Homepage
Login
Profile
BookClubs
dmBox
Read Ebook: Report of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee by Algie R M Ronald Macmillan
Font size:
Background color:
Text color:
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page
Ebook has 170 lines and 17097 words, and 4 pages
I--15
REPORT
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COMMITTEE
REPORT
The Orders of Reference relating to the Committee were as follows:
ORDERS OF REFERENCE
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1954
The names submitted in accordance with the above Order of Reference were: Mr Aderman, the Hon. Mr Algie, Mr Barnes, the Hon. Mr Hanan, Mrs McMillan, the Hon. Mr Mason, Mr D. M. Rae, the Hon. Mrs Ross, Mr Skoglund, and the Hon. Mr Tirikatene.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 1955
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1955
The Committee met on two days during the recess and on a number of occasions during the 1955 session.
For many reasons which need not be set out in this report, but which were communicated to Parliament, it was found impossible to present a report within the limits of time allowed, and by resolution of the House it was finally agreed that the report should be presented on or before the 1st day of October 1955.
We have given careful attention to each and every one of the recommendations of the Mazengarb Committee. We have not felt it to be our duty to hear over again all or any of the evidence placed before that Committee, nor have we regarded it as our duty to deal broadly with the incidence and causes of moral delinquency, or with the discovery and presentation of remedies for this social malady. On the contrary, we felt that we were required:
To study the legislation relating to this subject and enacted by Parliament in 1954, to consider its efficacy, and, if possible, to make recommendations for its improvement, and
To consider the suggestions made by the Mazengarb Committee for action by particular Government Departments, to give an opinion as to how far such recommendations could be given practical effect, and to set out for the information of Parliament the extent to which those recommendations had been put into operation.
Our views, suggestions, and recommendations are as follows:
The Need for Continuous Expert Investigation
In the course of our study of this problem it was frequently pointed out to us that there was a real need for a thorough and continuous study of this problem by those who from their training, experience, and occupation were best qualified to advise as to the scope and extent of the problem, as to its general causes, and as to the practical ways of dealing with it. From information in the possession of the police and of the Department of Justice it appeared that the extent of the evil was in fact not so alarming as one might be induced to believe by a perusal of the reports in the newspapers; there was, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that misconduct amongst adolescents was increasing and that this aspect of the matter was one for grave concern. There was support for these views in written memoranda submitted by two of our Magistrates, Mr Sinclair and Mr M. C. Astley. The Secretary for Justice and Controller-General of Prisons, Mr S. T. Barnett, wrote as follows:
"My suggestion is that, as a first step, the Ministers in charge of social Departments, e.g., Education, Child Welfare, Justice, Police, should be requested to direct their Permanent Heads to concert together and get down to a group study of the problem and report to Government on the practical measures to meet it.
"Within these Departments are experts who can get down to the facts and who ought to be able to propound some suggestions to ameliorate the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. They should, of course, be authorized, and indeed requested, to enlarge the departmental group and to take in representatives of principal welfare organizations."
The suggestions made by Mr Barnett were adopted, and the work recommended by him is being carried on. The results have not yet been made available to us.
We think that in matters of this kind fact finding carried out by experts in a thoroughly scientific manner is fundamental, and in a later portion of this report we have a specific recommendation to make on this subject.
Specific Recommendations of Mazengarb Committee Relative to Child Welfare Administration
In paragraph of the report of the Mazengarb Committee--pages 57 to 60 inclusive--there are a number of comments and suggestions relating to the Child Welfare Act and its administration. We have examined these paragraphs very carefully, and we set out below some excerpts from the report furnished to us by the Director of Education. Our views are given immediately following the extract from the opinion expressed by Dr Beeby, which is as follows:
"We have always felt that the spirit of the Child Welfare Act 1925 placed an obligation on us to do preventive work, and there are two Cabinet decisions, one going back to 1941, which certainly give the authority. However, we agree that it might be desirable to have the obligation expressed explicitly in the Act. Indeed, in the draft Child Welfare Bill prepared by the Division some eighteen months ago you will find this done in two ways:
" On page 1 the definition of 'Child in need of care and protection' is so widened as to cover every possible type of preventive case, if read in conjunction with the amendments passed during last session and with the Cabinet authorities to spend public funds on such children.
