In other words, the Act aimed at dealing with children after they have become delinquents.  The new provisions for the welfare of children were grafted on to statutes which were designed for “neglected” and “criminal” children and for the establishment of “industrial schools”.  The Act did not purport to have regard for the welfare of children who might become delinquent.  It did not contain any provisions for the doing of preventive work.  That being so, it is not surprising to find that it operates in different ways in different districts.  The Committee was impressed by the preventive work done in some districts, although the officers doing this work were unable to point to any provisions in the Act which required them to do it.  In these circumstances it is not possible to blame any Child Welfare Officer for failing to do preventive work which, under the statute, he is not obliged, and, indeed, has no authority to perform.

(b) “Child Welfare” Merely a “Division"

The Superintendent of Child Welfare is under the control of the Minister of Education and the Director of Education.  But his duties do not appear to be integrated with those of the Education Department.  The work of the Division appears to be more associated with the police and the Courts than the Education Department.  In former times “industrial schools” conveniently came under the Education Department.  But nowadays, when very many of the children committed to the care of the State are boarded out among foster-parents, the work of the Child Welfare Division is more closely associated with that of “Justice” than “Education”.

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 control of the Ministry for Social Welfare.

(c) No Regulations Under the Act

The Acts of 1925 and 1927 made provision for the gazetting of regulations.  In particular, clause 45 of the 1925 Act contemplated regulations (inter alia) “regulating the appointment and prescribing the duties of Child Welfare Officers”.  After the lapse of twenty-nine years those duties have still not been defined and gazetted.

Furthermore, “Child Welfare Officers” are, under section 6, “officers of the Public Service”.  It is astounding, therefore, to hear that, year by year, “Honorary Child Welfare Officers” are appointed.  The Committee has been informed that this year 179 people were appointed or reappointed as “honorary” officers, although there is no statutory authority for their appointment and their duties are not prescribed.

The Superintendent, in his evidence regarding honorary Welfare Officers stated:  “Some of them have nominal office only.  They have the name and that is all it amounts to”.  Such a position cannot be regarded as satisfactory.  If any of them do perform useful functions (as to which no opinion can be here expressed) at least their duties should be defined.  It is very easy (as happened a few weeks ago) for a person to pose as a Child Welfare Officer in such circumstances as pertain at present.