House firmly in the hands of new Speaker

Press, 5 June 1978, Page 10

House firmly in the hands of new Speaker

Comment from the Capital

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The promise, and then withdrawal of a televised presentation of the Budget last week have provided indications of the tremendous pressures tending to build up around the new Speaker of the House of Representatives in this election year.

Theoretically, a Speaker is in full charge and control of Parliament when it is sitting, and of the grounds and precincts of Parliament at all times. It is the way in which he exercises his powers, however, which determines the extent of his success or failure. John Richard Harrison, aged 57, Canterbury University graduate, former soldier, and Hawke’s Bay sheepfarmer, came to the Speaker’s Chair this year with considerable experience as Chairman of Committees and acting Speaker (during the illness of the late Sir Roy Jack).

His aim has been to improve the status of Parliament, and to this end he has been examining the procedures of overseas Parliaments as well «s studying the rules applying at various times in and around our

own precincts. Thus he has had one eye on future improvement, and one on bringing back rules and procedures which for some reason or other are not now operative.

During a visit to Canada last year he was impressed with the way the main chamber in Ottawa was being wired and fitted io permit televised broadcasts of the Canadian Parliament in operation. Apparently this can be done (and is being done now) without any more disturbance than has been occasioned by the radio broadcasting of our House of Representatives. “After all, radio was the means of mass information when our people began broadcasting the doings of Parliament 40 years ago,” Mr Speaker Harrison explained to me. “It is only fitting now that we should look at the possible use of the new medium, particularly for special Parliamentary occasions, such as the presentation of a Budget.”

This view meant' that, when as officer in charge of

the buildings he received a letter from the TVI producer (Mr Bill Earl) seeking permission to record the Budget speech, he was favourably disposed. He referred the letter both to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition, received their approval in each case, and granted permission.

However, Mr Rowling gave a different reaction when telephoned at his Richmond home by the “Dominion" newspaper, Wellington. According to the published report, Mr Rowling then said he wanted his Budget speech on Tuesday (June 6) evening to be given equal treatment.

Mr Muldoon’.; reaction at the Monday press conference was almost predictable: “If Mr Rowling wants to be televised giving a Budget speech, then he’s got to win an election and make himself Minister of Finance.”

(Mr Rowling) special television coverage to make up for the Prime Minister’s televised Budget delivery tomorrow night,” and containing the information that Mr Earl had waited on Mr Rowling in his office in Parliament Buildings. It was probably this, encountered at his breakfast table on Wednesday morning, which decided Mr Muldoon to telephone Mr Harrison and inform him that his acceptance of- the televised Budget project was withdrawn. Considering that Mr Muldoon was not only Prime Minister, but was the man who would be delivering the speech, Mr Harrison really bad no option but to cancel his permission. This being General Election year, some may argue that Mr Muldoon was at fault, and some may blame Mr Rowling. Some may claim that Mr Earl should not have offered Mr Rowling anything (if indeed he did so) in advance of Mr Speaker’s permission. Some may even argue that Mr Speaker, clad in the armour of his power and privilege, should

On the Wednesday morning, the Wellington morning daily carried another story by its political reporter beginning: “TVI has offered the Leader of the Opposition

have “pushed on regardless" — though nobody could guess what possibilities might have arisen. As it was, the listening public received its usual full cover, as it will of Mr Rowling’s Budget speech on Tuesday evening. Nobody knows what Mr Muldoon’s listening public on Thursday night was; and nobody can well predict that as many will listen to Mr Rowling. After all, the situation is very different.

■ But television, and the home-lounge listening families, received a cover short of usual. There was no confrontation between Mr Muldoon and the aligned experts, such had been arranged to take place in the old Legislative Council room right after the Budget delivery. Perhaps, for once, there was an under-kill.

control. The normal daily half-hour allocated to the answering of oral questions plus any "supplementaries" which might be thought necessary to complete an answer, had to be extended. Even so, as few as seven questions might be answered in a period. From the beginning of the session, Mr Harrison has had matters well in hand. The daily half-hour average is twenty or more questions answered. If the "supplementaries” are irrelevant, or contain comment, or ask for a ministerial opinion, they are likely to be rejected out of hand.

So question periods have become quieter, less noisy, more disciplined. There is no doubt that the new Speaker is moving the House towards better behaviour. One can imagine a shadow of the old Colonel Harrison there, using the “bullring” of standing orders to improve the House’s own internal discipline. It is just possible that, Very soon . . .

So where does this place us now, in what is becoming a long battle to give television as an information medium a place in the projection of the Parliamentary image? It is perhaps significant tnat the Canadian Parliament makes a point of te.!e•ising oral questions and answers through its new equipment. During the Speakersh’ of Sir Roy Jack, the oral question situation at times seemed barely under

“Do you think the House is ready yet for a TV broadcast of question-time?” I asked h'm. The colonel was reflective: "Not quite yet. Perhaps if some of the youngsters sharpen up their supplementaries. frame them better . . . Shouldn’t really be long.”