Call for Protection of Whistleblowers Grows Following Assange’s Release

Following Julian Assange’s release, an intelligence watchdog has urged immediate changes to the country’s secrecy laws to safeguard journalists and whistleblowers dealing with sensitive information.

Jake Blight, Australia’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and a highly experienced national security attorney, stated that unclear regulations could have a detrimental impact on the role of a free press.

“Excessively broad or ambiguous secrecy laws can erode trust in government and unjustly affect the crucial function of a free press and civil society groups,” Mr. Blight said in his assessment of secrecy laws released on June 27.

He pointed out that current definitions of offenses are too vague and emphasized the importance of avoiding sweeping terms such as information related to “the functioning of government.”

His assessment suggests eliminating the use of security classifications like “top secret” as a basis for an offense.

Instead, he proposed changing the law to criminalize the release of information only if it harms a security agency’s operations, capabilities, technologies, or the methods and sources used to gather information.

Related Stories

“Revealing information about the core intelligence operations, capabilities, technologies, methods, and sources of Australia’s six main intelligence agencies will almost always be detrimental to the national interest,” he remarked.

“However, not all information related to those agencies will inevitably be harmful.

“This is particularly true for agencies that have expanded beyond traditional intelligence functions and now support other entities like the Department of Home Affairs in their functions.”

The report cites examples like broad cybersecurity information, commercial mapping, and routine administration as content that should not fall under secrecy laws.

As he conducted his review, Mr. Blight questioned whether the act of labeling a document as secret by a government official should automatically give it legal effect.

“Shouldn’t the decision to imprison someone hinge on a judge determining whether harm or the risk of harm has occurred?” he inquired in an interview with the ABC.

“Yet the core of the offense lies in deciding if an official has stamped a document.

“We have an abundance of national security laws. Over 3,000 pages. That’s comparable to the complete works of William Shakespeare, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy combined.”

While acknowledging that there is undoubtedly information with the potential to cause harm, Mr. Blight stressed the importance of striking a balance in empowering national security, police, and law enforcement agencies.

“We must always be cautious that the democracy we are asking them to safeguard is not being undermined, a democracy founded on accountability,” he explained.

Excessive Secrecy Criticized

Mr. Blight also noted that currently, it is an offense simply to receive a classified document.

“The moment a journalist deliberately receives that document, they may have committed a crime. Before they have taken any further action. Before evaluating it, before duplicating it, before publishing it. Many argue that this has a chilling effect and is unnecessary,”

Disclosing classified information carries a potential sentence of seven to 10 years.

Kieran Pender, a senior attorney at the Human Rights Law Centre, backed the recommendations of the report.

“Unwarranted and disproportionate secrecy is detrimental to democracy.”

Greens senator David Shoebridge also called for a reform of Australia’s secrecy laws.

“Whistleblowers like Julian continue to endure unfair consequences for revealing the unethical and criminal actions of governments.

“We must stand by them and ensure that the legal framework we establish is there to protect them, to speak truth to power, and… not be incarcerated for doing so.”

AAP contributed to this report