DO WE DESERVE IT?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 373, 7 November 1932, Page 4

DO WE DESERVE IT?

Mr. D. McDougall, the member for Mataura, is a gentleman ' who could best be deseribed in : his person and his oratory as | "rugged." He has on various occasions focussed the limelight 1 of publicity upon himself, not j through any high flown gifts of j oratory or flights of polished ' eloquence but through a flair for ; the homely and a blunt uncon- ! ventionality which has provided many intervals of amusement : for his colleagues. It is true that Mr. McDougall has been referred to by one of these colleagues as j the "clown of the House" but that remark was made under the 1 shelter of a privilege which Mr. i McDougall has succeeded in dej monstrating will not be extended to his critics outside the ; House. It is therefore impossible ' in dealing with Mr. McDougall to use him with that homely brusqueness which is his espec- ! ial forte. The facts leading up to Mr. McDougall's allegation of i breach of privilege were inter- | esting. The honourable member asked a question in the House im ■ puting wrongful conduct to the ; organiser of the Canterbury | Progress League. A member of I the league in defending its or- ! ganiser exercised his wit at Mr. McDougall's expense and as a result, the Christchurch Sun, which published a report of the proceedings, was cited for breach j of privilege and compelled to ! tender an apology. It has been obvious from some of his per- . formances in the House, that his ' dignity is justly dear to Mr. McDougall and now that an apology ' has been tendered, it may be asj sumed that his dignity has been : assauged. Not content with this victory, however, Mr. McDougall has made another interesting contribution. He has suggested that a microphone should be installed in the House of Kepresentatives so that the speeches of members could be heard throughout the country. His genial implication is that Parliamentary speeches are not presented accurately in the Press of the Dominion, and it is necessary, therefore, that the people should learn at first hand just what the legislators are saying. Mr. McDougall knows as well as anybody else that there is absolute accuracy in the reports of doings in Parliament, and there is not the smallest justification for a slight on the professional integrity of men who do more than the politicians could pos•sibly do themselves to keep them in touch with their electorates. Members of Parliament are eager for the publicity which the Press of the Dominion gives them; they seek it on occasions because they know that it will be presented to the people in an absolutely accurate and attractive form. Verbal crudities are at times eliminated, and no objection need be taken to this. It is at least ungracious that Mr. McDougall should now cast such unwarranted reflections on the men whose service to the real interests of Parliament is infinitely greater than the microphone would ever be. As a rule nothing could be duller than the average Parliamentary debate. This is shown more of ten than : not by the conduct of members in the House. They can be seen at all times attending to their correspondenee, reading newspapers, and on occasions even sleeping while their colleagues" are speaking. Speeches which do not hold the attention of the House itself are not likely to be a generally acceptable substitute for the ordinary radio programme. People might listen once or twice so that they could form their own opinions of the standard of Parliamentary debate, but they would not make a habit of it. Mr. McDougall might learn, if his suggestion were accepted, that the microphone could be an

enemy to the interests of many of his colleagues, for he probably is the only one p-ossessing the talent and courage to introduce singing into a financial debate. There is horrible finalxty in a broadcast speech. It cannot be revised as "Hansard" proofs occasionally are, so that a member can say in print what lie would like to have said on His feet. s; '