How does indoctrination lead to extremism in Australia?

Indoctrination is the process of instilling a set of beliefs in someone without encouraging critical thought. In the context of extremism, it is how radical ideologies gain traction—especially among vulnerable individuals. In Australia, this process often begins in digital spaces before manifesting in real-world behaviours.

Online forums, encrypted messaging apps, and social media platforms have become breeding grounds for ideological grooming. Far-right groups, for example, use memes and humour to normalise racist or anti-government sentiments. Islamist extremists may exploit religious grievances or geopolitical events to recruit sympathisers. In both cases, the aim is to create an “us versus them” worldview that justifies radical action.

Younger Australians are particularly susceptible. A 2023 study by La Trobe University found that 15 percent of surveyed youth had encountered extremist content online, with many unable to distinguish it from legitimate political discourse. This blurring of lines is a key feature of modern indoctrination—it does not announce itself as radical, but gradually erodes critical thinking and empathy.

Offline, indoctrination can occur through community groups, religious institutions, or even family networks. In some cases, individuals are radicalised in prison. The common thread is isolation: people who feel alienated from society are more likely to seek belonging in extremist circles. Indoctrination offers them identity, purpose, and a distorted sense of justice.

Understanding these pathways is crucial. Extremism rarely begins with violence—it begins with ideas. And those ideas are often planted long before authorities take notice.

Why are current policies failing to prevent radicalisation?

Australia’s counter-extremism policies have historically focused on surveillance and law enforcement. While these tools are necessary, they are reactive by design. They address threats after they emerge, rather than preventing the conditions that allow indoctrination to take root.

One major gap lies in education. Schools are rarely equipped to teach media literacy or critical thinking in a way that counters extremist narratives. The 2023 Australian Curriculum Review acknowledged this shortfall but offered limited guidance on implementation. Without early intervention, students remain vulnerable to online radicalisation, particularly when algorithms reinforce echo chambers.

Another issue is the lack of community-based prevention programs. While the federal government has funded initiatives like the Living Safe Together program, these efforts are often under-resourced and inconsistently applied across states. Community leaders—especially in marginalised areas—frequently report a lack of support and training to identify early signs of radicalisation.

Law enforcement agencies also face challenges. ASIO and the Australian Federal Police have improved coordination on counter-terrorism, but they are not designed to handle the social and psychological dimensions of indoctrination. Moreover, heavy-handed policing can backfire, reinforcing the very grievances extremists exploit.

Finally, there is a political reluctance to address far-right extremism with the same urgency as Islamist threats. ASIO has repeatedly warned that nationalist and racist ideologies pose a growing risk, yet public discourse often downplays their impact. This asymmetry in attention undermines trust and leaves dangerous blind spots in national security strategy.

Without a shift toward prevention—rooted in education, community engagement, and digital literacy—Australia will remain on the back foot in the fight against extremism.

What are the long-term risks for Australian society?

Erosion of social cohesion: As extremist ideologies spread, they deepen divisions along racial, religious, and political lines. This undermines Australia’s multicultural identity and increases the risk of communal violence.

Threats to democratic institutions: Extremist movements often target trust in government, media, and the rule of law. If left unchecked, they can fuel anti-democratic sentiment and even inspire acts of domestic terrorism, as seen in the 2021 plot to attack Parliament House.

Normalisation of hate speech: Indoctrination often begins with coded language and dog whistles. Over time, these ideas enter mainstream discourse, making it harder to distinguish between legitimate dissent and dangerous rhetoric.

Impact on youth mental health: Exposure to extremist content can lead to anxiety, isolation, and identity confusion among young people. Those who become radicalised may face long-term psychological harm, even if they do not engage in violence.

Policy paralysis: When governments fail to address extremism holistically, they risk losing public trust. This can lead to polarised politics, scapegoating, and a cycle of reactive policymaking that fails to address root causes.

Australia is not immune to these outcomes. The Christchurch shooter was an Australian citizen radicalised online. His actions were a wake-up call, but the systemic issues that enabled his indoctrination remain unresolved. Addressing extremism requires more than policing—it demands a cultural and institutional reckoning with how ideas spread, and why some take hold.

How does Australia compare to other democracies tackling extremism?

Australia’s approach to extremism shares similarities with other liberal democracies but also reveals key differences. Countries like Germany have invested heavily in de-radicalisation programs that combine education, counselling, and community outreach. Their federal program “Demokratie Leben!” supports over 600 local initiatives aimed at preventing extremism through civic engagement.

In contrast, Australia’s efforts remain fragmented. While the Commonwealth provides funding, much of the implementation is left to states and territories, leading to uneven results. The UK’s Prevent strategy also offers a cautionary tale: its focus on surveillance over trust-building has led to accusations of racial profiling and community alienation.

One promising model is Norway’s emphasis on “exit programs” that help individuals leave extremist groups. These initiatives treat radicalisation as a social and psychological issue, not just a criminal one. Australia has piloted similar efforts, but they remain limited in scope and reach.

Ultimately, Australia must learn from both successes and failures abroad. A reactive, security-first approach is insufficient. Preventing extremism requires sustained investment in education, trust-building, and digital resilience—before radical ideas become radical acts.

Can Australia build resilience against extremism?

Yes—but only if it recognises that extremism is not just a security threat, but a societal one. Building resilience means equipping communities, educators, and young people with the tools to resist indoctrination. It means confronting uncomfortable truths about racism, inequality, and alienation. And it means treating prevention not as a political liability, but as a national priority.