Photography and the Parliament: the rules are an ass
Posted: March 26th, 2010 | Author: wade | Filed under: Ethics, General, Law, Politics | Tags: Federal Election Campaign, Law, Politcs, Privacy | 1 Comment »
Federal MP Peter Slipper was caught snoozing in the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago. He was photographed by one of his colleagues on their Blackberry. Slipper, who insists he was just resting his eyes, complained to the Speaker who instigated the inevitable inquiry.
It was a bit unfortunate that this coincided with an address to Parliament by the visiting Indonesian head of state, but if I had to endure the sort of workload our MPs seem to I’d be pretty tired too, I guess.
When the picture was published in a Queensland newspaper a few days later, Slipper wasn’t a happy camper and he told the house he wanted the culprit found.
“I also imagine, Mr Speaker, that it makes it difficult for you to discipline members of the press gallery who might be inclined to breach the rules on photography,” Slipper said.
Whoever did it, they’re in good company because the rules controlling photography in the Federal Parliament are so restrictive they are breached almost as often as anything seriously newsworthy needs to be photographed in that place.
The “guidelines” are in fact so archaic and, frankly, counter-democratic that it proves necessary to ignore them just to do your job properly should someone, say, leap from the public gallery, invade the floor of the Parliament, and be dragged away by security, all within spitting distance of the nation’s top brass.
At the Coalition leadership spill in December, what amounted to the biggest political story of the year simply could not have been recorded legally that day. Almost everything shot breached the rules.
Let’s imagine that a pair of Greens Party politicians choose to stand and interject during an address to the Parliament by President George W. Bush over the treatment of a couple of Australian citizens in Guantanamo Bay. Well as the rules stand, imagine it you will, because pictures aren’t allowed.
What if after this your Prime Minister, no less, physically intervenes to control the two mavericks as they seek to have a word with the President as he mingles with other Members on the floor of the chamber, for fear they’ll embarrass the government some more? Well under the rules you’ll be taking our word for it I guess.
You see, news photographers are forbidden to shoot any “disturbance” by visitors to the House of Representatives or the Senate, and are stopped from recording any action in either place that may be deemed “unparliamentary”, committed by anyone else (i.e. the Members or Senators).
The rules also explicitly protect MPs and Senators from any form of satire or ridicule (earwax anyone?), and they even go as far as to stipulate that the tightest composition permissible is head and shoulders and no closer.
Photographers are in attendance at the discretion of the Speaker (who in Australia is a member of the governing party), while the Speaker gets to double as Chief Censor in determining what qualifies as “unparliamentary” conduct:
“Photographers shall observe the instructions of the Speaker or the Speaker’s delegate. The Speaker reserves the right to determine whether a photograph taken in accordance with these guidelines is in keeping with the dignity of the House. In regard to this condition, if a photographer is in doubt about a photograph taken in the Chamber, the onus is on him/her to consult the Speaker’s office, through the Serjeant-at-Arms, before either publishing the photograph or giving a copy of the photograph (developed or undeveloped) to any person.” — the rules
So in the first instance the rules demand photographers self-censor subject matter that would by any reasonable assessment amount to important and newsworthy. Then, ultimately, they appoint an officer of the government as arbiter over our reporting on the government itself.
Not every protest should be reported, and nor does every stunt by an unorthodox MP deserve publicity, but surely that’s a matter for the discretion of an editor and not the Australian government?
One Comment on “Photography and the Parliament: the rules are an ass”
Leave a Reply