HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENT (JOINT SERVICES) (WEBCASTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 February 2011.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:33): I rise to support this bill put to the house by the hardworking member for Morialta. I congratulate him on raising this issue once again. I say 'once again' because it is not the first time: it has been raised a number of times. In fact, my predecessor, the Hon. John Oswald, member for Morphett and Speaker in this place, investigated the webcasting of parliament, and I will say a bit more about that later on.

I start by saying that a former premier said to me that it does not really matter what goes on in this place because not many people see it, very few people hear about it (other than watching the paper) and, sadly, very few people come into parliament to watch what is going on. That needs to change. It should be that people are seeing, hearing and, hopefully, coming to watch live what is happening in this place, because it affects their lives every day, each and every South Australian, whether they are children, adults, family members or professionals.

A couple of weeks ago, the Premier described The Advertiser as 'Pravda for the Liberals'. In my maiden speech, I spoke a bit about the media and the way they portray what is going on in parliament. I said that in Russia they have two main newspapers, Pravda and Izvestia; 'pravda' means 'the truth' and 'izvestia' means 'the news'. The Russians have a saying, 'The truth is not the news, and the news is not the truth.' We need to make sure that what people in South Australia are able to access is the truth, in real time hopefully, of what is going on in this place, and live broadcasting of the proceedings in this chamber is something that is well overdue.

The member for Morialta's bill states 'either in audio or audiovisual form'. I would much prefer this to be in audiovisual form so that people can not only hear what is going on but also see the antics and participate in some way by watching the debate, rather than having it reported second-hand or sometimes third-hand by ministerial staffers through the media. It needs to change, and it needs to change as quickly as possible.

Back in 1998, the Hon. George Weatherill, the father of the member for Cheltenham (Jay Weatherill), asked a question of the President of the Legislative Council about webcasting, and the President then noted, as I said a moment ago, that the Speaker of the House of Assembly (then John Oswald) went to Western Australia with the Clerk of the House 'to look at having cameras fitted in the Houses of Parliament so that they can transfer to the radio stations and television stations' what was going on here.

In 2000, in estimates, the Premier, Mike Rann, asked a question of the then premier, John Olsen. Premier Rann said on 14 June 2000:

I understand that approval has been given for the letting of tenders, and I understand those tenders have been let, to install a television system in the parliamentary chamber. That will mean that the television channels no longer film from the galleries because parliament will have an in-house television system, and that will make television visuals and sound from question time available not only to television channels but also on the internet, presumably to ensure greater access to our thoughts, words and deeds to a worldwide audience.

The Premier, then opposition leader, Mike Rann, went on to say:

Will the Premier report on the progress of that project? I understood that a television system for the parliamentary chambers was supposed to be up and running by now.

This is in June 2000. He continued:

Is it still intended to link the television and voice images to the internet? How much is involved in the process? If tenders have been let, for how much?

The then premier, John Olsen, replied:

As the leader will understand, this is a matter for the Speaker of the House, but I am advised that a consultancy has been let to prepare a report on such a scheme and that report is not yet to hand. The Speaker has established a committee of members of the House, that is, across party lines, and that committee of members will give advice to the Speaker. I am also advised that no final decisions have been made at this stage. The consultancy cost is of the order of $70,000.

I have been unable to find that consultancy report; the library is still looking for it for me. The intent was to introduce audiovisual streaming of this chamber back then and, in discussions with my predecessor, John Oswald, about this, he said that it was his intent but that the situation changed politically and that obviously he was not able to see it come to fruition.

In 2002 the former member for Goyder, Mr John Meier, asked a question of Speaker Lewis. On 19 August 2002, Mr Meier asked:

The previous Speaker, the Hon. John Oswald, undertook a study—in fact, I recall that he went to Western Australia...to investigate the cost and feasibility of installing fixed cameras in this house. I believe, sir, that you also felt there was a need for fixed cameras. I wonder what progress has been made and what moneys have been spent.

Speaker Lewis replied:

…my recommendation would be that we do this before Christmas…I believe this can be done quickly and without too much…fuss, thus enabling the proceedings to be broadcast on the internet.

