tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/home-affairs-minister-40860/articlesHome affairs minister – The Conversation2020-06-23T20:16:23Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1410442020-06-23T20:16:23Z2020-06-23T20:16:23ZChina’s disinformation threat is real. We need better defences against state-based cyber campaigns<p>The Australian government recently announced plans to establish the country’s first <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-17/foreign-minister-steps-up-criticism-china-global-cooperation/12362076">taskforce</a> devoted to fighting disinformation campaigns, under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).</p>
<p>Last week, Foreign Minister Marise Payne <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/foreign-minister-marise-payne-hits-out-at-chinese-russian-disinformation-20200616-p552y9.html">accused</a> China and Russia of “using the pandemic to undermine liberal democracy” by spreading disinformation to manipulate social media debate.</p>
<p>“Where we see disinformation, whether it’s here, whether it’s in the Pacific, whether it’s in Southeast Asia, where it affects our region’s interests and our values, then we will be shining a light on it,” <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-17/foreign-minister-steps-up-criticism-china-global-cooperation/12362076">Payne said</a>.</p>
<p>In her <a href="https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/speech/australia-and-world-time-covid-19">speech</a> to Canberra’s National Security College, she claimed Australia is going through an “infodemic”. But is it really? And if so, what can be done about it?</p>
<h2>170,000 accounts removed, but how many missed?</h2>
<p>Disinformation campaigns are coordinated attempts to spread false narratives, fake news and conspiracy theories. They’re characterised by repetitive narratives seemingly emanating from a variety of sources. These narratives are made even more believable when republished by trusted friends, family, community figures or political leaders.</p>
<p>Disinformation campaigns exist along a continuum of different cyber warfare techniques, including the massive state-sponsored cyberattacks targeting Australian government institutions and businesses. These sustained attacks <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-under-sustained-cyber-attack-warns-the-government-whats-going-on-and-what-should-businesses-do-141119">reported on Friday</a> were also purportedly emanating from China. </p>
<p>Social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook provide a perfect forum for disinformation campaigns. They’re easily accessible to foreign actors, who can create fake accounts to spread false but seemingly credible stories. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-sara-sharon-and-mel-why-people-spreading-coronavirus-anxiety-on-twitter-might-actually-be-bots-134802">Meet ‘Sara’, ‘Sharon’ and 'Mel': why people spreading coronavirus anxiety on Twitter might actually be bots</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Earlier this month, Twitter <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/12/twitter-deletes-170000-accounts-linked-to-china-influence-campaign">removed</a> more than 170,000 accounts connected to state-run propaganda operations based in China, Russia and Turkey. Of these, about 150,000 were reportedly “amplifier” accounts boosting content.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2020-06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall_0.pdf?zjVSJfAOYGRkguAbufYr8KRSQ610SfRX=">report</a> published this month by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a “persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors” has been targeting Chinese-speaking people outside China. </p>
<p>The campaign is allegedly aimed at swaying online debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hong Kong protests, among other key issues.</p>
<p>Twitter is banned in China, so there would be minimal opportunity for the Chinese government to develop and embed troll accounts into local Twitter networks. Instead, China has <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter-propaganda-machine-then-let-it-loose-on-coronavirus">likely hacked</a>, stolen or purchased legitimate accounts.</p>
<p>Twitter hasn’t revealed exactly how it detected the state-sponsored accounts, presumably because this would give other states a “how-to” guide on circumventing the platform’s security barriers. </p>
<p>But according to a New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/technology/twitter-chinese-misinformation.html?referringSource=articleShare">report</a>, one giveaway is when a user logs into many different accounts from the same web address. Twitter has also suggested unblocked accounts posting from China may be acting maliciously with government approval.</p>
<h2>Information warfare is a growing threat</h2>
<p>Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/home-affairs-flags-steps-to-help-australians-identify-fake-news-by-foreign-powers">warned</a> there’s a “realistic prospect” foreign actors could meddle in Australian politics, including in the next federal election – unless steps are taken to prevent this. </p>
<p>The government has warned of this as a future threat. But based on the available evidence, we contend disinformation is already being used to manipulate public debate in Australia.</p>
<p>A University of Oxford <a href="https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf">report</a> published last year suggested organised social media manipulation campaigns have occurred in 70 countries, including Australia. </p>
<p>Earlier this week, analysts at ASPI <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/22/foreign-actors-targeted-facebook-users-during-australian-2019-election-thinktank-finds">reiterated how</a> Islamophobic and nationalist content was intentionally <a href="https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/tracking-anti-muslim-tactics-online-australias-election-misinformation/">spread online</a> during last year’s election campaign.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most infamous example of a large-scale disinformation campaign <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/">came from Russia</a> in 2016, when a coordinated campaign was deployed to meddle with the US presidential election. Like Russia, China now appears to be investing substantial resources into disinformation campaigns. </p>
