HOSPITAL EXPENDITURE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 29, Issue 41, 29 May 1917, Page 4

HOSPITAL EXPENDITURE.

ADDEESS BY ME J. J. COEEY. As a result of the vigorous protests and alleged misrepresentations made by the Pelorus Eoad Board regarding the increasing expenditure in connection with the new Wairau Hospital, Mr J. J. Corry (Mayor of Blenheim and chairman of the Hospital Board) delivered an address at the Town Hall, Havelock, on Friday evening last. Owing to the inclemency of the weather there was rather a meagre attendance considering the importance of the subject, but those who attended were given a very full and interesting statement on hospital matters in general, but more particularly as affects this portion of the district. Mr W. H. Smith (chairman of the Havelock Town Board) presided, and after reading a telegram of apology from Mr Charles Nees, who was unable to get in from Deep Creek owing to the heavy rain, called upon Mr Corry to address the meeting. Messrs J. S. Storey (chairman) and J. Konningtou (Kaituna) and Mr C. A 'Court Opie (secretary) were the only representatives of the Pelorus Eoad Board present. Mr Corry, in rising, was greeted with applause. He said he was there to explain, us far as was able, the expenditure of the Wairau Hospital Board, in so far as it concerns the Havelock district particularly, but genorally as to the effect of the expenditurc on the whole of the district it controls. A very wide misconception occurs throughout the whole district as to the actual cost of hospital and charitable aid work on that long-suffering individual “the ratepayer,” who grumbles all the time about having to pay, but who never expresses any satisfaction whatever about the benefit he receives from the payment. Of course, if it is a sheep or a horse or any other article and he has something in hand, it is all right, but a .Bate—word is anathema, and he regretted to say the ratepayer was not always fair in his criticism. The care of the sick and wounded and aged—of the poor and those who had fallen by the way—devolved on a system of local government called the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, who were elected by popular franchise from the various districts, and who levied a rate annually called the maintenance rate for the purpose of providing that attention which Parliament in its wisdom said shall be provided, and this rate was subsidised by the Government. The rate was annually assessed on the valuation of property and the population of the district. He wanted to be very particular about this —that the hospital rate must always be dissociated from the local rate struck by the Board, inasmuch as it was an annual rate and always strucii on the capital value. The property in their hospital district was worth five and a quarter million pounds, and at the rate struck —onefifth of a penny in the pound—it produced one million pennies to be distributed as a tax towards helping the poor, the sick, and the aged. This tax produced £4372 per annum. By this simple sum it would be seen that a ma? had to have over £I2OO worth of property before it cost him £1 per annum hospital rate, “You will see, therefore,” added Mr Cbrry, “what a hard,ship it is on the squealing ratepayer, ’' Now, continued the speaker, there arc very few persons in the community who would not give, no matter how poor they were, say 5s to the hospital fund per annum; yet that sum is not taxed or demanded until a person owned at least £SOO worth of landed property, so at all events it could not bo called a hardship. Mr Corry then quoted figures showing the maintenance rate and how it affects the Havelock portion of the district. In the year ended 31st March, 1911, the Pelorus Eoad District became part of the Wairau Hospital Board District, and from that time the following figures showed the amount levied on them by way of taxation:— Wairau—

Maintenance of Havelock Cottage Hospital for same period—

The amount paid by the Town Board during the saipe period totalled £B9 14a 4d, making a total from the two Boards of £1589 7s 5d by way of tax for what cost £2529 9,s 6d—a difference of £942 2s Id. It will be seen, therefore, that the district got very good measure indeed. Of course, the taxation produced a subsidy from the Government, and this in turn amounted during the 1911-17 period to £1174 7s 2d in the-,case of the Road Board, and £69 19s 3d for the Town Board. Adding the figures together it would be found that during these seven years the combined district produced an average of* £302 4s 4d per annum towards the expenses of the Wairau Hospital. But put it another way. The Pclorus District contributed slightly under onetenth by way of rate collected, so that .it should pay also its proportion for charitable aid. Well, the cost of charitable aid for the same years in the whole district totalled £8362 4s 9d. A pair proportion, therefore, for this district to pay would be £B36 —the .amount actually paid was £302 in seven years. Again, a large number of patients from the Havelock had been treated at the Wairau Hospital, and a proportion of the cost of their treatment (apart from the amount paid by patients) was still outstanding. The district was not charged with it. There were 76 patients last year, and actually £233 19s owing from the poor and unable to pay. Mr Corry continued: In July, after a lot of discussion it was decided to build a hospital at ft cost of £14,500, the architect's estimate. This pxjpejidi-

