Turf warfare. It’s one of the most destructive and debilitating activities in any enterprise. Government is no exception.
Indeed, the government may be the area where it is the most destructive and debilitating. The consequences are manifested in harm to the national interest.
Myopic approaches, stove-piped considerations, protecting or desperately trying to increase your “kingdom” at the expense of the overall well-being of the enterprise or task at hand, reflect immaturity in the players.
When the government’s ministerial portfolios and departments are allocated and the distribution of responsibilities occurs, there is the posturing, the elbowing, and chest-puffing (you name it) as the players try to increase their sphere of influence.
So, when a minister’s portfolio is allocated an extra responsibility, the minister is deemed a “winner” and the loser, of course, is the one from whom it was taken.
The concept of good, streamlined management may be the publicly stated reason for the change but it inevitably boils down to the outcome of turf warfare and individual influence.
It is with this in mind that we may ponder and critically analyse the rationale for stripping from the fundamentally crucial Home Affairs Department certain areas of responsibility and why they were transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department, notably the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Having been transferred from the Attorney-General’s portfolio in 2017 into Home Affairs its now gone back from whence it came.
In the past and with the 2017 move, the Australian Federal Police was in the same department as the Australian Security Intelligence Office (ASIO). They are now separated.
Needless Hostility
The idea that one can have an absolute clear delineation of roles between the AFP and ASIO would only be found in theory books. It’s not found in the real world. Placing them in separate portfolios will only feed and exacerbate that inclination to engage in turf warfare.As each advocates for separate funding in different portfolios, there will be at least creative tensions if not outright hostility. Neither situation is conducive to cohesive mission focused law enforcement and the best protection for the Australian people.
Distractions of claims and counterclaims of favouritism do not help build a safer nation.
The change at the time was seen as a clear win for the new Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus who also just happens to double as cabinet secretary against the little-known Home Affairs Minister Claire O’Neil.
As a consolation prize and to detract attention from the obvious diminution of Home Affairs, it was given the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, which includes climate change issues.
During his previous term as attorney-general, Dreyfus did not have one piece of security legislation passed by the Parliament.
As a former Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said, “I just worry going back into this siloed arrangement, that Anthony Albanese might be making Mark Dreyfus happy, but it is going to make us less safe as a country.”
The establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio under the Liberal-National government on July 18, 2017, was a bringing together of Australia’s immigration, border protection, law enforcement, and domestic security agencies.
This was a similar arrangement as that of Australia’s closest allies had developed—namely the United States with its Homeland Security Department and the United Kingdom’s Home Office.
As it transpired, Australia modelled its Home Affairs portfolio on the UK model. Where the arrangements differed from their UK counterpart was the allocation of the oversighting bodies in the Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Separating oversight agencies from the operational agencies made for good governance and independent supervision. Keeping all the operational bodies under the one roof is good for morale, lowers costs, and preserves job opportunities.
Ultimately time will tell whether the portfolio arrangements were appropriate with a proven record yet to be established.
If the changes lead to sub-optimal results, then maintaining the current allocations would be foolhardy while also leaving the country’s national security hamstrung.
