This is an important report which reflects the crucial role that the media plays when it comes to ensuring that members of the general public are able to follow debates and the decisions taken by those in this place who are elected to represent them.

The terms of reference for the Procedure Committee’s inquiry—‘To inquire into and report on all aspects of media coverage of the House, including proceedings in the House, Main Committee and committees of the House’—were broad in scope. In particular, the Procedure Committee undertook its inquiry with a view to addressing some of the problems that have arisen in the past as a result of the current guidelines regulating media coverage of the House.

More broadly, the inquiry was framed by a shared recognition of the crucial role that the media plays in enhancing public knowledge about the business of the chamber, the Main Committee and the parliamentary committees.

The final report tabled by the Procedure Committee lists six recommendations that are intended both to ease some of the restrictions limiting the media’s access to the House of Representatives chamber and to better facilitate the media’s ability to adequately cover House proceedings.

Before looking at each of these recommendations individually, as well as the Speaker’s response to them, I want to first take a few moments to highlight some of the problems associated with the current arrangements regulating media coverage of the House.

As it stands, proceedings in the House are covered by televised broadcasts, print news and live radio broadcast. Crucially, however, the degree of access to the House that each arm of the media has is radically different, and this is where many of the problems associated with media coverage of the House originate.

As the Procedure Committee’s final report makes clear, radio broadcasts of House proceedings are relatively straightforward and the current guidelines for radio broadcasting generate little if any controversy.

In contrast, however, most problems surrounding media coverage of the House relate directly to restrictions affecting televised broadcasts of the House and its proceedings as well as restrictions limiting the access that press photographers have to the gallery.

Taking television first, under current arrangements television stations have access to footage of the chamber as provided to them by the broadcasting section of the Department of Parliamentary Services.

The chamber is equipped with eight cameras that are mounted into the walls and operated by remote control by staff working for the DPS. These cameras continue to record what goes on in the chamber.

Switching between the cameras, DPS broadcasting staff are able to mix different images taken from the eight cameras to produce a single feed of video footage from the chamber. This single feed is broadcast on the House monitoring system and is also made available free of charge to commercial television stations.

The capacity also exists for DPS broadcasting staff to produce what is commonly referred to as an "iso feed" or additional footage, when it is requested by one or more of the television bureaus, though this can be difficult during busy periods in the chamber, as would be the case for question time.

The rules that apply for camera operators and still photographers in the chamber regarding how they treat their subject matter are essentially the same. Both can focus on the member with the call as well as take panning shots of members listening to the debate, member reaction shots and wide angle shots.

As it stands, DPS is thus responsible for recording and editing all video footage of the chamber’s proceedings. No commercial television cameras are allowed in the chamber—that is common knowledge.

It was made quite clear by the member for Banks that there would be strong opposition to such free access of commercial television cameras to the chamber at all times.

Television bureaus, however, have expressed dissatisfaction with the feed produced by DPS broadcasting staff for the way it lacks drama or newsworthiness and because occasions have arisen in the past where the short grab required for a particular news story is unavailable on the DPS feed made available to the media.

In response, television bureaus have suggested that they be given access to the separate feeds produced by each of the eight cameras individually, allowing them greater freedom to edit footage taken from the chamber rather than having to rely solely on the single feed produced by the DPS.

As the standing committee notes in its report, however, providing bureaus with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras in the chamber is presently impossible given the inadequate number of tie lines or feed lines that carry video footage from the chamber to the press gallery.

The committee found that installing extra feed lines from the basement DPS studio to the press gallery would be expensive and as such was not a practical option at present.

An alternative suggestion put forward by at least one of the television stations was for the House to allow television crews to enter and exit the public gallery at will for the purposes of filming proceedings in the chamber.

At issue here, however, are both the disruption that roving television crews may create for members of the public who are watching chamber proceedings from the public gallery and the lack of available room in a gallery to house television crews and their equipment.

Given these constraints, recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure attempt to provide alternative solutions aimed at accommodating demands made by the television bureaus for more access to video footage of the chamber’s proceedings.

In essence, recommendation 4 focuses on increasing awareness of current arrangements allowing television bureaus to request additional iso feeds from the DPS broadcasting staff beyond the single feed that they are routinely provided with.

The committee recommends:

"that the Speaker write to the television bureaus represented in the press gallery to offer them the use of isolated feeds produced by DPS Broadcasting staff on request."

It also suggests that the supply of iso feeds during busy periods in the chamber such as question time may be undertaken on a user-pays basis should increased demand for these feeds warrant additional resources.

In view of the impossibility of providing television viewers with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras located in the chamber, recommendation 5 suggests:

"that the Press Gallery Committee consult with the Broadcasting Section of DPS in relation to improving the content of the existing feed for television excerpt purposes and to explore the possibility of additional feeds focusing on the speakers at the despatch boxes; and that the committee evaluate any such new arrangements after they have been in operation for six sitting weeks."

In essence, it flags the possibility of DPS broadcasting staff providing television bureaus with permanent iso feeds from the chamber and encourages further consultation towards this end.

The report cites Mr Neil Pickering from the DPS broadcasting section, who suggests that DPS broadcasting staff may be able to provide television bureaus with two permanent iso feeds from cameras 2 and 6 in the chamber.

These cameras focus on the two dispatch boxes in the chamber and would thus better facilitate clean grabs when a member is talking.

A further suggestion from Mr Paul Bongiorno from Channel 10 is that television bureaus could possibly pool their resources to create two independently operated television cameras in the chamber galleries. The procedure committee argues in section 3.31 of the report that its preference would be to first trial the iso feeds option before any consideration is given to installing television cameras in the gallery.

Of course, not all House business occurs in the main chamber. A substantial amount of House business takes place in the various committee rooms that parliament provides for.

The key problem here, however, is that only one of the committee rooms—namely, the Main Committee—is equipped with cameras. In relation to the lack of cameras in the other committee rooms in which House business occurs, recommendation 6 of the report recommends:

"that the Department of Parliamentary Services install inbuilt cameras in additional House of Representatives committee rooms to allow increased television coverage of committee proceedings."

I wish to lend my strong support to each of these recommendations because I support practical solutions aimed at better facilitating media coverage of House proceedings, solutions that give the Australian public greater access to what goes on in this place.

I agree with the report’s conclusion that the right balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, protecting the dignity of the House and, on the other hand, ensuring that the general public have greater access to the House and the work that is done by those who are elected to represent them.

The current guidelines regulating media coverage of the Australian parliament are clear in their call for fair and accurate reporting and in their prohibition on parliamentary material being used for political advertising, ridicule, satire or commercial uses.

Alongside the need to make sure that these guidelines are rigorously adhered to, we in this place also have a responsibility to ensure that the Australian public have better access to the House and its daily business.

We should be encouraging practical solutions that allow the general public to better follow what goes on in this place—

Mr Price—Hear hear!

Ms VAMVAKINOU—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 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.