SCHOOL PUPILS’ BOOKS

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 5 September 1932, Page 8

SCHOOL PUPILS’ BOOKS

THE EXTENDED CONTRACTS. EDUCATIONAL BODY CRITICAL. ‘‘lf the new arrangement for the supply of school books’ is prooe-6-clocl wrtii, it will be done in defiance of the prayer of some 19,000 interested petitionersrepresenting: parents 1 throughout the Dominion,” states a reply to a recent announcement by the Minister or Education, the Hon. R.. Masters, issued by the publicity committee of the Wellington School Committees and Educational Federation. The criticism continues : “It is extremely unfortunate that the Minister should choose. to flagrantly flout the educational opinion of the nation, even to the extent of ignoring the prayer of about 14,000 sTgnatures, while seriously prejudicing a petition containing a further 5000 signatures which is to be presented to Parliament in the coming session. Is it too much to hope that- Cabinet wjlL hesitate to endorse such folly and autocracy?’.’ The .statement from the School committees' deals chiefly with the Minister’s announcement that by extending the contract of the book publishers for four years after 1933 parents of primary school children will save about £40,000 in the aggregate. 3he school committees’ organisation criticises the Minister’s' reference to the recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission in support of his action. It is argued that a recommendation from the Commission is not in itself sufficient justification for any specific action by the Government. The fact that Cabinet has felt no incumbency to accept the recommendations in their entirety is quoted in support of this retort.

OBSTACLE TO REDUCED PRICES The reply to the Minister’s reference to the costs which would be entailed in the preparation of new manuscripts is as follows: “Everyone will agree it is desirable under present conditions to reduce costs, and that on no account should they be increased unless it can be shown that the practical gain is out of all proportion to the increased cost. Any suggestion, however, that a reduction of costs is dependent upon the renewal of the current contract for the supply of school books is mere assumption resting on no basis of fact.” It is added that educational bodies, while strongly criticising the Minister’s action, have been most insistent in their advocacy for reduced prices. The monopoly of the copyright under the current contract has been the insuperable obstacle to any realisation of this advocacy, it is stated. ‘By renewing the contract the Minister has perpetuated conditions, making it more difficult to bring about a reduction of prices to correspond with a falling market, and he has left a monopoly m its previous more or less invulnerable position, free to dictate its own terms regardless of any failing price level during the next five and a lialf years. The Minister claims that bv renewing the contract he has played* the part of good Samaritan to the* parents because he has saved them £7500 a year. He proceeds to camouflage the* issue by talk of a £40,000 saving over the period of the contract.

, ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. It is reasonable to assume that the ; books can be supplied at 221 per cent. [ reduction on immediate past prices without sacrificing trading profit. It is the considered opinion of the Auckland Master Printers’ Association that, if the manuscript were held by the Education Department and tenders called for the printing and distribution of school books, a saving of £15,001) to £20,000 per annum would be effected as against £7500 under the latest proposal of the Minister.” The conclusion is drawn from the above figures that instead of saving parents £7500 a year, the Minister is imposing an unnecessary cost of over £6OOO a year. It is stated discussions between the New Zealand Master Printers’ Association and the publishers in 1925 established facts which indicate that the present reduction should have been made two years ago. The later fall in price levels is quoted in support of the contention that the reduction now due should be nearer 40 per cent, than the actual figure of 221 per cent. This would mean a cut of from £IO,OOO to £12,000 a year, instead of the l £7500. The statement continues: “Here were all the possibilities for effecting a saving of £60,000 or £70,000 over the next live and a half years, instead of £40,030. The country is entitled to expect the Minister to insist on this reduction without bargaining away the natural rights of other citizens who are competitive traders. Ii this were clone the interests of the education system need not be sacrificed by placing on it the necessity for working with obsolete text-books.” The hope is expressed in the statement that the question will be submitted to the Education Committee of the House of Representatives during the next session.