Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 9, 1888.

Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7, 9 July 1888, Page 2

Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 9, 1888.

THE BIRTHDAY OF HANSARD. « This day 21 years ago the sfloond session of the fourth Parliament of New Zealand was opened by His Excellency Sir Geobob Gbet, and the first "note" of the New Zealand Hansard was taken. Hansard, therefore, attains its majority to-day, and it iB a somewhat remarkable faot that the usefulness of this Parliamentary institution shonld have been most strongly assailed almost on the eve of such an anniversary. The first Hansard staff was organised by direotion of the Stafford Government of 1867, and the carrying out of the scheme was entrusted to Mr. C. C. N. Barron, the present Chief Reporter, and the only member of the original staff who still retains his seat in the gallery. , The experience of 21 years has fnlly confirmed the wisdom of Sir Edward Stafford's choice of a ohief for the new venture, and whatever faults may now be found with Hansard, they are certainly not due to any laches or want of skill on Mr. Barron' 8 part. He has filled a diffioult and arduous office with conspicuous ability, and if Hansard of to-day is not the reliable reoord of Parliamentary utterances which it should be, the fault is not his, but that of the powers by whom his action has been controlled and his authority ourtailed. The first attempt at Hansard reporting was on a more limited Boale than has since been insistod on. Only leading members, either from their political position or their npecial relation to the subject under debase, were reported in the first person and in full. Other speakers were condensed and reported in the third person. The result was that the Hansard reports were muoh less voluminous, and really much more valuable. It would have been well had this system been continued, and had the Chief Reporter to a greater extent been required to edit the Parliamentary reports, using a wide and wise discretion in separating the wheat from the chaff. As the number of politically insignifiaaut members of course exceeded the number of those whoße utterances were really of sufficient interest or importance to demand or justify their being fully reoorded at the public expense, the polioy of allowing the Chief .Reporter discretion in directing his staff as to what should be reported in full and what condensed, was quiokly departed from, and the order went forth that all members were to be reported as ntsrly as possible verbatim. The reports soon became so voluminous as to be unwieldy, and the oost of produoing them, of course, grew session by session. The reliability, and consequently the value, of "theat reports was also muoh impaired by the extent to which members were allowed to ' ' correot ' ' and alter their speeohes. The Chief Reporter was deprived of the full discretion he onght to have been allowed in rejecting alterations whioh tended to deprive the reports, as a whole, of the character of a faithful record of what was said. The reports were " cooked " in a manner which would not have been possible had they been properly edited. Members who said anything foolish or improper, for whioh in the subsequent debate they were severely taken to task by other speakers, struck suoh passages out of the proof of their speeohes. and so Hansard became full of matter spoken is reply to what, according to the report, bad never been said. Apart from this defect, the reporting in the New Zealand Hansard was almost throughout, and until a recent period, of a very high class. A few years ago the staff was a most able one, and, taken as a whole, could scarcely be excelled. The work was arduous, but it was, so far as the reporters were concerned, admirably done, and the salaries paid were thoroughly well earned. Some time ago, however, some would-be economists, whose zeal was not according to knowledge, began to enforce retrenchment in the Hansard gallery, and, as a consequence, one good man after another left it, amd obtained better pay and lesit work iv other colonies, where their abilities were quiokly recognised. There can be no doubt that the efficiency of the Hansard staff, daring the last two or three sessions has deteriorated in a most marked degree, owing to the unwise attempts at retrenchment. Probably many other Government departments will in due time exhibit a similar deterioration and loss of efficiency, attributable to similar causes, and ill-compensated for by any pecuniary saving in direct cost, supposed to be effected. The result of the polioy in regard to Hansard was well exemplified the other night iv the declaration deliberately made by the Premier, that he now could scarcely recognise the reports of his own speeohes as published in Hansard. If the publication has fallen so low and has ceased to be accepted as a binding reoord of the sentiments and words of the speakers who are reported, there is no longer any justification for maintaining it in existence. We are not particularly partial to the process known as "Hansardising" a member, because oiroumstanoes necessarily alter oases, and what a member may say under one set of oiroumstances, it might bo almost criminal for him to adhere to under another, but it is undoubtedly desirable to have on record a reliable report of what leading public men do sajr in Parliament on the most important subjeots which come before the Legislature from time to time. If the report whioh purports to afford tbja record is so imperfect or misleading that members refuse to be bound by it, there is po longer any justification for the expenditure of Pftbtto m°ney in jte production. Hansard youjTd taa much more useful and mnch more popuhu: if &t jrere njnoh less voluminous, but its aqonrapy man* be maintained or it v somewhat worse {than, useless. After was said the other uighjt tie position of {{ansArd js almost certain to be reconsidered, by the House. We would strongly urge reform in the direction of placing tie Cbfef Reporter in a more independent position as Editor of Hansard, with large diioretionary

powers as to selection and condensation, and with means at his command to obtain the very best and most competent skilled assistance. The saving in the cost of printing would be enormous, and Hansard would become more generally useful and popular. Before closing our remarks, it may not be uninteresting to note the changes in the personnel of the Legislature which have taken place during the 21 years which have elapsed since members' speeches were first officially reported. There are but five members in the present House of Representatives who sat in that chamber in 1867. These are Sir Harry Atkinson, Sir John Hall, Sir Julius Vogel, Mr. Ormond, and Sir Maurice O'Rorke, the latter being the only one who has sat continuously since that period. Mr. Seymour and Mr. J. D. Lance, who now sit in the House, at that time ocoupied seats in the Council. Eight members of the present Legislative Council, the Hons. Ackland, Baillie, Holmes, Mantell, Menzies, Miller, Pollen, and Sir George Whitmore ocoupied seats also in 1867, and there are in the present Council seven members, the Hons Campbell, Dignan, W. Reeves, Reynolds, J. C. Richmond, Stevens, and Sir W. Pitzhorbert, who in 1867 held seats in the House of Representatives.