ASIO has now declared the terrorist threat to Australia is ‘probable’. What does this mean?

In Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement, he said “probable does not mean inevitable, and it does not mean there is intelligence about an imminent threat or danger.”

Instead, the elevated threat level is largely because more Australians are “embracing extremist ideologies”, indicating an increased risk of ideological terrorism and politically motivated violence.

How does ASIO decide what the threat level should be? And what do these decisions mean for the public?

How is the threat level decided?

Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Advisory System is a five-tier, colour-coded scale that informs the public about the likelihood of a terrorist act occurring. It’s sorted into certain (red), expected (orange), probable (yellow), possible (blue) and not expected (green). The threat level had been lowered to “possible” in November 2022.

Probable means “credible intelligence, assessed by our security agencies, indicates that individuals or groups continue to possess the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia”.

Since the introduction of this five-tier system, the threat level has been regularly reviewed and revised a few times based on ongoing intelligence assessments and changes in the security environment.

In September 2014, Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated for the first time since the system was introduced in 2002. This was because of the increasing threat from Islamic State and the potential for domestic terrorist attacks.

Less than two weeks later, a radicalised youth attacked police in Victoria in a violent act of terrorism. The recent announcement is the first time the threat level has been elevated in a decade.

Where do we sit globally?

A look at the Global Terrorism Database reveals 120 incidents of terror attacks in Australia over the period 1970–2020. Among them, 18 cases have led to loss of life, with a total of 27 fatalities.

Currently, Australia ranks 57th based on the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) with a score of 1.48. Lower scores and lower positions in the rankings mean more favourable and safer conditions.

On top of this list are Burkina Faso (8.571), Israel (8.143), Mali (7.998), Pakistan (7.916) and Syria (7.890). This rating evaluates countries based on the number of terrorist incidents, fatalities, injuries and hostages over a five-year period.

Australia’s position based on this scale has varied over time. Statistics show over the past decade or so, Australia’s global position has got marginally worse.

Why does this matter to me?

The prime minister announces a change in the terrorism threat level to ensure the public is aware of the current risk environment. Such information allows individuals and communities to take appropriate precautions and be more vigilant in their daily activities.

Research has shown that public awareness of the terrorism threat level fosters a culture of preparedness and resilience. When communities are informed, they can engage in proactive measures such as emergency planning and participating in local and organisational safety programs. However, this mustn’t lead to disproportionate levels of anxiety.

Effective public involvement often includes reporting suspicious activities, staying informed about potential threats, and participating in community safety initiatives. The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign in the United States, for example, emphasises the importance of public vigilance in identifying and reporting potential terrorist threats.

Public vigilance has, in fact, proven instrumental in preventing several terrorist attacks worldwide. In 2010, street vendors in New York City noticed a suspicious vehicle emitting smoke in Times Square. Their report led authorities to discover and defuse a car bomb, potentially saving many lives.

It’s not only the public who play a crucial role in preventing terrorist attacks. Businesses and private security providers are equally important. Venues that host large numbers of people, such as sports arenas, concert halls and shopping malls, can be prime targets for terrorism.

Their vigilance, proportional to the existing threat levels, can provide a significant layer of defence. A prominent example is the story of Richard Jewell. Working as a security guard during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Jewell noticed an unattended backpack under a bench, which contained a bomb. His quick actions in alerting authorities and helping to evacuate the area saved many lives.

While it’s the job of Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies to detect, combat and neutralise terrorist threats, the threat of terrorism is complex and often hard to detect. This is especially the case when it involves “lone actors” who are not part of a known terrorist organisation. Community-level vigilance and awareness add an additional layer of protection.

As such, keeping the public informed and engaged in national security is important, even though the elevated threat level is not a cause for high levels of concern.

What now?

Community awareness requires a nuanced approach rather than an alarmist one. Extreme ideologies increasingly intersect with one another and blend with social media-fuelled personal grievances, forming a complex and dynamic threat landscape.

However, the intertwining of political ideology and personal grievance is not new. These elements have always been interconnected to varying degrees.

One of the complex issues to consider is the low level of trust in government among fringe groups. New announcements regarding elevated threat levels can potentially exacerbate polarisation and backlash, as seen in other countries such as the United Kingdom.

In Monday’s announcement, ASIO chief Mike Burgess said the organisation is “seeing spikes in political polarisation and intolerance”. It’s therefore crucial to communicate security updates in a way that builds trust rather than exacerbates division.

Preventing the stigmatisation of certain population groups is also important. The focus on Islamist and far-right extremism alike should be handled carefully to avoid creating “suspect communities”. Counterterrorism measures should not unjustly target or marginalise specific groups. That can lead to further alienation and radicalisation.

Authors:  Ramon Spaaij, Professor, Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University and Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Mobility, Public Safety & Disaster Risk, UNSW Sydney.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.