THE PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 26 September 1913, Page 5

THE PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR

REPORT OF COMMITTEE. THE MINISTER VINDICATED. (By Telegraph—Prm Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. The Committee appointed to inquire into the appointment of Mr Royd Garlick iWS 1/irector of Physical Training reported to the House of Representatives this afternoon as follows: (1) That there was no evidence to show improper motives on the part of the Minister. (2) That in the appointment, the Minister believed he was acting in the public interest. (3|) That the Hon. James Allen, acting on advice, believed that Mr Garlick was qualified to fill the position when he made the appointment. (4) That Mr Forbes made "no direct charge against the Minister, .and there was no evidence to support the suggestion that the appointment was due to jKjlitical influence. (5) That the statement made by Mr Lau renson that the Minister appointed a personal friend was without justification and incorrect. (6) That the salary was mot excessive in a thoroughly competent inan, but it would have been advisable to invite applications for the position both within and withouiTthe Dominion.

Mr T. M. Wilford said the report was a (jomplete vindication of his charges,, The Committee was emphatic that applications should ha7e been advertised for. He did not intend to withdraw one word he bid said,, because he was satisfied th# evidence before the Committee h:id provedi every word he had uttered up to the hilt. The Hon. James Allen dre v attention to the fact tffat the report was unanimous. He was prepared to take the responsibility of making the appointment without advertising. ft was not an unusual proceeding,-and he felt confident that they had got the best man available. The attack made by Mr Wilford was designed to destroy the system of physical training, which was doing so much to improve tike physique of the children.

Mr T. • K. Sidey drew attention to the discrepancy between the eviiance of the Minister and* the letter fiom Dr Hardwick Sihiffa'as to the negotiations regarding the appointment prior to the Conference of exports. It was most Mrs Garlick should carry on' a school for physical training while her husband was Director. -

Mr' L. ; Mfe Isitt said if Mrs Garlick was attacked she was to «?l-*ma for that herself, Tfee position was a most improper one. Sh© should noi continue a school in training instructors, wh<i> would subsequently look to her husband for appointment to the* Government servic§. All through the affair the Minister bud shown jjross carelessness and .want of con&ideratidtL Mr J. C. Thomson entered Ills protest against the payment of so large a salary to the Director of Physical Training, while other important officers we're getting less. Mr CL Laurenson said he accepted the Minister's denial that he appointed a personal friend ,but he still criticised' and condemned the appoi tment. .....

Mr B. McKenzie .protested against the appointment* of- Mr Gar lick on behalf of the taxpayers of the country. The appointment was most scandalous, and unjustified ever made in this country, and the 'pay was quite olzt of proportion to the services to be rendered. . "

Mr € . M. Thomson said Swedish drill had as much relation to Sweden as Svvede turnips. The drill had been devised by the Army andi Navy authorities in England. Mr Wilford seemed to be obsessed by the idea that all that was required of tho instructor was a knowledge of Swedish drill. Mr E. Newman also snoke.

Mr G. W. Russell moved. "That in the opinion of this House the appointment of Mr Royd Garlick as Director of Physical Education in the primary schools should not have been made, the position not having been advertised." Mr Garlick. he contended, was not qualified for the position, and the salary was too large. It was unfair to many school teachers and others holding high positions in the public service. It was unfair that Mr Garlick's business in Wellington should bp continued with the Minister',s consent, in defiance of the regulations applying to all- Government servants. He contended that the Committee's report stated that the Minister must bo acquitted of using political motives over the appointment, and he was told not to appear before the Court again. He asked what the Minister had placed before him to indicate that Mr Garlick possessed such superlative, such pre-eminent ability, as to warrant him in appointing him over the heads of everyone in New Zealand and Australia, to establish a system of physical culture in our schools? And yet, he- added, Mr Garlick could not produce one certificate as to his efficiency or qualification. The thanks of the country were due to Mr Wilford for ventilating the matter, and he ventured to say that never again would a Minister, nor would any other Minister, dare to make any appointment without advertising it. The Hon. A. L. Herdman said it had been proved that Mr Garlick had nothing to do with the business now carried on by Mrs Garlick. The cry that political influence had been manifested in the appointment hnj been entirely disproved, also the suggestion that the Minister had been animated by corrupt motives. The unanimous' finding of the Committee showed that Mr Wilford had not discharged the onus which rested upon him. Mr Wilford undertook to shou that Mr GarlieK was not t uulified for his position, but the finding showed that he had failed, and that the man was fit. •Mr Herdman contended that all the evidence brought by Mr Wilford before the committee was irrelevant. None of the witnesses knew Mr Garlick or his work. In his opinion, Mr Garlick had been pursued with relentless fury. The Hon. J. A. Millar said he wanted to state publicly that he was not in favour of the appointment of Mr Garlick. He exonerated the Minister of any improper methods. Ho was led into what liad been done by his advisers, and the one most to blame was the Inspector-General of Schools. It was by taking that advice that the Minister had got into trouble. The Hon. W. F. Massev said he had never before heard of a committee bringing down an iinanimous report. That proved there was a strong case owe side or the other. The ef-

fect of the finding was that Mr Allen had been exonerated from the more serious charges preferred against him earlier in the session. Ho hoped that the members who had made the charges would stand up and apologise for what they had said. He said that dozens of members had been appointed to the Public Service Avitliout advertisement. After dinting that sort of thing for twenty-one years, members opposite got up and complained of an appointment which he was sure would turn out well for the country. It was, however, the best advertisement the Public Service Commissioners could have. They c(iuld rest assured that no more appointments would be made outside the Commissioners. The House divided on Mr Russell's amendment, which was lost by 37 votes to 31, and the report was adopted.