Trust Me, I'm An Expert

Today’s federal budget, as predicted, was chock full of sweeteners designed to woo voters on the eve of what promises to be a bitterly fought election.

We’ve got loads of analysis and at-a-glance graphics over here but if you’re just looking for the short, sharp version – what was announced, who’s affected, what it all means as polling day approaches – you’re in the right place.

Today on Trust Me, I’m An Expert, we’re bringing you a special episode carried across from The Conversation’s Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast (you can subscribe to it over here).

Chief political correspondent Michelle Grattan, Business and Economics Editor Peter Martin and political and economic journalist Tim Colebatch have all just emerged from the budget lockup.

Here’s their take on all the news that’s just broken.

Michelle Grattan: We’re here in the budget lockup and, as we all expected, this document is very much pitched at the imminent election. Here to discuss the politics and the economics, I have today Peter Martin, the economics editor of The Conversation and Tim Colebatch, a writer for Inside Story. Peter, can I start with you? What are the standout features of this budget as far as the ordinary voter is concerned?

Peter Martin: A tax cut that goes back in time, Michelle, which is a pretty tricky thing to do. But people are going to get a bigger tax cut at the end of the financial year that’s about to end than they expected when it began. They’re going to get a rebate of about A$1000 instead of the $500 that was promised. Now, you might say that that’s electoral in focus because that’s money that will be going into people’s pockets in a matter of weeks, depending how soon they get their tax returns in. But it’s probably also economic-based as well, in that in the budget we see that, frankly, the domestic economy – yeah, yeah we’ve got money coming in from mining – but the domestic economy, in terms of consumer spending and so on, isn’t flash. It’s interesting to note the size of this bonus that’s going to people, that’s doubled, will be about $1000 for a lot of people in the middle income range. That $1000 – 500 now doubled to roughly 1000 – is more than the Rudd government’s first cash splash during the GFC of $800.

Michelle Grattan: So, Tim, do you think that in this budget, the government has sacrificed the economic for the political?

Tim Colebatch: No, I think it’s actually a fairly modest budget. It’s really, given that we’re heading right into the election after this week, into the election campaign, it’s really quite modest in what it gives. As Peter says, it’s given another $500 to people in the near term. But then to wait for a bigger tax cut, you’re going to have to wait till 22-23. Well down the track. And the new spending, likewise, is really fairly restrained. It amounts, in net terms, to $2-3 billion a year in a budget of $500 billion a year, so we are not talking big bikkies.

Michelle Grattan: Now just in terms of the economic outlook. There seem to be two messages: that the economy is fundamentally sound but there are all sorts of clouds around the place.

Tim Colebatch: Well I think governments always say the economy is fundamentally sound. I think they were saying that in 1990, and…

Michelle Grattan: Before the recession we had to have.

Tim Colebatch: That’s right. Yes, as we were going into recession, they were saying: the ship is on course. And no, I think what Peter said is quite right. The economy is not flash, as consumer spending is not flash, and there’s reasons to think that the decline in house prices will have an impact on consumer spending. Indeed, Treasury admits that itself in the economic analysis. And so there’s good reason for the government to be giving a bit of stimulus to the economy, and what is in its electoral interests and what is in the economy’s interests are very nicely in coincidence.

Michelle Grattan: Now, Peter, what about the wages story? We’ve heard so much about wages recently.

Peter Martin: What the government has done in this budget is what it’s done in the previous budget – and the budget before that and the budget before that – which is to assume that wages are going to take off. They going to increase. The rate at the moment is 2.3%. After a while it’s going to go up to 3%. But as they’ve done for, I think, about five budgets in a row now, they’ve just pushed out the start date of that improvement. Now we are seeing a little bit of improvement. Wage growth is slightly higher than it has been, but the future of that is uncertain. Not uncertain if you, as Tim said, not uncertain if you look at the perennially “things are okay” sort of budget rhetoric. But with the hit to incomes of housing prices, if businesses start thinking that consumer spending is not going to hold up then, you’re looking at a situation where suddenly workers won’t have whatever bargaining power they’ve got and wage growth will, in fact, weaken or won’t get any stronger. So it’s the forecasts, as always really, forecast that the good times are just around the corner but there’s been scarcely any sign of them. Now, I’m not really blaming the Treasury for forecasting good times around the corner because in the long run, they say, they have a model: wage growth has got to…

Tim Colebatch: They assume that things work in the long run.

