Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Speaker’s response to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure Media coverage of House proceedings, including the chamber, Main Committee and committees and to its recommendations. As Manager of Opposition Business—and I did not have this position at the time of the inquiry by the committee—I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the report in this debate. Access of the media to the proceedings of our national parliament is an important issue. It is how Australians in their homes and in their workplaces find out what happens in the House of Representatives. It is also the case that in 21st century Australia the media has a seemingly insatiable demand for content. Of course, we have seen new media develop in terms of technological change, and therefore the guidelines regarding access to the House proceedings need to reflect that change and continue to facilitate the access that they were designed to give.

The competing interest is of course in ensuring that the House of Representatives is not damaged by a level of access that dilutes the public’s ability to focus attention on the proceedings there. It is also important to protect the integrity of the House and to prevent the media from needlessly focusing on elements of parliamentary proceedings not relevant to its business. It is of course a right the media demands and a right, which I respect, to determine what is and is not relevant. Certainly, one can understand the frustration of some sections of the media. It is a frustration that we as the opposition have also felt from time to time, when photographic records of important business in the House have been kept out of the media by outdated guidelines.

As the Manager of Opposition Business I want to go through the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and give a response to the Speaker’s response, if you like. There are six recommendations in the report. The first recommended updating previous resolutions to reflect current House arrangements and asserting the authority of the Speaker in administering guidelines for media access. There is no response from the Speaker to that recommendation.

Recommendation 2 was for a modernisation of the language to recognise the change from film to digital technology. It also recommended removing words from the preamble to the guidelines which concern media responsibility and the Speaker’s authority in relation to disallowing the publication of photographs which impact on the dignity of the House. The Speaker’s response is that the guidelines were amended in October 2005 to partially reflect this recommendation. Recommendation 3 was that the Speaker introduce a 10-week trial to extend automatic photographic permission for ministerial statements, MPIs, divisions and adjournment debates. This trial has been going on since 26 February and it is being done on the basis that any photographer accessing the House at that time inform the Serjeant-at-Arms when he or she enters the gallery.

Recommendation 4 was that television bureaus be provided with access to isolated feeds produced by Department of Parliamentary Services broadcasting staff on request. The Speaker has not agreed to that recommendation on the basis that isolated feeds are already provided to bureaus on request but that the production of the official broadcast should be considered first before other media interests. Recommendation 5 was that the Parliamentary parliamentary press gallery Committee consult with DPS staff to improve access to different camera feeds from the House. It recommended that the committee evaluate any new arrangements after they had been in operation for six weeks. The Speaker has broadly supported that recommendation; however, he has reserved the right to approve a trial of any changes to the current arrangements. Recommendation 6 was that the Department of Parliamentary Services install cameras in the House of Representatives committee rooms to allow increased television coverage. The Speaker has broadly supported that recommendation but has asked the Department of the House of Representatives to examine that.

The recommendations of this report, we believe, are fairly innocuous. It is appropriate, I think, that there be access to the House, and certainly, in relation to recommendations 5 and 6, I think that we do need to have more concrete action considered. This is a process that has now gone on for several years. It is more than a couple of years old. We now have recommendations from the Speaker that we are debating here in the chamber for the first time. Certainly, the opposition would welcome feedback from the media as to how we might improve the guidelines if the current process does prove to be inadequate for dealing with their legitimate concerns. I will leave my remarks there, on that note.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a security breach.

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

It is also about not having copycats. There is a rational explanation for that, so let us not apologise for that either. It is about copycats and, as the honourable member for Hinkler said, security. These are all factors that outweigh the unrestricted use of media coverage of House proceedings. I commend the report to the parliament, as limited as it is. I am not saying there are not other things that can be done, but there are some basic principles and I do not believe in a free-for-all.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting the limited recommendations put forward by the Procedure Committee in its final report, Media coverage of House proceedings, which were referred to by the member for Banks in his passionate oration just a few moments ago. This is an important report which reflects the crucial role that the media plays when it comes to ensuring that members of the general public are able to follow debates and the decisions taken by those in this place who are elected to represent them.

