The Insider/
Engagement without enemies

The attack on Helen Haines outside her regional Victorian electorate office has shaken a country that has prided itself on politicians who can walk down the main street unaccompanied. In a moment of senseless political violence, the laid-back Australian sentiment of “that is not us” was shattered. 

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett described the current threat environment as febrile, with a growing volume of online abuse, threatening rhetoric and intimidation directed at both elected and senior officials.  

Like many others, I have observed a two-decade trend, undeniably correlated with the tumour of social media.It has allowed commentary to be increasingly anonymous, increasingly violent and perhaps most disturbingly, increasingly sexualised towards women. 

A hiatus 

Expect the temperature to drop, at least for a while. Moments like this bring bipartisan statements, quieter question times and pledges of civility. Our depressingly repeatable history suggests the truce will be brief. 

In part, this is due to an unforgiving electoral calendar. Victorians go to the polls on 28 November in what analysts describe as a highly fragmented contest, with Labor, the Coalition and One Nation all polling primary votes in the 20s or low 30s. 

A traditionally two-party system under that kind of strain does not produce calm debate. Major parties fighting on two flanks reach for sharper contrasts, and insurgent parties grow by amplifying grievance. Projects, sectors and the communities around them become proxies in that contest, and the algorithms reward whoever frames it most angrily. 

As Regen Strategic stated at the time of the last US presidential election, Australia is not accustomed to minority government and power sharing arrangements.  We view it as a drawn grand final, we require a more secure resolution. 

Engagement has absorbed the same incentives 

Too much engagement practice has drifted into the same dynamic. Campaigns are framed as battles to be won, rather than an opportunity to listen. Opponents are characterised as cranks, or zealots. Information is released defensively, selectively and in volume. Consultation becomes announcement dressed up as dialogue. 

People who feel unheard go where they will be heard loudest, and those spaces rarely carry all of the facts and any of the context. The events in Wangaratta, whatever their cause, are a grim reminder that the people at the front line of public life are exactly that: MPs, councillors, project managers and community representatives who stand in front of a community and take its questions. 

The algorithm is not neutral 

The Albanese Government’s proposed reforms would let Australians aged 16 and over switch off algorithm-driven feeds and would impose a digital duty of care on platforms, backed by fines of up to $109.2 million. Whatever shape the legislation finally takes, it reflects a settled opinion that platforms built to maximise engagement reward the most emotive content. Outrage travels. Nuance stalls. 

That matters well beyond Canberra. Every major project now exposes part of its community debate online, in local Facebook groups, comment threads and short-form video. A wind farm, a transmission line, a desalination plant, a data or a housing estate can be cast as Mordor within days. Proponents and opponents alike learn quickly that the angriest post earns the most reach. 

Reorientating the practice 

For governments, proponents and investors, most of the response still sits within their own control, with a range of approaches that can at least turn down the temperature:  

• Go early, go local. Drop-in sessions, shopfronts and kitchen tables arrive before the online campaign forms. Face-to-face conversation remains the OG algorithm opt-out. 

• Lower the temperature of your own voice. Drop the villains and the win-at-all-costs messaging. It might succeed in the short-term, but where does it really lead to? Acknowledge legitimate concerns publicly and resist the urge to score points against opponents online. 

• Make information the antidote. Publish plainly, early and in formats people will share. A trusted two-page explainer, with genuine mechanisms to contact the authors, will travel further than a 400-page environmental review. 

• Invest in trusted intermediaries. Local governments, Traditional Owners, local businesses and community reference groups carry standing that proponents often lack. They can bring facts into spaces a company cannot reach. 

• Protect your people. Duty of care extends to frontline staff along with the community members who speak publicly for or against a project. That means moderation policies, security protocols and wellbeing support built from the start. 

• Measure trust as well as support. Sentiment polling shows who agrees. Trust measures show whether people feel heard, and is the better predictor of whether a project survives its first controversy or public examination. 

• Plan for the cycle. Use the quieter weeks to build relationships and bank credible facts before known escalation points. Brief every side of politics, crossbench and minor parties included, because balance-of-power outcomes make every party a stakeholder.  

The verdict 

Reforms to social media algorithms may change what people see in their feeds, but only if they elect to op-out. They will not change how we choose to speak to one another, and the coming campaign season will test that choice quickly. 

Lowering the temperature of community debate is the precondition for building anything of substance in our society, whether it be a wind farm, a housing development, or a community-backed political campaign.