ADJOURNMENT

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:40): The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Tonight I want to raise serious concerns about whether Australia's national terrorism threat framework remains fit for purpose. As Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I have enormous respect for the men and women of our law enforcement and other intelligence agencies, who work tirelessly to protect our nation.

But, when ASIO director-general Mike Burgess repeatedly raises concerns about our terrorism threat warning system, the government has a responsibility to listen and to act. Instead, what we've heard from the Albanese Labor government is crickets. Australia's deteriorating security environment should concern every member of this place.

On 14 December last year, 15 innocent Australians were murdered in the horrific terrorist attack at Bondi. Since that atrocity, Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted a further 20 terrorist plots, including four assessed as major imminent threats and another 16 serious but less imminent plots. Twenty plots have been disrupted, and yet Australia's national terrorism threat level remains at 'probable'.

Australians are entitled to ask whether that setting adequately reflects the threat environment we now face. Australia's national terrorism threat level was lowered to 'possible' in November 2022 before being raised to 'probable' in August 2024, as our security environment deteriorated. Under the current framework, 'probable' means there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore terrorist attack or attack planning within the next 12 months.

The next level, 'expected', applies where intelligence identifies a specific threat. But what happens when the security environment continues to deteriorate? Plots are repeatedly disrupted and threats become increasingly difficult to predict.

At what point does 'probable' stop adequately describing the danger Australians face? That is the question I've been asking publicly for several weeks, and this government must answer it. Mike Burgess has raised concerns about whether the existing terrorism threat framework adequately reflects Australia's changing security environment.

I want to be absolutely clear. I'm not suggesting politicians should determine Australia's terrorism threat level. That responsibility must remain with our intelligence professionals, who make assessments based on the intelligence available to them.

But there is an important distinction between determining the threat level and determining the framework within which those assessments are made. ASIO determines the threat level; the government is responsible for ensuring the framework remains fit for purpose. If the definition of 'expected' cannot adequately capture a deteriorating threat environment without intelligence about a specific attack, then surely that framework deserves closer examination.

Yet, despite repeated warnings, the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, has failed to demonstrate the urgency that this issue deserves. This is not about creating fear or unnecessarily expanding the powers of our intelligence agencies. It is about ensuring our agencies have the legislative powers, resources and threat assessment framework to identify, investigate and disrupt terrorism before Australians are harmed.

Any changes to intelligence powers must be necessary, proportionate and subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I understand the importance of getting that balance right. We must protect Australians from terrorism while safeguarding the freedoms and democratic principles that make our country worth protecting.

But doing nothing in the face of a changing threat environment is unacceptable. I'm calling on the Albanese government and Minister Burke to urgently announce a change to Australia's national terror threat framework—one that is fit for purpose, one that deals with the threats that we are currently facing in the ever-deteriorating world in which we live.