HOSPITAL EXTENSION

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 146, 17 December 1937, Page 6

HOSPITAL EXTENSION

FINDING THE MONEY

RATEPAYERS' BURDEN

REPORT WANTED

CITY COUNCIL DECISION

I Arising from a resolution passed Iby the Wellington, Ratepayers'' Asso--1 elation, calling on the Wellington City Council as the main contributory and representing'the ratepayers to appoint a committee consisting of ,the Mayor and the chairmen of contributing local bodies and two members of its own engineering stall', together with two independent architects and the chairman of the Ratepayers' Association, to investigate the cost of any needed improvements to the Wellington Hospital, and to re-, port on the proposal of a new hospital in the Hull Valley, the City Council last night again discussed the well-ventilated question of hos-i pilal .expenditure. The point was raised that the council had not sulfr-i cirntly soughUnforrnalion upon ihej subject, and *a motion asking the Minister of Health to, call upon the Health Department for a report upon the dcsiiability of the . board's scheme ' was carried with one dissentient, though the Mayor and other councillors were of the opinion that the departmental report would only justify an elaborate scheme.

The Mayor, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, said that he did not think that the council could take any action as proposed by the Ratepayers' Association, for the committee of inquiry suggested in the resolution did not include any medical or other -expert person able to go as fully into the question, as was essential. The whole trouble arose from tne fact that the decision to erect the building had not been made by ex-J perts, said Councillor W. Appleton. He thought that . a Royal Commission should be set up. He would not like to see the question go by default. A visiting expert had recently staled that no hospital should exceed 600 beds Mr. Hislop agreeds that' the fullest investigation was required, but the resolution of the Ratepayers' Association did not properly meet the position. EXPERTS ON BOARD. Councillor A- Black maintained that there certainly were' experts on the Hospital Board. Councillor Appleton remarked that that might be so, but independent experts had not been asked to express their opinion. ' If such outside experts were interested, in private hospitals' there, was good reason why they should not be asked to express their views, replied Councillor Black. The hospital service should essentially be run for the benefit of the people as a whole. . It had been argued that there should be a hospital at the Huit as well as the mam hospital at Wellington, but, .speaking purely as a layman, he was inclined to think' that* tfiat would simply mean the duplication of equipment and staff. It was not fair to sjy that the. Hospital' Board had not had expert advice, and the board had also had the benefit of the expert investigation and advice .of the Health Department The Minister of Health was not a man who would acquiesce in any scheme which had not been fully investigated. CITY AND HUTT VALLEY. A point that had not been made as fully as should have been done, said Councillor P. M. Butler, was that even! if a smaller hospital were -erected in the Hutt Valley. Wellington'woul'd still have to pay 40 per cent, of its cost-, so that quite a lot of <people who thought that the Valley hospital*would relieve them were really arguing on a mistaken idea. Moreover, 90 per cent, of the objection would be removed at .once if the Government announced that it was going to meet the whole cost, for many, "of the arguments were no more thari red herrings.

Mr. Hislop said that there was no doubt that the whola hospital district would have to meet the cost wherever the hospital or hospitals were built, but it had been staled' that, the type of building which would be required in the Hutt Valley —ould- cost considerably less than the proposed extensions. He could not say what the cost of services would" be. His point was that when such ah'enormous expenditure was proposed the ratepayers were entitled to the fullest possible details. . - That was quite a fair attitude, said Councillor T. Brindlo, but he thought that full opportunities had already been, given to obtain the information. Eventually a hospital probably would be required in the Hutt Valley, but, even so, it was. most necessary, to have a fully-equipped central hospital,, for apart from city patients others arrived by train, ■ boat, and air. The Hutt Valley hospital in any case could not carry the'equipment which would be installed at the Wellington Hospital. The matter had been gone into very thoroughly already, said Councillor Butler. Personally, he believed that there was a great (^al to be said for the cottage hospital system, though he had no expert knowledge, but still the need would : remain for a fullyequipped'central hospital. Could not the' Health Depsvtment be asked to give the council a lead? Whatever was to be said about the comparative merits 'of the extensions ;or -another hospital in the"Hutt Valley, the immediate facts were, that the- conditions at the Wellington -Hospital;, .'were, chaotic. , .' ..■ •■■ :' BEYOND WHAMS FAIR. '. Councillor C/H: Chapman remarked that"every member.of the/-boar.d,.had. taken: a keen interest in th'£ mittei? of hospital administration. City .councillors werevgoing; a' little.be^nd what was fair';"wh'en; th&/ attempted .without knowledge to criticise.the boacd. Hospital Board' members "knew perfectly well that the -hospitaL;^wasi.:. grossly. overcrowded, and that there" was not room: for many patients who desired: admission. That was common knowledge. Months and months had been spent by. the board on the matter, and it had had the advice of expcits. Councillor; Wright: What expeits? Councillor Chapman: ■ I cannot name them, but I know they had them. Would the Health Department have authorised the proposals unless it were satisfied? Why,shpuld the City Conn-1 cil which had entirely different func-j tions interfere?

