HOSPITAL BOARD LEVY

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 July 1941, Page 5

HOSPITAL BOARD LEVY

BOROUGH COUNCIL PROTEST -' INJUSTICE ALLEGED “It is the same old story, that things are going up and up and up,’ said Cr. J. Saunders, at last evening’s meeting of the Grey mouth Borough Council, when the statement’ of accounts for the yeax - ended March 31, 1941, was received from the Grey Hospital Board. As previously reported in the “Star,” the Borough Council’s proportion of the levy is now £9293 11/1, compared with £6803 13/9, an increase of £2489 17/4. ' Cr. Saunders said that he would like a protest to come from the cil at the extraordinarily large increase in the levy compared with that of last year. The ratepayers had reached the point where they could not stand any further increase. At the special meeting of the Council to deal with the estimates, he had moved that the Council should not pass on any increase. He did so as a protest, knowing that the motion had no chance of getting through. IU could not possibly be done, because it was subsequently found necessary to pare the Borough estimates by ovex’ £3OOO, in order to balance those estimates. He moved: That, in view of. the alarming increase in hospital levies , sb far as the Borough of Greymouth is concerned, the Government be asked to put into operation immediately: (a) A scheme tor making hospital charges payable by the people ot the Dominion as a whole and.not. by landowners only; or.(b) until the above reform can be put into operation, that all State holdings in Boroughs and Counties be valued and rated in the same way as ratepayers; and that copes of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. J. O’Brien, M.P., the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister fox - Health, Mr. P. C. Webb (Member for Buller), and the Municipal Association. Continuing, Cr. Saunders said they were in the position to-day that the State and Church holdings in the Borough represented a capital value of £232,225, on which no hospital rates were being collected. The figures on which this was based were as follow: Total capital value of Borough, including Cobden, £1,875,969. The hospital levy was based on £1,643,744, leaving £232,225 on which no hospital rates are collected. The hospital levy totalled -£15,276, the percentages on which it was compiled being ®as follow: Greymouth Borough 60.44, Grey County 28.40, Runanga Borough 4.62, Brunner Borough 6.54. It was time that some change was made in the system of rating. Cr. C. Neville seconded the motxon, but said he did not think it went far enough. He would like to see something more definite done with a view to changing the proportion of the 3-reymouth Borough. It seemed .vrong that the Runanga ’ Borough, vith a peculation of 1500 or 2000, should pay/only 4.62 pex’ cent. Cr. J. B. Kent: They pay on the valuation, and not on the population. Cr. Neville said there was some;hing wrong,with the basis of assessing the rate. When he joined the Council about ten years ago, the levy - was £5700, anad now it was ovex£9ooo. When the social security tax ,vas enforced on the people, he had expected that the hospital rate would be reduced, but it was going up all the time.

“ANACHRONISM.” Cr. P. Blanchfield, junr., moved, as an amendment, that the Council give ts full support to the Minister of Health (Mr. Nordmeyer) in carrying out his ideas of nationalising the hospitals. In moving the amendment, said Cr. Blanchfield, he was honouring his election pledge. The present method of rating hit the man who improved his property, and it was a definite anachronism. The method should be changed, and made a charge on income. If the Councillors agreed to the amendment, they would finish the discussion quickly, and get something useful done. Cr. G. M. Truman, in seconding the amendment, said that it was a proper SU Th e e St Mayor (Mr. F. A. Kitchingham): Was Mr. Nordmeyer’s suggestion to nationalise the hospitals, or merely to make the charges leviable on income? , L 4 ,, _ Cr. Kent pointed out that the Government at present paid its proportion, but had no representation on Hospital Boards. Cr. Kent said that there was no real difference between the motion and the amendment. The Mavor said that Cr. Saunders motion proposed that the Government be asked to put into operation a scheme for making hospital charges payable by the whole of the people, and not by landowners only. _ Cr Kent remarked that the Council sent a remit on the same lines to the Municipal Association, many years ago. Social security had been in operation for five years or more, said Ci. Saunders, but there was no relief apoarent in regard to hospital i Nothing was being collected on the huge capital value of Government was defeated, by five votes to four, and the motion was Ca Cr e< Saunders moved that the representation of the Greymouth Borough Council on the Hospital Board be increased to six members. Hepointed out that Runanga Borough, which paid 4.62 of the levy, had one epresentative; Brunner Borough, 6.54, one representative; Grey County, 28.40, three representatives; but Greymouth Borough, 60.44, had only five S Neville e seconded the motion. Cr.’ Kent said that the population basis was the trouble. , Cr. F. F. Boustridge said that when he was on the Hospital Board, the Greymouth Borough representation was increased from four to five, and that was done purely on the allocation of the levy. He supported Cr. Blanchfield’s statement regarding rating on the capital value. It was “criminal” to rate in that way, and hey knew the cruelty imposed by that system of rating. A man who improved his property was immediately levied for more “damages” or costs m connection with the hospital. A land- 4 lord who allowed his properties to go to wrack and ruin was allowed to get away with it, and paid less ana less from year to year. The fact that he was neglecting his properties would certainly tend adversely to affect the health of his tenants, and therefore he was causing a greater expense in connection with the hospital. It was a vicious arrangement. A man who improved his property, and thus tried to decrease sickness, was charged more for the actual sickness that occurred. In supporting the motion, Cr. Kent said that health was a national matter, and the financing of it should also be a national matter. The motion was carried.