PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 991, 29 August 1877, Page 2

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.

The following letter was published in yesterday's "Press" : Sik, —As there appears to be considerable misapprehension in the minds of the public with regard to the above, I think it desirable that I should endeavour to remove the same. Unfortunately, by some means, the report of the Committee of the Local Board of Health appointed to consider what amendments were necessary, although made public, never appeared in your columns, and to this fact I attribute the erroneous notions which arc prevalent. Before proceeding further, I may as well state that the Christchurch District Drainage Board took no action to be appointed Local Board of Health for the city and suburbs. During last session, they were requested to undertake the duties of the Central Board, which they agreed to upon the province becoming defunct. The members were certainly unaware of their having been appointed Local Board, until the Act was printed and sent down. In commencing to w T ork under the Act the Board found themselves in the unenviable position of having certain duties to perform and no funds to pay the cost. Their solicitor, Mr Garrick (in the absence of Mr Cowlishaw), advised that clause 57 of the Drainage Act debarred them from using the funds of the Drainage Board. This placed the Board in a very awkward predicament; they had either to allow the Act to remain a dead letter, or else borrow money from the Drainage Board, and trust to Parliament during the present session to legalise such misappropriation of the Drainage Board's funds. It is chiefly for the latter purpose that the amended Bill has been prepared which is now iu the bands of the Government. Another cause is the necessity for providing funds to carry O'll the provisions of the Public Health Act in tJi& future. In order to do this, the Board is asking for power to requisition the " Local Governing Bodies" within its district either to levy a small rate, or to furnish a sum equal to the amount from their general rates, the limit being under any circumstances 2d in the £, although so large a sum is never likely to be required, as the following will show : The valuation of property in the drainage district was last year about £300,000. Now a penny rate on this sum will produce £1250 per annum, which is ©ore than is at present} seeGfgiiry, to p»y salaries of nedicil officer)

inspector, &c. Probably Ad or will always be ample, owing to annual increased value of property within the district. Now, sir, it must be patent to everyone that in order to levy direct so small a rate there must be a waste of public money, because of the expense which would have to be inc ur red in valuation, rolls, collection, &c. The total of these costs might come to as much as the rate itself, hence the Board's reason for asking for power to requisition, and not to levy a rate themselves. I daresay some one will ask —Why should the City Council pay their quota to the Local Board, if the Council inspects its own nuisances ? I answer, there is no reason that I can see, why the city should, xmder such circumstances, pay more than a very small sum, sufficient to cover a share of medical officer's salary, and something towards clerical work ; the justice of this is selfevident. I observe some writers consider that the city, and the different Eoad Boards adjoining, should each exercise the functions of Local Board within their respective districts. lam sure, speaking for myself, they are heartily welcome to the duties and responsibilities, if it can be shown to be for the public good. But what does past experience prove ? Why simply that the City Council may if it choose sperd thousands in providing surface drainage and good sanitary regulations among its comparatively wealthy population, while the Eoad Boards in whose districts the poorer classes live ignore any liability to enforce any sanitary regulations whatever, hence disease may be generated wholesale in the suburban districts, and spread into the city (for it cannot be fenced out by the town belts), thereby rendering the expenditure for the purposes of health within the city quite nugatory, and almost a waste of public money. The fact is no one or even two Eoad Boards can afford to pay a medical officer and Inspector of Nuisances, and consequently none were appointed. Of course it is a matter of opinion as to what authority should exercise control. There are those who think the Drainage Board has usurped the power belonging to the other local bodies, but I for one altogether disclaim any such act or intention. The great desideratum for health, from a hygienic point of view, is, first, a system of drainage capable of removing all stagnant and surface water; and, secondly, to have good sanitary regulations strictly enforced; and common sense seems to me to dictate that the power to provide the one and enforce the other should be vested in one central authority. One medical officer is at presentquite sufficient for the whole district; and if each local body employed him he would have to serve five masters, viz., the City Council and four Eoad Boards, instead of one; the same applies in a measure to the Inspectors. The other amendments proposed to be made in tbe Act are too unimportant for me to occupy more of your valuable space. I am, <fcc, FjtEDk'. Hobbs.