Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1036, 29 July 1930, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

A HINT TO MR. FORBES Sir.— The Government is about to penalise motor-owners, cigarette smokers anil those who drink whisky, etc. Not many will escape the three-pronged fork. But if the Government was bent on allowing no escapes, it might make compul sory the wearing of a meter to register air consumption. This metliod would have a certain automatic fairness. Healthy, strong-lunged people could not object to pay for their advantage over shallow-breathing weaklings. If the scheme were adopted, however. wo should be prepared for an increase of mortality among Caledonians. v RAKUHIA. CURTAIN-RAISERS Sir.— May I be permitted to express rry hearty appreciation of the schools’ curtain-raisers on Saturday? The standard of play was excellent all through, and, as one who paid his halfcrown more on that account than tor the Test, I was not disappointed. The primary schools’ side played pluckiiy right through to the end. though it was obvious that seventh grade was far too big for them. But the little fellows stuck to it like Britons, and were by no means disgraced. In the Whangarei-Mount Albeit game, things were much more even, and very interesting all through. It is a certainty that both these schools can play most entertaining football, and 1 for one would be most pleased to see them meet some other time. Now for the Auckland GrammarHamilton High School game. According to the score, this looks all onesided; but. as a matter of tact. Hamilton did exceptionally well against sueli doughty opponents as Grammar. And 1 was exceedingly sorry that their efforts were not rewarded by a score of some kind.. But, after ail, against Grammar it might have been much .worse, and here, too, Hamilton played up pluckiUright to the last tick. Incidentally 1 should like to congratulate Grammar upon its much improved form. Ti e team played a much more open game than it did toward the end of last season. And not only that, but it did seem to have more of the “game for its own sake" spirit. I hope it keeps it tip. It. M. THOMSON. , THE R.S.A. Sir,— In answer to Mr. Lewis's letter to The Sun in last Saturday’s issue, regarding wrestling. I might say that Mr Lewis has been misinformed. Wellington is not trying to tell Auckland how to run wrestling, hut I will say that if Auckland worked along the same lines as Wellington, it would be more convenient for its association, “fans” and the wrestlers. Wellington has always tried hard to

work in connection with the Auckland Association. Evidence to that effect, this year, is that Alley and Ray are both under contract to Wellington. Wellington gave permission for Alley to wrestle McDougall, also for Ray to wrestle Lundyn and Walker. The new Wrestling Union is an affiliation of associations from Auckland R.S.A., Wellington. Christchurch. Dunedin and Palmerston North. The Auckland Association was asked to send a delegate to this conference, but did not do so. The R.j>.A. was asked also to have a delegate there, which it did. -It was decided to give all the profits derived by the R.S.A. from the promotion of wrestling to the distressed and unemployed returned soldiers. Everyone loves a soldier in time of war—let us aJI help them in time of peace. ONE INTERESTED.

CHILDREN'S COURTS Sir, — It has been a matter of surprise and wonder to me that, in the recent series of letters dealing with the Children’s Court and the Child Welfare Department, there has been so much in common; indeed, the uniformity- of complaint has been so great that one may be forgiven for thinking that the letters may have been inspired. But “Isis" strikes a new note iind introduces a shade of relief. We are given a new idea and a question. Is all well with the administration of tho Child Welfare Branch of the Education Department? As a lifelong student of social matters, I have seen much of child life, and occasionally of the workings of this department. So, Mr. Editor. I think I am entitled to express an opinion. Nay, I have a further claim. For I have taken the trouble to make myself conversant with the latest developments in the social welfare enactments of the various British Dominions, and also the Northern European democracies. And let me say right here that New Zealand is the only Dominion in the British Empire where a specific social work is entrusted solely to the “expert” guidance of a Department of Education. In no Australian Ftate, no Canadian State nor in Britain, nor as far as my reading goes in any European country, is the work of Child Welfare entrusted to the academic authority. Thirty years ago it was otherwise. An industrial system represented the sum total of Child Welfare effort in most countries. This system, as most social workers know, was at best a rough and ready expedient, and as a system of adjustment, a dismal failure. As the industrial schools were largely residential day schools, they were genenorally administered by the education ■•authority. But as I have remarked, they failed badly in their object. Other countries realised this long ago. and entirely reshaped their systems. It is only “yesterday” since New Zealand modified its industrial school system. She modified it sufficiently to alter the aspect of the work from one of segregation in institutions to a social work in the community. The Child Welfare I Act, 11125, definitely states that the

“placing out” system is the j® New Zealand. Plainly, since the child - ren are placed out. the onus of making good citizens of these unfortunate* largely rests with the community. problem of dealing with these childrenis a social economic problem. practically every country in the wn® lias realised this. New Zealand has stood still. No wonder from time to time complaints arise in your valuaW columns. Th© Education Departmen is called upon to administer a service whose interests are for the most P« alien to those of education. If “growth” of Child Welfare were cm away, would it not leave the authorities freer to concentrate on tnei job proper? The Director of tion i*» a very much wronged omcs** when he is called upon to adminxsi * a work that he cannot be expectaa know anything about. . In conclusion, let it be understood that this is not an attack on * n3 ' r ._ the officials of the Education ‘ ment. Occasionally the writer n met various officers connected witn JChild Welfare side of the work, am* for the most part has the utmost spect for them. They no doubt my conscientious body of workers, but ow* a director of social welfare and no. Director of Education can give tn • * capable direction and leadership- An one in the least acquainted witn modern trend of the trea tment , social welfare problems, will rea S understand why the Child Welfare aw of 1925 represents only a “strangled” effort at reform. minds one of a certain joint o. r that once called forth Dr. *lLjiv severe strictures. The Act ’* aS drawn, badly phrased, and —as i* the Children’s Courts are concern*** badly administered. \TO.