The Claim
“Spent $17 million on a social media internet filter, allegedly to stop terrorist propaganda. The government believes that peaceful environmental protesters can be 'terrorists'.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The $17 Million Social Media Monitoring
The claim that the Coalition government spent $17 million on a social media internet filter is TRUE. In February 2015, Attorney-General George Brandis announced at the White House's summit on countering violent extremism that the Australian government would create a body to monitor social media and take down terrorist propaganda, with $17 million allocated for this purpose [1].
Brandis stated: "We must move beyond the notion that some people have that the internet and social media are a lawless state, they are not" [1]. The funding was specifically aimed at countering Islamic State's online recruitment and propaganda efforts, which Brandis noted had "weaponised the internet like no other group before it" [1].
The "Environmental Protesters as Terrorists" Claim
The claim that a government MP called environmental protesters "terrorists" is also TRUE, but requires significant context. In September 2014, Nationals MP George Christensen (Member for Dawson) issued a media statement describing anti-coal activists protesting the Abbot Point Coal Terminal expansion as "eco-terrorists" and "gutless green germs" [2].
Christensen specifically stated: "North Queensland will no longer bow down to eco-terrorists... We will defend our jobs and our lifestyles and call out these gutless green germs for the terrorists they are" [2]. He was referring to protests against the development of a coal terminal in Queensland's Galilee Basin, which involved the Mackay Conservation Group and activists who had "hung themselves like daft bats from a ship-loader" [2].
Missing Context
Distinction Between Policy and Individual MP Comments
The claim conflates two separate issues and implies they are connected:
The $17 million anti-terrorism measure was specifically designed to counter Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) online radicalization and recruitment, not to target environmental protesters. The White House summit focused on international violent extremism, particularly Islamist terrorism [1].
George Christensen's comments were made by an individual backbench MP in September 2014, not as government policy. Christensen was expressing personal views about a specific local protest against coal infrastructure in his electorate, not articulating official government counter-terrorism policy [2].
Bipartisan Counter-Terrorism Support
The claim omits that counter-terrorism legislation has historically enjoyed bipartisan support in Australia. Both Labor and Coalition governments have enacted anti-terrorism laws, with over 50 federal statutes passed in the decade following September 11 [3]. Labor has consistently supported counter-terrorism measures and has continued this approach in government (2022-present) [4].
The Age's Coverage
The original Age article (same article published in SMH) made no mention of environmental protesters - it focused exclusively on Islamic State counter-radicalization efforts at the White House summit [1]. The claim combines two unrelated stories to create a misleading narrative.
Source Credibility Assessment
The Age (Sydney Morning Herald)
The primary source is The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) / The Age, both owned by Nine Entertainment. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Age has a "left-center bias" - it "often publish[es] factual information that utilizes loaded words... to favor liberal causes" [5]. While generally factual, the publication has a slight to moderate liberal political orientation. The article itself was straightforward reporting by Nick O'Malley, National Environment and Climate Editor [1].
RenewEconomy
The second source, RenewEconomy, is an Australian website focused on clean energy and climate news. It has a clear environmental advocacy stance and focuses on renewable energy and climate issues. The article was written by Sophie Vorrath and reported on George Christensen's statements without additional editorial commentary [2].
Both sources are credible for factual reporting, though RenewEconomy has a stated editorial perspective favoring environmental protection and renewable energy.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Counter-terrorism measures: Yes. Labor governments (2007-2013) enacted substantial counter-terrorism legislation. The Rudd and Gillard governments maintained and expanded Australia's anti-terrorism framework, including laws addressing online extremism. Over 50 anti-terrorism statutes were passed at the federal level since 2001, with bipartisan support [3].
In fact, the 2025-2026 period has seen Labor pass new hate speech and counter-terrorism legislation with Coalition support, demonstrating ongoing bipartisan cooperation on national security [4].
Labeling protesters: Labor governments have also taken strong positions against disruptive protests. In 2019, Labor state governments joined Coalition counterparts in criticizing disruptive climate protests. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison (Coalition) called for such protests to be "outlawed" and labeled environmental campaigners "anarchists" [6], but this was not unique to the Coalition - state Labor governments have also criminalized disruptive protests through increased fines and jail terms [6].
