WHO IS LIABLE?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 85, 7 October 1941, Page 8

WHO IS LIABLE?

WARDS FOR SOLDIERS

COUNCIL'S OPINION

STATE SHOULD PAY

The City Council last night did not agree- to .give the formal approval asked for by the Hospital Board for the raising of a further loan of £25,000 for the building of a 100-bed ward for soldiers at Lower Hutt, and after a long debate, during which most speakers expressed definite views that the State, and not district ratepayers, should find the money for soldier , patients, decided that representations should be made to the Government to that effect. The Hospital Board is to be asked to col- 1 laborate in such representations. The council agreed that a loan of £9000 for an emergency water supply for the main hospital should be raised. It is proposed to build a storage reservoir to hold half a million gallons. The Hospital Board was already building a hospital at Lower Hutt, said i the Mayor, Mr. Hislop. when the letter from the secretary of the board, asking the consent of the council to the raising of £25,000 for a soldiers' 100-bed ward there was read. An expenditure, of approximately £440,000 had been embarked upon in the Hutt Valley. They had already passed £544,750 for the Centennial block, but the board had diverted approximately £280,000 towards other hospital works. Councillor W. J. Gaudin said that there was £2^9,000 left. The Mayor: They have diverted approximately £280,000. They are spending £440,000, and there is very nearly £300,000 left. If they go on to the expenditure of the full £540,000 the total expenditure will reach a million. I Councillor R. H. Nimmo said that the j 100 beds were additional to the Hutt Valley accommodation. If the extra, accommodation was for military pur-j poses it should be financed by the Government. . ] SHOULD BE AT TRENTHAM. The soldiers' hospital, said Council-; lor Gaudin, should be erected at J Trentham by the Government; it was not the responsibility of local authorities of the Wellington district. Councillor J. D. Sievwright said that clearly the responsibility of provide ing for soldier patients was not one for the ratepayers of the Wellington Hospital district. The Mayor: Why do they not take over the racecourse? Mrs. Knox Gilmer: They probably will if this objection is raised. Councillor W. Appleton suggested that there had been a great deal of muddlement over soldier patients. The war had been on for over two years and a military hospital could have been built at Trentham for little more than the State had lost in revenue from abandoned racing at Trentham. The time had come for a showdown. .The council should not fork out money at the direction of the v Director-General of Health. "The ppint," said Mr. Hislop, "is that this is hot the ordinary type of hospital for which local bodies- are liable. This hospital is required for general defence purposes, and should be charged against the War Expenses Account or, at any rate, against the general funds of'the State. .1 think we should state our very definite objection to this being foisted upon us." THE POINT AT ISSUE. The Mayor: There is no objection to providing needed accommodation. It is a question of allocation of the,cost. The cost should be borne, by the State, for this is an abnormal expense. Councillor R. L. Macalister: It* is time .the military or the. Government awakened to what are their responsibilities to soldier patients. The matter had become more pointed since Trentham was to be the training camp for all men going overseas, said Councillor M. Fraser. He under-1 stood that early in the war the Health Department had notified the Hospital Board the provision that it should make for soldiers.

It was agreed, Mrs. Gilmer dissenting, that the council should not consent to the loan of £25,000, and that the Hospital Board should be asked to join in making representations to the Government.