Subjects: Establishment of a Home Affairs portfolio; Labor Party divisions over border protection policy; same sex marriage plebiscite; ABC coverage.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
We do have the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton joining us live from Brisbane, hopefully with comms. Thanks very much for your company.
Let me just ask you, if I can off the bat, we're in a situation where Tony Abbott says that when he looked into this issue of a super portfolio, which, congratulations, you'll be taking over, that the experts, if you like, internally were advising him against it. Did they change their mind, or was this just a captain's call by the Prime Minister despite that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Peter, the advice has been clear for a long period of time – and certainly it is clear to Malcolm Turnbull – and that is that this was a good change, it was a necessary one and it's a modernisation, if you like, a joining up of the organisations in a strategic sense and it gives a greater capacity for them to be able to communicate with each other, make sure there aren't communication and intelligence gaps. And the advice was clear to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister has made a decision. These machinery of government changes, the power for those changes, is vested rightly in the Prime Minister. He exercised that power and I believe it gives us the best chance to keep Australians safe in a very volatile environment. We do face an unprecedented threat in terms of domestic terrorism and we need to be realistic about that and it makes a lot of sense and that's what we're doing.
That's dropped out again now.
PAUL KELLY:
I've said a while ago, of Peter Dutton…
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
….I'm going to have to jump in there, apparently we just lost his communications again Paul Kelly. We are going to take a break. Our apologies to all viewers on this. We are going to get that sorted with Brisbane and come back with the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton.
[News Break]
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Welcome back to the programme. No, no, I'm just kidding, we do have comms, they are well and truly back. We're going to take you once again to Peter Dutton the Immigration Minister who's joining Paul Kelly and I.
PAUL KELLY:
Peter Dutton, I've said a few moments ago in my editorial that this security decision to create this new Home Affairs ministry was in fact a captain's call by Malcolm Turnbull. Do you agree with that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well look Paul, you can characterise it as you want. It's been, since Federation, the Prime Minister's call in relation to governance arrangements. So people can put whatever tags on it. In the end, what was Malcolm Turnbull's intention, what was his desire here? It was to do everything within our power to keep the Australian public safe in relation to our agencies, the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, Australian Border Force, all of our agencies are determined to keep Australians safe. And we want to make sure that they are communicating as effectively as possible, that every effort is made to uncover the intelligence, that snippet of information, to make sure that it's being shared with agencies across levels of government, across the Federal Government, because that gives us the best opportunity to keep the public safe in a very uncertain environment and that's the motivation.
Machinery of government changes and departmental changes have always been within the remit of the Prime Minister. That's appropriate and that's the decision, i think the very strong decision, that Malcolm Turnbull took in setting up this portfolio and I think he deserves credit for that.
PAUL KELLY:
Okay. Well having given that answer, do you think that there was a full and comprehensive Cabinet deliberation of this decision?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Paul, as I say, by default it's not legislation that is taken to Cabinet or to the Party Room. There is change that we need to make to the law and those changes - that legislative change - will go to Cabinet, or to the NSC, through the Party Room and introduced into Parliament.
I served as a Minister in the Howard Government and not through any of the Howard years did a machinery of government change go to Cabinet and that's the way that this would operate. So I don't think there's anything in that.
I think the desire of the Government, the desire of the Prime Minister, having accepted the advice, investigated this properly, contemplated it for a very long period of time, determined that this was in our national interest, that this was the best change that we could make to make sure that our agencies are doing everything they can to deal with this very real threat of terrorism.
But it goes beyond that - it deals with the scourge of organised crime, it deals with cyber security issues, counter-espionage - all of that effort needs to be joined up and that's the idea of this change.
PAUL KELLY:
Well were these changes considered by and approved by Cabinet's National Security Committee?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I don't comment on National Security Committee matters…
PAUL KELLY:
…I think that's a fair question because I'm not asking you about what happened, what Minister said this, what Minister said that. It's just a straight question about authorisation.