Peter Martin: And they assume the long run will happen eventually, right? That wage growth has got to equal inflation, which is around 2%, plus productivity growth, which is around 1%. That’ll give you 3%. The fact that that hasn’t happened hasn’t stopped them from believing it will.

Tim Colebatch: Well, can I just register a slight disagreement of tone? Peter does see things in black and white and I’m more of a grey person. I mean it is – wage growth is rising very slowly. It is rising and I think the forecasts this year are more reasonable than in previous years. They’re not forecasting it to go back to 3.5% or 3 and ¾%. It’s a pretty modest – I think it’s only another quarter of a percent up. They are expecting to get to two and a half this year, which may be heroic, this financial year…

Peter Martin: But it ends up at three as it has always ended up at three.

Tim Colebatch: No, it was 3.75 at one stage.

Peter Martin: The other thing which is good in what they’ve done is, in their forecasts, there’s been realism in the forecast whether that’s come from the Treasury, most probably, or the Treasurer. They could have factored in – the convention would have allowed them to factor in – these high iron ore prices we’ve got. The convention is that you take the previous four weeks iron ore price and assume it will continue for four years. They haven’t done that. They’ve assumed, in line with their advice and common sense, that this iron ore price is going to come down as Chinese demand goes away. Now, that’s cost the government money in the budget. It didn’t need to do that. So I think you would be a brave person to say that the forecasts in totality are anything other than reasonable. You’ve always got to give them some slack. It’s their job, and I don’t think you can say they’ve done it wrong.

Michelle Grattan: Now, Tim, what are the vulnerabilities of this budget that Labor can home in on?

Tim Colebatch: At first sight, I can’t see anything that I would think provides an obvious lever for Labor to hone in on. And, as I said, to me it’s a modest budget. I think what’s particularly interesting about that, Michelle, is that they have not spent all this money. They have programmed in for a budget surplus next year of $7 billion. And, as Peter says, on reasonably conservative and sensible assumptions. For a government in a state, electoral state, that this government is in, that I think shows a fair bit of restraint and it recognises that the debate has shifted. And people are less likely to be bought by big spending and more likely to be bought by the impression of fiscal reticence and control and delivering a budget surplus. And I think what is particularly interesting is that Labor, remember, took a lot of flak in 2016 because it came out with the budget. Its budget was going to be…

Peter Martin: Spending the benefits of the boom!

Tim Colebatch: They were going to have bigger deficits in the short term than the Coalition and this went against their message that in the long term they were better managers. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if Labor actually targets a higher budget surplus in the next year than this one.

Michelle Grattan: And just finally, Peter, do you think that this will change the conversation for the government?

Peter Martin: Will it change the conversation for the government? I think it gives Labor an advantage and Labor has always had that advantage. Ever since it announced its action against negative gearing and capital gains tax, ever since it announced its changes to dividend imputation policy. Labor has more money than the government. I don’t think it will want to disagree with anything in the budget, but it still has an advantage over the government. Now, there is nothing that government could do to take this away. But what Josh Frydenberg has done is brought down a budget, his first, about which he is unlikely to be embarrassed in the future. Look at Peter Costello’s last budget. He gave away money in ways that turned out to be unsustainable, to seniors and all sorts of people. Seniors got cheques just for being old and so on. Josh Frydenberg hasn’t done that. He has begun to build a legacy that Peter Costello began to throw away.

Michelle Grattan: Tim Colebatch, Peter Martin, thank you very much. That’s all for our budget lockup podcast. Thank you to my producer Eliza Berlage. We will be back with more interviews later in the week. Goodbye for now.

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Today’s episode was recorded and edited by Eliza Berlage.

Theme beats: Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

Mick Tsikas(AAP)/The Conversation/Shutterstock

Next Tuesday night is budget night, and it’s happening on the eve of a federal election where the Coalition is in for the fight of its life to hold onto government.

The Conversation’s team of editors and experts will be in the budget lockup at parliament house next Tuesday, where they’ll have early access to what the government plans to do with our money this year.

On the night, we’ll bring you Chief Political Correspondent Michelle Grattan’s analysis of what’s set to be a last ditch attempt to woo voters ahead of the election next month.

And veteran economics correspondent Peter Martin will look in detail at where the money is going - and what the mooted tax cuts look like.

