DOCSLIB.ORG

Apologies in the Discourse of Politicians: a Pragmatic Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Apologies in the Discourse of Politicians: a Pragmatic Approach Apologies in the discourse of politicians: a pragmatic approach A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2014 James MURPHY SCHOOL OF ARTS,LANGUAGES AND CULTURES Contents List of Figures6 List of Tables7 List of Transcription Conventions8 Abstract9 Declaration and Copyright Rules/Statement 10 Acknowledgements 11 1 Introduction 14 1.1 What is a political apology?...................... 15 1.2 The nature of the study......................... 16 1.3 Structure of the thesis.......................... 19 2 What is an apology? Theoretical considerations 22 2.1 Introduction............................... 22 2.2 Apologies in terms of face....................... 22 2.2.1 Facework and offence..................... 23 2.2.2 Apologies as the performance of facework........... 24 2.2.3 How this is relevant to political language........... 26 2.2.4 Problems with politeness theory................ 27 2.2.4.1 Issues with defining apologies in terms of face... 27 2.2.4.2 Criticisms of politeness theory........... 28 2.3 Apologies as speech acts........................ 29 2.3.1 What is a speech act?...................... 29 2.3.2 Previous work on apologies as speech acts........... 32 2.3.3 Felicity conditions of the apology............... 33 2.3.3.1 Propositional content................ 33 2.3.3.2 Preparatory condition................ 38 2.3.3.3 Sincerity condition.................. 39 2.3.3.4 Summary....................... 39 2.3.4 The limitations of the speech act approach........... 40 2.4 Apologies as conversational actions.................. 40 2.4.1 Conversation analysis..................... 41 2.4.1.1 Theoretical foundations............... 41 2.4.1.2 Turn-taking..................... 42 –2– 3 2.4.1.3 Sequential structure................. 42 2.4.1.4 Preference...................... 43 2.4.1.5 Repair........................ 44 2.4.2 Previous CA work on apologies................ 45 2.4.3 CA’s limitations......................... 46 2.5 How people apologise: The importance of a theory of implicature.. 48 2.5.1 An introduction to GCI theory................. 48 2.5.1.1 Grice and implicature................ 48 2.5.1.2 Neo-Gricean work on GCIs............. 49 2.5.2 Apology strategies....................... 51 2.6 Conclusion............................... 56 3 Parliamentary apologies 58 3.1 Introduction............................... 58 3.2 Parliamentary business and the data.................. 59 3.3 Parliamentary language......................... 61 3.3.1 The parliamentary timetable.................. 62 3.3.2 Turn-taking........................... 63 3.3.3 Address terms.......................... 65 3.3.4 Participation in the Commons................. 66 3.4 Strategies used in parliamentary apologies............... 72 3.4.1 Overall results......................... 73 3.4.2 Influence of offence type.................... 77 3.4.3 The role of participation structure............... 80 3.5 Conclusion............................... 83 4 Leveson Inquiry 84 4.1 Introduction............................... 84 4.2 Apologies in quotidian conversation.................. 85 4.3 Interaction at the Inquiry........................ 87 4.4 Types of offence............................. 91 4.4.1 Talk offences.......................... 91 4.4.2 Misspeaks............................ 92 4.4.3 Document offences....................... 93 4.4.4 Clarification requests...................... 93 4.4.5 Evidence offences....................... 94 4.5 Apologies and sequencing....................... 95 4.5.1 Triggers for the apology.................... 95 4.5.2 Reaction to an apology..................... 97 4.5.3 Absence of reaction to an apology............... 99 4.5.4 Apologies performing repair.................. 103 4.6 Conclusion............................... 105 5 News interviews 106 5.1 Introduction............................... 106 5.2 Background and data selection..................... 107 5.3 Apologies in sequential structures................... 108 5.3.1 Apologies as responses to triggers............... 108 5.3.2 Uptake and apologies...................... 111 4 5.4 Refusal to answer............................ 113 5.5 Participation structure.......................... 115 5.5.1 Footing of complaints and responses.............. 115 5.5.2 Participation and speech act theory............... 119 5.5.3 Role reversal: The case of Chris Bryant............ 121 5.6 Refusal to apologise........................... 122 5.6.1 Prompted............................ 123 5.6.1.1 Questioning the ‘apologisability’ of an action... 123 5.6.1.2 Highlighting previous apology........... 123 5.6.1.3 Straight refusal.................... 125 5.6.2 Unprompted.......................... 