Media release – What is terrorism?
It has been almost a quarter of a century since the horrific attacks of 11 September 2001, and Australia’s introduction of specific terrorism offences. Since then there has been a significant shift in the nature of the terrorist threat facing Australia. Yet how we define terrorism hasn’t changed since it was written into law in 2002, while the volume of counterterrorism laws has grown significantly. It is time to review how we define terrorism in our laws and see whether it remains fit for purpose, according to a new issues paper released today by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
The Monitor, whose role it is to independently review national security and counterterrorism laws, says there is still not an internationally agreed definition of what is terrorism. The Monitor said:
“Nearly 25 years has passed since we defined terrorism in Australian law, yet it has never been amended, despite developments in international best practice and a significant change in the type of threat we face.”
“The definition of terrorism is like a tugboat - it originally pulled a little barge with a handful of powers and offences resting on it. Now the same tugboat pulls an entire container ship loaded with special Commonwealth laws and another filled with special state and territory laws. That definition is doing a lot of work. We need to be sure it is fit for purpose.”
“Counterterrorism laws can play an important part in keeping Australia safe but they also intrude on rights and risk weakening aspects of the rule of law”.
How has terrorism changed?
In 2001-2002 ASIO’s advice was that the most significant security threat was from groups associated with al-Qa’ida. Fast forward over 20 years and the terrorism landscape looks significantly different.
ASIO’s 2025 threat assessment highlighted that the majority of potential terrorist matters they were investigating involved mixed ideologies or nationalist and racist ideologies – fewer than half were religiously motivated – almost all involved minors and were unknown to ASIO or the police, with the greatest threat being a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon.
Time for review
The Monitor’s issues paper says there is a need to review the definition of terrorism:
“Because many of the special terrorism laws are very rights-invasive (including for people not suspected of a crime), challenge long-held rule-of-law values and give wide discretion to the executive, it is important that the definition remains appropriate”
“Great caution is needed if the definition were to be expanded and as much precision as possible is needed.”
“We want to understand the perspectives and experiences of a wide range of groups and individuals” “including government agencies, civil society groups, community groups, academics and members of the public” as these “diverse voices will inform our recommendations to the Attorney-General and the Parliament” the issues paper says.
The issues paper asks its wide range of recipients a series of critical questions, focused on whether the
definition of a ‘terrorist act’ is fit for purpose, given the changes to the threat environment. It also asks
if the legal requirements of terrorist purpose and motive are appropriate, and what the legal and
practical consequences would be of a recommended change to the definition of a terrorist act.
The issues paper for this review will be launched at an event in Canberra on Monday evening (11 August 2025) where the Commonwealth Attorney-General will be speaking.
The final output for the Monitor’s review will be a report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General
that will be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament next year.
The current definition
A ‘terrorist act’ under the Criminal Code:
- 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.