Economist Richard Holden will examine the government’s strategy, and former Chief Economist of the ANZ bank, Warren Hogan, now with UTS, will bring us the economic outlook.

And if you’re a podcast person, check your podcast app on Tuesday night for a fresh episode of Trust Me, I’m An Expert and Politics with Michelle Grattan (subscribe now, if you haven’t already). There, Peter Martin and Michelle Grattan will be speaking with political and economic journalist Tim Colebatch about this election-year budget.

We’ll also bring you some nifty graphics that will explain at-a-glance the big announcements from the budget papers. And as always, our experts will be on hand to respond to any big announcements in health, education, energy and infrastructure.

Keep an eye out for our special budget newsletter on the night (you can subscribe here), and on our Facebook and Twitter at @ConversationEDU.

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

Sky News report.

Sky News report.

AAP/Mick Tsikas

We are but weeks away from an election in New South Wales – polling day is on March 23 – and it will be eagerly watched. Not just for the outcome but for the implications for the looming federal election.

That’s according to Dr Andy Marks, a political scientist from Western Sydney University, who tells us on the podcast today that this state election outcome may give us some clues on how some global political themes are playing out here in Australia.

“It’s not just about state politics. Increasingly the Australian electoral cycles, federally and at the state level, are subject to changes in political dynamics internationally. We’re seeing the erosion of centrist politics around the world […] and that even affects humble New South Wales.”

He predicts a weakened Nationals Party will be facing a strong challenge from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and that One Nation’s Mark Latham is almost a sure bet to win a spot in the NSW upper house.

“I do think you’ll see a minority Coalition government returned but the really interesting play is what happens in the upper house. Currently, the Coalition have to deal with two to three independents or minor parties to get stuff over the line,” said Dr Marks.

“I think what we’ll see in the coming parliament is that that the ranks of cross-benchers will expand quite dramatically, up to seven to nine cross-benchers. So that makes negotiations pretty fraught.

"This is really going to be new territory,” he said. “We’ve got One Nation returning to the fold. Mark Latham, their number one ticket holder in the upper house, will get in. But potentially they’ll get two seats in the upper house. You’ll have an emboldened Shooters and Fishers Party.

"So you really have a really broad field and it’s going to mean negotiating the passage of bills will be pretty difficult.”

We also talked about:

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

ABC news report on 2GB interview

2GB interview clip.

Chris Pavlich/Dean Lewins(AAP)

When Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced this week that a “sophisticated state actor” had targeted the big Australian political parties in a major cyber attack, the revelation threw up more questions than answers.

Who did it and how? What data did they get their hands on? How vulnerable is our data – and our democracy?

To make sense of it all, we’re hearing today from Nigel Phair, the director of UNSW Canberra Cyber and an expert on the intersection of crime, technology and society.

He said that while hacks like these should be seen as “the new normal” there was good reason to be concerned.

“Just merely having a breach is quite a big deal. Secondly, you look at the information that they hold. Political parties have information on donors – who they are and how much they give and what they want for it. They have information on the electorate, they have information on their own party politics and tactics for Senate Estimates for Question Time, those sorts of things,” he said.

“So that’s a lot of rich data that you could then use as a nation state to infiltrate other areas to perhaps change voter outcomes.”

The hackers may have used social engineering techniques such as phishing to gain access to the data, he said.

“They are quite unsophisticated attacks. It’s often spoofing an organisation or a person and getting someone, an end user, to reveal login credentials. And because we share passwords across multiple logins, that’s how you gain access to a trophy asset,” he said, adding that the hack served as a reminder to use a password manager and ensure all passwords are long and strong.

“I think we should be very concerned. We’ve got a great case study from the US. We’re very allied to the US and when you look at how nation states have disrupted that election I think it’s a given that there are many out there that’ll disrupt ours.”

You can read an edited transcript of the interview below.

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Additional audio editing by Wes Mountain, production assistance from Bageshri Savyasachi.

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

ABC news report

AAP (Various)/Shutterstock/The Conversation

SUNANDA CREAGH: And so what’s the main concern? Why was everybody so worried about this, particularly earlier this week?

NIGEL PHAIR: I think when you look at the history with the attack in the US on the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and a lot that’s been reported in the US about nation states trying to infiltrate the election process over there and change people’s voting habits and we’re some weeks/months from an election here – it strikes at the heart of what could be our dear beloved democracy, when you have nation state actors trying to influence voting outcomes.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And what do you think this week’s events tell us about the cyber security weaknesses here in Australia?

