THE CHILD WELFARE ACT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1025, 16 July 1930, Page 12

THE CHILD WELFARE ACT

Maori Association Critical “LOOKING FOR CHEAP LABOUR” SEVERE criticism of the administration of the Child Welfare Act was expressed to a SUN reporter yesterday by a responsible office-holder of the Akarana Maori Association, who outlined the attitude of the association toward the Act and its working'.

“We don't object to the principle of the Act, but we are of the opinion that its application to Maori children is not appropriate,” he declared. Maori children, who were held to be living under unsatisfactory conditions, were brought before a magistrate by Child Welfare officers and committed to an institution. They were then, more often than not, boarded out to European foster parents. There, the association considered, lay the mistake. Maori children, severed from their people, became social misfits. They were not admitted altogether to European society and they were strangers to their own people and even to the language of their own people. “You may leave a native child among his own folk and he is likely to grow up a good Maori, but you cannot make a good Pakeha out of him," said The Sun's informant. In some cases. Maori children living with their European foster parents had lost their land interests. Their relatives, considering that they were severed from their race, had excluded them when claims were brought before the Native Land Court. The association suggested that the children should be dealt with by the judges of the Native Land Court in whose hands lay the appointment of trustees for minors in respect of land interests. It was desired to have the Act amended and, as a result of the association's activities. it was possible that something would be done this session.

Several cases in support of the association’s contentions were sup-

plied from the Maori Association’s I office. In one case where children were boarded out, the next-of-kin had no knowledge of the fact, and 12 months passed before the custody of the youngsters could be regained. It was possible, the Akarana Association representative said, that a boy. removed from a Maori school, might lose his right to a free placo at Te Aute College. The association also objected to the continued visits of welfare officers, police constables and others, who called to report on children returned to the care of their relatives or parents. The powers of the Child Welfare officers were too arbitrary, and there was no appeal against the order of a magistrate made at the instigation of the department. What chance of making any satisfactory plea had a frightened Maori woman when confronted by magistrate, lawyer, Child Welfare officer, police and social workers? “We want to make it impossible for these things to continue,” said the association officer. “In our opinion i most of these people who agree to board Maori children are only looking for cheap labour.” It was further pointed out that a woman could be denied access to her children when they were committed to the care of the Child Welfare Department whereas. following an action for divorce, even where the mother had been guilty of a heinous moral crime, she was rarely denied the right to see her children. Sometimes children were restrained from answering their parents’ letters, as it was supposed j to unsettle them and make them dis- ■ contented with their lot.