The terms of reference for the Procedure Committee’s inquiry—‘To inquire into and report on all aspects of media coverage of the House, including proceedings in the House, Main Committee and committees of the House’—were broad in scope. In particular, the Procedure Committee undertook its inquiry with a view to addressing some of the problems that have arisen in the past as a result of the current guidelines regulating media coverage of the House. More broadly, the inquiry was framed by a shared recognition of the crucial role that the media plays in enhancing public knowledge about the business of the chamber, the Main Committee and the parliamentary committees. The final report tabled by the Procedure Committee lists six recommendations that are intended both to ease some of the restrictions limiting the media’s access to the House of Representatives chamber and to better facilitate the media’s ability to adequately cover House proceedings.

Before looking at each of these recommendations individually, as well as the Speaker’s response to them, I want to first take a few moments to highlight some of the problems associated with the current arrangements regulating media coverage of the House. As it stands, proceedings in the House are covered by televised broadcasts, print news and live radio broadcast. Crucially, however, the degree of access to the House that each arm of the media has is radically different, and this is where many of the problems associated with media coverage of the House originate. As the Procedure Committee’s final report makes clear, radio broadcasts of House proceedings are relatively straightforward and the current guidelines for radio broadcasting generate little if any controversy. In contrast, however, most problems surrounding media coverage of the House relate directly to restrictions affecting televised broadcasts of the House and its proceedings as well as restrictions limiting the access that press photographers have to the gallery.

Taking television first, under current arrangements television stations have access to footage of the chamber as provided to them by the broadcasting section of the Department of Parliamentary Services. The chamber is equipped with eight cameras that are mounted into the walls and operated by remote control by staff working for the DPS. These cameras continue to record what goes on in the chamber. Switching between the cameras, DPS broadcasting staff are able to mix different images taken from the eight cameras to produce a single feed of video footage from the chamber. This single feed is broadcast on the House monitoring system and is also made available free of charge to commercial television stations. The capacity also exists for DPS broadcasting staff to produce what is commonly referred to as an iso feed, or additional footage, when it is requested by one or more of the television bureaus, though this can be difficult during busy periods in the chamber, as would be the case for question time.

The rules that apply for camera operators and still photographers in the chamber regarding how they treat their subject matter are essentially the same. Both can focus on the member with the call as well as take panning shots of members listening to the debate, member reaction shots and wide angle shots. As it stands, DPS is thus responsible for recording and editing all video footage of the chamber’s proceedings. No commercial television cameras are allowed in the chamber—that is common knowledge. It was made quite clear by the member for Banks that there would be strong opposition to such free access of commercial television cameras to the chamber at all times.

Television bureaus, however, have expressed dissatisfaction with the feed produced by DPS broadcasting staff for the way it lacks drama or newsworthiness and because occasions have arisen in the past where the short grab required for a particular news story is unavailable on the DPS feed made available to the media. In response, television bureaus have suggested that they be given access to the separate feeds produced by each of the eight cameras individually, allowing them greater freedom to edit footage taken from the chamber rather than having to rely solely on the single feed produced by the DPS.

As the standing committee notes in its report, however, providing bureaus with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras in the chamber is presently impossible given the inadequate number of tie lines or feed lines that carry video footage from the chamber to the parliamentary press gallery. The committee found that installing extra feed lines from the basement DPS studio to the parliamentary press gallery would be expensive and as such was not a practical option at present.

An alternative suggestion put forward by at least one of the television stations was for the House to allow television crews to enter and exit the public gallery at will for the purposes of filming proceedings in the chamber. At issue here, however, are both the disruption that roving television crews may create for members of the public who are watching chamber proceedings from the public gallery and the lack of available room in a gallery to house television crews and their equipment.

Given these constraints, recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure attempt to provide alternative solutions aimed at accommodating demands made by the television bureaus for more access to video footage of the chamber’s proceedings. In essence, recommendation 4 focuses on increasing awareness of current arrangements allowing television bureaus to request additional iso feeds from the DPS broadcasting staff beyond the single feed that they are routinely provided with. The committee recommends that:

… the Speaker write to the television bureaus represented in the parliamentary press gallery to offer them the use of isolated feeds produced by DPS Broadcasting staff on request.