ture was objected to by a number of contributing authorities, who moved for and obtained a Commission to enquire as to whether the proposed expenditure was exccsive and whether it was properly apportioned, and as a result of the enquiry the Commissioner found that it was not excessive, that a new hospital was necessary, and the proportions were, with some adjustments, equitable. The very bodies who objected to the expenditure brought no evidence and made no objection whatever to the amount of £14,500 as excessive. Then a wonderful thing happened. When the Board met after the Commissioner’s report was received they considered that as we had decided to build we might just as well build a a worthy place and one that would suit the wants of the district for years to come, and decided to increase the size of the building. This was carried in the Board and the size of the building increased. Amongst the most determined opponents of the new hospital the Pelorus Road Board representatives were the strongest. Messrs Storey and Crispen gave evidence, and Mr Weaver, one of the representatives of the district on tho Board, was always opposed to the first i-uilding programme, whilst Mr Neos, the other icpresentative, at first a strong supporter, but when the attended budding programme was decided on, Mr. Nees opposed it as strongly as be could, and Mr Weaver approved. The hospital was built and, wonderful to relate, bad entirely justified the building'and had emphasised by its presence the urgent necessity there was for a new institution. The total number of patients treated in the old hospital for the seven years period ended 31st March averaged 248 per annum. The new hospital was opened in December, 1915, and to 31st March of that year the number had jumped to 408, whilst in the period to 31st March, 1917, no less than 545 patients were admitted. The very large increase should be sufficient to convince the ' most hostile opposition-of the necessity of the new building. “Now, a word as to the cost,” con- , tinued the speaker. The contract ■ price for the building and extras was £17,960 Is 7d; architects’ fees, £991 8s 8d; clerk of works, £473 19s 9d. Total cost of building, £19,425 10s. The ratepayers of the combined districts paid altogether of this sum £8412 15s; the ladies of Blenheim raised by a bazaar and subsidy £1600; a special grant from Government £1000; and the Government paid the balance, £8412 15s. Having built the institution was necessary to equip it, and this cost £3534. Putting grounds into shape and planting had cost to date £960 14s 8d; water supply and drainage £lO2l 18s 4d; and the cost of the Commission £163 7s 6d. These extras totalled £5,680, half of which was borne by the Government and half by the taxpayer —making a total cost to date of £25,105, of which the contributing local bodies found or were liable for £11,252 15s 3d. - The Pelorous Eoad Board’s share has so far amounted to £lOOl 19s 6d. This sum, of course, does not come out of their rates. They are entitled to, and, as a matter of fact, have raised the amount by loan (and properly so) and the cost to that portion of the hospital district is £47 per annum. “Surely not sufficient under the circumstances I have detailed to raise much of a song about,” said Mr Corry, “and certainly not sufficient to cause the members of- the Board to enter on such a campaign of lying vilification and misrepresentation as they have done.” The speaker then made reference to an alleged complaint made by the chairman of the Board (Mr Storey) that the imposition of a heavier rate on the Pelorus Eoad Board ratepayers was a matter of necessity because of the Hospital Board's demands. Mr Storey (who was seated in the body of the hall and had previously refused the invitation of both Mr Corry and the chairman to come upon the stage) emphatically repudiated this charge, but Mr Corry was equally emphatic that he had made the statement. One of Mr Storey's champions—Mr Crispin—(continued the speaker) had written a letter to the papers saying that the Pelorus Eoad Board were only objecting to the increased cost of the building, and if the original cost had been adhered to no further demur would have been heard. He doubted Mr Crispin’s authority for making this statement, as tho figures did not bear analysis. The extra cost would have been roughly £3500, and the contributories share £1750. Take the Pelorus as' a tenth of this —£175 extra at 5 per cent, per annum. _ And that is what they are complaining about, according to Mr Crispin. It was ridiculous to make assertions of that kind. Mr Fulton, acting chairman of the Board, followed this up with an extraordinary letter in which he said “Ms Board didn’t object to the increased cost of attendance on patients or of running the institutions at Havelock or Blenheim, but as an emphatic protest against the extravagant waste pf public money, which is going on ‘ad infinitum ’ in the erection and alteration of tho hospital buildings, the work of which, to say the least of it (judging by reports submitted to your Board and published in the daily papers from time to time) savours more of a gigantic bungle than a properly organised expenditure of public money.” The letter no doubt appeared to be a very good letter to the writer, but as there had been no alteration in the buildings, it is difficult to know exactly what Mr Fulton was driving at. Mr Storey then entered the fray publicly, and at least one or two of his arguments are worth noting. The speaker then asked his audience to particularly note the following words of Mr Storey's: “Now, sir, I would like to ask the public of Marlborough if it is an act of benevolence on the part of the Hospital Board chairman to threaten reprisals against tSie chairman and members of .the Pelonis Road Board by giving notice to'move thajt the Cottage Hospital be closed uj. This ig simply .a spiteful action, aid one, I think,' that hp ,(th.G J£ospits Board chairman) jvas ill-advised to make considering the good work that has been carried out by our little hoi.pital. This hospital has been, a great boon to people from tho Sounds and # back eopntry, who when necessity j arises have to travel some tea cr 1 twenty miles through bush and swamp \

