The major parties have agreed to changes to proposed foreign espionage laws that critics have warned would “criminalise” investigative journalism.

The Guardian understands that, after months of negotiation, a bipartisan agreement on the controversial foreign espionage bill has been reached between members of the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security.

The recommendations of the committee will likely be made public by the end of the week.

Speaking in Tasmania on Tuesday the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Labor had taken about 60 amendment “proposals” to the committee and that the two parties were “closer to a resolution than further away”.

“There is no point in rushing legislation to make Australia safer if there’s problems in the laws which undermine the purpose of what we’re trying to achieve” he said.

“So I’m optimistic on the legislation that we’re moving in the right direction. If it takes a little bit longer to get right, I think Australians would rather get the national security right rather than rushed.”

While the detail of the majority of the amendments has been kept under wraps, it is understood that some relate to key definitions within the bill that could limit the scope of those captured by the legislation.

The foreign espionage bill contains prison sentences of up to 20 years for dealing with or publishing protected information such as material that is harmful or likely to harm Australia’s interests, subject to very limited exemptions for public interest journalism.

It was widely criticised by media outlets and legal rights groups when it was proposed late last year amid new legislation aimed at curbing foreign influence.

The other part of the legislation – a bill to require advocates for foreign interests to join a public register – has been criticised by charities and universities and is yet to be agreed upon by the committee.

In February the attorney general, Christian Porter, proposed a number of amendments to the bill so that people not employed by the commonwealth, including journalists, would only be liable in serious circumstances where they willingly communicated “secret” information that endangers the health and safety of the public, or prejudices national security.

The media would still not get a blanket exemption but existing defences will be easier to access as journalists will no longer be required to prove their work is “fair and accurate”, only that they “reasonably believe” it is in the public interest.



After the amendments were published, the Law Council president, Morry Bailes, said they did not go far enough, warning that a person who supplied information to a journalist would still have no defence.