STRONG CRITICISM

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 328, 15 September 1932, Page 2

STRONG CRITICISM

SCHOOL BOOK SUPPLY WELLINGTON SCHOOLS ASSN. REPLIES TO MR. MASTERS. UNJUSTIFIED AUTOCRACY. The following statement has been issued by the Publicity Committee of Wellington School Committees and Education Federation in reply to the Minister of Education's statement in justification of the extended renewal of the current eontract for the supply of school books. The very weakness of the statement issued by the Hon. the Minister «of Education in reply to the sound and well-reasoned criticism directed against his precipitate action — in extending the current eontract for the supply of school books — serves to convince more defmitely those acquainted with the pros and cons of the issue, that the Mimster's aetion is devoid of any cogent justification. The Minister first refers to the recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission in support of his action, but it eannot he maintained that the recommendation of this body,

in its-elf, is necessarily sufficient justification for any specifie action by the Government. There is recognition of this on the part of Cabinet inasmuch as that it felt no incumbency to accept the recommendations of the Commission in their entirety. W'ere the conclusions of the Commission ample warrant for speeific aetion on the part of the' Government, what warrant is there for re jecting them in part ? Question of Costs. The Minister then dwells upon the imperative necessity for lowering the c-ost of school books — at all costs to avoid any increase, such as he claims would be entail'ad by the- preparation of new manuscripts. Everyone will agree it is desirable under present conditions to reduce costs and that on no account should they be increased unless it can be shown that the practical gain is out of all proportion to the increased cost. Any suggestion, however, that a reduction of costs is dependent upon the renewal of the current contract for the supply of school hoolcs is mere assumption resting on no basis of fact. School Committees' Associations and other Educational bodies throughout the country, which most strongly criticise the Minister's action, have been more insistent in their advocacy and demand for reduoed prices, but the monopoly of the eopyright in terms of the current contract has been the insuperahle obstacle to any realisation of their advocacy. By renewing the contract the Minister has perpetuated conditions, making it more difficult to bring about a reduction of prices corresponding with a failing market, and has left a monopoly in its previous more or less invulnerable position, free to dictate its own terms regardless of any failing price level during the next five and a half years. The Minister claims that by renewing the contract he has playei the part of the Good Samai'itan to the parents, because he has saved them £7500 a year. He proceeds to camoufiage the issue by talk of a £40,000 saving over the period of its duration. The first consideration that will occur to the business mind is that no party would knowingly enter into a contract entailing loss, even during a part of its term. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the books can be sup■plied at 221 per eent. reduction on immediate past prices without sacrificing trading profit. Yet it required the inducement of an extended renewal of the contract to secure -a reduction to the parents due to them from a failing market and which consequently should have been conceeded unconditionally. The Manuscript. Further than this, it is the considered opinion of the Auckland Master Printers' Asociation that, if the manuscript were held by the Education Department and tenders called for the printing and distribution of school books, a saving of £15,000 to £20,000 per "anmmr would be 'effected as against £7500 under the latest proposal of the Minister. Why has the Minister failed to explore the possibities in this connection? Unless it can be shown to be impracticable, the Minister, by the renewal of the contract, so far from saving parents £7500 per annum, is imposing upon them an unneeessary cost of over £6000 per annum; and over the period of the new contract is involving them in Unneeessary expenditure to the amount of about £30,000. In 1926 the New Zealand Master Printers' Association discussed with the publishers the cost and valne of school books, and reeeived from them a definite undertaking that prices of subsequent series of books (in use from 1st January, 1929) would be reduced by 20 per cent. Though this undertaking was never given effect to, it clearly indicates that in the opinion of the New Zealand Master Printers, and even on the acknowledgment of the publishers concerned, the present reduction was due over two years ago. Since then, price-levels have fallen by at least 10 to 15 per cent., so that the reduction now due is something nearer 40 per cent. than 225 per cent., or £10,000 to £12,000 per annum ' instead of £7500. Obviously here were all the possibilities of effecting a saving over the next five and a half years, not of £0,000, but of from £60,000 to £70,000, and this should not have heen lightly disregarded by iany champion of the interests of the parents of the Dominion. Moreover, the country is- entitled to expect the Minister to insist on this reduction without bargaining away the natural rights of other. citizens who are competitive traders. If this were done the interests of our education system ne'sd not be sacrifieed by placing upon it the necessity of working with obsolete text-books. Goviernment and Public Opinion. It is extremely unfortunate that the Minister should choose to so flagfantly flout the representative educational opinion, even to the extent of ignoring the prayer of the p'etition of some 14,000 signatories and seriously prejudicing a petition containing a further 5000 signatures which is to be presented to the House early in the ensuing session. If. the new eontract arrangement is proceeded with, it will he done in defiance of the prayer of some 19,000 interested petitioners representing the parents throughout ' the Dominion. Is it too mueh to hope

that Cabinet will hesitate to endorse such autoeracy? We respeetfully urge that the position can be dealt with in a way that will be satisfaetory to the Government itself and to all interests concerned by submitting it to the consideration of the Education Committee of the House of Representatives during the next session of Parliament.