The Alliance welcomes the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission contained in its Discussion Paper on the federal sedition laws but warns that retaining even diluted or renamed sedition provisions still threatens press freedom. The Commission had been asked by the federal Attorney-General to investigate whether the sedition laws needed to be modernised, particularly over the aspect of the law relating to urging others to use force or violence, and whether the term “sedition” was appropriate for these “offences”. The Commission has issued 25 proposals for reforming the laws before issuing a final report.

The Alliance welcomes many of the Commission’s proposals – the Commission has acknowledged the concerns contained in the Alliance submission to its investigation.

Alliance federal secretary Chris Warren said: “This is a good first step in recognising that the laws currently apply a blanket on anyone ‘urging’ the use of force or violence. This could unfairly entrap journalists as they go about their reporting duty and affects performers who seek to entertain through satire.”

The Commission’s proposals seek to ensure that any urging of others to use force or violence should be intentional and that the intent is for force or violence to occur. The Commission also proposes that a jury should take into account the context in which the conduct occurred, such as whether it was part of an artistic performance or exhibition, or a genuine academic, artistic or scientific discussion, or an industrial dispute, or in a report or commentary about a matter of public interest.

Some of the other proposals include ensuring that the clause relating to “assisting” an enemy at war with Australia is clarified to refer to material assistance—such as funds, personnel or strategic information—rather than criticism of government policy. The Commission also proposes the repeal of the outdated provisions in the Crimes Act concerning ‘unlawful associations’, which have been superseded by more recent laws on terrorist organisations; and ruling out the need to introduce a British-style offence of “glorification of terrorism”.

“While it is true that the word 'sedition' carries its own grubby history, our concerns about the amendments adopted last year go well beyond that,” said Warren. “The Commission has recognised these concerns but the Alliance view is that the sedition laws should be abolished entirely because, on balance, we believe sedition has a limited impact on national security. In any guise, and under any name, sedition provisions irreversibly attack and undermine press freedom and public debate.”