No worries? What Australians think about security, risk and resilience
Transcript
Why do Australians place peaceful and safe communities above more traditional security priorities?
Why are AI-enabled attacks, economic crises, supply chain shocks and disinformation rising above more conventional threats in public concern?
Why do many Australians want more transparency and information from trusted agencies, while also feeling overwhelmed by the information environment?
Why do so few Australians think the country is fully prepared for major threats, and what does that preparedness gap mean for government and industry?
In this episode, Rory Medcalf, Tom Rogers and Tim Wilford join Sally Bulkeley to discuss the findings of NSC’s Community Consultations Report – Australia's first comprehensive research report, examining Australian attitudes to national security, and perceptions of risk and resilience.
Transcript
(This transcript is AI-generated and may contain inaccuracies.)
Rory Medcalf
For me it's that combination of issues. It's that cluster of disinformation, AI attacks, economic crisis, supply shocks, threats to the cohesion of society.
Tom Rogers
I think if we want to really engage citizens with this, it's about how we talk to them and the language we use. And I think one of the things is first of all, try and align our national security language with citizens lived experience somehow.
Tim Wilford
I think an implicit understanding across many of the different, I guess, regions, groups, and individuals we spoke with, that everybody's got a part to play.
National Security Podcast
You're listening to the National Security Podcast, the show that brings you expert analysis, insights and opinion on the national security challenges facing Australia and the Indo-Pacific, produced by the ANU National Security College.
Sally Bulkeley
Welcome to the National Security Podcast. I'm Sal Bulkeley, Deputy Head of ANU National Security College. And today's podcast is being recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. And I pay my respects to the elders past and present. This week, the NSC has publicly launched Australia's first comprehensive research program, examining Australian attitudes to and perceptions of national security, risk and resilience. The NSC has embarked upon a journey of discovering Australian perceptions through 20,000 survey respondents, pictures really 400 plus interviews and 100 submissions. This report was released at the 2026 NSC Conference, a conversational platform that continues to elevate Australian voices on national security, highlighting national opportunities for whole of nation thinking and action on securing our Australia.
Today I am delighted to introduce our special guests who have supported the NSC's Community Consultations Initiative. Professor Rory Medcalf, Tom Rogers and Tim Wilford, all important members of our Community Consultations Expert Group. Professor Rory Medcalf is the head of NSC with more than 30 years of experience across diplomacy, intelligence analysis, think tanks, academia and journalism. including as founding director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute and with the then Office of National Assessments and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and has been head of the NSC since 2015. Tom Rogers is the former Australian Electoral Commissioner, serving from 2014 to 2024. He is a member to the Advisory Board for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the Electoral Psychological Observatory at the London School of Economics. Tim is the Director of the Community Consultations Initiative at the NSC, with more than 15 years experience across communications, media, engagement and policy. Through this initiative, he led Australia's first comprehensive program examining Australians' attitudes to security risk and resilience. Rory, Tom and Tim, welcome to the National Security Podcast.
Rory Medcalf
Great to be here Sal
Tom Rogers
Fantastic to be here.
Tim Wilford
Thanks Sal
Sally Bulkeley
Rory, if we could start with you first. This report was consulted more than 20,000 Australians and hundreds of community voices. What prompted the idea to ask the public directly about national security?
Rory Medcalf
Well, I've been working this space for a while, perhaps too long as your introduction might suggest. And what I've seen over the last few years in particular, and really over the decades, is that there is a gulf, there is quite a large gap between what the so-called national security community knows and thinks, those of us who work in policy, in government, in intelligence, in really trying to protect the nation from risks and threats, and the conversation among the broader public. And look, maybe that was okay once upon a time, maybe it wasn't. It's never been a hugely democratic thing in my view. But if you look at the threats and risks that the world is facing today and that Australia has been facing for a number of years, issues to do with the intersection of economics and security or technology, climate, social cohesion, so many of the risks and threats that we face now involve people and they involve the community very directly. So our sense was let's find out what the community thinks, this wonderfully diverse and dispersed nation of Australia. And let's draw an accurate responsible evidence-based picture of that so that policymakers and leaders can frame policy with more awareness. That's really the starting point.
