Shorten queries PM’s motive over security super ministry

Bill Shorten wonders if the Turnbull government’s new super security ministry is a way of keeping Peter Dutton happy.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Labor takes a bipartisan approach to national security issues.

Bill Shorten says he hopes the Turnbull government’s creation of a new super security ministry is motivated by national security concerns, and not the Prime Minister’s job security.

Mr Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton have this morning blitzed the airways spruiking the plan, which will see Mr Dutton oversee all national security agencies as the new home affairs minister.

Mr Shorten said Labor took a bipartisan approach to national security issues and would wait to be briefed on the proposal by security experts before deciding on its own policy, but was concerned that the move had been rushed.

“I spoke to the Prime Minister last night,” the Opposition Leader said.

“We’re not going to unreasonably stop the government if they want to reshuffle particular departments, but I want to hear from the experts.

“We’ve requested briefings from the AFP and ASIO and our security agencies. What do they want? I have to say that in the past when this proposal’s been looked at, I got the very clear impression that our security agencies wanted to focus on fighting terror, not restructuring departments and changing letterhead, so we’ll see what the government say.”

Mr Shorten said Labor would not be unreasonable about the restructure.

“Since I’ve been leader of the Labor Party I’ve taken a bipartisan approach on anti-terrorism, but I want to hear from the experts. I take my advice from the experts on the front line of fighting terrorism, not the government who looks like they’re just trying to keep Peter Dutton happy, give him some more power, in order to protect Malcolm Turnbull’s job,” he said.

“If this is a problem why haven’t we heard about it before? Is the government saying that the current system is unsafe? Is the government saying that there is a big problem now which needs fixing?

“We will work constructively with the government, but they’ve announced what they say is the biggest overhaul in 40 years, but where’s the problem to justify the biggest overhaul in 40 years? Where are the voices of the experts?

“I expect our security agencies will probably ultimately sign up to some changes. They would. It’s the government of the day. But what is the overwhelming case? If this is the biggest change in 40 years, does that mean that the current system is the biggest problem in 40 years?”

Mr Shorten said he had little confidence in Attorney-General George Brandis, who has also been given increased oversight under the changes.

“Whether or not I’m confident in this current Attorney-General to be able to go down to the milk bar and get a litre of milk, no I’m not,” he said.

“It’s sort of like the government’s come up with a solution and now they’ve got to find the problem to justify the solution.

“Let’s be clear though, if the government wants to do this, we’re not going to necessarily stand in their way, but I want to hear from the experts. I’d like to be convinced this is about national security, not Malcolm Turnbull’s job security.”

‘The safety of Australians is my only focus’: PM

When the Rudd government considered a similar national security overhaul in 2008, Mr Turnbull described it as a “cheap copy of an American experiment crafted to capture campaign headlines”.

Today he said he couldn’t comment on what the Labor Party was proposing years ago.

“Let’s focus on the security of Australians today, because that’s what I’m interested in,” Mr Turnbull told Adelaide 5AA radio.

“What your listeners want to know is what I’m doing to make sure they are safe.

“In this very connected world in which we live, the terrorists that are seeking to undermine our way of life are working in very agile ways, they’re innovative, they are a constant threat, and we cannot have a set and forget approach to national security.”

Mr Turnbull said Australia had the best security and law enforcement agencies in the world, but he wanted them to be even better.

“So my focus is to ensure that you have them working together in one department so that because they’ve got the same mission to keep Australians safe, with one cabinet minister sitting there at the cabinet table, which will be Peter Dutton, and of course as George Brandis the Attorney-General said yesterday, this will be the first time you’ve got one minister who has no priority other than preserving the domestic security of all Australians, and that’s a clear focus and it is a rational, logical change,” he said.

“It’s consistent with the way the British Home Office operates, and I think it reflects both logic from an operational and policy point of view, so this will ensure that we’re keeping Australians safe and we’re doing it better every day. That’s my only focus.”

Mr Turnbull said other prime ministers, Labor and Liberal, had considered similar moves.

“It’s long overdue reform. I’m tackling it, taking it on, not in response to a particular event or a failure or a crisis, but because I’m constantly seeking to improve our national security,” he said.

The PM dismissed claims that combining oversight of the agencies would increase the risk of group think.

“No, absolutely not,” he told Perth 6PR radio.

“The agencies co-operate closely now, and you’ll find that when things go wrong in terms of security matters it’s invariably because there has not been enough co-operation, enough connectedness, people have been operating in silos and so forth, so my goal and my commitment is always to stay ahead of the threat.