That was in August 2002. The last mention of this was Speaker Lewis again in July 2004, when he was commenting on the behaviour of one of the members in this place. He said:

…the record of the proceedings of parliament in the audio and video form ought to be taken by Hansard. The chamber should install at least three, and I would suggest five, cameras, controlled by a person employed by Hansard.

That record, as it was being taken, could be put on the internet, so that in real time the broadcast of the proceedings of the parliament could be seen by the public in a manner in which all members of the house would be confident. It would be done without fear or favour or benefit or disbenefit to any honourable member.

Speaker Lewis continued:

The process which I am suggesting would cost a minimum amount of money, by comparison to what it has cost in other parliaments which have already done it. It would enable the television broadcasting channels to download what parts of the proceedings they wish to put to air without them having to be present. That does not mean they would be excluded. It simply means that they would not have to be present to get the clips they sought.

The history of that debate is extensive. I am proud to say that it was my predecessor, John Oswald, who started this. The need to make sure that the wishes of the member for Morialta, and every member in this place, are acceded to through the government supporting his bill is very important.

A quick read of what is happening in other states and territories: the ACT has two internet services available, including web streaming; the commonwealth provides live broadcasting in the Senate and House of Representatives; the New South Wales parliament provides streamed video and audio or an audio only webcast in both chambers using Microsoft Windows Media; the Northern Territory provides video and audio streaming of the Legislative Assembly using Microsoft Windows Media (podcasting is not available yet); the Queensland parliament provides live all-day internet audio and video broadcasting using Microsoft Windows Media again; in South Australia we have nothing; even little Tasmania provides webcasts of both chambers using Microsoft Windows Media—this is not an advert for Windows, but obviously if it works why can't we do it here; the Victorian parliament provides video and audio streaming from both chambers using an Apple player technology; and the Western Australian parliament provides live video and audio streaming of both chambers using Microsoft Windows Media, and the previous 14-day sitting can also be accessed via a recent broadcasts archive.

The filming of this chamber by Sky is something that is new. It is not as extensive as we would like it to be. This bill will make sure the proceedings in this place are available to all South Australians. The Hon. John Oswald was promoting this. We have spent money on a consultants' report. Other former Speakers have supported it—Speaker Lewis—and certainly the leader of the opposition as he was then, the current Premier, supported it. The next premier, Jay Weatherill—his father supported it. So, let's get behind this bill, let's support the member for Morialta and let's make parliament as accessible as it should be to all South Australians.

Ms FOX (Bright) (10:43): I am not quite sure whether the member for Morialta has consulted with the JPSC or the Clerk—I am not sure because I did not hear what the member for Morialta said in the first instance, but I rise today to make it very clear that this is actually something that is already occurring within this parliament. We are on track to doing this. It is not a responsibility of government per se, nor is it the responsibility of any political party. Listening to what the member for Morphett said in relation to John Oswald, I think we all know that both sides of parliament support this.

We do not have any problem whatsoever with our brilliance, our words of wisdom, our sparkling charisma, being broadcast to the outside world. In fact, I think it is a very good idea. I am advised by the Clerk that there is one problem, and that is that, even though at the moment we have the audiovisual capability to actually do this, there is one security problem, which perhaps I will discuss with the member for Morialta but not on the floor of the chamber here and now.

So, the will is here, the technology is nearly here, there is a slight disagreement about how that technology can best be implemented, and there is one security issue which, as I said, I am very happy to discuss with the member for Morialta later on. Once again, member for Morialta, I do not know whether you have discussed this with the Clerk or not. You haven't—no, okay, that's fine.

In terms of accountability—and I am just preparing myself for your squeals of outrage on the other side—this has been a very accountable government.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Ms FOX: Thank you, very predictable. Thank you for falling into my trap, member for Finniss. We were the first government bold enough to take our ministers and our chief executives around the suburbs and the state to meet people face to face and hear their concerns. We have had more than 50 community cabinets thus far, including in the member for Morialta's local area, and we have shown the public how government works and how we seek to solve the problems that are presented to us.

