Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee entitled The effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The official title of this report is The effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice, although it has been more popularly known as the ‘Swearing on TV report’. The inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, which resulted in this report, came into being after some controversy following the airing of an episode of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, a very popular television show, which was probably made even more popular by the media attention given to this inquiry. That episode of the program featured very liberal use of unparliamentary language that I am unable to repeat here, but Senator Bernardi made reference to it in a speech that he gave about the same program. When the inquiry was agreed to by the Senate, there were those in the community who saw it as a good opportunity to get the government to prevent the broadcasting of material that some in the community find offensive and there were others who were worried that the inquiry would do just that. However, fortunately most of the 85 submissions to the inquiry that we received from individuals and organisations were very measured and thoughtful, and I believe that the report, which has been unanimously endorsed by the committee members, reflects those measured views put to the committee on this topic.

There is no doubt, as we found during the inquiry, that people are offended by some material on television and radio and by what appears to be the increasing use of coarse language or swearing during television programs in particular. Submissions did point out that often the community is equally offended by violence and explicit sexual material on television. Some people made the observation that what was really most offensive about the aforementioned episode of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares was not simply the use of coarse language but the way it was used. People were offended by the way Ramsay directed his language to his restaurant staff in an abusive and aggressive manner, and a number of people made the point that that was probably more offensive than the actual words used.

The committee did not approach this inquiry by attempting to define community standards in respect of swearing or indeed sex or violence on television or radio. That is not the job of a Senate committee; it is the job of the broadcasters and ACMA, which together determine broadcasting codes of practice, and the various bodies which classify film and other material broadcast on television and radio.

The committee’s terms of reference were to look at the effectiveness of Australia’s broadcasting codes of practice, with particular reference to:

a.

the frequency and use of coarse and foul language … in programs;

b.

the effectiveness of the current classification standards as an accurate reflection of the content contained in the program;

c.

the operation and effectiveness of the complaints process currently available to members of the public; and

d.

any other related matters.

It was apparent from this inquiry, as it is apparent from ACMA research, that most Australians accept the contentions in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, which states:

(a)

adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;

(b)

minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;

(c)

everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;

Most adults understand that what they find acceptable to watch or hear or read may cause great offence to others in the community. It is also clear that some people will never be happy with the systems in place to regulate what is broadcast. It will be either too restrictive for some or too lenient for others. The committee was very mindful of the need for a balance in this regard.

It was also apparent from this inquiry that adults, parents in particular, want to have confidence in the system of classification and broadcasting codes of practice that alert them and their children to the fact that material to be broadcast may contain elements that they may find offensive or unsuitable or it may contain material that they just do not want to see. Before they start watching a program on television or listening to a radio broadcast, people want to know broadly what it will contain and they want the probable content to be as clearly explained as possible so that they can make a judgement about whether or not to watch or listen. They do not want to be unpleasantly surprised by material they did not expect to see or hear. They want to be able to let their children watch television without having to worry that, during the times their children are watching programs, inappropriate material might be broadcast.

If broadcasters have not properly applied the rules for what is broadcast and when, then people want to be able to make a complaint about it and they want that complaint to be dealt with fairly and in a timely fashion. They also want broadcasters who continue to fail to observe the broadcasting codes to be penalised for doing so. The committee did not think those expectations were too much to ask of our broadcasters and of the regulatory systems that determine what is broadcast on radio and television and at what time. The 20 recommendations in this report go to very practical measures that the committee believes are workable, address the major issues identified in the inquiry and maintain the balance between the need for regulation and the freedom for people to choose what they see and hear.

A number of recommendations, particularly Nos 2, 3 and 5, have been made with the intention of assisting parents to determine what their children can watch. The recommendations include that the provision of a parental lock-out should become an industry standard for digital televisions sold in Australia, that ACMA investigate whether the inclusion of age-specific symbols in the G and PG categories offers any advantages over the current system, and that ACMA and Free TV Australia, which represents television broadcasters, investigate as part of the current review of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice the issue of the appropriateness of the current evening time zones with regard to claims made during the inquiry that family viewing patterns have changed as a result of parental work responsibilities and children at after school care and in care during holidays. There is some evidence that children are up and watching television a bit later than they used to.

