Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has lashed out at suggestions that principals and others could be jailed for speaking out about the treatment of asylum seekers in their care, under tough federal laws.

So could you be locked up for doing so?

That really depends on who you ask.

If you ask Mr Dutton, a state school principal in Glenroy can't be.

But if you ask a human rights lawyer familiar with the Border Force Act, a deliberately-broad piece of legislation that has frightened thousands of Australians into quietude for fear of repercussions, well, you could be.

This week, Mr Dutton took exception to a Fairfax article that highlighted the stance of Glenroy College Principal Paul Dingle, who became the latest person to speak out about the treatment of asylum seekers under his care, despite a fear he risked jail.

Three asylum seekers who attend Mr Dingle's school are among 267 asylum seekers facing deportation to Nauru.

Mr Dingle - who signed an agreement with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection agreeing to "avoid" the media - said he was concerned about "push back" by the department.

So could he face jail for speaking out? The answer hinges on whether Mr Dingle could be considered an "entrusted person" under the Border Force Act.

In a letter to Fairfax Media, Mr Dutton insists that Mr Dingle is not.

Firstly Mr Dingle is not an entrusted person and the Act does not apply to him.

According to the legislation, an "entrusted person" includes the senior echelons of the department, and Immigration and Border Protection workers.

But for the first time, lots of other people can now be defined as being Border Protection workers -  including state and territory employees - when they make their services available to the department.

And this is where the confusion stems from.

The legislation states that the department secretary must state in a letter that someone is an "entrusted person" - a so-called "written determination".

But state and territory employees acting as quasi Border Protection employees are not covered by this section. Some legal brains suggest this means they could indeed be considered "entrusted persons" while they're performing duties for the department.

It's all very pointy-headed, but there is a point.

An "entrusted person" risks two years' jail if they disclose "protected information" about asylum seekers - a clause that has caused many people working with asylum seekers to keep quiet.

Given Mr Dingle is responsible for those asylum seeker children while they are at school and not in detention, he was under the impression he was an entrusted person.

A spokeswoman for the Law Council of Australia believes otherwise, saying the government's interpretation is correct.

But today, another principal voiced his concerns.

Meadow Heights Primary School principal Kevin Pope, who has had students living in immigration detention at his school, says staff at Broadmeadows detention centre told him he was an entrusted person under the Act.

"These kids should be in school, not detention. At the end of the day all we want is these little kids at school."

Mr Dutton says the legislation does not prevent people from expressing their views about border protection policies and the treatment of asylum seekers.

But it's clear it is causing many people to think twice before they speak out.

Meanwhile, Mr Dutton also took exception to the Fairfax report stating that Broadmeadows detention centre was topped by barbed wire.

The second paragraph of the article then states: "….when the last bell rings….guards return the students to Broadmeadows detention centre where they live behind barbed wire….".
The fence surrounding the centre has no barbed wire.

You've got a point, Minister. The wire that previously topped Broadmeadows was removed some time ago and replaced with high, non-scalable fences.

Finally, Mr Dutton didn't like The Age's description of the guards as "burly". Perhaps this makes them sound threatening.

Your article yesterday opened with the words: "….escorted….by two burly guards."
Let me quote Mr Dingle’s own words on this, as broadcast on ABC radio: "……the Age talked about burly people….can I say they’re not burly people."

But when The Age visited his school on Tuesday, Mr Dingle said of the guards: "They were burly blokes but the next day they were dropped off by a lady and a skinny bloke....I think that they do a good job with the kids."

These photos taken by The Age show that the guards in question were indeed rather muscular.

Glenroy principal Paul Dingle conceded the guards that dropped off asylum seeker students at his school were indeed ... burly. Photo: Justin McManus