Opposition leader writes to Tony Abbott asking the government to review laws, which were passed with Labor support

Bill Shorten has asked the government to review controversial new security laws criminalising the reporting of special intelligence operations (SIOs), in a cautious deviation from his bipartisanship on anti-terrorism legislation.



The laws, under which journalists could be jailed for up to 10 years for disclosing a special intelligence operation, have been attacked by the legal profession, all major Australian media companies and the Labor leader’s frontbench colleague Anthony Albanese.



Labor helped pass the laws earlier this month, but Shorten has now written to the prime minister asking that they be reviewed by the body that oversees intelligence and security laws. Possible changes include the insertion of a public interest test.



“Since the passage of the legislation, a number of concerns about the potential impact of these laws on the media reporting of legitimate matters of public interest and importance have been raised with me,” he wrote, asking Tony Abbott to refer “the implementation and operation of the relevant provisions in the bill to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor [INSLM] for review.”

He said the review should consider related legislation, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and report by the end of June.

“As we have both stated, there is no higher duty for a Parliament than ensuring the nation’s security and keeping the Australian people safe. It is essential that our security agencies have all the powers they need to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism and those engaged in protecting Australians receive bipartisan support. However, it is also important that, by legislating to address the terrorist threat, we do not ourselves destroy the very democratic freedoms that we are seeking to protect.”

The bill was amended after a parliamentary committee recommendation to confirm that a journalist or any other person could be prosecuted only if they “recklessly” published information on an SIO, but a separate amendment proposed by senator Nick Xenophon – to insert the statement that a court must take into account whether the disclosure was in the public interest when sentencing – was rejected.

The attorney general, George Brandis said it was “entirely unnecessary” and the government has consistently argued the provisions are intended to be used only infrequently.

“The principles of criminal sentencing are a very, very, very well established discipline and the amendment you have proposed instructs by statute a court to do what a court always would do and since time immemorial has always done,” Brandis said.

Among those who have attacked the new provisions are News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch and the Law Council of Australia.

Albanese did not speak out against the provisions during the recent parliamentary debate – the only Labor figure to do so was the West Australian backbench MP Melissa Parke. The Greens, who are campaigning vigorously against the laws, have the potential to damage Labor MPs such as Parke and Albanese who hold inner urban seats.

On Sunday, Albanese argued the impact of the law should be closely examined by everyone. “There are legitimate criticisms and they need to be responded to by the government.”

He signalled the laws might need to be wound back. “I’m concerned about the rights of journalists. I’m someone who has consistently supported the rights of media to report.”