PETER DUTTON:
Let me give you a straight answer, as I did a moment ago. It doesn't require the deliberation of the National Security Committee to contemplate these things. The Prime Minister takes advice from his department, from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He's been very clear, in relation to both the incoming minister's brief and also the advice he's received along the way and that is that this is a sensible change.
This has been contemplated by leaders and prime ministers as far back as Kim Beazley. Kim Beazley recommended it strongly. Kevin Rudd looked at this and didn't have the gumption of the wherewithal to land it.
It's been contemplated since then and it has been tested in the United Kingdom, in a different form in the United States for a long period of time and it's an issue for the Prime Minister to contemplate machinery of government changes.
But all of that process to one side; our desire here is to be on the front foot, to make sure that we call on the resources that we've got available to us in the form of the Australian Federal Police and the other agencies to deal with returning foreign fighters, to deal with all the intelligence that we receive and what we're not going to do is to wait for an incident where Australians are hurt or killed and then have a Coronial inquest 12 months down the track to tell us that this information should have been shared or that should have happened.
We know out of Man Monis and other incidents since that time that there are better ways that we can do business. We've got great agencies, we've got the best people in the world and the question is how we can make sure that we deal with current threat, but also the reality Paul - and Australians know this - this threat of terrorism is not going away any time soon. Young people are being radicalised online in a very short time and we need to do all we can to prepare our agencies, to give them the best ability to be communicating effectively and in the national interest and this enhances that arrangement and that's why I think it is a very good decision.
PAUL KELLY:
Well just before we go to the detail of the new arrangements, I appreciate your point that this has been reviewed and considered on a number of occasions by different governments in the past. The point is they all decided not to do it. What's changed now?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, the Prime Minister, I think, has had the guts to make a tough decision, make the call and implement the necessary change…
PAUL KELLY:
…so in other words it is a captain's call, as I said. It's obviously a captain's call.
PETER DUTTON:
It's a Prime Minister's call as it has been since Federation for machinery of government changes. But again, do I think people who are watching this programme, who are worried about their kids going off to London or off to Paris, or they're thinking about a holiday themselves, or they're worried about their kids going down to a shopping centre in Bourke Street, or wherever it might be, are they are worried about this process? No they're not. They're worried about the Government doing all that it can to keep them safe and that is what we are doing. That's the intent that we apply here.
We have listened to the agencies. We have, I think, adopted a plan which is sensible for Australia. We haven't adopted a Homeland Security model out of the United States because it is a different governance arrangement there. The Prime Minister spoke to Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, my counterpart Amber Rudd, spoke to the agencies – David Irvine, you would have seen comments from at the end of this week. You've seen the comments from Michael L'Estrange and others. This is a change that gives us the best opportunity to work with our police, to work with our intelligence agencies, to put it all together, to keep us safe in a very uncertain environment.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Just on the – I'm sure we're going to continue talking about this and as Paul mentioned, getting into some of the nitty gritty about the new arrangements, but just as a side issue, we heard from Kevin Rudd - you mentioned him earlier - this week weighing in on the asylum seeker side of things. What do you make of that? I mean, it's an interesting observation by him which is quite different to what he actually had to say when he was Prime Minister and first mooted the whole notion of Manus.
PETER DUTTON:
Well I think Labor summed it up best when they sent Richard Marles out, one of the closest confidants to Bill Shorten, to call Kevin Rudd a liar and that this was a rewrite of history. I mean, it's quite a remarkable intervention by the Labor Party to weigh in like they did and it was fair enough because Labor is still all over the place when it comes to Border Protection policies.
Operation Sovereign Borders – which was the response to cleaning up Labor's mess and stopping deaths at sea and getting kids and adults out of detention – that's been a coordinated effort of 16 different agencies across the Commonwealth to disrupt the people smuggling ventures, to deal with the 30,000 out of the 50,000 people who arrived on 800 boats when Mr Rudd undid John Howard's policy.