Sally Bulkeley
Thanks Rory and Tom you've been on this journey before I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the journey itself and having heard Rory's thoughts about the genesis of this community consultations initiative what was some of the learnings you had along the way?
Tom Rogers
It's interesting, I think I'm reflecting back on my engagement with Rory when I was still Commissioner all those years ago and we had long discussions about the evolving nature of national security and how it was a much broader concept than traditionally we thought, and I think what we've seen with the results here and you know my involvement in the process itself is that that's exactly what citizens think as well. I think in many ways this was actually a pretty sophisticated group of citizens who responded. And you can see that they are very conscious of these issues and the very broadening nature of national security. I'm not sure that was a surprise so much as just a revelation really, that they really are quite sophisticated in how they view that.
Sally Bulkeley
And with that revelation, Tom, I can move on to Tim, the title asks, no worries. What does that phrase capture about Australian attitudes today?
Tim Wilford
Well, people have probably heard Rory talk about security ultimately meaning no worries and you know it's something that Australians would certainly understand and be familiar to them. But when we've gone and actually through our research which has used many different, I guess, methodologies, we've found out that actually there is a bit of a question mark about how worried and what Australians are worried about. When we ask them, how worried are you about national security specifically, In November of 2024, we found that 42 % of Australians agreed that they were worried about national security and fast forwarding to this year, February of this year, to be precise, 64 % of Australians now say that they're worried about national security. And so it also bears out in some of the other research we've done, which we'll probably get into in this conversation around when we're talking to Australians about specific threats, they also have quite elevated levels of concern. So I guess going back to this idea of, you know, security being about without care or no worries as Australians would probably say, there really are, I think, questions around that idea.
Sally Bulkeley
Yeah, thanks Tim. I think before we get into the facts and the figures, I'd be interested to hear from each of you what surprised you most as we went through our outreach journey and as we received the outcomes of our surveys and submissions. Rory, it would be great to start with you first.
Rory Medcalf
Yeah, again, I'm careful about using the word surprise because, know, instinctively I assumed that there was a lot of common sense in the Australian community. And as I said, we have this very diverse community, so vast range of different backgrounds. And when you follow a lot of what's happening in the country, you know, some fragmentation and polarisation of opinion. But there are things that people agree on. And I think what I was pleasantly surprised to see is that in security there are things that broad cross-sections of the community agree on. We'll go to the theme later perhaps of peaceful and safe communities as an overwhelming priority and that I believe cuts across ages, locations, migrant background, other demographics. but also the maturity of the threat awareness. Tom's use of the word sophistication and I think we can be pleased and reassured that the Australian population actually wants to be engaged on these issues and is thinking very logically and coherently about everything from supply chain risks to the plausible risks of conflict or threats to social cohesion, terrorism and so forth. And even if their answers are not always perfect in some kind of, you know, intelligence community analytical sense, as an aside, maybe they are frankly as good as or better than some of the assessments inside government. We don't know that, but certainly when you give people the tools to think about risks in a structured way, they will do it, they will engage and it reflects I think a lot of the intuition, the common sense of Australians across the community as a democratic citizenry.
Sally Bulkeley
Thanks, Rory. And Tom as a recent government official, having been Electoral Commissioner. Do you have a different view in relation to, I think, where government's perceptions are in relation to the community's views on national security versus where you are today and the journey you've been on?
Tom Rogers
I think as we said before, I think for me this whole process has reinforced some stuff that Rory was just talking about there about perhaps how the insider group, the sort of national security community view this issue and also the language we use as well. And I was reflecting this morning talking with Rory and Tim that I think that the kind of national security community has over the years thought about Australia's national security from the border out. It's been a very important part of what we do. When I think about this survey, for me, the community are telling us that they see national security from their front door out. And they're very aware of the border and they want to be involved in that and there's some quite sophisticated takes on it. But it was an interesting thing that we have a slightly different view of what national security is and that supports this approach of it being a very broad construct and we need to think very broadly. So the community are reflecting that back to us and that I'm not sure it was a surprise again just to reflect Rory's language but it was certainly a reinforcement and in some ways a revelation as well.
