"AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN”

Evening Star, Issue 22325, 29 April 1936, Page 12

"AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN”

HIGHER HOSPITAL LEVIES CONTRIBUTING AUTHORITIES CONCERNED PROTEST FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONFERENCE v*' Emphatically protesting against the Otago Hospital Board’s decision to increase levies £IO,OOO for the current year, to-day’s conference of local bodies, called by the St. Kilda Conncil, decided to draw the board s attention to the fact that the higher demand is making the total hospital rate an excessive burden on the contributing authorities concerned. Twenty-three representatives were present from the following 12 bodies:St. Kilda, Green Island, Mosgiel, west Harbour, Tort Chalmers, and Palmerston Borough Councils, Waikouaiti, Waihehio, Taieri, Lawrence, Tuapeka, and Tapanui County Councils. «« BIT OF A BURLESQUE.” Explaining the reason for the meeting, Mr J. J. Marlow (Mayor of St. Kilda), who was appointed chairman, said no definite scheme had been prepared, tut the idea was that the position might be discussed by the contributing bodies concerned. To his mind the position was “ a bit of a burlesque,” when the board’s chairman threw out his chest and declared that the body did not owe a penny. No one would need to ,owe a penny if he put his hands into another’s pocket. Mr Marlow added, “ and that is the board’s position in issuing levy demands.” ~ ~ „ In further explanation Mr IN. V. Anderson (St. Kilda) said that when the suggested increase of £IO,OOO by Hospital Board was made known to the St. Kilda Council some two weeks ago he, as chairman of finance, immediately voiced his protest, and _ suggested a conference of all local bodies concerned. It was pleasing to say that, with the exception of Dunedin City, favourable replies had been received from practically all bodies affected, signifying their willingness to support the protests. It was, however, beyond comprehension that the city—the largest contributor to the board and which paid approximately £29,000 per annum—did not consider it worth while in the interests of its ratepayers to endeavour to avoid further increases. Thechairrrtan of the city’s Finance Committee (who, by the way, was a member of the Hospital Board) had stated that local bodies should not demur at paying an increase, or cavil at the cost, as the levy was no higher than it had been five or six years ago, and that the demands of the board were fair and reasonable.

“ABSURD REASONING.” “ That reasoning is absurd,” Mr Anderson continued. “ The demands of the board are definitely not fair and reasonable. The board’s position today is infinitely better than it was five or six years ago, inasmuch as owing to the improved economic conditions fewer calls are being made on the board than was the case then. Furthermore, during the past two, or three years the levy was lower than it was five or six years ago. Why, then, under improved conditions financially, should the board demand an increase considerably m excess of the days of tho depression ? If these increases were allowed to continue' one cannot foretell what the ultimate result may be. Theto certainly will bo no end to further increases in the future.” _ From information supplied by the chairman of the Hospital Board, he understood that the proposed increase was to be applied, not for outdoor relief as he had been erroneously informed the other day, but for the following purposes: —£5,000 as a capital expenditure toward a fund for outdoor patients, and £5,000 for maintenance of beds in the new administrative hospital block. ‘ Surely local bodies have not to carry this burden indefinitely, and I advocate again, as I have always done, that this question is a national one, and one that should be tackled by the Government,” said Mr Anderson. “ The time surely has arrived when local bodies should take up a definite stand in this matter, and not merely take their medicine and look pleasant. There must come a time when the ratepayers’ resources will become strained, and as far as St. Hilda is concerned, we consider £2,719 per annum quite a large enough sum for ratepayers to bear. If some stand is not taken by the local authorities concerned this condition of affairs may continue ad infinitum. If necessary they should be prepared,, unless some consideration ‘s shown, to refer the matter to the Minister for his decision.”

TAXATION SYSTEM CRITICISED. Mr T. Seollay (Mayor of Port Chalmers) supported the protest, and said the increase would necessitate an extra rate of lid in the £. It was definitely desirable that the rate should be reduced, or that the whole concern be taken over by the Government, so that all would have to contribute, and not only a section of the community as at present. Mr G. Ross (Waihemo) and Mr C. T. M'Callum (Waikouaiti) supported these views, it being reported by the latter that half the rate collected went to the Hospital Board. Mr T. M'Ahan (Mayor of Green Island) asked if the protest were against the higher levy or the system of taxation. It seemed to him that the latter was the case, as the conference was scarcely in a position to judge whether the extra claim was a just one. He contended that as long as local bodies received satisfactory service from the board they had little to quibble about. Mr D. Forsyth (Port Chalmers Borough Council) said the present system of taxation was wrong, if a local body had no say in the spending of its money. There should be a statutory limit on the board’s demands, the present position being anything but a democratic one.

PREPARING A CASE. Mr Marlow pointed out that half the increased figure would be used for the maintenance of 50 extra beds (at about £250 each) in the new administration block. The balance was to be added to the Capital account for works deemed essential by the board. The question was whether such a greatly increased demand could be made in any one year. He recommended that two or three representatives from the meeting should take a case before the board and ask for some relief. Such action would have a retarding effect on future demands. “ It is no use criticising the board until wo are sure of our facts,” declared Mr W. P. Hartstonge (Mosgiel). The board, he added, merely levied the 15-odd local bodies in its district for the amount wanted, and they had the duty of collecting it. Thus its money was obtained too easily, but the position had reached the stag© when in-

creases were becoming too heavy. Local bodies would be foolish to allow the increases to continue unless these were justified. “ The board’s expenditure almost makes one’s hair stand,” ho said, in quoting figures from the current estimates, and suggesting that a sub-committee be appointed to go thoroughly into the matter and prepare a case for presentation to the board. He submitted a motion to this effect, which was seconded by Mr W. Wylie (Tapanui). FORM OF PROTEST, Much discussion ensued as to the form the protest should take. Mr W. Cameron (Tuapeka) maintained that the motion would carry them nowhere at the present time. An initial protest was necessary, before they found fault with the taxation system. Figures were quoted by Mr R. F. Batchelor (Tuapeka) showing that the Otago hospital rate was the Highest of anv of the 16 South Island districts, and of most of the 47 districts in the Dominion. Tuapeka paid a third of the rate levied, and ranked next to the city as the largest contributor. It was shown that on its declared valuation the demands elsewhere diminished considerably, and in some cases by over half. Mr R. L. Cotton (Lawrence) endorsed the facts as presented by luapeka representatives,. after which Mr Cameron moved, and Mr Scollay seconded, that an emphatic protest be entered against the increased rate. Mr D. Forsyth (Port Chalmers) spoke of the extra burden placed on local bodies as a result of the increase, and felt little could be done for the present year, but that future provision against similar trouble should be ensured. He gave notice of moving a second amendment to this effect, and it was eventually carried, it being further decided to forward a copy of the motion to the Minister. Tho original motion was then acted upon, and Messrs W. P Hartatonge (Mosgiel, convener), N. D. Anderson St. Hilda), C. Findlay (Taien), B. Galloway (Palmerston) D. Forsyth (Port Chalmers), and R. F. Batchelor (Tuapeka) were appointed to consider the board’s finances, mainly concerning capital and maintenance expenditure, and prepare a case to be daid before the board. A vote of thanks to the St. Hilda Council for calling the conference was carried unanimously.