EXTREMISMBenbrika Case Shows Australia in Danger of Complacency About Violent Extremism

By Justin Bassi and John Coyne

The fact that convicted terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika is being released from jail should be of concern to all Australians. Alarmingly, it’s happening without the court system even being asked to consider a continuing detention order.

Just three years ago, the home affairs minister asked the Victorian Supreme Court for a continuing detention order, a vital last-resort measure that enables a convicted terrorist to be kept behind bars after they’ve finished their sentence, on the basis that they continue to pose ‘an unacceptable risk’ of committing further terrorist crimes.

The court agreed, deciding Benbrika posed an unacceptable risk. So what has changed in three years?

Is it possible that Benbrika has reformed such that any risk he poses is now acceptable? That seems highly unlikely, but if a new assessment has found that the risk has fallen, the government would at the very least need to explain that shift to ensure public confidence.

So what else has changed?

First, the governance arrangements, with the decision to seek a CDO shifting from the Home Affairs portfolio to the Attorney-General’s portfolio.

Second, the strategic and security environment. A few years ago, we were at the height of the Islamic State threat and there was enormous awareness of the risks of terrorism. The terror threat level in Australia was high, with terrorists planning attacks in and against Australia.

By 2022, the terror threat level was reduced from probable to possible. IS was degraded with its control over land in Syria and Iraq removed and capabilities severely reduced. The risk since last year, however, has been an increasing perception that the terror threat was not just temporarily reduced but had faded completely—even though the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, Mike Burgess, was at pains to say that wasn’t the case.

And we have made this mistake before.

The January 2013 national security statement effectively said the era of terrorism was behind us. Yet, within the year, IS had risen.

The terror threat level was raised and we reached the alarming realization that the security law framework wasn’t adequate for this new era.

The control-order regime—allowing authorities to put special monitoring arrangements on people of concern—was updated multiple times and new laws were introduced, including the continuing detention regime.

Of course, CDOs are a measure of last resort. The basic principle of justice is that criminals who complete their sentences are released, having received their punishment and, hopefully, a chance at rehabilitation.