The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1926. DEPARTMENTAL CONTROL

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 206, 31 August 1926, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1926. DEPARTMENTAL CONTROL

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

From time to time we have had occasion to protest against the tendency of various administrative Departments in this country to enlarge their authority and extend their activities unduly. In a community which is organised socially and politically on democratic lines, this centralisation of power is bound sooner or later to come into violent conflict with public sentiment, and to react injuriously upon those public interests which are best secured by local administrative control. Unfortunately the desire of a certain limited number of people in authority to convert a democracy into a bureaucracy is still unsatisfied; and a striking instance of this tendency to centralise all public functions and duties under Departmental control is to be found in the Government's Agricultural College Bill.

As our readers should know, there was for some time a serious difference of opinion about tbe site of the proposed agricultural college. Indeed, it was only when Wellington and Auckland University Colleges, sacrificing local prejudices in the public interest, agreed to pool their resources and accept a compromise which wf» not particularly attractive to either party, that the dispute was settled and the new college came within the range of practical politics. But Wellington' and Auckland Colleges had no idea of surrendering their right to control the new institution, and after some discussion with the Government they agreed to a scheme which would have given Government three members on the College Council, while Victoria College and our own University College were to appoint two members each, and the head of the Agricultural College waa to be "ex ofiicio" a full member of the Council.

But the Agricultural College Bill now before the House has completely altered the basis of representation. It provides for five Government representatives, while the two colleges are to have only two members each, and the principal of the Agricultural College, though permitted to attend meetings of the Council and to express His opinions, is not to be allowed a vote. This, of course, means that the two educational institutions which have done everything in their power to make a central Agricultural College practicable are to be in a permanent minority on the new Council, and the institution will, therefore, be virtually controlled by the Department of Agriculture through the members of Council nominated by Government.

We are not surprised that this assumption of bureaucratic authority at the expense of the institutions chiefly concerned has evoked a vehement remonstrance. Wβ sympathise strongly with the attitude adopted by the president of the Auckland University College at the council meeting' yesterday, and the resolution carried protesting against the decision of Government to "swamp" the Agricultural College Council with official lay members, and it deserves vigorous public support. Nobody can pretend that Departmental officials, however efficient they may be, can be as competent to manage a college of this character as educational experts such as the College Councils would nominate, or the principal of the college himself; and this Bill simply means that the educational efficiency of this important academic institution is to be sacrificed to Departmental greed for power.

The two University Colleges have certainly a strong case against the Government. They have already established recognised Schools of Agriculture of their own, which are, of eouree, controlled by their governing bodies. But to get rid of all obstacles to a satisfactory settlement they were prepared to sacrifice their independence, and even to pool certain valuable interests—the Buchanan and Campbell requests—to assist in financing the new college. Now, after being led to understand that their proposed scheme of management would be accepted, they are confronted by the Government with a threat to overwhelm them and reduce them to virtual impotence on the College Council. It is a serious question whether the two colleges would not be justified in at once withdrawing from the scheme altogether. But in its public bearings the Government's Bill involves even more serious implications. For just as the University Amendment Bill is largely an attempt to subordinate the University to the Education Department, so this Agricultural College proposes to centralise the control of an important branch of the University in an official Department, and, in addition, it threatens to super-* cede educational expert authority by the control of bureaucrats who may be wholly ignorant of educational principle or the -working of a University system.