UNHAPPY HOMES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23955, 2 November 1939, Page 8

UNHAPPY HOMES

A SERIOUS SOCIAL PROBLEM DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS ACT LEGISLATION NOW IN FORCE fPER United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Nov. 1. The Domestic Proceedings Act, 1939. which makes provision for the appointment of conciliators between husbands and wives prior to the institution of separation proceedings in court, came into operation to-day. In an interview this evening the Minister of Justice (Mr fl. G. R. Mason) said that arrangements were in train to give practical effect to the measure, “ No one would suggest that we will have 100 per cent, successes or anything like it,” Mr Mason said, “ but we have every hope that we will have a sufficient proportion to justify the efforts being made. At all events a serious social problem is involved. I think that without any exaggeration it can be described as perhaps the most serious social problem we have. We are going to try, and will do our best.’ - The Minister said the Act mentioned certain types of persons, such as probation officers, child welfare officers and maintenance officers, from whom the conciliators might be appointed, but in making appointments the magistrates were not limited to these. The hope that the great majority of cases would be referred to conciliators was expressed by the Minister. The Act provided that magistrates might make exceptions where they thought it proper, but one would expect them in all ordinary circumstances to refer the ciuestion to a conciliator in the first instance. ,

The institution of conciliation was not dn the strict sense the establishment of another court, said Mr Mason. It was merely the introduction of a different procedure into the same court. In another sense it might be called a different court in that the Act directed that domestic cases, when coming before the court, were to be held at a different time from other cases so far as was practicable. That, however, was the practice very generally adopted by magistrates long befor,, the passing of this Act. so there was really nothing novel in the idea, although now it had legislative sanction. The parties in disagreement would be able to tell their story freely to conciliator without fear of any statement being used against them. It was expressly indicated, that no statement made to a conciliator by either par' might be given in evidence m court proceedings. Further, a conciliator was forbidden under penalty to disclose any such statement. The Act depended utterly for its success upon the personality of the conciliators. The Minister said they required to be persons of much understanding and experience, and he believed the authorities would manage to find such persons. The New Zealand Act had some resemblance to the English Act. On the other hand there were some differences. For example, the provision in the New Zealand Act making confidential all statements made by parties to a conciliator was unlike the English Act. The English Act had been in operation long enough to form the basis of a report on its working in England. As one would expect, there had been both successes and failures. The English experience had confirmed the fact that to be lasting the work must be based on an attempt to secure an understanding, and must not be based on pressure of any sort.

“Among other social problems on which this work bears is the problem of juvenile delinquency,” said Mr Mason. “No one can handle the question of delinquency of juveniles and young persons without being struck by the frequency of cases having their origin in a broken home. I do not know whether any exact figures have ever been compiled in this country, but 1 have noticed a recent statement in England that 58 per cent, of juvenile delinquents come from unhappy homes.”