Fix-it later legislation no way to govern

Even then, this might be acceptable in extreme cases if the Government actually fixed its legislation after its passage. It had the opportunity to do this in 2006, but instead failed to act on further reports that have urged changes to the law.

The ALRC released its report into sedition in July. Unsurprisingly, it proposed substantial changes. A key finding was that the term sedition should be eliminated and replaced with more specific "offences against political liberty and public order".

These would only criminalise speech where it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a person has intentionally urged others to use force or violence, and intended that this force or violence would occur. Changes were also proposed to protect legitimate forms of communication such as artistic speech, commentary and academic scholarship.

In some respects, notably the urging of violence against racial groups within the Australian community, the commission actually wanted the law made stronger. Yet even in light of the experience of the Cronulla riots this fell on deaf ears.

Similarly, in June the security legislation review committee, established by statute and headed by former judge Simon Sheller, made numerous recommendations about how the key terrorism crimes need to be fixed. The committee found some woefully unclear, and that others operated far too broadly.

Many of the recommendations of this committee have since been endorsed and supplemented by the unanimous December report of the bipartisan parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security. Each of these bodies has identified significant problems with our anti-terror laws. These undermine their effectiveness and in some cases make the prosecution of terrorists more difficult. Despite this, and in marked contrast to the speed with which the laws were enacted, the Government has yet to act.

This highlights how the Government is not keen to hear, let alone to respond to, constructive criticism about what it has done to date. It also shows how it can legislate on its own initiative, and not with the benefit of the advice of others.

This can produce some odd priorities. For instance, only in November 2006 did the Government announce a discussion paper on controlling access to dangerous chemicals, surely far more important in preventing a terrorist attack than criminalising sedition?

We do need strong anti-terror laws, but these also need to be effective and safe. In 2006, a range of government-appointed experts and a bipartisan committee have identified flaws in these laws. These need to be fixed. Until they are, the Government will have acted in haste without repairing the resulting problems.