As recent polls highlight, Australians are ready to do more.  Over 80 per cent support the Government’s proposal to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who involve themselves in terrorist activities or support terror groups. 

But the broader picture also deserves our attention, particularly how we might support community resilience as both prevention and antidote to the contemporary threat of grassroots radicalisation in Australia

Britain is already focussed on this issue, with Her Majesty the Queen announcing on 27 May 2015 that the British Parliament would bring forward measures “to promote social cohesion,” as one element of their response to violent extremism.

Britain’s ‘Extremism Bill’ follows Australia’s example of strengthening the ability of police and security agencies, yet also addresses the need to unite communities by reinvigorating a sense of citizenship.

Unity of purpose and a sense of collective security are important to combat the people and groups who reject mainstream community values and promote messages of hate.

The Government agrees and has launched a national conversation to seek ideas for developing a greater appreciation for the privileges and obligations arising from being able to make the proud claim: ‘I am an Australian.’ This process will shape Government thinking and future approaches.

Past efforts to promote citizenship and the social cohesion it brings have focused on civics in schools, induction for newly arrived migrants and similar measures.

These are important elements of a vital effort to restore understanding of what it means to be an Australian.

But, at the very grassroots – the home, club, workshop, classroom or café – there is scope to do more. 

Sensible authorities everywhere are on the alert and looking to regenerate the seeds of community interaction, the known wellspring of community resilience. 

The former has been all but hijacked by the illusion of a virtual online community, as a contemporary equivalent or substitute for the real thing.

This is nonsense of course, but convincing a technically-obsessed citizenry of this can be as fruitful as ‘urinating into the wind’ – at best counter-productive!

What Australia needs now, more than additional bureaucratic architecture – even at the local level – is new ideas.  Even too many is good; let public discourse sift the ‘wheat from the chaff’. 

One such idea, is the creation of two new schemes, one for National Community Service (NCS), and another for National Youth Engagement (NYE).

These initiatives target different but key segments of the community, and reach into the very heartland of grassroots Australia.

The first scheme would focus on getting young people (15-25), to enter into substantive community support services in diverse areas: community maintenance and regeneration, land and environmental care, and even support for the elderly.

The second scheme, would enlist the support of employers of all kinds, to attract and keep young people in employment – of any sort.

Both schemes focus on the enduring ‘Achilles heel’ of many young men in particular – a potent but often absent mix of purposeful activity, endeavour, hope and self-esteem.

And, of course, each might reasonably be supported by government-funded training and sensible, worthwhile participant incentives, including perhaps HECS concessions for the first, and annual business tax concessions for the second.

Finally, if adopted, each would probably be best undertaken by way of a closely-monitored initial  pilot or trial.  A relatively small island community of say 500,000 people – like Tasmania – would be perfect!

Allied to, and in parallel with these schemes, would be other constructive community activities that promote a positive and life-affirming future, in what is by far, still the World’s best nation. 

Foremost amongst these must be education, employment and sporting activities.

If Australian society has a choice between engaging young people too little or too much; let it err on the side of the latter; this is perhaps the most intrusive option, but it is also the least risky. 

For, if left alone to their own devices – as many parents will know – adolescent males in particular, will almost naturally tend to imperceptibly drift toward an array of destructive agencies and agents – including drugs, alcohol, gangs; and, more recently, the ‘siren song’ and quasi-glamourous allure of terrorism.

Though they would not couch it in these terms, what boys are really searching for is influential leadership. 

Regrettably, in the increasing absence of good role models – including too many ‘MIA’ fathers – they chose poorly, and opt for the bad – sadly always omnipresent.

There is nothing easy, let alone glamorous, about building and maintaining community resilience. 

But, at the same time, nothing is apt to be as constructively useful over the long term. For once a functioning critical mass is attained, its own inherent momentum will see it sustained and growing.

The rewards of this approach in young lives preserved – literally the future lifeblood of our nation - as well as those otherwise ensnared by atrocity; and also in treasure; are beyond quantifying.  

And neglecting it, equally, is too tragic to countenance ignoring.

Andrew Nikolic is the Federal Member for Bass