Report of the Department of Health / New Zealand.

  • New Zealand. Department of Health.
Date:
[1959]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Department of Health / New Zealand. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    49/144 (page 49)
    REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HOSPITALS 1. INTRODUCTION Last year’s annual report was written on the eve of the coming into force of the Hospitals Act 1957 and the report reviewed the previous history of hospital administration in New Zealand, the evolutionary changes which led to the passing of the new Act and its main provisions. The main change which followed upon the report of the Consultative Committee on Hospital Reform in 1953 and which had been endorsed by the Hospital Boards Association was the assumption by the Minister of Health, on behalf of the Crown, of the duty of ensuring the provision by hospital boards of adequate hospitals and hospital services in New Zealand. The changes made by the new Act stem from this new policy and from the assumption at the same time of responsibility by Govern¬ ment for providing virtually all the finance required by hospital boards. For the year ended 31 March 1959 this totals over £22 million, of which £15*75 million was found by grants from the Consolidated Fund and £6*25 million by hospital and other benefits from the Social Security Fund. Some fears have been expressed by boards and by individual board members and occasionally in press editorials that the new Hospitals Act is another step towards reducing the power of local authorities and that the powers and responsibilities of hospital boards will gradually be taken over by the Department of Health. It would be unrealistic to deny that additional responsibilities assumed by central Government involve some transfer of autonomy and authority from the boards, but this has been a long and evolutionary process from increased Govern¬ ment subsidies early in the 1920s, the relief of patients from hospital fees in 1938 and then the stabilisation, in 1946, and subsequent reduction and ultimate abolition, in 1957, of local rates for hospital purposes. It is much more unrealistic to profess that the Department of Health could easily assume, or has any desire to assume, the major responsibilities which belong to the boards for direct and local management of the large and complex organisations which comprise our modern hospitals. The boards employ over 20,000 staff and the job of hospital administra¬ tion and management ranks with the direction of any major private or public enterprise in the country. It requires, and I have no doubt it will continue to attract, men and women of high ability and devotion to public service. The administration of the national hospital service is a partnership between central Government and the local hospital boards. Healthy and democratic differences of opinion will arise and be argued, but there is no reason at all why Government responsibility for the planning and provision of adequate hospital services on a national basis and for supervision to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and well,