Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move together:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 19), omit “or indirectly”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 21), omit “or indirectly”.

As honourable senators can see, the two amendments remove the words ‘or indirectly’. These amendments will ensure that only materials which directly counsel or urge the doing of a terrorist act will be refused classification. These amendments are required because the inclusion of the notion of indirect advocacy of terrorism draws a blurry line between material that may, on the one hand, be legitimate in the context of a struggle for liberation or independence and may, on the other hand, be a terrorist act. The Democrats consider that more leeway should be afforded to classifiers to reflect this political reality. This goes back to the broader issue of respecting the freedom of expression.