(1797–1858).

Judge.

Sidney Stephen was born at Somerleage, Somerset, England, in 1797. He was a son of John Stephen, puisne Judge at St. Kitts in the West Indies, and later a member of the New South Wales judiciary and acting Chief Justice. Stephen was born to the law almost to the point of having been swaddled in a stuff gown. His father was a Judge and he was cousin to Sir James Stephen, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, of whom it was said in the early decades of the nineteenth century that “he literally ruled the Colonial empire” (including New Zealand). Sidney Stephen was also an uncle of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829–94), Justice of the Queen's Bench Division, who is credited with laying the foundations for the codification of the English criminal law, effected by the Criminal Code Act of 1893. Sidney Stephen's brother, Sir Alfred Stephen, was Attorney-General of Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) and, later, Chief Justice of New South Wales.

Stephen was educated at Honiton and Charter-house, and was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1816. After being called to the Bar in 1818, he joined his family in the West Indies, where he married Miss Margaret Adlam, daughter of a St. Kitts merchant. When his father was appointed a Judge in New South Wales, Sidney Stephen moved to Australia with him. The young barrister of Lincoln's Inn found early in his career that he had to fight a legal monopoly in Sydney which he described on one of his appearances in Court as “exclusive, unjust, ridiculous, anti-progressive and un-English”. He virtually broke the monopoly and won a reputation and a practice. In 1838 he went to Hobart Town, where his brother Alfred was Attorney-General. There he found himself embroiled in a feud between his brother and Mr Justice Montague, of the Supreme Court. Family loyalty soon had him deeply involved. Stephen always believed what he said, and what he said he stood by, too often to the complete disregard of the point of view of others. The inevitable happened. He was confronted with a rule of contempt and his professional integrity was impeached by Montague. The outcome was a disbarment Unable to practise in Van Diemen's Land, and fearful of the tardy processes of his appeal to the Home Government, Stephen, with a wife and seven children, turned squatter in Victoria. Two years later he obtained provisional admission to the Victorian Bar. Here he made an instant impression. Affecting an urbanity and fine courtesy in striking contrast to his normal brusqueness of habit, he did well in Melbourne and strengthened his position greatly by his vigorous support of the anti-transportation movement. On 29 March 1847, five years after his departure from Hobart Town, he learned that the Privy Council had reversed the order of the Tasmanian Supreme Court and had declared that “Mr Sidney Stephen's character and professional conduct are unimpeached”. By way of compensation for personal and professional loss resulting from his disbarment, an appeal was made to the Colonial Office on Stephen's behalf for suitable employment. Earl Grey in London suggested a judgeship in Port Pirie, South Australia, but as there was no vacancy at the time he had to wait until 1850 when he was appointed by Royal Warrant to be a puisne Judge in New Zealand.

On arrival in New Zealand he was given the Southern Judicial District with headquarters at Dunedin. Otago had only the faintest academic interest in the establishment of its first Supreme Court, but even that disappeared when the Scottish Free Church settlers learnt that the luxury was to cost £800 a year — a heavy drain on the meagre provincial exchequer. They protested violently and with good reason, for in the whole of Stephen's term of 18 months at Dunedin, no prisoner was charged before him and no civil plaint was heard. The only case set down for hearing was one of conspiracy of which the learned Judge himself was the alleged victim. It arose from the linking of Stephen's name with a local scandal. The Judge took Court action, and since in the meantime he had assaulted one of his detractors, he appeared before the Magistrates in the dual role of plaintiff and defendant. Both judgments went in his favour by the casting vote of the chairman of a large bench of Justices, and his antagonists were committed to the Supreme Court for trial on charges of criminal libel and conspiracy. As he left the Court, Stephen was challenged to a duel by a fiery local doctor, but he was bound over to keep the peace. The conspiracy trial was never held for the reason that when the fixture date came round, there was no Court, no Judge, and no accuser. Stephen had removed to Wellington, and his exit was marked by a notice in the New Zealand Gazette abolishing the Supreme Court in Otago. Seven years were to pass before it was reopened by Mr Justice H. B. Gresson. In Wellington, following Mr Justice Chapman's departure for Tasmania, Stephen was resident Judge for the newly created Southern District of New Zealand, which comprised the whole of the colony with the exception of the Auckland and Taranaki provinces. He presided over the first sitting of the Supreme Court in Canterbury, at Lyttelton, early in 1852, and three years later moved to Auckland in place of the Chief Justice, Sir William Martin, whose health had broken down. He died in Auckland on 13 January 1858, after a protracted illness. In his translation to the northern centre, Stephen saw promise of succeeding Martin as Chief Justice, and expressed the deepest disappointment and bitterness at the eventual choice for the position in 1857 of “some obscure English lawyer called Arney”. His death followed not long after that appointment, and the Wellington Independent in an obituary notice declared: “It may not, as some assert, have broken his heart, but we believe that a profound sense of Government injustice hurried him to his grave”.

