WHAT NEXT?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIII, Issue 17, 21 August 1885, Page 16

WHAT NEXT?

§8 there any real desire for economy on the part of our Legislature. No doubt there are certain members of it who are indeed anxious to lighten the burdens of the people ; but tkey, unfortunately, are in a very small minority.. Notwithstanding the great, noise that is made in the beginning of each session of Parliament on this heady iti invariably happens that when any measure haying economy in view is proposed' it is at once and ignominiously rejected. There have been already two pases in point daring the present session. A clause was introduced into Mr. Steward's Bill in the Council to raise the school age a little so as to render our Education system a little reasonable,. and B avo the taxpayers an unnecessary expenditure on infant's, for whose education they are paying about one hundred thousand pounds a year, although these are not of an age to profit bj this expenditure, which is, therefore, both foolish and wicked. But this rational proposal has been rejected by the House of Representatives on, ifctie plea that any reduction in the education vote would have the effect of closing some country schools. Whit is this but a confession that the. money, £100,000, is spent, not on the education of those for whom it is necessary, but for the purpose of keeping up un • necessary schools. The money, then, is voted on false pretences. Children of five years of age, are incapable of profiting by the education given in the public schools, and yet money is voted in order, that a colour may be given to what, is in reality unjust. This is a fraudulent proceeding, a' dishonest pretence. Besides is it really true ? In point of fact, it may be asked, do infants of five years of age frequent these country schools ? " The Minister of Education affirmed that if the school age were raised as proposed, the effect would be that schools in. sparselypeopled^ districts should, be closed. If so, then, we must conclude that .in many places the school returns cannot be correct. Sparsely-peopled districts are not the localities where infants of five years of age are found' in public schools. Reason, common sense, and expedience show that infants do not and cannot attend public schools in such districts. We refuse, therefore, to accept the plea, aud we hold that the Minister of Education has been imposed upon by some people who have a 1 special object to serve. But it is in this case as in all others, the very men who talk most loudly in favour of economy in the abstract, are the very first to resist it in practice. Again, an hon. Member proposed after the rejection of the Council's amendment, to lessen the education vote by £50,000. This, however, would not be listened to, and was rejected by an overwhelming majority. So much for the sincerity of Parliament in the matter of economy. Here in this pa ticular instance one hundred thousand pounds are absolutely thrown away, wantonly squandered. The saving of this amount would not impair in the least the efficiency of our godless system of education ; but it would imperil the prestige and popularity of certain individuals and give an apparent victory to a certain extent to many who are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present system of education, and consequently Parliament would not listen to it, .although additional taxation in these depressed times is the inevitable consequence.