So there are a couple of points. I mean, one is that Labor is still all over the shop. Bill Shorten has no more control over the Labor Party than Kevin Rudd did when it came to the Left exerting their influence on trying to unwind Operation Sovereign Borders. And from our perspective, we're not going to allow that to be undone. So, you know, there's a lot of instruction to take from Kevin Rudd's comments and I think the Australian public knew at the time that they were being hoodwinked by both Kevin Rudd and Bill Shorten and to this very day Labor's policy would still enable the boats to restart and that would be a human tragedy.
PAUL KELLY:
Kevin Rudd said as prime minister that people who went to these offshore processing centres would never come to Australia, they would never be settled in Australia. So, can I just ask you, seeing as he has changed his mind, given the pressure that the Government is under - I know what the Government's position has been, I know what your position has been - is there any contingency under which the Government might change its mind and allow some of these people to come to Australia?
PETER DUTTON:
No. No and people will not be coming to Australia. I've said that consistently, the Government has said it consistently, the Prime Minister has said it consistently, as did Prime Minister Abbott at the time and it's been part of the reason that we've been successful Paul in stopping boats because we've taken the people smuggling model away from the people smugglers. People don't believe that they can get to Australia by paying their money and if that fails then we will see a recommencement of boats.
Don't forget or course that Labor put people onto Manus and Nauru because they were pulling 1000 people a week off boats off Christmas Island and 1200 people tragically drowned at sea.
Under Operation Sovereign Borders we've not seen a single death at sea and we're now over 1000 days since we've seen a successful people smuggling venture. But bearing in mind, we have turned back 31 boats and the threat is not going away. There are 65 million people in the world that would want to come to a country like Australia tomorrow and we've consistently received intelligence about ventures being put together, people trying to sell the product that the policy will change.
Under this Government it won't change, but it is very clear again and given that Mr Shorten was out as recently as Friday talking about this topic that Labor had intended to bring people from PNG on Kevin Rudd's revised account which would have been a disaster because boats would have restarted. And it seems to me that given Mr Shorten again on Friday refused to rule out that people would come from Manus Island or Nauru to settle permanently in Australia, it seems to me that he is still trying to grapple with this issue as well.
The people smugglers just rub their hands together when they hear this indecision from the Labor Party. So if we want to see boats restart under a Labor government, then that will be the reality of a Labor government if they're elected at the next election.
So I think Bill Shorten needs to come out today and answer this question; will people off Manus or Nauru be settled in Australia? Because if you can't answer decisively, then it is clear that Labor is still grappling with this issue and we know that 24 members of the Labor Caucus – let alone all of those Members on the frontbench now that were Cabinet Ministers in the Gillard-Rudd years – all of those people have been at odds at different times over whether they support the three pillars of Operation Sovereign Borders or not. We already know that Labor doesn't support Temporary Protection Visas, which has been a key part of the success in Operation Sovereign Borders. So how could they hope to convince the Australian public at the next election that they could actually keep the boats stopped?
PAUL KELLY:
Now back to the security issue. How is ASIO in an enhanced position? It's always been with the Attorney-General's Department. Now it's going to be under the Home Affairs portfolio, but the Attorney-General will be required to authorise warrants. So aren't we in a situation where really ASIO has got to deal with two Ministers and get approval from two Ministers, the Home Affairs Minister and the Attorney-General? How is this a better system?
PETER DUTTON:
Well it's certainly a better system because it's a stronger governance arrangement Paul and I think it is important for the first law officer to be involved in the warrant process. Under this model, it doesn't require two signatures, so it's the signature of the Attorney-General, not the Home Affairs Minister. And that's a good thing because the operational side for ASIO and for the AFP, by way of just two examples, rests within the Home Affairs portfolio, but the warrant is issued by the Attorney-General on the facts presented, by the Department - by ASIO. And that is a stronger governance arrangement than that which exists at the moment. So I think to separate that function, the administrative function, if you like, from the operational function, is actually a stronger governance arrangement and it means that those propositions that are put will be rightly tested by the AG before the AG signs off on the warrant and that is a superior model, in my judgement, than what we have now.