Stephen had a clear, vigorous, and powerful mind, and was a very good lawyer. The general soundness of his judgments was seldom in question, and in collaboration with Martin, C.J., he did much to lay the foundations of Supreme Court procedure of the time. He was a man of substantial pride, setting a great value upon himself, and consequently was no stranger to self-pity. He could be both quarrelsome and vindictive, but was also the possessor of more than average charm. He had neither the qualities nor defects proper to genius, and his downright and almost over-conscientious definiteness of thought not infrequently led him into error, though this was generally in his personal circumstances rather than in any professional capacity. But above all he was always accessible and generous, with a well-developed sense of the rights and needs of the underprivileged, who were a considerable company in his day.

by Ronald Jones, Journalist and Script Writer, New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, Wellington.

• Chapman Letters (MSS), Turnbull Library
• Wellington Independent, 24 Feb 1858
• New Zealand Law Journal, 5 Aug 1958
• History of Otago, McLintock, A. H. (1949).

The first official statistics were collected in New Zealand as early as 1829. From 1840 to 1851, statistical “blue books” were prepared for the Colonial Office, but these were not published. They contained statistics of population of settlements, trade, and agriculture. The compiling authority in the early period was the Colonial Secretary, resident at Auckland. From 1854 the compilation and publication of statistics for the colony as a whole became the responsibility of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, who was resident in Auckland until 1867 and thereafter in Wellington. The basic statistics of exports and imports continued to be compiled by the Customs Department until 1962, when compilation became the responsibility of the Department of Statistics.

The first general population census was conducted in 1851, since when there have been regular censuses of population, with two exceptions due to the economic depression in the 1930s and to the Second World War. Early censuses were taken triennially, but from 1881 they have been held at quinquennial intervals. The first count of the Maori population was made in 1857–58.

The post of Government Statistician was created in 1910, the first incumbent being attached to the Registrar-General's office. In 1915 a separate Census and Statistics Office was established. It initially formed a branch of the Department of Internal Affairs, but became part of the Department of Industries and Commerce in 1931. A separate department called the Census and Statistics Department was established in 1936, and the name was changed to the Department of Statistics in 1956.

The first official publication of a “yearbook” type appeared in 1875, but it was not until 1893 that the first New Zealand Official Yearbook was published. It has since appeared annually (with two exceptions, when combined issues were made). The Monthly Abstract of Statistics first appeared in 1914, and has been published regularly since that date. A Pocket Digest of Statistics has been produced since 1927.

Over the years there has been a gradual, but nevertheless real, change of emphasis in the importance of the various classes of official statistics in common with the growth and changing structure of the New Zealand economy. The quinquennial census, for example, though no less important than it has ever been, has become only one of many important classes of statistics. The consumers' price index and the estimates of national income and expenditure are two examples of other classes of statistics which have been developed to meet modern needs. The Department of Statistics collects, classifies, compiles, analyses, and publishes a wide range of official statistics, and this flow is supplemented by statistics produced by other Government Departments.

