Ideology and terrorism: report considers definitions

The Monitor can initiate reviews of their own initiative, have a matter referred by the Prime Minister, the Attorney General or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and is also required to undertake certain reviews by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 (Cth).

Formerly Deputy Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Jake Blight is the current Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. In November 2023, he commenced a three-year term, appointed by the Attorney General. Blight has close to 25 years’ experience in national security law. Reviews by the Monitor, according to its website, “consider the operation, effectiveness and implications of the relevant law, whether it contains appropriate protections for individual rights, remains necessary and proportionate and whether it is consistent with Australia’s international obligations.”

Usually, the review process involves the production of an issues paper, consultation meetings and a call for submissions from interested parties. Sometimes, public or private hearings also take place.

When a review is complete, the Monitor produces a report which is provided to the Attorney General who then tables it in the Commonwealth Parliament within 15 to 30 days. The report on “ideology” is expected to be finalised and submitted to the Attorney General in September 2026.

As the INSLM notes: “With the increasing diversity and mix of ideologies and other drivers of violent attacks it is critical the legislative definition adequately captures all emerging threats that should be regarded as terrorism for the purpose of triggering those specific terrorism powers and offences.”

Enacted in 2002 following the 9/11 attacks on New York, the Australian definition of a ‘terrorist act’ has remained the same, despite evolutions in the scope and type of terrorism threats facing Australia, including via technology and changing geopolitical circumstances. This is the first review since 2013, then undertaken by the Council of Australian Governments. When the definition of “ideology” was introduced, it was a central element for 20 offences and three specific powers. Now, there are over 300 Commonwealth, state and territory laws that contain offences, obligations and powers that rely on this definition, including many exceptional powers and modifications to longstanding legal principles.

Currently underway, the term “ideology” is the focus of the INSLM’s “Defining terrorism: Review of the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ in section 100.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995”. Without a definition in the Criminal Code there’s a problematic number of views and definitions of what an ideology is and the INSLM review is focused on the need for a clear statutory definition of an ‘ideology’ to ensure consistency in the Australian courts.

Following public hearings earlier in March, the INSLM office is now in the process of drafting the final report to be provided to the Attorney General by September. Public hearings took place on 10 and 11 March, hosting a number of government agencies, victim-survivors, civil society and faith-based organisations, Special Envoys, and academics. The Monitor and INSLM staff have spoken with over 130 individuals and organisations, according to their website.

A ‘terrorist act’ in section 100.1 is defined to mean an action or threat of action where:

• the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
• the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
• the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) 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 (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

The Issues Paper explores key issues being considered in the review, including:

1. the effectiveness and implications of the definition;
2. whether the legislation contains appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals;
3. if the definition, when considered in light of the offences and powers it enlivens, remains necessary and proportionate to the current threat of terrorism;
4. whether the definition is consistent with Australia’s international obligations, including various counter-terrorism resolutions and agreements and current international ‘best practice’.

Two of the key questions proposed by the Issues Paper were:

• Is the exclusion for ‘advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action’ necessary and effective? Are any other exceptions needed –in particular the activities of armed forces during armed conflict and the work of impartial humanitarian organisations which are lawful under international humanitarian law?
• If you recommend a change to the definition of a terrorist act what would be the consequences of that change (legal and practical) and are there alternatives that could achieve the same objective?

In a submission made on 27 November 2025, the Law Council of Australia acknowledged that “the contemporary threat environment differs significantly to that confronting the nation twenty-two years ago.  In addition to the change in threat, we now have a robust national security infrastructure, routinely discuss social cohesion and the maintenance of sovereignty, and our agencies are alert and equipped to respond to political violence in a manner unrecognisable a generation ago.”

One of the proposals was to more carefully define the phrase “section of the public”. Another was to amend the motive element “to ensure that the concept of ‘ideology’ covers the evolving range of motivations currently understood to constitute terrorism. It is also important to consider the appropriateness of maintaining ‘religion’ as a category of motivation within the definition.”

