1.—13 a.

46

[g. d. beaik.

18. Is there anything to show that the Board would not have the control it has now ? Do you see any reason to fear that the powers of the Board would be taken away '. —The only thing is that they are given autonomy. We want to give them autonomy, but it depends on the degree of autonomy. The Board of Managers may say, " We do not want your instructor ; we have one of our own." 19. Is there a proposal to take that power away from the Board in the Bill ? —You say there is not that power in the Bill, so that will be satisfactory. gt, 20. You think it is a good thing that there should be local representation on the body that deals locally with the technical schools ?—Yes. We have had representation, and in our annual report we suggest that there should be further responsibility thrown on the residents ; but we do not want to lose control of the schools, because then we simply cannot organize the work of instruction. 21. Do you not think it would be a good thing to have that recognized by law ? What you have given of your own free will should be recognized by law ? —Yes, I think that would be a good thing. 22. With regard to clause 11, you say that the District Council advises the Minister. Is it the District Council that advises the Minister there ? Is it not the Council ? —Yes. In clause 51, subclause (3), there is an alternative given. 23. That is not a secondary school or a high school or technical school. This refers to clause 84 ? —Yes, but this alternative leads to a presumption that it might be extended into subclauses (4) and (5) unless you make a further definition of " Council " or " District Council." 24. The clauses you refer to now are not the clauses you refer to in the memorandum. The memorandum refers to clause 84 of the Bill concerning secondary schools. That clause says " the Council," does it not ?—Yes, that is right. 25. That means, of course, the General Council, does it not ? —Yes. There is a slight ambiguity. 26. The Chairman.] The word " district " should not be in that memorandum of yours ?—That is so. 27. Mr. Hogben.] Clause 14 : the matter you bring up is connected with the urban school district, clause 2. It is the same subject, is it not, the number of members for an urban school district ? —Yes; it contains a suggestion for reconstitution. 28. Clause 34 : would the Boards, do you think, lose or gain by the grants to Committees being calculated on the quarterly attendance ? Supposing that a district was increasing fairly rapidly, and instead of being paid on the previous year's attendance it was paid on the quarterly attendance : would not the Board gain ? —Yes. 29. How would labour and delay be occasioned ? Could the capitation not be paid on receipt of the average-attendance return from the Board ?—lt is a matter of labour ; but we are quite prepared, if it is to be an actual gain, to see that the extra labour is done. 30. Would you have to do any extra labour at all, except to take the return giving the total average attendance for the quarter ? The labour would be done in five minutes by an officer in our Department ?—Yes. 31. With regard to clause 38, school districts : would there not be a difficulty in including town districts unless you could have a municipal roll ?—There would be a difficulty ; but there is going to be a serious difficulty if it is not included, especially in our case. It seems a very great hardship that if these people watit to come into a school district they should not have facilities for so doing. 32. They have their own school districts now, have they not ?—Yes. 33. It would not take away any rights they have now, and would not affect a right which some other people have ? —As a matter of fact, we rather prefer that they should stay in their own districts. 34. So they will. Clause 41 : provision is made in the Bill for the two-year period, is it not ?— Yes; but I think there is some mistake there. 35. " January " ought to be " February " —that is all ? —Yes. It is the ambiguity in the word " Board." " Board "is used in two senses —the Board that exists and the Board that does not exist. 36. The Board never dies : this Bill does not kill the Board. Does not the last clause of the Bill preserve the Boards until their successors come into office ? With regard to the next point, clause 45, proviso: there is a mistake in the Bill, by the omission of certain words. It is not evident what " members of the Board " are meant. " For such urban school district " ought to be inserted. With those words put in it will- be all right ? —Yes. 37. Clause 46 : you understand that an Education Board, being a corporate body, has a right to appear, without special provision being made ? —Yes. 38. Clause 47 : I suppose you would be willing, as the Department was, that the Law Draftsman should say whether or not those words are necessary ? —lf the Law Draftsman says they are not, then of course I agree. 39. We generally have to be guided by him. However, I will put the case before him. Clause 47, subclause (3) : is it not better to leave it open to the Board to disapprove of a teacher of sewing, or to appoint its own teacher ? The only objection there is that there is a suggestion that a sewingmistress need not be appointed if you say the Board " may " appoint. 40. The syllabus implies that she must, does it not ? —I think you should include in the Bill or in your regulations the provision that you mentioned —that a Committee or the Board might appoint a sewing-mistress for a group of schools. 41. Is that not assumed in the regulations as they exist now ?—I do not recollect it. 42. Could not that be done under the regulations as they exist ? —I really do not remember the provision. In any case it is a desirable provision. If it is there, well and good. 43. At all events, it is better to leave the Board power to disapprove of a sewing-mistress if the Committee, say, appoints a person who is not qualified to teach ? Would it not be better to leave it as it is in the Bill ? —Would it not be well to say in that case that with the approval of the Board a Committee may appoint a sewing-mistress ?