As the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth Parliament explicit power to make laws with respect to terrorism, the states have referred their legislative powers to the Commonwealth to support comprehensive terrorism offences at a national level. As part of the reference of power agreement, the Australian Government is required to consult with the states and territories on amendments to the terrorism offences. It has also undertaken to consult states and territories on listing terrorist organisations, including the provision of information on the activities of those organisations. Australia's preparedness and prevention capability - Counter-terrorism legislation
What travesty! Jon Stanton actually using his constitutional power to foster public debate. Publishing Federal drafts he was asked not to is surely "contempt for the Government of the Commonwealth". If he isn't guilty of sedition then who is?
I found this little snippet also. The (a) part is related to violence against people or property, but the Liberal Party's behaviour towards the States certainly seems to fulfill (b) and (c). All they have to do now is starting making threats against Jon Stanton's personal safety and the Federal Government will be guilty of a fair dinkum "terrorist act" pursuant to subsection 100.1(1) of the Criminal Code Amendment Act 2004.
(a) .... [refer to subsection (2) and (3)]
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Act 2004: subsection 100.1(1)
In theory talking positively about "terrorist acts" makes me guilty of a "terrorist act". Which means my organisation is a "terrorist organisation". Which presumably makes me a "terrorist". And if I'm a terrorist, then actions I take must be "terrorist acts", which is what I said in the first place. That's reassuring, because it's important to have more than one source of evidence when you're accusing people of something serious like terrorism.
I believe quite firmly that the role of official definitions (and any sort) is to narrow the meaning of words and phrases, not broaden them to incorporate virtually anything you can imagine. The usefulness of a definition is almost entirely in what it excludes. For example I think it would be good to have different phrases for planning and carrying out politically-motivated massacres of civilians, than we do for talking positively about politically-motivated damaging of private property that will never happen. Maybe the line gets blurry at some point, but it definitely exists. It would make me very sad indeed if no one was able to tell the difference.
Once all this is over, it will be "sedition" to go to a public demonstration that isn't legal. To be sure, I'll be attending every unauthorised demonstration I hear about. I want to get me some of the seditious intent. It will be something to tell the grandkids. Or at least I sincerely hope it will be.