Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context