The volume of statistics has, of course, expanded steadily. The first statistical report, a volume entitled Statistics of New Zealand for 1853, 1854, 1855 and 1856 was issued by the Registrar-General, compiled from official records. It contained statistics of population, migration, external trade, agriculture, public finance, postal business, and prices. Statistical reports have been published regularly since the first report was issued, and new statistical series have been added as the country developed. By 1913 the Statistical Report had grown in size to 890 pages, and was issued in four separate volumes. From 1921 separate annual statistical reports have been issued for the different subjects, and the number had grown to 14 by 1960. Ten separate volumes are now published following each population census. Press releases are a fairly recent means of making available statistical data, as the time factor is no less important than coverage to meet modern needs.

Coordination of official statistics on an international basis has also been a growing feature for a number of years. New Zealand has been an elected member of the Statistical Commission under the Economic and Social Council of United Nations and G. E. F. Wood was chairman of the tenth session in 1958. The fifth Conference of British Commonwealth Statisticians was held in Wellington in November 1960, with J. V. T. Baker as chairman.

Successive Government Statisticians, with dates of appointment, have been: W. M. Wright, 12 December 1910; M. Fraser, 8 March 1911; J. W. Butcher, 1 July 1932; G. E. F. Wood, 10 August 1946; J. V. T. Baker, 26 June 1958.

by John Victor Tuwhakahewa Baker, M.A., M.COM., D.P.A., Government Statistician, Wellington.

(1875–1946).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

A new biography of Statham, Charles Ernest appears in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography on this site.

Charles Ernest Statham was born in Dunedin on 10 May 1875, the eldest son of Charles Hadfield Statham, who retired after a long career as an accountant and at 70 was ordained an Anglican priest. Statham was educated privately and at the Otago Boys' High School. He entered his father's office to train as an accountant but, unsatisfied, turned to the law and was admitted as a solicitor in 1901 and as a barrister in 1906. In 1904 he started practice, establishing the firm of Statham, Brent, and Anderson.

He represented the High Ward on the Dunedin City Council from 1911 to 1913 and was chosen as Reform candidate for Dunedin Central at the general election of 1911, defeating the sitting Liberal member, J. F. Arnold. However, he just held the seat against J. W. Munro, a Social Democrat, in 1914. During the years of war he had differences with the Coalition (Reform and Liberal) National Cabinet, due to his representing a city and working-class electorate and to his belief that the private member should have more say in party policy. In 1920 he moved a motion proposing that Cabinet should be elected by members of the dominant party

Statham was returned in 1919 with a substantial majority as an Independent and in 1921 took a leading part in the formation of the short-lived National Progressive and Moderate Liberal Party, which with the Liberals became the United Liberal Labour Party. He withdrew to contest the 1922 election as an Independent. At this election the Reform Party lost seats, including that of the Speaker, and though still the largest party, had only 38 supporters. To have elected one as Speaker would have further reduced the number, and Statham was nominated against James McCombs of the Labour Party. He was elected by 61 votes to 17.

While Statham's legal knowledge and parliamentary experience were invaluable, he studied long and deeply the rules and practice which govern procedure, with the result that he had an outstanding knowledge of parliamentary law. In his first term, with the Reform Government in a minority, he held a position of power but he was able to continue to assert his authority when the situation changed. He was master of the House in all respects and, while his years of office were amongst the stormiest in the history of the House, his firm hand did much to reduce feelings and to keep members under control. At the same time he was fair and did everything possible to uphold the rights of the private member.

Generally, Statham followed British parliamentary practice as Speaker. As an Independent he had little difficulty in withdrawing from party politics, but his suggestions that the Speaker should be returned unopposed at a general election were ignored. He was returned with reduced majorities over his Labour opponent in 1925 and 1928, but when it fell to 262 in 1931, he decided to retire at the 1935 election. Statham was probably the greatest Speaker the House has known. His rulings have stood the test of time, and during his term the office was held in great respect. He was created a Knight Bachelor in 1926.