<p>Australia should expect to see further complex attacks conducted by both foreign and internal agents. These may be foreign state-sponsored campaigns, or dirty tactics used on the electoral campaign trail.</p>
<p>During last summer’s horrific bushfires, a large number of Twitter bot accounts were found posting #ArsonAttack, to perpetuate the idea the fires were largely attributable to arson, rather than climate change. The false claims were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/13/we-didnt-start-the-fire-news-corp-defends-false-arson-claims-that-spread-worldwide">taken up by News Corp publications</a>, which then <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/world/australia/fires-murdoch-disinformation.html">influenced debate</a> surrounding the crisis. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bushfires-bots-and-arson-claims-australia-flung-in-the-global-disinformation-spotlight-129556">Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such claims sow confusion among the public. They increase political polarisation, and erode trust in media and political institutions.</p>
<h2>The best defence is a collective one</h2>
<p>While we can hope Twitter builds on efforts to detect malicious accounts that spread lies, we can’t assume state-sponsored actors will sit back and do nothing in response. Governments have invested too much into such attacks, and campaigns have proven successful.</p>
<p>The most readily available means of defence, as per most contemporary cybercrime, is user education. Social media users of all political persuasions should be aware what they’re seeing online may not be accurate, and should be viewed with a critical eye. </p>
<p>Some of us are better at differentiating between what is real and fake online, and can help filter out content that’s untrustworthy, unverified or plain wrong. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-and-how-to-change-their-minds-82514">Simple ways to do this</a> include stating the facts (without specifically focusing on the myths), and offering explanations that coincide with the other’s preexisting beliefs. </p>
<p>It’s also important to remember how little actions such as “liking” and “retweeting” content can further spread disinformation, regardless of intent.</p>
<p>Also, while the above steps help they’re unlikely to completely insulate Australia from the potentially disastrous effects of future disinformation campaigns. We’ll need new solutions from both government and private industry.</p>
<p>Ideally, we’d like to see government regulation around disinformation. And although this hasn’t happened yet, the announcement of a government-run disinformation taskforce is at least one step in the right direction. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-anti-vaxxers-arent-a-huge-threat-yet-how-do-we-keep-it-that-way-138531">Coronavirus anti-vaxxers aren’t a huge threat yet. How do we keep it that way?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unlike the US, Australia hasn’t yet been hit by a large-scale disinformation campaign focussed on meddling with elections. But this is a ‘realistic prospect’ moving forward.Sarah Morrison, PhD Candidate, Swinburne University of TechnologyBelinda Barnet, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of TechnologyJames Martin, Associate Professor in Criminology, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/814692017-07-24T01:49:02Z2017-07-24T01:49:02ZKnives are sharpening on the new home affairs office<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179367/original/file-20170724-28519-e8v7z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announces the new Home Affairs office, a major political win for Peter Dutton.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsiakis</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you wanted a case study of how media sausages are made – the purveying of news and opinion – you would need to look no further than argument about the establishment of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-has-his-prize-now-to-see-how-he-handles-it-81218">super department of Home Affairs</a>, modelled on the UK Home Office.</p>
<p>Not much explains better political cross-currents in a beleaguered government than the leaking that has informed much of the commentary about this proposal.</p>
<p>A rule of thumb in Canberra holds that leakages damaging to the prime minister of the day increase in proportion to the trouble they are in. If that’s the case, Malcolm Turnbull is in a heap of trouble.</p>
<p>Commentators aligned with former prime minister Tony Abbott have been at the forefront of those lambasting the idea. In office, Abbott rejected setting up a Home Affairs department on bureaucratic advice.</p>
<p>Then there are the ministers who would yield terrain in Canberra’s endless turf wars. This principally applies to Attorney-General George Brandis, who would lose responsibility for one of the crown jewels of the intelligence establishment, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have no idea whether Brandis has been briefing journalists. But I do know he has long opposed the establishment of a mega homeland security department.</p>
<p>Allied with Brandis has been Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who has been against such a development from the start.</p>
<p>Again, I have no idea whether Bishop has been briefing against the proposal. But she has let it be known she was not present at a meeting of the National Security Committee of the cabinet where the matter was canvassed.</p>
<p>Bishop would have another reason for resistance to the idea as odds shorten on her as an alternative to Turnbull, given the difficulties the government finds itself in.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s decision to confer security tsar-like status on her potential rival, Peter Dutton, will not please Bishop. Bishop and Dutton represent polar opposites in more ways than one.</p>
<p>Then there is the bureaucracy. Elements of the bureaucracy will be unhappy about changes that would alter lines of command and areas of responsibility. Canberra bureaucrats will be finding ways to make their views known.</p>
<p>A significant part of the bureaucratic unease about the Turnbull proposal revolves around Michael Pezzullo, head of Dutton’s immigration department and in line to be crowned as the most powerful Canberra official in recent memory.</p>
<p>Pezzullo, who has worked for former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans, and for Kim Beazley in opposition, is a ruthless political operative. Some might believe this would be a necessary attribute for such a job.</p>
