RELIEF OF DISTRESS

Evening Star, Issue 21013, 29 January 1932, Page 14

RELIEF OF DISTRESS

HOSPITAL BOARD'S POLICY CHAIRMAN ANSWERS CORRESPONDENT The policy of the Otago Hospital Board in relation to the relief of distress was outlined .at last night’s meeting' by the chairman (Mr W. E. S. Knight) in the course of a reply to correspondence that recently appeared in the Press. Mr Knight said that his attention had been drawn to a letter over the signature of 'F. Jones appearing in the Press on Monday, January 25. Apparently th |- s was Mr F. Jones, M.P. for Dunedin South. It had not been the speaker’s usual custom to answer correspondence appearing in the Press, which was usually anonymous. As Mr Jones had had the courage to sign his name, Mr Knight thought some of the misstatements therein called for his reply, and ho did so pi|blicly at the hoard meeting rather than by correspondence through the daily Press. While Mr Jones, in conjunction with another M.P., first made reference to the Otago' Board’s actions a few days previously, the Chairman said ho did not deem that they were worth replying to, but now that Mr Jones had specifically stated what was apparently in his mind, the speaker felt that he should not let this occasion pass. To a certain extent Mr Jones could be excused in that he must be a tyro in general politics, as ho had only recently been returned to Parliament, and so far had not been able to assert any influence he might have in Parliament. That, however, was by the way, but he would counsel Mr Jones not to criticise the actions of a public body unless he were absolutely sure of his facts.

The position was taken uy the board, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Government, by the recent Acts of Parliament, had assumed responsibility for the relief of distress caused by unemployment, proceeded Mr Knight. The people were being taxed to provide the necessary money, and if such money was not sufficient there seemed no other option but to increase it, but for two bodies to attempt to do the same work seemed to him ridiculous. The Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act was never framed for the object of relieving distress which apparently now existed on such a large scale through unemployment, and it was impossible to make the board’s funds elastic enough to cover what were apparently the present requirements. Mr Jones seemed to think that the Otago Hospital Board was responsible for the demonstration which occurred in Dunedin on Saturday, January 9. It was only after the depots, which had been run by voluntary aid, had closed down that these demonstrations were made. It was not aftei’ the disturbance that the board decided to vote £l5O to the relief depot. At the board meeting in November the sum of £SO was voted, and again m December £l5O was voted to the mayor’s relief depot for the purpose of providing suitable foodstuffs to tide the unemployed over the Christmas holidays. “U* hoard has only stepped into the breach now as the result of a request from the Minister of Unemployment (Hon J. G, Coates), that hospital boards should bridge the gap of weeks pending the approval of Cabinet to the new proposals of the Unemployment Board which are being framed,;’ declared Mr Knight. If the boards m other centres chose by their own actions to bring their boards into financial chaos it seemed no reason that the Otago Board should follow suit. It appeared that if other boards had adopted the attitude taken by the Otago Board in regard to its policy in connection with unemployment then the Government itself would have required to meet the position. Further, the unemployed demonstration, if it was found necessary, should have been made direct to the Government, and Mr Jones himself could have received the deputation and put the position himself to the Government to see what redress he could have obtained from the proper quarter. Mr Jones had accepted the Press report in regard to the proceedings of the recent conference of the Hospital Boards’ Association with the members of Cabinet in Wellington. The speaker did not state at the end of December that the board was within its estimate would be overdrawn to the extent of £2,000 at the end of the financial year. His figures showed (and were apparently misrepresented) that the board was overdrawn £2,000 on its estimates at December 31, and the same would be very considerably overdrawn at the end of March. If the Minister stated that the board had accumulated funds from which it could draw temporarily, he was not stating a fact. The funds which the board had were tor special capital purposes, and could not be voted for maintenance purposes. These, however, were held against any possible overdraft, and must be adjusted in the board’s finance for next year. It was unnecessary for Mr Jones to point out to the board -its auty, as the board was just as well aware of it as Mr Jones. Any money the board spent must be collected in tho first place from the ratepayers, and many ratepayers were not rn a position to pay the present rates, and certainly not any more money in taxes than the board had levied on them already. On the motion of Mr J. W. Dove, seconded by Mr J. W. •Scurr, it was decided to express the board’s approTal of the reply. “I think it is right to the point,” commented Mr J. W. Scurr.