Peter Dutton’s seat on security committee would be good look

There is no doubt that the public perception of the Turnbull government’s capacity to handle security issues, ranging from assessing terror threats, vetting Middle Eastern refugees and through to border protection at sea and in airports, would be enhanced if Peter Dutton were on the national security committee of cabinet.

It has been the Immigration and Border Protection Minister who has reassured the public of the government’s insistence on checking the bona fides of the 12,000 extra people Australia is taking from the Syrian conflict after at least one of the Paris gunmen arrived recently in Europe as a refugee.

Dutton is also in charge of the huge Border Force and the inheritor of Operation Sovereign Border. He was, like Scott Morrison, as immigration minister, was on the NSC under Tony Abbott. What’s more, border protection issues have occupied a large slice of NSC’s deliberations in the past two years and will continue to. There are clear arguments to restore Dutton to permanency on the committee and his restoration would address the concerns of some conservative Liberals who believe he was removed as a result of factional rivalries, his personal attachment to Abbott and territorial disputes which have flared over immigration before.

The argument against restoring immigration permanently to the security committee is that Dutton is called in on a needs basis, as are other non-permanent members.

Morrison is there as Treasurer, and other ministers with relevant portfolios, including counter-terrorism, are not members.

The committee also deals with other subjects, such as defence materiel and procurement, which are well outside the immigration portfolio. And, as Attorney-General George Brandis said yesterday on the ABC: “With the change of prime ministers and the change of the composition of the national security committee of cabinet, our national security policies and priorities have not changed one iota.”

Changing one member of the NSC is unlikely to make any impact on policy but there is little doubt there would a better look for the government in the public eye and internally there would be a sense that security policy formulation would have some conservative input.