Good morning. ASIO has decided to return Australia’s ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level from ‘Possible’ to ‘Probable’. My Government’s first priority is the safety and security of Australians, and this morning I convened a ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Security Committee meeting to hear from the Director-General and also then we have just completed a Cabinet meeting. I want to reassure Australians, ‘probable’ does not mean ‘inevitable’ and it does not mean there is intelligence about an imminent threat or danger. But the advice that we’ve received is that more Australians are embracing a more diverse range of extreme ideologies and it is our responsibility to be vigilante. To be clear, this is the same threat level that was in place in Australia for more than eight years before it was lowered in November of 2022. At that time we said as the government this does not mean that the threat from terrorism is extinguished. Since then, we’ve seen a global rise in politically-motivated violence and extremism. Many democracies are working to address this, including our friends in the United States and in the United Kingdom. There are many things driving this global trend towards violence. Governments around the world are concerned about youth radicalisation, online radicalisation and the rise of new mixed ideologies. My Government respects our intelligence agencies, we listen to their advice and we act on their advice – and that is what we are doing today. As I’ve spoken about before, the essence and purpose of our democracy is that we can express our views respectfully, engage in disagreements, in respectful debate, resolve our grievances peacefully. When the temperature of the security environment is rising, we must lower the temperature of debate. Something I have been saying for some time, because our words and our actions matter. Living in a country as stable and open as ours, social cohesion cannot be taken for granted, it must be nourished and it must be cherished as a national asset. I’ll now invite the Director-General of Security to step up and to go through the context of this decision. And then we’ll hear from the Attorney-General before we’re happy to take questions.
MIKE BURGESS, DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SECURITY, ASIO: Thank you, Prime Minister and good morning. Australia’s security environment is degrading – it is more volatile and more unpredictable. You’ve heard me say many times that espionage and foreign interference are our principal security concerns. ASIO’s intelligence suggests that is no longer accurate. While the threats to our way of life remain elevated, we are seeing an increase in extremism. More Australians are being radicalised and radicalised more quickly. More Australians are embracing a more diverse range of extreme ideologies and more Australians are willing to use violence to advance their cause. Politically-motivated violence now joins espionage and foreign interference as our principal security concerns. Politically-motivated violence encompasses terrorism, but is broader than that. It covers any violent act or any violent threat intended or likely to achieve a political objective. This includes violent protest, riot or an attack on a politician or our democratic institutions. Political differences, political debates and political protests are an essential part of a healthy democracy. Unfortunately, here and overseas, we are seeing spikes in political polarisation and intolerance, uncivil debate and unpeaceful protests. Anti-authority beliefs are growing. Trust in institutions is eroding. Provocative, inflammatory behaviours are being normalised. This trend increased during COVID, gained further momentum after the terrorist attacks in Israel and accelerated during Israel’s military response. The dynamics are raising the temperature of the security environment. Individuals are embracing anti-authority ideologies, conspiracy theories and diverse grievances. Some are combining multiple beliefs to create new hybrid ideologies. Many of these individuals will not necessarily espouse violent views, but may still see violence as a legitimate way to effect a political or societal change. All of this creates a security climate that is more permissive of violence. As polarisation, frustration and perceived injustices grow, ASIO anticipates an increase in politically-motivated violence, including terrorism. Across all ideological spectrums attacks are likely to occur with little or no warning and will be difficult to detect. An escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, particularly in southern Lebanon, would inflict further strain, aggravating tensions and potentially fuelling grievances. As you’d expect, ASIO keeps the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level under constant review. In 2022, we lowered the threat level. We stand by that decision. Our counter terrorism caseload was moderating. After the collapse of the caliphate, we were investigating fewer violent extremists with the intent and capillary to conduct an attack on shore. At that time, though, I said there will almost guarantee the threat level will need to go up at some point in time. That point is now. After careful consideration and consultation, ASIO is raising the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level from ‘Possible’ to ‘Probable’. Our decision reflects the degrading security environment. A threat level of ‘Probable’ means we assess there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack or planning in the next twelve months. It does not mean that we have intelligence about a current attack planning or an expectation of an imminent attack. Decisions of this kind are not taken quickly or easily. The subject matter experts in the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Threat Assessment Centre use intelligence and employ structured analytical techniques to test, retest and contest their assumptions. Our decision is not a direct response to the tragic events in the Middle East. At this stage we do not believe any of the terrorist plots we have investigated in the last year have been inspired by Gaza. Terrorist leaders offshore are not inspiring attacks on shore. This is why we did not raise the threat level