SPEECH TO THE AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE
Canberra
21 July 2009
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
First, may I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we meet on – and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present.
Gary Dawson, Vice President Communications, Thales Australia;
Major General Peter Abigail (Retd) – Executive Director, Australian Strategic Policy Institute;
Distinguished guests
It’s a great pleasure to be here – especially in such fine company.
There is a wealth of expertise here this evening – and I appreciate each of your contributions to strengthening Australia’s national security.
Let me state at the outset that any terrorist attack, wherever and however it may occur, is an attack on us all.
The Australian Government utterly condemns the shocking terrorist attacks in Jakarta last Friday.
Such events only work to strengthen our common resolve to bring the perpetrators of this attack to justice, and do all we can to disrupt and prevent terrorism.
Defining Violent Extremism
It is important to note that the risk of a terrorist attack to Australia may emanate from either foreign or domestically based threats.
While traditional military, law enforcement and intelligence approaches to countering terrorism will continue to remain paramount, addressing the long-term causes of terrorism is also vitally important.
In this context, it is relevant that tonight I have been asked to speak on the key challenges we face in addressing the complex national security issue of countering violent extremism.
The term ‘violent extremism’ generally refers to the use of violence to achieve political, social or ideological ends.
And this, of course, includes acts of terrorism.
It’s important to note here that not all ‘radical’ views or beliefs are necessarily a concern.
However, radicalism is a threat when it becomes extreme. That is, when it denies the possibility of alternatives and seeks to impose itself by force.
While only a small minority, violent extremists are active in our communities. Successful prosecutions in Melbourne and Sydney demonstrate this only too clearly.
There is no single pathway to violent extremism. But there are some key factors which appear to regularly contribute to extremism. These include reactions to overseas events, grievances with local and national issues, and individual circumstances such as poor education and socioeconomic factors.
In a recent book from the United Kingdom entitled, ‘The Islamist’, a former extremist Ed Husain (now a Director of The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank located in the UK) suggests that an identity crisis or feeling of exclusion, among other things, were contributing factors in his adoption of extremist views.
Our Strategy to Counter Extremism
Countering extremism is a national problem requiring a national response.
While there is no simple solution to countering extremism, I can assure you that addressing this threat is one of the Rudd Government’s top priorities.
The Prime Minister highlighted this in his National Security Statement to Parliament in December last year.
He spoke about how the effective mitigation of terrorist attacks requires a combination of appropriate security responses with broader strategies to enhance social cohesion and resilience and lessen the appeal of radical ideology.
Last year I discussed this issue with a number of officials in the United Kingdom. I also recently held talks with the Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister with responsibility for National Security, Professor Jayakumar, on enhancing social cohesion and resilience in order to lessen the appeal of extremist ideology.
There is already a lot of valuable work being conducted across the country to counter violent extremism. My Department has undertaken a useful stocktake of that work.
What has been lacking up to now, however, is effective coordination of that work, focussing on best practice with an over-arching strategic direction.
I have therefore tasked my Department to act as a ‘linchpin’ for bringing existing and new efforts together and to work in a coordinated way with Federal, State and Territory agencies on key projects.
This approach recognises that a strong partnership between all levels of Government is critical to success, and that any solutions must be ‘locally appropriate’ and implemented with the active support of local communities.
This national approach to countering extremism will form an integral policy ‘prevention’ mechanism in Australia’s national counter-terrorism strategy.
As a starting point, the Government has identified four key areas to focus on:
- Identifying and disrupting violent extremists;
- Identifying at-risk groups and individuals and supporting them to resist violent extremism;
- Maintaining the social cohesion and resilience of communities; and
- Using effective communications to challenge violent extremist messages and support alternatives.
I’d like to address each of these points in turn.
1. Identifying and Disrupting Violent Extremists
Where possible, our primary objective must be to disengage extremists from violence.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is uniquely placed to contribute in this regard.
ASIO can identify and engage with extremists, understand extremism, and counter extremist activities.
Already, ASIO is conducting a variety of activities to help identify individuals and groups intent on acting on extremist beliefs.
These range from constructive long term engagement with influential community and religious figures and associations, through to investigations relating to specific extremists or extremist threats.
In cooperation with the States and Territories, we are also looking into programs to help convicted violent extremists disengage from violence.
More broadly, in the coming weeks I will be releasing a significant package of reforms to Australia’s national security and counter terrorism laws for discussion and consultation.
As part of this, a range of reforms will be put forward for consultation including seeking public input in relation to an offence of, inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion or nationality.
Notably, this would expand the opportunity for prosecuting those who attempt to induce others, including vulnerable youths, to commit acts of politically motivated violence and will supplement the existing Commonwealth offence of inciting violence against a group.
2. Identify and Support Those at Risk
We also need to focus on targeted initiatives to identify those exposed to, or at risk of being influenced by violent extremists.
Only then will we be able to support them in exploring alternative pathways.
Experience from around the world indicates that enlisting and engaging families, communities and moderate religious leaders is crucial.
