Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1928. GOVERNMENT BY REGULATION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 212, 6 August 1928, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1928. GOVERNMENT BY REGULATION.

It is not often we find ourselves in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, but he is certainly on the right lines in attacking- the principle of government by regulation, as lie has done in the Education Amendment Bill he introduced in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The main purpose of that Bill is the repeal of a clause in the Education Act, 1919, which gives the Government power “notivithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act,” to make regulations by Order-in-Council, and further providing that “no regulation under this section shall be inATilid because it deals with any matter provided for in the principal Act, or is contrary to the provisions of that Act.” The clause in question provides further, that “all regulations in force on the passing of this Act . . . shall be deemed to be made under this section.” While it is impossible to altogether abolish the powers conferred upon Ministers, by Acts of Parliament empowering them to make regulations for the administration of such Acts, there are occasions upon which regulations have been made, and acquired the force of IaAV which are contrary to the spirit and even the letter of the statutes themselves. Within the last few years there has been a good deal of criticism concerning the transference of such authority from Parliament to the departmental officials, who are primarily responsible for drafting the regulations. On the part of the public there have also been protests against the principle, which invests the Government with power to make these regulations._ However, there may be nothing to which very serious objection can be taken against the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Government under the special section which Mr Holland is attacking. The powers it confers are limited to the grading of public and native schools; prescribing the number and grades of teachers to be employed in such schools; requiring that certain positions in such schools be filled only by male teachers, or by female teachers as the case may be; prescribing the rates of salaries, alloAvances and increments that may be paid to any teacher . . . and the conditions of such payments ; prescribing conditions subject to Avhich leave of absence may be granted to teachers, pupil teachers, probationers, and training college students, and authorising the payment of salaries or allowances during such

leave, and prescribing tbe rates of allowances that may be paid towards the cost of the removalof teachers on transfer from one school to another. The Government has to find the funds for the upkeep of the education system and, while the schools and the teachers are primarily under the control of the nine education boards functioning in the Dominion, it is very necessary that there should be uniformity in grading and the treatment of the teaching staff. It would, certainly, be a difficult matter to provide for the former by Act of Parliament, as the authorities of the Education Department who are charged with the efficient conduct of the schools must, to a very considerable extent, be the sole judges of their classification. Mr Holland’s action is probably based upon the recent trouble which arose between the chairman of the Wellington Education Board and the department over the appointment of the principal of the Wellington Training College, and that does not appear to come within the ambit of. the section which it is sought to repeal. There are other regulations, made by Order-in-Councii, to which more serious objection might be taken than the one Mr Holland has assailed, but we are in cordial agreement wtih his con-, tention that “no regulation should be made which would override statute law.” The Nationalist leader (Mr G. W. Eorbes) was candid enough to admit that members of the Liberal Party themselves did not like the use of Orders-in-Council by their own Government and had prbtested against it. Personally, he said, he A'ery much disliked it, and it seemed to be groAving worse and worse. Government by Order-in-Council Avas something which the Opposition should on every occasion protest against, as powers taken in that Avay are far too wide. It seems to us that Ministers themselves are largely to blame for the use which is made of these Orders-in-Council at the instance of Departmental officials; the regulations which are made .from time to time at their behest tending to increase bureaucratic government, to which all true democratic ideas of government are opposed. There is a conviction on the part of an increasingly iarge section of the public that Government officials seek to arrogate to themselves increasing powers which enable them to override the powers of Parliament itself, and we Avould suggest to Mr Coates and his colleagues that they should seA r erely restrict this government by regulation business and eliminate, as far as their authority goes, the bureaucratic tendencies of Government officials. .