It should be clear to anyone involved in politics that the government wants to fight the next federal election on the issue of national security.
While suggestions the terror raids were connivances by the government are the stuff of conspiracy theories, you would have to be incredibly naive not to realise that the government is using the terrorism threats and events in Syria and Iraq for its own political ends.
To an extent there is nothing wrong with it – all political parties attempt to use events such as disasters for their own ends. That’s why in January 2013, during the floods in Queensland, Tony Abbott headed north and was seen helping fill sandbags.
The main concern is that while using these events for political purposes, they don’t get in the way or make things worse.
Such is the supposed greatness of this threat that, in Tony Abbott's words, “regrettably, for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift”. Only the wilfully ignorant would think these restrictions will be “for some time to come”. They will be for all time to come.
When it comes to war, these concerns are magnified. At times like these we need a strong media to hold a check on the government because the first casualty of war is always truth, and the second is freedom as governments use the crisis to rush through legislation.
Alas, what we have seen in the past week is many sections of the media shifting from attempting to offer some objectivity, to instead cheerleading for the government and becoming masters of hyperbole.
At present, any threat no matter how minor or vague or - in reality - common place is being hyped into the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation.
It’s not surprising to see politicians like the Attorney General George Brandis go down this route – he is using the events to sell his National Security Legislation Amendment Bill.
Senator Brandis argues that “there has been no time since the Cold War or perhaps even no time including the Cold War when the domestic threat posed by those who would do us harm has been so immediate, so acute and so present in the minds of our people”. You would hope some in the media might question such over-the-top rhetoric.
The prospect of terror attacks may be acute and present in the minds of people, but that doesn’t actually mean the threat posed now is as great as any time either since the Cold War or during it.
And to be honest, my guess is the threat was more present in people’s minds the day after the September 11 attacks, rather than the day after the death of an allegedly radicalised 18-year-old.
But even in the reportage of the alleged motives of Abdul Numan Haider we see the media failing to do its job. The Courier Mail on Thursday used the headline “Police kill Abbott Jihadi” (a phrase that actually makes no sense) and led the article with the line that he was “a teenage terror suspect who allegedly made threats against Prime Minister Tony Abbott”.
An emotive line - but police admitted he had made no direct threat against the Prime Minister and the best link they have is he had “researched” Tony Abbott’s travel movements, which, given the lack of details sounds suspiciously like he was Googling Tony Abbott’s travel plans.
None of this invalidates the actions of the police, who appear to have been in grave danger at the time of the shooting, nor does it mean Mr Haider was not intending to commit a terrorist act. But it does make you ponder how much we can trust sections of the media when they are guilty of over-hyping events which to be honest require absolutely no hyping and which are also still under investigation.
Is ISIL the biggest threat ever to Australia? It’s easy to claim such thing, and it is certainly in George Brandis’ interests for you to believe so given last week he argued for legislation which would enlarge the already broad scope of powers for security agencies to hack people’s computers, and also allow for journalists to be jailed for reporting about certain spy operations – even if there was a public interest in doing so.
Such is the supposed greatness of this threat that, in Tony Abbott's words, “regrettably, for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift”. Only the wilfully ignorant would think these restrictions will be “for some time to come”. They will be for all time to come.
Yet this week, when the US began airstrikes in Syria, it targeted not just ISIL but the Khorasan Group – a terrorist off shoot of Al Qaeda that the director of US National Intelligence James R Clapper Jr said “may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State.”
So, I guess there’s a new worst thing ever, worse than ISIL, which was worse than AL Qaeda, which was worse than Saddam Hussein, who was worse than ...
At the moment the ALP is providing qualified bipartisan support on the government’s actions – such as limiting it to actions in Iraq – and the government is welcoming the bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship was never a thing John Howard sought from the ALP on either Iraq or even Afghanistan. He knew he didn’t need it for his actions to appear in the national interest – or to go down well with voters. Tony Abbott however, with the reputation of a pure partisan animal, realised quickly that failure to stress bipartisanship would see the government’s response viewed purely as political connivances to shift talk away from the budget.
Yet this bipartisanship is a delicate beast. Both sides are hoping to use it for their own advantage, and both sides will hope it will show them in the best light come the next election. Despite the raids and the attention on national security, Tony Abbott remains unpopular and the government remains behind in the polls – if only slightly.
Abbott however knows this is his strength – he wants to be able to claim at the next election he stopped the terrorists, or is the best one to stop them, and leave the ALP with little to add except they supported him.
But there’s a many a slip between cusp and lip, especially when war is involved. Unfortunately, given the past week, don’t expect some sections of the media to notice any slips.
Share
