United Nations officials have warned the federal government that proposed changes to national security laws would impose “draconian criminal penalties” on the freedom of expression and may be “inconsistent” with Australia’s obligations under international treaties.

In a submission to a parliamentary committee reviewing proposed new secrecy laws, a group of UN special rapporteurs have argued the legislation would “disproportionately chill the work of media outlets and journalists” and expose human rights campaigners, activists and academics to criminal charges.



The proposed laws contain prison sentences of up to 20 years for “dealing with” or publishing protected information that would cause harm to Australia’s interests, subject to a limited defence for public interest journalism.

The Coalition says the legislation is aimed at curbing the influence of foreign governments such as China. Last month the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation told a parliamentary committee that the threat posed by foreign espionage is worse than during the cold war.

The bill has been widely criticised by media organisations and human rights groups, and the attorney general, Christian Porter, was forced to announce amendments to the bill after opposition from Labor and the crossbench.

The changes strengthened defences for journalists under the legislation – but did not provide a blanket exemption – and narrowed the scope of what would constitute inherently harmful information.

But a submission from three UN special rapporteurs has warned the legislation may be in breach of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and related human rights standards.

David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, and Michel Forst, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said the legislation was potentially “inconsistent” with Australia’s treaty obligations.



“In particular, we are gravely concerned that the bill would impose draconian criminal penalties on expression and access to information that is central to public debate and accountability in a democratic society,” the submission states.

“For example, several offences under the bill would not only penalize disclosures of government information in the public interest, but also expose journalists, activists, and academics that merely receive such information to criminal liability.

“Such extensive criminal prohibitions, coupled with the threat of lengthy custodial sentences and the lack of meaningful defences, are likely to have a disproportionate chilling effect on the work of journalists, whistleblowers, and activists seeking to hold the government accountable to the public.”

While the proposed changes to the bill would tighten the definition of harmful information by tying it to classification, critics have questioned whether the bill will capture information unrelated to secrecy. They have also raised concerns about over-classification in government departments.

The UN officials said the definition of inherently harmful information “potentially encompasses information bearing inappropriate classification markers, information submitted to government agencies or regulators that have little or no connection to national security or public safety, and even information that individuals may successfully request for under other domestic laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act”.

For example, they questioned whether the bill would capture information related to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

“We are concerned that the cumulative effect of these restrictions, coupled with the lack of meaningful defences, will disproportionately restrict disclosures of government-related information that is nevertheless in the public interest, particularly disclosures that draw critical public scrutiny to government fraud, waste, and abuse,” the submission states.

