Some observers and civil liberties advocates have raised questions about the decision to label the arson attack as a terrorist act, suggesting that such a designation carries significant weight and should be applied with caution. While the destruction of property and the use of fire are undeniably criminal and dangerous, critics argue that expanding the definition of terrorism to include protests against defence companies could have a chilling effect on legitimate political discourse and dissent in Australia.
There is a concern that by framing this incident primarily through the lens of 'far-left extremism,' the government may be over-politicizing a criminal investigation. Critics suggest that focusing heavily on the ideological motivations of the perpetrators might distract from the practical need to address the underlying security lapses that allowed the attack to occur in the first place. If the focus remains solely on the 'terrorist' label, there is a risk that the broader debate about Australia's involvement in global military programs and the ethics of the defence industry will be suppressed rather than addressed through open public discussion.
Furthermore, there is a fear that the use of extreme language and the threat of life imprisonment could lead to an escalation in tensions between the state and activist groups. If the government is perceived as using counter-terrorism laws to silence opposition to its foreign policy, it may inadvertently increase the alienation of certain community groups. A more balanced approach, critics argue, would be to prosecute the perpetrators for the serious criminal offences they committed—such as arson and property damage—without necessarily framing the entire event as a national security crisis that requires the involvement of the nation's top spy agencies.