A BOARD WITHOUT POWER

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 146, 22 June 1928, Page 8

A BOARD WITHOUT POWER

♦ — It is significant that the Director of Education, in his.reply to tho Wellington Board, makes much of (the intention of the proposed Order-in-Council, but refrains carefully from quoting its terms. ' . ■ The Department (he states) was advised by tho Solicitor-General that the (existing) regulation was imperfect and would have to be amended in order to give full and definite effect to the intention of the original regulation—namely, that tho Minister shall 'decide who shall bo appointed to training' college staffs. What evidence have wo that this was the intention of. tho regulation? The Director supplies none;, but.- there is strong presumptive evidence to tho contrary in tho form of the regulation. If it were the intention to vest this authority in the Minister, it was surely unnecessary to take the roundabout way. No skill in 'draftsmanship was needed to express that intention clearly, and definitely. It was not so expressed, and tho only conclusion to be drawn is. that it was not the intention of the regulation, and that the Ministerial approval was provided for only as a safeguard for use in exceptional' circumstances. The new Order:in-Council goes very much, further than this. It places the whole power in the hands of tho Minister, graciously conceding to the Board the right to tender him such advice as it thinks fit, but providing at the same time that this advice shall not hinder or inconvenience him in any way. The. Director of Education endeavours to represent the Order-in-Council as neither retrospective nor restrictive. Its- retrospective operation is undeniable. Will the Director say that it cannot be applied, and no attempt will ;be made to apply it, to the Training College position? The new regulation (states the Director) does not limit the power .of the Board any more than does the old regulation quoted above. This will-not bear the'test of examination. The old regulation prescribed that the Board should make recommendations to the Minister, and, on receipt of the Minister's approval thereto, should make appointments accordingly. The new regulation requires the Board to submit all the names to the Minister, but allows it to recommend three in order of preference. ■In the event of the Minister intimating that he does not approve of any of the three applicants submitted, then the Board, if so directed by tho Minister, is to appoint the one of whom, from among all the applicants, the Minister signifies his approval, or again invite applications for the vacant position by advertisement. This can mean nothing less than that the Minister has a free and unfettered right to make his choice from tho whole list. The Board's power to make recommendations' is make-believe. No doubt the old regulation was imperfect in that it did not lay down the course to be followed if the Minister differed from the Board; but tho new regulation makes it perfect by making any difference impossible. ' The Minister has all tho power. The Board has none. We cannot see that in this case the circumstances were so exceptional as to warrant exerciscof tho Ministerial veto. The Board acted in accordance with the recommendations of tho Training College Committee of Advico. That Committee, it appears,l was not unanimous. Had tho division been between lay opinion and expert opinion there might have been reason for departmental intervention; but tho majority making the recommendation included one expert well ablo to decide what qualities were required for tho office of principal, arid in what degree the various applicants possessed those qualities. The Education Board, in these circumstances, rightly decided to make a stand. Had

it not done so it would have weakly conceded that its office was merely to act as dummy for tho Education Departmont. Failing to have its own way under the regulations, the Department then took the wholly unjustifiable step of amending the Order-in-Cquncil.. •It would be a travesty of justice if. the Government were to sanction such a course. 'The Director, of Education attempts to divert attention from this despotic misuse of power by stating:— The Board waß informed that if it were found impossible to secure a stronger applicant than the one select- . Ed by the Board, then, the Department would" agrbo with tho Board's choice. How does this profession of judicial righteousness square with the statement made by tho chairman of the Education Board, that the Department had already named tho man it wanted appointed—an officer the Department?