NIGEL PHAIR: It tells us that no organisation is immune. It tells us that cyber is another vector for people trying to win the hearts and minds of people.

SUNANDA CREAGH: If I was a sophisticated nation state using this as a strategy to achieve that goal, how might this sort of hack help me achieve that goal? What do you think they were actually trying to do here?

NIGEL PHAIR: There’s a number of things that they’ve achieved. Firstly, is the goal of doing the hack. When we look at parliament house, we look at the political parties, when we think about it, they’re revered from a democratic perspective. Just merely having a breach is quite a big deal.

Secondly, you look at the information that they hold. Political parties have information on donors – who they are and how much they give and what they want for it. They have information on the electorate, they have information on their own party politics and tactics for Senate Estimates for Question Time, those sorts of things. So a lot of rich data that you could then use as a nation state to infiltrate other areas to perhaps change voter outcomes.

SUNANDA CREAGH: China has strongly denied that it was involved but a lot of speculation has focused on that country, as opposed to Russia or another state actor that’s been linked to this kind of behaviour in other contexts. In Australia, why do you think speculation has focused on China as a potential perpetrator?

NIGEL PHAIR: Basically because they’re a near neighbour to ours, they’re in our arc of instability. They’re well known for their theft of intellectual property online. They’re well known for not adhering to the international norms of cyberspace. Add that all up and that’s why people keep pointing the finger at them.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And I believe there’s news reports that China was linked to other previous hacks of universities and parliament and other key pieces of computer infrastructure around Australia. Is that right?

NIGEL PHAIR: That’s right. They’ve been well known to do a range of cyber attacks on a range of different organisations – government, non-government, commercial etc.

SUNANDA CREAGH: So in the context of concerns that Australians have about the government’s capacity to keep our personal information safe – and I’m thinking here about the talk around My Health Record, the census – what does this hack tell us, if anything, about how capable the government and people in power are at guarding our private details?

NIGEL PHAIR: I think we need to go back a couple of steps before we start to think about this. Government, what they haven’t done is take the citizenry of Australia on a journey. They haven’t explained to them what it means to participate in a digital economy. What it means to be a good online citizen and transact with government and social media, commercially, e-commerce. If we had that narrative from the outset then people could understand that the internet is just another public place where they act ethically and lawfully and responsibly to what they do in the real world, then I think we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Because people would be able to have an informed decision about what it means to participate with My Health Record, or participate in an online census or other government instruments. But at the moment we just never had that background and people don’t have the certainty and because of that they make knee-jerk reactions.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Where do you land on this issue, do you think the government is capable of keeping that data safe?

NIGEL PHAIR: I think the government is capable of keeping it safe. The systems around My Health Record for example are really quite secure and there’s a lot of technologies, a lot of process and a lot of policy to ensure. But the reality is if there is going to be a breach of my health record, it’ll probably happen at a doctor’s surgery where there’s an unpatched or unprotected computer, or a user not using a good password, or accidentally emailing the wrong patient records to someone. It will be the end user compromise which we’ll see will be the failure. And that’s what the government isn’t investing in. It’s great to say they have a great secure system themselves but again we need to wind the clock back several years and start telling people this is what it means.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Just on this hack, how might it have been actually perpetrated? Can you just explain that to me in really basic terms?

NIGEL PHAIR: We don’t know yet until the forensic examination is done about how it occurred. Invariably, it was most probably some sort of social engineering attack against someone on the network. Most probably a phishing attack or something similar, where a person is targeted rather than the network itself is targeted. But again, until we know the forensics, we’re just speculating.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And those phishing and social engineering attacks, am I right in thinking they mainly focus on trying to get somebody to reveal their password or their login details to another person who is perhaps impersonating somebody else or impersonating an official password reset type email. Is that the sort of thing you mean there about the social engineering?

NIGEL PHAIR: Invariably, they are quite unsophisticated attacks. It’s spoofing an organisation or a person. Getting someone, an end user, to reveal login credentials and because we share passwords across multiple logins, that’s how you gain access to a trophy asset.

SUNANDA CREAGH: So the lesson there for all of us really is never reuse your password details and get a password manager. Am I right?

NIGEL PHAIR: You are right.

