Illustration: David Rowe No amendments were accepted, other than those introduced in the Senate by the Palmer United Party, which imposed even tougher penalties on leakers than originally drafted. Anyone - including journalists, whistleblowers and bloggers - who "recklessly" discloses "information ... [that] relates to a special intelligence operation" faces up to 10 years' jail. Any operation can be declared "special" by the attorney-general of the day after ASIO makes an application. The legislation, which also enables the entire Australian internet to be monitored with just a single computer warrant, is a disgrace. Our Parliament, especially the Labor opposition, has failed us.

As an example of this, we need only look at the shadow attorney-general's comments on ABC News 24 on Tuesday, when he was asked if operations that embarrass government could be covered up by "special operations". LYNDAL CURTIS: Are you absolutely sure if an intelligence operation was seriously bungled, if it could do damage to the country and cause embarrassment to the agency, that that could be reported without a journalist facing a criminal sanction? MARK DREYFUS: I can't be absolutely certain, but what I can be certain of is that Labor is going to be monitoring how these provisions work in practice, and I'd stress again, we are talking about quite a small number of operations that are ever likely to be special intelligence operations. This is astounding, especially considering warnings that the new legislation makes it a crime if, for example, the media wanted to disclose the death of an innocent bystander caught up in a bungled covert spy operation. I have great respect for Dreyfus, but Labor should not have let its long-standing bipartisan support for national security legislation get in the way of scrutinising a bill that overreaches when it comes to intruding on our rights and freedoms.

The new laws do just that and will have a chilling effect on democracy. Under them, "reckless" journalists will be jailed if they report on cases such as the tapping by Australia of the phones of the Indonesian President and his wife. Labor did not do its job properly, and it was left to the Australian Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt and independent crossbenchers, such as Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan, to speak out. And while these MPs may have a voice in Parliament, they do not have enough power to vote down the bill or pass amendments on their own. In a highly unusually move, Labor backbencher Melissa Parke also spoke out against the legislation. She was the only Labor member to do so, but appeared to abstain from the vote.

"I do not support a number of key elements in this bill," Parke said, bravely. "I am particularly concerned that this bill entrenches and amplifies the lack of protection for whistleblowers regarding intelligence information and penalises with up to 10 years' jail the legitimate actions of journalists and others doing their jobs in holding the government to account in the public interest." Parke added that she had concerns about the scope of monitoring of computers and computer networks under the new laws, including access to third-party computers unrelated to a target. "These provisions are the equivalent of a physical search warrant for a house that allows you to search an arbitrary number of other houses," she said. With passage of these laws, Australia may now be "licensing the potentially improper infringement of privacy and the possible misuse of personal information and communications without due consideration to the dangers involved, and without due care and restriction when it comes to those powers", she said.

Under the laws, former and current officers of the Australian foreign intelligence agency ASIS, who communicate any classified information, will face 10 years' jail, up from two years. If they disclose their names and who they work for, that's another 10 years' jail, up from one year. Make no mistake about it. These laws are designed to stop future whistleblowers who reveal information that might embarrass a government, such as the accusation ASIS spies bugged East Timor's cabinet room to gain a competitive advantage when negotiating how to split $40 billion worth of oil and gas deposits. They will also stop future Edward Snowdens from speaking out about abuses of power. And while the Abbott government says the new laws won't prevent whistleblowers from going to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security with their concerns, the watchdog will hardly be able to disclose any alleged government abuses, especially considering it has only 12 full-time staff compared with the thousands within the intelligence community.

Why? Because many believe IGIS is too intertwined with the government, the Prime Minister's office and the intelligence machine. Unlike the Australian Federal Police Ombudsman, and the ombudsmen of many other Australian agencies, IGIS is often mild in its public reports. When the former ASIS officer who alleged Australia bugged East Timor's cabinet room went to IGIS, it's been reported that he was told to get a lawyer if he wanted to take his case further. The officer did that, and, soon after, their office was raided, as was that of East Timor's Australian lawyer, Bernard Collaery. David Irvine, the former head of ASIO who retired recently, was head of ASIS at the time the bugging was alleged to have occurred.

The bugging case is now before arbitration between Australia and East Timor, and there are fears the new laws could apply to the ASIS officer, known as Witness K, when giving further evidence on the matter. This would mean the officer could now be jailed for up to 10 years for communicating what he or she believes was in the public interest instead of facing two years' jail. Attorney-General Brandis has flatly refused to comment on whether Witness K or future Witness Ks could be subjected to the new laws, arguing that the questions are "hypothetical" in nature. Will East Timor's quest for justice be quashed by these new laws? Only time will tell.