RUBY:

So, Jason, this story. It's quite a scoop.

JASON:

Thanks, Ruby. It certainly is. And, just one of those things where someone called me, said they had a story they wanted to brief me about, and suggested we meet for a beer, so we did.

RUBY:

And so what did this source say to you?

JASON:

So what they told me is that there has been a complete breakdown between the states and territories and the federal government over how to handle counter-terrorism, which obviously is a huge deal. And I was pretty blown away and wondered if, if this really had happened. And so I started digging into it.

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am.

There’s a greater than 50 per cent chance that there will be a terrorist attack or a planned attack in Australia in the next year.

That’s the reality behind the head of ASIO’s decision recently to upgrade the terror threat level to “probable”.

So the need for all states and territories to be working hand in hand with the federal government is greater than ever.

But, that’s not what’s happening. The states and territories have taken the unprecedented step of abandoning the Albanese government’s planned counter-terrorism strategy in favour of figuring it out themselves.

Today, special correspondent for The Saturday Paper Jason Koutsoukis on why they are doing that, and what it means for our safety.

It’s Friday, October 4.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

So, Jason, after you got this tip about a breakdown in counter-terrorism planning, tell me what you discovered.

JASON:

Well, firstly that yes, there had been a breakdown between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. And, the federal government was now pursuing its own counter-terrorism strategy without the states and territories. This strategy has been underway for the past two years.

The last one was released, I think, in February 2022. But given the fast changing nature of the threats that we face, it's really important that these counter-terrorism strategies are updated to counter that evolving threat. And this decision by the Commonwealth to pursue its own strategy really contradicts this principle of national unity. And I think senior people in the government know this is a big problem. One senior Albanese government official told me that at all levels, this is a clusterfuck.

RUBY:

Right. Okay. That's a federal government official saying that to you. So who is responsible then for the breakdown? The clear breakdown in this working relationship.

JASON:

So I think for this particular strategy, government insiders are pointing to the Centre for Counter-Terrorism Coordination. This is a unit within the Department of Home Affairs, and they described it as being ground zero for the problems surrounding the development of this new strategy.

The same advisor told me that. You know, really, there's a lack of trust in the CCTC and its leadership, and it got so bad that key national security agencies such as ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, were no longer exchanging the vital information with the Coordination Centre, that is needed for it to function properly, and that this lack of trust is really undermining, its ability to lead Australia's counter-terrorism framework.

Another national security policy expert that I spoke to who's got very close ties to the government, said that making matters worse is the fact that this department is really distracted by the issue of immigration, that immigration is burning a hole in Home Affairs. And I think another complication here is that, you know, there are rumours of a tense relationship between the head of the department and the new minister Tony Burke.

RUBY:

Okay, so you have this Centre for Counter-Terrorism Coordination that's within the Department of Home Affairs. And people say that that's not working as it should. And then you also have what seems like a breakdown in the relationship between the minister and the head of the department. So how important is Home Affairs and what role does it play in our national security?

JASON:

This is actually the heart of it, Ruby. There is a big problem with Home Affairs as a department right now, and that is there is a lack of trust from the Albanese government towards this department.

Now, I should mention I actually worked for Clare O'Neil when she was Home Affairs minister before this reshuffle. I was her media advisor for nearly two years. And while it isn't really relevant to how I came to this story, it did give me an insight into how that department operates and how it has changed over time.

So Home Affairs as we know it. It is basically the brainchild of Mike Pezzullo. Mike Pezzullo, was the long time boss at Home Affairs, and he's the person who turned it into this powerful ministry encompassing ASIO, the AFP, immigration and cyber security policy.

Audio Excerpt - News Reporter:

“Australia's security agencies are getting the biggest shake up in decades. The Prime Minister's announced he'll give the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, a new super portfolio with responsibility for Australia's spy agency, ASIO and the Federal Police.”

He was the department head when Peter Dutton was the minister. And he had a pretty spectacular fall from grace last year when it was found that he had acted improperly in the role of secretary of Home Affairs.

Audio Excerpt - News Reporter:

“Breaking news out of Canberra this morning. The Prime Minister has confirmed that Mike Pezzullo has been sacked from his role as the Home Affairs Secretary.”

JASON:

Now Mike Pezzullo is gone. Peter Dutton has gone, but Labor are now in charge and they have been very keen to change the shape of this department.

The Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus in particular, has been keen to lessen its power. First, they took the AFP out of Home Affairs and put it under the control of the AG. And then they removed ASIO too, also putting it back in the AG's portfolio.

So that really just leaves immigration, cyber security policy, and national security as the big things that Home Affairs does.

And I think the big problem is that if you are responsible for national security, but you don't also have oversight of ASIO and the AFP. That's a recipe for a communication breakdown.

And, you know, one of my key sources after this story told me, and I'll just quote this person, “from the point of view of the state. It's a frustration with the Commonwealth and particularly Home Affairs over the way this strategy has been developed, which has been backwards and forwards on again, off again, that sort of thing. And I think eventually the states and territories just thought, well, fuck it.”

RUBY:

Coming up after the break - Australia’s threat level and how the states and territories should be working with the commonwealth.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

RUBY:

So, Jason, you've been reporting on the troubles at Home Affairs and how that relates to this extraordinary decision that states and territories have made to essentially go their own way when it comes to planning for counter-terrorism. This seems like it could become a big problem when you take into account what we're hearing from ASIO about possible threats to our national security.

