Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Some might be amazed to know that when it comes to media coverage of House proceedings—including the chamber, the Main Committee and committees—I take a conservative view. I am not one who believes in the unrestricted access of the media to those venues. We have seen an opening of the access of the media to our courts over recent years—and I note that recently one higher court judge, whose name escapes me, was talking about the access of the media to his court and welcoming it. I think it is to be welcomed. I think the televising of parliament and still photographs of proceedings are important to convey the message of the parliament to the community. They should be part and parcel of the monitoring of parliament. But I am not a great fan of the paparazzi. The paparazzi now seem to have unrestricted access when it comes to public figures and not such public figures. They are prepared to camp outside people’s homes, sometimes for weeks on end, looking for particular pictures or for a camera view of particular people—ex-politicians and others. I have to ask myself: what purpose is to be served by the parliament allowing unrestricted access?

I disagree with some of the things the member for Scullin said.  If unrestricted access is allowed and members are in parliament for a lengthy period of time, or not so lengthy a period of time, it is inevitable that photographs could be taken showing them in awkward positions—with their eyes closed, having a cat nap or whatever. This could be taken totally out of context—you would not know whether the photograph was of a late night sitting. What purpose would be served in that instance, other than bringing the parliament and the particular member into disrepute?

I have no intention of being on my guard every minute the parliament is being broadcast when I happen to be in the chamber, worrying about whether a TV will focus on me having a bit of shut-eye or whether a still photographer is going to focus on me. I do not think that adds one iota to the broadcasting of the parliament and I do not see it as a necessity.

There are limitations in the broadcasting of court proceedings. We have not allowed cameras to show the accused or complainants being examined or cross-examined. In my view, that would cross the barrier. That could have an effect on the proceedings. That could distort the reporting of those proceedings. It is not the same if you are not at the game. We have an open parliament. There is a parliamentary press gallery from which journalists can report; there is a public gallery for members of the public to observe proceedings, but it would be a distorted view if you were to allow unrestricted access to those who wish to use cameras in the parliament.

I cannot see the purpose of it. The purpose should in effect be the reporting of proceedings. It is about the dignity of parliament. It is not a matter of trying to claim a special privilege. I would like to have a still photographer follow the parliamentary press gallery around for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, monitoring them while they are stuck in their workplace for the 18 hours a day that they might work, with a view to taking a picture of someone falling asleep or picking their nose or doing whatever. No workplace can withstand that level of scrutiny. And what is it all designed to do? It is designed to bring the particular subject into disrepute, to put them up for ridicule.

None of us is immune from tiredness. The parliamentary press gallery certainly are not. That is why I will not be lectured by the parliamentary press gallery about unrestricted access to the parliament. With regard to televising of parliament and the taking of photographs, this is a place that deserves to be viewed in a dignified way. If someone wants to make faces or whatever while the camera is on him, that is part and parcel and integral to the proceedings as they are being broadcast. If someone wants to make a noise with their mouth or speak gobbledegook or whatever, and the camera is on them and it is integral, that is part and parcel of the proceedings. I am not saying that we should take that out of the proceedings. You focus on the subject who is delivering the speech. You get photographs if there is a ceremonial occasion. You get overviews of the parliament if you have visiting dignitaries. All of this is within the proper parameters. Let us not fall for this nonsense that we need to give unimpeded access every minute this place is open.

I do not believe in cameras in the workplace to the extent that some people want cameras in this particular workplace. It is a massive invasion of privacy. If I am off the pace or I am not central to the proceedings, I do not see why television or print journalists need to concentrate on me if their purpose is to photograph or broadcast or cover the proceedings of the parliament. You cannot stop people from coming in and doing all their work up there in the gallery, and many of them do that when there are important votes, and I have no problem with photographs being taken on important occasions such as when the native title legislation went through the House of Representatives. The photographers got up in the gallery and took a photograph of those proceedings. Everyone in the chamber was photographed. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not the things I am talking about; they are firmly allowed within the guidelines. I am not saying that the guidelines should not be tweaked and broadened occasionally as a case is made out. I am saying to those in this place: do not fall for this nonsense that we should give uninterrupted, unimpeded access to still photographers and to the media in general for the televising of these proceedings. Ask yourself and ask them for what purpose they want it. As I said to you, the test is: what other workplace would allow that. We are public officials on public exhibition, and I accept and respect that, but for what purpose do some in the gallery seek to obtain extensions?

What purpose is served if the member for Hinkler after a long day or whatever—it might not even be a long day—is captured having a power nap or a catnap? What purpose does it serve? I do not think it is all that newsworthy by the way, but the point is that if he is not central to the proceedings of the parliament at that time in giving his speech then he should be free to do that which he wants to do. If he wants to do other things, that is also fine, but to give unlimited access to still photographers and the television cameras—to pan the chamber, to photograph every angle of the chamber at any time of the proceedings, which is what some people want—is a monstrous invasion and I do not support it. I ask those who bleat because they do not have it whether they would accept that sort of intrusion into their workplace and into the hours of work that they have to perform on a daily basis. What purpose does it serve? It is actually about reporting the proceedings. Can you imagine a courtroom where you have an unlimited use of still photography or an unlimited use of television cameras spanning the courtroom? I cannot and I do not support it, and I do not apologise for that.

We limited some of the recommendations in this Procedure Committee report on Media coverage of House proceedings and I know that there are some who would say that we should have gone further. My view with all of these things is: one step at a time; do them gradually. What is the overriding theme? The overriding theme has to be the proper reporting of parliament, getting parliament out there and not getting a distorted view of the parliament. It is distorted already, but who is to blame in question time? The members of parliament are to blame. We as a parliament deserve all we get for that, because I do not believe question time, as it is televised within the guidelines at the moment and when it is conducted in front of schoolchildren who come to this place, places this parliament in a good light at all. I think we are diminished by the conduct of question time.

Former Prime Minister Keating was right about the televising of parliament, but at the end of the day it is the MPs themselves who are to blame because of the way they conduct themselves. The sorts of things that I have talked about relate to people who are not necessarily central to the televising of the parliament at the time it is being televised. Why bring them into the picture? There is no need. I have no problem with still photographers concentrating on the speaker who is delivering the speech in full flight or whatever—I think that is fair game—but what is the need for a broader picture? Are we going to show an empty chamber? Of course we will show an empty chamber. Why will we show an empty chamber? Because we are all in our rooms doing work on committees, meeting schoolchildren or whatever and it is not a necessity for everyone to be in the chamber 10 hours a day, four days of the week. That is not a productive use of the member’s time. We come in when we are making our speeches, when we are wanting to interject on others making their speeches, when it is question time and when there are divisions.

That image of itself of an empty chamber, unexplained, sends out a bad image to the community. It is not something that I, frankly, can see the necessity for. As I said, I think the television and media coverage should be about the central focus in the parliament at the time and the reporting of that. Someone might ask whether, if we have a brawl in the parliament, that should be televised. I would say yes, because it is central to those proceedings. If we start a punch-up as happens in some of the parliaments in our neighbourhood, I think it is legitimate to focus on that. Maybe that is outside the guidelines, but that is the case.

I say to you that that is integral to the reporting of parliament at that particular time. If an incident happens, if someone jumps from the gallery, it is not allowed to be broadcast because it is not within the guidelines.

See this speech in context