And, as noted by the Quilliam Foundation in the United Kingdom, many of these projects can and should occur independently of Government.
In many instances community members are often more readily able to recognise extremist behaviour and may indeed be more effective in combating those views before they take hold.
In relation to Islamist extremism, Ed Husain argued that:
‘It is Muslims who are able to recognise Islamist extremists most easily. Before extremists are on the radar of the intelligence community, we see the changes in modes of prayer, selective mosque-attendance patterns, modification of behaviour and of dress, an increasing harshness in attitude, and condemnatory rhetoric.’[1]
In my talks with various State police and community leaders, it is clear that the many communities themselves will and do address these issues.
I see centres for Islamic Studies at tertiary institutions as having a particular responsibility in this area.
At the federal level, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is also undertaking valuable work providing support to overseas communities to foster mutual respect and tolerance among different religions and cultures, and counter bias and misunderstanding.
This work can also have domestic benefits insofar as there is often ongoing communications between expatriates and their former communities.
3. Maintaining Social Cohesion and Resilience
Overseas experience has shown that extremists often use adverse political, social and economic conditions to recruit and motivate others.
In Australia, we already have a number of social policies in place – across all levels of Government – that are aimed at building trust, respect and a sense of belonging.
While many of these social policies are pursued for their own broader objectives, they play an important role in addressing grievances that stem from barriers to social and economic participation and help to counter violent extremism.
For example, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has a suite of social programs and initiatives that include settlement, cultural diversity, access and equity, and citizenship activities.
The National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security is a whole-of-government initiative that responds to pressures that Australian communities are facing as a result of global terrorist events since 2001;
The Diverse Australia Program addresses issues of cultural, racial and religious intolerance by promoting respect, fairness and inclusion.
These initiatives help promote a sense of identity and belonging among Australians, through strong and lasting partnerships between Governments and communities.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is also working to build positive, trusting and cohesive relationships with the community.
Through the National Community Engagement Strategy the AFP maintain community liaison teams in Melbourne and Sydney and engage with communities there and in other key locations through activities such as Harmony Day celebrations, sporting activities and presentations to schools.
A range of other agencies also provide services and programs designed to assist and support individuals and communities. These operate under the Government’s broad principles of access and equity.
At a State and Territory level, police, multicultural services, local government and community organisations all conduct a variety of activities to build social cohesion.
These groups are, of course, ideally placed to identify, implement and manage local solutions to what are often local problems.
Each of these agencies is doing great work to enhance trust, cooperation and respect between Governments and communities.
Only the other week, I caught up with some colleagues from a State police force. I heard about their plans to engage with schools and address extremism through education. These kinds of grass roots activities are first rate and are activities I hope to see more of over the coming year.
4. Use Effective Communications
Experience has shown that the language used to describe terrorism can be counter-productive.
Certain words have the potential to glorify terrorism and terrorists, while others can cause anxiety among Australians and create divisions within and between communities.
It is vital that the messages we send do not in any way glorify terrorism or suggest a war or clash between cultures or religions.
Instead we need to adopt language that depicts acts of politically motivated violence as base criminal conduct of the most reprehensible kind.
We must also be conscious of not alienating broad ethnic and religious groups by labelling them in a way that causes prejudice or leads to misunderstanding.
I was very pleased to recently announce the commencement of a national project to examine the use of language in engaging with communities on national security issues, including violent extremism.
Work on this project, the Lexicon of Terrorism, is being led by Victoria Police, in partnership with the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Australian Multicultural Foundation, and my Department.
This project will help Governments frame effective public information messages on national security issues by strengthening community harmony and disempowering potential violent extremists.”
Consolidating Research
In addition to progressing these four key areas, it is also critical we consolidate research and learnings from both here and around the world.
It is crucial that we continue to evolve our thinking in order to better understand the processes of radicalisation in Australia.
In doing so, we can ensure that our work is evidence-based and appropriate to Australian circumstances.
The Attorney-General’s Department has already conducted consultations with academics and community groups to build upon this research and I anticipate that this will continue.
The Department is also leading work to streamline mechanisms for communities and Governments to work more closely and share important information and intelligence. This will prove integral to better identifying issues in our communities and better informing counter-extremism initiatives.
I must also acknowledge the valued work of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in this area.
Excellent examples of which include Dr Bergin’s recent work, Contest Two and counter extremism: Lessons for Australia and Countering online radicalisation in Australia from ASPI’s Strategic Policy Forum.
Conclusion
The Australian Government remains committed to ensuring we have an efficient and effective framework in place to support Australia’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies in deterring, investigating, apprehending and prosecuting perpetrators of terrorism and threats to Australia’s national security.
Achieving a coordinated approach to combating violent extremism is a crucial part of this framework.
We need to continue to develop and deepen our engagement with at risk communities in order to support them to resist extremism as well as influence those who may already be affected by radical ideology.
It will also be necessary to take action against those who seek to induce others to commit acts of violence.
Together we can continue to do all that is necessary to keep Australia safe and strong.
Thank you.
[1] Husain, E “The Islamist” Penguin Books, London 2007, p.278.
