The Claim
“Alleged that Edward Snowden endangered lives and claimed that Australia does not need any surveillance reform.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Part 1: Did Attorney-General George Brandis allege Snowden endangered Australian lives?
YES - This allegation was made. On February 11, 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis stated in Senate question time that Edward Snowden was a "traitor" who "through his criminal dishonesty and his treachery to his country, has put lives, including Australian lives, at risk" [1]. Brandis made these remarks in response to a question from Greens Senator Scott Ludlam about surveillance issues. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that this marked "the strongest attack yet by an Abbott government minister on the former NSA contractor" [1].
However, Brandis failed to produce evidence supporting this claim. Crikey reported that "Brandis failed to produce evidence to support the allegation, with the Attorney-General's office failing to answer Crikey's repeated requests for further detail" [2]. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam noted that "The US administration has not called Snowden a traitor and has not claimed he put lives at risk" [1], highlighting that Brandis's accusation went further than even the Obama administration's position.
Part 2: Did the Coalition claim "Australia does not need any surveillance reform"?
This claim is MISLEADING and conflates two separate issues. The Coalition government did not state that Australia "does not need any surveillance reform." Rather, they EXPANDED Australia's surveillance framework significantly.
In 2015, the Coalition passed the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act, which introduced a mandatory metadata retention scheme requiring ISPs to collect and store customer metadata for two years [3]. The government argued this expansion was necessary for national security and law enforcement - not that no reform was needed [4].
The claim appears to conflate the government's criticism of Snowden (a whistleblower who exposed existing surveillance programs) with their actual policy position, which was to EXPAND surveillance powers, not reject reform.
Missing Context
The government's criticism of Snowden was part of a broader response to surveillance revelations.
The claim omits that Brandis's attack on Snowden came in the context of Snowden's leaks revealing that Australian authorities had attempted to intercept phone calls by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife [1]. The government was responding to significant diplomatic fallout and criticism of Australian intelligence activities, not simply making abstract claims about whistleblowers.
The Coalition actually EXPANDED surveillance, contrary to the implication they opposed all reform.
The Coalition's 2015 metadata retention legislation represented a major EXPANSION of Australia's surveillance framework - the opposite of claiming "no reform is needed." The Act was passed with bipartisan support despite serious deficiencies in human rights protections [3].
The data retention scheme was justified using national security rhetoric.
Following the Sydney siege in December 2014 and Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015, the government intensified national security rhetoric to justify the data retention scheme. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that "the government had not yet clearly demonstrated that the obligation to store data for two years was necessary" [3], noting that Australia already had a data preservation scheme enacted in 2012.
Source Credibility Assessment
ZDNet (Source 1): ZDNet is a reputable technology news outlet owned by Red Ventures. It provides mainstream technology journalism and is generally considered a credible source for tech and cyber policy news, though like all media outlets, individual articles should be assessed for balance.
First Look/The Intercept (Source 2): The Intercept is an investigative journalism outlet founded by Glenn Greenwald, who worked with Edward Snowden on the NSA revelations. It has a strong civil liberties focus and has been critical of government surveillance programs. The outlet has won multiple journalism awards including the Pulitzer Prize. However, its editorial stance is generally sympathetic to whistleblowers and critical of mass surveillance - readers should be aware of this perspective when evaluating its reporting on Snowden-related matters.
Both sources are legitimate news organizations, though The Intercept has a clearly identifiable editorial perspective favoring privacy rights and whistleblower protections.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
YES - Labor supported significant surveillance expansions both before and during the Coalition's tenure.
Labor's pre-2013 surveillance record:
The Rudd/Gillard Labor government passed the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Act 2012, which introduced a data preservation scheme permitting law enforcement agencies to require carriage service providers to preserve communications data [5]. This laid groundwork for the later metadata retention scheme.
Labor supported Coalition's data retention expansion:
The 2015 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act passed with bipartisan support from Labor after Labor agreed to a few amendments [3]. Despite opposition from cross-benches (Greens and others) and civil society, Labor ultimately supported the expanded surveillance framework [3].
