ADMISSION AGE

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 64, 9 March 1933, Page 3

ADMISSION AGE

For School Children SELECT COMMITTEE CRITICISED IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Assertions that the Government’s practice of ensuring a major..’.y <>l its supporters on the Select Committees made the uerk of these bodies mucii cally valueless, were made m the H< use of lleprc. ei.tatives yesterday. Certain mer.il ois oi' the Education Commit-e. declared that they had deliberately been prevented l\om advai-.cai., a motion to riler to the Government for favourable consideration a petition requesting that the policy of raising the school admission age to six years should not be enforced. Actually the committee reported, through its chairman, Air W. A. Bodkii< (Govt., Central Otago), that as a question of Government policy was involved it had no recommendation to make. Air C. L. Carr (Lab., Timaru) said that this was another instance in which the Government’s decision on an important education question had been made before it had been considered by the Education Committee of the House, I and the Government had used its majority on the committee to secure a recommendation that did not conflict with, its policy. A motion had been moved while Ihe committee was sitting to refer the petition to the Government for favourable consideration, but the chairman had stated he could not put the motion as the time was 2.30 and the committee could not under the Standing Orders continue sitting when the time arrived for the assembling of the House. Continuing, Air Carr said he had pointed out that it was not 2.30. In fact, it was only 2.24, and the House bells had not started to ring. The chairman was then about to put the motion, but the Alinister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata, who was representing Cabinet on the committee, had thereupon moved that because a question of Government policy was involved the committee had no recommendation to make. It iiad been apparent at that stage that the amendment would not have been carried, and the Alinister had frankly stated he ■would adopt the time-honoured custom of “talking- the matter out.” He had adopted this course, and when the matter had again come before the committee there had been a majority for the Alinister’s amendment. Coalition’s Full Force Air D. G. Sullivan (Lab.. Avon) alleged that the full force of the Coalition had been brought to bear upon its representatives on the committee to ensure that the Minister's amendment would bo carried. It had always been understood, said the Prime Alinister. Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, that when one entered a committee room party feeling was laid aside and an impartial view taken of the questions under consideration. The attitude of Air Sullivan showed that there had boon a. departure from that practice, which was to be regretted. Committees were supposed to act in a judicial manner and not take advantage of the Government. It seemed that an attempt had been made by Labour members to make political capital out of the situation, particularly in view of the fact that the policy of the Government in this case had been decided by a decisive vote. Mr Holland’s Views | The Leader of the Opposition. Air TL I E. Holland, said it was nonsense for the Prime Alinister to say he trusted the committee to keep party questions out of its considerations. Tli< own speech showed he would trust the committee as long as it did as he wanted. The question should not be allowed to rest whore it was and for that reason he would move that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind.. Eden) said that if a committee were composed of ten members, six at least were Government members, and the chairman was also chosen by the Government. This being so. and unless a change in committee procedure were made, members might as well tell their constituents that it was useless petitioning on a question of Government policy. Mr AV. Nash (Lab., Hutt), who was in charge of the petition, said that if the Prime Alinistor’s contention concerning committees wore correct, they should decide questions judicially. The evidence in this case supported the petition completely, but the Government’s policy decision prevented any recommendation being ■ made by the committee. ATr H. Holland (Govt., Christchurch

■North) said that after many years’ experience on committees he had come to the conclusion that the real work of Parliament was done by committees. However, he had to admit reluctantly that party feeling was being shown in committee discussions which meant that there was a danger that it would be a waste of time for witnesses to be called and for members to sit on these bodies. Chairman’s Reply Mr Bodkin said he strongly resented the suggestion that he had been guilty of any unfairness. On four occasions the meeting of the committee had been adjourned for a full attendance. He hinfself had moved that in view of the fact that the Government had met the position by an amendment of the law, the committee had no recommendation to make. In replying to a charge that he had “closed down’’ the meeting, Mr Bodkin said that his watch had shown the time as 2.30 p.m.. which meant that the House was sitting. He denied that he had at any time attempted to manoeuvre a vote in favour of the Government. As the Government had already dep cided the question as a point of policy the Government members of the committee took the stand they did. Mr IT. Atmore (Ind.. Nelson) said if justification of Air Carr’s statement were required, it would be found in Mr Bodkin’s reply. in which he admitted that the vote was taken on party lines. Tn supporting the amendment, ATr Carr said the indelible impression in his mind was that the chairman failed to put the motion because he know the Government would not secufe a majority. However, if ATr Bodkin denied that wa< his motive, then ho was prepared to accept it. The Prime Alinister said it would bo admitted l>v all parties that it was an advantage to get a fair and unbiased decision. Committees could greatly assist the Government, and he. would like to feel that the (government was assured of a fair run. ATr Holland’s amendment was lost by 41 votes to 22. and the report was tabled.