Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2585 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I appreciate that the principles that have been developed essentially reflect similar principles developed, and in practice, for the House of Representatives. They are, therefore, picked up and applied in that way; and that is a reasonable model to use. Of course, it is also worth observing that the ACT Assembly is a parliament unlike others and the principles worked on in other parliaments might not be the principles we need to work on here.

The first concern I have is with the first principle, which reads:

The Speaker, before authorising the broadcast of a landmark debate of the Assembly or one of its committees, shall give consideration to the possible interest in the debate within the community.

The question arose in my mind, when I read that principle, as to whether or not it was actually necessary for the Speaker to authorise any broadcasts at all. The possibilities given rise to by this principle are that some broadcaster may seek to broadcast a particular set of proceedings in this place, or in a committee of this place, which the Speaker, in his or her wisdom, may see as appropriate not to broadcast. I cannot quite conceive of what those circumstances would be, and it seems to me that it is axiomatic that, if someone wishes to broadcast particular proceedings, there will be a public interest in the debate, almost by definition.

Ms McRae: Maybe a no-confidence motion in the Speaker? He might not like that.

MR HUMPHRIES: The Deputy Speaker raises a very good example. There may be matters that the Speaker personally - of course, this would not apply to the present Speaker - either might be reluctant to see broadcast over the airwaves, or, cravenly reliant upon the government of the day, might feel would offend the government and therefore might refuse his or her permission. A matter like that, of course, is very hard to conceive of, but it could perhaps, at some future point, be the case.

I certainly believe that the Speaker ought to exercise the power to prevent a broadcast which might, for some reason, be against the public interest. Again, I find it hard to see what that circumstance would be; but I do suggest to the Assembly that perhaps the authorisation by the Speaker of broadcasts - I do not know on what basis - from day to day, from week to week, from sitting to sitting or perhaps from debate to debate, would be unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic and would be open to some manipulation of the process which we would not necessarily wish to see or have suggestions of manipulation made about. I would suggest to the Assembly that we should reconsider whether it really is necessary for the Speaker to prospectively authorise each debate that is being considered for broadcast.

Mr Speaker, the second issue which I want to raise is the sort of restriction placed on the broadcasting in principle 3 as laid out here. These provisions, I understand, reflect again what is used in the House of Representatives. Members will see that they are fairly restrictive in the way in which they permit broadcasters to cover the events in the chamber. Generally speaking, the focus should be on the member with the call.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .