Amid global conflict, rising extremism and a heightened national terror threat level, re-defining ‘terrorism’ in Australian law looks set to be a national security and political challenge for the government. This follows the launch of an inquiry by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), Jake Blight.
Terrorism is a particularly distinct and reviled form of violent crime, requiring a very specific definition. Since 2002, a ‘terrorist act’ has been defined in Australia (section 100.1 of the Criminal Code) as an action or threat:
—with a terrorist purpose: an intention to coerce or intimidate an Australian or foreign government or intimidate the public or a section of the public;
—with a terrorist motive: an intention to advance a political, religious or ideological cause;
—applying to specific harms, including death, serious physical harm or serious property damage; and
—not including ‘advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action not intended to cause serious harm to persons’.
Key issues being investigated in INSLM’s review are the definition’s effectiveness; whether appropriate safeguards protect individual rights; if the definition remains necessary and proportionate to the current terrorism threat; and whether the definition is consistent with international obligations. So why this inquiry, and why now?
Blight makes a three-point case. First, as it has been 23 years since the definition was enshrined in law, a review is warranted. Second, the terrorist threat has evolved. There’s been a shift away from organised groups aiming for mass casualty events with sophisticated weaponry. Most terrorism offences are now committed by solo actors using rudimentary tools. They are often minors, radicalised online. Third, the sheer number of subsequent laws that hinge on the initial definition is no longer practicable.
On the surface, Blight’s points could suggest softening the law to reflect a lower-scale terrorism profile. But this overlooks an important change: the reduction in warning time for authorities. Unlike organised groups planning over months, lone actors strike with little, if any notice, often invisible to intelligence. This makes the clarity and scope of the terrorism definition more—not less—critical today.
The INSLM has launched this inquiry on its own initiative, reflecting the increasing prominence of the office. Once a part-time job for Sydney barristers, with a remit tied narrowly to terrorism legislation and overshadowed by established oversight mechanisms such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), INSLM is now very different from when it was first established.
It’s now a full-time position, occupied by a lawyer with deep national security experience, with staff allowing for simultaneous inquiries. The government increasingly views INSLM as equal with the IGIS and PJCIS—as was apparent from Attorney-General Michelle Rowland’s remarks at the launch. She specifically highlighted INSLM’s empowerment via one of the earliest bills of this parliament, ‘the Strengthening oversight of Australia’s National Intelligence Community Bill, which expands the Monitor’s remit to ensure they are empowered to review any counter-terrorism or national security law on its own motion’.
So, what do the issues paper and the launch tell us about the inquiry’s likely focus? Joining Blight on the launch’s discussion panel were two other lawyers: UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul and Law Council president Juliana Warner. Between their comments and the paper’s tenor, it’s clear that the inquiry is examining hot-button issues, including whether religious motivation should still be listed; whether property damage should count as harm; and whether actions directed at international organisations should be covered. Each of these questions sounds narrow, but the answers would redraw the boundary between terrorism and protest, between coercion and vandalism.
The inquiry is now open for submissions until 14 October, with public and private hearings scheduled for late 2025 and early 2026. A report with INSLM’s recommendations is expected in the first half of next year.
That report will be consequential. As Blight has noted, the government has agreed upon (if not yet acted upon) his past recommendations, for example on Australia’s existing secrecy offences. That means that if INSLM’s recommendations are perceived as watering down the terrorism definition, the government could risk being wedged on a national security issue, especially given that the terrorism threat level has been raised to ‘probable’.
Alternatively, the government might be presented recommendations for sensible, prudent adjustments to the law—for example, adjustments to ensure the law better accounts for the mental harm caused by terrorism, or to recognise hostage-taking as a terrorist action.
The challenge is not to water down the definition to match a changing threat, but to keep it sharp enough to distinguish terrorism from other forms of violence, precise enough to preserve democratic space and robust enough to underpin the entire counterterrorism system.
That’s why it’s important that ordinary Australians, including victims of terrorism and their families and friends, get to have their say on what terrorism will mean in the future.