Untitled

Timaru Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 6066, 27 September 1894, Page 2

The Hon. Mr Reeves' School Attendance Bill was read a third time and passed by the House of Representatives on Friday morning, and is now before the COUnCU, Wlii.»» tUa dCVOnS roaiiag was agreed to on the voiceß on Tuesday. As far as we oan glean from the meagre reports which, have reached us, the House did not make much alteration m the Bill. There was, however, at least one amendment (carried by the narrow majority of 23 to 21) which is of importance. The Bill as it originally stood threw on the Education Board the duty of taking proceedings to compel the school attendance of any truant child. The Board had first to give notice m writing to the parent or guardian to send the child to sohool. If the notice was disregarded the parent or guardian had to be summoned before the Stipendiary Magistrate or two Justices of the Peace. On proof of the facts the court could order the ohild to be sent to school. Any parent or guardian neglecting to obey the order, or after a time peasing to obey it, was made liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s, and the payment of the penalty was to be no bar to further proceedings m case of subsequent neglect. There were other provisions as to the fining of a parent or guardian for the inconstant attendance of a child. The amendment to which we referred above threw on the School Committee instead of the Eduoation Board the responsibility of taking proceedings. Except m that particular the provisions as to prosecutions and the infliction of fines were left unaltered. By section 9, any person appointed by the Board as truant officer might conduct the 'prosecutions on behalf of the Board. We do not yet know whether the power of making such appointments was left with the Board or given to the School Committees, but the principal point is that m the Bill as it left the House the enforcement of the compulsory clauses of the Education Aot ceased to be optional, subject to the existing power of granting individual exemptions. The Minister of Education laid some stress on the advisabilifcy of leaving the duty of prosecuting m the hands of the Board, but, as stated above, the division went against him. Under the Bill as introduced every penalty recovered was to be paid by the. Clerk of the Court to the Education Board, and was thereupon to become part of the Board Fund. That provision was altered, and the House resolved that the recovered . penalties should go to the School Committee. In some shape or other the Bill is sure to pass the Legislative Council, but it remains to be seen whether they will leave the responsibility of prosecuting with the Sohool Committee or undo the work of the other Chamber and insist on the responsibility being casb on the Education Board. We notice that m the short debate on the motion for the second reading m the Council the Hon. Mr Bowen put m a plea for the School Committee :•—• " He hoped that whatever was done the legislature would never obliterate or endeavour to destroy the looal Committees. They were often aware of the circumstances of the parents of children who were kept from school by force of poverty, and he thought that m many cases it would be cruelty to compel children to attend school." From those few words we understand that. Mr Bowen is m favour of passing the Bill as it came from the House; that is to say, as far as allowing the responsibility of prosecution to rest with

the School Committees. The Bill con- j tains provisions as to compulsory atteu- f dance at native Bchools, bnt we need not i allude more particularly to that part of! the measure. I£ the Bill becomes law it is to be read together with the Education Act, 1877. • (