Religion ‘must be on ASIO alert list’

A SENIOR Coalition MP has called for the ASIO Act to be revised to include religiously motivated violence under its definitions of security.

A SENIOR Coalition MP has called for the ASIO Act to be revised to include religiously motivated violence under its definitions of security.

The 1979 Act governing ASIO’s responsibilities includes definitions of threats to national security such as foreign espionage, attacks on the defence system, sabotage and politically motivated violence.

But it does not specifically include religiously motivated violence — arguably the greatest present day threat to Australia’s security — although such an offence is specified in the Crimes Act.

Comparable countries such as Canada include specific references to religiously motivated violence in intelligence and security laws.

The UK’s MI5 defines religiously motivated violence as a national security threat.

Former army officer, defence strategist and now Coalition member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Andrew Nikolic, said the ASIO Act might need to be revised to take into account modern threats to security.

He said Australia should consider adopting the Canadian and UK definitions.

“We should act at every opportunity to further assist the work of our police, security and intelligence agencies in countering resurgent terrorism,” he said.

“That includes intensifying our co-operation with traditional five-eyes partners and other close friends in the international system. Given that every recent bilateral or multilateral communiqué prioritises the importance of enhanced counter-terrorism co-operation, this is the moment to ­ensure a strong, co-ordinated and global response.

“Lessons are being learned daily in how best to respond to resurgent terrorism and we must adopt ‘best practice’ at every opportunity.”

“Countering terrorism requires us to acknowledge and respond to all of the motivations that underlie terrorist activity, be they political, religious or ideological.”

Some intelligence officials said being too specific could create scope to challenge warrants or charges, whereas vague definitions allowed a broader interpretation when it came to surveillance and intercepts.