N.Z. UNIVERSITY.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19770, 7 November 1929, Page 11

N.Z. UNIVERSITY.

PROPOSED RESTORATION ! OF GRANTS. DISCUSSION IX PARLIAMENT. [THB PRESS Sptcial S*rrice ] WELLINGTON. November 6. The proposal in the New Zealand Fid- : versity Amendment Bill to restore the | statutory grants was the subject of some , debate in the House of Rer>re»ent»tire» \ to-day during tho second resiling of the . measure. Mr K. A. Wright v R , Wellington j Suburbs'* contended that unless the ! Minister could give a very sound reason < the change in the present method was . not justified. Ho submitted that the j vote should come before Parliament ' annually along with other appropriations. His personal opinion was that ! the University Council did not need the ! nionev, as at the present time it had an accumulated fund of £70.000. and. therefore, was in a very strong financial position. When the grant was j originally made, the Council was just struggling alony. but the position today was vastly different, and the grant would not be used. It would go to the Accumulated Fund. Mr Wright said he would not mind if there was a limit fixed, but the grants could go on accumulating indefinitely, lie was strongly in favour of both secondary and primary schools receiving all the money they wanted before voting further sums j to a body which had such a huge sur- j plus. ' ! "Has the Minister for Education ample funds?" asked Mr Wright, "la he never pressed for money in other ' directionsf Have the primary- and secondare schools all tho money trier want ? I venture to suggest that funds are urgently required right through the dominion "for educational purposes, and until we have satisfied the wants of primary, technical, and secondary schools we are not in a position to continue making grants to a Council has an accumulated, fund of £70.000. •To him that hath shall be given,' that seems to be the position." Mr Downie Stewart (R., Dunedin West) j said he also objected to the clause ro- j lating to the statutory grants, otherwise the Bill appeared to be quite reasonable. Twelve months ago Parliament decided that the grant should be an annual appropriation, and he sawno reason for a change being made. He was surprised that the Treasury had agreed to the proposal in the Bill. It was quite true that technically the matter would come before Parliament i everv year, but only if attention were j drawn "to it. The "mere fact that the University Council desired the change j should not be sufficient to induce the Minister to give way. Mr J. A. Young (R., Hamilton) said that on principle he objected to the power's of Parliament being whittled away, and for that reason he would walk into the lobby on his own, it necessary, and vote against the proP °The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H E Holland) said the University wm entitled to know what its annual income was, and should not be at the mercy of the Minister. Implying to the discussion the Minister for EdncAtion (the Hon. Mr Atmore) said the attitude which had been taken was exactly the same.as that of last year. It was not proposed to relinquish control by Parliament The very fact that they the question that day proved that the matter was one for £"«•»*»*•'? "- tion. After, all, if there wai a financial crisis there was nothing to prevent Parliament interfering with the vote He pointed out that in 1870 the tory grant was £3OOO, in 1920 it Was xSea g sed to £4OOO, but in 1922, when the 'cuts' were made, it waa reduced to £3545. The expense, of the Urn yersities had increased to £4731, white there had been a decrease in income of £ Mr > Wright: What is the cause of the increase in expenses! f> "Largely examination fees, tb plied the Minister, who j there was not the •%"«* ™ ™r Bit He te*sp &HP ?SSd agS to % the BiU through. The Bill was read a second time.