APPENDIX 19
Memorandum by Mr Alex Crocket
British Child Migrants (CM 228)My
full name is Alexander McIntyre Crocket of Havelock North, New
Zealand. Between 1950-54 I was stationed in Palmerston North where
I was a Child Welfare Officer in the Child Welfare Division of
the Department of Education. That division was subsequently amalgamated
into the new Department of Social Welfare.Part of my work was
with NZ Wards of the State, Children's Court Cases and delinquency
issues. When the then Government put a new clause in the Child
Welfare Act of 1925 recognising the Department's role with British
Child Migrants and stating that such children upon arrival in
New Zealand were deemed to be under the guardianship of the Superintendent
of Child Welfare (in Wellington), it fell to me, in our office
in Palmerston North to be part of a very small district team who
sought over a reasonably large area to:
Receive social work reports from the areas in
the UK where parents and (children?) were seeking to have their
children placed in this country.
Find prospective foster homes in our community
for migrant children of school age.
Find prospective work for older migrant children
of working age in line with their stated preferences.
Prepare full social work reports on those offering
homes who had heard details of specific children/young people.
Through our head office these reports were then sent to UK parents
via the UK agencies who were in touch with the parents.
If the arrangements were approved in the UK,
met the children when they arrived in our area, took and introduced
them to where they would be living. Subsequently as with wards
of the state, social workers kept in close touch both with the
children and the fosterparents or employers.In my case for those
working boys who were clearly unhappy, assist with their banking
and in liaison with their parents, in the UK send them back by
boat.As my parents were both migrants from Scotland who yearned
for their homeland and their families, I had a special interest
and affinity with the whole programme. I enjoyed this work as
most of the youngsters were a delight, albeit from an entirely
different culture. In the course of this work I encouraged children
to write to their parents—and likewise tried to have the
parents respond. Few did, I sought to help those who were homesick
or moved the children where obviously the fosterhome was not working
out. All the time our social work notes were kept up to monitor
how the children was progressing. Mostly around 17 years of age
they were "discharged" from the care of the Superintendent
of Child Welfare and were expected to make their own way.The difference
of perception of the child, and those who cared for them, was
often vast despite the patient work we had done with those who
had applied to take a child—mostly as result of newspaper
advertisements and national media publicity.Many parents in war-shattered
UK, thought New Zealand was the golden land—no rationing,
plenty of good food, a land of the future. The boys on farms had
expected to be riding the range as cowboys, not the grind of milking
of cows twice daily, often distant from the urban lights. All
wages were the standard award wage of the day for their age with
wages being sent by employers for banking in individual trust
funds. Pocket money was negotiated for each worker. When discharged
from the department's care the money was paid over in a lump sum
to the migrant.School children found their accents often foreign
to the New Zealand ear and often adjusted poorly to schools. With
the multiplicity of cultures now in this country this would not
now apply.At the time, and since, I have regarded the parsimony
of both governments in not making money available to support these
young people in this new country was heartless and short sighted
in terms of human happiness.Once the children were in New Zealand,
unless they were earning their own money, they could not afford
to return to the UK. Many sorely wanted to do this after a year
or so. Neither Government would apparently entertain such expenditure.I
am sure the quality of care of Child Migrants was variable over
the whole of the country, despite social work inspectors visiting
each district regularly. Further, as willing fosterparents took
young migrants, the burden of not receiving any state funding
for board and clothing, except the then Family Benefit of 10/-
a week, took the gloss off their altruism. For this reason often
changes of fosterhomes became the only solution.
Conclusions
With the benefit of hindsight child migration
from their UK homeland was wrong, albeit its original intentions
were altruistic. The long tradition in the UK to send some of
its young children overseas, particularly from orphanages, made
this scheme seem logical.
The perceptions of people like myself, who worked
enthusiastically with the young people themselves is now miles
apart from our previous clients. Even when examining their extant
files now, the perceptions migrants had of what was their early
history here is seldom modified. Maybe, often for good reasons.
As in many fostering situations wrong things,
took place unknown to those working with them as social workers.
Many placements were very successful and the young people flourished—but
these do not advertise themselves, sadly lest there is the stigma
of Child Migrant associated with them.
I think both governments owe something to
these, now adult people.
Recommendation: My own strong view is that a
fund should be set to allow those, who are not in a financial
position to travel to the UK to see their home place and re-establish
family relationships, financial help should be given for a return
trip. Protocols could be set up.In New Zealand we have a Maori
beloved term. It is: "turangawaewae." Translated it
means "A place where my feet can stand. (My own home turf)".
Where do the feet of these migrants emotionally now stand? Some
are surely still be in the UK. They are owed something.Please
do not hesitate to be in touch with me if I can be of further
help.
19 June 1998
|
