BOARD OR MINISTER?

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 150, 22 December 1921, Page 11

BOARD OR MINISTER?

CONTROL OF HOSPITALS

APPOINTMENTS AND THE POWER

OF VETO

:'Strong objections to the proposal that l,he Minister of" Public Health should have the power to veto appointments made by hospital boards were expressed at the meeting of the Wellington HospiUil and Charitable Aid Board yesterday afternoon. The matter was introduced by the chairman (Mr. F. Castle), who submitted a statement (published in yesterday's Post) setting out the main objections.

Mr. Castle said that members of the Finance, Property, and Policy Committee of the board had that morning waited on the Public Health Committee of the House of Eepresentatives for the purpose of stating their ease, but they had been requested to withhold their objections until other boards gave their evidence on 12th January. He regretted that' the Government had not seen fit to deal with the subsidy question this year. This was not altogether surprising, as the Government was being saved an expenditure of some £60,000. The Rev. H. Van Staveren congratulated the chairman on his report, and said that he hoped that every endeavour would be used in order that the board's powers would not be abrogated by the Minister, as had been the case with the school committees. It seemed to him Uiat the Government desired to have complete control of the hospitals. Mr. J. Glover said that he approved of the report. It appeared to him that as long as they had a Minister of Health with the ideas of Mr. Para i they could expect nothing else. The Minister seemed to think that he was the, only person in the country competent to make appointments. He certainly did not trust the boards. The speaker said that the board shauld take every possible step in objecting to the Minister's proposals. "I feel that wo should lose no opportunity of protesting against the whittling away of the powers of the board," said Mr. C. H. Chapman. He did not think that it could be claimed or suggested that there .had been any failure on the part of the hospital boards. The board system of control had Deen eminently satisfactory in . this country, and the proposed amendments, if carried into force, would have the effect of terminating the present system of control. Undoubtedly tbe duties which, they had undertaken included, and must include, the appointment of certain officials. If the amendments were carried they would have more red tape, without any more efficiency. Officials would have to l«e appointed to carry out the work of the' boards, and they, naturally, would have to be paid. The Public Health Department was not efficient, and it was up to members of the board to take off their gloves .-and tell the Minister so. Mr. J. TCi Butler said that he was in favour of 'the nationalisation of hospitals, and he was surprised to hear a Labour member speak so strongly against it. He felt that the criticism of the Minister of Public Health and his department was not justified; he had a different opinion of the Minister and his work. At the same time he did not believe in whittling away the powers of the board in the amendments. Mr. C. M. Luke dwelt upon the adi vantages, of the present system of control, and said that local bodies should do everything within their power to conserve what powers they had. "If a change is necessary," said Mr. Tjiike, "why is it .that they left it until the eleventh hour to bring down such a violent change in the Act?" Mr. Luke went on to refer to a speech that had been delivered at Homo recently by the Duke of York, whose advice was to retain local control of hospitals and have nothing whatever to do with nationalisation. Mr. A. R. Hornblow said that he thought the Minister was to be congratulated for the stand he had taken There was much1 room for improvement in the control of hospitals, and he thought that the proposed amendments would bring about that improvement. \ Mr. S. H. Underwood supported the j chairman's view. Referring to questions' of finance, he said that it seemed unfair that the local bodies contributing the finances to run the hospital should have no voice in the control. Briefly replying, the chairman^ j'said: that the Government was surreptitiously endeavouring to take away the pofvers of the board. If the board was to be denied the right of appointing its own staff, they it might as well hand over all its other powers. Were they to have the management of the hospital or were they to place it in the hands of a Government Department? The board could rely on members of the Finance Committee taking a»ll the necessary steps in the interests of the board. The chairman's statement was affirmed, the only dissentient being Mr. Hornblow, who asked that his objection should be recorded.