It also suggests that the supply of iso feeds during busy periods in the chamber such as question time may be undertaken on a user-pays basis should increased demand for these feeds warrant additional resources. In view of the impossibility of providing television viewers with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras located in the chamber, recommendation 5 suggests that:

… the Parliamentary press gallery Committee consult with the Broadcasting Section of DPS in relation to improving the content of the existing feed for television excerpt purposes and to explore the possibility of additional feeds focusing on the speakers at the despatch boxes; and that the committee evaluate any such new arrangements after they have been in operation for six sitting weeks.

In essence, it flags the possibility of DPS broadcasting staff providing television bureaus with permanent iso feeds from the chamber and encourages further consultation towards this end.

The report cites Mr Neil Pickering from the DPS broadcasting section, who suggests that DPS broadcasting staff may be able to provide television bureaus with two permanent iso feeds from cameras 2 and 6 in the chamber. These cameras focus on the two dispatch boxes in the chamber and would thus better facilitate clean grabs when a member is talking.

A further suggestion from Mr Paul Bongiorno from Channel 10 is that television bureaus could possibly pool their resources to create two independently operated television cameras in the chamber galleries. The procedure committee argues in section 3.31 of the report that its preference would be to first trial the iso feeds option before any consideration is given to installing television cameras in the gallery.

Of course, not all House business occurs in the main chamber. A substantial amount of House business takes place in the various committee rooms that parliament provides for. The key problem here, however, is that only one of the committee rooms—namely, the Main Committee—is equipped with cameras. In relation to the lack of cameras in the other committee rooms in which House business occurs, recommendation 6 of the report recommends:

that the Department of Parliamentary Services install inbuilt cameras in additional House of Representatives committee rooms to allow increased television coverage of committee proceedings.

I wish to lend my strong support to each of these recommendations because I support practical solutions aimed at better facilitating media coverage of House proceedings, solutions that give the Australian public greater access to what goes on in this place. I agree with the report’s conclusion that the right balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, protecting the dignity of the House and, on the other hand, ensuring that the general public have greater access to the House and the work that is done by those who are elected to represent them.

The current guidelines regulating media coverage of the Australian parliament are clear in their call for fair and accurate reporting and in their prohibition on parliamentary material being used for political advertising, ridicule, satire or commercial uses. Alongside the need to make sure that these guidelines are rigorously adhered to, we in this place also have a responsibility to ensure that the Australian public have better access to the House and its daily business. We should be encouraging practical solutions that allow the general public to better follow what goes on in this place—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear hear!

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I hear the Chief Opposition Whip agreeing with me—including the decisions we make and the numerous debates we engage in. All of them are matters of public importance.

Questions of accountability and transparency are fundamental to Australia’s parliamentary system of government and to the health of our democracy. Transparency in the dealings of parliament is vital when it comes to safeguarding the people’s ability to hold their elected representatives accountable. For me, the central role that the media plays in making parliamentary proceedings more transparent for the Australian public is paramount in any debate on media coverage of House proceedings. In this sense, I agree with Mr Malcolm Farr, the President of the Parliamentary press gallery Committee, when he argues that parliament is:

… a public meeting, it is a meeting funded by taxpayers, it is the most important public meeting in Australia and taxpayers, through their newspapers, radio, TV services and the Internet increasingly, have a right to know what goes on at this public meeting in words and in images.

As such, I note with concern the Speaker’s rejection of recommendation 4 in the Procedure Committee’s report relating to the iso feeds and their potential to facilitate greater televised coverage of chamber proceedings. I also note the Speaker’s cautious approach to recommendation 5 and his decision to subject recommendation 6 to further review by the House of Representatives.

Another area relating to media coverage that has caused problems in the past is the limited access that photographers from the major Australian papers have to the chamber. Still photographers rightly argue that gaining access to the chamber is far harder for them than it is for other media outlets. Provisions currently exist for a limited number of photographers to take pictures during question time and other ‘significant’ debates in the House. Current guidelines bar photographers from taking pictures of disturbances or acts of protest in the chamber in line with the belief that giving publicity to these acts will only encourage others to consider similar actions.

When it comes to still photography, the guidelines regulating the use of photographs taken in the chamber are often stretched, and there have been instances where these guidelines have been blatantly transgressed. This has generated a sense of distrust between the media and some members of parliament.

