"MR. SPEAKER, I WISH TO..."

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 338, 14 December 1945, Page 6

"MR. SPEAKER, I WISH TO..."

How New Zealand's Parliament Is Broadcast ¢ OU are listening to Mr. ec Oe lets te. yer ED be ae ; When you hear a radio ‘announcer say something like that every quarter of an hour or so, he may be referring to any one of ‘80 people. These are the 80 who, while discussing the country’s affairs, are able to let everybody with a radio set know how they contribute to the business of the House of Representatives. Broadcasting of Parliament started in New Zealand in 1936. Before the equipment was installed the technical staff of the NBS made many inquiries and discussed details with members of the House. One of the most important things was the placing of the. microphones. Some members favoured a microphone for every desk but that made speeches sound as though they were delivered in a studio and the assembly atmosphere was destroyed. Trial and error brought Parliamentary broadcasting to the position it now holds. At first only four microphones were used; now there are ten. Seven are for the members, one is for the Speaker, one for the Chairman of Committees and the other for the engineer in charge of House broadcasts, K. G. Collins. Directional and semi-directional types were tried but the uni-directional type worked best, with a 45 degree angle of pick-up. Blind on One Side The instruments are strung on wires above the members’ heads. Each microphone is blind on one side so that the sound comes from only one sector at a time. When bi-directional microphones were tested they caught and sent out voices from every part of the House and twice the amount of background Noise, resulting in a jumble of sound.

The present system gives a better picture of Parliament for broadcasting. When more equipment is available further experiments will be made with the idea of installing a substantially permanent system. Listeners may wonder how: interjections are broadcast and how speakers on different sides of the House follow on one another with continuity. When a member is speaking, the microphone covering his sector is the only. one alive. Others are brought into action to catch the interjections. These microphones are so sensitive

the sectors they serve, are greatly amplified. Listeners hear even more clearly than the members themselves; even private conversations between members have gone over the air. Originally the NSS broadcast only selected debates, but this system was dropped because it was impossible to anticipate what would be of broadcast interest. And a debate might be halfway through before it was realised that it was leading up to something well worth sending over the air. The broadcasting engineer who, by special privilege, has a desk on the floor of the House, listens on headphones through a standard receiver, hearing the broadcast as it comes from the transmitter at Titahi Bay. The Speaker has no control over the radio apparatus, ‘but uses a system of signals to the engineer when he considers the House should, or should not, be on the air. Some listeners tune in after a debate has started; Some are able to listen to part of a debate only. It is for them that every quarter of an hour the announcer gives the names and constituencies of the speakers. The NBS _ has received many letters to this point. Some say there is no need to give the names so frequently, if at all, for the voices are well known to them. An almost equal number ask that the announcer should break in more often with information. The NBS tries to strike a happy medium. Generally the announcer (the engineer in aharge) waits for®a pause in the speaker’s remarks, so that he can give the name without interfering with the speech. Occasionally a member pauses slightly, giving the announcer the impression that there will be time to slip in the name, and then carries on. The

result is two voices. That cannot always be avoided. If announcements are not made, the station quickly receives a host of telephone calls asking for the member’s name. Listeners have asked, too, why names of speakers are not announced in advance. That may be possible during Budget debates for the names are supplied by the two Whips; but in ordinary debates it is impossible to forecast wha will ‘speak and what order ‘they will follow. Another listener’s query is: Why does the broadcast continue when it is announced that the House is in committee? The answer is that the term "in committee" does not mean, as in the case of a meeting of a_ local body, that confidential subjects are to be discussed, but that the Committee of the whole House is in its working stages, dealing with Bills. The Speaker’s Responsibility Throughout the war, censorship was important. Special precautions were taken to see that nothing of value to thé enemy went over the air. The sole responsibility rested with the Speaker who could signal to the engineer to cut out a remark, a whole speech or a_ whole debate. When a member was’on danger- ous ground as far as broadcasting was concerned, the relay stopped, to be resumed when the dangerous passages were over. ; The Speaker, in fact, had to anticipate what was in members’ minds or occasionally ask for an outline of what a member proposed to talk about. Gradually the whole House became used to the procedure, members themselves asking to be cut off the air when they had something confidential to say, A red light over the Speaker’s chair told

