Editorial: Suppress the yawn, but not the picture

Parliament has had a good few years now to get used to being televised and photographed. It is astonishing to recall that 20 years ago events in the debating chamber, the nation's central political stage, could be heard but not seen. Doubtless it took just as long after the intervention of radio for Parliament to allow its proceedings to be heard. And centuries ago, its model at Westminster was reluctant even to permit written reports of its debates. So our camera-shy representatives are honouring a long tradition, if nothing else.

But you could expect that the institution would adjust a little faster each time to developments in mass communications. Not so, it seems. A photograph published in newspapers over the past few days has brought a complaint from an MP and caused the Speaker to talk of rescinding permission for television and newspapers to use cameras in the chamber. The offending photograph caught a National MP, Annabel Young, in full yawn during the long sittings on the Employment Relations Bill.

It was a good piece of photojournalism, telling the story of the filibuster as it was for those in the House. But acting on the complaint of Richard Prebble, Speaker Jonathan Hunt has banished the Evening Post's photographers from Parliament for a week.

Television and still cameras were admitted to the chamber on condition that they focused on the member speaking at any given time. Parliament did not want pictures of empty seats suggesting the chamber is sparsely attended most of the time (as it is). It did not want members pictured reading newspapers (as they do), or nattering amiably with opponents, or wandering about in a self-important way, or asleep.

All those phenomena can be observed on any sitting day by anybody who wanders into the public galleries.

But Parliament would have us believe its dignity and public standing require that news media never show the House as it really is. Television and newspapers accepted the restrictions because conditional access for cameras was better than none. But in such an intimate forum, attention cannot be always confined to the speech-maker. A shot of an MP on his feet will usually include those sitting in his vicinity, and often enough their expressions or body language are more interesting than the speaker.

Democracy has come a long way since the mother of parliaments ceased to claim for itself the exclusive privilege of reporting its proceedings, though our Parliament still jealously protects decisions of its select committees until the committees report them to the House. In that regard, Mr Prebble might be the last MP to accuse others of a breach of privilege.

Just a fortnight ago his party held seminars on changes to the Employment Relations Bill ahead of a committee's report to the House. He was unconcerned at the suggestion he had committed a breach, saying it was time the law of privilege was challenged.

As dedicated as he always has been to the decorum of Parliament, Mr Hunt has usually preferred open and liberal reporting of its work. As Speaker he probably feels obliged to enforce its rules to the letter. But the Prime Minister, for one, feels it is time to loosen the restrictions on photography. As she says, when in the chamber members are always on public display.

And they should be.