The Albanese government is looking to roll back a third of Australia's criminal secrecy provisions, which have ballooned this century.
Alliance for Journalists' Freedom executive director Peter Greste, appearing before a Senate committee on Wednesday, said that included 130 new security laws in the two decades after September 11, 2001.
Mr Greste said that was more than any other country, making Australia a "world champion".
"A degree of secrecy is important, of course, but only around information that is genuinely sensitive or that would be genuinely damaging if it was released," he said.
"We caution against knee-jerk legislation in response to terrorist incidents that often intrudes on rights and freedoms.
"Those laws have often damaged the principles of the system that parliament was trying to protect."
Criminal secrecy offences - which can carry imprisonment punishments - are contained in hundreds of individual laws, ranging from those covering the NDIS, taxation, national security, and more.
The reform leaves those provisions largely in place, but imposes a new broad secrecy offence, and removes criminal liability from around 300 non-disclosure duties.
Anyone leaking or publishing those materials will be tested on improper intent - whether the person sought benefit or to cause harm - and instead be subject to civil or administrative punishments - such as dismissal.
Harmful disclosures of national security information or personal health information are to remain a criminal offence.
The bill faces trouble in the Senate, where the government requires either the support of the Greens or the coalition to pass.
The Greens are broadly supportive of the reform but hold concerns around the new secrecy "mega-offence".
The Right To Know alliance of media organisations and the Human Rights Law Centre have also voiced alarm over this provision, and particularly whether it is reliant on intent.
The coalition has queried a catch-all power afforded to the nation's top law officer, currently Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.
Under the reform, the attorney-general - who is sponsoring the bill - would be required to consent to prosecutions of journalists, which Ms Rowland said was "an additional safeguard for press freedom".
Senator Michaelia Cash said that gave rise to "potential politicisation" where journalists might need to "curry favour with a particular attorney-general of the day".
Opposition attorney-general Julian Leeser said the "consent requirement will apply to every Commonwealth secrecy offence that does not already require ministerial consent" and constituted "an extraordinary reach".
Both the coalition and Greens say they will finalise their positions on the laws following the public hearings.
14°C