EDUCATION BOARD ABOLITION

Evening Star, Issue 19661, 14 September 1927, Page 10

EDUCATION BOARD ABOLITION

THE MINISTER'S DENIAL ECONOMY IHVESTICATIOH PROPOSED [Fbom Our Parliamentary Reporter] WELLINGTON, September 13. The long-waited opportunity to discuss the question of abolishing education boards arrived in the House, when the Education Department’s annual report was presented. It was only a fair thing that members should have some indication from the Minister as to where they stood, said Mr Savago (Auckland West), bo far tho Minister had never given a definite answer, though he had been asked often enough, as to whether there was any truth in the rumor that boards were to bo abolished. Mr bavage believed that everyone in Now Zealand was keenly interested in the question of the suggested abolition of this important section of tho machinery of the'education system. “I’ll make a statement if 1-get tho chance this afternoon,” interjected the Minister of Education (Mr Wright). Mr Savage 1 Well, we are getting on, but it all depends what the statement is. The Minister has made many statements. He had replied that rumor says, but tho point is that rumor doesn’t know. These statements have not been of much help. Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East): I’og screens. , Mr Savago said he had sufficient confidence in the Minister to believe that his statement would bo a definite indication of the Government’s intentions.

The Minister; Yes. Mr W. S. Glenn (I?a ngilß:ei) said lie objected to tlio abolition of education boards. , , t , t Mr Attnoro (Nelson) suggested that perhaps the Minister had been Hying a “kite.” (Laughter.) . Mr Glenn: There is a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. Mr Atmore moved as an amendment to the motion that the report bo printed, that there be substituted the words “in the opinion of this House education boards should not be abolishod.” Mr Larry (Auckland Central), who seconded the amendment, said members of Parliament received more communications «>n this subject than on any oilier mentioned in the House. ■ .Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill) supported the amendment. The Minister of Education had only himself to blame. Had he mad' l a candid admission everyone would have been satisfied. ‘The public would stand for no iurtber centralisation in education matters,” said Mr Forbes (Nationalist leader). Mr W. 11. Field (Otaki) thought rumor had been a “lying jade” in the matter. Instead of being abolished, education boards should bo given even greater powers. Sir Joseph Ward said he was against their abolition, and thought jt would he a good thing if the question went to the vote. The Minister ot Lands (Mr M‘Lcod) thought Mi Atmore had tried to confuse the House. No matter how members voted, it would not indicate whether or not they iavored the views outlined in the amendment. Mr W. A. Veilch (Wanganui) said the Minister’s statements on this subject had been quite meaningless. The Government had appeared to enjoy the confusion among Opposition members, when answers wore given to queries. If, for party reasons, members voted against tho amendment, they would be voting for the abolition of education hoards. The boards might not be infallible, but they were preferable to the system of centralisation. " A supporter of abolition was found in Air Lysnar (xjisborne), who wanted ♦■o know wlmt gooc* the boards did. lit his opinion education boards overlapped ithc work of the committees. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the ‘Opposition) suggested that, while some members were doubtful of the meaning er effect of tho amendment, the real difficulty was that nobody knew flic mind of the Government. He knew the centralised education system of the Australian States, and he knew some of the disadvantages of our own method, but, contrasting the two, lie preferred the New Zealand system, as infinitely better than a wholly centralised system. MINISTER TO INVESTIGATE. The Minister of Education commenced his reply by denying the suggestion that the boards control over staffs or salaries. They ap> pointed their teachers and fixed their salaries, he said. Tho amendment might be a “pious” expression of opinion from Parliament, but it would have no practical effect, because tlio education boards had statutory powers, and this could only bo interfered with by Statute. No notice had been given to introduce such a Bill. Mr Savage: A plain question—is it to bo introduced ? The Minister: “I will come to that and the answer will bo quite _ satistory.” The whole report regarding the proposed abolition of education boards came, he assumed, from a report which was submitted to him from the Department of Education. Ho had been accused of “kite-flying,” and he and other members of the Government liad been castigated over the matter; but ho declared that, wherever tho rumor started it did not start from the Government. Tiie only clue ho had was that this report seemed to get into the hands of a section of the public before he had even time to place it before Cabinet. Air Atmore: Was it proposed by the department ? The Minister: It was simply a report from the department to the Minisioi. Answering several members, who persisted in asking what was the real intention, Air Wright suggested that if they were patient they would know’. He had been asked what was the mind of the Government. Air Atmore: A blank, v Laughter.) The Alinister: No, tho Government has its mind made up, and 1 have a statement prepared regarding the reiterated rumors. As to the proposal to abolish education boards, the position is merely this—l have lor some time past been urged in many quarters to inquire into tho present utility and status of education boards, having regard for the general need for economy »u all tho administration departments. This would involve an examination as to whether better results and less overlapping could be obtained by enlarging the functions of school committees and imposing more work on them by n process of decentralisation. Tlio problem raised is very far-reaching, and involves a review of the whole organisation of the, education system. It is quite impossible for me during the stress of tho session to hopo to reach any fully-considered opinion on so iarge a question, and, moreover, before any conclusion is reached, all parties interested should have full opportunity of being heard. Ido not propose, therefore, to make any pronouncement in the meantime, but when the time allows I will make a thorough investigation, and if any radical changes in the present system seem to _me advisable or necessary, I will submit my views to Cabinet, and then to the House. Mr Holland; What does this answer mean? The Minister: Surely it is definite. It simply means that there is to be an investigation, but nothing can be done this session. It could not be done by Order-in-Council ? The Minister: Oh, dear no. All the hoard* have statutory_ powers, and any interference with their status would mean legislation. i Answering a suggestion that such a

course would mean tho abolition of school committees, he contended that this did not at all follow. The Australian system provided for a central department, with committees attending to schools throughout the district. “So fur as I am concerned, I am not in favor, nor have 1 ever been in favor, of centralisation to the extent that the department should control tlio whole system from Wellington.” This Ministerial statement did not stop the discussion, which went on until the dinner adjournment approached, when Air Nash, a. Government member, speaking with’ his eye on the clock, maintained his comment on the situation until interrupted by Air Speaker. Thus the motion was talked out.