in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October. Indirectly though, there have been important and relevant impacts. The conflict has fuelled grievances, promoted protest, exacerbated division, undermined social cohesion and elevated intolerance. After the 7th of October, I warned that inflamed language could lead to inflamed community tensions. Unfortunately, this is what’s playing out. Because of these complex dynamics it would also be inaccurate to suggest the next terrorist attack or plot is likely to be motivated by a twisted view of a particular religion or a particular ideology. The threat is across the board. In the last four months, there have been eight attacks or disruptions that have either involved alleged terrorism or have been investigated as potential acts of terrorism. I can’t comment on these cases in detail, but will note they all appear to underscore four characteristics of the current counter terrorism landscape. First, the threat of lone actors. The most likely terrorist attack involves an individual or a small group using rudimentary weapons such as knives, improvised explosives or a gun. Second, the acceleration of radicalisation. Individuals are moving to violence with little or no warning and little or no planning. Acts of violence can be almost spontaneous or purely reactive. Third, a resurgence in the number of minors embracing violent extremism. In the recent cases, the oldest perpetrator was 21 and the youngest was 14. Extremist ideologies, conspiracies, misinformation, are flourishing in the online ecosystem and young Australians are particularly vulnerable. Finally, the diverse drivers of extremism. When we raised the threat level, individuals were often being radicalised by sustained exposure to a particular extremist ideology or an authority figure. Now individuals are being motivated by a diversity of grievances and personal narratives. In some cases I refer to the alleged perpetrators appear to be motivated by extreme religious beliefs, in others, nationalist and racist beliefs. These factors make ASIO’s job more difficult. The threats are becoming harder to predict and identify. The drivers of radicalisation grievance extremism are growing and interacting in ways we’ve not seen before, creating a security climate that’s very different to the one existed when we last raised the threat level. The challenge is exacerbated by the internet and social media – the primary platform for radicalisation – and the use of encryption by every single one of our investigative subjects. It’s important to put this in context, though. The threats I’m describing are significant but not insurmountable. ‘Probable’ does not mean ‘inevitable’. Australians should be aware, but not afraid. If you believe a person you know is going down a dark extremist path, please talk to someone or call the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Security Hotline on 1800 123 400. ASIO and our law enforcement partners are working hard to detect these terrorist threats and are well practised at defeating them. Since 2014, together, we have successfully disrupted 24 attacks. The organisation I lead will continue to do the job that we’ve been doing for the last 75 years to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks very much. The Attorney-General.
MARK DREYFUS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Thank you, Prime Minister and Director-General. As the Prime Minister said, this is a return to the same ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level that was in place in Australia for more than eight years. This return to a ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level of ‘Probable’ was informed by ASIO’s expert assessment of our current security environment. The Director-General has outlined the dynamics that have raised the temperature of the security environment, but he has also said that these threats are not insurmountable. As the Director-General and the Prime Minister have said, it does not mean that there is any imminent threat of terrorist attack in Australia. Rather, it means that ASIO’s experts in the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Threat Assessment Centre have assessed current intelligence and made a decision that reflects our current security environment. I want to reassure the public that ASIO and our law enforcement partners are working hard to detect terrorist threats and are well practised at disrupting them. And I’d like to thank our security and law enforcement agencies for the critically-important work that they do every day to protect Australians. I’ll hand back to the Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: Director-General, can you give us a sense of what changes, practically, are resources reallocated in various areas? And what is your message to the people you’ve mentioned, the leaders, whose language is worrying you?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: So firstly for me, my agency and our law enforcement colleagues, of course, we are reviewing our caseload of assessed violent extremists. Many of those we’ve assessed do have awful ideologies, but are unlikely to go to violence. In this environment it’s important that we retest those assessments we’ve made to make sure we’re paying attention to the people we know about. Of course, it’s the people I don’t know about that I worry the most. What do we do then? This is really a matter for everyone – community leaders, politicians, the media – watch your words, watch your actions. I’ve said that, the Prime Minister has said that, be very careful about that because there is a direct correlation between inflamed language, inflamed tension, and violence – something we all own. The Federal Government with the states and territories are pressing into the minors, the youth cohort here, need our attention, help them disengage from the violent ideologies is incredibly important.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on that last point about language, we’ve had the Greens accuse the Labor Party of being complicit in genocide when it comes to Hamas-Israel conflict. We’ve also been told there’s this rise in self-righteousness that is infecting all of the community. What’s your message as Prime Minister to political leaders and to families, parents, teachers, community at large?
