Australia’s elevated terror alert: National security or politics as usual?

As long as the motivations behind these alerts remain murky, there will always be a tension between genuine safety concerns and the politics of fear.

“Terrorism has changed the world, and Australia is not immune, but the way of life that we value so highly must go on. Our security agencies have been upgraded and are ready to detect, prevent and respond to terrorism. We can work together to protect our way of life – be alert, but not alarmed.”

– Howard government television advertisement, 2001.

The federal government’s decision to raise Australia’s national terrorism threat level from “possible” to “probable” – based on a recommendation from ASIO – is a decision that goes beyond the immediate concerns of national security and into the field of public perception, political strategy, and the broader socio-political landscape.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s statement sought to project an image of decisiveness and transparency but it also raises questions about the underlying political motivations. Albanese was quick to clarify that “probable” does not imply an imminent threat, yet the very act of elevating the threat level inevitably stirs public anxiety.

Missed the latest New Politics podcast? Listen through Spotify.

The rationale behind this heightened alert level, according to the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, is based on the assessment that more Australians are embracing a ‘broader range of extreme ideologies’. This diversification of extremist thought, coupled with the increasing willingness of individuals to resort to violence, presents a complex challenge for national security agencies. Yet, the ambiguity surrounding what “probable” actually means raises concerns about the effectiveness and the intent of such warnings.

Of course, it’s not possible to overlook the timing of this decision in the context of recent global and domestic events – the ongoing war inflicted by Israel in Palestine has seen escalations in violence that resonate far beyond the Middle East. The recent rise in far-right extremism and racially motivated violence, particularly in Western nations like England, adds another layer of complexity to the threat of terrorism and these events, coupled with the increasing polarisation of political debate, has created a fertile ground for radicalisation. The government’s decision to raise the terror alert might be seen as a response to these external and internal pressures, and a way to signal to the public that they are aware of the growing risks but the broader implications of this move cannot be ignored.

Historically, public announcements about terrorism in Australia – especially from conservative governments – have often been mired in political agendas and the pursuit of increased funding from security agencies. The Australian Federal Police and ASIO, like many security organisations globally, operate in a competitive funding environment where the perceived threat level directly influences budget allocations and raising the terror alert could be viewed as a strategic move to secure additional resources.

Political manipulation of terror alerts

The strategic use of terror alerts by governments, particularly when facing political challenges, has long been a tool used by incumbents seeking to shift public focus, from Billy Hughes, through to Robert Menzies, John Howard and Tony Abbott. When the Coalition was in office, they frequently used terror-related announcements as a means of deflection when faced with political scandals or declining public support, and a sudden terror alert or the arrest of an individual – preferably of “Middle Eastern appearance” – on terror-related charges often served to distract the electorate.

While it’s clear that the role of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO is not just as a prop for the government of the day to be used to raise fears within the community – the raids on several houses in Surry Hills in 2017 foiled a plot to blow up an Etihad plane and resulted in 40-year jail terms for Khaled Khayat and Mahmoud Khayat – other acts have not been so clear, such as the raiding of Labor Party offices and union bosses, or the homes of people from Islamic communities in Western Sydney and Melbourne, where the charges against individuals arrested under the banner of terrorism were quietly dropped, leaving the public with little information about the validity of the initial accusations.

Labor, now in power, appears to have recognised the effectiveness of this political tactic and this elevation in the terror threat level should be seen through this lens. While the government insists that this decision is based on intelligence and the evolving security environment, the lack of clarity surrounding what “probable” truly means leaves room for skepticism.

The shift from “possible” to “probable” also raises the question: At what point does a threat move from one category to the next? And what are Australians meant to do with this information? The vague nature of the alert offers little in the way of guidance for the public. Unlike in the past, where citizens might have been encouraged to report suspicious activity, today’s environment is more complex.

