BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENT

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25796, 6 May 1949, Page 2

BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENT

_—a ■ Sir Gilbert Campion Writes of N.Z. “LIVE INTEREST” TAKEN IN DEBATES (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) LONDON, April 25. “If one considers only the popular reaction, the experiment of broaocasting debates would seem to have justified itself,” says Sir Gilbert Campion, formerly Clerk Qf the House of commons. writing in the “Sunday Times” on “Parliament ‘on the Air.’ ’ “Though the New Zealand Broadcasting Service is unable to supply exact figures, it is known that the listening public is large and interested, if often critical. Casual inquiries show that women listen in as- well as men. People have learnt much more about the purpose and proceedings' of Parliament through a ‘Listeners’ Guide to Parliament on the Air’ thoughtfully issued by the Government. Some are shocked to find that the tone of a democratic assembly is' not that of an areopagus or Roman Senate. But many have developed a live interest in the debates, and both parties agree that discontinuance is unthinkable. “But what are the reactions inside Parliament when the little red light over Mr Speaker’s chair shows that the country is listening? A few members ‘never bother to look,’ but the bulk of the House is admittedly radio conscious, as is shown by frequent appeals to ‘all those outside the House who are listening to me to-night.’ There is great competition to secure the ‘evening air’ during the most popular listening period, 7.30 to 9 p.m. “The accidental fading out of the red light has caused eloquence to waver in its highest flight and come down to earth like a pricked baTioon. Effect on Debate “The effect on debate has been partly good and partly bad. The awareness of a great listening public outside has made members take more trouble with their speeches, and in the view of informed critics, the standard of speaking has improved. But set speeches are no substitute for the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate. “Some thinkz that broadcasting has actually harmed debate—members repeat stale arguments and disproved facts, banking on the probability that most listeners have not heard their earlier speeches. On the other hand. I have heard it suggested that it is more than ever urgent to answer a damaging attack before it gets too long a start. “A change which would give better reproduction by cutting out the irritating undercurrent of conversation would be for each member to deliver his speech from an insulated microphone at a rostrum. This change has its advocates. If it were adopted broadcasting would certainly have killed debate.”

Sir Gilbert Campion thinks that broadcasting has come to stay in both New Zealand and Australia. He asks whether it will spread, and continues: “New Zealand and Australia are fortunately placed for broadcasting. Remote from the congested air of Europe they can more easily spare the necessary wave-lengths and stations. A small chamber and a reserved seat for every member greatly reduce the difficulties of transmission.

“But technical problems have a way of getting solved. It is not merely to save the 8.8. C. trouble nor even because it is shy of adding one. more to the ‘Radio Times’ list of entertainments that the House of Commons holds back. There are other reasons, and one is that when it is a question of disturbing Parliamentary habits all parties are almost equally conservative.

“An Australian admirer of English methods said to me: ‘Leave it to time. Twenty years ago nobody would have looked at it here. Twenty years hence you will be wondering what the objection was. And then it will be television.’ ”