That concept was later followed by the federal government. In fact, in the seat of Makin in the north-eastern suburbs, a federal community cabinet is being held today. I believe that Prime Minister Julia Gillard is here; I know that the Hon. Peter Garrett is in my own electorate—

Members interjecting:

Ms FOX: He is everywhere. The Hon. Peter Garrett is everywhere, which is marvellous. Upon election in 2002, if I rightly recall, the Rann government loosened the FOI laws, making it easier to gain information which is in the public interest. The fact that these powers are sometimes abused by muckrakers is another story. The simple matter is that we have taken nation-leading steps to be more accountable and we fully support the idea of the public having a closer look at what we do here. Many of those who were here during the parliamentary sesquicentenary—

Mr Griffiths: That was four years ago.

Ms FOX: Thank you for your enlightenment; so it was not in 1986?

Mr Griffiths: It was in 2007.

Ms FOX: That is what I thought, but I am glad we could have this conversation. During that time members would quite clearly remember how many people came into this place. We had organised tours with different members of parliament, but the sheer volume of people was such that we could not do that. They just flowed through here and they had a wonderful time. In fact, I remember speaking to the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith on that particular day because he had just been elected leader of the opposition, which, of course, is no longer the case.

The reality is that in relation to what the member for Morialta was discussing this is a matter for the parliament. When I say 'the parliament', I do not mean the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. This is a matter for the parliament to implement, and I think that the member for Morialta knows that full well. I am slightly bemused about why you are presenting a bill in relation to something that is already occurring, but I have no doubt when it is your time to speak you will explain that to us.

As I said before, the member for Morialta has already outlined in some detail why a former Speaker could not do that. The member for Morialta is correct when he says that this has been going on for years. I believe that the member for Morialta was not here during the time when this technology changed. As far as I can tell, he has not consulted with the JPSC and he has not had a conversation with the Clerk, and I fully advise him to do so.

The SPEAKER: I am somewhat bemused about why we are debating this bill and why there seems to be some argument about it, because the process is certainly well in hand and I would expect before very long we will be live streaming. However, member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:48): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate what you just said, but, with respect, a lot of speakers prior to you have said it is coming, it will happen soon; and here we are 12 years since it was first raised and we do not have the final product.

I commend the member for Morialta for bringing this bill to the house again. I believe it will have common support right across the house, because I do not believe there is any reason for anybody to oppose it. As I say, it has been an issue for many years—about 12, in my memory.

When I was the whip in this position here I thought it would be very advantageous to be able to monitor the opposition bench. I went to the Speaker at the time, the Hon. Mr Snelling, and asked permission to install my own camera in the gallery so that I could observe the bench. It worked—I did install it and it worked—but I sought permission and he said, 'No, you can't do that because we will have our own system going.' It would be hugely beneficial for the whip to be able to see the bench; to see who is here without having to ring and race in. To actually see it would be a huge advantage. That is what happened back then.

I understand that the house has been wired and we now have TV monitors in all our offices with audio but, really, it is quite a joke to see just the file photo of the member, knowing that the wires are in the building. I do not know what the problem is. The previous Speaker mentioned the security problem but I cannot understand what that may or may not be. I think all parliaments in Australia now have cameras which are used to differing degrees. I think most now are online and can be accessed at any time the house is sitting. I think it is also important to note that the parliament will control the cameras. Madam Speaker, many times you have had to speak to the TV channels about their cameras and what footage they are taking. In this instance I believe that, once installed, they would have to take the footage from the parliament's cameras and could not take inappropriate shots, so that would solve the problem. I heard the word 'security' but I do not know what that is. Perhaps somebody would like to enlighten me on that.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I cannot see that if we have fixed cameras around the house. However, the bottom line is that everybody has the right to know. This is the information era. People want information, and the technology is there. It is no longer high tech anymore; every day, people are skyping each other and looking at each other through a screen. It might not be for me but it certainly is for the current modern generation. I hope that before the next election (which is now 2½ years away) the system is put in.

