Rehabilitation
The Prime Minister told returned servicemen a few days ago that the time was at hand when a Minister of Rehabilitation must be free to devote himself wholly to his task, with the aid of a director of rehabilitation. Besides, the “ whole “ rehabilitation set-up would be “ reviewed and to some extent over- “ hauled.” If the present organisation of board and council was to be maintained—the “ if ” is interesting —it would be necessary for some members of the board, also, to be occupied full time. It is to be hoped that these sentences indicate more than a vague feeling that the present organisation is not good enough. They should mean that the Cabinet’s plans are already well matured and ready, or nearly ready, to be put into effect. The National Rehabilitation Council is an unwieldy body, representative of many sections and interests, but defectively representative. The board, a smaller body, with some executive functions, subject to the Minister, is obviously more useful, but is handicapped by operating on a part-time basis, by want of technical and other staff, and by having to work within the limits of a very badly drawn statute. These are defects which, with the dangerous provisions and still more dangerous gaps in Part II of the Rehabilitation Act, have frequently been commented on here; and there is no need to say more. In acknowledging the need for full-time service on the board, even more than in his reference to the full-time service of a Minister, the Prime Minister goes some way along the road to a better organisation. He said enough, perhaps, to imply that he recognises the need for specialist staff; and if he does, he is still further along the road. But two questions arise. Mr Fraser spoke of a full-time Minister, assisted by a director, whose “ department ” would see that the decisions of the Cabinet and the board were carried out. Does this mean that he foresees, in fact, a department of State in the accepted sense, administering a policy called rehabilitation and itafled to do it?
Does Mr Fraser. mean that the Minister of Rehabilitation will be solely responsible for a policy called rehabilitation and, subject to the approval of the full Cabinet, will put it into force through this separate department? If so, there is a real confusion of ideas, from ■ | which confused measures will emerge. Clearly, rehabilitation, if it is a policy and not a collection of aid and relief measures, will be inseparable from economic and social policy in the widest sense. It will and must be organically connected with, for instance, land and agricultural policy, industrial policy, and national development and housing policy. It cannot be independently framed or independently administered. What is essential, therefore, is that the Minister of Rehabilitation should be the chairman of a small Cabinet planning committee, and that it should have constantly available to it the services of a group of advisers (the board) and of the technical staff' necessary to work out the problems of their planning.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19430602.2.16
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23963, 2 June 1943, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
505Rehabilitation Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23963, 2 June 1943, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.