to the main road, thence to Havelock. What a hardship to these people it would be if our benevolent Hospital Board chairman had his own sweet wilful way and closed the Cottage Hospital and left poor suffering humanity to make the beat of their way to the hospital at Blenheim.” 'He further said: “Another instance of the Hospital Board chairman's mis-statements is contained in his allegation that the Pelorus Board had a notice of motion to abandon the present method of electing the members of the Hospital and Charitable' Aid Board. This is absolutely incorrect. The- matter has never been discussed at a Pelorus Koad meeting.” He wound up by saying the necessity of his letter was because ho did not want the Pelorus Road Board ratepayers to be misled by his (the speaker’s) mis-statements. “You will hardly believe,” said Mr Corry, “that the same Mr Storey, during his last campaign, said that if the Cottage Hospital cost the amount stated it ought to be closed, that he would look into the matter and move that it should be closed.

Mr Storey gave an emphatic denial to this statement. ! -

In reply to a direct question from the speaker as to whether a certain statement had been made by him as reported, Mr. Storey said that as the report had come from Mr Corry he had not taken much notice of it.

Mr Corry: “Mr Storey says that the Cottage Hospital is a necessity, but in election times he will close it. It is difficult to see what the Board members want, but as it isn’t exactly clear so far, we will see what that very untruthful oracle, Mr E. Healy, of the Wilderness, has to say. Mr Healy quoted rate figures in his letter, but the only painful part of his astonishing assertion is that not one figure in it is true. Mr Healy, as a member of the Pelorus Road Board, had access to and was supplied the proper figures by the secretary, arid apparently twisted them for his own purposes. Thus he led you to believe that first the income of the Pelorus Road Board was only £1460, whereas it was nearer,£34oo; whilst the hospital capital rate didn’t come out of their rates at all, but was raised by loan on which they pay £47 per annum (according to Mr Storey), who, in trying to correct Mr Healy, also made some ridiculous assertions. Ho said their Board was asked to contribute £727 4s 2d for last year, plus £47 10s interest on loans; total £774 14s 2d. They had not been asked to do anything of the kind, and to mislead the ratepayers to that extent showed that they are not fit to be on the Pelorus Road Board or any other Board,, because they do not understand the simplest rules of the business. Mr Healy also said in writing that the Hospital Board was securing some land at nearly £SO per acre, from a Wither settler which was balloted for at between £5 and £6 an acre. An extraordinary untruthful statement which couuld only emanate from an extraordinarily untruthful ignoramus like Mr Healy.

“The peculiar part of this business is,” continued the speaker, “thatsome people believe it, and the Sounds Farmers’ Union actually passed a resolution of protest at the awful extravagance of the Wairau Hospital Board. I suppose the reason of this was the wild statements supplied by financiers of the Healy type. (Laughter.) I hope the Farmers’ Union will see the justice of rescinding their resolution after they satisfy tnemselves of the unstable nature of the information supplied them.”

Mr Corry then dealt at some length on the circumstances of the recent North Bank election in which Mr Storey was opposed by Mr Weaver, a member of the Hospital Board, and one of the Pelorus Road Board’s representatives on that body. Mr Weaver was invited by the Road Board to resign his seat as their representative and recontest it. Mr Healy, however, would not accept the challenge to oppose him. He knew too well that the result would be very unsatisfactory as far as he was concerned, but he was foolish enough to rush into print, and said, "Besides, I stood against Mr Nees on one plank only—hisj, attitude towards the huge expenditure on hospital matters. . This was clearly understood. ’ ’ If that meant anything it meant that Mr Healy favoured the large expenditure, because there is no doubt Mr Nees was opposed to it.

