The Hawkesbury Gazette has returned to Hawkesbury City Council meetings after almost six months of exclusion, as a Victorian court ruling raises fresh questions about whether claims of psychological harm can justify restrictions on legitimate political scrutiny.
The Hawkesbury Gazette attended the Hawkesbury City Council meeting on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, without interference from General Manager Will Barton, marking a significant retreat from Council's controversial decision to exclude the newspaper from its meetings and premises.
The Gazette's return follows almost six months of dispute over Council's use of workplace health and safety legislation to prevent its journalists from undertaking their normal reporting duties.
While Council has now permitted the Gazette to return, Mr Barton continues to raise concerns about alleged psychosocial risks to councillors and staff.
However, despite repeated requests, the Gazette says it has not been provided with specific incidents or examples of its conduct that would substantiate those allegations.
The development comes as a Victorian court has delivered a significant judgment protecting political discussion and public-interest reporting, even where the criticism involved is hostile, deeply personal or offensive.
The decision has striking parallels with the Gazette's dispute with Hawkesbury City Council.
Court overturns order against council watchdog
On 18 September 2026, Judge Julie Clayton of the County Court of Victoria overturned a personal safety intervention order obtained by Stonnington Mayor Melina Sehr against Dean Hurlston, president of the local government advocacy organisation Council Watch.
Mr Hurlston had published numerous critical Facebook posts concerning the mayor, council spending, governance, political conduct and decisions affecting ratepayers.
Some publications were highly confrontational and included derogatory language, personal ridicule and offensive images.
The original magistrate found that the publications demonstrated ill will, spite and animosity towards Mayor Sehr.
However, on appeal, Judge Clayton found that the primary purpose of Mr Hurlston's publications was political discussion, reporting news and current affairs, and ventilating matters of public interest.
In her judgment, Hurlston v Sehr (No 2) [2026] VCC 1514, Judge Clayton stated:
"It is permissible for Mr Hurlston to publish, filled with ill will, animosity, spite and hostility if the actuating motive for the publication is not improper."
The judge distinguished between political criticism that may cause distress and conduct undertaken for the dominant purpose of inflicting personal harm.
Importantly, the court recognised that political reporting is not limited to policy debates.
Questions concerning politicians' personal integrity, financial disclosures, dealings with staff and performance in public office were all legitimate subjects of public scrutiny.
The judge concluded that Mr Hurlston's publications were protected by the relevant provisions of Victoria's Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010, and the intervention order should not have been made.
Gazette lawyers challenged the Council's powers
The Victorian decision has particular significance in Hawkesbury, where Council issued an exclusion notice against the Gazette on 28 April 2026, relying on its workplace health and safety obligations.
The notice purported to exclude Gazette representatives from Council meetings and Council premises.
In a letter dated 10 September 2026, solicitor Donald Shaddick of Shaddicks Lawyers formally challenged the validity of the exclusion.
Writing to the Mayor on behalf of the Gazette, Mr Shaddick described the notice as "ineffective and untenable".
The letter accused Council of employing the Work Health and Safety Act as a "dubious justification" for excluding the newspaper from performing its normal functions.
It stated:
"The Notice of Exclusion is a threat to freedom of the press and to democracy."
Mr Shaddick also drew attention to the extraordinary breadth of the notice, which purported to prevent Gazette representatives from entering all Council premises, not merely attending meetings.
Taken literally, the letter argued, the restrictions could have prevented Gazette employees and representatives who were ratepayers from using Council libraries, swimming pools, sporting fields and other public facilities.
The Gazette denied having engaged in conduct creating an unacceptable psychosocial risk to councillors or staff.
Mr Shaddick argued that councillors, as elected representatives, must expect public scrutiny of their decisions.
"Whilst our clients certainly have no desire to cause psychological harm to any Councillor or Council worker, they have a right to responsibly report on decisions made by Council and to question the correctness or wisdom of such decisions," the letter stated.
The correspondence concluded by calling upon Council to withdraw the notice by 25 September 2026, failing which the Gazette anticipated seeking instructions to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Gazette returns without interference
Against that background, the Gazette's attendance at the 13 October Council meeting represents a significant change in Council's position.
Having previously maintained that the presence of Gazette representatives created unacceptable psychosocial risks, Council allowed the newspaper to attend without interference from Mr Barton.
The Gazette regards this development as a capitulation in practical terms, following months of resistance and the prospect of Supreme Court proceedings.
However, the circumstances raise an obvious question.
If the Gazette's presence posed a workplace health and safety risk sufficient to justify its exclusion in April, what has changed to allow its representatives to attend a Council meeting in October?
Mr Barton has continued to assert that workplace health and safety concerns exist, yet the Gazette maintains that no particular examples substantiating those claims have been supplied in response to its requests.
The Gazette's return without incident is a significant development in a dispute that has attracted attention from the NSW Minister for Local Government, the Office of Local Government and members of Parliament.
The right to question public officials
The dispute has always involved a broader issue than the right of one newspaper to occupy a seat in the Council chamber.
At its heart is the right of Hawkesbury residents to receive independent reporting about decisions made by their elected representatives and senior public officials.
The Gazette has reported extensively on Council expenditure, governance, senior executive appointments, councillor conduct, legal disputes and public accountability.
Some of that reporting has been critical of Council and its leadership.
But criticism, even persistent and uncomfortable criticism, is part of the scrutiny to which public institutions are properly subjected.
Judge Clayton's judgment provides a timely reminder that Australian political discussion has never been confined to polite disagreement.
The Victorian court recognised that political commentary can involve hostility and strong language without necessarily losing its legitimate public-interest purpose.
"For Hawkesbury, the Gazette's peaceful return to the Council chamber after almost six months of exclusion marks an important step towards restoring the ability of the local media to report freely on Council proceedings." says it's publisher Kooryn Sheaves.