<p>At this stage, the Department of Home Affairs is a work in progress, and its future is far from guaranteed. For a start, it will require legislation to make its way through a fractured Senate. However, fearful of being wedged on security issues, Labor may well go along with the bulk of the proposal.</p>
<p>After all, it follows fairly closely a similar package advanced by Beazley as opposition leader under the tutelage of Pezzullo, then his deputy chief-of-staff.</p>
<p>In the grinding of meat, and adding of seasoning and other bits and pieces to be placed in a sausage skin, the Turnbull initiative is far from a finished product. Nor is there an end in sight to negative commentary about his political judgement – exemplified, in the view of some, by his handling of the homeland security issue.</p>
<p>Much of this commentary has centred around Turnbull’s perceived machinations to save his own political skin. His alliance with the conservative Dutton is widely regarded as his attempt to take out insurance against moves within his own partyroom.</p>
<p>Whether that is the case or not, it is true that in recent months Turnbull and Dutton have moved close to each other for reasons that might be regarded as serving their respective political aspirations.</p>
<p>Dutton has emerged as the standard-bearer of the right in a prospective leadership tussle, having overtaken Treasurer Scott Morrison for this mantle.</p>
<p>So, the question becomes whether the decision to centralise intelligence and security operations in one department makes sense, or whether it will prove be an unwieldy response to burgeoning challenges, not least those relating to cyber-security?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-07-18/strong-and-secure-australia">This is what Turnbull said</a> when announcing the decision both to establish a Home Affairs department, and also beef up oversight of Australia’s intelligence agencies:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The government will establish an Office of National Intelligence headed by the Director-General of National Intelligence, and transform the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory agency within the Defence portfolio.</p>
<p>The government will also establish a Home Affairs portfolio of immigration, border protection and domestic security and law enforcement agencies.</p>
<p>The new Home Affairs portfolio will be similar to the Home Office in the United Kingdom: a central department providing strategic planning, coordination and other support to a federation of independent security and law enforcement agencies including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While Turnbull contends the Australian Home Affairs portfolio will have similar responsibilities to those of the UK Home Office, a better comparison may be the US Department of Homeland Security in the breadth of its responsibilities.</p>
<p>US Homeland Security, established in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, has responsibility for a plethora of federal agencies, inviting criticism that it is unwieldy. </p>
<p>When established in 2003, it combined 22 agencies with oversight of everything, from airport security to disaster relief. It is not responsible, however, for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the latter being the responsibility of the attorney-general.</p>
<p>In the case of the Turnbull proposal, the Australian Federal Police, equivalent to the FBI, would come under the new mega department.</p>
<p>Sceptics might read a contrarian view of the US Homeland Security department by <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/make-america-safer-shut-down-department-homeland-security">Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute</a>, who takes issue with an explosion in the DHS budget, and also risks of “mission creep”.</p>
<p>It would seem almost inevitable, given the Australian home affairs office will have such broad-ranging powers, that it would continue to expand. This is one of the immutable laws of bureaucracy.</p>
<p>Finally, the former head of ASIO, <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australian-intelligence-reforms-ain-t-broke-can-still-be-improved">David Irvine</a>, has defended of the Turnbull-Dutton proposal, insisting the changes will:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… seek to reorganise the intelligence and law enforcement communities to achieve even greater operational effectiveness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That remains the hope. The question is whether a department of the dimensions envisaged in the Turnbull reforms will prove as unwieldy as its American counterpart. If it is, we might be in the process of taking one step forward and two steps back.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
If the home affairs office is as unwieldy as its US counterpart, we might be about to take one step forward and two steps back.Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/813902017-07-21T02:36:40Z2017-07-21T02:36:40ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the home affairs department<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179129/original/file-20170721-3327-1thpmuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darren England/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qYwVL_ONEgw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The University of Canberra’s Michelle Grattan and acting vice-chancellor Frances Shannon discuss the week in politics, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s reforms to national security with the creation of a Home Affairs department headed by Peter Dutton, the Greens losing a second senator in less than a week, whether the Constitution should change to allow people with dual citizenship into parliament, and the NSW Liberals’ convention this weekend on their rules.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The University of Canberra’s Michelle Grattan and Frances Shannon discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraFrances Shannon, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811822017-07-19T20:04:09Z2017-07-19T20:04:09ZAustralia’s new ‘Home Office’ is a worry for immigration policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178732/original/file-20170718-27190-4vf953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the minister in charge of the new 'super-portfolio', Peter Dutton, announce the changes on Tuesday.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the establishment of a Home Affairs portfolio this week, he <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-07-18/strong-and-secure-australia">described it as</a> “similar to the Home Office of the United Kingdom”. Drawing inspiration from this British model is worrisome for the immigration portfolio. </p>