Rory Medcalf
And can I just add that often people didn't use the word security or intuitively react positively to the term national security and that's fine. I'd be very happy for us to have this conversation without saying the word security at all even though this is the National Security College. But people do think about preserving the good things of life in Australia, you know, the continuity of life which we might get to. And I think going to Tom's point as well, you we live in an age where, I looking around this studio here I can see at least three mobile phones, even if the reception is terrible in here. The border is with us. We are all carrying the border around with us every moment of every day. are millions and millions of, if you like, threat surfaces and surfaces for opportunity with the world. And so I think the public is still processing what that means for the security and the continuity of everyday life.
Tom Rogers
And I think, just to go further on that, when you read through the results of the report, what the community are doing when they look at threats and what they think is important, they're prioritizing their day-to-day lived experience rather than possibly a once-in-a-lifetime event. And it's just an interesting process, I think, we've been through with that.
Tim Wilford
I think one thing that surprised me Sal to your question is, you know, gathering the survey research while it is foundational to the reports that we're putting out, the community engagement was the part that I expected to be difficult and to some extent it was. But it is equally I think, one of the most important elements to all of this work. Going into it, I expected, you hear this term of consultation fatigue, and when you start emailing people, cold calling people and saying, look, I'm from the National Security College, at the Australian National University. We'd love to sit down with you and talk to you about what you think about national security and risk and resilience. Naturally, there's a pause on the other side of the phone line and people are sort of thinking in their head, what's all this about? Then when we were on the road and we sort of had built that trust and were able to have really deep conversations with people. It was really interesting and I think surprising to some extent to see after the first minute or so when we'd talk about some of the issues that we were interested in hearing their views on, how people would light up and a light bulb would sort of go on and they'd really see that they had a lot of experience to contribute. And more often than not, the teams that we would send out on the road would have to be wrapping up the conversation well before people were done.
Sally Bulkeley
Absolutely.
Rory Medcalf
And can I just add some interesting places too right I mean on the road and Sal and others went to some pretty extraordinary parts of the country but let's get back to that.
Sally Bulkeley
The experience was incredible. Having so many different types of socioeconomic, socio-demographic areas as well as geographic. I just wanted to reflect a bit on what was just said. I like the analogy of door out, Tom, and I think that's something that absolutely resonated. And Rory, I'm going to try my best not to use the term security for the rest of this podcast. But also, Tim, I completely appreciate and acknowledge that the people that we encountered along the way across Australia definitely knew more about security than they thought. Interestingly, without using the word security, one of the greatest findings is that Australians prioritise safe and peaceful communities above traditional national security. And Tom, I'd like to start with you first on that. Why do you think that is?
Tom Rogers
I think this is a global trend, I think that we're seeing people again who are focused on their lived experience, what impacts on them day to day, and these are significant issues for them. This is something we're seeing globally. Some of the findings of the community consultation, I think, are reflected globally and other not so comprehensive surveys, but similar things. People are really worried about those day-to-day issues. I was just reflecting this morning, there was a parliamentary inquiry in the UK. I think this week or last week and one of the individuals from fact check UK who appeared said that democracy isn't going to die in the darkness but rather in the blue light of a million backlit screens as people are worrying about things and looking online. So these are common experiences we're having at the moment.
Sally Bulkeley
And I think that takes us nicely to the next question. For you, Tim, the report showed Australians are most worried about AI enabled attacks, economic crises, supply chains and disinformation. Why are these issues rising above traditional threats? I'd just like to acknowledge, I think, as part of that question, the vulnerabilities of the digital environment, which came up again and again along our roadshow over last year. Really interested in your thoughts on that.
