CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 243, 14 October 1931, Page 17

CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT.

Of the, astounding .figures"■now; spent by the Education.Department not'a small proportion is accounted for by the everextending ramifications of the above section, and it is time public opinion called for a halt. Surely New Zealand parentage and childhood, as judged by the standards of other civilised countries, compare favourably in every way. Yet here we have this Department operating in ever-increasing directions, and at increasing public expense, to the certain detriment of family life—the very antithesis of its reason for existence. An alarming number of homes are now being subjected to its official inspections, and the security of the family circle is disappearing. An adverse report (from which there is no appeal) may be issued any day, the children taken and committed to "homes" or "foster parents," and the family group irreparably broken up. The slightest pecadillo or alleged shortcoming of parents or children is made the occasion for Chold Welfare officialdom let loose on such a home. They are generally people whose position debars them from obtaining essential | legal protection, and as the result they are at the mercy of the array of officials who' operate. Locally elaborate and expensive rooms have been equipped. The whole tone of the premises breathes bureaucracy in its worst form, for here also are the Court sittings held. From these Star Chamber proceedings there is no appeal or rehearing possible, and scenes there take place which are incredible in this so-called "God's Own Country." These energies of the Department, indeed, require drastic curbing. Why should so many children be' thus under their control, and why this highlyobjectionable system of police and school reporting on children ? There is too large a child population in institutions and under "foster parentage" —people paid by the State to undertake those duties, a system in itself open to obvious objection. Where home life is not (in the opinion of the Department) up to standard, then the parents should rather be assisted in every way to that end, rather than break up the family group as is too often done in pursuance of the Department's present methods. VICTIMISED MOTHER.

There is one piont in connection with the objections to the threatened reduction in the education vote that has so far received insufficient attention. I refer to the cost of the Child Welfare Department, -which is included in the amount spent on education. ISTot being essentially educative, the work of this Department should be separated from that of the purely scholastic part of our education system. Such a changein control was advocated, at the Labour Women's Conference in 1928, and a remit to that effect, was later adopted at the general conference of the Labour party. The results of the activities of this costly and dangerous administration do not justify its existence much less the lavish expenditure which seems to escape the notice of all but a few taxpayers. The following items culled from the Year Book of 1931 and the Departmental report may enlighten your readers: — Cost of administration, £169,182. Of this amount £34,904 went in salaries, £4405 was spent on buildings and £88,486 was paid in "boarding out" State wards. As far as can be learnt by investigation no effort has been made to economise in administering the Act, nor is there any indication that such is contemplated. In view of the fact that scholarships have been cut down and free places in our secondary schools are likelv to be filched from bur boys and girls, teachers, parents and all others interested should demand that the cost of the Child Welfare Department be reviewed and substantially reduced. MJ3.S. '