members when the House was broadcasting. When censorship was applied the light went out. During some of the war debates the Speaker’s hand was on the switch continually, ready to signal for the microphones to be cut off. Sets of instructions were supplied to the engineer and all members, showing them how to deal with censored subjects such as the names of ships, shipping movements, the strengths and movements of trpops, sites of military camps, aerodromes, and _ fortifications. The engineer had authority to cut off anything he thought should, in the country’s interests, be deleted. The Cat Nearly Escaped One evening, when the House was quiet and relaxed, a member spoke about farm products. He referred to what he called the slowness of ships in turning PPPP PPB PPR OPO PPP PIPL LLP AP

PPP PPP PPP PPP PPPPPPP LY round. One ship he knew of, he said, had taken a certain time to do it. "What," asked another member, "was the name of that ship?" A split second before the first speaker gave it, the engineer turned up his switch, the Speaker giving his signal at the same moment. The system worked so well that there is no record of Speaker or engineer having been just too late. At times, during the war, the House was off the air more often than it was on, for statements judged to be of a use to the enemy came out of ebate without warning. During the whole of one evening at least the broadcast lasted for only a few minutes. A fault in the equipment once caused consternation. In a secret session the Prime Minister informed the Speaker that there were "strangers" in the House. The strangers were the engineer and the newspaper representatives. All with-. drew. Then it was noticed that the red light was burning brightly, indicating that the session was being broadcast. The Sergeant-at-Arms was sent to call the engineer back but, because he was not allowed in the House during a secret session, he had to be asked for instructions how to dowse the light. Actually the broadcast had ended. Something had gone wrong with the relay switch. It had become self-magnetised, holding the ted light on. The Clerk of the House tried unsuccessfully to extinguish it, The session went on and the light went out @ little later of its own accord. Overseas Interest The NBS has had inquiries from overseas about its methods of broadcasting Parliament. England, America, Canada, and’ Australia have shown interest. Recently C. J. A, Moses, general manage1 of the Australian Broadcasting Commis. sion, and R. J. F. Bayer, chairman of the commission, visited New Zealand with the sole purpose of seeing how we do it. They studied not only the technical aspects but the reactions of listeners and the effect of broadcasting on the quality and length of debates.

Experience has shown that discretion must be used in returning to the studio and playing recordings during a spell such as a division of the House, for an unintentional association of ideas can cause amusing but awkward moments. But this applies to other forms of broadcasting also. Once, just after a broadcast of a State luncheon, it was noticed that a record scheduled to be played was the farcical "Running Commentary on the Annual Dinner of Slate Club: Secretaries." A hurried change was: made to something more suitable. The average time given to broadcasting Parliament each year for the nine years is 750 hours. Complete tests of the equipment are made half-an-hour before each session — microphones, circuits, amplifiers, and land lines being tried out. How Many Listen? We asked the engineer if he had any idea how many people listened to Parliament. It was hard to judge, he said, but, some idea could be got from the debate on the future of the New Zealand Forces. When the debate started at 7.30 p.m. there was only a sprinkling of people in the galleries. The Prime Minister announced that for reasons of security the House would go off the air. By 8.15 p.m. the galleries were. full, showing that a large number of people must have been listening. We suggested that as a good deal of the work of Parliament is done by the ‘select committees, before ‘the more spectacular part comes on and is broadcast, it might be possible to give a short resume of the committee work at 7.20 p.m. That, the engineer agreed, would certainly make listeners more aware of the vast amount of business transacted and dispel any idea that Parliament was just a "talking-shop." As for the engineer himself, his job does not consist merely of listening to debates and throwing a switch now and then. He keeps a complete log of the names of all speakers .and the times of their speeches for record purposes.

Staff

Reporter