When I was on the JPSC the cost of the cameras was pretty exorbitant. I could not believe that the cost was several million dollars just for the cameras. I could not believe that they were so expensive. Were they too elaborate? Were they too high tech for our use? I do not know, but I would have thought cameras like that—just guessing—should have been worth, say, $10,000 each, not in the millions. I hope that we see some action here. I commend the member for Morialta for bringing this motion. He is a younger member and a very electronically switched-on member. It is not about twittering, it is all about—

An honourable member: Tweeting.

Mr VENNING: —tweeting—the people of South Australia being able to switch on and watch what we do here. It may solve your problem, Madam Speaker, in making sure this place is much better behaved. I support the motion.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:52): I will be very brief. I think it is important to discuss this issue. I support it in principle. There are some security issues but I will not elaborate on what they are for obvious reasons. I spoke to the Clerk yesterday (I think it was) and he said that we can currently stream the audio as we have the technical capability for that but, for the visual, you are looking at a minimum of $1 million. I am not against that but I think every time you suggest spending money on parliament there is some criticism from people outside. However, that is not a reason for not doing it.

I think it is important for the public—most of whom never come in here—to know what goes on in here, and that they can listen and preferably see it, as well. I hope it does not result in us having to have acting lessons or having a make-up session before we come in here in the morning. We could extend the concept a bit with the video and have a few programs like 'My Parliament Rules', or 'Iron MP', or 'Survivor'.

Getting back to the serious side of it, I think it is an important issue which has dragged on for too long. If the security issues can be addressed (and I think they should be) we can ensure that the public can look at what is meant to be the place that represents them—and that is the Parliament of South Australia.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (10:54): I rise to make a contribution on this bill. I commend the member for Morialta for bringing it to the house and I think we should all agree with it. It comes before the house in the context of a South Australia within an Australian democracy which is at an advanced point in its character.

I watch television from time to time and see countries where people are giving their lives still for the right to vote. One only needs to look at what is going on in Libya, across the Middle East and in parts of Africa where still people are fighting for the very fundamentals: the right to live in peace and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion or gender. They are fighting for the very fundamentals of what it means to live in a free and loving democracy.

Then I come back and I look at Australia where we take so much for granted. I look at this great country where we have achieved so much. We have built so much on the back of this fantastic democracy and our federation, standing as it does upon the pillars of the states and their parliaments, which, as I frequently remind my federal colleagues, were here long before the idea and the notion of a nation of Australia or a federal parliament was ever dreamt of.

I ask whether many Australians and South Australians take what we have achieved for granted. I worry that disengagement, particularly among young people, in what is going on in their parliaments, both state and federal, might lead, in the fullness of time, to disinterest and despair. I worry that really cherishing our democracy may ultimately morph into a lack of appreciation that it even exists, and a search for simple, clear answers to complicated problems—of course, simple, clear answers that do not exist.

I often remember that, if a great democratic nation with its wonderful civilisation and its depth of character like Germany can fall into the darkness of Nazism, through a popular vote, and through a popular vote elect an evil villain like Adolph Hitler, then could it ever happen here? Could it happen in a wonderful place like Australia? I feel that, if we do not make available to people in our community the fundamental message of what we are doing—which is to pass laws for the betterment of the people of South Australia, across a whole panorama of issues—then we will fail to inform those we represent about the value of this great institution, this parliament, and about the value of democracy.

Those who think that the idea of democracy will be here forever need to read their history books. Those who think that great empires once created or great ideas once initiated are there for an eternity need to read more. Countries, nations and ideas rise and fall, and those who think that democracy as we know it will be here forever—unless it is protected, nurtured and watered and unless it is allowed to flower—are deceiving themselves. That is why I think this bill to stream the proceedings of this place on the internet is worth supporting, particularly in the message it brings to young people.

I was interested recently to read of former Labor minister Lindsay Tanner's new book, which he calls Sideshow: Dumbing Down Democracy. In it, Tanner despairs at the way politics and the media interact nowadays, and he describes the evolution of that process now with such a dynamic change to the number and the array of media outlets covering what is going on in Australian political life.