126 5.7 Conclusion............................... 127 6 Historical apologies 128 6.1 Introduction............................... 128 6.2 Are historical apologies legitimate?.................. 129 6.2.1 Apologiser 6= transgressor................... 129 6.2.2 The status of the offence.................... 130 6.2.3 Engaging with responsibility.................. 131 6.2.4 Victimhood and the absent victims............... 131 6.2.5 Summary............................ 132 6.3 Data................................... 132 6.4 Historical apologies as an activity type................. 138 6.4.1 What is an activity type?.................... 138 6.4.2 Participants and setting..................... 139 6.4.3 Structure of the activity..................... 141 6.4.3.1 Openings and closings................ 141 6.4.3.2 Sub-division..................... 142 6.4.4 Conversational maxims..................... 143 6.4.4.1 Questions in the debate............... 144 6.4.5 Tone or style of debate..................... 147 6.5 Participation structure.......................... 148 6.6 Contents of the apology statement................... 150 6.6.1 Description of offence..................... 150 6.6.2 Reportability and Credibility.................. 152 6.6.3 Justifying the apology..................... 153 6.6.4 Redress and non-recurrence.................. 155 6.6.5 Giving praise.......................... 159 6.6.6 The apology proper....................... 159 6.7 Conclusion............................... 162 7 Metapragmatics of the political apology 164 7.1 Getting an apology wrong: The case of Ron Brown.......... 165 7.1.1 The ‘apology’ statement.................... 166 7.1.2 Instances of resistance..................... 169 7.1.3 The fall-out........................... 171 7.1.4 Summary............................ 172 7.2 Pursuing an apology: The case of Ed Balls............... 173 5 7.2.1 Background........................... 173 7.2.1.1 The LIBOR Scandal................. 173 7.2.1.2 Osborne’s allegation................. 174 7.2.2 The parliamentary debate.................... 174 7.2.2.1 Restating the offence................ 175 7.2.2.2 Seeking a withdrawal and apology......... 176 7.2.2.3 Refusing to apologise................ 179 7.2.3 Summary............................ 180 7.3 Participants’ beliefs on the necessary contents of an apology..... 181 7.3.1 Who is the apologiser?..................... 181 7.3.2 The contents and performance of an apology......... 182 7.4 Using apology tokens in the performance of other actions....... 185 7.4.1 A marker of dissent....................... 186 7.4.2 A marker of face threat..................... 187 7.4.3 ‘I’m sorry’ on a cline of pragmaticalisation.......... 189 7.4.3.1 Pragmaticalisation and sympathy.......... 189 7.4.3.2 The optionality of I’m sorry ............. 191 7.4.3.3 The range of functions of I’m sorry ......... 192 7.5 Conclusion............................... 194 8 Conclusion 196 8.1 Summary of findings.......................... 196 8.2 On the prototypicality of apologies................... 199 8.2.1 Previous work on prototypicality and speech acts....... 199 8.2.2 Parameters of prototypicality for the apology......... 200 8.2.3 Summary............................ 204 8.3 Future research............................. 204 Bibliography 206 Appendix A: Transcripts of parliamentary apologies 215 Appendix B: Transcripts of apologies at the Leveson Inquiry 244 Appendix C: Transcripts of apologies in news interviews 265 Appendix D: Transcript of Jonathan Sumption radio lecture 295 Appendix E: Edited Hansard transcripts of historical apology debates 299 Appendix F: Copy of the Hansard report of the Ron Brown censure debate 333 Word count: 70,182 List of Figures 2.1 Relative strength of NTRIs, adapted from Sidnell(2010:118)..... 45 3.1 The structure of simple, dyadic apologies............... 67 3.2 Participation structure of Sir Anthony Meyer’s apology........ 69 3.3 Participation structure of Richard Hickmet’s apology......... 70 3.4 Participation structure of a generic personal statement apology.... 71 4.1 A pathway for apologising at the Inquiry, dashed elements are optional. 103 5.1 Participation structure of a complaint at news interviews....... 117 5.2 Participation structure of an apology at news interviews........ 118 –6– List of Tables 2.1 APs and their dis/preferred second pair parts.............. 44 2.2 Apology strategies........................... 55 3.1 MPs’ use of each strategy........................ 74 3.2 The effect of offence type on apology strategy usage......... 78 4.1 showing whether a complaint is the trigger for an apology for each offence type (raw figures in brackets).................. 97 4.2 The uptake received by apologies based on their sequential position and offence type............................. 102 6.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Security: Non–Proliferation
