The independent national security legislation monitor, Jake Blight, has revealed he intends to open an inquiry this year into what should be considered a terrorist act.

Why this Reform Matters to our Community

Australia’s current counter-terrorism framework continues to institutionalise anti-Muslim sentiment. The definition of a terrorist act in Australian law explicitly includes religious and ideological motive as a key element of what makes an act “terrorism.”

This is more than a legal technicality—it’s the root of systemic harm. It enables our government, ASIO, the AFP, and other institutions to publicly associate Islam with terrorism, embedding this narrative in official language, media coverage, and public perception.

AMAN calls for the removal of “religious” and “ideological” motives from the definition of terrorism. This is a necessary and urgent step in eradicating the legal basis for the widespread conflation of Islam with terrorism and the core driver of anti-Muslim hate and sentiment.

The Definition

According to s100.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, a terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:

1. the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
2. the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and [“Motive element”]
3. the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
   • coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
   • intimidating the public or a section of the public [“Specific Intent”].

AMAN and 14 other Muslim Organisations have made a Joint Community Submission for an INSLM Inquiry into the definition of a terrorist act.

The signatories include:

1. Australian Muslim Advocacy Network Ltd (AMAN)
2. Association Of Indian Muslims Queensland (AIMQ)
3. Alliance Against Islamophobia Ltd (AAl)
4. Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC)
5. Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights Inc (AMWCHR)
6. Australian National Imams Council (ANIC)
7. Canberra Islamic Centre Incorporated (CIC)
8. Islamic Society of South Australia (ISSA)
9. Lebanese Muslim Association (LMA)
10. Masjid Al Farooq (Kuraby Mosque)
11. Muslim Legal Network NSW (MLN NSW)
12. Muslim Legal Network (MLN VIC)
13. Muslim Women Australia (MWA)
14. Queensland Muslims Incorporated (QMI)
15. Shia Muslim Council of Australia (SMCA)

Executive Summary

The safety of the Australian people is the first and most solemn duty of government. But that safety is not secured by force alone. It depends on the rule of law, the equal dignity of all persons, and public confidence in the institutions charged with preserving both.

Terrorism, by its very nature, seeks to undermine the bonds of trust and legitimacy that sustain a democratic society. It is not merely an attack upon individuals or property, but a symbolic repudiation of the values, institutions, and norms that give shape to our collective life. That is why the law addressing terrorism must be precise in purpose, clear in language, and just in its operation.

Since 2001, the Commonwealth Parliament has enacted an extensive legislative framework to prevent, deter, and respond to acts of terrorism. These include the proscription of organisations, offences for preparatory conduct, and prohibitions on foreign incursions. While aimed at legitimate national security concerns, these measures have often proceeded at pace and with insufficient public scrutiny. The result has been a body of law that has drawn consistent and serious concern from civil society, legal experts, and the Law Council of Australia for its impact on fundamental rights and freedoms.

Central to this framework is the statutory definition of a “terrorist act,” introduced in 2002 and left unchanged in substance since. The current definition requires that an act be done with intent to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause, that it be intended to coerce or intimidate the public or a government, and that it cause or be likely to cause specified forms of serious harm.

Although designed to reflect international obligations and distinguish terrorism from lawful protest or dissent, the inclusion of a “motive” element – the requirement that the act be done to advance a cause – has given rise to considerable difficulty. Unlike other serious offences, where motive may inform sentencing but does not define criminal liability, terrorism law uniquely requires the prosecution to establish a suspect’s political, ideological, or religious motivation as part of the offence.

This is an unusual and problematic feature. Motive is often complex, mixed, or opaque. Perpetrators may not clearly articulate their reasons, and courts are left to draw inferences that may be speculative or subjective. The result is that legal determinations of motive risk becoming entangled with broad, and sometimes prejudicial, cultural or religious assumptions.

In practice, the inclusion of “religious cause” within the definition has disproportionately shaped the application of terrorism laws toward Muslim individuals and communities. This has not only undermined public trust but contributed to the marginalisation of Australians based on their faith. The persistence of this association between Islam and terrorism in official discourse – whether through prosecutions, political statements, or legislative design – has lent credibility to the false and dangerous notion that Islam itself is a source of violence.

The consequences are not theoretical. The rise of anti-Muslim hate, both online and in public life, echoes the pattern of dehumanisation that preceded the Christchurch massacre. The attacker in that case was an Australian. The risk of a similar act occurring on Australian soil is not remote. In this context, the Government bears a particular duty to ensure that counter-terrorism laws do not perpetuate narratives that stigmatise communities or amplify the very ideologies they seek to counter.

