RESENTED

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20290, 27 April 1934, Page 8

RESENTED

HOSPITAL BOARD AND RELIEF. Remarks at a Meeting. HOW AGED AND INDIGENT ARE HELPED. Indignation was expressed by members of the North Canterbury Hospital Board at this morning’s meeting when the remarks made at a meeting of the Metropolitan Relief Association on Monday were referred to. The remarks were critical of the board’s Benevolent Committee and implied that the association was helping people who should reallv be a charge on the board. A letter was received from the asso- j ciation asking that representatives of I the board should confer with the association’s executive and this was referred to the Benevolent Committee. Mrs T Green, chairman of the committee. read a statement replying to the association and this was approved by the other members of the board. Mrs Green’s statement in reference to the remarks made at the association’s meeting was as follows: “ There can be no doubt that the two genCemen who were prominent in making these remarks are men of little experience in the administration of public relief No doubt when the meeting takes place between members of the board and the executive of the Metropolitan Relief Association these gentlemen will be prepared to substantiate with definite cases their remarks and indicate where the board’s relief was insufficient. Mr Belton stated * the aged and indigent persons were normally cared for by the board , and that many such persons had received relief from the association.’ It can be definitely stated that such persons should have been referred to the board and they would have received necessary assistance had their requirement's been such as to warrant it; but it may be these individuals were aware that their circumstances would be inquired into by officials accustomed to dealing with applications for relief from the public funds.. “ Met With Open Arms.” “ Therefore, these people went to the Metropolitan Relief Association, where, no doubt, they were met with open arms and, possibly, if any inquiry was made, it was made by persons whose experience of such work does not date back more than a few weeks or possibly a 3’ear. The report of the subcommittee of the association said ‘it is the practice of the Metropolitan Relief Depot not to supply Hospital Board cases, and these rases are referred direct to the Hospital Board; and only if no relief is obtained there is the case further considered by the Metropolitan Relief Depot.’ It is a reasonable thing to say that very few cases indee4 are sent to the Hospital Board who are refused relief; usually th§y are granted relief, the case being represented as urgent, and any diminution or increase in that relief is made after investigation. It may be such have been declined. It can confidently be said that very few cases make application to the Benevolent Relief Committee with any supporting communication from the Metropolitan Relief Association. That the officers of that association' have possibly been misled from time to time is not the board’s fault. The Benevolent Committee has always recognised the claim that the sick, aged, infirm, widowed, deserted and orphaned were properly a charge on the funds of the board, but it has steadfastly refused, and does steadfastly refuse now, to give relief to relief workers, which is the responsibility of the Unemployment Board. That such people who come to the board go also to the depots is no fault of the board. What representations they make at the depots is, possibly, not known to the board. If there were a spirit of co-operation or desire to ascertain facts, the association can readily obtain the board’s assistance by making inquiry, but it is noticeable that such inquiries are very few and far between. £29,000 Sxpended. “It is well that ‘people who, probably, have little knowledge in the administration of public funds should stand up and criticise other people and accuse them of being as inefficient as, possibly, some members of the Metropolitan Relief Association. The Benevolent Committee of the board desires to point out that in public relief alone, that is to the sick, aged, widows, deserted wives and orphan children, or other persons whose needs cannot be met out of slender earnings are never refused assistance from the board’s funds, and in last year the amount of £29,000 was expended in this way, most of it in the city and suburban areas. Men on relief work who happened to be 4 standing down,’ possibly because of disagreement with the organisation with which they were working, or they had fallen out with the Unemployment authorities, have been helped. Relief workers who have met with accident or who were sick have received assistance. 44 Relief workers’ wives, having need or attention in an institution such as the Essex Home, have been helped: and, in last alone, 180 wives of relief workers were helped in that institution, and 164 women who needed assistance in this way, on account of their poor circumstances, or whose husbands were not on relief work. Besides the matters enumerated above, there are a number of instances where the board’s funds are availed of by persons indicated in the report that was made public on Tuesday morning. The Metropolitan Relief Committee talks about meeting the board and co-opera-tion. WUling to Co-operate. “ The board has on no occasion refused to co-operate with the Metropolitan Relief Committee, and has always been willing to help in any direction That there should be overlapping, such overlapping has not taken place knowingly or willingly through the board, although overlapping may have taken place through the agency of a number of persons who are, perhaps, not responsible for the funds they have to administer. It seems a great pity thar organisations existing for the relief of distress in a city such as this should not carry on and work together without endeavouring to cast stones a.t each other.” Mr W. T. Foster said that the letter from the Metropolitan Relief Asjsociation proved that the members of

the association were ignorant of the facts. The chairman (Mr H. J. Otley) said that the board had offered the association any information possible. The charges of the association, he added, were unfair and incorrect. The board inquired into all cases, and no deserving case had been refused assistance; everything possible had been done. It had to be remem bered that among the applicants for relief there were a number of “ hard cases.” The board was in a position of trust to spend monev on people in want, and he felt the Benevolent Committee had done everything possible to help deserving cases. Mrs J. A. Bean declared that membeis of the association were novices in relief. Those members should have come to the board before making such charges.