BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Southland Times, Issue 22052, 27 June 1933, Page 9

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

To the Editor. Sir, —My reply to Mr Sampson is sufficient if I quote various legal and official documents as follows:— Sub-section (4) of Section 56 of “The Education Act 1914” reads thus: “The school shall be open five days in each week for at least four hours each day, two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive, and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.”

Otago Education Board’s amendment to Clause 5 of By-laws, notified on February 1, 1929;—

Management of the School: The ordinary hours of instruction in every school shall in the case of all classes be five hours daily on five days in each week except as follows: — (a) The committee may determine that the hours of instruction in the preparatory classes shall not exceed four. (b) The committee may determine that on one day in each week the number of hours of instruction shall in the case of any one or more

standards be four and one-half hours. In a memorandum sent out by the board to head teachers and school committees the following appears under date February 1, 1929:— A committee will now by resolution be able to fix the teaching hours for any particular standard or standards. For instance if there are religious instructors available for S 4, S 5 and S 6 only for say Monday morning, the following resolution should be passed namely:— “The school hours for S 4, S 5 and S 6 on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday shall be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and on Monday from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. etc.” In response to my inquiry of the secretary of the Otago Education Board concerning the legal position where a school is open for compulsory secular instruction in certain standards at the same time that the remaining standards are receiving voluntary religious instruction, by his courtesy I received the following reply:— Dunedin, October 28, 1932. Dear Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 25th inst, I have to say that the board’s by-law dealing with school hours has the support of both the board's own solicitors and the Crown Law Office. The opinion of the Crown Law Office is concise and I enclose copy for your information.—l am, etc., (Signed) G. W. Carrington. Secretary.

The opinion, while concise, is too lengthy nevertheless for insertion in full, but the following extracts should suffice:—

“The Otago Education Board has made a by-law . . . empowering the committee to determine that on one day in each week the number of hours shall, in the case of one or more standards, be four and a half. In other words the by-law gives power to fix different numbers of hours for different standards, and I am asked to advise whether this is legal. “I am of opinion that the by-law is valid and effective. It does not conflict with the provisions of Section 56 (4) of the Education Act 1914, and I can find nothing elsewhere in the Act requiring that the hours of instruction shall be uniform for all standards or classes. It has long been, the practice to fix a lesser number' of hours for the infant or preparatory classes than for the rest of the school and it has never been suggested that this is illegal or contrary to the Act. If this is admitted then it follows that it is lawful to fix different numbers of hours respectively for different portions of the rest of the school. “If for standards 4, 5 and 6 for one day in each week the hours are from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. the school is not open so far as those standards are concerned from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. on that day. The fact that by arrangement those standards attend at the schoolhouse and receive religious instruction during that half hour is quite immaterial and does not affect the legal position.” This legal statement from the Crown Law Department should set the matter quite clearly before your readers and my only additional comment is to say that the Otago Board differs from some other boards in limiting religious instruction to one day only. In a letter (September 22, 1932) from the Minister of Education on this matter the statement appears:—

“The board may allow more than half an hour a week for religious instruction provided it complies with the requirements of the Act in respect of school hours for secular in-

struction.” Hence the Wanganui Board's new regulation permitting of , five minutes each day, and lengthening this to twenty minutes on one day in the week, and the Canterbury Board’s resolution of March 17, 1922, permitting half an hour every day, in no way conflict with the requirements of the Act in Subsection 4 of Section 56 (1914), for the four hour period each day required for secular instruction is still more than filled.—l am, etc., E. O. BLAMIRES, Sec. N.Z. Bible-in-Schools League. Feilding, June 22, 1933. P.S.: The Bible-in-Schools League views the Nelson system as good as far as it goes, but inadequate as a Dominion scheme of religious education in State schools. My object in writing is simply to clarify the position with respect to the legal standing of the Nelson system.—E.O.B.

PROSPERITY PLAN CRITICIZED. To the Editor. Sir, —The proposals submitted under the above heading in Thursday’s issue of the Southland Times by an anonymous author, “Zed,” are thoughtprovoking and constructive. They concern the farmer 'and his problems—vital issues we have to meet. On the way in which they are solved largely depends the future stability of industry and agriculture in the Dominion. For this reason I offer a criticism of the Prosperity Plan. The Plan has many limitations. It ignores the complexity of the “causes” underlying the “problems,” and it unduly exaggerates the relative importance of the agricultural industry. For this reason, it is necessary, in criticizing the “Plan,” to view farming in as clear a setting as possible. And in doing so we must bear in mind the fact that many “causes” are of obscure origin, and that it is almost impossible to study agricultural problems without taking all other industries into consideration.

