Australian officials differ on whether terrorism definition should change

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said the government is comfortable with the existing definition of terrorism and does not plan to alter it. The statement came after a submission from the special envoy for combating Islamophobia called for reducing the role of religious or ideological motivation in the definition.

The envoy argued that the current wording is ill-equipped to address modern extremism driven by hybrid ideologies and personal grievances. A coalition of 15 Muslim groups supported removing religion and ideology as criteria for terrorist acts.

Review under way Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Jake Blight is examining whether the reference to advancing a political, religious or ideological cause should remain in the Criminal Code Act. Blight said terrorism has evolved since the September 11 attacks and that including religion in the definition could stigmatise Muslim Australians.

Domestic spy agency ASIO submitted that retaining the existing motives remains valuable because they reflect belief systems that can mobilise people to violent action. ASIO noted that 13 of the 16 terror attacks in Australia from 2014 to 2025 were religiously motivated.

The Australian Federal Police said the current definition is clear, has been tested in courts, and aligns with definitions used by international partners. Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal also argued that keeping the reference to political, religious or ideological cause helps focus law enforcement resources.

The Department of Home Affairs stated that the definition remains fit for purpose and is intentionally tight. Blight’s review is due to be delivered to the government in October.