The key areas of contention over current guidelines regulating access to the chamber by still photographers are as follows. The first deals with question time. Before question time, photographers need to give correct names to the Serjeant-at-Arms office to ensure that the security guards will admit them into the chamber. In the event that a photographer is suddenly called away to another job, a newspaper can only send a second photographer to the chamber to cover question time if his or her name is correctly recorded at the Serjeant-at-Arms office. This arrangement is needlessly complicated and inflexible.

Permission for a photographer to enter the chamber outside of question time must be obtained from the Speaker via the Serjeant-at-Arms office. This can often be time consuming and hinders the ability of newspaper photographers to capture the news as it happens. In response, recommendation 3 of the Procedure Committee’s report recommends that:

… the Speaker revise guideline (c) of the rules for still photography in the chamber to extend automatic permission for still photographers to take photographs during ministerial statements, discussions of matters of public importance, divisions and adjournment debates for a trial period of 10 sitting weeks.

This recommendation is intended to undo the complex rules and procedures that continue to hinder the access press photographers have to the chamber. It also recognises that some of the most important debates of the day can occur and do take place outside of question time—during MPIs, ministerial statements or adjournment debates, for example. I support this recommendation, including its provision that automatic permission be extended to still photographers to enter the chamber during these times. Whilst agreeing to a trial period of 10 sitting weeks, the Speaker has rejected this provision for automatic admission, instead adding the requirement that photographers still register their names with the Serjeant-at-Arms office before entering the chamber. This undermines the very spirit of the recommendation, for exactly the same problems and complications that I have mentioned before will remain, including the delays that photographers have complained about when they have to register their names and gain prior permission to enter the chamber, as well as the problems that arise in the event that a photographer is suddenly called away and needs to be substituted by another photographer. The only way to ensure that we do not hinder the work of photographers during these times is to grant them automatic permission. We on this side of the House support such a provision.

Recommendation 1 of the Procedure Committee report is to change the existing resolutions of October 1991 and May 1996 to better reflect the fact that the Speaker acts on behalf of the House in administering and implementing all guidelines relating to media access to House proceedings. This seems an entirely sensible move. In addition, recommendation 2 refers to the need to update the language used in the guidelines relating to still photography to include the use of digital cameras and recommends that guideline (l) be moved to the preamble. This guideline places the onus of responsibility on the photographer to ensure that all photographs he or she takes are consistent with the guidelines.

In conclusion, I support the recommendations put forward by the Procedure Committee in its final report on media coverage of House proceedings. These recommendations go a long way towards addressing some of the problems hindering media coverage of the House. I want to congratulate members of the committee, in particular the Chair, Margaret May, and the deputy chair, on the report.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I must say it is great to speak in the Main Committee and have the visitors gallery overflowing with visitors—if not overflowing, at least there is some participation. That is great. I hope it is not forced. I am also pleased to acknowledge that we have the honourable member for Calwell and the honourable member for Charlton in the chamber. One is a serving member and the other is a former member of the Procedure Committee. I would like to acknowledge their contribution.

We need from the start to understand that we have lost the debate about the televising of parliament and, in particular, question time. That change has occurred; whether people like it or do not like it, it has happened. We have a symbiotic relationship with the media, but we cannot complain about the media coverage of this parliament if we are forever putting hurdles up against that coverage. It is very interesting that the Procedure Committee thought—and I am a guilty party—they were making a real breakthrough in relation to the televising of question time by recommending that the media have access to iso feeds.

Of course they do not have access to iso feeds. Part of the current guidelines means that if the honourable member for Calwell asks a question, the TV cameras can focus on her for the period of her asking the question, but there can be cutaways so you will only hear the voice of the honourable member for Calwell. If the honourable member for Charlton is answering the question, the same applies. So under the current guidelines, the TV channels are not guaranteed a clean shot of the person asking the question or the person answering it. At times they may get a back of the head shot of either party. That is totally unsatisfactory to them, and we should be concerned about it. It is disappointing that so far the Speaker seems resistant to acknowledging that problem.

There is the recommendation that the parliamentary press gallery consult with the broadcasting section of DPS. This has been a longstanding issue for the TV bureaus that currently has no solution. In fairness to the Procedure Committee, if we had had any inkling that DPS and the Speaker would be so resistant to this issue, no doubt we would have explored the issue of a pool camera for the bureaus. That was recommended to us by the media when we sat down and talked to them. They came up with their problems, but when we investigated it with making no changes we found that it represented a serious health and occupational hazard to accommodate that request.

