Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:46:11 to 2:15:56
Discussion focuses on the rationale for moving security agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio and the findings of an ANAO performance audit.
Topics: Public service staffing, Integrity, National security
Speakers: Unknown Speaker, Stephanie Foster PSM, Susan McDonald, Hon Murray Watt, Paul Scarr, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Jana Stewart, Malcolm Roberts, Senator Jonathon Duniam, Speaker 17
It's about um, obviously >> Nice try. the government's >> outcome one is the next
>> disappointed the government's response to the terrorist attack in Bondi with respect to um changes to firearm regulation which doesn't just include home affairs obviously AFP etc. So we'll have a hit off and say I have a raft of other um areas the gun buyback scheme etc um and the register which I understand will be later on in the program but this is more this suite of questions is more crossportfolio. Um following the Bondi terrorist attack at what stage did home affairs first provide advice to the government to implement uh changes to our firearm
regulations? That's that's clearly an outcome one question and honestly outcome one is the next outcome. So you won't have to wait long um to be able to
get into this issue in detail. If you've got any other cross portfolio questions you could knock them off quickly and we'd be into outcome one. >> So yep, sure. and and Senator what we um I think agreed with the committee is that we would handle all questions relating to Bondi in outcome one no matter where they fell so that you could get >> at the start >> picture rather than having to segment. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. >> Sorry. Are we done? Thank you, Senator Dunn. >> Thanks, Chair. Thank you very much. Uh
if I could go back to uh matters >> yeah [laughter] I thought I'd give it a stab the uh changes to the makeup of the department which have been the subject of some commentary recently the machinery of government changes um I rationale that was in place when the AFP the ACIC and AIO were moved out of home affairs. I mean, is that I'm not sure if you were secretary at the time, Miss Foster, but u >> I wasn't um senator. I mean, I can say broadly that that was a decision of government um and that the department >> typically um role is to implement that
decision um when it's made by by government. And so the rationale is typically
uh one for for the government rather than for officials. >> What I can Yes, I we we tra we traversed this extensively at the time, Senator Duniam, and I I recognize you weren't on the committee at the time. Um but you'd obviously be able to get chapter and verse on the rationale for that from say is that you know the the security environment Australia faces
um is constantly changing. Um the government bases its decisions whether it be on machinery of government operations or other policies and programs based on the security environment we face at the time. Um those transcripts would take you through
the rationale at the time. We've also since traversed [clears throat] um the decision post the recent election
to um bring some of those agencies back
into home affairs. In shorthand again the answer is that we respond to the security challenges we face at the time you know you would be familiar that even
on your side of politics there's been different views at different times about where these agencies should sit the
you know he he's he supported the decision the government made to move agencies out of home affairs other
figures from the Liberal party have supported the change to move them in but
from the government's perspective it's
responding to the security environment we face at the time. >> Sure. And so why don't we skip to the reversion the bringing back in which I acknowledge you say was traversed probably at some length in a previous estimates hearing. So you talk about
security advice and information at the time. I mean was was there an analysis
similar analysis undertaken at the time the decision was made by government to bring those agencies back in? I think what I said was that we respond to the security environment at the time. I don't think I said that we responded to security advice. So I'm not not suggesting that advice was provided about that. As Miss Foster mentions the these are decisions of government as in
ministers um the the the government made an assessment after the most recent election about what was the most
>> I would need to take that on notice. Um, again, I suspect we've provided answers to that in the past, but again, I acknowledge you weren't a member of the committee at that point in time.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, >> yeah. The other thing, Senator Dunn, Miss Foster just reminded me, um, machinery of government arrangements are really the province of Prime Minister and cabinet because they're obviously a
prime minister's decisions. So, it may be that I think that that those issues have been raised in PMC estimates previously as well. >> Sure, that's fine. I can pick them up there at another time. If I can go to
the office of social cohesion please and its establishment and so what date did that office
Senator I'll just get Mr. Hickey to
come and help me with the with the with the data.
Sorry, Senator. I'll get that for you shortly. >> That's fine. While he's looking, I'll chance my arm and say I think it was um somewhere between 12 and 18 months ago.
>> Okay. While we're looking for that, what what does the office actually do?
if I could step back from that question a little and then get to to the specific
answer. Um
the the inputs that go in to any approach to social cohesion are extremely broad and not contained clearly just to home affairs. But even across home affairs there are uh a number of our functions that contribute to that. Um, part of the reason that I set up the Office of Social Cohesion in the way that I did was to recognize that what I needed was an entity that would coordinate that those activities across the organization. um because it can be anything from um activities prosecuted by our office for multicultural affairs through to programs run by our countering violent extremism team. Um I I made the point that um it's obviously not confined to Department of Home Affairs. Um and so the officer's role is to coordinate the activities of the various areas in home
affairs but also to engage with other commonwalth departments with state and territory governments with local governments and with community because each of those um components will play a role in contributing to social cohesion. So for example um one of the things that the office for social cohesion supports is a secretaries steering group across the commonwealth where we have I think nine secretaries who come together um to discuss how we can use the programs um in their portfolios to contribute to the broader goal of social cohesion. That could be anything from what the education department is doing in terms of curriculum, >> what the sports what the department of infrastructure and everything um is doing in community sports um programs and and everything in between. And then
as I said, they're engaging with their state and territory counterparts who all have similar programs and activities to
look for opportunities for us to work together to leverage um uh each other's programs. angle. And so um I I can think of one example where the officers worked with a a community that was engaged in a uh uh friction uh internally worked with them to help provide uh some tools and mechanisms to uh have some respectful conversations about the issue and try and come to a resolution. So it's everything from supporting uh the policy
work of secretaries in Comwalth departments through to engaging at a community level. >> Sure. And did we have that date? >> Sorry, Senator. It's the 4th of September >> 2024.
