BROADCASTING PARLIAMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 184, 6 August 1934, Page 6

BROADCASTING PARLIAMENT.

Should Parliamentary proceedings be broadcast? ' I# last week's debate on the report of the' Broadcasting Board, it was strongly urged that they should. The question has also been canvassed at Westminster, and the following comment by a regular contributor to one of the leading English weeklies is worthy of note: —

Such a procedure might well do something to restore the respect of the country for Parliamentary institutions. In the last hour of an important debate the House is crowded and excited; the leading figures of Government and Opposition are in action, and the clash of temperament and argument is seen at its best. At present only a very small, proportion of the electors ever see Parliament in session, and of those only a minority are lucky enough to hear a good debate. They are therefore an eaey prey to the daily onslaughts from diverse quarters on Parliamentary institutions. . . . Parliament has a bad Press to-day, and there is every reason why it should take what advantage it can of 6Ucn a medium of publicity as wireless offers.

In two respects conditions in New Zealand differ from those in England. Generally speaking, Parliament has a better Press in New Zealand than in Britain. There is here no deliberate set against democratic government as there is in certain of the popular British newspapers. The level of Parliamentary debating is far higher in Britain than it is here, and consequently a broadcasting service from the House of Commons would have more to give the public than one from our own Parliament. In any Parliament, however, there are practical difficulties in the way of broadcasting. Would the privilege be given to all members, or would it be restricted to leaders? Already time is wasted in our own House by talking to the Press and Gallery; it is possible that there would be still more unnecessary speaking if the microphone were installed. Nor is it certain that the public is as eager to listen to debates as some members suppose. It might be instructed and edified; on the other hand, if it caught some of the dreary back-cliat that so frequently disfigures debates, it might be disillusioned and even disgusted. In the end the public would decide. It would refuse to have long debates thrust down unwilling ears. Though Parliament may make any recommendation it wishes, the question of putting debates on the air is one for the Broadcasting Board. The.Board was criticised in the debate, and there is justification for criticism. It should be strengthened on the cultural side, and it should be given more authority. When, however, the control of broadcasting was made a public utility the intention was to make the new authority independent, and that independence .should, be maintained and extended.