Tim Wilford
Look, I think, you I'll take my best stab at why these issues are certainly percolating to the top. I think, you know, from a few data points where we've seen peaceful and safe communities are certainly a top national priority from Australians, we've seen that they see the peaceful continuity of everyday life as a really organising principle that helps them, I guess, conceptualise a lot of these issues they're facing. I think, you know, in my mind, it makes a lot of sense that these risks or issues or threats, you know insert your word here. I think are seen and experienced and potentially discussed amongst families, communities and workplaces as the experiences that they are seeing on a day-to-day basis. You know, it might sound hyperbolic, but I think, you know, Australians are well and truly on the front line in many domains when it comes to national security, whether we're talking about disinformation, whether we're talking about the impacts of climate change, and, you know, many economic impacts that are associated with things happening elsewhere across the globe. And so I think in my mind, you know, in some ways it is not too surprising to see some of these issues as being the most, I guess, thought about, the most worried about. And I think when it comes to people's level of concern, and we might get to this later on in the conversation, I think where people have a gap or a question mark in their mind, and this comes back to your question about no worries, I think where they have a question in their mind about, you know, their agency in responding to some of these challenges, or what is being done in their name to respond to some of these challenges. I think that's where these issues at being certainly at the forefront isn't too surprising to me.
Sally Bulkeley
Yeah, thanks Tim, Rory great to hear your perspective on that as well.
Rory Medcalf
Well, think that the, firstly, the set of risks and threats that we've outlined in these reports, there were a combination of issues that we brought to the attention of the public and the issues that really came to the surface in focus groups and interviews and so forth. So we have to be a little bit careful that we haven't put words in people's mouths and I'm pretty confident that we didn't do that. The threats like, I think you mentioned for example, you know, the use of artificial intelligence, sort of weaponised to harm the interests of Australians. We also saw that very conflated with cyber security threats in general and so we ran an extra round of survey February of this year just before we concluded the project to test that and of course it turns out cyber-attacks and AI enabled attacks are both at the top of the list. They're both about the sort 78 % of Australians treat these as serious threats. But for me it's that combination of issues. It's that cluster of disinformation, AI attacks, economic crisis, supply shocks, threats to the cohesion of society. You know, we've got some really interesting data in there about violent extremism and terrorism and so on. If you start to cluster a lot of those threats in groups of issues that overlap and affect each other and I think Tom would be the first to say disinformation and the sort of degraded media environment, the degraded information, you know, who to trust, what to trust. Runs through all of those other threats. That set of threats that we identified through our nominated threat lists in the survey work was echoed and amplified in a lot of what people volunteered to us in the conversations.
Sally Bulkeley
Tom, if we can draw that thread a little further. You know, we're talking about participants that express strong interest in security agencies providing a source of truth or a reliable source of information. We look at the likes of the AFP commissioner or the Australian Crime Intelligence Commissioner or the head of ASIO in their inaugural addresses now and people are feeling more comfortable with the information that's provided to them. But the report does suggest that many Australians feel overwhelmed by information, yet they want transparency. How do you explain that tension?
Tom Rogers
Look, it is complex. I was reflecting this morning, it seems to me that if you read the report that people seem to trust agencies that do stuff rather than talk about stuff. That might be inadequate, but that's kind of my summary. And so where you get operational agencies that are respected at doing an important job in the national security sphere, they do carry with them a degree of gravitas that people respect. And I think if we want to really engage citizens with this, it's about how we talk to them and the language we use. And I think one of the things is first of all, try and align our national security language with citizens lived experience somehow. To try and make it more connected in any case and more real for what they're doing. And I think if we were looking for a slogan, I think what I read in this is that citizens want things simplified, not amplified. So they're not saying don’t want any information. They would like information from trusted sources in a way that they can comprehend and can access. And I think there's a message there for all of us involved in the kind of security ecosystem to make sure that we're actually engaging with these individuals, the way they want to be engaged. Rory might have a view.
Rory Medcalf
No, that makes a lot of sense. I think we've got information, particularly from our focus groups, on the perceptions of agencies, as opposed to the perceptions, frankly, of the political class and the mainstream media for that matter. And the Australian Signals Directorate, ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, actually will get very positive mention as trusted and as trusted communicators. And the lesson I take from that, when coupled with the language about suspicion towards political actors, because political actors whether it's government or opposition or others, potentially will, I guess spin national security information for electoral advantage. Is that I think the public would be comfortable with a bit less risk aversion from political leaders and government leaders to allow agencies to communicate in a direct, simple way with the community about security and risk issues.