PAUL KELLY:
Now one of the points about these changes is the extent to which these agencies, which have their own autonomy now, their own statutory independence now, are going to be influenced more in a policy sense. The argument put by the Prime Minister for these changes is that there's got to be greater policy coordination and policy integration. We're talking about independent agencies, and of course it's very important for intelligence agencies not to be influenced by policy, but for intelligence agencies to provide aggressive and independent intelligence advice to Government. So is there a risk here that there will be a contamination of the independence of these agencies?
PETER DUTTON:
No, there's no risk of that at all at the moment, as will continue under that we propose. As you point out, the agencies will have their independent statutory protections and that is appropriate and it's a key feature of the new model. And in terms of policy, well, the agencies, any agency operates under the policy or the laws of the government of the day. There is already a contest of ideas and discussion around policy propositions tested within the National Security Committee in discussions between ministers and their departmental heads now. That is appropriate and that's how a robust democratic system should work.
So that is the model that we have adopted and it will still ensure not only the integrity, but the independence of the individual agencies. For example, nobody is proposing to tell the Australian Federal Police Commissioner what he or she should be investigating, or what matters should result in arrest or prosecution. They are in our democracy and always will be, within the remit of the Federal Police Commissioner, in that example.
Ultimately though, the agencies operate under general policy that's devised by the government of the day. For example, in Operation Sovereign Borders, we provided policy; the departmental heads executed that policy and we've got the resulting success in Operation Sovereign Borders. In the success we've had within my own portfolio, the Australian Border Force have effectively cancelled visas and deported criminals from this country, non-citizens, people who have committed serious offences against Australian citizens, because of Australian Government policy. And they're executed that policy very efficiently. We're a safer society as a result of those outlaw motorcycle gang members and rapists having left our shores. That's the sort of policy that governments can preside over. The job of the agencies is to execute that, within the law of course, on behalf of the government of the day.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
I was going to say Minister, you mentioned before, in relation to this change, that it essentially will make Australia safer and the structures of it are better than the current status quo. Are you concerned then about the time lag before it's actually going to take effect? Because it is a long time from now- I think June next year, isn't it, before it will actually fully take effect with the changed management that's happening? That, you know, should that be sped up if there is a security need to get these changes done?
PETER DUTTON:
No Peter and we've thought long and hard about this. The Prime Minister and I have discussed this and obviously the Prime Minister has discussed it with Prime Minister and Cabinet and other senior ministers as well. The reason that there is an implementation phase, which I think is more prudent than announcing that this is going to happen Monday morning - legislation's not in place yet, we want to make sure that the agencies continue without interruption. So that's why at the moment the current arrangements exist and the reporting requirements to Michael Keenan and to George Brandis continue so there's no disruption to that. There's no disruption to any of their investigations, no distraction from any of the work that the police and others are doing at the moment. That's a very important decision that we've taken.
But in the background, we're able to look at the legislation that needs to be changed. There's obviously a process of negotiation with Labor and we hope that they can support us in the Senate. That will take time. And we're in the last quarter effectively of this year before legislation can be introduced. I think there will be support from Labor because the safeguards have been put in place in terms of warrants and it's hard to imagine what their argument is against supporting legislation. But that takes time and I think it would be a dog's breakfast if you announced it overnight that it had an effective start date from tomorrow. I think it is the best way to approach it, to get all of the legislative requirements and all of the bureaucratic process out of the way in the background and that means that there is absolutely no disruption to the investigations and to the intelligence gathering of our policing and intelligence agencies.
PAUL KELLY:
This year in the United Kingdom we've seen a distinct escalation in Islamist terrorism and the threat of Islamist violence. There's no doubt that that's been the trend in the UK. What's the situation in Australia at the moment? Do you think that this problem is becoming an even more serious problem or not?
PETER DUTTON:
I do believe it's becoming a more serious problem.