<h2>Immigration mismanagement</h2>
<p>Planning immigration has never been a core task of Britain’s Home Office. As political scientist <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Citizenship_and_Immigration_in_Postwar_B.html?id=qj8GEjW91oEC&redir_esc=y">Randall Hansen</a> has described, the UK in the 20th century has long managed immigration using its nationality legislation. </p>
<p>Migration management was set to become a priority under the Blair government. Decades after Australia did so, it introduced a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29594642">points-based system for skilled migrants</a>. </p>
<p>In practice, the Home Office did not anticipate the <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/united-kingdom-reluctant-country-immigration">large inflow of citizens</a> from new members of the European Union in the 2000s. This fuelled public concerns that eventually played a crucial role in Brexit. </p>
<p>Immigration-related Home Office activities have been mired in enforcement issues. From the 1980s to the 2000s, asylum applications took years to process. </p>
<p>More recently, European citizens aiming to apply for residency in the post-Brexit UK have faced a bureaucratic nightmare. This has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/19/how-do-citizens-rights-affect-brexit-negotiations">criticised by the EU</a>. </p>
<h2>What’s in a name?</h2>
<p>The Home Office was originally established to protect British citizens, with a focus on Britain’s infrastructure and customs, and on the prevention of entry by “undesirable aliens”. It has historically been inward-looking.</p>
<p>This has also been the case of Australia’s Department of Home Affairs, established at Federation in 1901. After the second world war, a distinct Department of Immigration was established to plan and oversee the expansion of the country’s population. This was a major strategic and economic goal at the time. </p>
<p>In Australia, both the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Immigration have co-existed over the years, with two exceptions. From the late 1980s to 2007, the former disappeared as its portfolio was handed to the Department of Justice and Customs. Then, in the early 1970s, the Whitlam government abolished the Department of Immigration, because its administrative culture was considered to still reflect the White Australia policy, which had been effectively scrapped in 1966.</p>
<p>The Fraser government reinstated the Department of Immigration in 1976, this time with a strong multicultural rationale. Home Affairs <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-cabinet-and-outer-ministry-20130916-2tuma.html">disappeared again in 2013</a>, while Immigration expanded to become the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. </p>
<p>The 2013 name change already meant the department’s focus on immigration became narrower than before. It was now mainly concerned with the admission (or refusal) of immigrants. Settlement and multicultural affairs were transferred to the Department of Human Services.</p>
<p>The newest name change, and its close association with the British model by Turnbull, appears as a symbolic marginalisation of the immigration portfolio. It is not clear yet whether an agency under a Home Affairs “super-ministry” will carry “immigration” in its name. </p>
<p>In Britain, the corresponding agency under the purview of the Home Office is called “UK Visas and Immigration”. Yet it existed for several years as the UK Border Agency (UKBA), with no reference to immigration. The then home secretary, Theresa May, eventually split UKBA in two following <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-17099143">the revelation</a> that hundreds of thousands of people had entered the UK without the appropriate checks. </p>
<h2>Critical timing</h2>
<p>The creeping invisibility of the immigration portfolio comes as the government is overseeing <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-lengthen-permanent-residency-period-for-aspiring-citizens-76424?sg=7319abe1-2436-46bb-9ffb-6a44a1cd15ad&sp=1&sr=1">major changes</a> to immigration policy, and is increasingly using the rhetoric of putting Australians first.</p>
<p>In April, the admission of skilled migrants was overhauled with the abolition of the 457 visa. The government shortened the list of professions for which skilled foreign workers would be eligible for a four-year visa to Australia, and subsequently for permanent residence. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-proposed-changes-to-australian-citizenship-76405">citizenship reform</a> is before parliament. It significantly extends the time permanent residents must live in Australia before they can apply for citizenship. It also introduces more stringent English-language proficiency requirements. </p>
<p>The legislation would require citizenship applicants to demonstrate their allegiance to Australia more strongly, with a pledge to Australian values and proof of integration.</p>
<p>It <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-department-of-perverse-effects">has been written</a> that, rather than encouraging integration, these changes could result in newcomers feeling more distanced from Australia. The disappearance of “immigration” from the department name may contribute to this uneasiness. </p>
<p>And prospective immigrants to Australia may justifiably fear the changes will cause confusion about division of responsibilities, or a further delay in processing times. </p>
<p>Turnbull has promised the reform will <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-07-18/strong-and-secure-australia">involve</a> strong oversight mechanisms. He noted that such mechanisms were essential to respect the rights and liberties of “all Australians”.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-home-affairs-department-should-prompt-review-of-australias-human-rights-performance-81167">Amy Maguire</a> noted, Turnbull did not make any specific reference to the rights and liberties of non-citizens living in Australia. One can thus worry to what extent Australia’s “Home Office” will better protect them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adèle Garnier does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The creeping invisibility of the immigration portfolio comes as the government is overseeing major changes to immigration policy.Adèle Garnier, Lecturer, Department of Modern History, Politics and International Relations, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812752017-07-19T07:50:21Z2017-07-19T07:50:21ZPolitics podcast: Peter Jennings on the home affairs department<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178790/original/file-20170719-13567-1iz89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The new home affairs ministry announced by Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday is considered by some experts to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous.</p>