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Global Security: Non–Proliferation Fourth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 3 June 2009 HC 222 [Incorporating HC 1176-i,ii,iii, Session 2007–08] Published on 14 June 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Privatisation of Qinetiq
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts The privatisation of QinetiQ Twenty–fourth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 May 2008 HC 151 Published on 10 June 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) (Chairman) Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Mr Paul Burstow MP (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour, Glasgow South West) Mr Philip Dunne MP (Conservative, Ludlow) Angela Eagle MP (Labour, Wallasey) Nigel Griffiths MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Rt Hon Keith Hill MP (Labour, Streatham) Mr Austin Mitchell MP (Labour, Great Grimsby) Dr John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrat, Southport) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecombe and Lunesdale) Rt Hon Don Touhig MP (Labour, Islwyn) Rt Hon Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) The following were also Members of the Committee during the period of the enquiry: Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) and Mr John Healey MP (Labour, Wentworth). Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148.
    [Show full text]
  • Zitierhinweis Copyright Wright, Martin: Rezension Über
    Zitierhinweis Wright, Martin: Rezension über: Andrew Edwards, Labour's Crisis. Plaid Cymru, The Conservatives, and the Decline of the Labour Party in North-West Wales, 1960-1974, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2011, in: Reviews in History, 2012, February, heruntergeladen über recensio.net First published: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1213 copyright Dieser Beitrag kann vom Nutzer zu eigenen nicht-kommerziellen Zwecken heruntergeladen und/oder ausgedruckt werden. Darüber hinaus gehende Nutzungen sind ohne weitere Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber nur im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Schrankenbestimmungen (§§ 44a-63a UrhG) zulässig. It wasn’t so long ago that British labour historiography was dominated by more or less celebratory accounts of the career of the Labour Party. As its title suggests, though, Andrew Edwards’ book is a sure sign that the times have changed. Labour’s Crisis confirms a historiographical shift from celebration towards post-mortem, and details the breakdown of Labour’s political hegemony in north-west Wales during the 1960s and 1970s. Its argument represents an attempt to understand the dynamics of British politics within a specific regional context, and reflects the growing historiographical realisation of the importance of ‘place’ in political history. It is based upon extensive and meticulous research, and it addresses a space – which is as much conceptual as it is geographical – in our understanding of mid-to-late 20th-century British politics. This book should, therefore, be of interest not just to historians of Wales, but to political historians more generally. Labour’s Crisis is sharply focused upon the politics of north-west Wales in the 1960s and early 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Gill Morgan, Is Dealing with Whitehall Arrogance
    plus… Jeff Jones Labour’s leadership election Nicola Porter Journalism must fight back Barry Morgan Religion and politics Dafydd Wigley Options for the referendum Andrew Shearer Garlic’s secret weapon Gill David Culshaw Decline of the honeybee Gordon James Coal in a warm climate Morgan Katija Dew Beating the crunch Gear change for our civil service Andrew Davies The Kafka Brigade Peter Finch Capturing the soul www.iwa.org.uk Winter 2009 No. 39 | £5 clickonwales ! Coming soon, our new website www. iwa.or g.u k, containing much more up-to-date news and information and with a freshly designed new look. Featuring clickonwales – the IWA’s new online service providing news and analysis about current affairs as it affects our small country. Expert contributors from across the political spectrum will be commissioned daily to provide insights into the unfolding drama of the new 21 st Century Wales – whether it be Labour’s leadership election, constitutional change, the climate change debate, arguments about education, or the ongoing problems, successes and shortcomings of the Welsh economy. There will be more scope, too, for interactive debate, and a special section for IWA members. Plus: Information about the IWA’s branches, events, and publications. This will be the must see and must use Welsh website. clickonwales and see where it takes you. clickonwales and see how far you go. The Institute of Welsh Affairs gratefully acknowledges core funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust , the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Waterloo Foundation . The following organisations are corporate members: Private Sector • Principality Building Society • The Electoral Commission Certified Accountants • Abaca Ltd • Royal Hotel Cardiff • Embassy of Ireland • Autism Cymru • Beaufort Research • Royal Mail Group Wales • Fforwm • Cartrefi Cymunedol / • Biffa Waste Services Ltd • RWE NPower Renewables • The Forestry Commission Community Housing Cymru • British Gas • S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Death in a Digital Age: Post
