The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1962. Care Of The Aged

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29891, 3 August 1962, Page 8

The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1962. Care Of The Aged

Ten yean of useful work by the Christchurch Aged People's Welfare Council seem to have been poorly rewarded. According to the annual report of the chairman (Dr. H. R. Donald) the council lacks financial help on the scale given by the Government to similar organisations, and it has not received the co-opera-tion it expects from the Health Department. Indeed, it was not until Mr Shelton became Minister of Health that it became the legal owner of Langford House. Yet the need for the services that only the council —as distinct from various church social agencies—can provide, is obviously great. Everyone, for instance, should be disturbed by the demands that elderly frail persons have to make on expensive general hospital accommodation because there is nowhere else where they can be properly cared for. Nor can anyone be satisfied with the thought that many other aged persons who need care and attention almost as much are getting very little. The extent of the need will be known more accurately when the survey being made by the Health and Social Security Departments has been completed. But the Government should not

have to wait for that information before deciding how the council should be helped in its work. Does the Government recognise the council as the agency of the Christchurch community as a whole in caring for the aged? If so, why has the council to complain of “ persistent opposition”, apparently from State servants? Is it true that the council, instead of being regarded as the coordinating authority it was intended to be, is treated as subordinate to other organisations? Why should that be? The council has declared itself ready to hand over its responsibilities to any other organisation that may be thought more suitable; but there is no such organisation. Perhaps Government departments object to some aspect of the council's administration. If so, they should explain how it could be improved. These questions must be resolved, not in deference to* the wishes of Dr. Donald and his widely representative executive committee, but for the sake of the elderly people of Christchurch. The complaints made in the council’s report are so serious as to demand a plain reply from the Minister of Health and Social Security (Mr McKay).