A view behind a protective security agent (Getty Images Plus)

Without safety, everything else is built on shaky ground (Getty Images Plus)

Protecting pollies: How safety fears are reshaping Australian politics

Australia must address the growing security threats to politicians or risk deterring diverse, qualified candidates from public service.

Alex Goth

23 May 20254 min read

There’s a panic button under every MP’s desk. And no, it’s not for political emergencies. During the last Australian election campaign alone there were disrupted death threats and high-profile security breaches for both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton. Politicians’ staffers work behind locked doors, and their mail goes through extra security screenings.

Who in their right mind would want to run for public office?

If we can’t get bright, representative, dedicated neighbours to put up their hands as aspiring politicians, we all suffer. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump in the US presidential campaign last year underscored that democracies around the world are grappling with this problem. If Australia does not take steps to fix it the consequences will be felt for a generation.

I have seen this aversion up close and personal during my studies at Harvard University in the United States. For an institution that has produced more than 55 heads of states or government, and the highest number of US presidents, nobody seems to want to run for office. Of course, many of my classmates are curious about running – Housing, Homelessness and Cities Minister Clare O’Neil is just one alumna of the longstanding “From Harvard Square to the Oval Office” program that lets students explore their political aspirations. But the perception that the political path is no longer safe has become a deeply held belief – even among those already in office.

While Australia doesn’t have the same gun violence problem that America faces, this is not an excuse for inaction.

I’ve been in classes where governors and some of the most famous names in American politics (all of whom have police protection) tell students that they’re afraid for themselves, their families, and their staff. I wish I could tell you exactly who said what, but Harvard itself recently introduced a non-attribution policy in response to students and staff being doxed and threatened. The situation is worse for those from marginalised backgrounds: the largest ever study conducted on LGBTQ+ American political candidates found that nine per cent reported physical threats while on the campaign trail, and one in four had their families attacked.

So many of my experiences in America seem like they are from another world, but sadly this topic feels just like home. While Australia doesn’t have the same gun violence problem that America faces, this is not an excuse for inaction. Our parliament already struggles to attract the diversity that defines modern Australia: only 26% of the 47th Parliament had some non-English speaking ancestry. Asking people to expose their families to public attention has always been a hard sell; asking them on top of this to open them up to threats is another level.

Of course, important work to address this has been going on around the world. For example, the United Kingdom increased funding for Operation BRIDGER, a nation-wide security effort for politicians, after increased threats in early 2024. Its initiatives include allocating each MP and candidate a point-of-contact in their local constabulary. But for every 100 invisible successes, one visible failure can undermine confidence, especially for those embedded in their communities far from the capital.

If we want to encourage the best and brightest to put their hands up, government should take three steps to shore up confidence. The perception of safety is not just grounded on statistics showing disrupted attacks or declining threats. It is a function of human perception, and therefore a concerted response needs to target both the head and the heart.

First, we need to openly talk about what has been done well, and what more needs to be done. Both Australia and the United Kingdom conducted recent inquiries into parliamentarians’ safety, but these were behind closed doors. Operational security is important, but for a topic at the heart of our democracy we are owed a frank conversation. ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess’ approach to shining a public spotlight on how his organisation is responding to rising terror and foreign interference threats should serve as an example.

Second, our political parties must play a bigger role, especially during campaigning. Parties have the structures to implement at scale the latest security best-practices and educate campaign staff. They can also provide support and reassurance to early-stage candidates who are just entering the public arena.

Finally, we need to adopt a holistic view of family. Many protection structures focus on the principal and their immediate family. While this is grounded in the realities of protection, it does little to challenge perceptions of safety. Knowing that your home is secure means little when you’re worried about that of your parents’. While this doesn’t mean every politician’s mother-in-law should get AFP protection, having the resources to think about the larger family and offer tools to reduce harm vectors will go a long way.

We won’t improve safety overnight, and these actions on their own won’t get us there. Attracting political talent also means addressing our online culture, political polarisation, and the everyday realities of modern public life. But without safety, everything else is built on shaky ground. These steps are how we show the next generation that politics is still worth it.

About the author

Alex Goth

Alex Goth is currently a Master in Public Policy student at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where he is a Frank Knox Memorial Fellow.

Topics

Australia Intelligence & security