I.—B

6

Addenda.

I have become aware, since the attention of the Committee has been drawn to this matter, that a very sedulous use has been made of the phrase " editorial supervision," for the purpose of leading members to believe that it embraces a sphere of work which is very essential, and which makes it necessary for the Chief Eeporter to abstain from taking his turns in the gallery. If there was any such thing as " editorial supervision " imposed upon the Chief Eeporter, why did. the House in 1871, when the same pretence was advanced, order the Chief Eeporter to take his share of the task of reporting as his primary duty? and why has the plea of " editorial supervision " never since been set up until his withdrawal from the only expert and responsible work connected with Hansard— namely, taking his turns in the gallery—has been compained of ? As the misrepresentations on this subject are made with the view of obscuring the real issue involved, and of throwing dust in the eyes of members, I feel constrained to characterize this plea of " editorial supervision " as a perfect sham. As a matter of fact, the only duties discharged by the Chief Eeporter, outside his work in the gallery, when he did it, has been to cut out the questions from the day's Order Paper and to write cross-headings to them—a work of about ten minutes— which could be performed equally well by a junior upon the literary staff of any newspaper. Another duty has been, with a pencil coloured blue at one end and red at the other, to tick off the printed division lists supplied either by Mr. Otterson or by Mr. Eutherfurd. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk of "editorial supervision" in connection with Hansard. Hitherto, the copy transcribed by the reporters has passed directly from their hands to the messengers, who convey it to the Government Printing Office, and. " editorial supervision " has never been attempted on the staff, nor can it be exercised, except by members themselves and the Hansard readers in the Government Printing Office. It has also been industriously circulated, with what object is too transparent, that I have been the originator of the complaints that have been made in this matter. That statement is absolutely and positively untrue. The sense of injustice and grounds for complaint no doubt suggested themselves simultaneously to the whole of us. Eepresentations on the subject were first made to me by members of the staff, and were repeated over and over again; and, although we were reluctant to take action, it ultimately became evident to us that silence was no longer possible if we hoped for the redress of our grievances. The necessity for action, so far from being prompted by myself, originated with the other members of the staff. Feeling, as they did, that a gross injustice was being inflicted upon us, I concurred to the fullest extent with everything they did and in the representations which, as a body, we decided upon making. Having done that, and having acted in perfect harmony with my colleagues from beginning to end, it is almost needless to say that I am prepared to take my fullest measure of responsibility. J. Gbattan Geey.

Mr. J. M. Geddis's Answbes. 1. Has the work of the Hansard staff, per day, been increased of recent years?— Yes. 2. If so, what are the reasons, and what do you suggest as a remedy?—The chief reasons are:— (a.) That the volume of debating in the Council has been augmented by the addition of twelve new members two years ago, the larger number of whom are very frequent speakers; (b.) That a larger proportion of the members of the House of Eepresentatives take part in debates than was the case formerly ; (c.) That a larger number of questions are now introduced for discussion in the course of a session; (d.) That the effect of the time-limit has been to accelerate the average speed of speaking in the House, and consequently, by increasing the quantity of notes, to extend the work of transcription. The most effectual remedy would be to bring the staff up to the numerical strength contemplated by the Government when an eighth reporter was appointed at the beginning of the session of 1893. 3. What was the average time worked after the House rose a,nd before it met, prior to 1893 and afterwards?—I cannot say from memory, and there is no record to appeal to. I only know that the work has gradually increased in severity, and that considerable relief was experienced during that period of the session of 1893 when the entire staff of eight reporters was engaged in the work of reporting. 4. If there is any decrease in the hours, has that been due to the different manner in>which Mr. Barron has carried out his duties ?—No. If Mr. Barron carried out his duties as he did prior to 1893—that is to say, by taking his turn in the gallery—each other reporter on the staff would have a quarter of an hour longer for transcribing each turn of note-taking, and consequently would be able to do his work with more deliberation and care, instead of being obliged to write out with such extreme haste as to be unable to give proper attention to doubtful passages, where the speaker's meaning is either involved or obscure, or in which part of a sentence has been imperfectly heard in consequence of the under-current of noise which is very frequently going on in the House or the galleries. Besides, the constant pressure of too-limited time for transcription, while obliging the reporter to race at a gallop through his work, also prevents him in very many cases from reading over his turn after he has transcribed it, thus considerably increasing the liability to slips and errors. 5. Is it necessary or desirable that the Chief Eeporter should regularly take a turn in the gallery?— Unquestionably; both necessary and desirable. I can conceive of no reason why it should be either unnecessary or undesirable. Eliminate the work of note-taking and the rest is purely routine,