Sally Bulkeley
Tim do you have something further to add on that.
Tim Wilford
Definitely, I think it speaks to something we've been talking amongst ourselves about earlier this week as we sort of finalise the report. And that is the sort Goldilocks approach to information sharing. So three perspectives that came through very clearly in the focus groups that we conducted were, you know, one, this idea of more information is sort of fundamental to democracy. Second was those who found or thought that more information did have the risk of creating panic or hysteria and those people tended to see that these mission-focused agencies were doing the right thing in their name. And they certainly didn't say they didn't want more information, but they were very cognizant to the fact that more information could have unintended consequences if it's handled poorly. And then the third group were these, it was a smaller group I think, but it's not I guess representative of the full Australian population, but those who are deeply distrustful of institutions more broadly and see information and information sharing as ultimately a tool and in some cases people use the word weapon. So I think when it comes to this idea that there is a desire for greater information sharing when it comes to security threats in Australia and we know that because we heard 53 % of Australians said that they feel the Australian government shares too little information in this space.
Rory Medcalf
And how many said they are getting too much information?
Tim Wilford
I think it was 4 % if my memory serves correctly.
Sally Bulkeley
That must be the national security community
Tim Wilford
Well I think the important thing is that, you know, that is one thing to keep in mind. But on the other hand, we are certainly seeing that Australians have a, I guess a very, they're sensitised to the potential risks that are involved with information sharing. And so it's not an open the floodgate sort of approach in the whole from what we've heard.
Sally Bulkeley
Look, information sharing, as we all know, comes in different ways for different forms, particularly for generations or socio demographics, certainly social media for the generation alpha and generation Z. We see some of the digital publication forum for Gen X and the millennials and of course, traditional media as well, moving into the older generations. If we start to look at demographic differences, and we'll start with you first, Tim. The report highlights some major demographic differences. What stood out most to you?
Tim Wilford
Well, I think there's two different types of demographic data that I think is really interesting. The first is that the trends we've seen in the survey is that if you are older or if you are living in a rural or regional setting or if you have a lower formal education or are Australian born. On most of the metrics we tested, you will tend towards being more anxious or concerned about the range of issues we shared, but also national security. One of the only threats or issues that is not necessarily the case was the impacts of climate change. But interestingly, the other side of the of demographic findings that we found is that with this question about, are you worried about national security? In November of 2024, like I said, we started at 42% and older Australians had a much more elevated sense of worry when it came to the sort of abstract notion of national security. Fast forward to February 2026 and what we found are two key things. Number one, that the younger cohorts of Australians have significantly increased their worry around national security, although at least that's what they're telling us. So the floor is lifting on national security concern, but critically, where we've found several really interesting findings around the gender differences around a whole range of questions we presented to the Australian public. The thing that I find to be most interesting is in that question about worry about the abstract national security term, women have overtaken men in their worry. So in 2024, men were far more concerned about national security. And we also found that in the way men described national security in focus groups and sometimes on the road we found that there was this sort of gravitation towards the sort of military intelligence and the more traditional elements of national security. That seems to have shifted quite dramatically when it comes to women and their levels of concern and how they are now, I guess, thinking about Australia's security.
National Security Podcast
We'll be right back.
In this disrupted world. Australia needs security professionals more than ever. Join the next generation studying at the ANU national security College. Our programmes uniquely fuse academic knowledge with practitioner experience and fit around your lifestyle with study offered online and on campus. Follow the link in the show notes for more information about programmes and scholarships, the ANU national security College, engaging minds for a secure Australia.
Sally Bulkeley
Thanks, Tim. I mean, there's a large gender gap, as you mentioned before, in self-reported knowledge as well of national security. Could you elaborate further on the focus groups, revealing why that gap exists? And I'd be keen to hear Rory from yourself and from Tom as well. Particularly, we went out in outreach, there were people that we, of all demographics that we met. It'd be interesting to see if we can crack that nut on this one.