Avinash Singh is the Principal Lawyer at Astor Legal. He has appeared in terrorism cases previously. “In one of those cases, whether the actions of the defendant were the result of ideology or some other motive was a central issue. Ultimately, the court was not required to determine it as the terrorism offence was withdrawn and replaced with other offences which encapsulated the conduct. Ideology was not an element of the new offences.”

He says, “There are real issues with the term ‘ideology’, given how broad it is. The Criminal Code 1995 does not define it, and no Australian case has sought to define it. To this point, the dictionary definition of ideology is, “a structured set of beliefs, values, and ideas that shapes how individuals or groups understand, interpret, and act upon the world”. What this means is that almost any strongly held worldview could be capable of being an ‘ideology’.”

Singh refers to the Lindt Café siege in 2014 as a prime example of where an ambiguous definition of ideology is problematic.

“Man Haron Monis displayed an Islamic flag and made political demands,” recalls Singh. “However, the coronial inquest discovered personal grievances and mental health issues on the part of Monis. This meant that it was unclear whether the incident was entirely a terrorist act, or a mentally disturbed individual acting on personal issues.”

In November 2022 ASIO lowered the national terrorism threat level from ‘PROBABLE’ to ‘POSSIBLE’. However, in August 2024 ASIO returned the national threat level for terrorism from POSSIBLE to PROBABLE. In early 2021 ASIO changed the language it used to describe terrorism and violent extremism, finding that labels like ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ extremism were no longer appropriate in describing the broad political ideologies that extremists may subscribe to. Instead, ASIO adopted ‘religiously motivated violent extremism’ and ‘ideologically motivated violent extremism’ as umbrella terms, though in 2024, ASIO indicated that Australians were increasingly at risk of becoming radicalised in an environment of lower social cohesion and decreased trust in government.

Since 2002, there have been a number of prominent terrorism-related cases. In 2003, Zeky Mallah was the first person to be charged under the newly introduced laws. Begun in 2005, Operation Pendennis resulted in the 2010 sentencing of five men for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism across Sydney and Melbourne. In 2009, a plan to attack the Holsworthy Barracks was foiled.

As a result of the December 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, Naveed Akram, 24, was charged with 59 offences, including a Commonwealth charge of terrorism, and displaying a prohibited terrorist symbol, while under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), he faces 15 counts of murder, and 40 counts of attempted murder. He faces life imprisonment if convicted of the charges.

Unclear ideologies, grievances, and youth radicalisation blamed for increased risk

Nonetheless, ASIO has reported that less than half the potential terrorist matters investigated in 2024 were ‘religiously motivated’; all involved lone actors or small groups; almost all involved minors; almost all individuals involved were unknown to ASIO or the police; they moved towards violence more quickly than had been seen before; and none appeared to be directly inspired by conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists.

In its 2025 Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy, ASIO reported that an increasing number of individuals are radicalised ‘principally or solely because of a personal grievance or perceived injustice, conspiracy theories or broad anti-authority views’. It adds: Grievance has long been a feature of violent extremist ideologies … The difference we are now seeing is the increasing centrality of grievance in motivating individuals to radicalisation – the ideologies to which they adhere are often ‘flags of convenience’, reflecting a transitory ideology built around a core grievance, and subject to rapid change.

Mental health issues and conspiracy theories, heightened by online engagement, have muddled the question of ideology as an exacerbating factor in extremist acts, or planned acts.

Despite religion having been rarely found to be a driving factor in terrorism attacks in Australia between 2002 and the present, there is a dissonance between public perceptions of the reason for terrorism and the reality of driving factors and risks.

Singh says, “The media has had a significant role to play in persuading the public that terrorism is solely based on religious beliefs, rather than the complex risk factors that contribute to terrorism offences. This creates greater issues in eradicating terrorism as Muslim communities feel stigmatised and their trust in institutions diminishes. It also creates fertile ground for radicalisation and entrenches radicalised beliefs, making outreach and reform more difficult.”

Singh also believes there has been difficulty with imposing proportionate sentences for terrorism offences across the country.