Anthony Albanese in clear of gross failure over AFP’s failure to brief him on caravan plot, but questions remain

Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton in question time on Wednesday. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

That Anthony Albanese was not told of the mass casualty potential of the explosives-laden caravan found in Sydney on January 19 has cleared the Prime Minister of the charge of a gross failure of national security.

Relying on arguments about strict protocols and triggers of “no imminent threat” for not informing the Prime Minister, the police and security agencies have provided Albanese with an excuse for not acting.

While Albanese has repeatedly refused to say when he was told about the caravan, with enough explosives in it to cause a blast zone 40m, it is now clear he was not told until 10 days after police became aware of the explosives and had briefed NSW Premier Chris Minns.

Minns has confirmed publicly he did not tell Albanese and that it was not raised at a national cabinet meeting – briefed by the AFP – after the firebombing of a childcare centre in Sydney.

But Albanese is not off the hook when it comes to responsibility for a security failure because the question remains as to what he did to address the massive intelligence communications failure of the Prime Minister not being told for 10 days about potentially the biggest mass casualty bombing in Australia.

Not even Peter Dutton has claimed Albanese knew about it and did nothing.

But there are legitimate security and political questions now about whether the long-term “protocols” Albanese has accepted are still appropriate, whether the security agencies in the middle of a violent anti-Semitic campaign should have told the PM and if there are broader strategic questions to be asked about how the system worked.

There is also a clear issue of tensions within and between police forces and divisions of security responsibility requiring review and reform, as has occurred in the past.

If the bomb had been detonated and lives lost, there would be an entirely different perspective on the actions taken between January 19 and 31.

The aim of the explosives and Jewish target list could have been just to cause terror – which it has – but there could have been much worse.

The property at Dural in Sydney’s north west where the caravan containing explosives was relocated to before the discovery. Picture: Jeremy Piper

Albanese’s refusal to say publicly when he was briefed about the terror caravan because it could have endangered “ongoing investigations” doesn’t hold water because it was already public and Minns had no qualms on saying when he was briefed.

What’s more, Albanese’s vigorous defence of the police and security agencies and their decisions not to tell him drew him into accepting that not telling federal leaders about the existence of an explosives-laden caravan was the correct intelligence and security decision. He could have answered the first question about when he knew by saying he had not been informed, it wasn’t acceptable in the circumstances and he was seeking a review of what happened and what needed to change.

Loyally accepting the agencies’ argument is a huge gamble for Albanese, who stands to lose politically if the dominant view emerges that the federal government at a time of an acute national security event should have been informed.

Mr Albanese in question time on Wednesday. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

There are arguments that even at a time of no surge of violent anti-Semitic activity the discovery of a caravan full of explosives with a list of RSL clubs or corporate headquarters would have been considered a national threat and the Prime Minister immediately informed.

Albanese can still decide to call an inquiry – indeed, some are expecting it – to seek necessary strategic change but, once again, a straightforward answer last week would have headed off a political distraction and demonstrated he was aware of the import of intelligence decisions, not simply just supporting the agencies.

The argument that the “protocols” are longstanding does not protect Albanese from the charge that he has not asserted his authority and sought to ensure necessary strategic changes are made.