PRIME MINISTER: My message to political leaders is that words matter. And it is important that people engage in a way that is respectful, that people don’t make claims that they know are not right in order to try to secure some short term political advantage, which is what we have seen. Australia, for example, is not directly involved in what is occurring in the Middle East and yet, if you look at the comments that have been made by some Senators and Members, you would think that that isn’t the case. Some of that is designed deliberately to encourage a partisan response in a way that isn’t appropriate. It’s not appropriate for people to encourage some of the actions outside electorate offices and to dismiss them as being just part of the normal political process. It is not normal to have people in occupations for months outside electorate offices, where the work of those electorate offices is to assist people in social security and health and other areas. They’re not participants in the Middle East conflict. And so I think that political leaders have a responsibility to use language, by all means engage in different political discourse. No one’s suggesting that people should have conformity to particular views, but the way that things are expressed is important. And it’s important also that people stick to facts and that they’re not prepared to encourage misinformation. They have a role to play.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, firstly, are you concerned about what impact this will have on the upcoming election, and to the Director-General are you worried about some of the upcoming events, the US election, the Federal election? Are you concerned about that impact that that might have in terms of the public and how people act?
PRIME MINISTER: On the first, before the Director-General, look, our democracy is strong and people must be able to participate in an election going about the normal way. I’ve been in, I think, four states and territories in recent days. People will continue to engage and interact, I think, with people is really important. One of the things that I like about this country is that you’re able to interact with voters and the general population in a supermarket, walking down the street, at the footy, walking the dog – that’s a good thing. In some countries, it is just not possible for citizens to go and talk to their political leaders one-on-one. We should cherish that and value it. And so I’m confident that that will occur. But at the same time, we’ve made it very clear that there has been a considerable increase in the threats that have been made to Members of Parliament. There are more people having to have security around them, and that is a real concern. But I would hate to see any circumstance whereby there were limits on interaction between voters and the people who served them. That’s a really important thing about Australia and something we should be proud of. Director-General?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: Thanks, Prime Minister. So, as the Prime Minister said, democracy is strong. Political debates, political protests are a healthy part of our society. Of course, this is a factor that would play into the next election, but no more than it’s playing into every day, every Australian right now.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, I think average Australians will be asking how they should respond to this news. What, if anything, what actions, if any, should people take to protect their own security in this new environment? But I think particularly what should the parents of young men do? The Director-General is talking about men exclusively, by the sound of it, at an age between 14 and 21. So, what do people do to protect their own security? And what do parents do who might have disillusioned teenagers, teenage males, in their family?
PRIME MINISTER: I think the term that the Director-General used was to be aware but not frightened. We need to acknowledge that this announcement today is appropriately one which speaks of vigilance. But we shouldn’t, I don’t think, that this very clearly doesn’t mean there’s intelligence about an imminent threat or danger. What it does mean, though, is that the assessment has been made of going back to where we were for eight years. And I think that puts some context in this as well. Director-General?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: Yes. In terms of minors or youth, absolutely. It’s an important thing for minors. Obviously, parents should seek to be aware of what their children are consuming online. Young adults, they’re adults, they’ve got to make their own decisions. But perhaps having a conversation about what they’re looking at online, but noting they’re adults they’ll make their own decisions.
JOURNALIST: We’ve seen Iran’s Ambassador to Australia tweet today that he hopes Israel will be wiped off any Palestinian –
PRIME MINISTER: Sorry, who?
JOURNALIST: Iran’s Ambassador to Australia, tweeting that he hopes Israel will be wiped off from any Palestinian territory by 2027. Your reaction to that? And, Director-General, are you concerned about foreign actors trying to whip up division here at home?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, certainly one of the concerns – I issued a statement last Friday, the Friday before last, with the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of Canada. The third one that we had, this one was very specifically referring to the actions of Iran and its proxies in promoting division and hatred. And it would, I haven’t seen the quote, but we remain concerned as a Government about the role of Iran in promoting conflict and division in the Middle East, both directly, but also through their proxies in Hamas, in Hezbollah, and also in the Houthis as well.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Burgess, without seeking to introduce a political dimension, but you’re talking about exacerbating factors. What about sustained economic hardship? Do you see it playing into this sort of general anger or grievance as you describe it? And are you monitoring events in Britain at the moment and worried about repeats of that here, those sort of race riots?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: So, firstly, in terms of the economic grievance or issue can be a driver for violence in this environment. It’s not something that we’ve seen in the cohorts we’ve been looking at, but yes, it is a potential factor. In terms of what’s happening in the United Kingdom, we stay close with our mates and understand what’s the drivers there. Every case is different, it’s concerning behaviour, but looking behind that is important. That’s why our experts stay in touch with our friends.
