The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1926. A SUPER-HEATED MINISTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17834, 30 April 1926, Page 8

The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1926. A SUPER-HEATED MINISTER.

The report of Dr MacEachern on the hospital system of New Zealand is so helpful and progressive that it is a pity the Minister of Health (the Hon J. A. Young) has selected one little portion of it as llie occasion for a tirade against the B.M.A. There was nothing in the report to justify a piece of political tub-thumping on the subject of New Zealand's democratic institutions. As we pointed out at the time, Dr MacEachern, in his advocacy of life governors and trustees, appeared to be unconsciously influenced by the old conception of hospitals as charitable institutions. But his intentions were quite praiseworthy. His main point was that there should be inci-eased systematic effort to secure voluntary gifts and benefactions, which would help to keep down the enormous rate, and although his method of securing such endowments is not at all likely to be adopted in New Zealand, the idea is worthy of very serious consideration. Community interest is eminently desirable in connection with public hospitals generally, and the Government, for which Mr Young essays to speak, has not always recognised this fact. It will occur to the minds of many persons that the hospital boards were very badly treated in the cutting down of the promised subsidy on the various radium funds, and in other directions the community interest is not always cultivated. However, this was not a vital point in Dr MacEachern’s report, and a perusal of it will show that he did not spare anybody, including the 8.M.A., in his advocacy of the highest possible efficiency’ in the staffing and administration of hospitals. But he found the New Zealand hospitals, without exception, “ immaculately clean ” and well kept, and he placed it on record that the four metropolitan hospitals would rank with hospitals of their kind any’where. Altogether, he was a most friendly critic, and this makes the Hon .T. A. Young's outburst all the more regrettable. As a matter of fact, Mr Young does not represent a party’ that has shown any’ great zeal in the “ rights of a free people to govern themselves,” and therefore his heated utterances on this subject savour of pure electioneering.

From the point of view of those who subscribed the money for the memorial column, it may not be inopportune to enquire at the present time what the committee’s intentions are, and the R.S.A. will have done a good service if its inquiry should lead to some finality regarding the erection of (he memorial. But the association should avoid even the suggestion that it is concerned with any question other than the erection of a memorial. The money was subscribed among persons who had given very generously to the various war funds, and much of it was given on the distinct understanding that it would be applied to the erection of a memorial column in Cathedral Square. So far the committee has been defeated in its original intention, but even now, when a new lay-out of Cathedral Square is under discussion, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the cherished site will be secured. The committee is right in exhausting every possibility in this direction before considering other sites, but at the last it would be quite competent for the committee to refund the money to the subscribers, or to apply it to any purpose agreed on by them. At all events, this is a matter in which the committee is to be led rather than driven.