Now in terms of the UK, they've got the consequence now sadly of some decisions around migration programmes over the course of the last decade and before that. There are some parts of the UK where there's particular difficulty, radicalisation within young people is much more prevalent and obviously the UK is making every effort to address that. They're on Europe's doorstep. They've got a change in some of the policies now. The whole debate around Brexit was essentially dominated around migration issues. So there is a different dynamic, both geographically and geopolitically in the UK than there is here, so there's a stark difference between the two markets if you like.
But in terms of the Australian situation, we know that since 2014 we've had 70 people charged with terrorist related offences. There have been five attacks, three of which have resulted in loss of innocent life and 12 planned terrorist events have been disrupted. So if you contrast that to the previous three years, or six, or nine, or 12 before that, where we had a handful of cases, you can see them ramping up.
On top of that Paul, you've got the situation Qantas has made public today in relation to threats coming out of the Philippines, the southern Philippines, parts of Indonesia, parts of South East Asia otherwise which are of particular concern to us as foreign fighters return home or as they flee Syria and Iraq.
So this problem is not going away and on top of that you've got the influence of people online radicalising, putting out propaganda which is taken up by impressionable young minds here in Australia as it is in other Western democracies. So people who believe that this threat is going to diminish any time soon, I just don't think understand the depth of concern that we have and that the agencies have and again that speaks to the necessity to make sure that we've got ourselves on the front foot and that we're able to deal with this in the best possible way.
PAUL KELLY:
As of today Minister, do we have the intelligence resources, and the manpower resources, and the police and security systems to properly monitor all the potential threats, all the potential terrorists that we've identified in this country?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Paul, the honest answer to that is that we will never have those resources or that ability because there will always be people who are on the fringes, people who require more surveillance than we are able to apply to them. And the agencies are forever - even under this Government where we've put incredibly sufficient, but increasing amounts of money into the agencies - they've always had to prioritise and that will always be the case. That's the case in our Five Eyes partners as well and we've had those discussions as recently as our discussions in Ottawa. So there will always be prioritisation. It takes a lot of resource to apply surveillance and the other techniques that are needed to neutralise these threats, but we can be assured firstly that we've got the best people in the world in our Australian Federal Police, in ASIO and the other agencies, but also that the Government has the absolute desire to provide them with the support that they require and not only in a resources sense, but in a policy sense as well. And you've seen that through changes that Prime Minister has made to strengthen our national security laws and we'll continue to work with them. If there are further priorities and further resources that are required, then this Government will do whatever it possibly can to keep Australians safe. That's the priority of this announcement and it's what I dedicate myself to in this portfolio.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Minister, just away from your portfolio before we let you go if I can, I want to ask you about the issue of same sex marriage. Now, Dean Smith, Senator Smith, when Parliament returns will have a Private Members Bill. I don't really want to get into the whole, you had a plebiscite at the election, you want to stick to that commitment, maybe you'll put it before Parliament again, maybe it will take a different form if you can't get it through. There's been a various set of discussions on that. What I'm particularly interested in Peter Dutton is what you think should happen on the assumption that we can all make, which is that it continues to get blocked in the Senate if you stick to your election commitment for a plebiscite? What should the Government that you're part of, a senior member of, take to the next election? Would you like to see you sticking to the plebiscite at the next election? Assuming you can't get it through this term. Or would you like to see the Party Room rethink it and perhaps shift policy going forward?
PETER DUTTON:
Peter, I'm working on the assumption that this issue is going to be dealt with in this Parliament. I think that there is a momentum in relation to having the matter resolved one way or the other.
Our Party, as you point out, went to the election with a promise for a plebiscite which has not been possible to deliver because we can't get the votes for it in the Senate. That's the reality of the numbers in the Senate. And from that point, what's the next best option? In my mind, it is a postal plebiscite which allows the public to have their say. And if the majority of the Australian people have their say in favour of change, my view is that, having advocated a democratic process as a plebiscite is, or a postal plebiscite is, then the government of the day is bound by the outcome. And if the majority of people do believe through a plebiscite that there should be a change to the definition, then I would expect legislation to come before the Parliament. I think that is a much cleaner process than people running off to support private members motions or a Labor stunt within with House of Representatives.