“It’s very easy for governments and public servants for that matter to just leave things as they are. I come from a very proactive business background where you are constantly seeking to improve what you’re doing. I do not believe in set and forget. I don’t believe in being complacent. No matter how well you’re going, you’ve always got to ask yourself how can we go better, how can we do it more efficiently, how can we give Australians more protection, and that’s what we’re doing here.”

Mr Turnbull disputed that he had put Mr Dutton in charge of the portfolio to pacify him and other conservatives in the Coalition.

“I know people put a political gloss on these things, and it is in some ways disappointing that they do,” he told the Nine Network.

“The only issue here is the safety of all Australians.”

“(Mr Dutton has) got a very big job on his hands now, I can assure you. He is doing it very well and combining these agencies together makes common sense — it is absolute common sense.

“This is how it has been done in the UK forever.”

Sky News political commentator and former Tony Abbott chief of staff Peta Credlin was less complimentary about the move.

“We can see that Dutton is competent, so fingers crossed we hope it works, but these decisions are always best made, I think, with the worst case minister in charge, not your best case,” Ms Credlin said.

Dutton disappointed in Shorten’s comments

Mr Dutton said there had always been bipartisan support on national security issues and he was disappointed in Mr Shorten’s comments.

“He’s taken a cheap political opportunity, but really, now is a time for somebody who wants to be the alternative prime minister of this country to step up,” Mr Dutton said.

“We want to make sure that Labor can get all of the information that they require because this is a significant change and it is worthy of support from the Labor Party and from crossbench senators to get this legislation through, to make sure that we can have in place the best possible system to keep Australians safe.

“I am disappointed that Mr Shorten has taken the stance that he has, but now is the time for him to rise above that.”

Mr Dutton said he was yet to discuss the overhaul with crossbench senators.

“We’ve got an open dialogue with them on a number of matters and I deal with them regularly in relation to immigration and border protection matters,” he said.

“So there’s I think a willingness within the crossbench to provide support to the government on national security issues and generally speaking there would be from the Labor Party as well, but I think Mr Shorten has just had a knee-jerk reaction, which is a political reaction.

“I think he now needs to rise above that because the Labor Party did make a mistake in opposing our efforts on Operation Sovereign Borders and they would be making another mistake if they opposed our efforts in trying to keep Australians as safe as humanly possible.”

‘I’ll leave Dutton choice to PM or I’ll end up with it’: Barnaby

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce declined to pass judgement on Mr Turnbull’s selection of Mr Dutton to preside over the new super ministry, citing cabinet confidentiality and joking that the job was not one he aspired to.

“Peter Dutton is a competent minister but that’s something the Prime Minister determines, and I’ll leave it up to him, otherwise I’ll end up with it,” Mr Joyce said.

“I’m not going to start discussing what happens around the cabinet table otherwise there’s no point having a cabinet table,” he told Sky News.

“We’ll have a picnic table out in the courtyard and everybody can come and listen to what we say.

“So what happens around the cabinet table stays around the cabinet table, but what I will say is that this is a diligent and cogent process that has led to an outcome which merely replicates what is happening in so many other parts of the world and how we coordinate these sections of our security capacity in an efficient way to keep our nation safe.”

Mr Joyce also declined to say whether agencies had asked the national security committee of cabinet to make the decision.

“The only one thing slightly worse than talking about what happens in cabinet and that’s talking about what happens in the National Security Committee, so I’m not going to do that either,” he said.

“What we can say is that people think there’s some sort of remarkable avant garde move, when it’s really replicating what happens in other parts of the world that are dealing with the same problems that we’re dealing with now.

“I’m not going to tell you what advice ASIO’s going to be giving us. For goodness sake.

“Last time I checked I thought ASIO had something to do with secrecy, and so I’m not going to say, ‘oh well, we’re now going to have a little dialogue about what ASIO says and what ASIS says. It doesn’t work like that. These discussions will stay private.”

Mr Joyce said Mr Shorten’s criticism was to be expected.

“First of all I’d say that it’s unsurprising that Mr Shorten would say that. That’s what he says. He’s Mr No.

“The other thing I’d say is he’s wrong. Peter Dutton did not design the security arrangements of the United States and England and what Australia’s doing is merely replicating what we believe is a better model.

“We had a very good model, but this gives us a better model, and why did we do that? Because we’ve had threats that are obviously present that weren’t present a decade or so ago so we’ve got to move with the times and unfortunately get ourselves on the balls of the toes so we can protect your listeners in a better fashion, we can never do it perfectly, but in a better fashion than what we did before.”