Journalists Could Face Grilling From Australia's Spy Agency, Give Up Sources

While Australia's government dropped prosecution of three journalists who used classified material to write about plans to surveil citizens and potential war crimes, they could be compelled to talk to the country's spy agency.

A bill before Parliament would extend authority to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to also question advocacy group members and civil society organizations, The Guardian Australia reported.

The terms being proposed, the paper said, extends the reach of questioning powers so much it could deter whistleblowers and sources from talking to reporters, afraid their identities could be revealed.

Civil society groups, meanwhile – especially those involved in environmental and human rights advocacy – may be caught by the broad definition of “acts of foreign interference” because it includes clandestine acts that “are otherwise detrimental to the interests of Australia,” the report added.

They could also face the use of tracking devices, said advice commissioned by progressive group GetUp and prepared by Sydney-based lawyers Dominic Villa and Diana Tang.

The bill facing scrutiny by the Intelligence Committee would give ASIO the authority of compulsory questioning beyond terrorism-related cases, to espionage and foreign interference.

The agency said there are mores spies and proxies operating in Australia than at the height of the Cold War and argued that expanded compulsory questioning is critical for national security and that there are safeguards, including oversight of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

ASIO would even be allowed to question people as young as 14, from 16 now, with minors only allowed to be questioned if they said they were believed to be involved in politically motivated violence.

But the external legal advice argues the scope of what people could be questioned about is “exceptionally broad” and it was “easily foreseeable” that a journalist may be questioned, the paper said.

“A journalist would then be obliged to provide information pursuant to the warrant, where the failure to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by five years imprisonment,” said the advice.

“Despite well-recognized professional and ethical obligations of a journalist to maintain anonymity and confidentiality of a source, if so questioned under a warrant, a journalist would be required to disclose the identity of a confidential source,” it also added.

There is no exception or exclusion provided for in the bill that would enable a journalist to refuse to answer a question on the basis it would reveal a confidential source.

“There may therefore be a chilling effect on the willingness of people to speak to journalists about issues of political significance, including security matters and foreign relations,” the analysis added.

GetUp’s General Counsel Zaahir Edries, who did not prepare the advice, said the law was “a chilling attack on our democracy and should send a shiver down people’s spine,” because of its invasive potential.

He said, “These laws could target anyone seen as a threat. That means journalists, activists, members of civil society groups like GetUp, or anyone who holds government to account.”