"We do not think it necessary to increase the powers of Child Welfare Officers for these purposes. To give them more actual powers over children who have not committed an offence would be to risk justifiable public objection to interference with the liberty of the subject and the rights of parents."
In its report the Mazengarb Committee said that the establishment a few years ago of a Ministry of Social Welfare, and the urgent need for more preventive work to be done, suggest the possibility of better administration if "child welfare" were given an independent status under the Ministry for Social Welfare.
This suggestion was examined by the Director of Education and by the Superintendent of the Child Welfare Division of the Department of Education. They reported fully to us, and their views are set out below in summarized form.
The strongest arguments that were placed before us in support of the view that child welfare should be a separate and independent Department were to the following effect:
The Superintendent would--as the head of his own Department--be the captain of his own ship subject only to the direction of his own Minister.
The Director of Education has a huge Department of his own to administer, and he cannot be expected to give to child welfare the full measure of attention it should have.
The Minister of Education must in the main find his principal and absorbing interest in the school system, and he could hardly devote to child welfare the same degree of attention that could be expected from the Minister of Social Welfare.
There would be times when the Superintendent must find it burdensome to have to work through a Department with far-reaching special interests of its own.
The public standing and prestige of the Superintendent of Child Welfare would be enhanced if he were recognized as the head of his own independent Department.
The arguments on the other side may be summarized in the following way:
Child welfare by itself would make a relatively small Department and as such it might tend to become inbred and to stagnate.
A separate Department of Child Welfare would cost more than at present because it would not be able to rely upon some of the staffing and administrative facilities of the Department of Education.
Some of the institutions now conducted or controlled by child welfare are really schools and as such they would always need to be under the real control of the Department of Education.
In actual practice no one could define with precision where the functions of child welfare could be separated from those of education.
Over the years child welfare and education have worked out their own joint policy of administration. They have in fact worked along in harmony and with effective co-operation, and there appeared to be no sound reason for disturbing a set-up which was in fact efficient, economical, and harmonious.
We were completely satisfied that the present arrangement has the full support of the Director of Education and the Superintendent of Child Welfare. This view has also the support of the Public Service Commission. After a study of the evidence that was placed before us we came to the unanimous conclusion that matters should be left as they are.
If it was decided by Government that child welfare should remain linked with the Department of Education it would be advisable that some form of administrative procedure should be worked out to define the relations between the Director of Education and the Superintendent of Child Welfare in so far as their respective approaches to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Social Welfare are concerned. It was clear to us that the present set-up is both efficient and harmonious. A detailed plan for the due performance of the various duties was worked out and agreed to by all interested parties. As it is a purely administrative matter, we have not felt that it was necessary to embody it in this report. Suffice it to say that in our opinion child welfare should remain a part of the Department of Education, that its Superintendent should have a right of direct reference to the Minister of Social Welfare, that the Minister of Social Welfare should be directly responsible for the administration of the vote applicable to the Child Welfare Division, and that the administrative plan placed before us should be adopted and applied unless and until varied by agreement between the Ministers concerned.
Dr Beeby said:
"It is true that no regulations have ever been gazetted prescribing the duties of Child Welfare Officers. The provisions for them under the Act are merely permissive, and we think it would be a retrograde step to gazette any. The duties of the Superintendent are adequately defined in the Act, and, as in other parts of the Public Service, he delegates such of those powers as he thinks fit to his subordinates. The Division's work has been done on this basis since the passing of the Act, and we can recall no incident where the absence of regulations has caused any difficulty. To define the powers might well be to restrict them and to interfere with the very preventive work we all desire.
"There should, as the Committee suggests, be some mention of Honorary Child Welfare Officers in the Act, but their powers, again, are better given by delegation than by legislation. It is very desirable that the extent to which use is made of an Honorary Officer's services be allowed to vary with the requirements of the district and the ability of the officer."
We agree with the views expressed above by Dr Beeby.
The Mazengarb Committee pointed out that the practice and procedure of the Children's Court may tend to vary from place to place throughout the Dominion because the Court was not presided over by its own specially appointed Magistrate.
On this point the Director of Education said:
"This comment is true. The position has arisen because of the practical difficulties of having the work carried out by specially appointed Magistrates. The volume of work involved could justify the appointment of only a few such Magistrates, and, because of the geographical spread of the work, they could not handle it expeditiously."
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page