EDUCATION FUNDS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 4 October 1927, Page 5

EDUCATION FUNDS.

WELLINGTON BOARD CRITICISED THE MINISTER’S REPLY. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 3. In the House of Representatives last night Mr. P. Fraser quoted Largely from a file of correspondence between the Education Department and the Wellington Education Board for the purpose ot showing that the administration of the board was most unsatisfactory. Government officers reporting that the board’s system of accounting was most unsatisfactory, that what looked Like false claims had been made against the department, and that trust funds amounting to over £SOOO had been mis-applied.

Mr Fraser said there was a great deal more he might quote, but he had said enough to show that a serious position -had existed when the present Minister of Education took office. Before he left office Sir James Parr had come to the conclusion that no further Government grants should be made to the Wellington. Education Board, but in spite of this the present Minister had recommended Cabinet to grant the sum of £3OOO to the board. Mr It. McKeen thought that after the strong statement made in the correspondence file, the Ministry should have made some reply. He then proceeded to make further quotations from the file, showing that to put the board on a proper solvent basis the sum of £9OOO would be necessary.

The fike quoted by Mr Eraser and liiinself covered the period from August, 1922, up to the appointment of the new Minister of Education in 1926, and he did not believe that if Fir James Parr bail remained in office, he would not have sanctioned any further grants to the board, but the present Minister had granted a. sum which had helped to make {he board solvent.

The Hon. R. A. Wright, in reply, said if Mr McKeen had read the file light through lie would have seen that Sir James Parr had agreed, on certain conditions, to grant the board between 1:8030 and £9300. Those" conditions were not accepted by tns» board and the grant was not made but Sir James Parr was willing to grant a much larger sum than he (Mr Wright) had asked Cabinet to grant.

So lar as the accounts were concerned, there was nothing more than mucldlement, but tnose accounts were certified by the Audit Department as correct, and members of the board had accepted that certificate. What more could be e.\pe,ted of them? Tbe statement tn at there was misappropriation of funds was a wrong term to use; all that had happened was that the lands o; one account had been used' to pay the obligations of another account. Money may thus have been misapplied, mit it must be admitted that the school sites purchased in tni.s way were good ourgants. teo far as his action in advising the Cabinet to make the grant was concerned, there was nothing seciet about it file went to tne Cabinet frankly and told the laet.s as he knew them. L’he money was put on the Estimates and was discussed at length, until it veas finally agreed that the file should .a, placed" at the disposal of members. The board had properties it eou.d sell at a profit, and those moneys would go ,o make up ils deficiencies. The whole thing wins merely a storm in a teacup. Mr. F. J. Howard said there was an obligation on the part of members of public boards to investigate the affairs of the boards when they got into a muddle and he could not understand how a Minister of the Crown could stand up in his place in the House and do,fend members for not doing so. He was proud of our public bodies, and for that reason he wanted to know who was responsible for the muddle of this board’s accounts, and who was responsible for what Sir James aD.I 1 * called misappropriation of the board s mono vs. He thought the Prime Minister ' would like to have tins matter cleared up, and, to give him a chance of doing so. he moved as an amendment to the motion before the House: “That in the opinion of this House the position of the Wellington Education Hoard should bo fully investigated. Mr. J A. Lee: ‘‘According to the Minister’s line of argument anything

might be done and there would be no o.lence so long as the Audit Department did not find it out!” The Minister claimed, said Air. Lee, that there was no harm in tile misapplication o. money so long as the result was satisfactory. Tlius the board might iia.e a punt on Limerick, ana there would be no harm done so long :us Lime, ick won. He ventured to sa,> that if this had been a Labour educa,ion board its members would have been prosecuted, but two members oi the board had been elected to the Mouse on the Reform side, and so, instead oi prosecution, the board’s bungling was condoned. He wondered how men who had made such a sorry mess nr local affairs were going to be successful in conducting national affairs. He seconded the amendment. After Air. P. Fraser bad made further reference to the correspondence file, at 10.55 p.m. a division was taken on Air. Howards’ amendment, which was lost by 36 votes to 15. Air. 11. G. It. Mason then carried on the debate, criticising the engineering staff of the Seddon College at Auckland, and contending that they were la king in knowledge of advanced mathematics. He also complained oi the “pin-pricking” methods of the principal of that college towards his subordinates.

The House went into Committee of Supply and the following estimates were passed: Lands Department, 6169,532; Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Account, £-39,995; La<ydis for Settlement Account, £3441 and. £2629; S.enerv Preservation. £4800; Valuation Department. £49,421; Industries and Commerce Department £34,910. The House rose at 1.20 a.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-day.