PUBLICITY OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

Hawke's Bay Times, 31 January 1867, Page 3

PUBLICITY OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

(From the "Wai Parana Mercury, 19th January.)

“ Mikisties have not jet decided where the next session of the Asseroblj is to be held.” Thus opened one of the paragraphs wa published in our last from our vvsh lington correspondent, Wellington has a great objection to peripatetic parliaments, and so had Auckland once; but “circumstances alter cases.” it is the interest of Wellington now, as it was formerly that of Auckland, to write peripatetic parliament rfnwn Vof ,** ; a *i_ , .. mieuuvDi mat a newspaper press, true to its mission, and worthy of the name, would view the subject from a general, and not merely from a local standing point. When the seat of Government was at Auckland, the Wellington press could, and the Auckland press could not see any advantages that could be conferred upon the Colony by peripatetic parliaments. We, however, fear that it is vain to expect (hat a paper which takes only a local view of colonial questions can ever obtain a general •irculation. It is said that the reason why the sittings of Parliament are to be removed from Wellington is because fuller reports of its proceedings are desired. Without stopping here to point out what is so manifest on the face of it, that this is a roundabout and expensive war of obtaining an object which could be reached much more cheaply and expeditiously by the direct route, we will state at once that of the two evils—the non-publicity of parliamentary proceedings and peripatetic parliaments—we prefer the last. Let not l j , whj. ncmugtuu xcauera, nowever, taKe alarm at what we have just stated ; for we know of no better means of defeating the object aimed at—supposing that object to be fuller reports of its proceedings—than the annual removal of the sittings of the Assembly from one place to another.

It may be asked, what do the public care about the long-winded speeches of the members of the Assembly, and the empty debates in ■which they too frequently indulge ; and we are aware that the newspapers have treated the question of accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings as one between them and tbe members themselves, and not as one in which the public is more interested than ■either; but this is manifestly to take a one-sided view of one of the most important guarantees of Anglican freedom. The resnonsibility of representatives to their ■constituents cannot be secured without the publicity of their proceedings. “All governments,” says Lciber, “hostile to liberty, have been hostile to publicity.” Without accurate reports of the speeches and votes of members, and particularly of the latter, how can their constituents judge of their conduct? This simple question sufficiently indicates the necessity for the fullest publicity being given to tbe votes .and proceedings—the sayings and doings —of the members of the Legislature.

We shall not here waste time to prove -that the reports of the debates in the last session of the General Assembly were wretched and megre in the extreme. The complaints that were made on this subject were as general as they were well-founded. The reasons, however, which were given for the detective nature of the reports, and the remedies suggested for the evil complained of, were not, in our opinion, the true ones. It was not the fault of the Wellington press—nor the want of public epirit and enterprise in its proprietors—nor the absence of sufficient reporters—-northenon-interestfeltby thepublic in Parliamentary proceedings—that these reports were so defective. Nor was the city of Wellington in fault. A place with double and treble the trade and population—the Government printing being executed elsewhere—would not secure newspaper proprietors from loss, if they attempted to give full reports of the parliamentary debates. Neither was it the fault of the members themselves, owing to their abuse of public speaking, or to the prolixity of their speeches. All these things might have had something to do with it; but all combined would have proved insufficient to prevent the removal of the evil, had not the Legislature itself, in opposition to the soundest principles of political economy, placed a stumbling block in the way. The Government undertook what ought to have been left to private enterprise to accomplish. If there had been no Government printing office, the Wellington papers could have well afforded to publish, without any subsidy, the Parliamentary debates. The existence of a Government printing office rendered a subsidised press necessary. The Legislature, if it wished publicity given to it* proceedings, could not have taken a worse method to secure such aa object than by establishing a Government printing office. Its establishment deprives the existing newspaper offices alike of the means and the inducements to submit to the uecesssry outlay: while it. at the same time, securely closes the door against that competition between rival

newspaper offices which the Government expenditure, ia the absence of a GovernUiOut pnntUig Oil*CO TTOt*lcL h«T2 Cr£2.tcd<

“ Paint me as I am," said Cromwell to Lely 5 “if you leave out the scars and wrinkles I will not pay you a shilling.” It is of the highest importance to the public that the members of the Legislature should be thus painted; but we are afraid that, if permitted to revise their own speeches, they will fee tempted to hide the “ scars and wrinkles ” from the gaze of the public. The reporting staff of a newspaper would oe more likely to carry out tbo spirit of Cromwell’s inumetion than a Government reporting staff; but, as we have said, the existence of a Government printing office, renders a subsidised press a logical consequence. Were the members of the House of Representatives half such orators as they would like the public to believe they are, they would not have hesitated to vote the £ISOO required to secure reports of their speeches. The majority were evidently actuated by the modest desire not to have their foolish sayings go forth to the public. The gross contradictions, however, of voting something like £IOO,OOO for rapid communication, and refusing to vote one-and-a-half per cent, of that sum for full and accurate information has yet to be reconciled. We do not approve of a subsidy, because we do not think it is required. What is required is free trade, and free competition, which can bo best attained by the immediate sale, “in lots to suit purchasers,” of the Government printing office.