6 hours ago
4
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has rebuffed a push by the nation’s envoy for tackling Islamophobia to water down the importance of religion and ideology in defining terrorism, indicating the government does not plan to change the current wording.
Debate over changing the terror definition has put the special envoys for combating Islamophobia and antisemitism at odds with each other and has been strongly opposed by domestic spy agency ASIO, which said overhauling the definition could trigger “catastrophic consequences”.
In his submission to the antisemitism royal commission, Aftab Malik, the special envoy to combat Islamophobia, called for the government to “reduce a reliance on ideological, political or religious motivation as a central criterion to the offence” of terrorism.
Malik argued that the current definition was “ill-equipped to address the reality of modern extremism which features hybrid, intersecting, fluid, non-coherent ideologies that are also progressively driven by personal grievances”.
“Efforts to categorise extremism solely by ideology are increasingly insufficient,” he wrote. “Instead, greater emphasis must be placed on the actual outcomes of extremist activity, namely the capacity to mobilise harm, incite violence and erode social cohesion, regardless of the ideological
pathway involved.”
A coalition of 15 Muslim groups has also argued that “religion and ideology” should no longer count as a motivation for terrorist acts.
Burke told reporters in Sydney on Monday that, while cabinet was considering Malik’s report, he was “comfortable with the definition that we use” to describe terrorism.
“That report’s been given to government, there will be a formal response,” he said. “But certainly, at the moment, the definitions we’re using are global definitions, where it interacts very well with the different partners that we have.”
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) Jake Blight, a statutory officer independently reviewing Australia’s national security and counter-terrorism laws, is conducting a major review into whether the official terrorism definition should be altered.
One of the issues under consideration is whether the current reference to violence seeking to “advance a political, religious or ideological cause” in the Criminal Code Act remains appropriate.
Blight told this masthead in a recent interview that terrorism had evolved since the September 11 attacks, meaning it was time to reconsider the definition.
“What I’m really trying to do is make sure our law treats equally terror attacks, no matter their ideology,” he said.
Blight said he was concerned that including religion in the terror definition – rather than just ideology – could inadvertently stigmatise Muslim Australians and play into the propaganda of violent groups such as the Islamic State.
“They say that they’re doing religious work. They say they’re doing holy work, and when we repeat that back aloud over and over again, we reinforce that,” he said. “We give them credibility they don’t deserve … We have to be careful about our language and make sure we’re not doing more harm than good.”
Terror attacks by groups such as IS could be covered by reference to ideology without needing to include religion in the definition, he said.
His review is due to be completed and handed to the government in October.
In his submission to Blight’s review, Malik called for “the removal of religious motive from any statutory or policy definition of terrorism in Australia”, arguing it had encouraged “the stigmatisation of Muslim Australians, polarisation between social groups and cultivated a climate of suspicion and fear around Muslims”.
ASIO strongly disagreed, arguing in a submission: “The retention of the existing motives contained in the definition – political, religious, ideological – remains valuable as they reflect the key overarching belief systems through which narratives can be widely shared, and which can therefore, in some instances, be leveraged to mobilise large numbers of people to action, including towards violent action.
“Obscuring such motivations could consequently risk the implementation of effective interventions or preventative actions, with potentially catastrophic consequences.”
ASIO said in its submission that 13 of the 16 terror attacks Australia had experienced from 2014 to 2025 had been religiously motivated. Twelve of the attacks were acts of Islamist violent extremism and one an act of Christian violent extremism.
The Australian Federal Police also defended the current definition, saying it was “clear and has been well tested in Australian courts over many years and aligns with the definitions utilised by our key international law enforcement partners”.
Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal argued in her submission to Blight’s review that it is “particularly important that the definition retain reference to the terms ‘political, religious or ideological cause’, as they assist to focus the definition and accordingly, the finite resources of law enforcement authorities”.
