Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor welcomes the recent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission, the ALRC, Fighting words: a review of sedition laws in Australia, and in doing so notes with concern the government’s failure to implement its recommendations. The report makes a number of recommendations to improve the existing law. It says:

Some of these represent technical refinements to the drafting. Mainly, however, the recommendations are aimed at ensuring there is a bright line between freedom of expression—even when exercised in a challenging or unpopular manner—and the reach of the criminal law, which should focus on exhortations to the unlawful use of force or violence.

The ALRC report refers specifically to the laws said to be modernised in the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. I remind this chamber of the unfortunate way these laws were rushed through the parliament by the government last November—legislation that could have first been reviewed by the Australian Law Reform Commission before it went to a vote of the parliament. Labor opposed the sedition laws being part of the anti-terror laws and the amendments that were made to them. The sedition provisions were opposed too by a Senate committee that comprised opposition and government senators.

Media organisations, arts organisations, community organisations, lawyer groups and many members of the general public opposed these sedition provisions that formed part of the legislation. And why was there such concern, such opposition, by so many? It was because the laws, as drafted by the Howard government, had the ability to threaten some of the things that Australians hold dear: the right to comment, criticise and peacefully protest against government action. These extreme laws were drafted so that they cast the net too wide, opening up the possibility of journalists, artists and peaceful protesters being caught in it. The sedition provisions as they stand create a real risk that people could face prosecution simply for criticising the government or reporting the words or actions of others. There is no doubt that there is a clear difference between criticism of government, which is a democratic right, and the promotion of violence, which should be caught by our laws.

It remains Labor’s view that, from the outset, these laws that were rushed through, with very little real consultation or consideration being given to concerns raised, were clumsy and poorly drafted. Concerns were expressed through the media and the Senate inquiry that the laws might intrude unreasonably upon freedom of speech and stifle or severely punish sharp criticism of government policy. Labor proposed that we should look at protecting the community, our community, from those who incite others to violence, but we raised our genuine concerns that these laws would not do that. Labor proposed amendments that would put beyond doubt that peaceful criticism of the government and genuine journalistic and artistic works would not be caught by the sedition laws.

Labor’s reasonable approach has now been endorsed by the finding of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its conclusion that there needed to be:

... a clear distinction in the law between free speech and conduct calculated to incite violence in the community—which properly should be the subject of the criminal law.

ALRC President Professor David Weisbrot, in a press release on September 13, the day the report was tabled, said:

Technically, the laws must be drafted in sufficiently precise terms to ensure they cannot be applied inappropriately or used in a way that would infringe upon freedom of expression—whether directly or by prompting artists or commentators to self-censor for fear of prosecution.

He went on to say:

Context is critical in these circumstances, so under our recommendations, courts would be required to take into account whether the conduct was a part of artistic expression; or genuine academic or scientific discussion; or a news report or commentary.

The private member’s bill introduced by shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon last year focuses on people who incite attacks against racial or religious groups, whether they are aiming for national attention or just encouraging local bullying. If these more targeted laws were in place, they would leave journalists and artists free to criticise government but provide an effective way to crack down on those who promote violence in our community.

The ALRC report supports some of the concerns raised by the media, artist and industry bodies that made representations to the Senate inquiry. Labor voted against the sedition laws, and even some government backbenchers thought they were a mistake and needed more work—that they should not have been rushed through in the way that they were. The Australian Law Reform Commission report confirms what Labor knew all along: the term ‘sedition’ should be removed from federal criminal law and the sedition laws do not do the job of protecting Australia in the way that they should. A recommendation in a media release put out by the ALRC said:

… drop the ‘red rag’ term ‘sedition’ from federal laws.

The fact is that, under the changes to federal law recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, media commentators, satirists, artists and activists would be safe from controversial sedition laws, even if their ideas were unpopular and confronting, as long as they did not urge the use of violence. More than two months has passed since the ALRC handed down its report. It is time that this government acted on the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and moved to put them into effect.