The 2023 BBC investigation found that Australia leads the world in arresting climate protesters, with this crackdown occurring across both Labor and Coalition-governed states [6].
Balanced Perspective
The $17 Million Program
The government's $17 million social media monitoring program was a response to the genuine threat of Islamic State's sophisticated online recruitment efforts. The program was announced at an international summit involving nearly 80 nations, indicating it was part of a coordinated global response to a recognized security threat [1].
Brandis explicitly stated the internet was "not beyond the law" and that the focus was on terrorist groups like ISIL using social media as "one of the most sophisticated techniques and tools" [1]. There is no evidence this program was designed to target environmental protesters.
Christensen's Comments
While George Christensen's characterization of environmental protesters as "terrorists" and "green germs" was inflammatory and widely criticized, it represented the views of a single backbencher, not government policy. Christensen was known for controversial statements and was responding to a specific local dispute over coal infrastructure in his North Queensland electorate [2].
The claim creates a false equivalence by suggesting the government's $17 million anti-ISIS program was connected to or motivated by views about environmental protesters. These were separate issues:
- Counter-terrorism funding: Targeted at Islamic State propaganda (February 2015)
- Christensen's remarks: Personal statement about local coal protests (September 2014)
Ongoing Issue Across Governments
The broader issue of treating environmental protesters as extremists has persisted across both Coalition and Labor governments. The 2023 BBC investigation documented counter-terrorism police raiding climate activists' homes in Western Australia, with lawyers noting protesters are increasingly labeled as "extremists" in court documents [6].
This suggests the conflation of environmental protest with extremism is a systemic issue in Australian policing and governance, not unique to the Coalition. The index on Censorship reported that most Australian anti-protest legislation since 2003 has targeted environmental protesters [7].
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim contains two factually accurate elements but combines them to create a misleading narrative that suggests the $17 million anti-terrorism program was intended to target environmental protesters. This is false.
The $17 million was specifically allocated to counter Islamic State online propaganda following an international summit [1]. George Christensen's inflammatory remarks about "eco-terrorists" were made months earlier and represented an individual MP's opinion about a local coal protest, not government policy [2].
The claim omits that:
- The funding was explicitly for ISIS/ISIL counter-radicalization, not environmental protests
- Christensen's comments were personal statements, not government policy
- Both major parties have supported counter-terrorism legislation
- The crackdown on environmental protests has continued under Labor governments
While concerns about scope creep in counter-terrorism powers are legitimate, this claim misrepresents the specific policy intent and conflates unrelated events.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim contains two factually accurate elements but combines them to create a misleading narrative that suggests the $17 million anti-terrorism program was intended to target environmental protesters. This is false.
The $17 million was specifically allocated to counter Islamic State online propaganda following an international summit [1]. George Christensen's inflammatory remarks about "eco-terrorists" were made months earlier and represented an individual MP's opinion about a local coal protest, not government policy [2].
The claim omits that:
- The funding was explicitly for ISIS/ISIL counter-radicalization, not environmental protests
- Christensen's comments were personal statements, not government policy
- Both major parties have supported counter-terrorism legislation
- The crackdown on environmental protests has continued under Labor governments
While concerns about scope creep in counter-terrorism powers are legitimate, this claim misrepresents the specific policy intent and conflates unrelated events.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
smh.com.au
Attending the White House's summit on countering violent extremism, the Attorney-General, George Brandis, has announced the Australian government will create a body to monitor social media and take down terrorist propaganda.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
reneweconomy.com.au
Reneweconomy Com
-
3PDF
35 3 13
Law Unimelb Edu • PDF Document -
4
abc.net.au
The federal government has passed new laws targeting hate groups with support from the Liberals, while the Nationals voted against it.
Abc Net -
5
mediabiasfactcheck.com
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
Media Bias/Fact Check -
6
bbc.com
Counter-terror police have raided the homes of a swathe of Australian environmental activists.
Bbc -
7
indexoncensorship.org
Climate protesters in Australia face a higher risk of arrest than those in any other country, and direct action is becoming harder
Index on Censorship -
8
9news.com.au
A conservation group is calling on the prime minister to rebuke Queensland federal MP George Christensen fo...
9news Com
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.