TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 128, 26 November 1929, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Complete surfacing and tar-sealing of city streets, according to the Mayor, would cost £200,000,.and this would involve an annual charge of £20,000 for a short-dated loan. Ratepayers would not welcome this addition to the rates they are now called on to pay. That fact must be faced. At the, same time it is undeniable that the paving of main streets has been anything but a blessing to many residents on the side roads. ' It has encouraged traffic on the main streets, and the motor-cars have used the side streets" also. Ten years ago residents of the main thoroughfares did not complain of the dust nuisance; only an occasional car troubled them. Now the surfaced, main streets have brought dozens of motors on to macadam roads which are not built for them. The macadam, patched with rotten rock, yields clouds of dust. Where, formerly, the complaint was only of dust which was blown from the main road, now the side-street itself has its dust carpet. It is only fair to residents that they should have some relief, and we think relief can be given without heavy additional expense. Thorough examination will show where the trouble is most acute, and a beginning can be made in these localities. We hesitate to suggest that the saving in* maintenance of the macadam would pay the annual cost; but there should be some contribution from this source. Patching as at present carried on must be costly because it does not last, and it is never satisfactory. * » *

Dominion-wide organisation of transport has not been abandoned, states the Minister of Transport. He regards the dropping of last session's Bill as a temporary set-back, and intends to recommend Cabinet to approve a comprehensive measure to be introduced early next session. We hope that early introduction of the measure will be insisted on. Last session the Bill would have had a better prospect if there had been more time for discussion. As it was, the principles were imperfectly understood in many quarters- and much misunderstood in some. Before the Bill was returned by the House Committee it was too late to begin debating far-reaching proposals— at least, Parliament thought it was too late. Mr. Veitch would be well advised next year to state his proposals even before the session begins; so that interested bodies may have an opportunity of examining them at leisure. This will lessen misunderstanding. It will not remove opposition completely. A policy which is to achieve its objects must curtail some existing powers. The present licensing system, for example,-cannot be maintained. But full explanation beforehand of the necessity for dominion-wide organisation to reduce transport waste will assure public support for a well-drawn Bill. Both Reform and . United have pointed to the need for action, and Labour, if true to its principles, must support a measure designed to conserve the wider public interest. But there must be thorough preparation of the public mind or else there will be wrecking opposition.

A startling indictment is made bySir George Newman in his annual report on the health of school children.- "Proper provision for the nurture and education of at least two million of England's three million children under the age of five does not exist." The extracts from the report are too scrappy to disclose the full effect of the statement; but what has been cabled suggests that Sir George Newman desires some

system which will provide for children before they reach school age. There are two systems which aim at making this provision: the mothercraft centres (modelled on our own Plunket institutions) and the kindergarten. One deals with early infancy and the other anticipates the school age. But all children are not brought within the range of i these schemes—even in New Zealand —and probably the proportion provided for in England is still lower. It is difficult to see how full provision can be made, except by the education of parents—a slow process. The State cannot well become the foster-parent of every infant. Where there is proved parental neglect the State can step in, but much harm may be done before ever this stage is reached. Voluntary methods offer a prospect of effecting improvement. As we have seen in New Zealand, there is a ready response by parents |if they are offered assistance and advice. The Plunket nurse is welcomed where a State inspector would not be. By such means sound knowledge of infant nurture may be inculcated, without the State taking the sole burden of parental responsibility.

As he is charged with responsibility for Labour's unemployment policy, Mr. J. H. Thomas has been giving some,attention to root causes. The result of his study is a condemnation of pensioners who deprive others of work and of women who work for "pin-money." On the surface there is much in Mr. Thomas's argument. When competition for jobs is keen, the intrusion of persons who are otherwise provided for increases the hardship of those who work for a living. Mr. Thomas does not suggest a remedy. He does not even endorse the views of those public authorities who have endeavoured to prevent the employment of married women whose husbands hold good positions. Obviously the task is beyond him. What is "pin-money" to one woman (in the class "jogging along on two or three thousand a year") would be a good living to another. Where is the line to be drawn? The trouble is not, however, exactly as Mr. Thomas has diagnosed it. If the women working for "pin-money" were all seeking posts as cooks-general, and the pensioners were lined up in queues for farm-labourers' jobs, there would be less complaint. The difficulty lies in the uneconomic distribution of labour. The more workers there are the better it is for a nation; but the full benefit of complete mobilisation of labour power is not derivable unless the main body of labour is engaged in production or useful social service. Will Mr. Thomas rush in and attempt to force this?