    Publishing Office Aims and scope Abramis Academic ASK House Communication ethics is a discipline that supports communication Northgate Avenue practitioners by offering tools and analyses for the understanding of Bury St. Edmunds ethical issues. Moreover, the speed of change in the dynamic information Suffolk environment presents new challenges, especially for communication IP32 6BB practitioners. UK Tel: +44 (0)1284 700321 Ethics used to be a specialist subject situated within schools of philosophy. Fax: +44 (0)1284 717889 Today it is viewed as a language and systematic thought process available Email: [email protected] to everyone. It encompasses issues of care and trust, social responsibility and Web: www.abramis.co.uk environmental concern and identifies the values necessary to balance the demands of performance today with responsibilities tomorrow. Copyright All rights reserved. No part For busy professionals, CE is a powerful learning and teaching approach that of this publication may be reproduced in any mate- encourages analysis and engagement with many constituencies, enhancing rial form (including pho- relationships through open-thinking. It can be used to improve organization tocopying or storing it in performance as well as to protect individual well-being. any medium by electronic means, and whether or not transiently or incidentally Submissions to some other use of this Papers should be submitted to the Editor via email. Full details on submission – publication) without the along with detailed notes for authors – are available online in PDF format: written permission of the www.communication-ethics.net copyright owner, except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Subscription Information Designs and Patents Act Each volume contains 4 issues, issued quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • Daily Report Monday, 9 November 2020 CONTENTS
    Daily Report Monday, 9 November 2020 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 9 November 2020 and the information is correct at the time of publication (07:12 P.M., 09 November 2020). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 8 Licensed Premises: BUSINESS, ENERGY AND Coronavirus 20 INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY 8 Life Sciences 20 Beer: Small Businesses 8 Low Pay: Coronavirus 21 Bounce Back Loan Scheme: Nuclear Power 22 Sussex 8 Nuclear Power Stations: Business: Coronavirus 9 Finance 22 Carbon Emissions 11 Nuclear Reactors 22 Consumer Goods: Safety 11 Overseas Students: EU Coronavirus: Disease Control 12 Nationals 23 Coronavirus: Remote Working 12 Personal Care Services: Coronavirus 23 Coronavirus: Social Distancing 13 Political Parties: Coronavirus 24 Debenhams: Coronavirus 13 Post Office: Legal Costs 24 Economic Situation: Coronavirus 14 Post Offices: ICT 25 Electronic Commerce: Renewable Energy 25 Regulation 14 Research: Public Consultation 27 Energy Supply 15 Research: Publishing 27 Energy: Meters 15 Retail Trade: Coventry 28 Erasmus+ Programme and Shipping: Tees Valley 28 Horizon Europe 16 Solar power: Faversham 29 Fireworks: Safety 16 Unemployment: Coronavirus 29 Green Homes Grant Scheme 17 Weddings: Coronavirus 30 Horizon Europe 18 Wind Power 31 Housing: Energy 19 Hydrogen 20 CABINET OFFICE 31 Musicians: Coronavirus 44 Ballot Papers: Visual Skateboarding: Coronavirus 44 Impairment 31
    [Show full text]
  • Recall of Mps
    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • None of the Above: the UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003
