EDUCATION BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 February 1933, Page 7

EDUCATION BILL

OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS LABOUR MEMBERS TAKE EXCEPTION PUNISHMENT OF TEACHERS (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 10th February. Bitter opposition to proposals contained in the Education Amendment Act Bill was expressed in the House of Representatives this morning, when the measure came before the House. Although members had only a brief outline of the contents of the .'Bill from the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes), the Opposition took exception to the Bill, especially the clause placing teachers on the same basis as public servants. Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) said that the Government was putting the lash on public servants. Under the proposals if a school teacher dared to criticise the premium oil exchange, or the sales tax, he could be disciplined. The Prime Minister; “Y T ou haven’t got things right. When you get a copy of the Bill you will see.” Mr Lee declared that if a civil servant criticised the Government policy he would be victimised. Anything was good enough for a professor as long as he agreed with the Government policy, but if he wrote a footnote to a pamphlet, as was the case in Auckland, he would be retrenched. “This country is being governed by a Prussianistic dictatorship,” he added. Loud laughter was heard from Mr A. E. Jull (Coalition United, Waipawa). “And the member who laughs immediately begins the goosestep when the sergeant-major gives the command,” said Mr Lee.

The Prime Minister said he wished to relieve anxiety regarding the question of pressure on teachers. At the present time the only powers belonging to ail education board were to either suspend or dismiss teachers. There had been cases where teachers had returned late from holidays or had defied boards by refusing to carry out instructions. Under the Bill boards would be able to impose fines of up to £lO. The Bill was more or less a machinery one.

“Boards have always been able to punish teachers,” said Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South). “Boards can punish teachers in a thousand ways. They can pursue a teacher until his life is not worth living.” ■ The Prime Minister: “Are you a member of a board which does that sort of thing?” “I wish I could get on that board at times,” said Mr Howard. “Most of the boards are composed of country members, and when you get a board comprised of city and country members it is impossible to make any advance.” A voice: “Does that apply to Parliament as well?” BIASSED LEGISLATION Mr Howard: “Yes, all our legislation has an agricultural bias.” He protested against the callousness of the Education Department, which had driven children from the West Christchurch School to the Addington School because it had made West Christchurch an intermediate school. Small children now had to walk a- mile to Addington, crossing over one of the worst level crossings in the Dominion. If one child was killed at that crossing the responsibility .would be on the Department,” 7. U' At this stage the Chairman of Committees (Mr S. G. Smith) called Mr Howard to order on the around that he was not discussing tlie Bill. . “I thought I would be pulled up,’ said Mr Howard. “Immediately I begin to criticise this Department' I am pulled up.” Ih- 1 The Chairman: “You mukt not say that. You must not reflect on the Chair.” . n

Mr Howard: “I don’t mind.” , The Chairman: “You must not 'say that.” Mr Howard: “All right. I’ll think it anyhow.” The Chairman said he did not think that it was an appropriate time for Mr Howard to make his protests. Mr Howard: “The Chairman always pulls me up when I speak.” Mr Lee said that the House should refuse to agree to any Bill which came from the Education Department, for there was no Minister responsible for the measure in the House. “DEVOID OF IDEALS” Mr H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said the Prime Minister was justified in describing the Bill as a -machinery one. That was a term tliat could be applied to every Bill dealing with Education which the Coalition Government had introduced. The Government was totally devoid of ideals so far as education was concerned. , Mr F. Langstone (Labour, YVainiarino) caused some amusement by referring to a letter written by Sir Truby King in support of the Government s action in fixing the school age at sixyears. Mr Langstone drew a picture of Sir Truby sitting up in bed with a wet towel around liis head and writing, the article in order to please the Minister of Education, whom Mr Langstone described as “this great autocraft enshrined in the glory of ‘another place. Mr R, A. Wright (Government, YVellington Suburbs) defended the Education Department from any charge of callousness. His experience had not been in that direction at all. “The present Director of Education is the real dictator,” said the Rev. C. Carr (Labour, Timavu): “his retirement is absolutely overdue.” Mr. Carr paid a tribute to Mr Atmore’s work as Minister of Education, and said that with Mr Atmore they always knew what was being done. „ The Bill was read a first tune.