AFP’s views of ‘flawed’ press freedom laws ‘illegitimate’

Media companies have attacked the Attorney-General’s Department and security organisation’s views on press freedom.

Attorney-General Christian Porter. Picture: AAP

Media companies have attacked the stance of the Attorney-General’s Department and security organisations on press freedom, accusing the agencies of misunderstanding the “rule of law” and having “flawed” and “constitutionally illegitimate” views of laws applying to journalists.

On the same day Australia’s Right To Know coalition took the unprecedented step of censoring front pages to demand changes to laws guaranteeing greater press freedom, the group of companies hit back at the claims of the ­Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, who are claiming the ­demands of media organisations are implausible.

In a new submission to the joint committee on intelligence and security reviewing the impact on the freedom of the press, media organisations hit out at the “grace and favour” approach advocated by agencies that relies on mere assurances by the Attorney-General that no criminal charges would be laid against journalists.

• READ MORE:Morrison tested on secrecy laws |The secrets governments keep | When politicians decide the news | State actor likely to stay secret | AFP top brass must be in loop

“Many of the solutions proposed, including the recent ministerial directions by the Attorney-General to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Minister for Home ­Affairs to the AFP are more reminiscent of the historic and arbitrary monarchical power of ‘grace and favour’ than substantive law reform,’’ the media organisations said. “The very width of the ­Attorney-General’s discretion to proceed with the prosecution of a journalist, and the inevitably ­selective way in which that is to be exercised, should give rise to considerable unease within the community.”

On Sunday, Attorney-General Christian Porter said that ­although he “would be seriously disinclined to consent to the prosecution of a journalist” in pursuit of public-interest journalism, he could not guarantee the AFP would not want to charge the News Corp and ABC journalists caught up in June’s raids.

The Right To Know submission claimed the “AFP and ASIO misunderstand the object of the rule of law and democratic rights”, saying the bodies assumed “the protection of government secrecy is an end in itself”. “That assumption is not only flawed but constitutionally illegitimate,” the submission said.

One of the key demands of media organisations are new laws forcing police and security agencies to apply for a warrant in front of a judge and in the presence of the media organisation when ­demanding access to a journalist’s home, office or material.

Contestable warrants for media organisations exist in the US and Canada, and with media companies the current system is “backwards”, only allowing for review once a warrant was granted.

“Instead the laws applying to Australian journalists, and secrecy more generally, are capricious, ambiguous and excessive. The current approach is backwards. It is a case of ‘act first, ask questions later’. Issue a warrant now, if there are problems the subject of the warrant can seek a review after the fact. Prosecute now, if there is a defence available it will be dealt with later.”

The UK News Media Association and the US News Media ­Alliance support the actions of media companies. “Australian laws that permit attacks on journalists who are reporting on government activities that the public has the right to know, should be overturned,” the US alliance said.