Hawkesbury City Council has formally excluded representatives of the Hawkesbury Gazette and Hawkesbury Radio from all Council premises for media purposes, including attendance at Council meetings.
The decision, announced in a media release issued on 5 May 2026, took immediate effect and has been framed by Council as a workplace health and safety measure under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
Council stated it “welcomes accurate, fair, balanced and robust reporting” and described such reporting as “fundamental to democratic principles.” However, it said it had formed the view that representatives from the two local media outlets had engaged in behaviour creating a risk to the health and safety of councillors and staff.
The statement alleged behaviour including:
- harassment and defamation of staff,
- racial vilification within social media comments,
- factually inaccurate and biased reporting,
- and agenda-driven bullying and harassment aimed at influencing Council business.
Council said the determination followed “very careful consideration” and was necessary to meet its obligations under workplace health and safety legislation.
Importantly, Council maintained that the exclusion would not prevent either outlet from reporting on Council matters, noting that meetings are livestreamed online and that both organisations may continue requesting information and media comments through written channels.
The matter has now attracted broader media attention, with ABC Radio Sydney interviewing Acting General Manager Mr Barton on 702 Radio this morning regarding the decision. During the interview, Mr Barton reportedly referenced the situation at City of Parramatta Council, which is currently subject to scrutiny associated with an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry, while defending Council’s actions in relation to the exclusion of local media outlets.
The audio of the interview can be listened to at: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/sydney-breakfast/sydney-breakfast/106635048
The issue is also understood to have drawn interest from other media organisations outside the Hawkesbury, with growing discussion around the implications of the decision for local government transparency, workplace safety obligations and media access to public institutions.
The move follows growing tensions between Council and sections of the local media, particularly after recent reporting concerning governance issues, major project spending and the resignation of the former General Manager.
The Gazette notes that it has previously cooperated with the only Council request it has received regarding online moderation. In that instance, Council contacted the Gazette requesting the removal of a Facebook comment it considered to contain racist undertones. The comment was removed immediately, with the Gazette thanking Council for acting as a second pair of eyes in monitoring community discussion.
The exclusion represents a highly unusual development in local government media relations and is likely to generate broader discussion about the balance between workplace safety obligations, public accountability and press freedom in civic institutions.
COMMENTARY: When workplace health and safety becomes the language of institutional control
Council’s media release is about far more than access to buildings.
At its core, the statement appears to represent an attempt to redefine a conflict between local government and critical media outlets as a workplace health and safety issue rather than a debate about accountability, scrutiny or public discourse.
That distinction matters enormously.
By grounding the exclusion in workplace safety obligations under the WHS Act, Council moves the discussion into a framework that is legally serious and politically difficult to challenge. Few people want to appear dismissive of staff wellbeing or mental health concerns.
But the release also raises obvious questions.
If the Hawkesbury Gazette and Hawkesbury Radio are genuinely considered such serious threats to councillor and staff wellbeing, why are they still permitted to report on Council matters at all, just not from physical Council premises?
Council itself answers this indirectly. The statement repeatedly emphasises that meetings are livestreamed, reporting can continue, and written correspondence will still be provided.
That suggests the issue is not journalism itself, but physical presence and institutional interaction.
In effect, Council appears to be drawing a line between:
allowing scrutiny to exist,
and
allowing scrutiny to occur within Council-controlled spaces.
The wording of the release is also notable for its dual purpose.
On one hand, it attempts to protect Council against accusations of censorship by repeatedly affirming support for “robust reporting.” On the other, it publicly delegitimises the two media outlets through allegations of harassment, bias, defamation and bullying.
That combination serves both a legal and reputational purpose.
It creates a formal record that Council can point to if challenged, while simultaneously shaping public perception about the legitimacy of the excluded organisations.
What makes the situation particularly significant is that councils are not private corporations. They are public institutions exercising authority on behalf of ratepayers.
Council meetings are not internal staff functions; they are civic forums where elected representatives make decisions involving public money, public assets and public policy.
Excluding local media from physically attending those forums is therefore a serious step, regardless of whether livestream access remains available.
There is also a broader implication beyond the Hawkesbury.
If workplace health and safety frameworks can be used to restrict physical media access to public institutions, other councils and government bodies around Australia will be watching closely.
The underlying question is not whether workplace safety matters because it absolutely does.
The real question is:
where the line sits between protecting staff wellbeing and shielding institutions from uncomfortable scrutiny.
That debate is only beginning.
