In April 2014, Guardian journalist Paul Farrell exposed an incident in which Australian Customs officials illegally took their refugee-hunting ship the Ocean Protector deep into Indonesian waters. With state secrecy and cover-ups so normalised these days, the article itself was hardly surprising. But when the Australian Federal Police launched a disgraceful investigation to uncover Farrell’s sources, a significant new story unfolded.

It’s now clear that despite having no warrant and no evidence of illegal activity, the AFP accessed Farrell’s metadata and unspecified content from his emails. They compiled a 200-page document, outlining their “suspects” and even their plans for ensnaring them.

All of this attention was directed at one journalist for daring to reveal Australia’s criminal and inhumane behaviour on the high seas. Except – it’s not just one journalist. We now know that the AFP has undertaken hundreds of such investigations into journalists. And the majority of these investigations have been related to, you guessed it, “border protection” and asylum seekers.

Australia isn’t alone in this growing suppression of media freedom. And many people, including journalists who have been on the receiving end, see the fundamental problems with existing laws that offer no protection to whistleblowers or reporters.

This is a fair enough assessment. Just look at the punishment inflicted on people such as Chelsea Manning, who revealed crimes against humanity on a scale that should have shamed even the most strident defenders of the system. But from WikiLeaks, through the NSA documents and now the Panama Papers, the only people who ever get pursued are the whistleblowers themselves. In the face of such audacious attacks on democratic freedoms, the need for strong laws to defend whistleblowers and journalists is obvious.

But we must grasp some important truths. Bodies like the AFP operate outside existing laws. And even a cursory glance at Australian history shows that the Farrell affair is far from the first time Australian security officials have behaved this way; in fact, they do so as a matter of course.

The state’s security forces always have and always will ignore the laws of the day. After all, strengthening the surveillance power of the state is an activity the ruling class believes is vital to its continued ability to rule.