CHRISTINE AHERN: The Australian Federal Police raided the Treasury Place office of former communication minister, communications minister Stephen Conroy last night. Then, just before 11 o'clock last night, 10 plain clothes officers raided a Brunswick home of a Labor staffer. These AFP raids are probing the leaking of secret NBN documents. These documents allegedly show that the roll-out of the NBN was slower and more expensive under the Coalition than Labor — Channel Nine News, 20 May, 2016

Hello, I'm Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch.

And those dramatic police raids last week, we believe, strike at the heart of the public's right to know how this country is being governed.

But for News Corp's headline writers-who reached for the biggest print in their arsenal on Friday morning-the news was all about damage to Labor.

ELECTION BOMBSHELL COPS RAID LABOR — Daily Telegraph, 20 May, 2016

CAMPAIGN BOMBSHELL COPS RAID LABOR — Herald Sun, 20 May, 2016

ELECTION BOMBSHELL COP RAID HITS ALP — The Courier-Mail, 20 May, 2016

We'll see how it turns out.

But Labor's response was to question the timing-right in the middle of an election campaign-and to accuse the government of using the police for political advantage.

Something that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin were quick to deny.

ANDREW COLVIN: I stress again that the AFP always acts independently and acts within the law. In regard to government and political inference, ah influence, that has been commented on this morning, there has been no influence, no influence on the AFP in the conduct of this investigation. [shortened] — ABC News 24, 20 May, 2016

It's now clear Communications Minister Mitch Fifield did did know about the AFP's investigation.

Even though it was NBN Co that called in the cops last December.

But, as Labor's Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus pointed out, there is arguably much more than politics at stake here.

MARK DREYFUS: It's now become apparent that this search warrant process is directed not merely at Opposition front benchers and their staff but directed also at the media and it raises questions about not only the public's right to know but the right of the media to publish. — ABC News 24, 20 May, 2016

So why the raids and what were they after?

Well, the police were trying to track down the source of politically damaging stories like this in the Sydney Morning Herald last November:

Leaked NBN budget blowout documents threaten to embarrass Malcolm Turnbull — Sydney Morning Herald, 25 November, 2015

Those revelations also made headlines in The Australian that day.

On the tech site Delimiter.

And in the Australian Financial Review, which revealed the embarrassing news that:

NBN Co spent $800 million to buy and reuse Optus' cable network. Now it may be forced to invest another $375 million to rebuild parts of the fading network because it isn't capable of delivering high-speed broadband to enough people. — Australian Financial Review, 25 November, 2015

Those stories were based on one leaked document from NBN Co titled Overbuilding Optus and marked Commercial Confidential.

And another leaked document set off a new wave of stories two months ago.

DAVID LIPSON: In the midst of it all: another leak. This document obtained by Lateline and marked "for official use only" highlights the cost effectiveness of rolling out skinny fibre all the way to the front gate. It's a technology that also lasts much longer than copper and delivers vastly better internet speeds. — ABC, Lateline, 15 March, 2016

It's hardly Top Secret. Or a threat to our national security.

And it's hard to disagree with Bill Shorten that the public has a right to be told how taxpayers' money is being spent.

BILL SHORTEN: Why is it a state secret that Prime Minister Turnbull and his various government agencies will go to such lengths to keep away from people this information, much of it is already online now, it deserves to be out there, doesn't it? Why is it a secret that the costs of the program have blown out to $56 billion dollars? — ABC News 24, 20 May, 2016

But another good question is how and why could it be a criminal offence to reveal this stuff?

As you can see from this warrant, the main law the AFP's relying on is Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.

And, as Philip Dorling, who's twice been raided by the AFP himself, wrote in the Herald last year, this law makes it an offence punishable by up to 2 years in jail:

... to disclose any government information without proper authorisation. — Sydney Morning Herald, 17 March, 2015

Yes, that's any information, from super secret to totally trivial or as Dorling put it:

... from the highest cabinet secrets or the number of paperclips used in a local Centrelink office. — Sydney Morning Herald, 17 March, 2015

Or indeed the price of tea in the Treasury canteen.

And as Griffith University's Professor AJ Brown explains it's not just Section 70's broad scope that's the problem, because:

There is no avenue for any kind of public interest defence. If you release information without authorisation you've automatically committed an offence. It's absurdly draconian. — Professor A.J. Brown, Public Policy and Law, Griffith University, 20 May, 2016

So what on earth are we doing with a 102- year old law like that still on the statue books?

Well, the two major parties are equally at fault.

Because there have been constant calls to repeal the law since the 1970s.

In 2007, the Australian media, including the ABC, Fairfax and News Corp, formed a coalition called Australia's Right to Know, which demanded our secrecy laws be changed so that:

... criminal penalties should only apply to unauthorised disclosures of information ... where there is an overwhelming public interest in preventing disclosure, and the consequences of disclosure affect national security or public safety ... — Australia's Right to Know, December, 2008

This was backed up by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2009, which recommended that leaking government information should only be a criminal offence if it harmed.

Essential public interests.

Such as national security

Or put people's lives or safety at risk.

But parliament did nothing. The report was shelved. And the law remains.

With governments of all colours happy to use it for political ends.

As Kevin Rudd's government did back in 2008 over a leak about petrol prices.

Federal police hunt for Laurie Oakes fuel leak source AUSTRALIAN Federal Police are sifting through the telephone records of Daily Telegraph columnist Laurie Oakes to find who leaked Cabinet documents which embarrassed the Federal Government. — Daily Telegraph, 23 June, 2008

No risk to national security there. Purely politics.

But Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan was adamant the leaker should be sprung.

WAYNE SWAN: Of course it will be investigated. The law has been broken, Cabinet documents have been leaked. The normal procedures will click in and of course it will be investigated. — ABC, AM, 29 May, 2008

During the Howard government, Section 70 was also used to prosecute Victorian public servant Desmond Kelly, for leaking information to the Herald Sun which revealed a government plan to slash the benefits of war veterans.

Public servant guilty over leak — The Age, 1 February, 2006

Six months before Kelly's conviction-which was overturned on appeal-Mr Howard was challenged about the case:

REPORTER: Prime Minister, should public servants who leak embarrassing information tothe media which has got nothing to do with national security, should they be jailed? JOHN HOWARD: I don't normallycomment on such things like that except to say that I support the proper operation of the law. — Prime Minister John Howard Press Conference, 18 July, 2005

So police raids on embarrassing leaks are hardly new.

Although it is a first to have them during an election campaign.

But why has the law not been repealed or narrowed in scope?

According to lawyer Peter Timmins, who advised the Law Reform Commission and Australia's Right to Know:

The Greens have talked about this for years, as has Nick Xenophon. But no ministers have ever taken it seriously. — Peter Timmins, Lawyer, Statement to Media Watch, 20 May, 2016

Or as another lawyer, Greg Barns, explained to Media Watch somewhat cynically:

It's fairly simple. Politicians loathe leaks that they don't authorise. So they aren't going to pass legislation which makes it easier for people to leak. — Greg Barnes, Barrister, Statement to Media Watch, 20 May, 2016

So is there any chance of that changing. Not according to Andrew Wilkie MP-himself once a whistleblower-who told Media Watch:

I hold out little hope for any change to this situation any time soon because the current government and opposition don't really know how to spell 'public interest', let alone how to pursue it. — Andrew Wilkie, MP, Response to Media Watch questions, 21 May 2016

Depressing, but judging by their record on secrecy laws, almost certainly true.