Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This debate gives us an opportunity to talk about the way in which we think parliament should be portrayed to the public. Obviously, if we are talking about media coverage of House proceedings, that is at the core of any discussion. I think that it is incumbent upon a parliamentary institution in the 21st century to make sure that the way it projects itself takes advantage of all the tools that are available to it, and I think that much of that is about the modernisation of our parliament.

The interim report of the Procedure Committee carried out in 2004 and released back in October 2005 goes over much of the history of the way in which this place has been covered by the media. Some of us have not been here long enough to have known the phenomenon of when proceedings were covered by the print media in a much fuller way than they are now—because, outside of the radio broadcast, the only way that people could actually know and understand what was happening in the parliament was to get a feel in the print media for the matters discussed, much of what was said and what their local representatives were putting to the parliament. There was very little replaying of the radio broadcast, only replaying of question time. So this was important to the way in which messages out of the institution of parliament actually got back to electors.

We then saw the great revolution that occurred when we moved up the hill to this building and had access to visual technology—TV and the like. This has radically changed the way in which people can interact with this institution. For instance, last Tuesday, when there was the delay to question time because of the condolence motions, the coverage by the ABC was also delayed, and a number of people made comments about that to their respective representatives. So people who do not have pay TV have access to question time on a rotating basis between the Senate and the House of Representatives; those that have pay TV can, through the facilities of Sky News, actually see the whole proceedings of the House of Representatives and, I think, the whole proceedings of the Senate if the House of Representatives is not sitting.

The original report by the Procedure Committee went to the nature of the rules and guidelines for the coverage of proceedings. The issue arose because of the difficulty the print media had with still photography of an incident in the chamber. It is true that, for those who are taking still photographs in this place, the guidelines are fairly generous compared to those for the video feed that is made available to television and now, as technology moves on, to other forms of digital presentation of the place.

I have a view that, in the case that caused the Procedure Committee to look into the coverage of House proceedings, the guidelines were right. In this case a person jumped from the gallery as a form of protest. Coverage of that sort of incident or the display of banners in the gallery has been outside the guidelines. I can understand the media’s desire to be able to cover these types of things—because we are not disputing whether they are newsworthy—but a decision must be made balancing whether these things should be covered against the protection of the dignity of the proceedings of the parliament. In that case I have an understanding of and sympathy for the way in which the guidelines are framed.

Other objections from time to time have been made by members who believe that the coverage by still photography has in some way demeaned them. The guidelines indicate that photography should not lead to embarrassment or a portrayal in some way that does not go to the dignity of the chamber. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if a member is down in the chamber and nodding off and there is a photograph of that then that is something that the member has to wear. I would see that as a legitimate part of the proceedings of the parliament. If it is about a member, and a member in fact puts him or herself in an embarrassing situation, why do they necessarily need or deserve protection? So, in that, I am indicating that I believe there could be a freeing-up of still photography.

This then leads to the problem—which, quite legitimately, television broadcasters have put before the parliament; and this was looked at by the Procedure Committee—that television broadcasters can only take the feed from the parliamentary broadcaster. I understand this concern and I understand that, quite correctly, the Procedure Committee attempted to free up the accessibility of the incidental feed from different cameras that might be made available. So I understand that, much in the way in which a host broadcaster would broadcast a sporting event, there is some opportunity for those who are taking the host broadcaster’s feed to take other elements of the images that are captured. I think this was in fact the intent of the Procedure Committee back in 2004-05, and I note that this recommendation has not been agreed to by the Speaker.

In part, the Speaker’s response to the committee goes to matters to do with the Department of Parliamentary Services broadcasting staff and what their prime objective is and what their prime duties are as against being able to provide this type of broadcast. But I think that is something we should consider. It is something that would even enable us to expand the way in which the business of parliament—whether it be this place, the main chamber or committee work—is actually able to be taken out and viewed by electors.

What is the way forward? We have had an interim report of the Procedure Committee which, while it is a small report, is a very good one in the way that it can be used as a basis for looking at what the opportunities are for media coverage of parliament. We have a response from the Speaker. Regrettably, given the way in which this place works, this is a response that was tabled. There is really no avenue for the Speaker to be able to enter into a fuller discussion, in the formal sense of the procedures of this place, on the background and the reasoning behind what he provides to us in two pages. That is not a criticism; that is just a reflection on the way in which this place works.

I think these are matters that are not resolved and finalised. I think there is a fair degree of scope for us to consider these matters and to see ways in which we can make improvements. I have been a small ‘c’ champion of the notion of us having a modernisation committee akin to the one that was put together at the turn of the century by the British House of Commons. I understand that this committee in the Commons may not have been as successful as its proponents had hoped for in the first place—and as I perhaps naively thought it might have been able to operate—and that is to do with the personnel involved. But I believe this is something on which the House, along with the Speaker and with the members of the parliamentary parliamentary press gallery, could continue to have a dialogue to look at ways in which we can improve things.

At the time of that original decision and of other decisions of previous Speakers there was much derision by some of the satirical programs on television indicating that we were trying to put a wall around ourselves so we could not be observed in our primary tasks in the parliament. I think we should make sure we are not doing things that would lay us open to that type of charge. That is why I believe that anything that is happening in the chamber, in this Main Committee or when we are doing our committee work that is to do with the central core of the business of those venues should be open to scrutiny by all forms of media. That is a difficulty with regard to video presentation because there are physical restraints. And I think it is appropriate, given that we would be sending a feed live to air, that the parliament should continue to have control over the way in which that is put out to the electorate. But I think the minutiae of other views of the chamber, things that might be seen as incidental but of some merit to what is happening in the chamber, can also be portrayed.

As I said from the outset, the most important thing for us in considering the good work that has been done by the Procedure Committee and the response that has been made by Speaker Hawker from his view in his role as the Speaker, who not only has an obligation to defend the dignity of the parliament but at the same time to achieve what he thinks is an appropriate balance in giving media organisations access to the way in which they capture what is happening in the parliament, is to see this as an institution operating in the 21st century that has some very exciting ways in which it can be covered.

I will digress slightly by relating an experience I had three or four weeks ago when I was in Belize, of all places, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s study group on parliamentarians and the environment. As best I can ascertain, there seems to be only one radio station that the Belizeans listen to, and it is entitled Love FM, of all things. For most of the week that I was there it played all sorts of different Caribbean beats—I learnt that there are more than one. But on the day we were leaving, which was budget day in Belize, we were in the bus going off to the airport and I heard the parliament on the radio. I asked, ‘What station is this?’ They reported that it was Love FM.

During the course of that discussion, I came upon a radio interpretation of what was happening in the chamber which made me feel very much at home—this is not a reflection on the present Speaker or on previous speakers. There was an incident where the leader of the opposition in the Belizean parliament raised a point of order asking the Speaker whether, if the opposition were raising points of order, they would actually be listened to, because they said, ‘Man, we don’t think that we are getting a proper listening to.’ This is now portrayed on the net very much with the proper intonation and lingo of the Caribbean. I give that case as an example to show that there is interest, whether it be in Belize or Australia, in what is happening in the national parliament. We should be using all forms of media to ensure that such coverage occur.

Of course we should look at ways to free up access via the internet—again, video feed is the most appropriate—so that parliament is displayed in a relevant form to those who depend upon that viewing for an understanding of what is happening, presenting parliament as an important institution carrying out important work in the 21st century.

See this speech in context