Iq conclusion, Mr. .Corry thanked the people of. Havelock for the opportunity of placing matters before them, 'and gave a further assurance that all the figures used by him were official and could be substantiated at his expense by any ratepayer or member of the Pelorus Road Board if any were found to bo untrue. He ventured to say that there would be no protest from the people on the amount expended for charitable purposes. He challenged the Road Board to disprove any of his figures, and if they could prove anything wrong he would make a contribution that would save the ratepayers two years’ hospital rates. He always supported the Cottage Hospital, and recognised the work of the Havelock ladies in the past. He thought it an unfair thing that the Pelorus Road Board should say they were being oyer-taxed when the whole question of hospital finance was considered.

Mr Storey, in his reply, admitted the protests made by himself, but his Board wanted further particulars about the expenditure, and this had been denied them. Their requests to the Wairau Hospital Board for further information on the question of future expenditure had been repeatedly ignored. He quoted figures from the recent demand showing the big increase in the hospital levy which his Board had to meet in justification of the protests. The levy had risen from £195 in 1916 to £330 lie for the present year. Mr Corry pointed out that the increase from £195 to £330 was due to the enormous number of sick people now treated in the hospital.

Mr Storey said the £330 represented maintenance levy and interest on borrowed money. The statements made by Mr Corry in regard to himself were absolutely false. ' He objected to' Mr Cony's statements re altering roll. He disclaimed anything in the nature of improperly altering names on the roll. All the men on the Pelorus Road Board were men of standing, and he was proud to b? their chairman. He regretted the absence of the other members of the Board, Dr. Bennett (Blenheim) was then

asked to address the meeting, and was greeted with applause. He said he had not come with the intention of speaking at the meeting. He had no axe to grind, and merely spoke as a servant of the Hospital Board, and, he considered it a privilege to have been connected with it for twelve years. He had seen many chairmen, and the best they had had was Mr Corry. The present hospital was a monument to his intelligence and resource. Referring to the old hospital building, the speaker said that just enough money had been spent on it to keep it out of the comic papers. People had become ashamed of it, and the credit of the new hospital was due to Mr Corry. He was the only one with the pluck and determination to face the strong opposition. He was sure they all agreed that the best only was good enough for the sick person. To-day they had access to an institution second to none in any part of the Dominion. Wo have got the best—and the Pelorus Road Board was only paying a small share, and not as much as it should. The necessity of a new, hospital was shown by the increased number of patients since the institui tion opened. That showed the people would not go to the ‘ ‘ bug-ridderi old-barn” that did service before. Ho wondered how many of the people who spoke of the expense had seen the new. hospital. The cost was not greater than the average hospital of that size in the Dominion. He could only feel sorry that public men "should have to cavil over such a matter. He emphasised the point that for every sick person there was a bed, and if he was sick he would like to be there for the simple reason that the attendance and dieting, etc., wap on a liberal scale. Mr Storey asked Mr Corry if the fees referred to by him as outstanding in the Pelorus District could not be collected.

Mr Corry said that every effort waa made to collect the fees, but if it was found that treated patients were toa poor to pay the fees they were not worried. He wished to make it clear that the institution was open to rich and poor aline, and that no one was re-, fused. (Applause.) Mr W. H. Orsman proposed a hearty, vote of thanks to Mr Corry for his able and interesting address. Mr TV, H. Buckman seconded, and the motion was carried by acclamation. The chairman, before closing the meeting, personally thanked Mr Corry for his explanation of the position and the information he«had given. He had always had explicit confidence in their representatives on the Hospital Board (Messrs Weaver and Nees). He also thanked Dr. Bennett for coining through in their interests. Mr Corry said that he had thought it necessary to come through to put things right, and further emphasised the point that the Road Board had the right to raise a loan to meet their hospital expenditure. The Board had protested about what they considered an extravagant expenditure, but it was worthy of note that no other Board had supported their protests, because they could see that the expenditure was not excessive and not unwarranted.

£ s. a. 19U 143 2 3 1912 150 2 1 1913 240 7 4 1914 242 8 5 1915 .... 195 7 4 1916 195 14 8 1917 330 11 0 Total ... ... £1497 13 1

£ S. d. ion 279 5 2 1912 276 16 6 1913 387 1 7 1911 383 10 U 1915 139 19 2 1919 .... 366 6 4 1917 396 9 10 Total ... ... £2529 9 6