That's my honest view on how we should approach what is a vexed issue in terms of our Party membership, in terms of our parliamentary wing as well. So I think that's the most sensible approach to it. Others have different views, which I respect, but that's my view of it.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
So it sounds like you're realistic that the plebiscite, as you would like to have it, as a more traditional plebiscite would be, may not get through the Parliament, as it didn't when you tried previously. But you're hopeful, would that be the right term, that there will be enough of your colleagues that would support a postal plebiscite to be able to still do a version of what you took to the election in terms of a plebiscite via the post?
PETER DUTTON:
There's no doubt in my mind that a postal plebiscite delivers the same policy intent as a plebiscite proper. And the plebiscite proper can't get through the Senate. The Greens, the Labor Party, Nick Xenophon won't support it, so we're left with that reality. Now you can either sit there and do nothing or pretend that that hasn't happened, but that's my sense of the next best option, the postal plebiscite and I think there is broader support for…
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…because you can do that without the parliamentary approval can't you Minister? Is that right, you can do the postal plebiscite?
PETER DUTTON:
That's the point, Peter, so there's no legislation required for the postal plebiscite. I hope that Nick Xenophon revises his decision and thinks that the plebiscite is a sensible way of dealing with it.
It is the Government's policy that we took to the last election when we got elected and it was Bill Shorten's policy at one point, but at the moment he continues to play politics. And Shorten of course is desperately worried about losing inner city seats to the Greens and they're being pulled to the Left on a whole number of issues. So that's my read of where the situation is at on that policy at the moment.
PAUL KELLY:
This week we've seen a number of Christian leaders openly criticise the ABC, accuse the ABC of sustained anti-Christian bias, not just over this bizarre story of Evangelical Christians being prone to domestic violence, but more generally in terms of the tenor of the ABC and its treatment of issues relating to Christianity. What's your view on these remarks made by the church leaders? Do you think that this criticism is justified or not?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Paul, I've been a long-term critic of the culture at the ABC. I think it is a cultural issue that they've got. If there are complaints to be made, there is a process to go through that complaint mechanism. So I think we need to recognise that there is a problem and that ABC, for a long time, has become a workers' collective. I think there's a huge gap between the attitude of many within the senior ranks of the ABC and people who live in electorates like mine at the moment. I think that's a big problem for the national broadcaster and I hope that Michelle Guthrie can arrest some of that direction and bring it back into a more sensible position than what it currently is. So that's been my long held view of the ABC for a long period of time and I haven't seen anyone dispute that with any seriousness. So you see it in shows like Q&A and some of the other parts of the ABC, frankly, where in hindsight they make apologies about some of the stances that have been taken or the views that have been expressed that they've allowed to go to air, but that's all a bit too little, too late. So it's a long-term issue. It was there in the Howard years as well and it continues to this very day. Is there an immediate fix for it? No. But it needs to be spoken about and we shouldn't be shy in expressing our views in relation to it.
PAUL KELLY:
So in other words, you're giving a strong answer, you're very concerned about it. You think this is a genuine problem, but, hey presto, the Government can't do a thing. Is that where we are?
PETER DUTTON:
Well if you look at John Howard's own words and his frustration expressed when he was Prime Minister, the problem was there then. John Howard made a number of sensible board appointments of good people to the ABC Board and did we see a change of culture or a change of direction then? No. Through successive CEOs, I think many of them have experienced the same frustrations as those of us that are elected to public office have experienced. So that's the reality. It's not breaking news. That's been a problem longstanding for the ABC. There's a charter there. Frankly, if they adhered to their charter there would be less of a difficulty, but at the moment I think there are some people - and, as I say, it's not just now, but it's been here for a long time, I think it will be there for a long time to come and we need to recognise it and hopefully in time it can be dealt with.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Minister Peter Dutton, we appreciate you joining us today. We also particularly appreciate your patience early on as we got the line sorted to you up there in Brisbane. Thanks very much for your company today.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks Peter. Thanks Paul.
[ends]