SUNANDA CREAGH: We’ve heard some commentators saying that this is the new normal, that this type of attack really should be expected in this day and age. What do you think about that?

NIGEL PHAIR: It’s been the new normal for quite some time. The reality is, most organisations get hacked just don’t know they’ve been hacked. This is all of a sudden a trophy matter, it’s come at the time where parliament is sitting, so it’s really got some attention in society, which is a great thing. And added to that the government that’s come out and actually said this is what’s happened and that is a completely different policy shift, whereas before it was swept under the carpet.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Do you think that’s a positive policy shift?

NIGEL PHAIR: There’s a great positive. We need to start having a conversation about what it means to be online and what it means to participate. And the fact is there’s countries out there, there’s actors out there trying to do us harm and Australians need to be brought into that confidence.

SUNANDA CREAGH: There was a lot of talk about this at the start of this week, but it really has sort of shifted off the news headlines toward the end of the week and some people are now saying that was a lot of noise over what? And I’ve seen some media commentators saying that this was an announcement that fed into a narrative of fear as election day draws closer. And that is a criticism that’s been directed at the government in the past in their rhetoric around border control and security in more general terms. To what extent do you see this announcement as about safety and awareness and how much of it is politics?

NIGEL PHAIR: I couldn’t put a percentage on either way but I focus purely on the safety and awareness side of it. I just think that’s the value of the message – is the safety and awareness.

SUNANDA CREAGH: It’s an important message to get out to make people aware of those risks. And, as you say, bring them into that conversation around online security and online participation in an active globally networked world, is that right?

NIGEL PHAIR: That’s right.

SUNANDA CREAGH: So what needs to be done? What should governments do to reduce risks and educate people?

NIGEL PHAIR: So the first thing for their internal networks, they need to do a proper risk management exercise. They need to identify the key target assets they hold and work out how sensitive that information is and put appropriate controls around where that data sits. Whether it’s a technology stack, whether it’s internal, cloud-based, those sort of decisions. And secondly, who has access to it, why they have access to it and how they access it. And once you start doing some simple things like that, you’ll find the cyber security posture of parliament house or a political party or anyone else in corporate Australia can really change the way that they’re viewed from a cyber security perspective.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And if, and I know this is speculation, but if the source of the problem was somebody sharing their login credentials or being victim to a phishing scam or victim to some social engineering then it sounds like it’s possible that some education is needed around that issue and what to be aware of and how not to get tricked online.

NIGEL PHAIR: Well, that’s a tough one. There aren’t sufficient technical controls to protect our data and ourselves online. In fact, we should’ve looked for any technical silver bullet. Likewise, we know education doesn’t work either. But education is all we have. So all we can keep doing is reinforce the message, particularly amongst young people as they grow up and participate in the online economy, and hopefully as time goes on we’ll be better protected for it.

SUNANDA CREAGH: In other words, not forgetting to address the capacity for human error in our effort to cover off and protect ourselves from technical error.

NIGEL PHAIR: Human error, but also the use of third parties and outlying people that you might not have specific command and control over.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And going back to this week’s hack, if I am an individual who has given my details as a donor or as a supporter to a political party, what does this hack tell us about what we as individuals might do in future to protect our data?

NIGEL PHAIR: Well, if you think you’ve (experienced) a loss of your data through this process, the first thing to do – contact the party that you’ve made say the donation or whatever it might be to. Secondly would be to start thinking about how that data or information that’s been stolen might be used against you - whether it’s identity theft or takeover, for example. So you need to start monitoring your bank accounts, you need to start thinking about consumer credit that might be done in your name. So you should be probably doing a credit reference check.

SUNANDA CREAGH: What advice do you give to people who want to use best practice in keeping their details safe online?

NIGEL PHAIR: Best thing you can do is use strong and long passwords. More stealthy it is, the harder it will be to guess by anyone else. Second, don’t replay the same password across multiple logins. Thirdly, be really wary when online and navigating around social media and e-commerce and other places. Really think about where you put your personal information in and why you’re placing it into a particular website or a portal.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Now, in the US we’ve heard about state actors really appearing to have an influence on election outcomes. How concerned do you think Australians should be about that happening here?

NIGEL PHAIR: I think we should be very concerned, we’ve got a great case study from the US. We’re very allied to the US and when you look at nation states that have disrupted that election I think it’s a given that there’s many out there that’ll disrupt ours.

