A Hornet’s Nest.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 889, 15 March 1889, Page 28

A Hornet’s Nest .

During Tuesday’s meeting of the Wellington Hospital Trustees a rather animated discussiou took place upon the remarks made by the Mayor at last Thursday’s Bitting of the City Council touching the Hospital expenditure. We scarcely think that the attitude of armed defence assumed by the Trustees was called for by what the Mayor actually said. The Trustees took it for granted that his Worship had made a direct charge of “ extravagance ” against the Trustees. We did nob so understand his words, and upon referring again to the report of what he actually said, our recollection is entirely supported. Mr Duthie undoubtedly used the word “ extravagant ” once, but not as applying it directly to the Hospital Trustees. What he said was that “ the ratepayers had no power to displace people who were extravagant.” But he said that in reference to the existing system. He simply used it as an argument against the present plan under which the body spending the money has not to bear the onus of raising the funds. What we —rightly or wrongly—understood him to convey was that the actual Hospital expenditure being indisputably larger than in other places, the ratepayers — who furnished the money—were without redress if it should turnout that the money had been extravagantly expended,because they could not displace those who were responsible for such outlay. He put the case to the ratepayers hypothetically, at least so it seemed to us;—“Here you have very heavy expenditure it mayor may not be extravagant, but if it is, you have no remedy under the existing system.” And the deduction was that the system should be reformed.

It was in this respect that we agreed with Mr Duthie, and we do not see anything in what was urged by the Hospital Trustees to shake our opinion. Dr. Newman very ably defended the Trustees from the supposed charge of extravagance. But this was not an answer to the main contention. Mr Duthie brought forward figures which, so far , as they went, distinctly proved that hospital administration costs considerably more in Wellington, proportionately alike to population and to the number of patients treated, than in other New Zealand towns. We pointed out at the time that it must not necessarily be inferred from this that the Wellington Hospital is in reality more extravagantly conducted than those of other places. The case, as stated by his Worship, however strong in itself, might not be the whole case. There might be many qualifying circumstances which rendered hospital administration unavoidably more costly here than elsewhere. The central situation of Wellington, its growing importance as a commercial and maritime entrepot , and its position as the Seat of Government — the theoretical focus of all things—naturally tend to attract population hither, and with population come plenty of patients to the Hospital. This however would tend to bring up the aggregate outlay, but would not affect the rate of expenditure per

patient or per head of population. It is here that the discrepancy between tile cost of hospital maintenance at Wellington and elsewhere assumes chief prominence. MrJDntliie showed that with reference to hospitals the amount spent on maintenance in Wellington up to the 3Lst March last was J 67690 18s Id ; in Auckland, £0641 9a 6d ; Christchurch, £5 354 14a Id; Dunedin, £6842 7a 7d; while there were 797 in patients at Dunedin last year, 901 at Auckland, and 686 at Wellington; 2113 out-patients at Dunedin and 9LI at Wellington. He went od to quote figures showing that the expenditure in Wellington was larger in provisions, fuel, and even funerals, than in Duuedin. The, population of the Wellington district was 53,246, as against 108,728 in Auckland, 101,765 in Canterbury, and 83,696 in Otago. Now these figures indubitably indicated a relatively costly system of working. But, as we said before, not necessarily an “extravagant” one. Dr Newman urged with much force that although the expenditure was larger than elsewhere, there was no extravagance. The Trustees had simply done their duty to the sick, and if the outlay were larger here than in Dunedin, for instance, the public got better value for the money. We are quite sure every Wellington ratepayer will warmly disclaim any desire that greater cheapness should be se cured at the cost of so scandalously inefficient, a mode ot administration as that lately exposed as prevailing at Dunedin. We are convinced that Mr Dulhie would utterly repudiate any idea of replacing Wellington management—which is admittedly excellent and considerate, if somewhat costly—by Dunedin inefficiency, amounting in some cases cited to absolute inhumanity. It is quite certain, as Dr Newmaa justly said, that the Dunedin expenses will have to be largely augmented if that city desires to escape the imputation of gross barbarity toward its sick and afflicted. Nobody wishes to see the Dunedin Hospital regime introduced here. Let there be no mistake about that. The excellent present management of the Wellington Hospital is felt to be a credit to the New Zealand capital, and everyone would be sorry for its efficiencv to be impaired in the smallest degree. Nor do we believe that there is any extravagance ” excepting what may be due to the present charitable aid system. We are satisfied that the Trustees do their best in the direction of economy, considering the difficulties under which, in many respects, they have to work. They deserve high praise for the manner in which they have steadily reduced the expenditure since they came into office. But this does not really bear on the true question at issue.

The point is that the funds being raised by one body and expended irresponsibly by another, the latter having also the power of determining the amount to be raised, the ratepayers have not that direct control which it is the essence of representative institutions that those who furnish the money should have over its expenditure. The fact that the contributory bodies elect the Bpending body goes for nothing. The contributing persons do not elect the spender's, the restraining (nsqeiW of direct responsibility is lost. It may well be that & Hospital Committee of the City Council would not “ run ” the institution more cheaply than do the present Trustees. It is equally possible that an irresponsible npiniuep Council might tjbp Colony’s business as well as an elected House of Representatives, but it is rightly felt that the principle would te a dangerous ons, liable to grave, abuse, apd' that the only safety lies in confiding thq, voting of public? mqney to those who have the responsibility of levying tastes to, ra,ise it. T)his wholesome rule is siipilai;ly applicable to the administration of hospitals and of charitable aid. It vyas expressly iju regard t<?. “ the whole question pf charitable aid ”■ that the mpde the remark that w a ie-. tu.rn recently laid before Parliament qatjher poised; to wasteful expenditure i,n \\j r elliugtoa as compared with other places.’ 1 Mr Duthie may or may not have been warranted in suggesting that the heavy expenditure in Wellington iu respect of charitable aid generally is “ wasteful,” but that it is excessive, whether regarded in proportion to our population or to our financial position, cannot be denied. And we hold very strongly

the opinion that economy would be promoted by vesting the administration of hospitals and charitable aid in the regular local authori lies. The present multiplicity of small governing bodies is a public burden and a public nuisance. However efficiently the charitable aid bodies may fulfil their functions, the country would be better without them, as it also would be without Education Boards and Land Boards. The sooner all these political excrescences are swept away and their functions relegated to the local or general Government the better it will be for efficiency as well as for economy.