THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17113, 19 March 1919, Page 8

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

CRITICISM FROM WITHIN. MR. RUSSELL ANNOYED. [by teleciuph. —press association.] WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The Hon- G. W. Ilussell appeared before the Epidemic Commission to-day with a statement replying to Dr. Makgill In tho course of tho statement Mr. Russell said tho object in dealing with public health had been, as far a3 possible, to throw responsibilities upon the people themselves, through the local authorities. It was not the policy of this or any Government to take away the functions of city councils and other local bodies, but rather to enlarge those functions, and to employ tho Public Health Department, as far as possible, as an advisory and supervising authority. The idea of the Public Health j Department assuming anything more than ; supervising authority and powers of direction regarding sanitation and drainage would he too ridiculous for words. In some respects tho Department had very real control.' For example, under the Public Health Amendment Act, tho Minister had power to order a looal authority to instal a system of drainage, or if necessary to give authority to a local body for the installation of a system of drainage, without the necessity of taking a poll from the ratepayers. This was a very real safeguard and was always exercised only upon the advice of the chief health officer. He took the strongest exoeption to tho statements made regarding tho Board of Health. The board had been appointed exactly on lines of the Council of Education, as provided in the Education Act, 1914, and a further precedent was the Board of Agriculture, appointed under tho Board of Agricidturo Act, 1913. If members of the commission would compare the Council of Education and its powers with those placed upon the Public Health Board in clause 2 of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1918. they would see how closely the legislative connection with education had been followed.

Mr. Russell said there never had been any desire or intention on the part of the Minister to interfere with the scientific, experimental, »or technical sides of the Department except, as he stai*! in his evidence a few days ago, tho wish to make a line of demarkation as regards the heads of the Department and district health officers between purely scientific and iay work. Ift tho Departmont was thereforo in a backward state as regards organisation, efficiency, and ability to meet public health conditions arising out of epidemics and such untoward events, tho responsibility rested upon tho heads of that Department to show the commission and the people of tho country that they had made recommendations which would have stopped leaks, that they had asked for money which has been refused, and, in fact, that they were not themselves responsible for the condition against which they complained. To sneer at Ministers as politicians and to say politics reflected popular wishes rather than scientific needs, was a very cheap and easy way for men who tho Government had paid to adviso with regard to public health to escape the responsibility that rested upon them. " I repeat, without hesitation," lie said, " that if at any time during tho years I have hold office, departmental heads bad mado and forwarded to me recommendations with regard to the improvement of the service, alteration of law, or raising of salaries, their suggestions would have been brought before Cabinet, upon which would have rested the responsibility of inaction. No such recommendations have been made, and for the condition therefore of tho Departmont to-day the responsibility rests not upon the Government but upon departmental officers, who have apparently salved their consciences by preparing the statement which has been laid beforo the commission."