EDUCATION BOARDS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 297, 14 September 1927, Page 11

EDUCATION BOARDS

THE ABOLITION RUMOUR MINISTER STATES THE POSITION THOROUGH INQUIRY LATER At present there is no definite intention on the part of the Government to abolish education boards, but when time allows, a thorough investigation will be made, and if radical changes in the present system seem advisable or necessary, the Minister of Education will submit his views to Cabinet. The forgoing sums up the statement made by the Minister of Education (Hou. R. A. Wright) in the House of Representatives yesterday on a question that has been the subject of much rumour and conjecture since the session started. Opportunity to discuss the rumoured abolition of education boards was provided in. the House by a motion, that the annual report of the Education Department be printed, and, although at an early juncture the Minister interjected that he would make a statement, if he got the chance, the debate was proceeded with, Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) providing the House with an issue by moving an amendment to- the effect that, in the opinion of members, education boards should not be abolished. The amendment was supported by several members, all of whom complained that the Minister should have made a statement to the House to allay the unrest that the rumour had created. Rumour Not Inspired. Speaking later in the debate, the Minister submitted that the amendment, if carried, would not have the effect the mover desired. “It may be an expression of opinion on the part of members merely,” he added, “but it will not have any permanent effect. The position, as I understand it, is that there must be legislation on this matter. These boards hav.e statutory powers. A Bill must be introduced in the ordinary way, and go through the usual procedure. 1 still think that, until a Bill has been introduced, or some notice has been given of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill

Air. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) : Is it going to be introduced? The Minister: I am stating the usual procedure. With regard to the question raised by the member fot Auckland West—is the Government going to introduce a Bill?—I have been castigated directly and indirectly be. cause of the form of the statement I made to the question, which was based simply and purely on a rumour which had been circulated. There has been no kiteflying on my part, or the part of the Government. Wherever the rumour came from, it did not come from the Government, nor was it instigated by the Government. The only possible clue I have as to its origin is that a report was sent from the Department to me dealing with the matter of boards generally, and before I had time even to submit it to Cabinet the contents seemed to have got into the hands of some section of the public. Mr. Atmore: Was it proposed in the report ? The Minister: It was simply a report from the Department to the Ministernothing more or less—and the contents evidently became public property and that started the rumour. The Leader of the Opposition: Did the report contain that recommendation ? The Minister: I will tell the honourable gentleman if he gives me time, and also the member for Hurunui, who must be patient (laughter). . . 1 have been asked what is the mind of the Government. - • Mr. Atmore: A blank (laughter). The Minister: No, not a blank; the Government has its mind made up upon this as it has on many other questions, and it would have been injudicious on my part to make ativ statement sooner. Therefore I have had a statement prepared. No Action At Present. The Minister' read the following statement :— Regarding the reiterated rumours as to a proposal to abolish Education Boards, the position is merely this: I have for some time past been urged from many quarters to inquire into the present status and utility of Education Boards, having regard to the general need for economy in all administrative departments. This would involve an examination as to whether better results and less over-lapping could be obtained by enlarging the functions of school committees and imposing more work on the latter bv a process of decentralisation. The problem raised is a very far-reaching one 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-con-sidered opinion on so large a question, and moreover, before any conclusion is reached all parties interested should have full opportunity of being heard. I4° not P ro ’ pose, therefore, to make any pronouncement in the meantime, but when time allows I will make a thorough investigation, and if ' any radical changes in the present system seem to me advisable or ■ ‘necessary will submit my views to Cabinet. "I think this statement makes it quite clear,” added the Minister. “Although

some members thought it neebssary to put questions in the House and said that my answer was ‘yes’ and ‘no’— neither one thing nor the other—two leading newspapers stated that the answer meant that the Government was going to take no action.” i The Leader of the Opposition: What does this answer mean now? Mr. Atmore: ‘No,’ ‘Yes’ (laughter). The Minister: Surely this is definite? It says that there is to be an investigation. Nothing, of course, can be done this session. There is not time to inquire into it. Mr. V. 11. Potter (Roskill): It would not be done bv Order in Council? The Minister: Oh dear, fio (laughter). . . . Honourable members do not seem to understand—the boards are practically independent of. the Government—and therefore there can be no interference by the Government directly. Nothing can be done unless it is sanctioned by this House, and that means passing legislation. Against Centralisation. “Regarding school committees,” proceeded the Minister, “it has been stated that if the boards were abolished, it would mean the abolition of the committees. I don’t think that would followat all. - - “As far as I am personally concerned I am not in favour, and never have been, of centralisation, with the idea that the Department will control the whole system and that the business of education will be centralised in Wellington. I have been opposed to that always and always will be. Members’ Views. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) professed that he could not understand what the Minister’s reply amounted to. He inquired three times whether it was not a fact that a meeting had been held in the House to consider the abolition of education boards, but no answer was extracted. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Ohinemuri) said he was definitely against the abolition of education boards, and he was definitely against the amendment. The Minister had had a very trying time in doing his best in the interests of education. Mr. R. P. Hudson (Motucka) said he intended to keep an open mind on the subject, ami would give the fullest consideration to any proposals that might be wade later by the Minister. He was opposed at present to the abolition of the boards.

Mr. T. Forsvth (Wellington East) said he knew’ that the practically unanimous opinion of school committees throughout the country was iu favour of the retention, of the boards. He would vote for the amendment. The Minister of Labour (Hon. G. J. Anderson) said he had always believed the mover of the amendment to be a “Liberal of the Liberals,” but its wording showed that it was the essence of Conservatism. The amendin'. nt was designed to mislead the vo inger members of the House. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston) professed himself in favour of the abolition of education boards, in connection with which there had been a large amount of wasteful expenditure. The report was talked out.