Over the last few months, Australia has witnessed the tragic Bondi attack, Wakely Church stabbing, Sydney University stabbing, and an alleged attempted terrorist attack on the offices of NSW MLA Tim Crakanthorp. Today, in response to Australia’s deteriorating national security environment, Australia’s terrorism threat level has been raised to ‘probable’—indicating that the level of risk of a terror attack is greater than 50 percent in the next 12 months.
While announcing the change, the government has been clear in not attributing this change to any singular threat or issue. Instead, it’s the result of expert assessments by ASIO and reflects several factors: the threat of lone actors; more Australians embracing a range extremist ideologies; and an increased willingness to use violence to advance their political, ideological or religious objectives. It may also be influenced by geopolitical events, including the Israel-Gaza conflict, and reflect recent international terrorist attacks.
ASIO has also confirmed that ‘politically motivated violence now joins espionage and foreign interference as our principal security concerns’. Importantly, this includes both terrorism and ‘any violent act or violent threat intended or likely to achieve a political objective including violent protest, riot or an attack on a politician or democratic institution’.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also voiced concerns about youth radicalisation, online radicalisation, and the rise of new ‘mixed’ ideologies, and the prevalence of these issues in other democracies.
These challenges were raised in ASPI’s recent submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Inquiry into Right wing extremist movements in Australia. In this submission, we recommended a shift from the ‘right wing’ label to more nuanced terms like ‘ideologically motivated violent extremism’ (IMVE), ‘religiously motivated violent extremism’ or ‘issues-specific grievances’, which were adopted by ASIO and the AFP in 2021. This change was made in recognition of the limits of a classification system based on the left-right political spectrum.
IMVE, RMVE and issue-specific grievances capture the drivers of radicalisation and violent extremism with greater detail, while also limiting the capacity for violent extremists to ‘legitimise’ their ideologies by aligning them with the mainstream political spectrum. The way government, law enforcement, and the public frame and speak about extremists and terrorists is important. It shapes public understanding and how government forms counter extremism and counter terrorism strategies.
ASIO’s concerns of increased political violence relate to a decline in social cohesion. ‘Toxic cocktails’ of violent ideologies and grievances are increasingly prevalent in Australia, and increased online accessibility and communication are enabling more exposure to violent extremist content. These risk factors are particularly concerning in the radicalisation of young Australians.
Violent extremists are using seemingly casual settings, such as social media and gaming platforms to expand their recruiting outreach. The use of such platforms expands their reach and can normalise extremist sentiments. Consequently, we are seeing increased youth exposure to extremist content with the eSafety Commission reports that 33 percent of young Australians have been exposed to online content promoting terrorism. ASIO has also warned of shortening timeframes for radicalisation and individuals planning or committing violent attacks.
In addition to raising the national threat level in response to the deteriorating security environment, the government must also enact new and carefully resourced whole-of-society policies to improve on social cohesion and national resilience.
Principally, the Home Affairs Department’s Strengthening Democracy Taskforce should expand support for community projects that promote social cohesion and amplify civic involvement. Greater collaboration with other departments, such as Department of Social Services, may also be needed.
With the rising prevalence of extremist content online, and young and other vulnerable Australians’ exposure to it, social cohesion is a pressing national security issue. Programs to improve social and economic participation, as well as programs to better protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and disenfranchisement, could be used to promote civic engagement, community cohesion, and curb anti-social tendencies or beliefs and reinforce our social and democratic values and healthy debate.
We must also grapple with ‘awful but lawful’ extremism: extremist beliefs that a reasonable person would consider ‘awful’, but which are not illegal. This does not include unlawful hate speech—where extremism turns to criminality, we must maintain a zero-tolerance approach. Law enforcement remains rightly focused on violent extremism, whereas ‘awful but lawful’ is a social cohesion challenge. Addressing the challenge in this manner aligns with our foundational democratic values.
As argued in our submission to the parliamentary inquiry, the government must be precise in its approach to extremism and terrorism, including precision in language. The practice of categorising violent extremism and terrorism within the left-right political spectrum commonly fails to capture the complex and diverse nature of modern-day extremism, and our security environment, limiting how we tackle and understand these issues. It is crucial to emphasise that de-centring the ‘left-right wing’ labels is not about absolving responsibility or downplaying the severity of the threats. Rather, by acknowledging, to a necessary level of granularity, the factors that contribute to the radicalisation and violent actions of individuals, we can ensure that our preventative efforts and responses are precise and fit for operational use.
The raising of the threat level should also not be a source of panic. As said by DG ASIO Mike Burgess, ‘probable does not mean inevitable’. Our successful managing of threats and social cohesion challenges will rely in part on Australia’s maintaining our informed approach at all levels of the government and society.