Labor's position on Snowden:
While Labor did not match Brandis's inflammatory language calling Snowden a "traitor," they did not defend Snowden either. The Labor opposition under Bill Shorten was largely muted on surveillance issues, with Shorten initially opposing data retention as an "internet tax" but ultimately supporting the legislation after national security rhetoric intensified [3].
Key comparison: Both major parties have supported expanded surveillance powers. The primary difference is rhetorical - the Coalition was more vocal in attacking Snowden personally, while Labor was more reserved but still supported the substantive surveillance expansion.
Balanced Perspective
On the Snowden allegations:
While Brandis's claim that Snowden endangered Australian lives was made without public evidence [2], the government faced genuine diplomatic fallout from Snowden's revelations about Australian intelligence activities, particularly the attempted surveillance of Indonesia's president [1]. The government had legitimate interests in defending Australia's intelligence relationships and capabilities.
However, Brandis went further than even the Obama administration in his personal attacks on Snowden. As Greens Senator Scott Ludlam noted, "The US administration has not called Snowden a traitor and has not claimed he put lives at risk" [1]. The claim appears to have been more political rhetoric than evidence-based assessment.
On surveillance reform:
The claim misrepresents the Coalition's position. They did not claim Australia "does not need any surveillance reform" - they actively EXPANDED surveillance through the metadata retention scheme. Both major parties supported this expansion, with Labor providing bipartisan support despite initial reservations.
The metadata retention legislation was controversial and faced criticism from civil liberties groups, technology experts, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for lacking proper safeguards and judicial oversight [3]. However, the government successfully passed it by exploiting national security fears following terrorist attacks and the complex technical nature of the legislation.
Comparative context: This is NOT unique to the Coalition. Labor introduced data preservation in 2012 and supported the 2015 expansion. Both parties have consistently supported expanding surveillance powers when in government, differing mainly in their rhetorical approach to whistleblowers like Snowden.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim contains two elements:
TRUE: Brandis did allege that Snowden endangered Australian lives and called him a "traitor" - this is factually accurate.
MISLEADING: The claim that the Coalition said Australia "does not need any surveillance reform" misrepresents their position. The Coalition EXPANDED surveillance through the metadata retention scheme with Labor's bipartisan support. They didn't oppose reform - they actively implemented the largest surveillance expansion in Australian history.
The claim conflates criticism of a whistleblower (Snowden) with opposition to surveillance reform, when in fact the government was simultaneously expanding surveillance powers. This creates a misleading impression that the Coalition opposed all surveillance reforms when the opposite was true.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim contains two elements:
TRUE: Brandis did allege that Snowden endangered Australian lives and called him a "traitor" - this is factually accurate.
MISLEADING: The claim that the Coalition said Australia "does not need any surveillance reform" misrepresents their position. The Coalition EXPANDED surveillance through the metadata retention scheme with Labor's bipartisan support. They didn't oppose reform - they actively implemented the largest surveillance expansion in Australian history.
The claim conflates criticism of a whistleblower (Snowden) with opposition to surveillance reform, when in fact the government was simultaneously expanding surveillance powers. This creates a misleading impression that the Coalition opposed all surveillance reforms when the opposite was true.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
Australian lives at risk: George Brandis ramps up attack on Edward Snowden
Attorney-General George Brandis has lashed out at former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden as a “traitor” who put Australian lives at risk by leaking confidential surveillance documents.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Snowden a threat to Australian lives? Brandis refuses to show proof
George Brandis' accusation that Edward Snowden has placed Australian lives at risk is the same unfounded accusation we've seen before from national security politicians desperate to avoid scrutiny.
Crikey -
3
The passage of Australia's data retention regime: national security, human rights, and media scrutiny
This paper is part of Australian internet policy, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Angela Daly and Julian Thomas.
Policyreview -
4PDF
Data Retention Law - AustLII
Austlii Edu • PDF Document -
5
Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Act 2012
Classic Austlii Edu
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.