In the past three weeks, Guardian Australia has published two influential news reports based on the NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden. The first, on 18 November, in partnership with the ABC, revealed that Australia’s spy agencies had targeted the mobile phone of the Indonesian president and his wife. The second, published on 2 December, revealed that Australia’s spy agencies had offered to share data about ordinary citizens.

In light of the extraordinary level of media attention in these stories, I wanted to make a few points.

1. The Guardian firmly believes these stories are in the public interest

There is much at stake here: fundamental questions about the kind of society we want to live in, the kind of privacy we want to enjoy as citizens and as a community, and the kind of oversight and remit we want our security services to have. A meaningful debate is impossible without reliable information and, if you believe in a free press, a responsible news organisation has a duty to inform debate, even if some of the issues brought to light are difficult.

Snowden shared documents with journalists in four countries on three continents. Whether reporting the stories on our own or in partnership with other news organisations such as the New York Times, the ABC or Britain's Channel 4, the Guardian has worked carefully and responsibly – in close and continuous consultation with governments and agencies – to disclose a small proportion of what Snowden leaked.

2. The questions raised by the Snowden revelations are more important than arguments about how the stories were reported, and must not be lost

The many attempts in Australia to attack the messengers, particularly the ABC but also Guardian Australia, are a diversion from the real issues that have been exposed: the possible over-reach of the intelligence agencies, and the extent to which the government has lost track of how far new technologies can invade the privacy of ordinary citizens.

The revelations have, in the vast majority of cases, prompted calls for reform and debate. In some instances they have been met with calls for newspapers to be gagged and those people who dare to speak the truth to be intimidated into silence. Modern history shows us what happens when you stand on the wrong side of that line.

3. The Guardian has at all times demonstrated good faith and followed protocol

In Australia, as in every country in which we have reported these stories, the relevant agencies were consulted before publication. This was to give them the opportunity to express any concerns that were genuinely about serious threats to national security rather than diplomatic embarrassment, and to give them the opportunity to corroborate and contextualise the information.

This is part of the reason we were so surprised that the attorney-general, George Brandis, called the latest Snowden document "unverified". The Guardian has written at least 18 major international stories based on the Snowden documents over the past seven months. It stretches credulity that, of the tens of thousands of documents that Snowden leaked, the only one called into question is about Australia. Our processes ensure that the information in the document is accurate. If the media is intimidated, Australians will be deprived of the kind of debate taking place elsewhere in the world.

We were disappointed by incorrect reports in the Australian that we had been asked to remove sensitive national security information, and had refused. This is simply not the case. During our off-the-record meetings with the relevant agencies, we were asked to remove items in the name of safety to individuals, and agreed. We were also asked to remove other elements, but these were clearly requests to avoid diplomatic embarrassment, rather than concerns about national security. In our view the public interest would not have been served if we had agreed.

4. We won’t stop doing serious journalism that asks difficult questions

All over the world, attempts have been made to discredit those who report the Snowden revelations. As journalists, we ask two questions about a story: is it true? And is it in the public interest? We will continue to answer those questions and are committed to serving our Australian readers, even if it doesn’t win us plaudits from politicians.