The committee understands completely that people who have been offended by broadcasters who do not observe the broadcasting codes of practice want to be able to make a complaint and they want to be able to do that in a way that is easy to use and effective. Chapter 5 of the report examines that issue in some detail and contains recommendations specifically regarding the operation and effectiveness of complaints processes. Recommendation 12 says broadly that broadcasters should amend their codes of practice and website capabilities so that viewers can make complaints electronically by email or over the web and that those complaints will be dealt with in the same fashion as the current system of written complaints. That modernises the complaints process and makes it easier for a large proportion of Australians who do a majority of their communication these days through the internet, as we know.

A number of submissions conveyed frustration in that people believed that ACMA is ineffective in enforcing the codes of practice. More than 10 per cent of the submissions advocated for ACMA to use immediate financial penalties against broadcasters who are found to have breached the broadcasting codes of practice. In the committee report we have made a recommendation along the lines that ACMA should consider limiting its use of unenforceable undertakings in relation to breaches of the code, and that broadcasters who continue to breach the codes have the full range of what is available to ACMA applied to them, including financial penalties. The committee has also recommended that the government review the operation of ACMA before the end of 2010, by which time the organisation will have been in operation for five years. This will be a timely stage in its existence to see whether it is working effectively. On behalf of the committee I would like to thank the secretariat for their assistance and to thank all the organisations and persons who made submissions to this inquiry.

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

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Often!

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

‘Often!’ Senator Webber says, and I agree with that. They can be exposed to certain things before their bedtime. If children are going to bed later, but the content which is reserved for adults only is being broadcast at an earlier timeslot, there is a potential for unintended consequences.

This report offers a number of opportunities for voluntary compliance by the free-to-air broadcasting industry. It offers a number of recommendations for the Australian Communications and Media Authority and also some recommendations for government. I hope that they embrace all of these recommendations and consider them in their completeness. I say that because there is a voluntary code of practice. It is a co-regulation. The TV networks get together, they deal with ACMA and they decide what the boundaries and the community expectations should be. Things do evolve in our community, and community standards move up and down according to the whims and vagaries of what is popular, but there are some things we need to ensure there is a complete standard for. We have provided, I think, a comprehensive set of guidelines, which the TV networks and ACMA can work towards over the next three years. The advent of new technology and the increased use of digital technology, particularly in digital television, provide one potential benefit for families. Families should be able to program out what they do not want to be broadcast on their screens. They have the potential to say, ‘We don’t want any M-rated show available to our children before nine o’clock at night because we know our children are not going to be in bed.’ To screen it out is an empowering move. They can find out exactly what they are going to see on a show and they can be provided with a strong explanation of exactly how it is going to transpire. Technology is going to play an increasing role in helping parents to do this.

But technology will not help parents when material that is clearly suitable only for a higher classification, whether it be MA or M, is shown under an inappropriate classification. In circumstances where that happens a complaint goes to the network concerned. The network can take up to 30 business days to respond. It can then go to ACMA, and the process may be prolonged. Senator McEwen referred to the fact that many people now are choosing to communicate electronically either by email or via the internet in another form. People also use a telephone. It is much easier to pick up the telephone and make a complaint than it is to write a letter—and the dying art of letter writing might perhaps be the subject of another Senate inquiry.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

‘No,’ says Senator McEwen. I am not proposing it myself. What is important is that people feel they can feed in their complaints. One of the recommendations is that the 30 days be reduced to 15 days by 2010. It is absolutely possible. When the complaints mechanism is more efficient, I am hopeful we will see a much more responsive organisation. But if the TV networks are in constant breach and it goes to ACMA, we are recommending that ACMA be empowered to escalate penalties according to the time taken. This is about responsibility. Not only does responsibility lie with parents and families; but responsibility also lies with the broadcasting networks to be responsive and more effective in reviewing the content that they are going to put forward. The is also responsibility on the part of government, through the Communications and Media Authority, to respond where clear breaches have taken place.

I am delighted with this report. Of course we all have different personal views about what is and what is not acceptable content. I think this report is a very good balance of accommodation of those views. I think it is broadly reflective of what most people in our society would deem to be acceptable and is a positive step forward. Once again, I say thank you to the committee for their involvement in this inquiry and certainly for their indulgence in allowing me to participate in as strong a manner as I have. I have enjoyed the process very much and I hope that the free-to-air television networks, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and indeed the government will respond to some of the concerns raised through this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.