The heads of News Corp, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age owner Nine, and the ABC have been lobbying Prime Minister Scott Morrison and others to "decriminalise journalism", including giving them the right to front court and contest applications for search warrants against reporters. Loading Under current law, journalists and their employers have no ability to contest warrants before they are executed overtly in the form of a physical police raid, or covertly in the form of accessing a reporter's phone and internet metadata. However the AFP has rejected the proposal from media chiefs on the grounds it would undermine investigations and give people time to "destroy evidence". "Search warrants... are often the first point at which the investigation becomes overt, or public. However, it is often very important to the integrity of an investigation that persons of interest are not made aware of the investigation until such time as the warrant is executed," the AFP said in a submission to the press freedom inquiry.

"An opportunity to make representations or submissions at the time of issuance would undermine investigations by alerting suspects and providing opportunities to destroy evidence." Loading It said covert warrants "enable police to collect information without alerting suspects". "Any form of contested hearing in relation to covert powers would fundamentally undermine their

effectiveness, and the ability of police to conduct an investigation." The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age earlier this month revealed the AFP had accessed the metadata of journalists nearly 60 times in just one year. The secret nature of national security laws mean the reporters would likely not even know their phone and internet records have been searched.

The AFP's submission sets up a possible clash with some Coalition and Labor MPs who believe media organisations should have a greater ability to contest search warrants, particularly for metadata. Loading While the AFP's submission did not cite its investigations into Smethurst, Oakes and Clark, it defended its ability to balance police independence and press freedom as "fundamental pillars of democracy". "The operational independence of police is vital to ensuring that no individual member of society and no class of individual is above the law. Freedom of the press plays an important role in keeping the public informed and our democratically elected officials and government institutions accountable. These concepts are not inherently in conflict." In what could be interpreted as a coded defence of its actions against the trio of reporters in June, the AFP said it was "normal for police powers to be exercised at a point in time when the full scope and impact of the criminal offending is unknown".