The difficulty in infiltrating nationalist and cultural groups, which often operate in secrecy, also compounds the problem, and ASIO and other security agencies face significant challenges in tracking the activities of far-right extremists, neo-Nazis, and other violent groups. While it is possible that these agencies are more effective than the public realises – national security and spy agencies are hardly going to telegraph their every movement – the classified nature of their operations leaves taxpayers in the dark. Without transparency, it is hard to gauge the effectiveness of these agencies, and the public is left to place their trust in the government’s public assurances.

This lack of transparency also plays into the hands of those in power. By keeping the details of security operations classified, the government can selectively release information that suits its narrative. Arrests are announced, but the outcomes are rarely publicised, leaving the impression that the threat is ever-present. This approach not only keeps the public on edge but also distracts from other pressing issues, such as the cost of living and the state of the economy.

The Coalition was particularly adept at this, often creating distractions through race issues, culture wars, or terror alerts to keep the electorate occupied with something other than the real problems. While Labor tends to avoid race baiting and cultural wars, the temptation to use terror alerts as a distraction remains strong.

For the average Australian struggling with rent, loans, and daily expenses, the shift from “possible” to “probable” offers little comfort and it is difficult to see how such an announcement, with its vague implications, addresses the real concerns of the populace. The government’s use of this tactic may be an attempt to garner political support or for security agencies to secure additional funding but it does little to alleviate the burdens faced by ordinary citizens.

Balancing national security and political strategy

Although Albanese’s announcement was more subdued compared to the bombastic displays of previous Coalition leaders like Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, and Tony Abbott, it still carries significant weight – the absence of a sea of Australian flags that were the hallmark of Abbott’s security announcements, and the measured tone that reflects Albanese’s more restrained style, does not diminish the strategic underpinnings of such a move. It is, however, evident that this is also a calculated attempt to bolster the Labor government’s credibility on national security, an area traditionally dominated by the Coalition.

Historically, the Coalition has positioned itself as the stronger manager of national security, a perception reinforced by their frequent, high-profile terror-related announcements and this narrative has been deeply embedded in the Australian political psyche. The frequent use of terror alerts, ASIO raids, and media conferences brimming with patriotic symbolism has kept the electorate’s focus on security, often to the detriment – or at least the distraction – of other issues. Labor, during its time in opposition did limit its criticism of this approach, wary of being perceived as unpatriotic and “un-Australian”, but also recognised the political dividends it brought the Coalition. Now in power, it seems Labor may be adopting a similar strategy, albeit with a different tone.

The use of fear as a political tool is not new, but it is particularly effective when it comes to national security. Fear is a powerful motivator, one that can rally public support and distract from other pressing issues. Under a Labor government, the overt fear-mongering may be less pronounced, but the underlying strategy remains. By elevating the terror threat level and making announcements about potential dangers, the government taps into the electorate’s deep-seated anxieties, subtly reinforcing its authority on security matters.

However, this approach is not without its nuances. While the Coalition has mastered the art of leveraging national security for political gain – and still does so, even from the opposition benches – Labor’s more restrained approach might be an attempt to differentiate itself, to show that it can handle these issues without resorting to the same level of hyperbole. Will it work? In a political landscape where anything is possible, and now, with the elevated threat level, anything is probable, the line between genuine security concerns and political opportunism becomes increasingly blurred.

Trust in governments on national security is always going to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, the public’s fear of terrorism and the desire for security can lead to broad support for increased funding and expanded powers for ASIO. On the other hand, the lack of concrete information and the tendency for these threats to fade from the public eye when no attacks occur can breed skepticism. If no attack happens, the narrative shifts to one of “prevention success,” yet the public is left wondering whether the threat was ever real or simply a tool for political gamesmanship and agency funding.

The public, understandably, does not want a terror attack, and any move to prevent such a tragedy is seen as necessary. However, when these alerts are used as political tools, their effectiveness in truly protecting the nation is called into question. As long as the motivations behind these alerts remain murky, and as long as they serve dual purposes of national security and political gain, there will always be a tension between genuine safety concerns and the politics of fear.