TAKEN TO TASK.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20360, 18 July 1934, Page 7

TAKEN TO TASK.

! THE UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD. Magistrate’s Remarks. •‘OVERRIDING DISCRETION OF COURT." The Unemployment Board, by its interference with the discretion of the Court, has lost £56. I propose to discharge this man.” These remarks were passed by the Magistrate (Mr H. P. Lawry) this morning in referring to the action of the board in demanding restitution from relief workers, irrespective of the directions of the Court in the matter. “ I hard!}- trust myself to say anything further,” added the Magistrate. The case of Alexander Rennie was called, and the Magistrate said Rennie had been ordered previously by the Court to refund £56 within four years, at such times and in such instalments as directed by the Probation Officer (Mr W. H. Darby). The department had interfered and wrote to Rennie, asking for a weekly instalment of 2s 6d. That in itself was a departure from the Court’s order. The department gave further direction that the instalments were to be paid into the office of the department, adding that in default of the payments Rennie would have to stand down for a week. That was a second departure from the Court’s order. Refund Demanded.

“ Your department,” said the Magistrate, addressing Mr R. T. Bailey, officer in charge of the Christchurch Labour Bureau, “ in its superior wisdom decided to over-ride the discretion of the Probation Office without authority. This man had been getting the munificent sum of 13s 6d a week. The department, knowing that was all his earnings, demanded a refund of 2s 6d a week. As he was unable to pay it, the result was that he has been stood down ever since. How does the department justify its interference?” Mr Bailey: This case was before the Court prior to your making your first pronouncement. The Magistrate: If I grant you that, even now the notice has not been withdrawn since. Mr Bailey said that on May 23 he had had a letter from Wellington insisting on the payment of the money due from Rennie. The Magistrate: And on the same day I have a letter from the Probation Officer stating that the department was interfering with his discretion. Mr Bailey: The department realises this man has four years in which to refund the money. “ Do As We Say.” The Magistrate: Your department is not satisfied with the Court’s decision, but takes the attitude “ do as we say.” I made my attitude clear in April last and this letter was sent from your office in March. The board has not since undone what it has done wrong. This man has four years in which to make restitution. The department says “We will determine the matter, not the Court.” . Mr Bailey said that from Rennie’s way of living he thought Rennie could pay something. The Magistrate: That is net for the Unemployment Board -to say. I said restitution would be required by Mr Darby and by no one else. This man is still being stood down. Mr Bailej’-: The Unemployment Board is the sole judge of who should be given work.

The Magistrate: No. The Unemployment Board, once the case comes before me, has nothing to do with it. The Court is not going to lend itself to this treatment. It is not for the Unemployment Board to interfere. You elected to come to Court, and we have given our decision. If you are not satisfied you can appeal, but vou are not going to do this sort of thing as if the Unemployment Board had a superior knowledge than the Court. The position is entirely different. I have had inquiries made into this man s means and I would not have brought him to Court if I had thought the case could be met any other way. The board, bv its interference, has lost £56. I propose to discharge this man. I hope my remarks will be conveyed to the Unemployment Board. Mr Bailey’s Complaint.

Mr Bailey: When the Probation Officer has any case for review I think it is only common decency for him to advise me.

The Magistrate: The money was to be paid to the Probation Officer. Mr Bailey: I appreciate that and accept it. All I ask is that in these cases the Probation Officer should-have the common decency to advise me. Mr Darby: I take strong exception to the remarks of Mr Bailev and ask the Court to ask him to ' withdraw them. They are quite uncalled for. This matter is quite beyond mv jurisdiction or that of Mr Bailey. I acted only by your instructions. The Magistrate: This case arose from my remarks in April and is brought up on my own instigation. I hardly trust m3 r self to say anything further. An Sarlier Case. In an eailier case the Magistrate asked Mr Bailey to produce the file of a man named Weaver, a case where the Magistrate said Weaver had been ordered to make restitution of 2s 6d a week by the department, which had actually collected 30s. Instead of that the department now docked him of half a day s work. “ Your department, * he said, “ elected to bring this man to Court, where his punishment ■was assessed. Your department is not satisfied and gives further punishment. That has actually been operating this week.” Mr Bailey: I am not in a position to say that. The Magistrate: The man was told on Monday to that effect. Mr Bailey: I have been advised that the half-day docked was in connection with a child. The Magistrate: Right up to this week he has been charged 2s 6d a week over the amount T fined him. Mr Bailey: After your previous pronouncement on this subject it was reported to Wellington and instructions were issued. So far as I know no further action was taken. The Magistrate: This man has been paying 2s fid a week up to this week. Child Over Sixteen. Mr Bailey: The man has a child

who has now attained the age of 16 years and is not a charge on the tunds. That is the reason for the halfday being cut out, according to advice I have just received. The Magistrate: He was given to understand that it was in connection with this case. Mr Bailey: Then he was given to understand something contrary to the Unemployment Board’s and my instructions. The Magistrate said the Unemplovment Board had persisted in its attitude after he had drawn attention to the matter. The beard acted in defiance of the Court’s findings. They asked the Court to deal with this man, and then they take the law into their own hands,” he said. “ I 'Y ant a better assurance from them than I have had in the past. What the board previously said, through you, was that the deductions were not intended to affect men dealt with bv the Court.” The Magistrate added that in some cases he had refused to allow the cases to be withdrawn so that the Court could handle them. _ a , case that as recently as April 27 the board was still acting contrarv to my instructions. And they ask me to punish this man! How am 1 to know that they will not take further action? I expect the board to act fairly and straightly and they have not done so. Nothing to Hide. Mr Bailey: It must have been bet0 TT, Ap £ ' • We have ”°thing to hide. lhe Magistrate: I am not blaming y u personally. I am satisfied with your personal action. lam dealing VT Instructions from Wellington Mr Bailey: I don’t wish for a moment to have my superior officers criti2f®7. w hen I have instructions from Vv elhngton. The Magistrate: I want something more from the Unemployment Board tnan the intimations I have had in nese cases. I want them to prove it their conduct. I don’t want the L curt to be used in this way. The cases were adjourned sine die.