SUNANDA CREAGH: So what can we do about that?

NIGEL PHAIR: It’s a tough one. We need to start working with all the players involved. And this is where the social media companies come into it. Your Googles, your Facebooks, your Twitters, your Instagrams etc. Because that’s the place of choice that nation states will use to send out any bespoke messaging.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Should we be changing any progression we’re making in Australia towards electronic voting?

NIGEL PHAIR: We have zero progression towards electronic voting, unfortunately, and I think it’s a great thing. But because we had the census failure, because we had the robo-debt issues, because we had the My Health Record issues, as a population there’s no way in my generation that we will see electronic voting. We just won’t countenance it because of the perceived risks. I’m a pro-online guy. We doom and gloom everything online too much and I’m guilty for doing that. But we want people to participate online. We are great and early adopters of mobile smart devices and we love being online itself, so it makes sense for service delivery to be online, it makes sense to order your food online, to do social media, participate in everything, there’s a lot of good benefit. But because we hear this messaging all the time about the government can’t deal with online issues, there’s already this level of distrust and dissatisfaction out there that voting will just be another one of those things. And the facts just don’t support that.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Would there be anything that you’d change about the way political parties collect or are allowed to collect data on people given that they seem to be a perfect target or a growing target?

NIGEL PHAIR: Oh, there’s lots I’d change. Primary to that is the Privacy Act and adherence to the privacy principles of which political parties don’t need to.

SUNANDA CREAGH: In what way? What change would you make?

NIGEL PHAIR: Well, I’d ensure that political parties have to adhere to the privacy principles when it comes to the collection, the storage, retention and dissemination of personally identifying information.

SUNANDA CREAGH: And what are the privacy principles?

NIGEL PHAIR: Well the privacy principles, there’s 13 of them, inform organisations in Australia where they have a turnover of more than A$3 million about how they should collect data, how they should store that data, how they should disseminate it and how they should destroy it. There’s some simple advice that’s provided by the Australian Office of the Information Commissioner. And they’re quite easy to adhere to, but unfortunately political parties are exempt from that and I see that as being a bad thing.

SUNANDA CREAGH: So we’re at a point where I guess you’d have to assume that basically anybody could be a target for a hack and any organisation could be. So what options are there for organisations like political parties that don’t have My Health Record level of security set ups or government scale security set ups?

NIGEL PHAIR: Well, the first thing they have to do is acknowledge that they’re are a target. Then they have to go through a risked-based process to understand what their information assets are, what their technology stack is, and who has access to it and make sound investment decisions around that. We can no longer, as a society, just say “it’s not us that gets hacked, it’s always someone else”. I mean, there is a cost of participating online.

SUNANDA CREAGH: Nigel Phair, thank you so much for talking to us.

NIGEL PHAIR: Pleasure.

Today, we’re bringing you a special episode of our podcast Trust Me, I’m An Expert for anyone wondering: what the hell happened this week?

A sitting government lost a vote on the floor of parliament (which hasn’t happened in decades) over a bill that aims to facilitate medical transfers from Manus and Nauru.

(You can hear the MP Kerryn Phelps, who set the ball rolling for that legislation, give her account on Michelle Grattan’s politics podcast over here).

A day after a bloc of cross-benchers and the opposition won the vote, Prime Minister Scott Morrison signalled the government may re-open the Christmas Island detention facility and the Coalition was accusing Labor of being weak on borders.

In other words, a federal election campaign centred on border security has well and truly begun.

To help us understand the broader context, we’re hearing today from Dr Daniel Ghezelbash, a refugee law expert from Macquarie University.

In our discussion, he busted several myths about how the asylum seeker “medevac” bill would work, and described as “reckless” political rhetoric that the new legislation represents a destruction of Australia’s border security.

This week, many Australians cheered the release of refugee footballer Hakeem Al-Araibi, and reports emerged showing airport arrivals of asylum seekers has soared, but much of the political discussion centred on boat arrivals.

The focus on boat arrivals in the lead-up to an election should be familiar to any student of Australian political history, he said – but this time it may be different.

Join us on Trust Me, I’m An Expert, as Dr Daniel Ghezelbash explains a policy alternative to our current system of offshore processing that he says wouldn’t involve compromising security or shirking our international legal obligations.

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

Guardian News video.

Sky News report.

RN Breakfast report.

AAP Image/Mick Tsikas