<p>The director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, says that while the department would present an array of bureaucratic challenges, it is largely a “sensible step”. </p>
<p>Likely benefits include the potential for a much-needed improvement to Australia’s ability to tackle cyber-security issues and foreign interference. But he says success will depend on how effectively the ministers can work together. </p>
<p>Jennings notes the “absence of obvious process” behind the announcement of the home affairs department – unlike the “carefully worded, well-researched” intelligence review – means the details of the roll-out are unclear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81275/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peter Jennings says while the Department of Home Affairs will present an array of bureaucratic challenges, it is largely a 'sensible step'.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811612017-07-18T20:07:42Z2017-07-18T20:07:42ZThe new Department of Home Affairs is unnecessary and seems to be more about politics than reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178563/original/file-20170718-19023-l0hltu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Peter Dutton (right) is set to assume responsibility for the newly created home affairs portfolio.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is difficult not to give in to cynical impulses over Tuesday’s announcement that the government will <a href="https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-becomes-national-security-ministerial-tsar-in-portfolio-shake-up-81186">create a Department of Home Affairs</a>. </p>
<p>Described as a “federation of border and security agencies”, the home affairs minister – set to be the current immigration minister, Peter Dutton – will be responsible for ASIO, the AFP, Border Force, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, and the Office of Transport Security.</p>
<p>The Home Affairs department was announced at the same time the government released an eagerly awaited <a href="https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/national-security/report-2017-independent-intelligence-review">review of Australia’s intelligence agencies</a>. But the rationale for the creation of a “super ministry” seems to conflate the well-intentioned and important intelligence review with an inadequately justified yet major rearrangement of federal government executive agencies.</p>
<h2>Fraught with danger</h2>
<p>The Home Affairs model appears to stand on contestable grounds. </p>
<p>There may be an argument to be made about potentially improving internal bureaucratic efficiencies by having power centralised under one minister. However, this is debatable. And the move upends long-standing conventions on how security intelligence and executive police powers are managed separately.</p>
<p>Bringing ASIO and the AFP together in one department and away from the attorney-general is a fraught move. </p>
<p>Multiple royal commissions and a protective security review following the Hilton Hotel bombing in February 1978 saw the police, security and intelligence functions <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/history/The-Secret-Cold-War-John-Blaxland-and-Rhys-Crawley-9781760293215">tried and tested by fire</a>. They were found wanting, but were then subject to significant review and reform. </p>
<p>That reform led to an understanding about how best to delineate and maintain the separation of powers while upholding robust accountability. That understanding has come to be broadly accepted as the best way of managing intelligence and security affairs.</p>
<p>This model includes a high degree of healthy contestability concerning intelligence judgements and operational options. This is thanks in large part to the diffusion of power between ministries, and authority between agencies, departments and ministers. These arrangements mean there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility. </p>
<p>Mechanisms for prioritisation and avoiding overlap exist with the Heads of Intelligence Agencies Meetings, the Secretaries Committee on National Security, cabinet’s National Security Committee, and the National Intelligence Collection Requirement Priorities mechanisms. It’s unclear how the new arrangements will alter the dynamics in these contexts.</p>
<p>Under the previous arrangements, in authorising a warrant the attorney-general had to be satisfied it was justified, recognised as consistent with agreed-upon national intelligence collection priorities, resourced appropriately, executed within the legal guidelines, and then suitably reported on in a timely manner. </p>
<p>Under the new arrangements, the attorney-general – having relinquished management responsibility for ASIO – will retain responsibility for issuing warrants and ministerial authorisations. Yet the attorney-general will not, seemingly, be responsible for seeing the process through to its completion. </p>
<p>This change risks diminishing the prospects of a clear connection between ministerial authority and ministerial responsibility. The two functions look set to be performed separately, by the attorney-general and the home affairs minister.</p>
<p>The attorney-general also will gain responsibility for two important oversight agencies: the <a href="https://www.inslm.gov.au/">Independent National Security Legislation Monitor</a> and the <a href="http://igis.gov.au/">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security</a>. These are two little-understood but important offices that have been performing significant roles to ensure intelligence agencies are accountable and compliant with legislation.</p>
<p>The inspector-general, for instance, has the enduring powers of a royal commissioner. They are able to walk into any sensitive intelligence facility and ask to see any files virtually at any time. </p>