The law must not, through inadvertence or design, construct categories of suspicion around religious or cultural identity. To that end, this submission proposes removing the motive element from the definition of a terrorist act and more explicitly integrating its political character into the purpose element-namely, the intent to intimidate or coerce the public or government through violence.

This approach accords with international practice and model definitions proposed by United Nations bodies. It allows the law to focus on conduct and intent – the cornerstones of criminal responsibility – rather than on abstract or unverifiable assessments of belief.

Furthermore, we propose amending the definition of harm to exclude generalised property damage, which risks capturing conduct that does not bear the gravity or symbolic character of terrorism. Terrorism is a distinct and exceptional offence. Its definition must reflect that distinction.

Safeguards are also required to ensure that vulnerable individuals – including children and those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities – are not unjustly subject to the extraordinary powers available under counter-terrorism laws. In particular, prosecutions of minors should be permitted only as a measure of last resort, with the Attorney-General’s consent. This would give families greater confidence to seek early intervention and support without fear of punitive consequences.

Finally, we emphasise that a sound counter-terrorism framework must uphold, not erode, the freedoms it seeks to protect. Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The purpose of such restrictions must be to protect the integrity of democratic institutions – not to stifle dissent or cast suspicion on particular communities.

The law is not a rhetorical instrument. It is a shield, not a sword – designed to protect all people equally, without fear or favour. Where it fails to meet this standard, it must be reformed.

The impact of this legal definition in Australia, Canada, UK and New Zealand

AMAN contributed to a human rights law working group that produced this video to explain the community impact:

Supporting Voices

We are not alone in this call:

• As former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) Bret Walker SC recommended, the motive element should be removed altogether to
  • align with international law and criminal law norms.
  • avoid elevating, glamorising or legitimising terrorist justifications.
  • Ensure the law does not act as a conduit for collective stigmatisation of a religious community.
• Legal experts, former High Court judges, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) have all expressed concern about the current definition’s motive element.
  • Walker B (2012) INSLM (Independent National Security Legislation Monitor) Annual Report.
  • Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions quoted in Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, ‘Review of Security and Counter-Terrorism Legislation’ (Full Report, 4 December 2006) Ch 5.
  • Brennan G (2007) Liberty’s threat from executive power. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July
• Scholars have long argued that the ‘religious cause’ and/or broader motive element are problematic:
  • Markwell, Rita Jabri — “Religion as a Motive “” Does Australian Terrorism Law Serve Justice?” [2023] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 27.
  • Hardy K (2011) Hijacking public discourse: religious motive in the Australian definition of a terrorist act. University of New South Wales Law Journal 17(1): 333-350.
  • McSherry B (2004) Terrorism offences in the criminal code: Broadening the boundaries of Australian criminal laws. UNSW Law Journal 27(2): 354

Concern about the ongoing push to expand criminal laws to counter ‘violent extremism’

More surveillance, broader definitions, and new criminal laws are not the solution—yet this remains the ongoing approach of successive governments. The Albanese Government introduced new offences for sharing so-called “violent extremist material”, which includes material concerning a religious or ideological cause. These laws were widely criticised by AMAN, the Law Council of Australia and NSW Civil Liberties for criminalising mere possession or viewing of content, regardless of intent, and for their vague definitions. Despite this, they passed with bipartisan support and carry penalties of up to five years in prison.

Muslim children with disabilities have been targeted under these and existing counter-terrorism laws, often via undercover operations.
Instead, Australia should:

• Acknowledge it already has too many terrorism laws. The current framework is regularly condemned by legal and human rights bodies as excessive and lacking oversight. It includes sweeping powers of surveillance, detention and interrogation. For example, control orders can impose curfews and electronic monitoring on children as young as 14.
• Recognise that “violent extremism” is a vague term with no agreed definition under international law, and should not underpin further criminal expansion.
• Address dehumanising content through civil penalties under the Online Safety Act and Broadcasting Services Act, alongside public education, while safeguarding freedom of expression, including criticism of governments, militaries and political ideologies.

Join the push for change

This reform is no mere technical fix—it’s a moral and strategic imperative to end institutional harm against Australian Muslims. As long as terrorism fears persist, public education and anti-racism efforts fall short, since our community remains wrongly tied to terrorism. It’s unjust that our children grow up under this burden, and we owe them systemic change.

We invite Muslim organisations, human rights allies, legal experts and community leaders to:

• Endorse the removal of religious and ideological motives from the terrorism definition
• Share AMAN’s policy recommendations
• Join our advocacy for a safer and fairer Australia
  

Let’s take this step together—to ensure our faith is not criminalised, our children are not stigmatised, and our communities are not targeted.

Contact Us

[contact-form-7 id=”276″ title=”Contact Us”]