Attorney-General George Brandis. Photo Allan Reinikka / The Morning Bulletin
Attorney-General George Brandis. Photo Allan Reinikka / The Morning Bulletin Allan Reinikka

Australians can no longer ignore global threat of IS

AUSTRALIANS can no longer "bury their head in the sand" over the global threat of Islamic State, Attorney-General George Brandis said on Wednesday.

Senator Brandis made the comment on Channel Nine after the deaths of 129 people at the hands of IS terrorists in Paris last week.

Official travel advice for Paris for Australians was changed to "reconsider your need to travel" to the French capital due to a "very high threat of terrorist attack" on Wednesday.

Two flights from America bound for Paris were diverted because of security threats and a German football stadium was evacuated on the same grounds on Tuesday night (local time).

Despite United States President Barack Obama's reluctance to commit more ground troops to IS conflicts in Syria, Sen Brandis said "we have to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our civilisation".

President Obama met Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday with the prospect of ground forces unlikely, but French-led air strikes were likely to grow.

Mr Turnbull said in Manila what was needed in Syria was a "pragmatic settlement as soon as possible".

Sen Brandis also defended the government's national security agenda ahead of expected parliamentary debate next week on controversial laws to strip the Australian citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism.

He told Channel Nine the five tranches of national security laws already passed or proposed would be kept "as fit for purpose as they need to be", despite wide concerns among legal and civil liberties groups.

Laws introduced a week ago in parliament that would extend the "control order" regime to 14-year-old children and allow state police to use surveillance devices without a warrant, sparked fierce reaction from human rights groups.

But Sen Brandis defended the laws as "not over-reaching", saying rather the public needed to "recalibrate their attitudes" and "reconsider where the right balance between protection and personal privacy lies".