THE PEACE OF THE HOME

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22742, 30 November 1935, Page 12

THE PEACE OF THE HOME

Plato has said it would be well for that State whose king was a philosopher; but the threat to the peace of the home that is contained in Mr Savage’s discussion of the broadcasting plans of the next Government suggests that the citizens will have need to be of an equally philosophical bent. Mr Savage’s decision is to “ put Parliament on the air,” his explanation being that there is “no reason why the people should be deprived of the right ” to hear uqembers speaking. As they have not in the past possessed this “right”—in the sense in which Mr Savage uses the expression—they cannot, of course, be deprived of it. Any attempt by some sinister if unimaginable organisation to prevent the public from knowing what Parliament is saying would no doubt be resented in New Zealand. But so far that danger has not threatened. The sessions are open to the public and the press, and the representatives of the press are considerably more regular in attendance, and more attentive to what is said, because their duty demands this of them, than any member of the public. By the ordinary public the right and privilege of seeing Parliament at work are, excepting on special occasions, generally acknowledged by a failure to exercise them. Parliamentary debates —which, strictly speaking, are not so much debates as the delivery of a series of prepared speeches, disturbed or, rarely, helped along by interjections undistinguished by their brilliance —are regarded as a poorish form of entertainment. That they have their value as a revelation of what members are thinking and saying is unquestionable; but the revelation may prove disillusioning to the listener. It is possible that the average newspaper reader does not give credit - to the press —that much-maligned institution—for its merciful curtailment of, and improvement of, the Parliamentary oration, nor appreciate that the • reasonably word-perfect addresses in Hansard are revised by members themselves prior to publication. Too many sincere and painstaking Parliamentarians are, if the truth be told, prone to the nervous affliction of the United States politician John Quincey Adams, who, confessing his inadequacy as an orator’, admitted ; “ Sometimes, from inability to furnish the words to finish a thought commenced, I begin a sentence with propriety and end it with nonsense.” Of the next Parliament, however, the truth need not be told, provided the technical difficulties of broadcasting the proceedings are overcome, for it will betray itself, spontaneously, in polished periods or limping sentences,' to every corner of the constituencies. The public then may judge what it has missed in the past through its not having had the boon of broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings. And if, wilfully, a knob is twisted and a dial revolves here and there as the accommodating air is searched for other forms of radio entertainment, members will- not be aware of it. While the microphone sits provokingly before them, they will address it, just as in the past they have kept talking so long as a single reporter remained in the press gallery. But it will be comforting to listeners to know that they can always turn from a dull discussion in the House of Representatives to some feature of a programme that may be entertaining as well as instructive.