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”].

Our Position

AMAN supports the full removal of the “motive” element—religious, ideological, and political—from the terrorist act definition, if political cause can be implied from the Specific Intent component.

In the alternative, we support removing “religious” and “ideological” causes while retaining “political cause.”

Our reasons:

• This reform helps to highlight that any terrorism inspired by ISIL or that claims to be in the name of Islam is, in fact, political. This distinguishes what the Accused claims to be religious and what is supported by Islam.
• It better aligns with international law and the best model definition from the UN rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights
• Removing religious/ideological motives makes prosecution fairer, including against nationalist extremists or actors with unclear ideological beliefs, while focusing police on the Specific Intent to coerce, intimidate or influence by intimidation.
• It reduces institutionalised bias and avoids inviting public agencies to speculate about the “religion” or “ideology” of an accused.
• While it won’t eliminate institutional bias and racism in authorities and media, it will lessen the impact over time and reduce the conflation of our entire religion and community with terrorism.
• It upholds that religion is a public good and does not diminish religion through the law.

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
• These community organisations have made submissions and participated in statements pushing for this reform, including:
  • Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC)
  • Alliance of Australian Muslims (AAM)
  • Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV)
  • Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights
• If your organisation wants to add its name, please get in touch.

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”]