Acknowledgements
I begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people as traditional custodians of the land we are gathered on and recognise any other people or families with connection to the lands of the ACT and region.
I also acknowledge and welcome other Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people who may be attending this evening's event.
I give my thanks to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor - the INSLM - Mr Jake Blight, for the invitation to speak tonight to mark the launch of the review of the definition of a 'terrorist act' in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
Keeping Australians safe is the foremost priority of any Government, and I acknowledge that there are many in the audience tonight who have played, and continue to play, a significant role in keeping Australians safe at home, and abroad.
While there are too many to mention, I particularly want to note the attendance of former Attorney-General, the Hon George Brandis KC, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Reece Kershaw, and incoming Commissioner Krissy Barrett.
I also note that this evening we are joined by Louisa Hope - a survivor of the Lindt Café siege - and Alpha Cheng, whose father Curtis was tragically murdered in a terrorist attack outside NSW Police Headquarters in October 2015, and representatives from the Victims of Terrorism Australia.
Terrorism in Australia
Terrorism is unlike any other crime.
Over the past 20 years, it has shaped our national security landscape, our laws and our collective sense of safety.
On September 11, 2001, the world was irrevocably changed. Though that tragedy occurred thousands of kilometres away, its reverberations were felt in every nation, including ours. I remember as a young girl the Sydney Hilton bombing in 1978. It was the first significant terrorist attack on Australian soil and triggered a shift in our approach to national security matters. However, 9/11 marked a true turning point in how we understood the threats facing our country and how we responded to them - legally, operationally, and as a community.
Our sense of distance was forever shattered when, in October of the following year, hundreds of lives were lost in the Bali bombings - including 88 Australians.
Ever since that time, the threat has remained real, immediate, and personal, with Australians having faced numerous acts of senseless and indiscriminate violence.
Though we can quantify the number of fatalities and injuries of terrorism over more than 20 years, this cannot alone explain the impact on the psyche of Australian people.
It does not capture the trauma, division and fear that each of these attacks leaves in its wake.
Evolving threat
The threat of terrorism to Australians and Australian interests has continued to evolve.
As the Director-General of Security noted in his 2025 National Threat Assessment, Australia's security environment is more volatile and unpredictable than ever before.
While transnational networks like ISIL and al-Qa'ida remain active overseas, we have also seen unacceptable nationalist and racist violent extremists continue to rise.
Response to terrorism threat
In response to this complex threat environment, successive governments, law enforcement agencies, intelligence bodies, and communities have worked relentlessly to strengthen our responsiveness and resilience.
I particularly acknowledge the tireless dedication of these very intelligence and law enforcement officials has resulted in the disruption of dozens of major terrorism plots - saving countless Australian lives in the process.
I want to be clear here - I am not talking only about Commonwealth officials.
Countering terrorism is a true partnership between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. These are some of the strongest relationships within the Federation, and I thank you all for your continued dedication to keeping our country, our people and our institutions safe.
In part, the success of our response has been enabled by a legislative framework that was responsive to the evolving threat landscape. This framework is underpinned by an Intergovernmental Agreement, another pillar of the deep interjurisdictional partnership, which has allowed the Commonwealth to legislate in a comprehensive and responsive manner.
A range of counter-terrorism laws have been introduced since 2001. From proscribing terrorist organisations to criminalising preparatory acts and foreign incursions, these laws have been directed towards keeping Australians safe. They have focused on preventing, responding to, and recovering from terrorist attacks. As the methodologies, targets and objectives of terrorism have changed, so too have these laws, ensuring our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are appropriately equipped to respond.
Terrorist act
At the heart of all these laws is the definition of a 'terrorist act'.
First introduced into the Criminal Code in 2002, the definition has remained unchanged ever since. Currently, terrorism is defined as an act - or a threat of an act - done with the intention of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, with the aim of coercing the government or intimidating the government or the public. Crucially, the act must cause, or intend to cause, serious physical harm, death, endangerment, or serious damage to property, or create a serious risk to public health or safety.
Terrorism is a very specific kind of crime.
It is not only about violence or destruction. It is about violence motivated by a cause and with intent to influence or intimidate -- striking fear into the broader community. It is about targeting not just people or places, but our collective sense of safety and the very values and institutions that hold our society together.
