I.—lo

2

APPENDIX.

The Government Pbinteb to the Chaieman of the Eeporting Debates and Printing Committee. Sic, — Printing and Stationery Department, Wellington, 23rd August, 1893. I beg to submit the following, in reply to your letter of the 18th instant. I answer queries one and two grouped together, and in the order of sequence, which will be found more convenient. 1 and 2. — Time between Day of Debate and Publication. The average history, at the present time, of a day's proceedings may be thus tabulated :— Proceedings ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Ist day Copy received at office ... ... ... ... ... ...2nd day. Slips sent to members ... ... ... ... ... ... 3rd and 4th days. (As a rule slips are sent out on the 3rd day, but in the case of a long day's proceedings, and towards the end of a session, the remainder on the 4th.) Slips returned to office .. ... ... ... ... ... sth to 11th days. Correcting, final reading, and making-up into pages ... ... ... 11th to 16th days. The publication issued yesterday contains the balance of debates of the 3rd instant (17 work-ing-days after) and part of the debates of the 9th (11 working-days after) ; the remainder of the 9th will be published on Friday next (14 working-days after). Delay or acceleration takes place according to the time within which slips are returned, and the amount of corrections to be made, due allowance being made for the variable length of a day's proceedings. Hence, the shortest time this session that has elapsed between the delivery of a speech and publication has been six days, and the longest time that has elapsed, nineteen days. Causes of Delay. Delay arises chiefly from two causes : first, not returning slips promptly; second, the large amount of time expended in final reading, after members' corrections have been made, and before the slips are made up into pages for printing. Occasionally further delay is caused by revises being asked for, which in some cases are returned with nearly, or quite, as many alterations as were made in the proof. This practice has been more frequent this session than previously. The final reading is of an editorial or literary character, and should, in my opinion, be either largely curtailed or altogether abolished. The percolation of speeches through one brain must have the effect of depriving them to some extent of their individuality, and of tincturing them with the mental colour of the brain through which they pass. This practice delays publication by one issue, or, say, at least three days. I would also suggest, as a means of further accelerating publication, that the prescribed limit within which proof-slips are expected to be returned should be adhered to, and that no revises should be given. But I must add that, if the latter be enforced, the present elaborating process in the final reading must also cease, otherwise the slips that may have been punctually returned will be in the Printing Office some days until the final reader can overtake them. At the present time the slips of the 15th, 16th, 17th, and part of the 18th instant are in the office, and will be in ample time for final reading in the ordinary course. Four readers are wholly engaged upon Hansard, the entire time of one and part of anothor being engrossed with final reading. 3. — Corrected Copy, and Continuous Shifts. If authors' corrections were made in the copy only, before it was sent down to the Printing Office, and in reasonable time, one week only would elapse between delivery of speeches and publication. With the present space at the disposal of the Hansard printing-staff, and the defective equipment of the office with the necessary type, continuous shifts are impossible. Such could only work " on time" now, in which none but picked competent men could be profitably employed, while the return of slips would have to be made with inexorable punctuality. 4.—Cost. The cost of printing the debates has never been ascertained with any exactitude. The most reliable data was obtained by myself last year, when actual expenditure was incurred to the amount of £3,100. I propose to adopt in the future means for ascertaining actual cost as nearly as possible. The whole of the debates are first put in type on piecework, the rate of pay being Is. 4d. per 1,000 letters. The ascertained cost of authors' corrections during the previous three years has been as follows, viz. :— £ s. d. 1890—3,436 hours, value ... ... ... ... ... 351 14 0 1891—4,907 „ „ ... ... ... ... ... 363 0 6 1892—5,459 „ „ ... ... ... ... ... 409 8 6 Part of this time was paid for at overtime rate; while there is good reason for believing that much was never filed—both of these being unknown quantities, and respecting which it would be quite impossible to make any conjecture with accuracy. I may add that authors' corrections are necessarily made by time-hands.