Australia’s quiet counter-terrorism wins are being missed: That’s a problem

In early April, Victorian Supreme Court Justice James Elliot ruled that Abdul Nacer Benbrika – Australia’s most notorious terrorist and the architect of a planned mass-casualty attack on the Melbourne Cricket Ground in 2005 – continued to pose an “unacceptable risk” to Australians. Yet this ruling generated almost no media coverage or political commentary.

Australians live in one of the safest countries in the world, but they are vulnerable to a profound misperception: that terrorism is either a thing of the past or a threat that only matters in moments of crisis.

It’s easy to see why when updates to major terrorist cases such as Benbrika’s receive little public attention. Selective national attention undermines our understanding of risk, our confidence in the Government, and our preparedness for a persistent and evolving challenge.

Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Level remains at ‘Probable’. In other words, credible intelligence indicates that individuals or groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia. Yet counter-terrorism barely features in political discourse or media headlines unless there’s blood on the pavement.

Justice Elliot determined that while Benbrika appears to have adopted a non-violent ideology, any apparent change is recent and fragile. There is still a risk that Benbrika may radicalise others to religiously inspired violence.

Notably, the court placed further restrictions on Benbrika through a new extended supervision order (ESO), aiming to improve community safety and facilitate his rehabilitation. This demonstrated our comprehensive counter-terrorism system at work.

Celebrating successes

The media silence speaks volumes. In an era when the threat of terrorism has become more diffuse but no less real, the absence of meaningful public engagement is a dangerous gap in national security strategy. Australia must not only manage terrorism – it must do so visibly and explain its counter-terrorism actions.

Since 2000, Australia has developed one of the world’s most robust and nuanced counter-terrorism systems. Few nations have evolved such a sophisticated toolkit, from legislative frameworks to operational co-ordination.

This system enables post-sentencing controls such as continuing detention orders (CDOs) and ESOs – extraordinary legal mechanisms designed to manage high-risk terrorist offenders. But their use is rarely explained to the public, leaving them hidden in the bureaucratic background.

That’s a mistake. When it comes to maintaining community confidence, perception matters. If the public only hears about terrorism during moments of tragedy or controversy, fear is reinforced and trust is eroded. Communicating security successes, like the most recent ESO against Benbrika, helps build national resilience.

Post-sentencing controls are not punitive tools used recklessly. They are evidence-based, court-approved measures governed by rigorous legal thresholds.

In Benbrika’s case, the state has applied a CDO and multiple ESOs since 2020. These measures reflect a cold truth – some offenders may not deradicalise, or at least not in the timeframe required to ensure public safety.

The most recent ESO, imposed on 8 April, followed a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Despite earlier psychological assessments suggesting progress, Benbrika’s communications – uncovered through police surveillance – told a different story.

Police uncovered conversations with extremist associates; discussions of blasphemy, bullets and declaring others as infidels; and evidence that Benbrika had deliberately deceived his caseworkers. These all revealed a calculated attempt to mask continued radical intent.

While complicated by issues of due process, psychologist Andrew Ellis’s analysis concluded that a risk management approach, including an ESO, surveillance and an extended firearm prohibition order, remained necessary to address the risks Benbrika posed.

The Australian Federal Police provided evidence in court, including Benbrika’ s communications with criminal offender Joshua Clavell, his former co-conspirator Aimen Joud, and extremist preacher Wissam Haddad. The AFP findings were particularly damning and demonstrated the ongoing national security risks.

Building trust

The system is precisely designed to combine expert assessment and surveillance evidence – layering intelligence, expertise and legal oversight to ensure that liberty is only restricted when justified.

But this sophisticated response drew little attention. There was no ministerial press release, no media explanation of how Australia’s system protected the public without breaching human rights, and no effort to reaffirm to Australians that their safety is underpinned by one of the most mature counterterrorism regimes in the world.

This matters, because public safety is both real and perceived. If Australians are unaware of the capabilities quietly protecting them, they are more likely to feel vulnerable and susceptible to panic during hoaxes or misinformation events, such as the Dural caravan case in January.

Australia doesn’t need to just manage terrorism; it needs to explain how it does so. The Attorney-General’s Department, state governments and political leaders must start telling these stories – not to breed fear, but to build trust. The aim is not to politicise terrorism, but to create awareness that the system is functioning, adaptive and focused on prevention.

This communication gap is not new, but it is widening. The Wakeley church stabbing in April 2024 was a rare moment where the public was forced to reckon with the enduring reality of extremist violence.

In contrast, legal decisions such as Benbrika’s ESO go unnoticed, even though they reflect pre-emptive, legally sound and publicly beneficial action.

Political courage

Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy must go beyond intelligence and law enforcement to include strategic communication. When orders such as ESOs and CDOs are implemented, authorities should explain why the decision was made, how the process protects civil liberties, and what it says about the evolving threat landscape.

We have the legislative architecture and the operational capability. We now need the political courage to speak to the public – not only when things go wrong, but also when they go right.

Politicians and officials responsible for counter-terrorism should be transparent with the Australian public. They should clearly communicate the threat that actors such as Benbrika pose, while also providing confidence that countermeasures are in place.

Because the next time we face a real terrorist threat, it will not be enough to have done the work behind closed doors. The public must already believe that the system works, that the threat is being managed, and that national security is a shared responsibility – not a last-minute scramble.

If we fail to tell that story now, we risk losing the public’s trust when it matters most.

This article is republished from The Strategist under a Creative Commons Licence; you can read the original here.

Picture IOIO Images / Shutterstock