Australia, explained.
As long as the discourse remains linguistically inaccessible, it is unrealistic to expect young Australians to participate effectively (Getty Images)
The country’s security should be a shared democratic project but the conversations too often sideline the young.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
What a student of security studies thinks of Australia’s national strategyWhat a student of security studies thinks of Australia’s national strategy
The future of Australia’s national security fundamentally depends on the engagement and contributions of its younger generations. Yet, historically, young Australians have been mostly absent from such conversations. This is not because we are apathetic but because government institutions and public discourse have rendered these discussions largely inaccessible. Consequently, there is estrangement between the forces shaping Australia’s strategic environment and the very cohort expected to confront them.
From climate change and cyber-resilience to online radicalisation and shifting global alliances, today’s strategic challenges will fall on young Australians. But how can young Australians be expected to shoulder these burdens when they are excluded from the deliberations that shape it?
Australian security discourse is dominated by opaque jargon, dense acronyms, and esoteric language.
As a young Australian, my understanding of national security has derived from specialised study at university, not from accessible public discourse. This reveals a broader systemic pattern in which young Australians are presumed to be engaged participants today and capable custodians of national security tomorrow,despite being given few legitimate opportunities to do so. Thus, before this intergenerational gap can be repaired, the structural conditions that created it must be addressed.
Australian security discourse is dominated by opaque jargon, dense acronyms, and esoteric language. Policy documents resemble technical manuals and are saturated with the “hemmed-in expression of expertise”. Even public-facing communications presume substantial prior knowledge, using abstract terminology such as “force posture”, the “air-sea gap” and “grey-zone interference”.While routine for government officials and security studies students, when used so casually in broader discourse, the vernacular risks alienating the public from meaningful engagement.
This is because such complex language reinforces the perception that national security matters are reserved only for officials and bureaucrats rather than the “average Joe”. As long as the discourse remains linguistically inaccessible, it is unrealistic to expect young Australians to participate effectively. Therefore, fostering authentic inter-generational inclusion depends on making the security conversation accessible and intelligible to all Australians, regardless of age or expertise.
When national security information is communicated to the Australian public, it is often framed through a lens of fear. In emphasising the rise of China, the threat of foreign interference or Australia’s economic vulnerability, mainstream news outlets situate our nation as operating in a “dangerous decade”. While security officials may believe this messaging signals urgency or encourages patriotic engagement, for young Australians it has the opposite effect.
Instead of motivating participation, fear-based narratives operate as a source of alienation. Institutions externalise risk onto the public yet refrain from offering clear pathways for meaningful involvement. This rhetoric does not inspire action. Instead, it makes national security matters appear too dangerous and beyond an individual's capacity to influence outcomes, leaving young Australians more likely to disengage from the conversation entirely.
Moreover, this dynamic feeds into a wider trust deficit between youth and government. Fear-based communication and opaque posturing create a cycle of inter-generational detachment, producing a disconnect between those who will inherit future security challenges and the discussions meant to prepare them for it.
If Australia is serious about closing this generational gap, institutions must move beyond symbolic gestures and restructure the way security policy is developed and communicated. First, Australia must prioritise clear and accessible language that informs, not obscures. Translating strategic matters into digestible formats, reducing jargon and framing challenges in terms of collaboration rather than fear will help create institutional trust and public transparency.
The emphasis is for national security to be treated as a shared democratic project, not an elite “grown-ups club”.
Second, engagement strategies must reflect Australia’s the environment in which youth operate. Interactive Q&As, podcasts, short-form content, partnerships with youth creators and proactive myth-busting efforts are far more effective than traditional reliance on policy papers or academic journals that require self-initiated access and specialist literacy.
Third, greater integration of national security literacy into civic discourse – including topics such as geopolitics and cyber safety – would equip young people with practical knowledge, cultivating informed future participation.
Finally, expanding opportunities for youth participation through advisory forums, internships across government institutions, and embedded youth consultation across strategic reviews would signal a genuine shift towards inclusivity. The emphasis is for national security to be treated as a shared democratic project, not an elite “grown-ups club”.
Young Australians are not uninterested in national security conversations – we are just sidelined by a system that does not speak our language, reflect our priorities, or operate through accessible routes. Without reform, Australia’s national security conversations will remain insular and self-limiting. Engaging younger generations is not a symbolic exercise but a strategic imperative. If Australia seeks a national security posture capable of responding to emerging threats, it must begin to properly engage with the generation that will eventually inherit and shape our security landscape.
About the author
Molly Jinks
Molly Jinks is a fifth-year student at Macquarie University pursuing a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Security Studies.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
