THE MARTIN CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2801, 23 October 1924, Page 3

THE MARTIN CASE.

QUESTION RAISED IN HOUSE.

The case of alleged proselytising of an Auckland school girl lias been raised in the House of Representatives by Mr V. 11. Potter (Itoskili). Mr Potter asked the Minister of •Justice whether he would lake into consideration the desirability of amending the Police Offences Act to make it an offence punishable by firm or imprisonment for any person .or persons to harbour an infant a gain - ' st. the-wishes of the parent or parents. “This matter appears to be sufficiently dealt with by the Infants Act, 1908, section G of which prorides that the Supreme Court may make an order ms to the custody of, and right of access to, an infant, - ” slates the Hon. C. J. Parr, in his reply. Anyone not complying with such tin order would lie liable to punishment for contempt of the Court. Mr Parr was also asked by Mr Potter whether lie will consider the advisability of making it a ground for instant dismissal from the staff of a State primary or secondary school for any teacher to use his or her influence as a teacher to proselytise, or attempt to proselytise, any pupil under tuition, or to interfere with or attempt to interfere with the religious belief of any pupil; and_. further, whether he will -consider making re-employment of any teacher dismissed on the aforesaid grounds impossible by the Department or by any authority acting under the Department 1 / Mr Parr has replied: “Under section 151 of the Education Act an Education Board, or a secondary school board, or a board of managers of a technical school has power to dismiss ;t teacher in its employment. Such teacher may appeal before a specially constituted Court of Appeal for teachers. The Act states ‘that such dismissal shall not be deemed to be wrongful if the board satisfies the Court that the determination of engagement was reasonable, having regard to any of the following circumstances: „ (a) The efficient and economical administration of the board’s affairs; (b) the fitness of the teacher; (c-) his conduct; (d) any other special circumstances, irrespective of the Board’s legal right to determine the engagement by notice.’ It appears, therefore, that the ground for dismissal stated in the honourable member's question id covered by (b) and (c) in the existing Act. Assuming that a teacher was dismissed on this ground, and that his appeal was not sustained, such teacher could be prevented from being further employed by any authority under the Department only by the constitution of a teacher’s register from which the removal of the teacher s name would prevent his further employment. The establishment of such a register, is now under consideration.”