One only needs to go down to the bowels of this place and read the archived copies of The Advertiser and The Observer going back to the 1920s and even into the last century to see that in those days politics was reported quite differently by the print media. There was no television. There was no radio. There was no scrambling to break the news first. It was actually a sensible reporting of what had gone on. The papers actually gave an impartial and objective account of the news and tried to inform people of what had actually happened here in a sensible way.

There is not a great deal in there about scandals. If we had known all about the drinking habits of George Washington or the sexual goings on of former prime ministers and great men of history, there probably would be no great men of history. Their private lives would have been explored, demolished and crucified by the modern media. There would be no great men of history.

We now live in a world where everyone knows everything about everybody when it comes to political life. That is because there is a scrambling of competition amongst the electronic media—the radios, the televisions and, increasingly, internet-based media—to get out there first, to get the politician, and to report the conflict rather than the cooperation of politics. I do not blame the media for this at all, and neither does Lindsay Tanner, because they have a job to do as well. Conflict and bad news sell newspapers, newsprint and television; they love the conflict. If a UFO landed in Victoria Square this afternoon, it would be on the front page of every paper and lead the news around the world. If there is some political disaster or scandal, well, of course, you can guarantee that it will knock off a good news story.

There is this scramble to be the first out there. Of course, how politics has responded is to put on a show. We now know that getting kicked out of the house, or getting into a frantic argument with someone across the chamber, some bad language, the Speaker having to call everyone to order, or carrying on like a pack of schoolyard bullies and schoolchildren, will get on the news and may get our story up. Sadly, politicians around the country and around the world increasingly have had to give the media what it wants. To be fair, that is really giving the public what they want because they buy the news. They want that, too.

We are all caught up in this chain of actions and reactions about which Tanner speaks in his book. That is why I think live radio and live streaming have something to offer. It means that the people who have elected us—the taxpayers of South Australia—can see for themselves directly what goes on. Members of parliament in this place can be held to account by those who have elected them for their own behaviour, for their language, for whether or not they are asleep or awake, or for whether or not they are making a sensible or a silly contribution to a bill or to a debate. Maybe over a period of time we can move political debate and the media coverage of it back onto policy issues, back onto the things that really matter.

Instead of the theatre of politics, whether we won question time today, didn't we do well today because we got kicked out of parliament, or we caused some fracas, or we pursued some scandal or drama, or we accused the minister of lying, or the minister accused the opposition of behaving poorly, or whatever the case may be, maybe we can get the debate back onto building roads and building ports and coming up with a civil law and civil code that are to the benefit of the children and the elderly. Maybe we can get the debate back onto how the money will be raised and how the money will be spent.

One small step in that direction, I think, would be to live stream the proceedings of this place and to get some of the theatre out of it. Nobody is to blame, as Tanner remarks in his book. The politicians, the media, the people who watch what is reported, we are all caught up in this dynamic. Live streaming the proceedings of this place, I think, will help to break the cycle. For that reason, I encourage all members to support the bill, and I commend the member for Morialta for this fantastic initiative.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:04): I would be inclined to adjourn the debate, but I will not because I understand that another member prefers to do that. I just wonder what the point is in continuing to debate an issue about which we all seem to be coming to an agreement that it is already being done. The bill comes in hindsight, off what is already occurring, and I think there are probably other bills on the Notice Paper that would be worth getting on with, although I suspect there is a deliberate ploy by members opposite not to do so. As the member for Bright has already indicated, this issue is already being undertaken and dealt with by the parliament. It is in progress, and the bill really is quite superfluous.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:05): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (22)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K.
Pegler, D.W. (teller) Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rann, M.D. Rau, J.R.
Sibbons, A.L. Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G.
Wright, M.J.
NOES (16)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Gardner, J.A.W. (teller)
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Pengilly, M. Sanderson, R. Such, R.B.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Venning, I.H.
Whetstone, T.J.
PAIRS (8)
Conlon, P.F. Redmond, I.M.
Kenyon, T.R. Evans, I.F.
Weatherill, J.W. Pisoni, D.G.
Vlahos, L.A. Williams, M.R.

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT