I.—B

11

108. So that Mr. Eutherfurd was engaged in the duties of his office eleven months out of the twelve ? —Yes. 109. He was not on leave of absence ?—I say that in the course of the year he gets from a month's to six weeks' leave. He was never away for that time at once, but takes three or four days at a time. 110. I want to elicit, for the information of the Committee, the duties of the office held by Mr. O'Eorke. "When was that office first created?—ln October, 1872. 111. Who was the first officer?— Mr. Otterson. 112. What was the salary paid to that officer ?—£l2o. 113. Who was his successor?— Mr. Ernest Bell. 114. What was his salary ?—I think he began at that, or £150. I think he left off at £225. 115. Was Mr. O'Eorke appointed successor to Mr. Bell?— Yes. 116. What was the salary paid to him when he took office?—£lso. 117. What is the salary paid now?—£2so. 118. Now, as a matter of fact, have the duties been in any way altered, increased, or diminished during the period 1872 to 1893 ? —I think, as a matter of fact, the duties have been increased since that time. 119. Eelatively, is the salary now paid to Mr. O'Eorke, or to any other officer holding that position, less or more than that paid to the officer in 1872? —Certainly not more, for he fulfils now the office of Eeader and also succeeded to Mr. Eutherfurd's office as Clerk of Bills and Papers in 1889. Mr. Eutherfurd's services certainly were at the disposal of the office all the year round ; but I should think Mr. O'Eorke was not paid exorbitantly. He took the salary of the officer engaged all the year round, but his work is only sessional. 120. The inference from that is that the salary is too high for the scope of the duties?—l have no doubt you could get the appointment filled as in the early days, provided it was only a sessional appointment, for a smaller sum. 121. Do you recollect when Mr. Brandon was Bills Clerk in the House?— Yes. ' 122. Who succeeded to the duties he used to perform ?—He died, and I do not think the appointment has been filled up. The present Clerk of the Council does the work now, and he may get some payment out of the vote for the Legislative Council, but I am unable to say how much. 123. Is the staff larger now, equal to, or smaller than that often or fifteen years ago?— Since 1889, when Major Campbell retired, the vacancy created in the fifth office has not been filled. The present permanent officers number four instead of five, as in Major Campbell's time. There were always five previously. 124. As a matter of fact, is the work of Parliament performed by the present staff as great, greater, or less than at the period you mention ? —lt is certainly not less. During some sessions, like last session, it may be greater, but on the whole I should say about the same. Varying, however, with the length of the session. 125. Then as much work has been done and is being done by four officers as was done years ago by five ?—Fully. I should have been justified in saying the work had increased. 126. Would it be possible to do the work with a reduced staff?—l think it would be fatal to efficiency. Even now the department is undermanned. 127. The Eirst Clerk-Assistant is an absolute necessity, because he takes the duties in Committee ? —The Clerk and Clerk-Assistant are an absolute necessity, because they are in attendance on the House all the time. 128. Then as regards the Second Clerk-Assistant, it would not be possible to dispense with his services?—He has charge of the Journals, which have to be written up from day to d.ay. 129. Could any of the other officers be dispensed with ? —Most decidedly not, unless you can make sure of always engaging men as competent, temporarily. 130. Would it be expedient to do that ?—No, I should say not. 131. Then the final result is this: in your opinion, the number of officers could not be reduced ; but as regards the office now held by Mr. O'Eorke, you think the work could be performed for a smaller salary ?—lf the officer was only required sessionally. I think that, as before the time of Mr. O'Eorke's appointment, the appointment should be for all the year round. I consider it necessary to have a fourth officer to fill the place of any one who may be ill or absent. 132. Then if the Eecord Clerk were employed all the year round, do you think the salary should be reduced from £250 to a smaller sum?—l do not think £250 would be too much to pay a clerk who would be employed all the year round. He would not perhaps be continually employed, but he would be in attendance at the office during the whole year. 133 There was a question asked by Mr. Guinness with reference to certifying to the services of reporters on Committees. The question arose as to whether the Chairman who certified, did so merely as to the time, and not as to the value of the services performed. Are the vouchers for payment prepared on printed forms ?—Yes. 134. Is it not a fact that, in the form of certificate, at the bottom of the voucher, the person signing certifies that the services have been performed, and that the charges are reasonable ?—Yes, that is printed on the form. 135. Therefore the person signing certifies as to two points, first, as to the time, and secondly, as to the charge made being reasonable ?—Yes, by signing that certificate. .136. There has been, as stated by you, a reduction in the actual number of permanent hands employed in the Department. Has there been since or contemporaneously with that reduction any corresponding increase as to the amount paid for extras ?—No; there has been one extra clerk taken on in charge of the Paper office. He is actually engaged during the session. He gets 15s. a day. It may amount to about £50 or £60, according to the length of the session. 137. Mr. W. Hutchison,~\ Do you not think one person would be enough in that room? —I do not think the members would find it so. It is for the convenience of members that the expense is