EDUCATION BOARDS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 September 1927, Page 4

EDUCATION BOARDS

QUESTION OF ABOLISH AIKNT. DISCUSSED IN HOUSE. (Lyttelton Times correspondent). ♦ WELLINGTON, Sept. 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.

■lt was only a fair thing that- members should have- some indication from the Alinister as to where they stood, and Mr Savage (Auckland West). So far tho Alinister had never given a definite answer, though ho had been asked often enough as to whether there was any truth in the rumour that the boards were to be abolished. Air Savage believed that everyone in New Zealand was keenly interested in the question of the suggested abolition of this important section of the machinery of - the education svstem.

“i’ll make a statement if y get a chance this afternoon,” interjected the Minister of Education (the Hon R.. A. Wright). Air Savage: Well, we arc getting on, hut it all depends what the statement is. Tie Alinister has made many statements. He lias replied that “rumour says,” but the point is that rumour doesn’t know. Those statements have not been of .much help. Air J. A. Leo (Auckland East): A Tog screen. Air Savage said he had sufficient confidence in the Alinister to believe that bis statement would be a. definite indication of the Government’s intentions. The Alinister: Ye?.

Air W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) said ho objected to the abolition of education boards.

Mr Aimore (Nelson) suggested that perhaps ilie Minister had been flying a "kite.” (Laughter). Mr (denn : There is a nigger in the woodpile somewhere.

Mr Atmore moved as an amendment to the motion that the report he printed that there be substituted the words "In the opinion of this House education boards should not be abolished.” Mr Parry (Auckland Central), who seconded the amendment, said that members of Parliament received more communications on this subject than on any other mentioned in the House. Mr V. H. Potter (Boskiil) supported the amendment. The Minister of Education had only himself to blame. Had lie made a candid admission everyone would have been satisfied. "The public would stand for no further centralisation in education matters,” said Mr Forbes (Nationalist leader).

Mr V. H. Field (Otaki) thought rumour had been a lying jade in the matter. Instead of being abolished education boards should be given even greater powers. Sir Joseph Ward said he was against abolition and thought it would be a good thing if the question went to the vote.

Tine Minister of Lands (the Hon A. D. Al’Leod) thought Mr sAtmor© had tried to confuse the. House. No matter how members voted it would not indicate whether or not they favoured the views outlined in the amendment.

Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said the Minister’s statement on this subject had been quite meaningless. The Government had appeared to enjo\ the confusion among Opposition members when answers were given to queries. If for party reasons members voted against the amendment they would be voting for the abolition of education boards. The boards might not bo infallible, but they were preferable to the system of centralisation. A supporter of abolition was found in Air Lysnar (Gisborne), who wanted to know what good the boards did. In his opinion education boards overlapped the work of the committees. Mi- 11. E. Holland, loader of the Opposition, suggested that while some members were doubtful of the meaning or effect of the amendment, the real difficulty was that nobody know the mind of 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 he preferred the New Zealand system as infinitely hotter than a wholly centralised system.

MINISTER TO INVESTIGATE. The. Minister of Education commenced his reply by denying the suggestion that boards bad no control ovei stall's or salaries.', They appointed their teachers and fixed their salaries, lie said. The amendment might bo a pious expression of opinion from Parliament, but it would have no practical effect because education boards had statutory powers and these could only he 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, i and. the answer will be quite satisfacI t°bvI Continuing, the Minister said that the whole rumour regarding the pro- | posed abolition of education boards came, be assumed, from a report which was submitted to him from the Department of Education. He had been j accused of kite-dying, and he and i other members of the Government had j been castigated over the matter, but | ho declared that wherever the rumour ! started it- did not start Irani the GovJ eminent. , 'The only clue he had was | that this renort seemed to get into the hands of a section of the public | before lie had oven time to place it I before Cabinet. ( Air -Atniore: AVas it proposed by the , Department? j The Minister: It was simply e. repit- fre-m the department to tl:e Minister. I Answering several members who peri sisted in asking what was his real in- , tent ion. Mr Wright suggested that il | they were patient they would know. I He had been asked v. hat was the mind of the Government—

Mr At more: A blank. (Laughter!. The Minister: No Government has its mind made up. and 1 have a statement prepared regarding the reiterated rumours as to a p’-op:--:il t

abolish education boards. The positinn is merely ibis: 1 have for seine | time past been urged in many quarters to inquire into the present utility and status cf education board.---, having regard for the general need for ! economy in all ednimisti a fix e departments. This would involve examination as to whether better results am! less overlapping could he obtained by enlarging the functions of school committees and imposing more work on them by process of decentralisation. The problem raised is very far-reach-ing and involves a review of the whole organisation of the education system. It is quite impossible for me during the stress of the session to hope to reach any fully considered opinion on so large- a- question, and moreover, before any conclusion is reached all the parties interested should have a full opportunity of being heard. 1 do not propose, therefore, to make any pronouncement in the meantime. hut when time allows I will make a thorough investigation, and if any radical changes j H the present system upoin to me advisable or necessary I will submit my views to Cabinet and then to tbe House.

Mr .Holland: What does tiii.s answer mean? The Minister: Surely it is definite. Tt simply means that there is to bo an investigation, but nothing ran be done this session. A member: Could it not be done by Order-in-Conncil ? The Minister ;A)h dear no. All the boards hare statutory powers and any interference with their status would mean legislation.

Answer]lie a .suggestion that such a course would mean the abolition of school committees, the Minister c»nr.einled that this did not. nr. nil follow. The Australian centralised system provided for a eenlra.l department with commit tecs attending to schools throughout the district. “So far as T am concerned,” be said, “I am not in favour, nor have 1 ever been in favour, of centralisation to the extent that the Department should control the whole system I’■•chi \\ cllincdon. The Ministerial statement did n.d

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 liis comment on the situation until interrupted by Air Speaker. Thus the motion was talked out.