M.P.s in confusing muddle?

Press, 18 June 1986, Page 1

M.P.s in confusing muddle?

By

KEN STRONGMAN

This week’s 150 minutes of televised question time from the Parliamentary debating chamber adopted the “Canadian method.” This is nothing to do with Eskimo practices but ensures that cameras stay trained on talking heads. The more interesting alternative would be for them to go roving in pursuit of unspeakable personal habits. Anyway, it all began well yesterday with a useful introduction from the übiquitous Lindsay Perigo, on this occasion apparently suspended in the air of the Press Gallery. His explanations set the scene well, even to the New Zealand mem-

bers having more comfortable seats than their English counterparts. The initial and the lasting impression was that the proceedings are all a little scrappy and faltering, particularly on the part of the Speaker of the House. There appears to be a mixture of prepared posturing and the sounds of an unseemly rabble in the background. In the midst of this, however, it is easy to see why the leaders and deputy leaders are in their positions. They are more articulate, more amusing, and faster on their verbal feet than the remainder. It is a dreadful business that for much of the time the members of the House

behave like wilful, unruly children. They seem to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions by relying on the Speaker to keep them in order. For no readily apparent reason, they appear to quite purposefully break obvious rules of procedure. The effect of televising these proceedings is to bring them a bit too near to sit back and take them calmly. It produces mixed feelings to realise that we are being governed by human beings who are a little too human for comfort. There is an over-all impression of wonderment that anything gets done in this confusing muddle. If this is democracy at work it is a little

surprising that democracy works, although fortunately it does. Clearly, question time in the House is part of a public performance, even more public with the cameras there. In quiet despair, one can only assume (hope?) that the real work of government goes on elsewhere.

In the end though, it is good television, or at least it would be now and again. To see it too often might be to become too desensitised to the more foolish parts. For better or worse, this is the television age and it therefore must be right that it is used to bring Parliament to the people. After all, this is where it springs from.