1.—13 a.

40

R. MASTERS-

32. With regard to allowances to pupil-teachers, you said you did not see why they should be dropped gradually as the salary rose. Are you not aware that in all Departments of the Public Service, in order to make a transition at the close of the apprentice period, they drop the boardingallowance and increase the salary ? Did you not quote some cases in which the allowance drops ' I admit that. 33. Is not that a sound principle, so that at the end they should not suddenly lose all boardingallowance ?—Not if you bring the salary up. What is the object of raising the salary and dropping the allowance ? 34. We do not drop it so much. You make a net increase, because at the end of a certain time you must stop the boarding-allowance, must you not '. You do not give any boarding-allowance to a man getting £200 a year. You must stop giving the allowance, and you make one merge into the other by lessening the boarding-allowance, but not so fast as you increase the salary ?■ I fail to see that it is any advantage. As long as the man gets the money it does'not make much difference. 35. With regard to the Public Service, did you say that the scale is not nearly so good in the leaching profession as in the Public Service \ In the Public Service do they provide tuition for them? Are they in the position of apprentices learning their trade, or are they in the position of from the first giving their full services—l mean in the Public Service ?- They are in the position of apprentices, i n this sense : they have to learn their business the same as a school-teacher. In the Railway Department they get an extra allowance, if they have passed the Civil Service Examination, over and above the amount I have mentioned in my evidence. 36. If a pupil-teacher has passed the Civil Service Examination what docs he get ?- He gets the extra allowance too. 37. What is the salary that would be reached by most employees in the Public Service—by the great bulk of them—without a bar—-without unusual promotion : do you know the amount ?—No. It is a difficult question for me to answer. 38. It is £220, while the bulk of our teachers can rise to £250 under this Bill. With regard to separate schools you say " equal pay for equal work," and you say that that is recognized in the mixed schools but not in the separate schools ?—Yes. 39. Have you compared the salary that one of these teachers would get if the separate schools were united into one mixed school ? - That is not the point that I gave evidence on. 40. Is not the work the same ?—Yes. 41. What would be the difference between the work of a second assistant in a girls' department. as in the West Christchurch School, and that of a second assistant in a separate girls' school ] In that case why not put the men on the same basis? 42. Are they n<?t on the same basis, except, that both women and men are better there \ Women and men are the same in the mixed schools. 43. Then follow those same men into the separate schools and the women into tliose separate schools, and can you not find the salaries there for those same men and women ?- I fail to see that. 44. Have you had any experience of separate schools ? No : I was going on the broad principle. 45. Then you have not discussed what the separate-school teachers in the separate schools would gel if the separate schools were united into one mixed school, have you > No. That is only reverting back to the argument that was used previously. 46. With regard to the Taranaki Scholarships, have you read the explanation of the Bill that was circulated among members of the House '. Do you know that they are being dealt with in the University Bill ?—I have heard so since.

Mr. Hogben made a statement. (No. 20.) Mr. Hogben : I desire to say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that Mr. J. C. Adams, Mr. A. W. Adams, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Herdman-Smith came to see me as arranged yesterday afternoon, and I went over with them the. different parts of the Bill relating to high schools and to the School of Art. The first part related to the effect of clause 85 on the governing bodies of girls' and boys' high schools. The Minister has already decided that an amendment would be made, as I informed the Committee yesterday. In regard to the Tenth Schedule, the Minister has already promised the Committee that he will omit paragraph (vi) of the proviso. I went through the question of finances with them, and they were satisfied that if that part of the proviso was removed their finances would be secure. The next point was in regard to the School of Ait first as to the government, and second as to the capitation. In regard to the government of the School of Art, it is affected by clause 108. The Canterbury School of Art is controlled now by the Board of Governors of Canterbury College, and they expressed their wish that the same government should be continued—that is to say, three of them did, and Mr. Herdman-Smith dissented and thought that the provision in the Bill was better as giving a greater share of popular control of the School of Art. The other three desired that that proviso should not apply to Canterbury College School of Art. 1 suggested that if the Canterbury School of Art was removed to the second part of the Eleventh Schedule it would overcome the difficulty in regard to the proviso on page 42, and they agreed. I agreed to put the matter before the Minister. That, of course, does not touch the Christchurch Technical School. That is provided for under subclause (3). and they do not desire that it should be altered. The only other point was in regard to capitation. The capitation now is provided by the regulations—so-much for classes the first year, a larger amount the second and third years, and so on, and the amount may be as much as 9d. It is only 9d. in the higher art classes. Mr. Herdman-Smith thought it ought to be retained at 9d., and the others did not see that it mattered. I pointed out that Canterbury College received 9d., and also the School