<p>Like the monitor, the inspector-general can report directly to the prime minster. This is a powerful tool to ensure accountability. It is hard to think of a compelling reason for their lines of reporting responsibility to be altered. </p>
<h2>What role did the intelligence review play?</h2>
<p>Announcing the changes on Tuesday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull did not speak about the intelligence review – undertaken by former senior public servants Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant – in great detail. </p>
<p>However, Turnbull did mention the headline items. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the creation of an office of national intelligence (a sensible and graduated move);</p></li>
<li><p>the better resourcing and management of intelligence capabilities (also a reasonable step);</p></li>
<li><p>the establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate as a statutory body within the Department of Defence (something talked about for years by insiders); and</p></li>
<li><p>a bolstering of the profile and placement of the Australian Cyber Security Centre (an unsurprising step given the high profile of cyber affairs this year).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The review also proposed:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>an expansion of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s remit to cover agencies with intelligence collection and reporting functions not previously counted as part of the six agencies in the Australian Intelligence Community over which he exercised oversight; and</p></li>
<li><p>a slightly expanded, operationally-oriented role for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to request briefings and initiate inquiries. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>These recommendations are sound. But they were made in isolation of the Home Affairs proposal. </p>
<p>By announcing the review and the new arrangements together, the issues appear conflated. The Intelligence review is well considered and reasonable. The new governance arrangements lack the same level of intellectual rigour for the public to consider and accept. </p>
<p>Put together, it suggests this is more about politics than substantive fact-based organisational reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Blaxland received funding as part of an ANU contract to write the official history of ASIO from 2011-2015. </span></em></p>The move to consolidate security agencies under one minister upends generations of conventions on how security intelligence and executive police powers are managed separately.John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812182017-07-18T13:06:26Z2017-07-18T13:06:26ZPeter Dutton has his prize – now to see how he handles it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178653/original/file-20170718-10283-5zn9is.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Peter Dutton comes to the job with, at best, a middling ministerial record.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The mettle of the man who aspires to be a future Liberal leader is about to be severely tested, now that Malcolm Turnbull has handed Peter Dutton his dream home affairs ministry, overseeing a vast national security empire.</p>
<p>Dutton comes to the job with, at best, a middling ministerial record. His time in the health portfolio was a nightmare. In immigration he has been relentlessly political.</p>
<p>The former Queensland policeman is a natural political head kicker rather than a nuanced policy man.</p>
<p>It was Malcolm Turnbull who, among other ministers, tore shreds off a 2015 Dutton submission on removing citizenship from people involved with terrorism.</p>
<p>A recent initiative, revamping foreign worker visas, has brought problems for and complaints from business. The announced toughening of the citizenship requirements that makes the English test excessively difficult has been sharply criticised.</p>
<p>Dutton has not so far managed to secure the departure of any of the refugees from Manus Island and Nauru that the United States agreed to take.</p>
<p>When he became leader Turnbull wouldn’t have Dutton on cabinet’s national security committee. He fought his way back into that key group. He and Turnbull drew close. With Liberal conservatives coalescing around him as their factional heavyweight, Dutton made himself a guardsman for the Prime Minister.</p>
<p>Turnbull is understandably sensitive to suggestions that the planned home affairs ministry is all about Dutton, whose continued support is so vital to him.</p>
<p>Those around the Prime Minister insist Turnbull has long been committed to a shake up of national security arrangements, exploring the issues on overseas trips.</p>
<p>But you have to ask: if there were no Dutton would Turnbull be putting the government through what he is presenting as the biggest reorganisation in four decades, which is going to take many months and a vast amount of effort to implement? Wouldn’t it be a matter of fine tuning rather than root and branch change? After all, the evidence - and the mantra from the government - is that things are working well.</p>
<p>Whatever the motives, and regardless of their personal thoughts, ministers have to defend the new arrangements. This led Attorney-General George Brandis - a long-time opponent of the shift that will cost him responsibility for ASIO – into an unexpected and unconvincing argument at Tuesday’s press conference, which brought together with Turnbull the winner and losers (Dutton, Brandis and Justice Minister Michael Keenan, who cedes the Australian Federal Police).</p>
<p>Not only did Brandis speak enthusiastically about the new arrangements, but he pointed out that because of his multiple responsibilities he hadn’t been able to focus exclusively on his national security duties.</p>
<p>It sounded like the barrister making a case. If one had put to Brandis six months ago that the present arrangement was unsatisfactory, it’s a fair bet he’d have been dismissive.</p>
<p>But Brandis has retained his responsibility for issuing warrants under the ASIO Act, a power the attorney-general will share with Dutton. They will both have to approve warrants, except in cases where time is of the essence.</p>
<p>One-time ASIO head Dennis Richardson said on Tuesday: “It’s a good thing the attorney-general remains the approval authority for ASIO warrants.” But “it does mean ASIO is effectively responsible to two ministers not one”.</p>
<p>Richardson, in contrast to the government and many commentators, plays down the significance of the broad reorganisation, seeing much of it as presentational.</p>