can I ask then how many staff were allocated to that office back at that time in September 2024 and how many are there today? >> It's about the same senator. So I think
it's about 15. >> Go around. Sure. Okay. Around 15, did you say? And again, a very deliberate choice on my part, not to have the work of each of the components done in that area, but to have them as the as the
coordinating mechanism.
>> Okay, given I'm at time, I'll come back to next chapter on this. Thank you. >> Thank you for your assistant, Senator Dunn and Senator She.
>> Thanks, Chair. Um I have some questions
about the ANAO performance audit um of major government entities which was
delivered on I think the 5th of February this year. Um it has um scathing findings about home affairs. Have you read the report uh
secretary?
>> on Thursday. Senator, it was uh handed
out on Thursday. Yes. And Thank you, >> Pun. No, Senator, um I understand it was handed down on Thursday and it's not yet come to me.
>> All right. Well, I'd urge you to have a good hard look at it because
one department has a worse um record of
not meeting its performance results, which is veteran affairs. Um
um >> did you get a briefing secretary at all
on just the sheer number of failures that the audit office has found for home affairs in this audit report? >> Uh so Senator um Mr. Mr. Hickey is just reminding me that we traversed at length with Senator Scarr in December the um the outcomes against our performance reporting. Um and I won't rehash that evidence um now so I don't waste the committee's time but in essence there
are a number of reasons why um some of those targets were not met. In some cases they were um genuine failures to meet the target. In some they were technical um uh reasons and in others it
reflect the reality of the outcome. And so that's all in in Hansard from December. >> Um well of course I'm asking you about the ANAO report and their conclusions which are from February of this year. So >> yes, Senator, but they're drawing on the
report. >> Well, that that may well be the case,
conclusions and their assessment. And
with all due respect to Senator Scarr, um I I I I give I don't know if you, but I give significant weight to the ANAO's conclusions. Um 42% of home affairs performance targets were not met. Um another 13% were only partially met. Um second worst performance from any government department um of the major government entities reviewed. Um your answer secretary is
that oh you you know the targets were wrong. Is that right? Uh no, Senator, you've um uh paraphrased uh incorrectly what I said. Um the we are working very closely with the audit. We are one of a number of entities going through a rolling audit program on a new way of approaching performance targets. There is
significant complexity as you know in our portfolio both in terms of of scale and scope. Um, and it's been very much a a journey for us as we've worked with ANAO to develop the targets and to report against them. As I said to Senator Scarr in December, I'm uh not concerned about actual performance. I can see where we need to lift our performance against specific things and I can see where we need to change the way we're approaching targets and we are on track to do both of those things. You're not concerned about actual performance, >> Senator. I said, um, I don't believe that the the findings are reflective of our actual performance, and I traversed that at length in December. >> Well, well, here's what the ANO ANA ANA here's what the audit office found as at February, just a week ago. um in relation to home affairs sources of information and methodologies that do not support reliable and verifiable reporting of results. There were instances of methodologies not being followed or being changed. Key terms and definitions not being identified or inconsistently applied. Poor recordkeeping and incomplete or inaccurate populations underpinning
results. You're not concerned by your performance even though their findings from the audit office. Senator, um all of those issues were traversed in December because the audit report in February is drawing on the annual report which was released late last year and I was very clear as I um covered this with Senator Scarr in December that uh we have
areas where we need to um improve the way in which we are capturing data. In some cases, um, the kind of requirement that ANO has is not something that we could reasonably do and so we are working with them on what would be a more appropriate target so that we can meet their technical requirements and um
and have a have a meaningful meaningful measurable target. The point I was
making to you is not that um I don't take the findings of the ANO very seriously in terms of how we go about the measuring of our performance. The
distinction I'm making is that when I
dig underneath each of those things um the actual performance in most cases is doing fine. I just need to make sure that we continue to work with them to get the technical parameters right. Um it's a remarkable statement to say
that everything's fine when you're the second worst performing department and when on critical measures like ensuring 90% of high-risisk detention related recommendations identified through internal and external
uh scrutiny are actually completed and you failed to meet that. You failed just talking about um incidents in detention, if you look at the transcript, you'll see that I did
absolutely express my concern about us not meeting that target and talked about
the significant effort that we've been making to ensure that we do. What I'm saying is that overall I am confident that the department is performing