TRAINING OF CARPENTERS

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23415, 23 August 1941, Page 9

TRAINING OF CARPENTERS

CONTROL OF SCHEME BY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

TECHNICAL SCHOOLS’

CONCERN

(P.A.) NEW PLYMOUTH. August 22. “The executive of the Technical Education Association of New Zealand notes with some concern that the Government emergency training scheme for carpenters is to be placed under the Labour Department,” said a statement presented by a deputation from the association, waiting on the Minister for Education (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) at Hawera to-day. “We think that in the best interests of all concerned it should be controlled by the Education Department. The reasons why control should be exercised by the Education Department are: (1) The technical education system of New Zealand developed from the demand of the trades and industries concerned. Modern demands for technical instruction that is pre-voca-tional and theoretical, and .advanced technical training, have been met by the Education Department, and carried out efficiently by our technical high schools, combined schools, and technical colleges—the practice in all highly-developed industrial countries. (2) Revision has been made under the New Zealand industrial legislation for the training of apprentices under apprenticeship committees at technical schools. (3) It is felt that the establishment of any Government training schemes, apart from technical schools and colleges, is wrong in principle and uneconomical. (4) In technical schools and colleges we have equipment and staffs with half a century of experience behind them. These may need augmenting, but this would not cost as much as would the setting up of an entirely new branch of the Labour Department.” The Minister was asked that endeavours be made to prevent the setting up of t.ais new branch, which the association deemed unnecessary, until the matter was discussed with the Education Department and representatives of technical education. The Minister said it was always anticipated that technical schools would be the instrument through which the scheme would be carried out, and their staffs and equipment would be the backbone of the scheme. There were, however, other factors which came into the matter, for which the Labour Department, with its contacts with workers’ and employers’ organisations, was better suited to supervise. The main point was that there be co-oper-ation between the departments. As far as technical schools could do the job, they should be used, but he could not say to what extent the scheme could not be catered for by technical schools. He undertook to see the Minister for Labour and see that overlapping was minimised.