The Claim
“Legislated so that courts must accept illegally obtained evidence.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which was introduced by the Abbott Coalition government and passed into law in October 2014 [1]. The legislation did establish a framework for "special intelligence operations" (SIOs) that included provisions affecting how evidence obtained during such operations could be used in legal proceedings.
The Vice article states: "Courts do not accept illegally obtained evidence—but that is a protection the legislation would also do away with" and "Forcing courts to accept illegally obtained information" [2]. The bill also provided immunity from prosecution for ASIO personnel and affiliates involved in SIOs when they break the law, including if they "believed" their actions to be part of the operation [2].
However, the claim as stated is an oversimplification. The legislation did not broadly mandate that courts accept all illegally obtained evidence in all circumstances. Rather, it created a specific framework for special intelligence operations that limited certain evidentiary challenges and provided immunity for authorized activities [1]. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reviewed the bill and recommended amendments, which were incorporated [1].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical contextual elements:
The legislation was part of a broader review of Australia's national security framework recommended by a bipartisan parliamentary committee [1]. The bill passed both houses with amendments from multiple parties, including 56 Government amendments and 4 Palmer United Party amendments agreed to in the Senate [1].
The "illegally obtained evidence" provisions were specifically tied to special intelligence operations (SIOs)—covert operations authorized under warrant—not general intelligence gathering. The immunity provisions were designed to protect operatives conducting authorized covert operations, not to provide blanket protection for all ASIO activities [2].
The timing context is significant: The bill was introduced in July 2014, following increased concerns about Australians participating in overseas conflicts (particularly Syria/Iraq), and the government linked the legislation to counter-terrorism needs [2]. While the Vice article noted the bill didn't specifically mention Islamists or jihadis, the broader national security context was a response to emerging threats.
Source Credibility Assessment
Vice Media (original source):
Vice Media is rated as having "Left-Center Bias" by Media Bias/Fact Check, with a tendency to "publish factual information that utilizes loaded words to favor liberal causes" [3]. The article in question was published in August 2014 during the parliamentary review process, before the bill was finalized.
The Vice article contains some concerning elements for credibility:
- It was written before the bill's final passage and incorporated amendments
- It uses loaded language ("squirrely back room," "mountain of radical changes," "wholesale spying")
- The article acknowledges politicians had not fully read the legislation at the time of writing
- It conflates proposed provisions with final law
However, the article does correctly identify key provisions that were in the legislation, including the SIO framework and immunity provisions. It cited legitimate advocacy groups (Civil Liberties Australia, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Law Council of Australia) and quoted parliamentary committee proceedings [2].
Assessment: Vice is generally factual but with a left-leaning editorial perspective. This particular article provides useful information but should be balanced against official parliamentary sources and the final legislation text.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes—Labor has a substantial history of supporting and expanding similar national security and intelligence legislation:
Anti-Terrorism Act 2004: The Howard government introduced major anti-terrorism legislation with Labor's support, including provisions for ASIO questioning warrants and detention powers [4].
ASIO Act amendments (2001-2007): During the Howard government years, multiple expansions of ASIO powers occurred. Labor typically supported these measures in the name of national security bipartisanship [4].
Labor's own expansions (2007-2013): When Labor was in government under Rudd and Gillard, they continued to expand national security legislation. The 2011 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill and other measures further strengthened intelligence agency powers [4].
Historical pattern: Both major parties in Australia have consistently supported expanding intelligence agency powers when in government. The 2014 Coalition bill continued a pattern established over the previous two decades, with both parties trading positions as advocates and critics depending on who held government [4].
Key distinction: While Labor criticized aspects of the 2014 bill (Senator Jacinta Collins proposed amendments on behalf of the Opposition) [1], Labor has historically supported the underlying principle of expanding intelligence powers for national security purposes when in government.
Balanced Perspective
Criticisms of the legislation (legitimate concerns):
Civil liberties groups raised valid concerns about:
- The breadth of immunity provisions for intelligence operatives [2]
- The potential for evidence obtained through covert operations to be used without adequate judicial scrutiny [2]
- The removal of warrant requirements for certain surveillance activities (tracking devices) [2]
- The limited oversight capacity of IGIS (Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security) with only 12 staff versus ASIO's 1,778 staff and $642 million budget [2]
Government justifications:
The Coalition government argued the legislation was necessary to:
- Modernize ASIO's intelligence collection powers in response to evolving threats [1]
- Provide legal clarity for covert operations conducted under warrant [1]
- Align ASIO employment conditions with public service frameworks [1]
- Protect operatives conducting authorized covert activities from legal action [2]
Comparative context:
This was not unique to the Coalition. Australia's national security framework has been consistently expanded by both parties over two decades:
- Howard (Coalition): Anti-Terrorism Acts 2004-2005
- Rudd/Gillard (Labor): Continued expansions 2007-2013
- Abbott (Coalition): 2014 amendments
The pattern shows bipartisan support for intelligence agency powers, with each party making similar arguments about national security needs when in government.
Important nuance: The claim that courts "must accept illegally obtained evidence" is technically inaccurate. The legislation created specific frameworks for SIOs with evidentiary protections, but did not broadly override judicial discretion regarding illegally obtained evidence in all circumstances [1][2].
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The Coalition did legislate changes to evidence admissibility rules and immunity provisions related to special intelligence operations, but the claim overstates the scope. The legislation created a specific framework for SIOs rather than broadly requiring courts to accept all illegally obtained evidence. The changes were significant and controversial, but were part of a continuing bipartisan pattern of expanding intelligence agency powers in Australia, with Labor having supported similar measures both in opposition and when in government.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The Coalition did legislate changes to evidence admissibility rules and immunity provisions related to special intelligence operations, but the claim overstates the scope. The legislation created a specific framework for SIOs rather than broadly requiring courts to accept all illegally obtained evidence. The changes were significant and controversial, but were part of a continuing bipartisan pattern of expanding intelligence agency powers in Australia, with Labor having supported similar measures both in opposition and when in government.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (1)
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.