The Claim
“Introduced new laws which mean Edward Snowden type leaks are punishable by up to 10 years of prison. No exemptions are made for anti-corruption leaks. If journalists report on anyone (including innocent bystanders) being killed accidentally or deliberately by security personnel, they will be jailed for up to 10 years.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Coalition government did introduce the National Security Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2014, which included Section 35P creating new disclosure offences related to ASIO "Special Intelligence Operations" (SIOs) [1]. The offences established:
- 5 years imprisonment for disclosing information relating to an SIO (Section 35P(1)) [2]
- 10 years imprisonment for aggravated disclosure where the disclosure endangers health/safety or prejudices an SIO (Section 35P(2)) [2]
The claim accurately describes the maximum penalties. According to The Conversation's legal analysis, the offences apply to "any person, not just intelligence officers or government contractors" and critically, "There is no exemption for information disclosed in the public interest" [1]. This confirms the claim's assertion that no anti-corruption exemptions were included.
However, the claim's framing about "Edward Snowden type leaks" is partially inaccurate. Section 35P was specifically designed to protect SIO secrecy, not primarily to target whistleblowing about general intelligence activities [1]. Separate provisions in Schedule 6 of the same Act were the actual "anti-whistleblower" measures targeting intelligence officers who disclose classified information [1].
The Law Council of Australia confirmed in their 2015 submission to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) that "The effect of the provisions is that nothing can be disclosed publicly about a SIO, including if it has been conducted illegally, or an innocent person is killed or tortured" [2]. This validates the claim's concern about reporting on deaths during security operations.
Regarding the recklessness requirement: the offence requires a person be "reckless as to whether the information relates to an SIO" - meaning aware of a "substantial risk" that information relates to an SIO [1]. The Law Council noted this would likely not be difficult for prosecutors to satisfy regarding journalists reporting on intelligence conduct [2].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical contextual elements:
1. The Section 35P(2) requires more than mere disclosure: The 10-year penalty only applies to aggravated offences where the disclosure endangers health/safety or prejudices an SIO, or where the person is reckless about such consequences [1][2]. The base offence carries 5 years.
2. Attorney-General consent requirement: On 30 October 2014, the Attorney-General issued a Ministerial Direction that prosecutions of journalists under Section 35P require the Attorney-General's written consent [2]. This provides a significant safeguard, though the Law Council correctly noted this relies on "executive discretion" rather than statutory protection [2].
3. The provisions built on existing frameworks: The SIO scheme was based on existing "controlled operations" regimes for the AFP in the Crimes Act 1914 [1]. Section 35P exacerbated existing dangers to journalists from Section 79 of the Crimes Act, which already allowed 7 years imprisonment for receiving classified information in espionage circumstances [1].
4. Amendments were later made: Following the INSLM's 2015 report, the Turnbull Government accepted recommendations to amend Section 35P in 2016, adding further protections for journalists [3][4].
5. No prosecutions have occurred: As of the latest available information, no journalists have actually been prosecuted under Section 35P. The "chilling effect" on reporting has been significant, but the doomsday scenario of imprisoned journalists has not materialized [3].
6. The context of the legislation: These laws were introduced in July 2014 during heightened concerns about terrorism and foreign fighters returning from Syria/Iraq. The government argued they were necessary for operational security during undercover counter-terrorism operations.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources include:
- The Age and SMH: Fairfax Media publications (now Nine) generally rated as "left-center" bias by Media Bias/Fact Check with factual reporting [5]. These are mainstream reputable outlets.
- Vice: Generally credible but with a more alternative/activist editorial stance
- Canberra Times: Regional Fairfax publication with similar credibility to The Age/SMH
The sources are legitimate mainstream media, not partisan advocacy sites. The legal concerns they raised were echoed by the Law Council of Australia [2] and legal academics writing in The Conversation [1], confirming the substantive issues were real and professionally validated. However, the sources reflect the initial critical reaction to the legislation and don't capture the subsequent amendments or the fact that no prosecutions have occurred.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also expanded national security and intelligence powers, though the specific SIO regime was introduced under the Coalition.
