Among our many interests at JWS Research – both commercial and more community minded – is trying to answer the complex question of how to use research to strengthen the very bonds that hold us together as a society. In many respects that is probably the final objective of any worthwhile social research outfit, how do we increase the evident solidarity, love and respect within the dataset: people.
The concurrent responsibility on policymakers is surely to maintain a curiosity as to how people experience our social fabric and then make some calls that help strengthen our togetherness.
Last week the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion handed down an interim report with 14 recommendations. This is a serious piece of work and one that we all have a vested interest in, not just elected representatives, policy professionals, particular religious communities or law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The Commission’s published recommendations include things like urging governments to land a consistent national firearms agreement and give ASIO access to the firearms register. It urges the country’s police commissioners to review our distinct but collective joint counter terrorism capabilities around the country. It also suggests whether ministers who sit on the National Security Council ought to themselves participate in some counterterrorism exercises.
It is not for a research organisation like us to adjudicate the findings offered so far. What we can perhaps help with is offering up some background public opinion data on how the interim report and its recommendations are likely to land when considered against community attitudes – at least those measured back when the Commission began its proceedings. In an effort to let the politics and process settle down a bit we did not publish this research at the time but feel it’s helpful to do so now.
Our True Issues research conducted in February found 82 per cent of Australians regarded antisemitism as a problem in our country, with a sizable 57 per cent regarding it as a major or moderate problem. Moreover 75% of the population want the Government to take further action to address extreme views and intolerance in our community, a finding that has been consistent over almost two years of tracking. The data essentially shows there was a strong mandate for the Royal Commission occurring, but also its scope and formal terms and for the Government to respond with real policy action. All proposed areas of focus for the Royal Commission were seen as important in the research we conducted, particularly with respect to this unique inquiry’s task to recommend actions that would reduce ideologically motivated hatred – where 71% of the population said this is extremely or very important.
Interestingly the demographic breakdown of the data shows that younger men under 35 are less likely to place the importance on the Royal Commission’s terms than the rest of the population, so the Commission’s final recommendations may need to think carefully about how the case for action is framed for this demographic. Broadly however the research shows that all of the areas of deliberate focus of the Royal Commission – evident in their terms of reference and the interim recommendations of last week – are generally regarded as equally important to pursue.
Indeed, even when the Royal Commission hearing was first just getting going, two thirds of the country had heard about it with almost half of us confident in our awareness of its purpose. By comparison to many other things we test in the public policy landscape this is really healthy public awareness.. Bottom line – everyday people have an awareness of the Royal Commission because they think it matters.
Similarly, public awareness was very solid about the National Day of Mourning for the Bondi terrorism event held back on 22 January. Around 8 in 10 of us knew about the day, though actual participation was much more muted with around a third of us doing something to observe the day or participate in it in some manner. Of the two thirds of the community who were aware but didn’t participate the main reasons were a sense that it was hard to identify its direct relevance to them or simply that they didn’t know what to do. With the benefit of time and hindsight these sort of findings perhaps illuminate some things for the Royal Commission to consider as an important contextual background for their final recommendations.
Australians are generally open to hearing why antisemitism and social cohesion are directly relevant to their lives – even if they don’t know a lot of Jewish people or don’t live in a neighbourhood experiencing obvious social unrest. But our community leaders do need to be persuasive and persistent in explaining why we all have a direct stake in doing better and confronting racism and community intolerance. It will no doubt help to be straightforward and granular about what people can do themselves to make things better and show respect to those who feel it’s been missing.
Social cohesion is of course about much more than racial or religious tolerance, or the emotional stress created by domestic terrorism. It is also about household economics and cultural identity. By November of last year, perceptions about the deterioration in our social fabric had become clear – 35% of us felt we were either extremely or very divided on key political, economic and social issues. This was up a significant 8 points from July 2024 when that number was 27%. By February, another 49% of Australians felt we were somewhat divided. So eight out of every 10 of us were feeling the rift when Commissioner Bell begun the very complex task of exploring our social cohesion. And despite last week’s interim recommendations there is obviously plenty more to think about. Especially when public opinion data reveals a consistent underlying dynamic – awareness without active engagement.
When it comes to household economics, JWS Research has been banging on for a long time now about the primacy of cost of living as an issue. But we feel it could also be helpful to illuminate what the Australian community feels about the 26th of January, a day that is supposed to bring us together but clearly prompts more angst and political debate as the years pass. Our research shows that 8 in 10 of us are proud of the Aussie way of life. It shows that broad support – again about 8 in 10 – exists for a national day and reflecting on who we are. But there is also pretty low dedicated participation in that actual task of reflection and celebration. The research shows 54% of us say we didn’t do anything to mark January 26. And if we add the proportion who simply had a barbeque or went to see friends (perfectly fine things to do) that proportion goes up to 8 in 10 of us.
The deductive point is probably this: as a society we are patriotic, but the 26th of January is becoming quite anaemic in terms of people actively engaging in the stated purpose of Australia Day – if the purpose is to do more than just have a day off and see our family and friends. The insight we are pointing to is less about changing the date specifically, and more about the need for us to perhaps become more deliberate about what we do on this national day to build a better society. To strengthen our cohesion. It’s not just about civic engagement becoming a healthy extension beyond awareness, it’s also about how we express ourselves. In July 2024 we asked whether people should be free to express their views, whatever those views are. Nearly two years ago 73% of Australians agreed they should. It’s not an argument against free speech to say the situation is becoming substantially more complicated. By February of this year agreement on people freely expressing their view whatever it may be had tracked down a very large 27 points to just 46% of the population. The deductive logic here is that Australians are increasingly mindful of the responsibilities of free speech and implicitly acknowledge it has limits. The vital difference between censorship and the need for people to factor in some social courtesy is implicit in these tracking numbers.
So the research summary we are lobbing out there as we move into the heart of 2026 is essentially as follows. Australians feel there is growing division in our ranks. We are increasingly concerned about ideological extremism and inter-group tensions, and have declining confidence in key institutions such as the media and governments to manage these challenges. Perceptions of threat vary sharply along political lines, reflecting ideological polarisation rather than shared concerns. At the same time, there is a clear public mandate for action to reduce extremism and strengthen cohesion, which is why expert inquires like the Royal Commission present a special opportunity to recommend things that can really make a difference. Australia’s social climate is characterised by rising perceived division and institutional scepticism, alongside strong public demand for government action. National identity remains broadly positive, but engagement is increasingly passive and attitudes are fragmenting across demographic and political lines. All of this presents a worrying trend.
A while ago now Henry Lawson told us that he was at home and at ease on a track that he knows not, and restless and lost on a road that he knows. If we are to turn around the public sentiment numbers pointed out in this briefing note, its incumbent upon all of us to be brave and find a new track together.
Further Information
News updates and past releases of True Issues are available to download here or for any questions or assistance with your own research needs please contact us.
