THE SCHOOL BOOK CONTRACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21772, 11 October 1932, Page 12

THE SCHOOL BOOK CONTRACT

TO THE EDITOR. >Sik_. —A great ileal of ink has been spilt over the controversy in the newspapers concerning the school text book contract. We have had the views of the Guild of Printers, the Master Printers’ Federation, the South Island Federation of. School Committees’ Association, and numerous correspondents, all giving their oninions about the renewal of the contract for the printing of the school text book—and all with one accord damning the contract and the Minister who brought it about. There has been talk of the printers using the school committees as catspaws in this controversy, and a rejoinder by the local association that it could not be accused of being led by the printers, since, as far back as 1924, it had forwarded a remit on to the annual meeting of the South Island Federation dealing with this very question. But let us look a little more closely into this matter. By whom was the matter brought forward? By a

printer. At the annual meeting at Timaru it was introduced by the same gentleman, and after some discussion the matter was left in the hands of two of the .delegates—one being the aforementioned printer—to deal with. In furtherance of the scheme, prices were obtained from leading printers in the chief centres. The then Director of Education (Mr Caughley) was interviewed, and later ■ Sir James Parr, who was Minister of Education at that time, was also approached. Everything was moving along swimmingly when there came a sudden halt—and silence. What had happened? Just this. The printers who were interested in the scheme made a compact with the publishers of the books that if the latter would come and play in the printers’ back yard would join up with the Printers’ Federation—all agitation in connection with the school books would be abandoned. The publishers agreed to this, and the agitation ceased. There was no reference whatever to the South Island Federation of School Committees’ Associations, the printers concerned just did. it “off their own.bat,” showing conclusively that they considered the fight theirs, and theirs alone, .with the School Committees’ Association nowhere in the picture. From 1925 to 1930 nothing, or very little, was done. The controversy was dead, but in the latter year the Master Printers Guild (or Printers’ Guild) of Christchurch resurrected the corpse and started it off again. It circularised as many school committees as possible, and asked them to back up its protest. This started some committees going, and then the Master Printers’ Federation took a hand, and it has been the chief power (behind the scene to a large extent) in the controversy. What I would like to know is, What claim can the printers advance that the contract for school books should be let by open tender?. It denies this very right to every business man, merchant, or citizen who wants printing done. If it claims the right in one instance, surely it should grant it in the other. . The printers’ claim is that if the printing of the school books was let by tender the price would be 33 1-3 per cent, less than at present. The merchant and the business man say that if they were able to get their printing done by open tender they would get it done at 33 1-3 per cent, less than they have to pay at present. Possibly they are both right, but what are the printers going to do about it. Are they going to give the. public an opportunity of getting its printing done by open tender and justify themselves in going to the Minister and claiming to have the contract for the school books let by open tender, or are they going on m the same old way and putting themselves “ out of court ” in this matter ? 'At the present time it is common knowledge to those in the know that the printers do not care “ two hoots ” what the public has to pay for its school books. AH they are concerned in is getting an opportunity of “ putting one over the publishers of the school books, reckoning that if they can get an opportunity of tendering for the books they will make it that hot that there will be- no profit to the present holders. , The school committees need not lay tne flattering unction, to their souls that the printers are fighting on their behalf. Ihe printers are looking after themselves. What guarantee has the School Committees’ Association that the printers will not leave them high and dry.- as they did before, if it suits their book? I must apologise, Sir, for trespassing so much on your valuable space, but 1 thought t only fair that the public should know just what is behind all this noise and bother. —I am, etc., Dunedin. October 10. Light.