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

I begin my address this evening by stating for the record that I am not a wowser. I have a broad acceptance of the Australian vernacular and the colourful use of language that permeates many aspects of Australian life. But like many Australians—most Australians, I would say—I do not agree with the gratuitous use of obscene language in our society, particularly in the public discourse or the broadcasts through our public media.

Just what is obscene language, of course, may be up for some debate, and I will not debate the wider issue now. But, if we draw ourselves back to 1912, when George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion entered the stage it caused an outrage by using the term ‘not bloody likely’. Now I use that term in this place with full respect for this place because it no longer causes a great deal of offence. In fact, a similar phrase was used in an advertising campaign promoting Australian tourism. It did not cause offence so much, but it did spark a great deal of debate across the world.

You can imagine my surprise when, reviewing the contribution of bad language to Australian television history, I noticed that what outraged audiences when Graham Kennedy made his infamous crow call, and what saw British television ban the band the Sex Pistols in 1976 for using the c-word, is now readily available and quite apparent on the 9.30 timeslot in shows such as Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. I quite like Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. I know there is a warning immediately before it that we are going to be exposed to some bad language. But there is a level at which we have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ That level was reached, I believe, when Mr Ramsay used the c-word—as I will politely describe it—a couple of times in an episode broadcast at 9.30 at night. Mr Ramsay is very popular, of course. The following week he was in the 8.30 timeslot, in an episode which featured the use of the f-word 80 times, apparently, in a 40-minute time period. To me that is a bit outrageous. I think it is unnecessary. I do not think it supports the tone or the content of the program itself. But, more importantly, I think it undermines a great deal of the integrity associated with the Australian broadcasting networks.

The Australian broadcasting networks have a code of conduct. The code of conduct is quite straightforward: it is about broadcasting material that is relevant to the program and that is not likely to cause serious offence. There are warnings regarding frequent very coarse language—language that is aggressive or can be interpreted in an aggressive manner. We have seen this sort of language used not only in Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares but in Sex and the City, The Sopranos and Big Brother Uncut. All of them have aroused some comment in the public domain.

But my comment is related to the actual process of complaining about such use of language where one thinks it is gratuitous or unnecessary and actually damages what I think is the social structure of Australian life. As I said at the start, I am not a wowser. I accept that bad language is going to be used. I understand that people—individuals and parents—have a responsibility to determine their own viewing habits by turning programs they find offensive off. But there are circumstances where, as I said, we have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’

The process, I have discovered, is that, when you think language is inappropriate for broadcasting in a particular timeslot, there are a number of avenues, but basically you have to write initially to the television station to complain within 30 days of it being broadcast. The television station is required to give you a response within 60 days. If you are not satisfied with the response given by the television station, you can then approach ACMA. ACMA is the body that is responsible for the standards on television outside the self-policing done by the television stations themselves. After one has written to ACMA, within 60 days, if the complaint is determined to be one that ACMA will handle then they will consider the information provided and offer the offending station the opportunity to reply. Comments from stations in this opportunity to reply can take up to three months, and in some cases a bit longer. Once ACMA has all of the information, the complaint is assessed against the code of conduct. It is not uncommon, I am advised, not to receive any advice or a report from ACMA until five or six months after the complaint has been initially lodged—and this does not include the time from the original broadcast.

I believe this dissuades a lot of people from making complaints or identifying areas of our public broadcasting system where they have particular problems. I also believe that there is an opportunity for us in government to review the process to give ordinary Australians more of a say and more of an impact on what is acceptable for viewing on our public broadcasting system. Imagine for a moment—it is now 10 o’clock in the Senate and there are possibly two or three people listening to this broadcast outside of this house—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are thousands!

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

There may well be thousands, but I suspect it is somewhat less than that. Imagine if I littered this speech with a bunch of profanities. In 10 minutes, if I wanted to adhere to Mr Ramsay’s record, I guess I could get 20 or so Fs in and maybe a couple of Cs. Imagine the outrage that would be heard around Australia if a member of our parliamentary team used that language in a chamber like this. It would be appalling. It would be outrageous. Why should we expect anything less from our public broadcasters? I use the term ‘public’ in the sense that they are free-to-air broadcasters. They have carriage across a great percentage of our population. We need to determine whether they are going to be a licence unto themselves in what they broadcast.

I understand perfectly that there are live feeds that may result in inopportune or unfortunate language or comments being broadcast but there is no excuse for gratuitous bad language to be broadcast repeatedly if it has no real bearing on the material being shown, in a relatively early time slot, and when it can clearly be beeped out or censored. I say this not because I believe in censorship but because I believe strongly that what we broadcast on our televisions has a profound impact on how we conduct ourselves, over the course of time.

I go back to the examples of the Sex Pistols, who were banned from British TV and Graham Kennedy who was banned from television, for much lesser offences 30-odd years ago. What is the next step? If we accept that the c-word is perhaps the most offensive within the English language, and that it is now okay to broadcast it after 9.30 at night, the next step is to be able to broadcast it more frequently, and at earlier and earlier time slots. This is what concerns me. We have seen the incremental creep of bad language into our society. We have seen a change in what is acceptable in our discourse with our colleagues and sometimes with our families and our friends. I take the stand that this is unacceptable in the public domain and I believe that we should streamline the process so that ACMA has a more efficient means of dealing with complaints to ensure that the broadcast standards are maintained.