NAVA campaigns and advocates for artists’ rights and the needs of the Australian visual arts sector as a whole. Since its formation in 1983, NAVA has been a powerful force in bringing about policy and legislative change to encourage the growth and development of Australian visual arts and craft.
In response to the announcement by the Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock that the government will not make the changes to sedition laws recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), NAVA has joined with others in the legal, arts and media sectors to demand changes needed to guarantee freedom of expression. Our concern is especially for artists and other creators however, this principle applies for all Australians.
Following a meeting of representatives across all sectors, a co-ordinated response was agreed. Go to the NAVA blog and join us in demanding the changes recommended by the ALRC to remove the title “Sedition” and to draw a clear distinction between legitimate comment,critique and dissent and the intentional urging of genuine terrorist activity
Read the ALRC's report: "Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia"
Background information
In December 2005, the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005 containing a Sedition clause was passed by the Australian Federal Parliament. When the draft Bill became public knowledge, the arts and media sectors realised that the Bill endangered people’s right of freedom of expression. NAVA collaborated with others in a rapid vociferous lobbying and media campaign.
The matter was referred to a Senate Committee that was given only a few days to receive submissions and review the law. The Committee recommended that the Sedition clause be excised. However, the Government chose instead to retain the clause though making some important amendments to it. Attorney General Phillip Ruddock acknowledged that the law was “a work in progress’ and subsequently referred the matter to a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).
The ALRC then sought responses to its issues and discussion papers from a broad cross-section of the community. Its findings were delivered in July 2006 which made 13 proposals for reform including that the concept of “sedition” should be removed from the statute books and for a person to be guilty of any offences, they must recklessly intend that force or violence against the Government, the Constitution or community groups would occur. The ALRC was concerned to avoid the stifling of dissenting views either directly or through the “chilling effect” of self-censorship. It particularly mentioned that there must be consideration of whether the conduct occured for a genuine academic, artistic, scientific or public interest purpose.