JASON:

Well, it's more important than ever for the states and Commonwealth to be on the same page, especially after the Director General of Security, Mike Burgess, recently raised Australia's national terrorism threat level from possible to probable.

Audio Excerpt - Mike Burgess:

“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.”

JASON:

At the time, Mike Burgess said that ASIO's decision to raise the threat level reflected the degrading security environment.

Audio Excerpt - Mike Burgess:

“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.”

JASON:

A threat level of probable means that in ASIO's assessment, there's a greater than 50% chance of an onshore terrorist attack or terrorist attack planning occurring within the next 12 months. And Mike Burgess said that, we are seeing an increase in extremism and that more Australians are being radicalised and radicalised much more quickly.

RUBY:

Okay, so given that, then how should the federal government and state governments be working together on this? What would it look like if this was going well?

JASON:

Yeah, that's a great question. And I spoke to Lydia Khalil about this. She's the program director for transnational challenges at the Lowy Institute. And she told me that while, you know, it's often the case that these high level documents tend to be removed from the general public's awareness, they are incredibly useful for helping governments prioritise programs and spending.

Now, the main argument for a national counter-terrorism strategy that is fully inclusive of state and territory governments is based on the fact that not only are state government law enforcement agencies, the first responders when it comes to terrorism incidents, but they are crucial when it comes to identifying people who are displaying worrying behaviour early on in their lives, whether that be through secondary schools, psychology support programs, countering violent extremism programs. These are all things that are run by the states. And as a national security policy expert told me, the people who are conceiving ideas linked to violent extremism, who are joining these movements actually don't often come to the attention of law enforcement through security processes. They come to their attention through education, health and other programs that are all run by the states and territories.

So you must be hardwired with the states and territories. You cannot have a Commonwealth counter-terrorism strategy. The notion of going it alone is absolutely nuts.

RUBY:

Okay, so there's this sort of looming disconnect between the state based agencies who actually, in practice, identify terror threats, and then the federal government, who I suppose, have the resources to to act on those threats. So did you talk to the states about this, about why they won't take part in what the Commonwealth is proposing?

JASON:

Yes, I did. I spoke with the New South Wales Minister for Police and Counter-Terrorism, Yasmin Catley, who told The Saturday Paper that the forthcoming counter-terrorism strategy is a Commonwealth led strategy which all states and territories, including New South Wales, are involved in. She said, “Look, we all work collaboratively and will continue to do so on this very important issue.” So I think, yeah, that sounds great. But I think what it really means is that this is a Commonwealth strategy.

That's what one government adviser, who I read that quote out too, told me. And, that person said this is not a national strategy because the states don't want to be part of it. They are being consulted on its development, but they have not signed on to it. And that's why this strategy will not be called a national counter-terrorism strategy. It's going to have this title of being a Commonwealth counter-terrorism strategy.

Victoria's Minister for Police, Anthony Carbines, did not respond to requests for comment. I spoke to them quite early in the week. Minister Carbines office and, they initially seemed keen on providing a comment, but, by Thursday afternoon, they decided that wasn't wise.

And I think it's worth noting that almost all the states and territories, run by Labor governments and the Commonwealth can't even get Labor government agencies and Labor governments across the line.

RUBY:

Yeah. It's telling. So other than calling it a quote unquote clusterfuck. Do you have a sense from anyone senior in the federal government about how they are thinking about this and what they might do about it?

JASON:

Well, because this proposal to release a counter-terrorism strategy without the states has not yet gone to cabinet.

So there's no formal government decision yet to, to go down this path.

A senior government official told me that it was, it's quite possible that the prime minister and other members of cabinet's national security committee remain unaware that there is a problem, or even whether Tony Burke himself was even fully up to speed with what's happening inside his department.

But I think there's a big political risk here which has to be considered, because if a major terrorist incident was to occur after ASIO has raised the terrorism threat level from possible to probable, and this government has been found not to have put in place a proper national counter-terrorism coordination strategy, then the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is going to cop the blame for that from, from the opposition, and Peter Dutton and opposition home affairs spokesman James Patterson. They're going to be all over this.

RUBY:

Jason, thank you so much for your time.

JASON:

Thanks, Ruby. Great to talk.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today,

Advocates say they’re concerned about some of the new restrictions on how NDIS participants can spend their money that have come into effect.

The federal government has released lists detailing what people can and can’t claim with costs including rent, fertility treatments, gaming therapy and animal therapy not available.

NDIS Minister Bill Shorten said the update would help return the scheme to its original purpose and ensure it wasn't paying for support that should be covered by Australia's other care systems or shouldn't be covered at all.

And, Foreign Minister Penny Wong is urging Australians to take any available route out of Lebanon, with the government confirming it has secured 500 extra seats on commercial flights for Saturday.

There are estimated to be 15,000 Australians currently in Lebanon.

The announcement comes as Israel has renewed its bombardment of the capital Beirut, with Airstrikes yesterday killing at least six people.

7am is a daily show from Schwartz Media and The Saturday Paper.

It's hosted by me, Ruby Jones and Daniel James.

It’s produced by Cheyne Anderson, Zoltan Fecso, and Zaya Altangerel.

Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow.

We are edited by Chris Dengate and Sarah McVeigh.

Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Our mixer is Travis Evans.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

That’s all for this week, thanks for listening.

[Theme Music Ends]