Federal police would have to apply to an independent authority before raiding journalists and media organisations in some cases, according to a proposal put forward by the Home Affairs Department.

Key points: The Senate has been investigating press freedom since federal police raided journalists last year

The Senate has been investigating press freedom since federal police raided journalists last year In a submission, Home Affairs has proposed new standards that could govern raiding journalists

In a submission, Home Affairs has proposed new standards that could govern raiding journalists The proposal has dismissed calls for broad immunity for journalists doing their job

The Department has made a joint submission with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to the press freedom inquiry that was set up after raids on the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the Sydney offices of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The submission says the AFP are already required by a ministerial direction to "exhaust alternative investigation actions" before conducting a raid.

But the department has further suggested establishing a so-called notice to produce framework in the Crimes Act.

Media organisations would have the chance to "raise concerns" about documents and other information before it is handed over to police and journalists would be able to challenge a request to produce the material.

I live-tweeted the raids on the ABC — and it was a first for the AFP John Lyons spent nine hours in a room with six AFP officers — who were unfailingly polite and respectful — but who were doing something he believed attacked the very essence of journalism. Read more Read more

"This would provide an opportunity for professional journalists and media organisations to put forward any strong, countervailing arguments not to produce material," the submission said.

Home Affairs said in circumstances where police still wanted to conduct a search, it might be appropriate for them to apply to an "independent issuing authority" to make the decision.

However, the submission suggests retaining the power of police to apply for warrants without approaching the independent authority in cases involving serious crimes, urgent operations or where there is a risk material may be destroyed.

"Any framework should not limit the ability for law enforcement to apply for a search warrant in those circumstances," the submission said.

The submission rejects the proposal from the Right to Know group for a broad immunity for journalists.

But it states "information gathering powers should minimise intrusions to the private property and affairs of journalists and business interests of media organisations and limit unnecessary inspection of unrelated information".

AFP officers raided journalist Annika Smethurst's home after last year's federal election. ( ABC News )

It says that includes information that would reveal a journalist's other sources.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton would not comment directly on the proposal, but said it was an issue the government had been considering closely.

"I think there is a new approach," Mr Dutton said.

"I think there's been a lot of work, to the Attorney's credit, to the Prime Minister's credit, to the credit of the Commissioner as well, to work with media organisations to try and find what is a sustainable, common sense way forward."

Mixed response from lawyers

The submission relates to the action police take in response to the unauthorised disclosure of information by current or former public servants.

"It's obviously not a sufficient reform of the law," Bret Walker SC told the ABC.

"Credit where credit's due, it's a good suggestion they make, I hope it's enacted.

"It doesn't redefine the crime. Secrecy laws are excessive, they criminalise too much disclosure. The laws criminalise too much whistleblowing."

Former Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal, Anthony Whealy QC, is critical of the proposal.

"The AFP is not suggesting that they won't continue to have the right to issue what I'd call surprise warrants and execute them without warning or notice," he said.

"I don't think that really advances the situation much."

Lawyer Bernard Collaery would welcome the introduction of an independent authority. ( ABC News: Nick Haggarty )

Former Canberra attorney-general Bernard Collaery welcomed the introduction of an independent authority overseeing the issuing of warrants.

"There should be an independent monitor for those types of investigations which involve or are highly likely to involve physical or crypto intrusion," he said.

Mr Collaery is himself facing prosecution, along with a former senior intelligence officer known as Witness K, over revelations Australia had covertly bugged the East Timor government during gas and oil negotiations in 2004.

He also called for police to be required to disclose to the authority affidavits in support of raid warrants.

"The evidence upon which the request is based must be tested independently," he said.

Asked how any such independent authority should be constituted, he said: "It should not be constructed solely by the government.

"The Law Council of Australia and all stakeholders should be consulted, including the Civil Liberties Council and the journalists' union."

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 1 minute 42 seconds 1 m 42 s The ABC's managing director David Anderson says the judgement demonstrates an urgent need for law reform.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) issued a statement criticising the proposal.

"The proposal rejects the notion of contestable warrants and is vague on the concept of independent oversight," an MEAA spokesperson said.

"Our experience of independent monitors in [relation] to metadata does not instil confidence.

"Our position remains that journalists and their sources should not be subjected to the same approach used to investigate crimes."

The ABC repeated its call for broader legislative changes protecting the public interest and the ability of media organisations to challenge search warrants.

"Reform is needed — and quickly," an ABC spokesperson said.

The submission comes on the same day the ABC announced it would not appeal a Federal Court ruling that found a police warrant used to raid its Sydney headquarters was valid.

Managing director David Anderson said the court's ruling "demonstrates the urgent need for law reform to ensure professional journalism and whistleblowers are appropriately protected."

News Corp executive chairman Michael Miller said the Government had made it clear its preference was to maintain "the bad laws which enable governments to hide from Australians what they are doing".

"It is now nine months since the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC were raided by federal police — and we have now run out of patience," he said in a statement.

Mr Miller said the Department of Home Affairs submission was "nothing more than window dressing," arguing it failed to address concerns held by the media about government overreach and secrecy.

"In particular, the submission refuses to consider the need for exemptions from specific laws that criminalise journalists from doing their jobs to inform the public," he said.

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus also dismissed the Home Affairs submission as "lip-service," agreeing the Government had not considered any of the suggestions made by media organisations.

"The position of the Government is they are not going to give more than, as I say, lip-service to protecting journalists," he said.

"They are saying, police raids: yes, that can still happen. Charging a journalist: yes, that can still happen. They are not prepared to countenance what I say are very practical proposals that have been put forward by the Right To Know coalition."