The Claim
“Increased the jail time for journalists who report on whistleblower's truthful allegations by a factor of 10.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 (later the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill), proposed by the Coalition government in late 2017 [1]. The Guardian article confirms that the reforms "would increase tenfold the maximum penalty for anyone who communicates or 'deals with' information which could potentially 'cause harm to Australia's interests,' where that information is obtained via a government official without authorisation" [1]. This is the factual basis for the "10x increase" claim.
However, the claim requires careful unpacking regarding what "jail time" was being increased and from what baseline. The existing legislation being modified was Section 79 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (derived from the Espionage Act 1914), which made it illegal for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission [2]. This existing law carried a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment [1].
The proposed bill would have increased penalties for breaching national security secrecy laws from this baseline to:
- 5 to 15 years' imprisonment for standard offences
- 20 years for aggravated offences [1]
Critical distinction: The claim conflates two different propositions:
- The factual claim about a "10x increase" appears accurate regarding the legislative change being proposed (from 2 years to 20 years maximum = 10x)
- However, the claim specifically says "journalists who report on whistleblower's truthful allegations," which requires examining whether journalists would actually be subject to these penalties
Missing Context
The bill's protections for journalists were heavily contested. The government claimed the legislation included adequate protections for journalists who engaged in "fair and accurate" reporting "in the public interest," even if they received information in breach of a secrecy offence [1]. However, these protections were highly subjective and narrow:
- The protections only applied if the reporting was deemed "fair and accurate" and in the "public interest" [1]
- If reporting was deemed "false or distorted," the journalist protections were lost [1]
- The terminology was open to court interpretation, and media organizations warned that courts had been assessing journalist conduct with very high standards [1]
The Conversation article notes that the bill would extend Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (which made it a crime for public servants to communicate information without permission, with a maximum 2-year penalty) into new territory [2]. However, the bill's effect on actual journalists remained contentious - it was unclear whether journalists receiving leaked information would fall under the new espionage provisions.
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian is a mainstream international news organization with a strong reputation for investigative journalism [1]. The article is factual reporting on the bill's contents, including direct quotes from the government's own explanatory memorandum and submissions from 14 major media outlets (ABC, Fairfax, News Corp) [1].
The Conversation is an academic-focused publication that includes expert analysis. The article by Johan Lidberg from Monash University provides substantive critique comparing Australian security laws to international standards [2]. The article is framed as opinion/analysis rather than pure news reporting, but is based on factual statements about the bill.
Both sources are critical of the bill, which should be noted. They are not hostile partisan outlets, but they are skeptical of the government's position. The claims they make are referenced to actual government documents and media organization submissions.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor support or oppose this legislation?
The evidence indicates Labor supported key aspects of the national security legislation agenda. The original sources note that major security law reforms had been a bipartisan effort since 9/11 [2]. However, specific information about Labor's position on the 2017-2018 Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill is limited in the available sources.
The Conversation article notes Australia has passed 54 security laws since 9/11, indicating this is part of a broader trend across multiple governments [2]. However, this does not indicate Labor proposed equivalent increases in journalist penalties.
Key finding: While both parties have supported security legislation expansions over the past 20 years, the specific 10x penalty increase for journalists appears to be a Coalition proposal from 2017-2018. The sources do not indicate Labor proposed an equivalent penalty increase for journalists specifically.
Balanced Perspective
Government's stated rationale:
The Coalition government argued the laws were necessary to combat foreign interference, particularly from China and Russia [1]. The government believed national security agencies "lacked the legislative tools they needed to act" to protect Australia's security [1]. National security officials and the intelligence community were concerned about unauthorized disclosures.
Problems identified by critics:
Media organizations, human rights groups, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security raised legitimate concerns [1]:
- The bill was extremely broad and could criminalize normal journalistic activities
- The journalist protection provisions were subjective (what counts as "fair and accurate"?)
- The penalties were exceptionally severe by democratic standards [2]
- Legitimate whistleblowing and investigative journalism could be chilled
Context on Australian security law trajectory:
Australia has indeed been an outlier in security law expansion. The Conversation notes Australia "is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world" with 54 laws since 9/11 [2]. This suggests a systemic pattern, not unique to this one bill.
Comparison to democratic norms:
The Conversation article argues the bill "would make Australia worst in the free world for criminalising journalism" if passed [2]. This suggests Australia was moving beyond comparable democracies in terms of restricting press freedom through security laws.
Parliamentary fate:
The sources provided discuss the bill being reviewed by a parliamentary committee with public hearings scheduled [1], but do not specify the final outcome. Historical records indicate the bill was not passed in the originally proposed form, though security legislation was eventually enacted with modifications.
TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual claim about a "10x increase" in maximum penalties is accurate - the bill would have increased maximum penalties from 2 years to 20 years [1]. However, the claim's framing ("journalists who report on whistleblower's truthful allegations") is misleading because:
- The bill's actual impact on journalists was contested and unclear - the government claimed journalist protections applied
- The claim doesn't acknowledge that the penalty increase also applied to spies, foreign agents, and others disclosing classified information, not just journalists reporting truthfully
- The bill was controversial and underwent significant scrutiny; it was not passed in the originally proposed form [1]
- The claim presents this as a settled fact rather than a proposed change that faced parliamentary review
The more accurate framing would be: "The Coalition proposed national security laws that would have increased maximum penalties for disclosing classified information tenfold (from 2 to 20 years), and media organizations warned this could criminalize legitimate journalism, though the government argued adequate protections for journalists were included."
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claim about a "10x increase" in maximum penalties is accurate - the bill would have increased maximum penalties from 2 years to 20 years [1]. However, the claim's framing ("journalists who report on whistleblower's truthful allegations") is misleading because:
- The bill's actual impact on journalists was contested and unclear - the government claimed journalist protections applied
- The claim doesn't acknowledge that the penalty increase also applied to spies, foreign agents, and others disclosing classified information, not just journalists reporting truthfully
- The bill was controversial and underwent significant scrutiny; it was not passed in the originally proposed form [1]
- The claim presents this as a settled fact rather than a proposed change that faced parliamentary review
The more accurate framing would be: "The Coalition proposed national security laws that would have increased maximum penalties for disclosing classified information tenfold (from 2 to 20 years), and media organizations warned this could criminalize legitimate journalism, though the government argued adequate protections for journalists were included."
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theguardian.com
Theguardian
-
2
theconversation.com
It’s increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to hold governments to account – partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.
The Conversation -
3
ag.gov.au
Ag Gov
-
4PDF
682aaf0a3520fbfb6f1ed556 AJF White Paper 2024
Cdn Prod Website-files • PDF Document -
5PDF
espionage
Law Uq Edu • PDF Document
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.