<p>If Brandis had trouble with multi duties, Dutton is likely to have the problem in spades, given the breadth of his responsibilities, that will range from border security to oversight of ASIO, the AFP, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and much else. The bundle labelled “national security” has varied components.</p>
<p>Most security experts have either challenged the need for change, or said that what is planned is undesirable. Neither Turnbull nor Dutton will be drawn on whether the heads of ASIO or the AFP advocated that they move ministers – because, on all we know, they didn’t.</p>
<p>Turnbull is aware of the dangers of excessively concentrated power – hence his effort to beef up the attorney-general’s scrutiny remit. The first law officer was “the minister for oversight and integrity and that role is being reinforced”, he said. How vigorously this responsibility will be exercised will depend on who occupies the portfolio - Brandis is expected to leave parliament in a few months.</p>
<p>While co-ordination is vital, one risk that has been raised is that too much centralisation can push out counter opinions. It will be up to Turnbull to stop that from happening.</p>
<p>The planned new Office of National Intelligence (ONI), which will subsume the present Office of National Assessments, will report directly to the Prime Minister.</p>
<p>The office was proposed by the L'Estrange/Merchant Independent Intelligence Review, in a <a href="https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/2017-Independent-Intelligence-Review.pdf">report released on Tuesday</a>. That review, incidentally, did not recommend a Home Affairs portfolio - although those in the prime ministerial circle stress that it did not recommend against one.</p>
<p>The review says the office “would be headed by a Director-General who would be the Prime Minister’s principal adviser on matters relating to the national intelligence community.”</p>
<p>Who gets this job and how much Turnbull listens to them will be absolutely critical in how the new centralised system under a highly assertive minister operates. Turnbull and the director of the ONI potentially could be the counterweight to Dutton and the Home Affairs department.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81218/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Turnbull is understandably sensitive to suggestions that the planned home affairs ministry is all about Dutton, whose continued support is so vital to him.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811672017-07-18T03:48:07Z2017-07-18T03:48:07ZNew Home Affairs department should prompt review of Australia’s human rights performance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178559/original/file-20170718-21784-ivgrgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has just announced the creation of a new “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/government-to-propose-home-office-style-super-ministry/8716830">super-ministry</a>”, modelled on the UK <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office">Home Office</a>. By the end of 2018, Australia will have a new Department of Home Affairs.</p>
<p>This change consolidates responsibility for all security agencies within a single portfolio. Peter Dutton, currently immigration minister, will head the proposed department. </p>
<p>Dutton gains responsibility for the Australian Federal Police from Justice Minister Michael Keenan. He also adds responsibility for ASIO, previously under the portfolio of Attorney-General George Brandis. As home affairs minister, Dutton will retain responsibility for immigration and border protection. </p>
<p>Announcing the change, Turnbull and Brandis went to considerable effort to note the attorney-general’s continued significance, despite his loss of responsibility for intelligence. Both emphasised that the attorney-general would gain responsibility for some oversight bodies previously within the prime minister’s portfolio. </p>
<p>According to Turnbull, the new arrangements will ensure stronger oversight of security matters to balance protection for civil liberties and freedoms.</p>
<h2>What does this reform mean for people subject to Australia’s immigration system?</h2>
<p>The comments of the four ministers at today’s press conference were revealing in many ways. </p>
<p>One group of people – refugees and asylum seekers – were completely absent from the ministers’ remarks. This raises questions regarding the meaning of the changes for these particularly vulnerable people, who remain subject to the powers of the home affairs minister.</p>
<p>Brandis said the reforms are significant because, for the first time, a senior cabinet minister will have as his exclusive focus the national security of Australia. That is, the home affairs minister’s sole focus will be national security and border security.</p>
<p>Dutton, preparing to assume wide-ranging new powers, reflected on his ministry’s success in stopping and turning back boats. According to Dutton, without integrity in the immigration and border protection system, “we can’t keep our country safe”.</p>
<p>And Keenan celebrated the government’s novel use of the immigration system to further its national security priorities. </p>
<p>The sum of these propositions is a continued linking of people seeking asylum with the notion of <a href="https://theconversation.com/duttons-demonisation-of-refugees-is-the-latest-play-in-a-zero-sum-game-69043">a threat</a> to Australia’s integrity and security. Today’s announcement failed to show care or responsibility for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fake-refugees-dutton-adopts-an-alternative-fact-to-justify-our-latest-human-rights-violation-78175">dehumanising impact</a> of this strategy. </p>
<p>Instead, Dutton takes on a considerably expanded portfolio, despite extensive <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-dutton-seeks-stronger-powers-over-citizenship-decisions-20170611-gwp504.html">critique</a> regarding his <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/peter-dutton-accused-of-seeking-trump-like-powers-visa-reviews/8253736">efforts</a> to expand already very <a href="https://theconversation.com/minister-to-get-unprecedented-power-if-australias-new-citizenship-bill-is-passed-79356">broad powers</a>. </p>
<h2>Australia’s bid for the UN Human Rights Council</h2>
