Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to comment upon the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure on its inquiry into the way in which the media covers House proceedings. I have listened closely to some of the earlier contributors to the debate—in particular, the members for Scullin and Banks and now the Chief Opposition Whip. It is important that we find a proper balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the parliament and, indeed, parliamentarians are not brought into disrepute by the abuse of access by the media to the parliament and, on the other hand, ensuring that the media can provide the public with access to their parliamentarians—that is, their representatives. As the Chief Opposition Whip indicated, this is the people’s House and therefore it is critical in this day and age that proper access is provided to the public via the media. Of course, that means that the media must act properly and not abuse its privilege in being the deliverer of such information and coverage of the parliament.

I note that concerns were expressed by the member for Banks and others that on occasions the media seems more focused on trying to find a parliamentarian dozing off than on national public debates. That really should be discouraged. Therefore, it is critical that there be guidelines to ensure that the media focus on the debate of the day rather than involve themselves in immature and shallow efforts to get a pathetic story in their newspaper or in the electronic media.

I do not necessarily see televising court proceedings and parliament in the same way. I am an opponent of televising court procedures. The American system of allowing television cameras in trials is nonsensical—indeed, it besmirches the process and the participants, particularly the accused. I was in the United States in early 1995 and was able to watch every moment of the OJ Simpson trial. The irony was that I was able to watch more of it than the jury because the voir dire would not allow the jury to see the bits that I could see. We had the bizarre situation in which the people who were to determine the facts of the case were denied access to some matters—which they should have been—and we understand why. However, the rest of the country was watching this case, which became increasingly sensationalised by the efforts of both sides to act salaciously. They diverted attention to matters that should not have been their primary consideration in representing the accused or prosecuting the case. It was going one step too far.

The thing about the Americans is that they do a lot of good things. America is a relatively young country and its citizens often look at something and say, ‘Why don’t we change this?’ But they have got it wrong by allowing television cameras into courts. We certainly should not follow their lead in that regard. There is a difference between the parliament and the courts. We should be able to get the balance right to protect the privileges and rights of members of parliament and at the same time ensure that the public gets what they deserve, which is of course access to the debates of the day and the proceedings of this place. They should have access to what the government and the opposition are doing in our main chamber—that is, the most significant chamber in this country. We need to find a balance.

I have been reading the history of the coverage. I found, for example, that the first live televised segment of the parliament was the joint sitting in 1974, which of course would have been a very historic sitting, just after the election that was called early. Indeed, there had to be an amendment to the act to enable the media to televise those proceedings. I think that not only was that a sensible amendment but it is important that we record very significant matters in our history. There was a time when we did that by transcribing and publishing books—and we will hopefully continue to do that—but because we have technology that can record on digital film the proceedings of very historic moments it would be foolish of us not to avail ourselves of that technology. Those particular matters should be recorded for future generations, for posterity, and indeed for the public at the time.

I think that all question times should be televised. There has now been some consideration of the way in which still photography can be used, and that has waxed and waned over the last 12 years, as I understand it. There have been attempts by the media to push the boundaries to allow photos to be taken of members who are not central to a particular matter—that is, members without the call. That rule is due to concern that the photographers might not really be there to record the main proceedings but rather some side issue, something that should not be focused upon by the media.

I accept that there have to be some restrictions so that the privileged access that the media proprietors have is not abused, but it would be foolhardy of any parliament not to ensure that the media had sufficient access to provide proper reporting of the events of the day. For example, I think the parliament’s refusal to allow the media to record or televise points of order should not be in existence, and I do not believe that there should be a prohibition on recording withdrawals of statements. Whilst the recordings of points of order or withdrawals might not place parliamentarians in the best light, perhaps the media, in the same way that the galleries of the past did, can provide a mechanism by which parliamentarians learn to behave more properly, if that is what it takes. I do not think those things should be proscribed in terms of the public’s access via the media.

I do accept there have to be some restrictions on the way in which still photos are used, but I accept the recommendation made by the committee that ‘the Speaker revise guideline (c) of the rules for still photography in the chamber to extend automatic permission’ for photographs during ministerial statements, discussions of matters of public importance, divisions and adjournment debates for a trial period of 10 sitting weeks. I think, on the face of it, those things should be allowed, but I accept that the reason why the committee has recommended a trial is as much to do with the way in which the media decides to use that opportunity. I think the media should pay attention to that. This is a 10-week trial in order to give the public, via the media, access to this place in a more expansive way, but it should not be abused. If it is abused, I imagine that the decision on the recommendation after those 10 sitting weeks is likely to be that it should not continue. There is responsibility with privileges, and the media has a responsibility not to abuse the privilege of changes that occur as a result of the government adopting recommendations following the tabling of this report.

Other amendments may be made, if the recommendations are accepted by the parliament, in the form of changes to the Speaker’s guidelines, as I understand it. I am a traditionalist when it comes to cricket, but I can recall the need for Packer cricket to revolutionise the way in which we viewed that game. Whilst I do not want to compare cricket with politics—although from time to time we seem to allow them to overlap because of their significance in this country—I think that, in the 21st century, people who want to access the proceedings of the parliament should expect to have 21st century technology to do so and it is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure we use that technology.

For example, a friend of mine, an academic at St Andrews in Scotland, wondered why he could not download on an iPod speeches made in the Australian parliament in the way he is able to download speeches made in the British houses of parliament. I said to him: ‘That’s a good point. Why haven’t we iPodded’—if I can create a verb from that word—‘the parliament?’ I accept that there is a good system in place for finding our speeches, but we are falling behind. We should be ensuring that students, particularly of history and politics, not only across this country but also beyond these shores—expats like my friend, for example—are able to download our speeches, and not just of the audio but of the audiovisual. It is not difficult. The technology is there. This should be done as a matter of course.

This is not within the purview of the committee’s terms of reference relating to this particular inquiry, but the parliament at some point must consider ensuring that we use technology that is available to us to allow people access to contributions made by members in this place. Ensuring that people could download speeches, in an audiovisual sense, onto iPods would be an improvement in access. It would also mean that people then would not necessarily rely upon traditional media outlets. Obviously, this place currently digitally records question time and speeches made in this parliament anyway, but it does not provide access to them. However, if access were provided, people could go direct to the parliament without having to go via Fox News, Channel 9 or Channel 7—although I tend to do that sort of thing. Younger people, you will find, will use less traditional means to access the parliament and will use that opportunity. They want to be able to use this technology that is not available to us but is available in other countries. It is about time that we turn our minds to that.

I conclude by saying that the report into media coverage of proceedings of our parliament allows for opportunities to expand the present coverage. It allows for greater access but with a caveat—that is, it expects the media to use the new expanded access in a way that would not be seen as bringing the parliament or, indeed, parliamentarians into disrepute.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context