The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) has told a parliamentary inquiry that it needs sweeping new national security laws – which media agencies say would “criminalise” journalism – because the threat posed by foreign espionage is worse than during the cold war.

But the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, warned the wording of the bills could mean they had “unintended consequences”, and said Labor would likely seek amendments before supporting them.

On Wednesday the joint committee on intelligence and security heard evidence from Asio’s deputy director general for counter-espionage and interference, Peter Vickery, that there was a “pervasive” threat of foreign actors seeking to influence Australian society.

Vickery said attempts to influence Australian political and civil society had reached an “unprecedented scale” and were a greater threat than during the cold war.

“While that was obviously a very busy time in that period of history, our assessment is that it’s not on the scale of which we are experiencing today,” Vickery said.

He argued that the current global context was more difficult because of the “blurred” nature of espionage.

“During the cold war our adversaries were fairly readily identifiable,” Vickery said. “In the current climate, we’re facing a raft of different countries that are seeking to conduct espionage and foreign interference. It’s much more blurred. There’s much more state actors out there than there was at that time.”

But during the hearings, Dreyfus questioned the speed at which the bills were being moved through the parliament – the government is likely to introduce them by the end of February – when numerous religious, financial, media and legal groups have raised objections to part or all of the legislation.

Dreyfus questioned Vickery and representatives from the Attorney General’s Department on the specific need for the provisions.

Pointing to references to Russian interference in the US election, he questioned whether the government had investigated any actual instances of interference in Australian elections.

The committee has been hearing testimony about proposed changes to national security laws that could see journalists and whistleblowers jailed for up to 20 years and the foreign influence transparency scheme bill, which would require those who undertake political, campaigning or lobbying activities “on behalf of foreign principals” to sign up to a public register.

Labor is yet to make its position on the bills clear, but Dreyfus has suggested he will push for amendments to the national security bill.

“Stakeholders, including the Human Rights Law Centre, have pointed out a number of issues with the bill that the committee will address in its final report,” he told Guardian Australia.



“Labor will always support practical measures that strengthen protections in line with our national security interests, but it is highly likely that the government’s bill will need amendment in order for it to be workable.”

During Tuesday’s hearing the committee also heard evidence from Charles Sturt University academic Clive Hamilton, whose submission to the inquiry detailed what he says are attempts by groups linked to the Chinese government to exert influence on Australian society.

Last year publisher Allen & Unwin cancelled plans to publish Hamilton’s book about the Chinese government’s methods of asserting influence in Australia because of fears the Chinese government could sue for defamation.

During the hearing he said the book had been turned down by three Australian publishers because of what he claimed were fears of “punishment, retribution [and] retaliation” by “sympathisers or agents” of the Chinese government.

“In one case the principal of the company said, ‘Clive I’m dead keen to publish this book, I need to consult with others in the company,’ [then] came back and said look the risks are just too great,” he said.

However, under questioning by members of the committee, he said “no actual threats were made”.

“It was the sense that there were people in Australia with deep pockets who are willing, at the behest of or encouraged by agencies of the Communist party in Beijing, to take legal action to punish major news organisations for writing things that were said to be defamatory,” he said.