JOURNALIST: A lot of this does go back to social media, which isn’t new information. But will this make you go harder in dealing with the tech giants, or is there more you can do around legislation in the space?
PRIME MINISTER: We’re very conscious about the role of social media here. And under the Online Safety act, the E-Safety Commissioner has the powers to remove extremist and violent content now. We are requiring platforms to employ measures that prevent the hosting of terrorist content. We brought forward the review of the Online Safety Act to ensure it is fit for purpose and that it is adequately addressing areas of hate speech. And we are embarking on an important national conversation about social media age limits through the trial that we are doing, our age assurance trial. That’s about making sure that any action can be done effectively. But we know that social media is playing a role in this. One of the things about social media is that the algorithms push people towards more extremes and they reinforce views, so that some people think that if they’re logging on for a particular view, it will continue to put that forward as if that is the only view, and it will reinforce prejudices which are there. So, we are very conscious of that.
JOURNALIST: Just a question to the Director-General. It was only a year and a half ago that you lowered the terror threat. Obviously something big that’s changed since that time is the October 7 attacks and the reaction to the. But how much of this is also due to the deteriorating online environment, including the rise of AI and the use of that to promote disinformation online?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: Yes. So, the environment is completely different from when we lowered it. Technology, online environment is a big part of the online radicalisation, online rhetoric. We’re only at the beginning of the AI journey. I don’t think it will be – as it generates benefit for society, it has the potential to generate unequal problems.
JOURNALIST: Director-General, you’ve referenced a whole range of different ideologies and the confluence between the war in Gaza, you’ve noted has kind of just heated up the whole atmosphere. Do you think you would have taken this step had the tensions around the war not been in place? And just on the protest movement, can you explain what it is in particular about this protest movement, the intimidatory tactics, the kind of normalising of provocative, troubling behaviours that distinguishes it from previous movements?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: So, Gaza is not the cause of this rising, but actually, I acknowledge, yes, it’s a significant driver. It’s driven more emotion and heat into society. We’ve had violent protests before in this country, so we roll through waves. This is not new as a phenomenon. And obviously, ASIO’s job is not to look at people who protest, lawful dissent. Lawful protests are fine. It’s the people who think violence is the answer. Not just because of Gaza, though in this current environment, violence is more likely at protests.
JOURNALIST: Why are caps not a total ban, the Government’s preferred solution to gambling –
PRIME MINISTER: Can we just stick to this, at this stage? No. Well, that’s fine, but I’ll come back to you, Paul. Have a bit of respect. Thank you.
JOURNALIST: Are any particular groups of Australians that are being more targeted or at more risk than others, for example, Jewish Australians?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL BURGESS: Well, so the youth are vulnerable to be radicalised. In terms of where this is going, it’s across the board. Yes, there’s plenty of antisemitism, but there’s plenty of Islamophobia at the same time. It’s kind of, almost, equal treatment. Not quite, but almost equal treatment.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just in light of the discussion about the vulnerability of youth to being radicalised, what consideration are you giving to greater mental health supports, greater supports for youth, perhaps assistance for parents to know what to look out for?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, this is an ongoing issue. This isn’t something that has changed today as a result of the decision by the Director-General and ASIO to change our ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Terrorism Threat Level. We know that this is an ongoing issue of parents’ concern about the harm that is caused. We also know, and the Director-General gave the number there, that one of the things that is happening is some reporting as well, of parents and family members and friends being concerned about the road that some young people might be going down. And obviously, the earlier the intervention is, the better. We do have a national intervention programme that helps individuals disengage from violent extremism. And in addition to that, we work collaboratively with community organisations. And can I pay tribute as well to the work that the Security Agencies do in outreach. It’s not sitting in an office across the lake there, but getting out and talking with the leaders of communities to make sure that there is that comfort of being able to engage where people perceive that there’s a risk there. Ok, Paul, you’re on.
JOURNALIST: Thanks very much.
PRIME MINISTER: Here’s your moment.
JOURNALIST: On gambling ads, why are caps and not a total ban the Government’s preferred solution? And do you think that media companies deserve to be compensated for an associated loss?
PRIME MINISTER: I don’t believe everything you read in the paper.
JOURNALIST: Is it not the preferred solution?
PRIME MINISTER: Don’t believe – well, we’ll announce what our preferred solution is when we announce it, so I don’t comment on speculation. Thanks very much. Thank you.
