Mr. Wallace Adopts Policy of Silence

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 749, 23 August 1929, Page 11

Mr. Wallace Adopts Policy of Silence

fourth edition

hospital dispute MR. POTTER ADAMANT It is unlikely that the Auckland Hospital Board will make any further move to settle the vexed question of the site for the new infectious diseases block until the occasion of a special meeting to consider alternative tenders for the construction work. This was the inference to be drawn from interviews this morning with -yjr. \v. Wallace, chairman of the board, and Mr. E. H. Potter. Both refused definitely to make any public statement, though Mr. Potter said he would have something to say at a later date. Their attitude is remarkable in view of Mr. Wallace's contention, at the meeting of the board on Tuesday, that the Press was not giving publicity to his side of the question. At that meeting Mr. Wallace said: —"It (the Press) has given publicity to Dr. Gunson's side and not to the other.” Mr. Potter observed: “If the Press doesn’t, we will put it in as an ‘ad.’ ” This morning both men—leading supporters of the scheme to place an infectious diseases block on the Domain site below the main hospital buildings—were given by THE SUN full opportunity of having their “ad.” free, and with no space restrictions. They did not take it. When asked if he remained adamant in the face of opposition and protests of 45 Auckland medical men, Mr. Wallace said he had no P' "c utterance to make. However, .e exhibited surprise at the trend of medical opinion as disclosed yesterday by The Sun. On the other hand Mr. Potter made it clear that he held definitely to his previous views despite the Auckland medical opinion arrayed against him. He allowed it to be understood that he had further evidence to place before the public, and would make this move on a later occasion. CANNOT TAkE RISK “I consider that our main hospital should be kept entirely immune from any possible danger zone, such as a contagious disease hospital. The proposed situation is only a few hundred yards away from the main building, and while it may be a complete and separate unit, that does not entirely eliminate every possible danger. and we cannot afford to take even a small margin of risk.” Cr. Murray claimed there were many localities within reasonable limits of the City where such a building could be entirely isolated. Distance from the centre of population was not an adverse factor where the mode of transit was good, and roads, within reasonable limits, were comfortable to run on. “People of authority say emphatically that there is a marked degree of danger from infection should this suit be placed on the spot selected by the board, and while that exists, or we have some substantial evidence that they are wrong, we should exert every effort to minimise the chance of infection, in erecting a tiuilding in the most suitable place,” said the councillor. “If, as suggested, this block may he used, perhaps in the near future, for general purposes. I think that is ar. answer to the whole question. Make its location in the right place at once and run no risk of having to do the job over again. Apart from the risk of infection, which is the most important, the financial issue looms largely. It is far more economical to do the job permanently at first than to take any measure of risk of having to go further afield at a later date.” “STRONG PROTESTCOUNCILLOR’S VIEW CITY SHOULD HAVE SAY But for the fact that he, with Cr. J. R. Lundon and Cr. Alice Basten, was the victim of a neat ' flag" engineered by fellow coun* cillors Cr. W. H. Murray intended tc ask the City Council last evening to ‘‘record its alarm and apprehension’' at the decision of the Hospital Board to erect the proposed infectious disease block at the Auckland Hospital. Although members of the council ere in no mood to listen to protracted oratory the majority, it was learned, *as in accord with Cr. Murray’s views and there seems little doubt that his motion would have met with little opposition. Asked after the meeting ivhat he Had proposed to say Cr. Murray said he considered the council should voice an opinion on behalf of the people it represented. As the council’s contribution last year to the Hospital Board was £53.250 and as it was likely to be called upon this year for a similar sum, he felt the council had a right to pass a resolution on a Question that vitally affected the public.

“It may be stated that we have no right to criticise a policy matter of the board.” remarked Cr. Murray, “but on this particular question l feel it calls for a strong protest from the council.