TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 71, 24 March 1926, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Whatever they may have felt about it before, members of the Government, after the business deputation to the Prime Minister yesterday, should 'no longer be in doubt as to growing publie anxiety over certain legalised re-' strictions placed on trade' in New Zealand. Mr. A. Macintosh, who headed the deputation, made it quite clear that he spoke from motives of national interest, although particular interests are necessarily involved. He specifically instanced control of export of dairy produce, Government competition in trading, and the strong tendency ':o reverse the Government's election cry of "More business in Government and less Government in bnsiness." It was a case—as he represented it—of "Mischief framed by a law." What the deputation generally wanted was assurance of freedom from State interference in industry and commerce. The Prime Minister, acknowledging the value of such candid expression of opinion, reminded speakers that the Government was hardly in the saddle as yet. This is the fact; but it is as well that it should know the feelings of the animal of which it is astride. In respect' to absolute control of export.of dairy produce Mr. Coates admitted that. there was uncertainty in producers' minds as to the wisdom of that course, laid down and to be followed by the Dairy Board as from Ist August next; but the Government was going into the matter, through the Minister' of Agriculture, with the Board. The public will await the results of that conference with more than ordinary interest, for some £20,000,000 worth of produce is involved—too valuable indeed to risk in circumstances that prompt the Minister of Agriculture to ask, "Where is'the danger of absolute control!" "Government in business," directly or/ through legislation framed in particular interests, is full of dangers, and Minis-,, ters should realise it while the Government is still firmly seated in the saddle. * * * If only attention is directed to the inequalities of our present hospital system—public and private—a good purpose will have been served by the visit of Dr. MacEachern. At present, as this distinguished authority has pointed out, our public hospitals are providing excellent treatment for some of the people, but that treatment is not available for aIL The poor man is well cared for. He obtains accommodation, food, nursing, and medical attention at a daily charge which is less than the cost of board and lodging in a cheap hotel. If an operation is necessary it is performed without any additional fee. Moreover, even these moderate charges are reduced according to the means of the patient. It is the middleclass patient who suffers. He must pay almost double for accommodation and nursing in a private hospital and all medical and surgical fees in addition. We do not suggest in any way that private hospital fees are excessive, having regard to the services given in a well-conducted institution, or that the physician and aurgeon should waive their fees. But the middle-class patient's difficulty is hone the less vary great. He must either become indebted for the full amount, and, for a major operation or a long illness, incur a liability which may be a millstone round his neck for years; or he must enter the public hospital and accept service at much below cost. .He must pny either all or nothing for the specialist treatment. • . • • This position is highly unsatisfactory now, but it will become worse in the future. The community cannot be expected to make hospital provision upon the present basis for all classes; nor can honorary staffs be expected to give free treatment to all persons. The hospital doors cannot be opened wider unless there is some system of grading charges so as to assure that patients pay more in accordance wit-h their means. Nor can the hospital doors bo closed indefinitely to those who are not rich but yet arc able to pay for something more than the bedrock cost of bed and food. More and more .13 specialisation grows there will be a demand for the efficient service which tho big public hospital can give. Can we continue to deny that service to all except the poor and needy! Can we, on the other hand, give it to all at the expense of the general community and tho honorary staffs! It appears to

us that the only, solution of tho problem lies in the adoption of something upon the lines of the community hospital which Dr. MacEaebern recommends, and we hope, therefore, that tho recommendation will receive early and most careful consideration. • • • Prior to surrendering the portfolio of Education, Sir James Parr has deemed it wise to give public warning that the cost of education in this Dominion cannot be reduced. On the contrary, it must rise. We agree that an increase must be expected as the population grows, and wise provision now to meet the cost of new buildings, and what may be termed capital charges, is essential. But we hope that public men, and members of Parliament in particular, will not hesitate to examine critically our present expenditure. There is some reluctance to do so now, because the capable critics fear that they will be misunderstood. It is necessary, therefore, to emphasise that the efficiency of our education system is not to be measured by its cost. If it costs twice as much as formerly it does not follow that it is twice as good. What we wish to assure is that all the money is well spent. Close study of the report of Mr. Frank Tate must convince the unbiased person that there is scope for better spending and for the introduction, of reforms which will be of great advantage without great additional cost. While not hesitating to meet the bill for educational work that will be of advantage, we must at the same time hasten to introduce the improved systems which have been recommended.