Report of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee Part 1

Report of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee.

by Ronald Macmillan Algie.

REPORT

By a resolution of the House dated the 28th day of September 1954 a Special Select Committee was appointed to consider and to report upon certain matters relating to moral delinquency. In particular, the Committee was instructed to study the recommendations contained in the report of the Mazengarb Committee and to make such observations thereon as it thought fit. This Special Select Committee was empowered to sit during recess and was directed to report its findings to the House within twenty-eight days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.

The Orders of Reference relating to the Committee were as follows:

ORDERS OF REFERENCE

_Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives_

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1954

_Ordered_, "That a Select Committee be appointed, consisting of ten Members, to consider the Report of the Special Committee on Moral Delinquency in Children and Adolescents (H-47, 1954); the Committee to make such recommendations or observations as it thinks fit to the House or the Government; the Committee to have power to sit during the recess and for twenty-eight days after the commencement of the next ensuing session; the Committee to consist of six Members to be nominated by the Prime Minister and four Members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, such names to be submitted to the Clerk of the House on or before 31 December 1954.

(Right Hon. Mr HOLLAND.)"

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

_Ordered_, "That the period set down by Order of the House dated 28 September 1954 within which the Juvenile Delinquency Committee was required to present its report be extended to 1 September 1955."

(Hon. Mr ALGIE.)

WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 1955

_Ordered_, "That the period set down by Order of the House dated 20 April 1955 within which the Juvenile Delinquency Committee was required to present its report be extended to 1 October 1955."

(Hon. Mr ALGIE.)

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:

(1) 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

(2) 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 princ.i.p.al 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 (4) 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:

"(1) On page 43 of the draft Bill I sent you you will find Part I devoted to preventive work, and clause 1 begins, 'It shall be the _duty_ of the Superintendent to take positive action to prevent children, etc.'.

"(2) 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 pa.s.sed 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."

_Page 58, paragraph (b)_

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:

(1) The Superintendent would--as the head of his own Department--be the captain of his own s.h.i.+p subject only to the direction of his own Minister.

(2) 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.

(3) The Minister of Education must in the main find his princ.i.p.al 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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:

(1) Child welfare by itself would make a relatively small Department and as such it might tend to become inbred and to stagnate.

(2) 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.

(3) Some of the inst.i.tutions 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.