Tim Wilford
Definitely, and I should mention at the start, we certainly were in close consultation with our colleague here at ANU Elyse Stevenson. And I know she's done a lot of really important work in this space. But what we found on the question of how knowledgeable people feel about national security is that, you know, when we asked women, 23 % of women said that they felt knowledgeable about national security. And double that figure, when you ask men, reported that they were knowledgeable. But it doesn't stop there. When we when we talked about this.
Rory Medcalf
Is it just national security we're talking about here?
Tim Wilford
Yes, and then when we actually went and spoke to people in the focus groups, we found a recurring theme and that was that, you know, in the conversations where we, and we, I should mention, we had split all of the focus groups by gender, as that was one of the key demographic differences in the survey work. When we sat down and talked about national security and the issues that women were most concerned about from the survey work, you know, more often than not, they would sort of you know, talk down their ability to have any knowledge in this space, but we would spend the remaining hour talking about their really fine-grained, complex, you know, interesting ideas about the national security issues. Not that they would call them that, but that they were facing in their lives and that they see their communities dealing with, and also, obviously, that Australia is dealing with. When we sort of would probe into that question, many would say that they didn't feel like they had a place in discussing some of these matters and specifically around the term national security, that it was exclusive to some extent or that they didn't feel that they had the permission to enter this space. So some really pronounced differences there.
Sally Bulkeley
Rory if we can move on to what we're considering in the report as the preparedness gap. Certainly in the survey work that was undertaken recently, we did look at the likelihood, risk and consequence of a series of 15 security threats that we had identified. One of the most striking findings was that almost nobody thinks Australia is fully prepared for major threats. What do you think drives that perception?
Rory Medcalf
Well I think this is really the core of the report for me. I think it's actually the core of the project. So we set out to build a picture of what the community thinks about a whole range of risks and whether the nation and society is resilient enough to deal with those risks. And this is not just stuff that researchers or experts or national security officials are making up. We're clearly facing a world where there are multiple intersecting shocks and risks. You know, just as an aside Sal, the fact that several of the issues that over the last two years of this survey work, respondents identified as big concerns have effectively come to pass. So, you know, we're currently recording this at a time when there are economic shocks from a conflict overseas, where there's been a terrible act of domestic terrorism in Australia with a very international ideological connection, where technology is becoming increasingly a source of risk or perceived risk in the community. All of these are issues that the public identified throughout our consultations. So to pivot from that to the preparedness question. The preparedness question is really, in many ways, the accumulation of the question of what are you worried about? What are the consequences? What are the likelihoods? Because really, security is not about absolute safeguard against every risk at all times. The country would be well and truly broke. There's no way we could be fully prepared against every shock and would be subverting a lot of our freedoms, a lot of our economic well-being and a lot of the good things about living in a democracy. But security is about being prepared enough that you can face the future with confidence. And that's where I do think there's a high level of common sense in the public. People are not blind to the realisation that the world is changing very quickly, a threat environment is changing very quickly and we've spent a long time from government to government, no one government holds responsibility for this actively not being prepared for a lot of risks and shocks. That's my own view is that the public is broadly right on this issue to be concerned about preparedness. But being balanced about it, we also noted, and Tom, I note that in some of your commentary on this, you've pointed this out as well. It's not a case of the nation being not prepared, it's the nation being underprepared. And so the lesson is, can we improve the report card of public concern that this survey shows? I think that now goes to governments and decision makers across the board, and it's not only the federal government, it's state governments, somebody's asked me what about the business community, the business community is actually the front line with a lot of these issues. So I think the next steps is a national conversation with preparedness at its heart.
Sally Bulkeley
Taking that forward, Tom, I mean, Australians felt the least prepared for the threats they thought were most likely to occur, like AI or disinformation. There has to be some good news here somewhere. What are the implications for how government responds to that notion, whether it's policy or programs or investment or, does industry have a role to play?
