South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2882, 21 June 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1882.

The more we consider the subject, the more we are disposed to agree with the proposal to abolish or curtail “ Hansard,” A more minute examination of the speeches lately delivered in the House and a comparison of Hansard ” with the Press Association roporto baa confirmed uo in that opinion. “ Hansard ” has grown into the dimensions of an abuse. A staff of reporters is employed to take down the speeches of honorable members, in full (and this at great expense) and hon. members are allowed to correct their own proof sheets. The expense involved in this latter usage is of itself about one fourth of the entire cost—and it was at this that Mr Bracken’s sensible amendment was levelled, during the debate the other evening, viz.—“ That hon. members should bear the cost of their own corrections,” It is perfectly ridiculous that things should long go on as they now are: The Press reporters, to whom there is properly allowed a very wide margin of discretion, condense their reports, giving the full substance of everyone’s . speech without its tautological verbiage, and in a few hours every community in the colony knows all it wants to know about it. Its purpose is answered. Why then should labor and money be ; expended in reproducing them, embellished or doctored in pamphlet form ? Who on earth reads them? Who asks for “Hansard ” after he.has seen his newspaper? The work passes out of the printer’s hands through the House jtself into oblivion. Our statesmen and their deliverances are not quite of such a high order as to be worth embalming at the national expense. We like to hear the pre-sessional utterances of our senators, but, when they are in session, we only want to find out the general tenor of their speeches, and how they acted at division. Aik this we get in excellent form from the Association reports. The idea of requiring members to “ pay for being reported ” was evidently intended as a joke, but it was seriously taken, and warmly debated. No progress was made on the subject,however, and it remains in statu quo. We fear “Hansard” has many hon. members firmly held to it by their vanity. If the work is not to be abolished, for heaven’s sake let us get rid of the This may have the double effect of saving the public money, and infusing an element of caution into speeches from which this qualification is conspicuous.