<p>Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was absent from today’s announcement. She is <a href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2017/jb_mr_170717.aspx">currently visiting</a> India and Sri Lanka. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/18/need-for-security-super-department-questioned.html">Her opposition</a> to the creation of the new super-ministry has been widely reported. </p>
<p>Until today’s press conference, Brandis was also on record <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plan-for-homeland-security-ministry-a-peter-dutton-power-grab-says-labor-20170427-gvtni3.html">as opposing</a> the creation of a super-ministry. This may explain the emphasis Turnbull placed on the oversight role of the attorney-general for “ensuring governments act lawfully and justly”. </p>
<p>Others will consider whether this change is called for in the sense of enhancing Australia’s security capacity or performance. But today’s announcement must also be assessed in the context of Australia’s human rights standing. </p>
<p>Bishop and Brandis have taken primary responsibility for promoting Australia’s current bid for election to the UN Human Rights Council. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia is the ideal candidate for a two-year term on the council, as it has been - and continues to be – an “<a href="http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international-organisations/pages/australias-candidacy-for-the-unhrc-2018-2020.aspx">international human rights leader</a>”. </p>
<p>The government has taken steps to demonstrate Australia’s commitment to human rights, in support of its campaign. </p>
<p>For example, in February, Brandis announced that Australia would <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/australia-pledges-to-ratify-opcat-torture-treaty/8255782">adopt the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture</a> (OPCAT). OPCAT aims to <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/OPCATIndex.aspx">improve oversight</a> of international standards at the domestic level. Its adoption in Australia will enable access for independent inspection agencies to Australian prisons and detention centres. </p>
<p>And, fortunately for Australia, France recently withdrew as a candidate. Although an election will still be held in October this year, Bishop is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/16/julie-bishop-expects-australia-to-win-un-human-rights-council-seat-after-france-drops-out">now confident</a> that Australia and Spain will be elected unopposed to the two available seats for their regional grouping.</p>
<p>Regardless of the likelihood of its election, however, does today’s shift in the national security context support the legitimacy of Australia’s bid for election to the Human Rights Council?</p>
<p>In launching Australia’s bid, Bishop described human rights as “national values deeply embedded in Australian society”. Brandis described Australia’s candidacy as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the most natural thing in the world for a country which – at its core – is a nation built on a belief in, and a commitment to, the human rights of all – the human rights of all Australians and the human rights of all the peoples of the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XBUxw7oRFnY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Such characterisations are widely disputed by <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160913_Pathways_to_Protection.pdf">domestic</a> and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/world_report_download/wr2016_web.pdf">international</a> commentary, which tests <a href="https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/australia/session_23_-_november_2015/a_hrc_wg.6_23_l.11.pdf">Australia’s performance</a> against its international legal obligations. </p>
<p>Notably, the people ignored in today’s announcement – those seeking asylum from persecution in their home countries – have suffered <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/forgotten_children_2014.pdf">human rights abuses</a> in Australia’s immigration system. </p>
<p>It is difficult to see how the consolidation of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2006/6.html">far-reaching security powers</a> in a single ministry will promote human rights. Outgoing Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has already identified expanding executive power <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gillian-triggs-says-expansion-of-ministerial-powers-a-growing-threat-to-democracy-20150605-ghhvji.html">as a threat</a> to democracy and human rights. </p>
<p>While the protection of the Australian community from terror threats is an undeniable and legitimate priority for any government, lawyers must oversee the coming reforms to determine whether they <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-new-antiterror-law-allows-asio-to-torture-20140917-10i9hv.html">further threaten</a> the <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-guide-australias-counter-terrorism-laws">delicate balance</a> between safety and security on one hand, and freedom and rights on the other. </p>
<p>Australia’s model for these reforms, the UK Home Office, hardly has a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/court-action-over-internment-1.881526">stellar human rights record</a>. It has been recently <a href="https://hrcessex.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/1310/">criticised</a> for “making border guards of doctors”. Its officials have been given incentives for reaching asylum seeker <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/home-office-asylum-seekers-gift-vouchers">rejection targets</a>.</p>
<p>And in June this year, UK Prime Minister Theresa May demanded expanded anti-terror powers for government. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation">She said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The human rights implications of today’s announcement must be carefully monitored, particularly considering the lack of comprehensive human rights protection in Australian law.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81167/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Maguire is a Co-Chair of the Indigenous Rights Subcommittee of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and a member of Amnesty International. </span></em></p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has just announced the creation of a new “super-ministry”, modelled on the UK Home Office. By the end of 2018, Australia will have a new Department of Home Affairs. This…Amy Maguire, Senior Lecturer in International Law and Human Rights, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.