I regret to say that DPS has been intransigent with the problem. I was going to say ‘indifferent’ but perhaps that is too harsh when in fact I do not think the Speaker is indifferent. If we cannot provide the TV channels with these clean shots, at some point we are going to have to investigate other solutions which involve pool cameras in the galleries. If that means we need to remove some of the seating to facilitate that, so be it. The loosening of the arrangements for the still photographers is working very effectively. Happily, they are able to shoot from the cut-out section at the back of the public gallery and that does not constitute an occupational health and safety issue.

One of tragedies about this parliament concerns the committees. I have not spoken to a member of parliament who has served on a parliamentary committee who has not wanted to encourage greater media attention of the work of committees. But the cameras in the committee rooms have been removed. The only way that you can get any coverage for committees is if there is an agreement to put a pool camera in there. If you are really lucky you will get three of them in there. Lots of committees do lots of good work in hearing evidence and questioning witnesses, but because there are no TV cameras there the media do not get access to it. It goes unrecorded.

We have a question time—and, although we can be critical of it, it will always have some argy-bargy—that is the one thing that the public focus on. Others would like to see more balance in people’s understanding of what occurs in this place. Committees, I think, rescue our reputations. But we are not moving with the times. Any institution has to hang onto its core values, but we need to adapt and change. We cannot be strangled by tradition, by inertia or by a refusal to accept. I certainly think we need to go even further than the committee has recommended. The Procedure Committee has a tradition of making unanimous reports and its secretariat is serviced by Chamber Research. I very much regret and am somewhat surprised that the Speaker rejected the reasonable suggestions that the committee carefully and rigorously explored in both its interim and final reports.

Every member of parliament is interested to know when the in-built cameras will be restored in the committee rooms. This has been going on for a long time. Whilst I am not saying that there is any antipathy by the Speaker to the recommendation, I think members want to be kept up to date about progress. I want to make it very clear that we have a federal election coming up and should there be a change of government I hope our side will move with clarity; we will not sit on our hands. We think it is important for the institution of parliament itself that the good work of committees is able to be broadcast and publicised.

The recommendations on still photographers are working very well. I think they are very appreciative of the changes that have been implemented. On reflection, I would recommend that the Procedure Committee have another roundtable with the gallery at the beginning of the term, just as we did for our interim report, to hear the latest concerns and see whether or not we are able to meet them. I do not think that anything they have requested to date is inconsistent with a fuller coverage of the activities of the parliament. In this new century of our existence as a parliament, it seems ironic that we want to somehow gag, limit or censure what is going on in the parliament. It is completely inconsistent with the explosion of information in the age we live in.

Can I again make the point that the current guidelines to provide the feed that is broadcast simultaneously with question time does not permit what the media want because DPS focus for a time on the questioner and the answerer but are required to sweep the chamber to get off them. That is good for a balanced broadcast and shows the reactions and what have you. These changes, by the way, supersede previous guidelines which insisted that the only thing you could focus on was the person asking the question and then the person answering the question.

I am not saying that the guidelines should in any way be changed from how they currently exist for the broadcasts that DPS put out, but we do need to service the media. If they cannot do it with iso feeds, with additional cameras in the chamber, then we have to accommodate a pooled camera from the TV channels because I think they are entitled to that. Why should not the Prime Minister or the Treasurer of the day have his answer being recorded directly for all of the answer? Why should they show a prime ministerial back of the head or swing away to someone else? That is what the guidelines require at the moment and what the TV channels are saying they cannot use of a night-time—and, I think, fair enough. I am not critical of what we are seeing of the chamber outside question time, but I am critical of the fact that we are not helping the media to do their job. We can disagree with them, we can argue with them, we can object to them, but they have a job to do.

TV is the way parliament predominantly communicates with the people of Australia. The one thing most Australians understand is what question time is all about. I would certainly like to encourage and ensure that there are not restrictive guidelines so that the media can report on other aspects of the parliament which show us in a much better light, wanting to do the best thing for the people of Australia, in particular the constituents we represent. I understand that there are sensitivities. I understand that there can be misuse of these feeds. There are ways and means of dealing with that. This is the people’s House and the people of Australia have the right to see what we are doing. The best way for that to happen is by allowing greater media access to what we do.

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