The Making of New Zealand's Hansard 1854 - 1992

This is a historical study of New Zealand’s Hansard, beginning with its origins (British parliamentary reporting) but focusing more on how the idea of impartial, accurate reporting transposed itself on to New Zealand’s shores, when Parliament first met in Auckland in 1854, and continued to evolve into the early 1990s. Five separate but related histories of Hansard resulted from the research underpinning this study: Hansard’s origins, its institutional frameworks, its readership, how it was staffed, and how it was edited.

The thesis concludes that New Zealand’s Hansard was inspired by the British system of parliamentary reporting but adaptation to local circumstances required looking more to Australian reporting models. With no model of indigenous representation to draw on, Hansard in New Zealand was constituted as a monolingual publication, but over time individual words and phrases in te reo Māori were included. Full inclusion occurred only from the late 1980s. Until the 1950s, Hansard’s editorial policies were shaped by decisions made by multiple parties (select committees, Chief Reporters, Speakers, Clerks of the House, the Government Printer, and Ministers in charge of the Legislative Department) and the editorial discretion applied by reporters and editors. The Legislative Council had minimal influence, in that regard. It was only in the 1950s that the British “substantially verbatim” reporting style was adopted in New Zealand. By the early 1990s its days were numbered as the evolution towards a more verbatim reporting style accelerated.

The study addresses two gaps in New Zealand’s book history: the lack of research on the vast publishing enterprise of the public sector and the absence of a published history of New Zealand’s Hansard. While Hansard has long been relied on for historical and other research, its own history has rarely been interrogated. For that reason, scholarship is slim and rests on two ideas. The first questions Hansard’s reliability, because it is not a truly verbatim report. The second is more problematic, because it challenges Hansard’s authenticity and relevance; it is the sense that Hansard is best understood as a relic of colonialism and its ideological underpinnings must be deconstructed before it can be used. This thesis concludes that Hansard content is reliable and identifies how modern-day users of historical Hansards can avoid any pitfalls that arise from the circumstances of its making. But it argues that any such flaws need to be understood within the context of their times: lack of sound amplification and recording, a modest level of funding, and the reliance for 130 years on the skills of shorthand reporters. By revealing the role of the individuals who shaped the content and style of the published debates, and the way Hansard developments mirrored societal changes, this thesis concludes that Hansard’s “flaws” are best understood and valued as historic markers of its creation, rather than as a reason to devalue its relevancy for historical research.