Tom Rogers
I think industry absolutely has a role to play as Rory was just saying before but I think, it's really a complex issue and I just want to reflect on something we said earlier today that we're not telling government to do any particular thing with this report. It's just an important point to note. This is a resource for government rather than government should or business should do a particular thing. But to pick up on why people see these things and the whole issue of optimism versus pessimism. I think there's an issue that if people don't see themselves reflected in a policy, it's not going to land in any case. And it comes back to this bit about language that we've been using previously. And the whole thing about perception and being underprepared rather than unprepared. I think that for me, we've got to do two things. We've actually got to deliver. That's important. But also we've got to be able to communicate. And I do wonder in the past whether we've communicated without delivering and sometimes we've delivered without communicating and there's this gap. It creates a delivery gap and a perception gap. So I think one of the things we need to do is to think more broadly about that. The optimistic bit I think that as Rory was just saying and as Tim has said previously is that the results here are pretty sophisticated. I think they give a pretty good view that as we've been saying, citizens understand this actually in a fairly unique way and have a pretty good grip on what impacts on them and what they'd like to see in a national security policy. So this is a great resource to help all organs of government use that in some way positively.
Sally Bulkeley
I totally agree with you there, Tom. It was an incredibly comprehensive research study and one of the elements of that was of course community outreach. And Tim, it'd be great to hear from you throughout the consultations with our Australians. What role did you hear from our respondents on communities and how they see themselves playing in the national preparedness and resilience space?
Tim Wilford
Well, think earlier Rory talked about the sort of intersecting nature of a lot of these threats. And I think, you can't think about them without thinking about the different systems that we rely on as a country or as states or communities or just, you know, as households. And I think one thing that was abundantly clear when we were out on the road is that people get that. They see how these systems work or don't work, as the case may be. And so I think it was something where, in a way, going back to one of your earlier questions, I was also surprised about how grateful the people that we spoke to were at the end of the conversations we were having. In that we were showing that their perspective does matter and we wanted to hear it. One of the people we spoke to in a rural community talked about cockatoos coming and visiting and they described them as white vehicles full of people from Canberra who come and make a lot of noise and then disappear. And I think my,
Rory Medcalf
I didn't see that in the report.
Tim Wilford
and I'm assuming they mean the white cockatoo, sulphur crested and not the beautiful black ones, but in any case, I think what I would love to see off the back of this, and I know we have certainly committed to doing this, is making sure that we are not having these conversations and then forgetting that they ever happened. As a college, we certainly will be continuing engagement with those who trusted us and shared their views. But I guess my greatest hope is that this will go beyond the college and those communities and others will have an opportunity to not only share their views, but also help shape this important policy that we need.
Sally Bulkeley
Yeah, thanks Tim. Very uplifting. And I think we have many of our audience or listeners on the podcast who are policy makers. Tom, I'd love to start with you first. If policy makers could take one lesson from this report, what would it be?
Tom Rogers
Well, I think I'd like to leave two lessons, Sal, if that's okay. Can I subvert your question? Look, I think, first of all, about messaging, something that Tim just said, I learned a lesson when I was Electoral Commissioner about governments quite often think one message is enough. And I think that one of the big lessons for policymakers is persistence, because people are busy and there's a lot of information out there and we've got to have a consistent and persistent message that we're telling people and we've got to do that in a jargon free way to bring them on the journey with us with national security and kind of that broad definition. And the second one, and I don't want to kind of drift into a whole other area, is about investment. If I think about the national security infrastructure, we're still a little set up for a of 20th century definition of what national security is. And given what this report is showing, I think we need to think about how we're investing in national security and what are the sort of things that we want to get out of that. And that's perhaps a conversation that we'll tease out during conferences and other things, but it's an interesting area for me.
Sally Bulkeley
Thank you Rory, you have further to add?
Rory Medcalf
Look we deliberately didn't conclude this report with hard recommendations and I have strong views about preparedness for example but that can't happen overnight. There has to be a national conversation that prepares for it. So I would emphasise the focus on the need for national media literacy which is a call that's been made across all of the focus groups and many of the interviews we held and would have countered the disinformation threat that threads through a lot of the other threats. I would also go to a really interesting question about coordination between states, territories, the federal government and local government. And Tim, this goes to I know to the work you were doing at a local level. I was struck by a lot of the reporting that came back from those conversations with local government leaders. You know, and incidentally, the conference we've held to drive a national conversation on these findings, it's great to have local government represented. Mayors turn up and suddenly they realise they do have an interest in national security. So there's clearly been a call for a much more joined up approach across the levels of government which even opens questions like should there be people who work in local government who actually have security clearances so they can join that national approach.
