Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 22 March 2011:

(1) Given the Australian Communications and Media Authority's (ACMA) report on the story was released 4 weeks ago having investigated the matter following 2 complaints about the story- are the complainants satisfied with the ruling?

(2) Had Mr Campbell not resigned as the Transport Minister an hour before the story went to air, would Channel Seven have had any public interest justification?

(3) Given that the ACMA chief executive officer, Mr Chris Chapman, stated on releasing the report that 'the authority regards invasions of personal privacy as very serious matters' – how does this ruling back up that statement.

(4) Will this be seen as a precedent by media organisations looking to conduct further breaches of privacy against elected representatives, if not why not.

(5) Does the Minister know of any other cases where a news story has created its own public interest justification in this way.

(6) Does the Minister believe that journalism should be impartial, or should journalists be able to secretly film a politician after hours, cause their resignation and then use that as a reason to air the story.

(7) What is the view of the ACMA on privacy breaches against other patrons visiting the club that evening, unaware they were being secretly filmed by a major media organisation?

(8) In a letter to the Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy), former interim chief executive officer of the Advertising Standards Bureau, Mr Mark Jeanes, labelled the ruling 'a shallow, narrow-minded, unprincipled and disgraceful decision', after such comments from an industry insider and a damning report on Media Watch, will the Minister consider directing ACMA to review this decision.