The Stilt 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1930. FAULTS IN EDUCATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 997, 13 June 1930, Page 8

The Stilt 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1930. FAULTS IN EDUCATION

SOME frank statements as to faults in New Zealand’s expensive system of education and also about inefficiency in its highest control were made yesterday at two different centres of supreme intellectuality. In each case criticism came from within, and because of its outward expression in plain language the taxpayers, who have been wondering for some time whether or not the country is getting value for the large sum of public money now being spent on national education, will appreciate the candour of those able to speak with authority, even though the knowledge may vex them. In this centre, at the collegiate graduation ceremony, which lias become as placid and decorous as a Band of Hope meeting, the president of the Auckland University College Students’ Association declared that the University of New Zealand, as an examining body, could not even function with some degree of efficiency. Indeed, Mr. J. N. Wilson, going on in support of bis criticism, made it clear that even Parliament has distinguished rivals in crude work and silly inefficiency. The nature of the students’ complaint about ‘‘traps and pitfalls, hindrances and irritations” may be examined in conjunction with a different statement made at Wellington by the Director of Education in an address to the Council of Education. Mr. T. B. Strong, who recently had the advantage of an informative trip to Australia, indulged in what he himself called unpleasant criticism of the New Zealand system of primary education. Taken together, these adverse comments demonstrated clearly that not even after an expenditure of close on £.4,000,000 a year on all sorts of education, good, bad and indifferent, the Dominion still is far short of enjoying a perfect system. Faults in education appear to he more serious in the primary grade than in the highest rank. Of course, Mr. Strong does not wish it to be inferred that the system under his control, subject inevitably to political authority and sometimes queer guidance, is bad or out-of-date, or unsuited to the needs of New Zealand. Certainly not, but observation in Australia lias confirmed a lurking belief in his own mind for some years that the Dominion’s system would be none the worse for an improving overhaul. This is the beginning of wisdom, and it is to be hoped that the Director of Education will give useful exercise to his improved knowledge. Unfortunately, the expenditure of well over two and a-lialf millions sterling annually on elementary education is not yet enough. There still is a lack of the money necessary for securing an essential improvement such as has been now happily discovered.

“If I were allowed a free hand,” Sir. Strong exclaimed wistfully, “I certainly could effect considerable economies in the administrative field, but as my proposals touch vested interests they would not be popular in certain circles.” Clearly, the shackled director either lias said too much or too little. What are his proposals for improvement of a faulty system? What are the masked vested interests which hinder him? Why limit popularity to certain circles? These pertinent questions call for plain answers. There should be no vested interests in the field of education, and popularity of the whole should be national, not sectional. Mr. Strong ought “sedulously to ape” the courage of the Prime Minister and tell New Zealand the worst.

As regards the Auckland protest against inefficiency on the part of the University of New Zealand, it was both amazing and amusing. It did not synchronise well with the eloquent pleas of Sir George Fowlds, president of the Auckland University College, and Professor F. P. Worley, chairman of the Professorial Board, for a wider, more active recognition of university training as a preparation for a business career. Was it not incongruous, to say the least, to chide merchants and industrialists for apparent failure to fill high executive positions with Bachelors of Commerce and other scholars with impressive degrees, when the pi'esident of the Students’ Association on the same occasion had devoted most of his address to chiding the highest intellectual university administrators for sheer inability to conduct examinations on the simplest of business lines with encouraging efficiency? Apparently, the average motor-lorryman can handle his dockets and delivery chits more efficiently than tlie New Zealand University can distribute examination papers or arrange the university calendar. It appears to be the season for faults, and quite obviously Arapuni is not the only enterprise in the State that needs reconstruction and drastic, expensive remedies.

A WARNING TO IMPORTERS AMOVE to avoid the ill effects which may follow the release of a taxation cat from the political bag has been made by the Prime Minister. Cloaking his words with a very thin veil of uncertainty, he has made it clear that the Government is considering the production of increased revenue by the imposition of higher Customs duties. Further, he has warned importers that any widespread attempt to evade the increases by wholesale withdrawals of stocks in bond will be countered by a clause making the higher duties retrospective.

Mr. Forbes has much to learn if he thinks that a commercial community, suspicious of changes in the tariff schedule, will refrain from an attempt to anticipate them by clearing goods from bond. The practice is by no means a novel one and it is common to every country. Seemingly Cabinet has yet to discover that in dealing with tariff questions it is playing a game of political poker with merchants—a game in which fortune favours the player who is wise enough to hold his hand and liis tongue. In other words, it seems plain that someone has been blabbing. Imbued by the Prime Minister’s commendable spirit of financial frankness, be lias' said or hinted something of the Government’s plans, and Mr. Forbes has been left to meet the difficulty. Unfortunately, the only method of doing this is not a good one. It is wrong in principle to threaten importers with a retrospective tariff increase and the effect of this on business is apt to be disturbing. The way to avoid such a position is to remain tightlipped and bring down proposals without preliminary public discussion.

In view of the present need for increased revenue to balance the national Budget, there is no doubt whatever that Customs tariff increases will have to be made. If the Government is wise it will concentrate first on extravagant luxuries, and secondly on imported goods that tend to diminish or hinder employment in New Zealand. A survey of the present Customs schedule shows quite definitely that there is still room for greater help to New Zealand-made goods and a clearer demonstration of Empire preference. It would repay the Government to study the lead given by Canada, where, in 589 tariff items out of 1.188, British products are receiving free entry into the country. New Zealand’s policy should and must be one of goodness to itself, then kindness to the Mother Country. Necessary tariff harshness should fall upon foreign manufacturers who are thriving at the expense of Nov Zealand industries.