Sally Bulkeley
Tim further to Tom and Rory’s sentiments here. What are your thoughts but more importantly about further research that could be done?
Tim Wilford
Well look I think, it probably sounds very counterintuitive when we're here at the National Security College on the National Security podcast talking about national security. I have taken away, one of the key things I've taken away from doing this work and, you know, co-authoring some of this work is that the importance of the local level in national pursuits. And I think going to what Rory was talking about there, it is, and I think just finishing the thought around systems that I was mentioning a bit earlier, if we are to successfully tackle a lot of these big meaty problems that we face as a country, it all can't be done at the national level. And I think there's a, I think an implicit understanding across many of the different, I guess, regions, groups, and individuals we spoke with, that everybody's got a part to play. And I think part of the challenge is working out how to grip that up, how the coordination works. And to Tom's point, the different and the nuance that's required when it comes to communication and communicating with different groups of people with different interests in certain spaces, but ultimately, you know, we all want to be living in peaceful and safe communities. So I think that's the main thing that I feel has come out of this and something that I think we'll be very keen to keep an eye on and pursue further.
Tom Rogers
And maybe just to add another bit on, Rory just mentioned media literacy, which is a glaring deficiency, not just in Australia by the way, but globally. And I think whatever we end up doing with that, and we will need to invest in it, it's where I was heading with that thing about investment, it might be delivered locally, but media literacy and our approach to this needs to be coordinated very strongly nationally. And that's, I think something that we will make a mistake if we don't do.
Rory Medcalf
Just adding to the local dimension as well. I think, you know, for me, this is kind of a full circle career experience working on this project with colleagues because I began my career as a small town journalist. And so I began my career as a small town journalist in Lismore back in the dim and distant 1980s. And as part of this project, you know, I went back to where I came from, if you like, to look at community resilience, you know, after the devastating floods that that community has experienced. but also to look at questions about community media literacy, the rise of the sovereign citizen movement, those kinds of risks. And it's very clear that there is actually a direct link between community resilience and national security or national resilience, however you call it. So if our project can help to, I think, build that as a constant national awareness for much more coordinated national responses, I think we'll all be better for it.
Sally Bulkeley
So Rory, with that in mind, what conversations about national security do you hope this report will start across Australia?
Rory Medcalf
Well I think that's kind of a self-answering question in a way. I think the conversations don't have to be about security for a start. I think Tim's point, and I was hoping you were going to say Tim, that we're at the National Security College but we're barking up the wrong tree when we're talking about security. Maybe we are, maybe the term national security is a bit off-putting for a lot of the community, but the concepts of the continuity of daily life, peaceful and safe communities, being able to face the future with confidence knowing that there is risk but as a nation we're engaging with that through an open conversation, I think that is the big takeout.
Sally Bulkeley
Tom?
Tom Rogers
I'd agree with Rory, that conversation moving just from a focus on security to a focus on resilience, democratic resilience and community cohesion, if we have additional conversations about that I think we'll be very well placed.
Sally Bulkeley
Thank you and Tim
Tim Wilford
Well, look, I think the final thing I'd say is 100 years ago, Walt Lippman wrote about public opinion being about pictures in people's heads. And I think what we've unearthed is a picture of those pictures in people's heads regarding security specifically. I think those pictures really do matter.
Sally Bulkeley
We've come to the end of the podcast. What an interesting discussion and the discussion won't end here, there will be more podcasts that we will preview on our community consultations work. Rory, Tom, Tim, thank you so much for joining me today on this conversation.
Rory Medcalf
And before we end Sal, I want to thank you for the last two years of your service as Deputy Head of the National Security College and the key role you played in driving this project.
Sally Bulkeley
Fantastic, thank you so much. To our listeners, if you're after further information on our community consultations initiative, please go to our NSC website or our podcast website and we'd love to hear from you. Goodbye.