Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:41): I want to thank the member for McPherson for bringing us a debate about the Department of Home Affairs and the government's important changes. I do acknowledge her genuine interest as a former minister, now shadow minister—long may she continue in that position—notwithstanding her bizarre speech and the pathetic politicisation of national security that we continue to hear from those opposite in and outside the chamber. Quite simply, the government's changes to Home Affairs and the national security administrative arrangements are an improvement, including by moving the Australian Federal Police and criminal law enforcement policy to the Attorney-General. In contemporary times Australia has no doubt benefited from well-run and professional security and law enforcement agencies, and I thank them for their work over many years in keeping Australians safe. But given the motion raises implicit concerns or criticisms and what we have heard from those opposite, let's get a few facts out. The previous government's creation of Home Affairs was not properly considered and was largely a power grab by the now leader of the opposition. Let's be blunt: in a desperate bid to keep his own job former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull caved in to pressure from Dutton—I mean, the now leader of the opposition. They then piled in the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and anything else they could get in a smash-and-grab raid that he and the secretary could grab into a super security agency. The changes were rushed and half baked, and they were opposed by cooler, wiser heads in the cabinet then, including Julie Bishop and Malcolm of course until he caved in. Of course, Malcolm's desperation to stave off the now leader of the opposition was doomed to failure. In his own words, 'you cannot negotiate with terrorists'—in this case of course the political kind. They never like to talk about what ever happened to poor old Malcolm, do they? But the changes to Home Affairs made by the former government broke the long and prudent practice of properly constituted reviews done before major changes are made to administrative oversight and coordination of law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. Turnbull's 2017 review did not recommend the creation of Home Affairs neither did— The DEP UTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! Mr HILL: Standing orders do not apply to how I refer to former prime ministers, if that is what you are going to say. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Moncrieff on a point of order. Ms Bell: Former members should be referred to by their correct titles. Former prime ministers deserve that respect. Mr HILL: There is no such standing order. You are wasting your time. Nevertheless, governments should only make changes that strengthen national security, addressing critical deficiencies without needlessly distracting agencies. Both previous speakers said they had heard no rationale, so let me state two important considerations that the smash-and-grab power raid to create Home Affairs did not give regard to. Firstly, the principles of the Hope royal commissions in the 1970s and 1980s affirmed in numerous reviews in the previous decades. I'll quote Dennis Richardson in the intelligence legislation review: there should be a clear separation between those agencies responsible for the collection of security intelligence, and those responsible for policing and the enforcement of the law, to avoid creating the perception—or the reality—of a 'secret police'. Secondly, the importance of collective cabinet level decision-making in our Westminster system of government. In my view, there are many problems with the former government's arrangements. Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition's lust for power reduced contestability and diluted the Westminster system. Healthy contestability is enhanced by a principle of diffused power between ministries and authority between ministers, agencies and departments. Concentrating intelligence and law enforcement activities under one secretary and one minister, who is not even the first law officer, carries enormous risks. Serious policy attention should be brought to the cabinet to be debated and decided by democratically elected ministers. Trying to get a single position on major security issues in a superdepartment is inherently unhealthy. Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition's overconcentration of power posed risks to democracy. Far too much power was concentrated in one minister, one department and one secretary. Again, in a democracy this creates the risk of creating the conditions for a police state. Home Affairs became a national security elephant competing with the ONI's role in oversighting the national intelligence community. Thirdly, as a consequence the Liberals hurt community trust—and that's critical, particularly when agencies are getting new and intrusive powers—especially under its initial leadership duo that drove an unhealthy culture seeking every more power. But different leadership is not inherently enough of a safeguard and the government's changes rebalance things. Finally, the oversecuritisation of migration policy, which has hurt Australian families and the economy. Of course migration policy has critical security elements but it's also a key economic and social domain. Oversecuritisation combined with a toxic departmental culture and budget cuts has led to 'the department of human misery and economic carnage,' which we inherit with regard to its migration functions. It will certainly take more resources and, sadly, years to clear the visa backlogs that this mob built up. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Before I call the next member, can I make clear that the previous point of order was not in fact a point of order. Whilst it's appropriate that members are referred to with respect, the point of order was not valid.