After his retirement he went into practice again in Wellington, where he died on 5 March 1946. He was appointed to the Legislative Council in 1936 but spoke rarely and took no active part in politics. He married Lilias Harata te Aho Burnett, of Dunedin, in 1905 and had one daughter.

by James Oakley Wilson, D.S.C., M.COM., A.L.A., Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.

• Otago Daily Times, 6 Mar 1946 (Obit).

Starfishes are echinoderms, the name indicating “spiny-skinned”. To the same group belong sea urchins and sea slugs. The most distinctive structure of an echinoderm is an elaborate water-pumping system which operates numerous feeler-like processes known as tube feet. These tube feet are very noticeable on the under side of a starfish, and they assist greatly in the locomotion of the animal. Many of our starfishes have distinctive shapes and are easily recognised. The Comb Star (Astropecten polyacanthus) is a perfect five pointer, 8–9 in. across, and is found on sandy bottom from low water to 30 fm. The pentagonshaped Cushion Star (Asterina regularis), 2–3 in. across and variously brightly coloured, is our most abundant intertidal species. The Spiny Star (Coscinasterias calamaria) grows to 15 in. across, usually has 11 arms, and is common in the intertidal zone in most parts of New Zealand. The common Brittle Star, one of many different local species, differs from other starfishes in having the organs of the body restricted to a small central disc. When disturbed these brittle stars readily shed limbs in their efforts to escape.

by Arthur William Baden Powell, Assistant Director, Auckland Institute and Museum.

One example, the Model Building Bylaws (NZSS 95), shows the importance and practical significance of standards. Every local body had its own bylaws until 1935 when the first model building bylaws were published. This meant that in some towns and cities a builder had to work under some 20–30 differing and often contradictory sets of rules. Today the model building bylaws drafted through the New Zealand Standards Institute have been voluntarily adopted by more than 90 per cent of the local bodies. The saving in time and money is immense.

Today the value of good standards is universally recognised. They are an aid to design in manufacture and building, as well as to purchasing, storage, transport, and distribution, and they lead to wider acceptance of materials, products, and processes. The main purposes of standardisation are still to reduce needless variety in goods of a like nature, to lower production costs, to increase quality, and to make goods easily interchangeable.

With their aim for simplicity and economy in production and distribution, standards reduce waste and help to make the best use of the country's production.

Standardisation procedure is based on internationally established principles. A standardisation project is undertaken only when some responsible interest asks for it. The project is worked out by a committee appointed by the Council and represents all the main interested groups. A committee first drafts a specification and circulates it for comment to the manufacturing, distributing, user, professional, scientific, and other interests affected. The draft specification is also sent for comment and advice to the national standards organisations of other English-speaking countries. The committee then studies all comment received to see if the draft needs changing in order to make it the best possible statement and definition of commercial, industrial, or technological practice. It is then referred to the Minister. If he agrees with the draft he formally declares it a New Zealand Standard Specification. The new standard is then gazetted and printed for general use.

In July 1964 the Minister of Industries and Commerce announced that, if sufficient support for the move were forthcoming, the Standards Institute on 1 April 1965 would become an independent body. This new organisation would then be the sole recognised standards body in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Standards Institute is responsible in this country for the work of standardisation. It was originally established as a voluntary body at the instigation of the British Standards Institution in 1932. Since 1936 the Institute has been a Government organisation responsible to the Minister of Industries and Commerce. Administrative, secretarial, and clerical services are given by officers of the Standards Division of the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The authority, functions, and procedure of the Institute are defined in the Standards Act of 1941, which provides for a Standards Council, appointed by the Minister, to direct the activities of the Institute. It consists of representatives of State Departments, local bodies, manufacturing, farming, and commercial interests, distributive trades, trade unions, and consumer and women's organisations. It makes recommendations to the Minister about the formulation, promulgation, and application of standard specifications, the promotion of research, the registration and use of standard marks, and related matters. The, Council can also help State Departments, local authorities, and other public bodies to prepare specifications. Moreover, the Standards Act provides for the registration of standard marks as certification trademarks under the Patents Act and for the use of such standard marks under licence in connection with commodities, processes, or practices which conform to standard specifications.

