Experts have responded to ASIO's lifting of Australia's National Terror Threat Level with a clear judgement – the government doesn't want to be radical about terrorism.
On Monday 5 August, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and ASIO Director-General of Security Mike Burgess announced the raised 'Probable' Threat Level means that there is a greater than fifty per cent chance of an onshore attack or planning in the next twelve months.
They attributed youth radicalisation and the spread of extremist ideologies as key driving factors to the nation's trend toward political violence. However, expert commentary reveals the government is misguided in their understanding of extremism and radicalisation.
Dr. Sara Meger, an expert in the field of international security and gender in international relations believes that the solution to addressing the rise in violent extremism in Australia requires a deeper understanding of the role misogyny plays in fuelling it.
She identifies that Albanese and Burgess are "having to confront the fact of this misogyny in society, given the extreme rates of domestic violence, and especially intimate partner homicides we're seeing this year."
ASIO’s decision to raise the Terror Threat Level follows advocacy groups’ efforts to push the government to declare a ‘national crisis’ over violence against women in April, with one woman being killed every four days.
Meger's policy report, "Misogyny, Racism and Violent Extremism in Australia", which was sent directly to Burgess, found that gendered and racist attitudes are significant yet overlooked drivers of support for various forms of violent extremism. The report revealed that over 50% of Australian men hold hostile sexist attitudes.
"It tells us that actually, [misogyny] is way more socially, societally widespread than we like to think."
She identifies the government's approach to addressing Australia’s widespread misogyny is to avoid confronting the systemic roots that generate these hostile attitudes.
“If they were to, we might have to actually look at some of these attitudes held by a number of our parliamentarians.”
The relationship between misogyny and violent extremism, alongside rising terror threats and increasing rates of violence against women leaves Meger sceptical about how the government understands violent extremism in this country.
Scepticism of the government's framing of extremism is shared by Professor Tony Coady, an Australian philosopher of political violence. He warns of the danger in vilifying ideologies that fall outside the mainstream centre. Terrorism isn't ‘bad’ because it is radical or extremist, he argues, but because of the violence it seeks to impose. Stripping away the political jargon that clouds these terms, Coady explains that an extremist political view simply diverges from the centre, while being radical means "getting to the root of the problem”.
Coady challenges the idea that being in the political centre is inherently rational, pointing out that views often shift from the extremes to the mainstream—such as women's suffrage, which was once considered a fringe idea.
He argues the Albanese Government should not blame political violence solely on extremism but instead focus on the broader ideological and societal motivations driving these violent acts.
On Monday, Burgess stated that the "escalation of the conflict in the Middle East has fuelled grievances, promoted protest, exacerbated division, undermined social cohesion and elevated intolerance."
In a similar sentiment, Albanese stated that Australia's "social cohesion cannot be taken for granted, it must be nourished, and it must be cherished as a national asset".
However, according to Coady, social cohesion itself can be problematic.
"If you're keen on democracy, which I rather am, and various freedoms of expression and speech, then you shouldn't be so keen on social cohesion as such.”
"We can't ignore the possibility that Mr. Burgess is not only keen to protect us, but keen to make sure that ASIO has a very good government budget, an improved one, and that it's elevated in the public perception."
On the issue of terrorism, the government isn't "getting to the root of the problem", as Professor Coady puts it. While lifting the National Terror Threat Level has been marketed as a vigilant and proactive measure, ASIO has not confronted the deeper forces driving violent extremism.
As both Meger and Coady suggest, a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to addressing violent extremism is possible – one that addresses the widespread societal attitudes that fuel political violence and reassesses how our security agencies understand terrorism. Without this shift, ASIO may deepen the violent attitudes it seeks to mitigate.