Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to associate myself with the comments that Senator McEwen has made on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. In doing so, I would like to extend my thanks to the Senate for allowing me to initiate this inquiry and also to the committee members for their contribution to it. The committee secretary and secretariat have indeed put a lot of work into it, as have many of the people who made submissions and attended our inquiry.

I have to say that, whilst swearing was the catalyst that sparked my attention and my concern about what was being broadcast on our free-to-air television networks, the terms of reference were broad enough to ensure that there was a comprehensive review of the efficiency and effectiveness of not only the code of practice but also the complaints mechanisms, as Senator McEwen detailed. I was surprised—and maybe other senators on the committee were surprised as well—by the interest that was shown by the broader community and the media. The inquiry and the hearing were, for me, very enlightening experiences. There is a broad range of concerns about what is being broadcast on our television screens, and the broad range of concerns are not simply related to swearing; they are also related to depictions of sexuality and violence.

But we did not find that the Australian people wanted to see an increased level of censorship, if that is the correct term. They did not want to stop freedom of expression but they did want some clarity. They wanted to know that when they turned on their television at a particular time to watch a particular type of show they were going to get what they expected, that if they were going to tune in and watch a news network or a news service they or their family were not going to be exposed to irresponsible content. They wanted to know that if they tuned in to a show at 7.30 pm they were not going to be exposed to unsuitable content for family viewing. The classification codes allow for this. They provide some broad guidance initially. M is regarded as suitable for a mature audience; it allows infrequent coarse language. But no-one has been able to convince me that an M-rated show such as an episode of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares that contained the f-word—and I am not referring to fondue, Mr Acting Deputy President—80 times in 40 minutes is infrequent coarse language. I do not think there is any expectation that people would accept that as infrequent.

That is not to say that we should not allow coarse language on television. I do not believe that, but I think there are times when it is certainly unnecessary. This inquiry has highlighted that we need to tighten up the explanations of these sorts of things so that when people tune in to a particular show they know exactly what to expect. One of the recommendations contained in this report is that the free-to-air broadcasters consider exactly when they should broadcast programs under particular classifications. This has arisen out of what Senator McEwen referred to as ‘children watching TV later at night’. We understand there is parental responsibility; we understand there are personal choices available, but it was also demonstrated to this committee that family life is very, very busy. Parents are often pursuing many other important activities, and children have access to television remote controls, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge.