Australia’s definition of Terrorism to be examined in public hearing

Australia’s definition of a ‘terrorist act’ will be examined by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (Monitor), Mr Jake Blight, at a public hearing in Canberra on 10 and 11 March.

Witnesses will include: a Lindt café siege survivor, Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) , a Deputy Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australia’s Special Envoys for Combatting Antisemitism and Islamophobia, the UN Special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and Human Rights, as well as representatives from the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, civil liberty and faith-based organisations and academic experts. See the full program.

This independent review is examining whether Australia’s definition of a ‘terrorist act’, which has not changed since it was enacted in 2002, remains fit for purpose.

“What we define as a terrorist acts matters – for legal, social and practical reasons. If the definition is too wide, it has the potential to undermine the rights of individuals and dilute specialist police resources. If it is too narrow, it may not cover emerging threats.”

“How Australia defines terrorism speaks to our national character and identity.”

In 2025, ASIO said “of all the potential terrorist matters investigated [in the previous year], fewer than half were religiously motivated”.¹ The AFP recently said around 1/3 of those charged as a result of counterterrorism operations since 2020 were not in the category they call ‘religiously motivated violent extremism’.²

Ahead of the hearing Mr Blight says:

“Terrorism has changed a lot since 9/11. The threat from groups like ISIL remains but we also have the growth of nationalist and racist violent extremism. We need to make sure our terrorism laws are able to deal equally with all of these.”

Prior to 2020, almost all prosecutions that depended on the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ were to advance causes associated with al-Qa’ida, ISIL and likeminded groups. In the past 5 years that has dropped to less than 80% with the remainder related to nationalist and racist causes. The numbers are still small, but around 85% of those motivated by al-Qa’ida or ISIL were convicted, while only about half of the others were.

Mr Blight says:

“I am considering recommending ‘ideology’ be defined as: a system of belief or ideas; that relates to how society is, or should be and guides behavior; and, is intended to be shared with others. This would create an ideologically-neutral framework that can help guide police, prosecutors and juries. It should account for not only established ideologies but also those that emerge in the future”.

The Monitor has received submissions arguing that it is unnecessary and counterproductive to include the word ‘religion’ in the definition of a terrorist act if such motives are covered by the concept of ‘ideology’ as a matter of law.

“I have received submissions arguing that by calling something ‘religiously motivated’ we inadvertently give false credibility and reinforce the narrative of those who say that they are doing ‘holy work’ which is above the law of the land. This gives them authenticity they do not deserve and may push some young vulnerable people towards those views.

Some say that it implies that there is an intrinsic link between religion and violence and that this contributes to stigmatization and suspicion of religious communities, undermining social cohesion and effective policing.

Not everyone agrees, and this is one of the more controversial issues in this review. I am considering if the word ‘religion’ is legally necessary or whether the proposed definition of ideology is sufficient. If it is legally redundant, then I will weigh the pros and cons of removing it. But let me be clear, I have no doubt that those who commit serious violence against others to coerce the government or intimidate a section of the public to advance causes like that espoused ISIL or its ilk, are, and should remain, squarely within the definition of a terrorist act.”

Worryingly, there has been a significant increase in the number of children who are being charged with terrorism related offences.

“About 40% of those currently before the courts on offences that depend on the definition of a terrorist act are children. That number rises if you take into account terrorism adjacent offences such as possession of violent extremist material – 60% of the people who have been charged with that relatively new offence are children.

One of my concerns is that arrangements for sentencing for federal offences like terrorism were not designed with children in mind. The system is complex and the length of sentences and access to alternative pathways depends on the state or territory where the child is charged.”

The inquiry has received more than 70 submissions.

The review formally commenced in August 2025 with the release of an Issues Paper. It is expected that a report will be provided to the Attorney-General in September 2026. The report must then be tabled in parliament within 30 days.

Links to the livestream for the hearings are:

10 March 2026 from 9.00 am EST

11 March 2026 from 9.00 am EST

For all media enquiries contact Fiona on 0429 308 541 or at inslm@inslm.gov.au.

Background

The current definition

A ‘terrorist act’ is defined in s 100.1 of the Criminal Code. In summary it:

• Requires a terrorist purpose: an intention to:
  coerce or influence by intimidation an Australian or foreign government; or intimidate the public or a section of the public.
• Requires a terrorist motive: an intention to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.
• Applies to specific harm: an action (or threat of action) that causes death, serious physical harm or serious property damage, endangers life, creates a serious risk to health or safety, or seriously interferes with destroys or disrupts an electronic system.
• Does not apply to certain conduct: advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action that is not intended to cause serious harm to persons.

About the Monitor

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (the Monitor) reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of national security and counter-terrorism laws. The Monitor’s reviews consider whether the laws contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to terrorism or national security threats and remain necessary. The Monitor has access to all relevant material, regardless of national security classification, can compel answers to questions and hold public and private hearings. The Monitor’s reports are tabled in Parliament. The Monitor does not have a complaints function, but welcomes submissions to reviews.

Mr Jake Blight was appointed as Monitor on 26 November 2023 for a three-year term. Mr Blight is the first full-time Monitor since the establishment of the role in 2010. See: About | INSLM.

More information on the INSLM website

The Defining Terrorism page on the INSLM website contains many resources about this review including:

• An Issues Paper (August 2025)
• Public submissions
• Research commissioned by INSLM
• A table plus summaries of all sentenced terrorism cases
• A table of comparative definitions in 5-eyes countries
• Copies of reports of previous of reviews of the definition
• Videos of speeches at the launch event including by the Attorney-General, UN Special Rapporteur on Terrorism and Human Rights and the Monitor.

Other reviews

The Monitor is in the final stages of a review of espionage, foreign interference and sabotage offences in the Criminal Code.

The Monitor has recently completed a review of special powers given to the Australian Federal Police and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to disrupt serious crime online; identify offenders through intelligence gathering; and to takeover online accounts to gather evidence. The report is available online and the Government response is available on the APH website. Most recommendations are to be considered as part of the government’s ongoing review of electronic surveillance (being run by the Department of Home Affairs).

In 2025 the Monitor completed a review of secrecy offences in the Criminal Code and recommended changes, including additional protections for journalists and changes directed at making offences more targeted and protecting the rule of law. The Report is available online and the government response is available on the Attorney-General's website. Most recommendations were accepted or accepted in-principle.

Copies of previous Australian reviews that discuss the definition of terrorism are available on the review page under the documents heading research tab.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Saul has recently released a new report that includes international best-practice guidance on the definition of terrorism. Amongst other things it recommends removing the word ‘religion’.

Photos

Photos are attached to this release. If you would like additional photos or ‘B-Roll’ please contact Fiona on 0429 308 541 or at inslm@inslm.gov.au.

Endnotes

• ¹ Mike Burgess, Director-General of Security, Director-General’s Annual Threat Assessment 2025. Director-General's Annual Threat Assessment 2025 | ASIO
• ² Australian Federal Police answer to Question on Notice 3 for Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, 5 February 2026, Examination of the Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2024-25. Available at: Examination of the Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2024-25 – Parliament of Australia