After a trip to Canberra late yesterday for talks with officials in the Prime Minister's office, media executives were gloomy about the prospect of change.

Media companies and industry bodies, supported by arts and legal organisations, have united in an unprecedented display of opposition to the sedition sections of the Government's anti-terror legislation. They have branded it a threat to press freedom, a scaling back of free speech, and unnecessary. But the Government has been unmoved.

One media executive who has been involved in the long-running negotiations with the government told Media: "There is very great disappointment that the Government plans to enact an imperfect bill."

He said after the meeting with officials in the PM's office there may be minor changes to the sedition section of the anti-terror bill relating to a person's intent to incite ill-will or disorder, but little more.

Other sources said they believed there was still a push from Liberal senators to replace the "good faith" defence provisions of the proposals with a specific defence for "journalistic, educational, artistic, scientific, religious or public interest purposes". Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has undertaken to "nuance" aspects of the bill, but has rejected media pleas to delay implementing the law until it had been reviewed by the Australian Law Reform Council.

Almost 300 submissions were received by the Senate legal and constitutional committee, chaired by NSW Liberal senator Marise Payne. They were universal in their view that the strengthening of sedition laws as proposed by MrRuddock was unnecessary and a threat to free speech.

Sedition laws have been in force in Australia since 1914, but have rarely been used. There have been no prosecutions since the 1950s.

In many countries sedition laws have been abandoned. The documentary film-maker Robert Connolly, representing Arts and Creative Industries of Australia, gave evidence to the Senate committee that similar laws had been repealed in Canada, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, Britain and the US.

He said countries that continued to use sedition laws included China, Cuba, Hong Kong, Malaysia, North Korea, Singapore, Syria and Zimbabwe, and added: "I know which list most Australians would like to be on."

Mr Ruddock proposes to move the sedition laws from the Crimes Act and incorporate them into the tough new anti-terror bill.

The proposals will widen the scope of the laws, making it an offence to bring the sovereign into hatred or contempt; urge disaffection against the Constitution, the commonwealth government or either house of parliament; urge another person to attempt to procure a change, otherwise than by lawful means, to any matter established by law of the commonwealth; or promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the commonwealth.

Under the existing law, it is necessary to show intent to engage in seditious behaviour. That requirement is removed in the proposed legislation, opening the possibility of legitimate protest, opinion or satire breaching the law.

The proposals have been widely condemned as an incursion against free speech. In its submission to the Senate committee, the president of the Law Council of Australia, John North, said sedition law had been broadened "to such an extent that we think they will accidentally catch members of the media as well as legitimate protesters and even peace activists".

"The moment Australia moves down that path, then we really are in trouble," he said. The Law Council believed it was bad policy to introduce flawed legislation creating serious criminal offences for which offenders face terms of imprisonment when some doubt obviously existed about its appropriateness.

The council recommended that the existing sedition laws be reviewed to determine the need to have them in view of the number of new terrorist offences introduced, and any new provisions ought to be deferred pending a review.

Mr Ruddock last week proposed that the sedition laws be reviewed after the bill had passed, prompting ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope to brand the suggestion a "less than rigorous approach to law reform".

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre said the suggestion was "completely unacceptable" and the head of the Australian Press Council, Ken McKinnon, described it as "putting the cart before the horse".

Mr Ruddock met a deputation of media parties in his Sydney office last Friday. It included representatives of Australia's largest publisher, News Limited (owner of The Australian), John Fairfax, Free TV, the commercial radio industry, SBS and Australia's subscription TV industry.

The media representatives called for a halt to the sedition laws, pending review. If that proposal were to be rejected, they said, the sedition laws should be withheld when the anti-terror legislation was promulgated, and reviewed before they came into effect.

They also demanded changes to anti-terror legislation relating to police serving "notices to produce" on journalists who they believe may have information relating to terror organisations or individuals. They called on the Government to include specific shield legislation that would prevent journalists going about their jobs being caught up in police anti-terror activities.

The meeting was described as worthwhile, with Mr Ruddock saying he would give a considered reply in due course.

By midweek that reply had not been received, although Mr Ruddock had said he would not drop the sedition provisions of the bill.