The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1912. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 226, 22 March 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1912. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

There is a good maxim advising, "Before you speak, count ten." Apparently many Parliamentarians do not take the advice, and mention matters on the floor of the House they regret afterwards.' A Btaff of skilled reporters, excellently paid by the State, is retained to take down every word the members say, irrespective of whether the membeis regret their words sabsequently. It is unhappily certain that some of the work these skilled reporters do is wasted. That is to say, they are sometimes paid to fill waste-paper baskets. Our contemporary, the Eltham Argus, points out that Mr. Herdman, M.P., indulged in a burlesque on the floor of the House the other day, but it was not printed in Hansard. Therefore Hansard is not a record of the doings of Parliament. The burlesque was, of course, carefully reported, typed, printed, read and revised by a large number of well-paid servants of the State. After numerous processes it would be handed to the man who made it. As this particular speech did not get into Hansard, the work of the whole of the people who had anything to do with the speech was wasted. > We may agree that a certain speeoh is not worth printing, but if it is not worth printing it is not worth reporting. Unless Hansard, therefore, is a perfectly faithful record of everything said in the House, it is useless. If it is useless it is waste of public money to continue producing it. The peculiarity of the situation is that a member may prevent his speech going into Hansard, and may, it is presumed, alter the tenor of speeches that do get into the unfaithful record, but that the public knows all about these speeches through the newspapers before they reach Hansard. There can be no quarrel with a rigid system which precludes a member from tampering with proofs of his speeches, and his ability to do r.o is an insult to the reporter who takes the note. Hansard is so firmly established that no protest will shake it. but we fancy that if the chief of the staff were to protest that his men should be humiliated by taking careful notes for the waste-paper basket the speaker who seems a fair-minded old

gentleman might order proofreading by members to cease. Every possible precaution is taken to ensure the reliability of reports as far as officials are concerned, so that interference by members is not only a humiliation to the Hansard staff but to the gentleman who is known as "the Hansard supervisor." We believe that many members of Parliament are above tampering with proofs and would stand or fall by what they say on the floor of the' House. If a member is allowed to delete whole portions of a speech he is, of course, allowed to make grave alterations in the matter of meaning. The political ice is so thin that politicians have to gang warily, but the politician who is ashamed to see liis speeches in cold type is not entitled to that respect one should have for so important a personage. The worst fault about such a politician is that he is afraid. From the public point of view the interference of members is a waste of time and money. The people are entitled to urge that members should not regard Parliament ag a vaudeville show.