Who would watch Parliament on TV?

Press, 1 August 1977, Page 16

Who would watch Parliament on TV?

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Comment from the Capital

In a recent series of articles in “The Press,” a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Canterbury, Mr N. S. Roberts, suggested that the television '•amera should be brought into Parliament, as in Norway and Denmark, as a control on members’ behaviour. His statement that “the dismally low standard of Parliamentary behaviour by members of the New Zealand House of Representatives in 1975 was probably exceeded .only by the boorish, loutish behaviour in Parliament in 1976” was an unfortunate example of emotive language by someone who obviously could not have had much time to observe what went on in Wellington.

Another academic who recently passed through Wellington commented in adverse terms on his view of the House, with some members reading newspapers, others attending to correspondence, and so on. What he and Mr Roberts saw is considerably less than half the true picture. First, the behaviour of New Zealand members of Parliament in the House compares favourably with that of their opposite numbers in Canberra and, indeed, in the House of Commons — though, of course, neither of these institutions has the advantage of a peripatetic TV presence.

Second, I doubt, after more than 30 years of observing Parliaments in New Zealand and elsewhere, that a TV camera in the House would exert a firmer control over members than that enforced by a strong-minded and authoritative Speaker and senior House officers.

The subject of TV coverage .of Parliament was also one of the behind-the-scenes discussion points at the recent National Party conference in Dunedin. ’ It has also been the subject of a recent article by a television interviewer, Simon Walker. The trouble with such exposure is that all the points in favour tend to be mentioned. and the possible drawbacks avoided. What is wanted? Do those talking about TV coverage mean a four-day-a-week, prayers-to-rising coverage? Because this is the only way TV could become a real control on members’ behaviour.

Mr Roberts plainly does not have this in mind. On his evidence, TV and private cameras merely have right of access into the Folketing and Storting galleries. He says “television coverage of Parliament in Scandinavia is used to illustrate news items, or to enhance current affairs programmes.” He gives the impression that nothing is done in New Zealand which resembles this. Yet any viewer can assess the evidence to the contrary. Hardly a news session goes by without Parliamentary coverage. On any day, sitting or nonsitting. you may count at least one TV station-waggon in the Ministerial parking-lot. and may find one or more camera-interviewer teams haunting corridors and lobbies.

Separate soundproof inter-view-rooms have been built into the overstrained Parliament buildings accommodation, as close as possible to the entrance to the Parlia-

mentary chamber. iMinisters and members are interviewed there daily, as well as in their own chambers.

The question we must resolve is: What could be done to project Parliament that is not already being done? Theoretically, permission must be obtained before a news photographer or cameraman may take pictures in the Parliamentary corridors. This is not invoked today except on occassions where the pile-up of waiting groups tends to block the corridors. A continuous TV coverage would require a separate (and non-commercial) channel — an expensive business. Would the viewers watch? 1 doubt it — at least not after the first few nights, and not in competition with top TV programmes. In any case, is the TV role that of private detective, peering into what goes on in and about the chamber? The role of a journalist has its limits, and there are times, even now, when minor incidents are over-exposed to the public view without the balance of background. The public has a “simple right to know” what is occurring in Parliament, as Mr Roberts writes — but that “simple right” involves a briefing in the whole story, not merely, for example, a comic shot of a sleeping member, or a rash of words without their background. New Zealand was in the forefront of political progress when the House of Representatives was “wired for sound” more than 40 years ago. Since then, much has changed — not least the attitudes of members and the

public. 1 was not “in at the beginning,” but was present in the Press Gallery long enough ago to hear the Speaker (the late Sir Matthew Oram) roundly rebuke a member for referring to “the great unseen audience.” This House is dealing with the legislation before it, Sir Matthew said. “The member will address himself to me, and not to any world outside.”

Speakers of that firmer era responded similarly when publicity-conscious members drew attention at times to the fact that the red light over the radio booth was not shining (indicating that Parliament was not “on the air”). There is no record of Parliament’s having been stopped to await the red light. But in those days we were well aware of the drawbacks of continuous radio presentation. The whips of both sides combined to allocate what amounted to prime radio time. The backbenchers were given afternoon and earlyevening periods — and were instructed exactly how long they could talk. One mistake, one short speech at the wrong time, and there was crisis — with the “wrong people” speaking during the top Fstener hours. It does not happen now, because nobody is quite sure how many listeners favour Parliament against all the other fare. Some members (I believe the Prime Minister is one) have been quick to appreciate that car-radios pick up Parliament when people are driving home from work.

broken the pattern. Could a running television broadcast of Parliament ever bring it back? This is doubtful. There was no attempt this year even to televise Mr Muldoon’s reading of his Budget speech, which would surely qualify as a prime subject. Another prime subject, the half-hour adjournment de-

For the rest, TV has

bate, known as “Hancock’s half-hour,” was rejected before TV arrived. It could well be resurrected as a test of public opinion — a half-hour of five-minute speeches by matched teams, speaking on a subject of immediate public interest, usually nominated by the Opposition. But would this be Parliament — as you want it?