political gain. The findings of this report were shocking, but they weren't surprising to most of us over here, because the former government has consistently tried to politicise our national security and our law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Home Affairs. So it frankly beggars belief that the former minister is moving this motion given her conduct, and the conduct of her former Prime Minister, on election day. The opposition shouldn't be coming in here with this kind of motion. They should be coming in here and apologising to the Australian people, to our Border Force personnel and to the Department of Home Affairs staff.

Of course, this motion conveniently fails to mention the former government's budget cuts to the very national security and law enforcement agencies we are discussing. Those opposite spent years attempting to cut funding from the AFP, and even left our high-risk terrorist offender regime unfunded from the end of 2022-23. This idea that terrorism is an issue that would only last for a single year is absolutely laughable, and says everything Australians need to know about the approach of those opposite to national security. This motion seeks to question the ability of our national security agencies to work collaboratively.

Now, under our government, we have already made tangible changes in the interests of ensuring Australians are safe. All of the actions that we are taking are in the interests of our national security and in keeping Australians safe. This Labor government will not treat national security as a political plaything. We will not politicise them, we will not disrespect them and we will not compromise them. Unlike those opposite, we will always respect and support our outstanding national security agencies, because our objectives are aligned: they are Australia's national interest.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.