Terrorism and Religion
The Albanese government has decided against supporting any narrowing of the terrorism definition that would remove "religion" as a standalone motive category in the Criminal Code.
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Jake Blight is expected to recommend, in a report due around 20 November 2026, that violent religious extremism be absorbed into a broader "ideology" category. This is an own-motion review, not one commissioned by the government. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland's office has already stated that the government "does not support any narrowing of the definition of terrorism." The Coalition has also said it would reject any such watering-down.
Security agencies opposed the change on operational grounds. The AFP warned that unintended narrowing could make it harder to access special counter-terrorism powers and secure prosecutions. ASIO noted that its existing language ("religiously motivated violent extremism") is designed to avoid targeting an entire religion. New AFP figures cited in the piece show religiously motivated extremism accounting for 58 per cent of people charged with terrorism offences since 2020, versus about 30 per cent for nationalist, racist and other ideologies.
The political context is explicit. The decision risks backlash from Muslim community leaders in western Sydney Labor seats, where the party suffered swings at the last election. Muslim Votes Matter has already indicated it will factor the issue into future campaigning. The Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia (Aftab Malik) supports removing the religious motive element, arguing terrorism should be defined by violent conduct and extremist ideology rather than religious identity. The Antisemitism Envoy (Jillian Segal) argued the opposite, citing that almost 95 per cent of the sentencing decisions reviewed involved religion as at least one motive and that law enforcement needs to be able to name threats accurately.
This is distinct from the earlier hate-speech religious-text carve-out debate. Here the question is whether the motive element in the terrorism definition itself should continue to list "religious" alongside "political" and "ideological." Retaining it does not create a new restriction on ordinary religious belief or practice; those remain protected. It preserves the existing legal ability to identify and prosecute acts that meet the full terrorism threshold (violence or threats intended to coerce/intimidate for a political, religious or ideological purpose). The Bondi attackers (ISIS-inspired) and the dominance of religiously motivated cases in the post-2020 data are the immediate backdrop for the government's position.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/anthony-albanese-says-no-to-religionfree-terror-law/news-story/345c1b525b1db1c063ce20fe5c3250b8
