Federal court changes to journalist access labelled ‘attack on press freedom’
Changes made by the federal court last Friday, restricting access to some court documents, have been denounced as an “an attack on press freedom” and something which runs against the principles of open justice by well-known professor of journalism and media freedom activist, Peter Greste.
Implemented without consultation, the new rules prevent journalists from accessing documents including statements of claim, originating applications, interlocutory applications and defences until first or directions hearings.
Greste told Mumbrella the decision was “an attack on press freedom and runs against the principles of open justice”.
Greste: ‘It is in line with a troubling trand towards secrecy’
“In my view, it’s in line with the general and very troubling trend in Australia towards secrecy rather than transparency, particularly across government institutions and the courts broadly,” he said.
Greste claimed that what the federal court has done largely gives parties the opportunity to suppress access to sensitive documents.
He added that there is a serious erosion of public confidence generally in Australian institutions and the courts, “and this does nothing to help that”.
A study by The Conversation in mid-2022 showed that public confidence across Government, public sector, private sector, and non-for-profits is at its lowest since pre-pandemic levels.
Following the changes to court document access, a coalition of senior editors and journalists across the Australian media sector wrote to the federal court to express their concerns.
The letter to chief justice, James Allsop, urged him to undo the changes in which he had enacted, also highlighting the impact it would have on their work and public transparency.
“We are journalists who rely on timely access to federal court documents to produce accurate and relevant coverage of cases before your court.”
The letter also noted that while access to documents would be limited, people involved in particularly high profile cases that are attracting media attention will speak to journalists anyway, meaning many journalists will have to take their word for their claims without any documents for verification.
The coalition of journalists called the changes “a full-frontal assault on the principle of open justice”.
Greste noted that there needs to be consistency across all courts in Australia, with this ruling only applying to the federal court.
“I’d be very, very concerned if other courts follow this lead. That would be a massive problem. You can’t have different rules for one part of the judicial system.
“Judges don’t seem to understand the way that the media works,” he continued. “They don’t seem to appreciate the importance of the press, they seem to regard the press as a problem to be managed rather than a part of the system of open justice and transparency within the judicial system.”
Industry trade union body the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance (MEAA) is convening today to discuss the changes, what exactly the impacts are and what the body can do “to stand up for a free press and the public’s right to know”.
The MEAA was contacted for additional comment.
Got a tip?
Calum Jaspan was news editor at Mumbrella, based in Melbourne. He was also the producer and host of the Mumbrellacast. He left Mumbrella in May 2023.
Linkedin
Have your say