THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1934 ANOTHER OFF-PUT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 77, 13 March 1934, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1934 A NOTHER OFF-PUT

The letter from the DirectorGeneral of Health read at yesterday’s meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board and reproduced on another page to-day will come as no great surprise to the people of Hastings and its neighbourhood. It will, however, very naturally serve to intensify the feeling of irritation over the repeated departmental obstructions placed in the way of allowing them to provide themselves with the reasonable hospital accommodation of which two successive Ministers of Health have expressed their approval. Of that approval Doctor Watt himself apparently does not approve, and thus we have him setting his face in all possible ways against giving it practical effect, and so far with a success that will no doubt encourage him in the course he has so long pursued. It is quite obviously with the purpose of at least delaying, if not of frustrating, fulfilment of the ministerial promises that this letter has been written, for it merely goes over old ground that has already been thoroughly discussed.

In the first place, it has been fully and finally decided, both by the Board and by the Minister, that Hastings and its surrounding district are entitled to an extension of the Memorial Hospital so as to provide room for fifty beds. That is a thing that even the Director-General cannot gainsay. Yet w’e have him in this letter again bringing up this phase of the controversy. Whether this is with the consent of the Minister or not cannot, of course, be said. But, after the very definite pledges that have been given, we are fairly well justified in assuming that the Hon. Mr. Young is in no way party to his subordinate’s suggestions in this respect. With regard to the DirectorGeneral’s retintroduction of the question of the etxra annual cost of conducting a separate hospital, that, too, has already been fairly well thrashed out. To begin with, the ministerial promise was originally made with no condition whatever on this point being attached to it. That was a belated departmental afterthought resorted to with the object, in effect, of defeating that promise. Apart from that, however, it lias been pretty clearly shown that the etxra working cost, involved will be nothing like the amount which Ur. Wall quotes. In fact, with the set-offs in the way of compensating savings to the people concerned, the difference in yearly outgoing will be entirely negligible. Furthermore, even were it as big as Dr. Watt suggests the income derivable from the residue of the Kelly bequest in normal times would

amply meet it. In the meantime, too, the ratepayers interested, contributing a very large proportion of the Board’s rating revenue, would be fully entitled to the diversion of the small amount required to make up any little deficiency. Then we have the directorGeneral citing in support of his contentions the fiat of the Local Government Loans Board, which has twice refused its consent to the people of the Hastings district using for the extension of their hospital £5OOO of a big bequest made expressly for the benefit of that institution. This, according to the DirectorGeneral, was because the Loans Board was anxious to protect the hospital ratepayers against any possibility of being called upon to pay some trifling extra maintenance charges. No one should better than Dr. Watt know something of the inner workings of that secret and autocratic conclave, which refuses to let humble petitioners know what evidence and arguments have been adduced in opposition to their prayers —this, too, despite, or possibly because of, the fact that there is no appeal against its decisions, a position unique among the Dominion’s judicial bodies.’ There is one thing about it however, of which he may not be aware. It has ostensibly been very solicitous in the way of protecting the hospital ratepayers. But it has also at' the same time given its ukase in favour of the Napier Harbour Board, without reference to its ratepayers, raising not £5OOO but £45,000 for starting a halfmillion project which those ratepayers have never approved, but for which they are yet financially responsible. In the eyes, therefore, of the people of Hastings and its vicinity, in fact, in the eyes of all justly minded people, the Direc-tor-General can scarcely have strengthened his case by invoking any decision of the Local Government Loans Board by way of a backing. Rather does it point to the weakness of his ease when ho has to quote the determinations of so obviously inconsistent a body. However, so far as the Hastings Hospital is concerned we may still hope that the Minister, who has or ought to have the last say, will disregard the obttructiveness of his official and make some haste to redeem his so long-standing promise. If not. then all faith in ministerial pledges must be at an end.