The External Forces Shaping Australia’s Polarisation Narrative

Max Martin | Australia Foreign Policy Fellow

Image sourced from OrbitalVoid49 via WikiCommons.

The global level of democracy is at its lowest since 1996, according to the V-Dem Institute’s 2025 Democracy Report. This trend coincides with signs of fragmentation in Australia’s political system, particularly the splintering of the conservative flank. Understanding the sources of this fragmentation is key to assessing the extent to which Australia is truly becoming more polarised, or if external forces are supporting and amplifying the voices of a few to divide the many.  

Foreign governments, transnational extremist movements, and opportunistic political actors each contribute to Australia’s polarisation narrative. These forces erode institutional trust, amplify and empower fringe voices, and encourage divisive political tactics. Political polarisation can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby perceptions of political animosity drive individuals and groups to adopt more extreme positions. Thus, unravelling the origins of extreme views and actions in Australia can help alleviate polarisation and maintain domestic political decorum. 

Transnational Repression on Australian Soil 

Australia’s Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, identified foreign interference by rival intelligence agencies as a principal security threat in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s (ASIO) 2025 Annual Threat Assessment. Foreign interference threatens Australia’s democratic cohesion by covertly distorting public opinion and exploiting societal divisions, particularly amongst diaspora communities. Recent events illustrate this threat, including the arrest of two Chinese nationals, with authorities charging one under foreign interference laws. The pair allegedly gathered information on a Buddhist group in Canberra on behalf of China’s Public Security Bureau.  

Whilst uncovering these state-sponsored plots is positive for national security, more needs to be done to protect diaspora communities from transnational repression. A report by Freedom House explains that although the Australian Government is aware of the threats posed by foreign interference, there is little legislation to protect diaspora communities from transnational repression. Inadequate legal protections against transnational repression risk deepening political fragmentation by eroding trust in institutions, silencing vulnerable communities, and reinforcing identity-based visions within politics. 

The Globalisation of Anti-Government Extremism 

Externally driven polarisation in Australia extends beyond foreign governments to transnational ideological networks that influence domestic political dynamics. Extremist movements such as the sovereign citizen movement are often treated as purely domestic threats, despite their global presence. The fatal shooting of two Victorian police officers by Dezi Freeman in north-east Victoria was largely portrayed as the act of a fringe individual driven by deep anti-government beliefs. However, the Lowy Institute believes that the discourse around these individuals should shift to focus on the transnational nature of the sovereign citizen movement.  

Originating in the United States (US), the sovereign citizens movement believes that the federal government is illegitimate and lacks lawful authority. The sovereign citizen movement has since spread to an estimated 26 countries, including Australia, where initially fringe activity intensified through anti-government sentiment during COVID-19 lockdowns. 

The movement overseas has resulted in terror attacks in the US and plots to overthrow the government in the Netherlands and Germany. The global reach of the sovereign citizen movement dispels the idea that its adherents are merely fringe individuals. Their capacity to organise and threaten both public safety and government institutions shows the movement should not be underestimated.  Addressing this threat requires more proactive policy measures to track and disrupt transnational networks, including multilateral law enforcement and intelligence coordination, as suggested by The Lowy Institute . These measures are necessary to prevent externally amplified anti-government narratives from taking root within Australia.

Importing Populist Tactics 

Australian politics has largely avoided the populist surge seen in many democracies worldwide, but it has not been immune to its influence. During the 2019 federal elections, mining magnate Clive Palmer spent AUD$60 million on political advertising promoting his United Australia Party and attacking Labour leader Bill Shorten. Text messages uncovered in the Epstein files show former Trump advisor Steve Bannon claiming that he encouraged Palmer to undertake the advertising campaign. Whilst Palmer denies this turn of events, the rhetoric of his 2019 campaign bore striking similarities to that of President Trump’s. 

This influence has also allegedly reached the Liberal Party, with Trump campaign chief Chris LaCivita claiming he visited Australia to advise Peter Dutton’s campaign before the 2025 election. Speaking to undercover reporters, LaCivita described the clandestine nature of the trip, raising concerns about campaign transparency. 

Attempts by the United Australia Party and the Liberal Party to emulate Make America Great Again (MAGA) tactics illustrate how domestic competition can be hijacked through the importation of polarising campaign strategies. Although these campaigns were unsuccessful, the global spread of polarising political strategies suggests that they are unlikely to disappear from Australian elections.  

 A Resilient Democracy Under Pressure 

Australia, as it stands, remains a well-functioning liberal democracy, one of only 25 'full democracies' in the world currently, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) 2024 Democracy Index Report. External forces, including foreign governments, extremist movements and political parties, seek to divide the country and erode institutional trust. Compulsory voting and full preferential voting remain the bulwarks of Australia’s democratic system; however, more should be done to combat these external attempts at polarisation. Addressing these risks will require a coordinated response that strengthens foreign interference legislation, enhances protections for diaspora communities, improves transparency around political financing and campaigning, and deepens international intelligence cooperation against transnational extremist networks. By recognising and countering the external amplification of fringe voices, Australia can prevent perceived political division from hardening into reality, ensuring that polarisation does not become the self-fulfilling prophecy it is often feared to be. 

Max is completing his Master of Arts in International Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), where he is a Ramsay Postgraduate Scholar. He spent his first year at SAIS Europe in Bologna before moving to the Washington, DC campus for his final year.

Originally from Perth, he graduated from the University of Western Australia with a Bachelor of Commerce in Economics and Finance. A semester abroad at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam strengthened his interest in international affairs and motivated further study.

Max recently interned at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok, gaining experience in the politicaland economic sections at one of Australia’s largest overseas posts. His academic interests focus on the intersection of economics and strategy and how states respond to an evolving global landscape.

Through this Fellowship, he hopes to contribute to public debate on Australia’s foreign policy priorities, challenges, and long-term strategic choices.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.