Labor governments prosecuted whistleblowers and restricted intelligence disclosures:
- Labor introduced the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which the Law Council noted provided "lesser" protection for intelligence officers compared to law enforcement officers [2]
- Under Labor, the "Witness K" prosecution began in 2013 regarding the alleged revelation of ASIS operations against Timor-Leste during 2004 oil treaty negotiations (during the Howard Coalition government, but prosecution initiated under Rudd) [6]
- Labor governments maintained and utilized existing espionage and secrecy offences under the Crimes Act
The fundamental approach to national security secrecy has been bipartisan. Both major parties have expanded intelligence agency powers and maintained strict secrecy regimes. The specific Section 35P mechanism was Coalition-introduced, but Labor has not opposed the underlying principles of intelligence operation secrecy - they supported the 2014 legislation through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security process.
Following the INSLM's recommended amendments in 2016, both parties effectively endorsed the revised framework.
Balanced Perspective
While civil liberties groups, media unions (MEAA), and legal bodies legitimately raised serious concerns about Section 35P's impact on press freedom [3][4], the full context shows:
Legitimate concerns confirmed:
- No public interest exemption exists in the legislation [1][2]
- Journalists could theoretically face imprisonment for reporting on SIO-related misconduct [1]
- The "chilling effect" on investigative reporting of intelligence agencies is real [3]
- The Law Council explicitly stated the provisions could prevent disclosure of illegal activity or deaths during operations [2]
Counterbalancing factors:
- The laws were introduced during a specific counter-terrorism context (2014 foreign fighter concerns)
- Attorney-General consent requirements provide a prosecutorial safeguard [2]
- The provisions were subsequently reviewed and amended based on the INSLM's recommendations [4]
- No actual prosecutions of journalists have occurred under Section 35P
- Similar secrecy provisions already existed for other law enforcement operations [1]
Comparative analysis: The core issue of balancing national security secrecy against press freedom and anti-corruption transparency is not unique to the Coalition. The "Witness K" case demonstrates that Labor governments also prosecuted individuals for revealing intelligence operations [6]. The bipartisan consensus on intelligence secrecy suggests this reflects systemic governance challenges rather than Coalition-specific authoritarianism.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual elements are accurate: the Coalition did introduce Section 35P with penalties of 5-10 years imprisonment for SIO-related disclosures, no anti-corruption exemptions exist, and reporting on deaths during security operations could theoretically be criminalized. The Law Council confirmed this interpretation [2].
However, the claim's framing exaggerates both the scope and the practical impact. The "Edward Snowden type leaks" characterization is misleading because Section 35P targeted SIO operational secrecy specifically, not general intelligence whistleblowing [1]. The claim also omits the Attorney-General consent safeguard, subsequent amendments, and the fact that no prosecutions have occurred. The framing suggests a unique Coalition authoritarianism that doesn't account for bipartisan consensus on intelligence secrecy or Labor's own whistleblower prosecutions.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual elements are accurate: the Coalition did introduce Section 35P with penalties of 5-10 years imprisonment for SIO-related disclosures, no anti-corruption exemptions exist, and reporting on deaths during security operations could theoretically be criminalized. The Law Council confirmed this interpretation [2].
However, the claim's framing exaggerates both the scope and the practical impact. The "Edward Snowden type leaks" characterization is misleading because Section 35P targeted SIO operational secrecy specifically, not general intelligence whistleblowing [1]. The claim also omits the Attorney-General consent safeguard, subsequent amendments, and the fact that no prosecutions have occurred. The framing suggests a unique Coalition authoritarianism that doesn't account for bipartisan consensus on intelligence secrecy or Labor's own whistleblower prosecutions.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
National security bills compound existing threats to media freedom
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) will publish its report on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 (Cth) sometime during this sitting of parliament…
The Conversation -
2PDF
Law Council Submission - Inquiry into Section 35P of the ASIO Act
Lawcouncil • PDF Document -
3
Despite changes, terror law will still curb press freedom
Efa Org
-
4
ASIO's section 35P powers to be redrafted
Journalists still face up to 10 years jail but recommendations for amendments to the controversial section 35P of the Asio Act have been accepted by the Turnbull Government. By Mike Dobbie Section 35P was introduced as part of the first tranche of national security laws in July 2014. It provided ja
MEAA -
5
The Age (Australia) - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
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
Witness K: The spy who revealed Australia's dirty secrets about Timor-Leste
Theguardian
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.