    d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003 IAIN MCLEAN, ARTHUR SPIRLING AND MEG RUSSELL The preamble to the UK's Parliament Act cent) of the members of a future house be 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5 c.13) states that that Act elected, but rejected the Royal Com- is a temporary measure only: mission's proposal that all appointed members be chosen by an independent Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second appointments commission. Chamber constituted on a popular instead of This White Paper had a poor reception. hereditary basis, but substitution cannot be The Lord Chancellor's Department, immediately brought into operation . which issued it, later analysed the re- sponses to it. Of the 82 per cent of Attempts to bring the substitution into respondents who discussed election, operation in 1949 and 1968 failed. The 89 per cent `called for a house that was Labour Party's 1997 manifesto states: 50per cent or more elected'. Of the 17 per The House of Lords must be reformed. As an cent of respondents who discussed the initial, self-contained reform, not dependent future of the Church of England bishops, on further reform in the future, the right of 85 per cent opposed their continued pre- hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House sence in the house. Of the 12 per cent of of Lords will be ended by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • The Finkelstein Inquiry: Miscarried Media Regulation Moves Miss Golden Reform Opportunity
    Vol 4 The Western Australian Jurist 23 THE FINKELSTEIN INQUIRY: MISCARRIED MEDIA REGULATION MOVES MISS GOLDEN REFORM OPPORTUNITY * JOSEPH M FERNANDEZ Laws are generally found to be nets of such a texture, as the little creep through, the great break through, and the middle-sized are alone entangled in.1 Abstract The Australian media’s nervous wait for the outcome of media regulation reform initiatives came to an abrupt and ignominious end in March 2013 as the moves collapsed. The Federal Government withdrew a package of Bills at the eleventh hour, when it became apparent that the Bills would not garner the required support in parliament. These Bills were preceded by two major media inquiries – the Convergence Review and the Independent Media Inquiry – culminating in reports released in 2012. The latter initiative contained sweeping reform recommendations, including one for the formation of a government-funded ‘super regulator’ called the News Media Council, which the media generally feared would spell doom especially for those engaged in the ‘news’ business. This article examines the origins of the Independent Media Inquiry; the manner of the inquiry’s conduct; what problem the inquiry was seeking to address; the consequent recommendations; and ultimately, the manoeuvres for legislative action and the reform initiative’s demise. This article concludes that the Independent Media Inquiry was flawed from the outset and * Head of Journalism, Curtin University. This article is developed from a presentation by the author to the Threats to Freedom of Speech Conference hosted by the Murdoch University Law School on 12 October 2012 at Perth, Western Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed
    House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed Third Report of Session 2004–05 Report and Appendices together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 2 February 2005 HC 233 Published on 3 February 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 Committee on Standards and Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Mrs Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Mr Wayne David MP (Labour, Caerphilly) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Rt Hon Derek Foster MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr David Heath CBE MP (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome) Rt Hon Andrew Mackay MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Mr Kevin McNamara MP (Labour, Hull North) Mr Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North) Mr Simon Thomas MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy
    A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy State of the Union Annual Lecture by Rt Hon. Robin Cook MP Leader of the House December 2001 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax:020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ©The Constitution Unit, UCL 2001 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published December 2001 A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy State of the Union Annual Lecture Rt Hon. Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House Chancellor’s Hall, Senate House, University of London It is an honour to be invited to give this lecture to the Constitution Unit on the publication of their report on the State of the Nations. One of the unequal contests between government and opposition is the difficulty of an opposition to obtaining quality advice in preparing its plans for government. It is for that reason that after taking office in 1997 we trebled the amount of Short Money available to the opposition parties. It has long been clear that a high priority for the incoming Labour Government would be constitutional reform. Indeed our first Parliament witnessed a degree of constitutional reform which probably has no match in terms of breadth or significance since the great reform acts of the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]