Voices: They have to pay. . Councillor R. A. Wright agreed with the need for increased accommodation at the hospital, but the proposal was too elaborate and extravagant. A lesser expense would serve.

. Councillor Chapman: What would you cut out?

Councillor Wright: I do not know, but it could be reduced to the bare necessities. I am told. that. the. main support comes from the medical superintendent, who wants a first-class; hos-

pital from an architectural point of view. The council cannot go on in- , creasing-the. rates. -A hospital at the Lower Hutt rhay be .necessary as well. ■ The iiOspital-Board is on toast; we . have to find the,money- People are ■ continually complaining abcjut; their . ra1,e5....-.,,' ■' .'... .Councillor; Wi Duncan; said he was : looking .round, the. hospital: the> -other day,, and they had boys amongst the men.. It was . much . overcrowded. : WHY NOT SEEK ADVICE? , ' Councillor J. Read said the question seemed H° • be:; had "they" had expert advice :pn* the matter? It seemed to him'that the Hospital. Board must have had more, expert. .advice than those who had, criticised ■ them.: A medical expert might not be a hospital expert, - or have knowledge of hospital administration. The people who did know were' the. officers of the Health Departmertt,? and it Was for the council to; consult;*;.them. .;'■ I£ they said, the . work was'-necessary on'the.;lines.sug- ' gested;' .by; Ihe/board' then .they should '! be supported..; :The coiiri^il seemed to jbe wrong in its approach to the health question; ;He moved' tbat«the council] approach - theY;'Minister;.to '■:..ask the Health to ■.report on .the desirability of ,t)\e boai vd's;;scherhe;' ■ Councillor A. .Parlane /said.that ■ before • charges of v were ■made .investigation .was■;. necessary.. No proofs of extravagance had'; been put fpr^yard;. The Loans Board'■was not I likely to'■ approve' ;of any extravagant expenditure. Holding up Hhe -necessary/accommodation might be a very serious step. lie seconded the. motion. i:-.I PRESENT SITE CONDEMNED. 'if^o'uncillor M.' F.-;; Luckie s,aid : it s;eemed^ ;|hat,:the' ';bocly: arranging the expenditure. was to be asked for a re-port-justifying its action. vExpen'diture was'necessary, but' not such an expenditure; -.'The-board", was ,'stni divided iin'Jopinion, by vSJto; 6. .The conditioiis;ln'ith'e" environment, -of the hospital ;w t ere;not:,the: best |or; the build,ing'<of^another' hospital."-.' There must ;be; b6tfe:Rlaces/"' For'^e: five" to seven years duriiig'-the building-.df the■ ne\y. hospitdl'onthe'" present.site,;the patients would be: "amidst '.j. an r overpowering racket.. "'• ' • ". TheiMayor said the resolution, if passed, would be of no benefit. The hospital was overcrowded, but a scheme of £750,000, without furnishings, required careful examination. Departmental reports were of,little value. He had not known a Department to bring down a scheme that was not the most elaborate possible: If the scheme was proved essential, then- such burdens must Be. taken off. .the private citizen,' a group of 22,000 people, and put on..the, Consolidated Fundj ,and so spread/over'-the whole-^community, "Let's get; the,, .reppr.t,"",concluded-- the Mayor,;:t}utJt;.wiliii&vOf:lJtt]ifi use to US.".- '.••,., ■■".':; ■: '~y\ '■ '■■' ',' ' ..'"

sEhe- rerjort might givefg'eneral' reasoris1 why, the scheme : had'1, been ■''•■:ar> proved,,,said Councillor;.; Chapman". ;It coiildnot'-beithought that a-responsible Department would agree to suchexf penditure: unless it considered it necessaryi,-.',.,; -.' r!-:^ SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. Some''of'; the expenditure had been apprdVecisitif years ago, said Councillor Butler.jibvit the citi7ens had had no reportVoi/fthe detailed, reasons for the present proposed expenditure. Where else. rthan" to .the Health Department could the council go for information? .If the. Department gave-!its. reasons the council'would' know the :facts:,' The proposal would Cost"vine-citizen 2s per head of "\ the? population a- year.. . Rent-■payers-f.paiid' as ■much' rates ■as Anybody:

«', Councillor Blaclc said;that as soon as this scheme was: 'put 'through every bther place would:-;wa'nt. one. If it Icame from the taxpayers instead of the Ratepayers it would "Be a more costly' proposition.

The motion was carried with one dissentient. '■