The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1922. CANCELLING TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 July 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1922. CANCELLING TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES.

Considerable attention will be devoted to the statement made by the Minister for Education (Hon. C. J. Parr) relative to the recent judgment of Sir John Salmond in the Supreme Court on the illegality of the Minister’s action in cancelling Miss Park's certificate. There is a basic principle involved in the decision which concerns the whole of the teaching profession. ]n the first place it must, be noted that, although a small number of uncertificated teachers are employed in State Schools and paid for their services, such a course is only resorted 'to when there is a dearth of certificated teachers. To obtain a certificate, those entering the profession have to pass certain examinations as a lest of their competency and fitness. The Minister claims that, under the regulations, he has power to issue these certificates, but the ques-

tion at once arises as to whether that power is optional or mandatory if the teacher attains the requisite standard of competency as disclosed by the official tests. It is quite likely that if this power were exercised in the direction of refusing a certificate to a qualified person, the Supreme Court would take an similar view to that expressed by Sir John Salmond in the Park case. There are two main principles involved in the errantin.<? or cancelling of these certificates. The first concerns what is known as government by regulation. and the second is whether such power as the Minister claims to possess is consonant with British justice. The evils of government by regulation are continually being brought into prominence. It may fairly be claimed that for a Minister to be clothed with power under an order which is practically issued by himself is unconstitutional and intolerant. The evil of Ministerial power of veto was glaringly illustrated in tho railway service. It made the Minister an autocrat, and while there might not be any reason to expect that the power would be abused if. the cases in question 'were decided by the Minister alone, it has to be remembered that it is not the Minister, but the departmental heads, who advise him, who virtually control the issue. If Appeal Courts are provided, then] the decision of those Courts should be as binding as a judgment of the Supreme Court, or they should be abolished. Sir John Salmond’s judgment has come as a bombshell on Ministerial autocracy. To argue /that the regulation has been in force for over forty years, and by inference has acquired the force of law. is futile, and it is evident that a judicial finding as to its illegality has been long overdue. The perpetuation of a wrong does not legalise it. As a matter of fact a certificate does not give any teacher more than the necessary qualification for employment ; it carries no right to any appointment, that being vested in the hands of the various Education Boards. It is a right to classification, and it is doubtful if that right can be cancelled except by Act of Parliament. The remedy in the case of a teacher guilty of ‘‘gross misbehaviour” is dismissal, subject to the right of appeal, but a certificate of competency to teach, once granted, holds good for what it is worth. That is virtually the decision of Sir .John Salmond, and it carries the impress of sound law. The Minister claims that “common sense and decency alike require that a cer tificate of fitness, which is a variable and inconstant quantity, should be subjected to some coni trolling power.” If that contention is right, then it is obvious that the controlling power should be a court of law. and not a Minister, who is an interested party aft head of his department. Mr. Parr considers the present, position is anomalons, but that is hardly the correct term to use. The trouble is that an illegal regulation has been acted upon, and Sir John Salmond has done ia. public service in putting the matter in its right light.