This is what sets terrorism apart from other forms of criminality. A fraudster seeks profit. A violent offender may act out of rage or desperation. Both are criminals and cause harm to specific victims.
But a terrorist seeks to use fear as a weapon to reshape society.
The harm caused is not only to particular individuals or property, but to our collective sense of safety, our trust in government, and our cohesion as a democratic and pluralistic nation. Its often indiscriminate nature leaves all members of the community thinking 'that could have been me'. This is what elevates terrorism to be one of the most serious threats facing our nation.
Terrorism is deliberately symbolic. It aims to send a message - to undermine confidence in the rule of law, to provoke division, to incite further violence, and to drive wedges between communities. It is this broader social and psychological impact that makes terrorism so damaging. It exploits vulnerabilities and can foster fear, suspicion, and resentment. The echoes of which remain long after the attack itself. Left unchecked, it corrodes the social fabric that binds us together.
In the face of this threat, governments are often required to respond in ways that may infringe on individual rights and liberties for the fundamental objective of keeping Australians safe.
Australia has enacted a broad suite of counter-terrorism and national security legislation over the past two decades. These laws have given our agencies critical powers to prevent attacks, disrupt plots, and protect the Australian public.
The challenge for law makers is to ensure that our response is firm, but fair; strong, but principled. In doing so, we not only defend our safety, but the very values that define us as Australians.
Getting that balance right means that we not only equip the institutions and agencies with the powers they need to keep us safe, but that we always have an eye to the rule of law and ensuring that the national security framework remains proportionate and necessary.
Good national security policy does not ask us to choose between safety and liberty - it demands that we protect both. That is our duty, not only as lawmakers, but as citizens of a democratic nation.
Reviewing national security laws
It is fair to say that terrorism and our response to it will often require us to consider and test the balance between liberty and security, and prompt deep reflection on what it means to be a free and safe society.
The role of our oversight bodies in these circumstances cannot be understated - including that of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor
Australia's national security architecture is stronger as a result of its oversight framework. This framework contributes to the trust the community has in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and underpins their social licence to perform their vital role.
In the first instance, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security plays a critical role in scrutinising national security legislation and supports the Parliament in its consideration of these important Bills.
Courts also have a critical role to play in interpreting and enforcing laws. However, many activities are necessarily covert and may never be aired in a courtroom. For this reason, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security performs a vital role in providing assurance that agencies act with legality and propriety.
However, it is also important that the laws themselves are subject to review. That is why Labor established the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in 2010. The Monitor's role is to assist Ministers by considering the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's counter-terrorism and national security laws; and whether those laws contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain necessary and proportionate, and are consistent with Australia's international obligations. The Monitor is appropriately invested with the necessary powers to conduct these reviews.
Last month, I introduced into Parliament the Strengthening Oversight of the 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.
I greatly appreciate Mr Blight, Australia's first full time Monitor, undertaking this review of the definition of a 'terrorist act'.
The complexity of the threat, and the corresponding legal framework, makes this review an unenviable but critically important task.
I encourage any Australian interested in these significant legal matters to engage with the review to share your views and expertise.
I sincerely look forward to receiving the INSLM's report in due course.
Conclusion
While I have spoken about laws and the role of government - I wanted to finish by recognising the other critical partner in countering terrorism.
The community.
We know that the best way to prevent radicalisation is to ensure that all Australians - regardless of background or belief - feel heard, valued, and protected.
That is why partnerships with communities, education programs, and early intervention initiatives are an essential component of our national Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy released earlier this year.
Terrorism, in all its forms - whether religiously, politically, or ideologically motivated - is a rejection of democratic coexistence.
It seeks to replace dialogue with violence, pluralism with fear.
We must be steadfast in resisting that aim, not just through law enforcement and intelligence, but by strengthening the values that define us as a free and open society.
I reaffirm the Albanese Government's commitment to standing against hate.
Extremism thrives where division festers.
Together, we must remain vigilant, principled, and united.
As Attorney-General, I am committed to ensuring that our legal system continues to provide the tools needed to address these threats, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all Australians.
National security cannot come at the expense of our democratic values - it must reinforce them.
For in defending ourselves against terrorism, we define not only our security - but the character of our nation.
