The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND MONDAY, JULY 14, 1930. THE DUTY OF LEGISLATORS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1023, 14 July 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND MONDAY, JULY 14, 1930. THE DUTY OF LEGISLATORS

MEMBERS of Parliament will have an opportunity this week to I*l prove that they are honest in determination to serve the country to the best of their limited ability and avoid a waste of public money. They are to resume their work tomorrow, after a week’s adjournment as a Parliamentary tribute to the memory of the late Sir Joseph Ward. When that revered statesman passed away last week the House of Representatives was engaged in a debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of Parliament, and a Reform no-confidence amendment. _ The country has been none the poorer for a memorial cessation of party argument, and it would welcome a quick end to a sham party fight. None of the parties wants an emergency general election this year, and thus the so-called no-confidence attack upon the Government is merely a political pretence. It should be dispersed this week without any further extravagant palaver, so that the Legislature may begin the vital work of the session. Unfortunately, it has been rumoured that, following on the certain rejection of the Opposition Leader’s hostile amendment, which, in itself is merely a formality, another amendment may be submitted on behalf of Independent members. What for? All parties, as well as the country, know that the United Administration is weak in every way, hut it also is perfectly well known that Labour will keep the Government in office so long as such tactics suit Labour s policy. So why waste valuable, time on futile talk ? It is to be hoped that the protracted debate on party interests will reach a merciful silence hv the end of this week at the latest. Taxpayers and the whole range of industry and commerce are anxious to know the extent of their new obligations to the State this financial year. The Budget should be presented to the House without delay. Its belated appearance every year does not .suggest either administrative or departmental efficiency. In Great Britain the national accounts are always disclosed a few minutes after midnight March 31, while within a month or so Inter the Chancellor’s Budget, representing a turnover of £800,000,000, is submitted to Parliament and Iho country. Here, ihe State's financial authorities are either more leisurely or more lax, for they require several months in which to complete their exercises in accountancy and finalise their proposals. There is greater need than ever this year for an early announcement of the Treasurer’s financial policy. It lias been disclosed already that the prospective revenue will he down by £3,000,000. This means, of course, that the Government, however unpleasant the task, must devise new methods or expand the old methods of exploiting the revenue-producing resources of the Dominion. So far. the Hon. G. W. Forbes, in the dual role of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, has not given any indication of his intentions. There have been rumours and anticipations, but still the direction of further exploitation of taxpayers has been hidden. Probably the Treasurer will imitate in a milder way some of the drastic proposals of the Federal Government in Australia. It is at least certain .that the'United Administration will not he able to maintain its boastful pre-election determination 1o reduce taxation and restore the Dominion to prosperity and quick enterprise. Circumstances have wrought havoc on its optimistic promises. The railways have run 1o such a financial plight as to compel the Hon. W. A. Veiteli, in baffled desperation, to suggest that the 18,000 employees, from the general manager downward, •should accept a system of rationing of work on the lines adopted on the impecunious railways of New South Wales—a system which, incidentally, would not be permitted by law in general ipdustry. Even the second-highest scale of taxation in the world, on a population basis, is not sufficient to meet the squandermania of the State.

Tn view of these serious conditions, it is clearly the duty of Parliament to practise economy by cutting out party cackle, which refelly does not possess the merit of being entertaining, and to grapple purposefully with many extraordinary difficulties. There is ample scope for useful legislative work. It is long past time for legislators to abandon chatter and concentrate on national service.

SECRET COURT PROCEEDINGS

IS an]y measure of social benefit being derived from the present methods of the Children’s Court? The time has come when this question must be asked, for unless definite results can be shown and proof of improvement offered there is no excuse for the continuance of a system that possesses many undesirable features. On Saturday The Sun published the letter of a reader who protested against secret court proceedings for juveniles, together with the opinions of prominent social workers and. legal experts. The majority of those approached expressed their disapproval of the existing veil between the Children’s Court and the public, and nothing was adduced to show that out of secrecy has come good. . ' The principal arguments in favour of debarring the Press from the Children’s Court are, first, that the publication of the facts fn each ease may brand the children concerned “with a stigma that will follow them through life”; secondly, that the prominence given to the mischievous exploits of children is likely to “lead to emulation by other children”; thirdly, that the secrecy surrounding the court tends to inspire confidence among those who give evidence and lessen the terror inspired among the children themselves.

None of these arguments is soundly based. The first and probably the strongest, in the light of existing facts is superfluous, for the law provides that the Press may not publish the name of any child who is to be dealt with in the Children’s Court or any circumstance that may make identification possible. Furthermore, the presiding magistrate may at any time suppress names, either temporarily or completely. The second argument Is one which has been applied to combat all forms of court reporting and is heavily outweighed by the deterrent effects of publicity. In any case Children who are likely to he influenced by reports of juvenile crime are just as likely to follow Ihe bad example of adults. It is impossible in practice to remove adolescents front all contaminating influences. They must he educated wisely and taught to resist. The last argument must be left for the court authorities and the Child Welfare Department to answer for themselves. So far no evidence has been placed before the public to show that the secret Children’s Court is any more effective because of its secrecy. The real test of efficiency and, incidentally, the only available barometer, is the extent of juvenile crime, and it is exceedingly doubtful that this has shown any marked’decline since the special courts wore established. A suggestion has been made that the Children’s Court is “bossed” by the department; in other words, that the court tends to he controlled by those appointed to serve it. If this cannot promptly be proven false there is need for an early and public review of the work that is being done. The community should no longer he kept iu ignorance of an institution that, according to an Auckland lawyer, is adversely commented upon by those closely associated with the administration of justice.