The Standards Act, therefore, makes the development of standards of quality as much a function of the Government as the establishment of standards of weight and measure under the Weights and Measures Act. The various units of the latter are defined by law and it is an offence to claim that products conform to such standards when they do not do so. And in the same way the Standards Act allows standards of quality to be set up and honestly practised and maintained.

The earliest standards dealt with units of linear measurement, weight, and time. They were developed by the great civilisations of the ancient world into systems from which the origin of all corresponding European and Middle Eastern standards can be traced. But an industrial or commercial standard is not a standard of length, weight, or measurement in the sense of the standard yard or ounce – which are fundamental standards of measure. A standard may be defined as a carefully thought out method of performing a function, or as a carefully drawn specification of material, equipment, or commodities. A standard method is simply the best method that can be devised for performing a function.

The strict codes of the medieval merchant guilds are the first standards of quality in trade. The confusion of the industrial revolution in Britain had by the nineteenth century enforced the need for industrial standards on which to base business. There were no standard names for products; the goods of one manufacturer differed from those of another in unimportant details; users' specifications had multiplied; and industry itself recognised that it could no longer remain haphazard and trade successfully.

The first move was the standardisation of screw threads on the basic form of thread devised (after a wide survey and analysis in 1841) by Sir Joseph Whitworth. By 1901 the British Engineering Standards Committee was formed – the first standards organisation in the world established to develop national standard specifications. Since then standards organisations have been developed in nearly every country, and a world organisation (the International Organization for Standardization, ISO), has been established to coordinate national standard specifications. The New Zealand Standards Institute is a member of this organisation and at the present time is serving on the ISO Council for a three-year term.

New Zealand's standard of living is generally regarded as being one of the highest in the world and is within the range achieved by such countries as the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, the more advanced West European and Scandinavian countries, and Australia. This high position is derived in large part from New Zealand's close historical, cultural, and economic ties with the members of this group. There has thus been a ready absorption and early utilisation of the whole array of technical and organisational innovations associated with the rapid industrial progress overseas in the last 150 years. A low population density, coupled with favourable soils and climatic conditions, has made it possible for New Zealand to share directly in the increasing prosperity of these countries, largely by trading wool, meat, and dairy produce for the manufactures of the United Kingdom.

New Zealand's high standard of living is related to its favoured position on the periphery of the world's more dynamic economies. But the difficulty of maintaining and improving living standards on this basis has long been recognised; hence Government policy in recent years has been directed to building up in New Zealand an industrial structure which it is hoped will reduce the country's dependence on the sale of primary produce. As yet, such development is at a comparatively early stage, and it is essential that it be directed to areas where maximum increases in productivity can be achieved. It is only by increasing productivity that our high living standard can be maintained and improved.

Although the term “standard of living” is widely used, it has no accepted definitions and measures. There are difficulties inherent in comparing standards of living between different places and between different points of time. For example, the number of refrigerators per 1,000 persons may appear to the New Zealander as a useful and fairly central indicator. But this unit does not serve very well if we wish to compare our present standards with those of the Alaskans of today, or with those of New Zealanders 50 years ago. In the former case we would assume a lower need on the part of the Alaskan and, in the latter, changes in the methods of refrigeration and in types of food used would prevent true comparisons. Who is to say that the use of an icebox represents a lower standard of living than that of a refrigerator? Similarly, a motorcar is a different measuring rod for the Russian, whose Government has put emphasis on the development of communal rather than of private transport, for the New Zealander, or for the citizen of the United States of America where there is an extreme dependence on private transport. International comparisons of this type are usually made in terms of units per head or per 1,000. This method takes no account of variations in patterns of distribution between various sections of the population.

Thus, of two countries with the same average income per head, one may have a very unequal distribution of income with a few very rich and many very poor while, in the other, all incomes are at very much the same level.

Some idea of the New Zealand standard of living, in comparison with that of some other countries, is given by the table.

by John Victor Tuwhakahewa Baker, M.A., M.COM., D.P.A., Government Statistician, Wellington.