What are the problems the "Plan” is going to solve? First, fall in world prices, due to contraction of the market. This was caused chiefly by entry of new competitors, shift in consumers’ demand (1) and other subsidiary causes and effects. From this point of view, the farmer must obtain both higher prices and either new markets in the Far and Near East, or a larger share of the English market. The possibility of this eventuating in the near future is likely to be discounted by the “back to the land policy” of Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and the agricultural revolution that has taken place in Central Europe. The “Plan” would have been more effective had it included a marketing proposal. Second in importance, we may take internal organization of production. To what extent is there absence of coordination and waste? Is the present “heads I win—tails you lose” method of selling cheese, for example, the most effective? Or would a centralized body under the aegis of the Farmers’ Union selling all the cheese produced give better results? And what of the dairy factories? Are there, relatively, too many dairy factories for the output? Would co-ordination be economical? Associated with this is transport and farm organization, which has been neglected in the past (2). The “Plan” ignores this aspect. Thirdly, there is the necessity for an improved method of obtaining farm requisites, seeds, manures, and information regarding the markets. What improvements can be made? Any under the Plan?

Fourthly, there is the need for a systematic supply of credit to the farmers. The State Advances, Rural Credit, etc., are antiquated. The farmer is too frequently compelled to resort to “firms” and “agents” .to be good for him. The problem of “sins of the past” in the form of high land values, heavy mortgages and lost savings probably looms largest. The extent to which the farmer will carry the “burden” largely depends on himself, and the extent he is prepared to unite in order to place the load on the right shoulders. The question of “rates and taxes” is solved by organizing production of a fresh basis.

The foregoing is an incomplete summary of the situation, but it will serve to test the “Plan.” It will be seen that the Plan touches only one point, namely, finance. The author states that the raising of the money for his scheme would not cost "the taxpayer a penny.” Why would it not? The method proposed is for a Central Bank to issue notes, presumably under Government supervision. I am prepared to argue that it would cost the taxpayer a good many pennies in taxation, and th.. is a dangerous method. Note issue by a Government is, under most circumstances, a form of taxation “which the public finds hardest to evade, and even the weakest Government can enforce it when it can enforce nothing else (3). It is dangerous because it is difficult to control, as the experience of Germany and Austria after the Great War proved. Moreover, _ even though it were practicable, evidence has to be produced to prove that it is sound economics to expend so much on one industry. There is also the danger that pressure will be brought to bear in order to help other industries. The fact that the notes would be issued on land—if such were possible—would be no guarantee of stability. People normally want anything but “land” for their notes. The history of the French Assignats should make us wary of any such proposals (4). The author admits that the issue of notes would force our price level up. This is likely to take place as a result of the exchange. What the author leaves us vague about is how he proposes to adjust the internal price level under his scheme with that of the Home market. Any disparity must reflect to our disadvantage. There is also the question qf a rise in land values. Would not the inauguration of the plan attract farmers on poor land and encourage the best to hold the land and reap the indirect benefit? The difficulties of adjusting valuations, allocating the money, and incidentals attached to administering the scheme could, with advantage, be more fully explored. One source of confusion appears to lie in the author’s refusal to accept the underlying principles on which industry is carried on. He states we are not a “capitalistic and industrial country.” His attitude largely turns on what the terms mean to him. Defining “capitalism” as “an economic organization based on the principle of personal freedom to produce, sell and buy as one chooses,” we must admit the existence of capitalism in New Zealand.

The particular merit of the “Prosperity Plan” would seem to be in the fact that it points the way rather than takes us there. It is one of the few constructive proposals that have been thought out, and is indicative of an earnest desire on the part of ‘“Zed” for a solution of the sleeping sickness which has overtaken us.

The above criticism is necessarily of a general nature; it must not be taken as antagonistic, but rather as spade work, and subject to the limitation imposed by space. If “Zed” wishes, I shall be glad to discuss the details with him.—l am, etc., RODERICK McIVOR.

Woodend, June 23, 1933. 1. “Britain and World Trade,” A. Loveday. 2. “New Zealand in the Making,” J. B. Condliffe. 3. “Monetary Reform,” J. K. Keynes. 4. “The Story of Money,” Norman Angus.