INFANT WELFARE

Hokitika Guardian, 29 May 1931, Page 5

INFANT WELFARE

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND COMPARED. SIR TRUBY’S APPEAL. A comparison of the infant wel are system of Australia with that of New Zealand was made by Sir Trnhy King on his return to Wellington a tew days ago. In emphasising the value of the Dominiums scheme. Sir Tvuby ».\d that in Australia the financial straits of the Governments had resulted in the movement suffering grave loss of fluids.

"The most obvious and outstanding difference between the two countries,' said Sir Truby, "is due to the fact that throughout the Commonwealth in general, and in New South Wales in particular, tile saving of child life, the prevention of disease, and the promotion of health durihgpnfsuiey have been made mainly and most, essentially a Government function, paid for out ol the rates. The reverse has been the case in New Zealand. The Plunket Society, working consistently nnd progressively for the past quarter of a century, has undertaken this responsibility, founded upon a purely voluntary basis. “The relative merits of these two schemes is best appreciated by observing what has been taking place during the steadily-increasing financial stress of the past few years, especial* Iv .in New South Wales,” said Sir Truby, “In common with all humanitarian agencies established with a view to Improving health nnd preventing disease, Government effort and Government expenditure have become more and more restricted, until at the present time the money available for tins essential work has been cut down to an utterly inadequate minimum. Need for Support. “Tu New Zealand, on the contrary, steady progress has been maintained right up to the present moment. However. I know that at the present time the devoted workers on the committees who have managed so far to continue to advance have reached, in fact, have over reached, what can be expected of them. They now need every particle of pecuniary support which the public can give them. If this is not forthcoming it will not only be impossible meantime to make further progress, but actual restrictions of nepessurv service will have to be faced. It should never be forgotten that, speaking' 1 broadly, the services given bv the Plunket Society are never less than 80 per cent, voluntary and at most only 20 per cent, governmental. f ‘l trust that the appeal which jl am now making for the sake of women and children. ‘When their need is the sorest,’ will meet with the g nerous response always given us. There nevyr was a time in which the Plunket Society’s mission of ‘Helping the Mothers and Saving the Babies’ was so urgently needed than now.”