BACKS BEING BROKEN!

Grey River Argus, 30 March 1946, Page 2

BACKS BEING BROKEN!

WEST COAST FARMERS Complain of Hospital Rating Hospital rating was breaking the backs of the West Coast farmers, said Mr A. W. Bell, speaking to a -remit that hospital maintenance become a national liability and that hospital rating by local bodies be abolished, at a meeting of the, executive of the West Coast Province Federated Farmers yesterday. He cited the case of a farmer near Westport who was paying nearly two pounds a week in hospital rates, and another case of a farmer paying £65 a year. The farmers must have some relief, he said. No wage earner was paying comparable with the payments made by the farmers. He thought that farmers should be on the same basis as the wage earners.

Dealing with the same subject, a remit ■ from the Mokihinui branch suggested that hospital rates should be chargeable only on the house and half an acre at the most. The chairman, Mr H. D. Beckett, pointed out that that remit nullified the first remit which was from ,the Karamea branch. The secretary, Mr J., Mulcare, said that at present the farmers’ tools' of trade, .their land, was being taxed unfairly. The remit aimed at removing that taxation. Mr W. H. Martin said that if their decision was not in accord with the findings of the Local Bodies Commission. on this matter, then it was of no use. He thought that they should decide on some line of action among themselves. Replying to a question he said that the findings of the Commission had not yet been published. The situation was similar to that of the Lime Commission, where, although the findings had not been published, everyone knew what the report was. The chairman said the Commission had recommended the abolition, in stages, of hospital rating. This matter had been coming up at meetings, of farmers for a long time, and he thought that the best thing they could do was to re-affirm their attitude on the matter. —This was agreed on. NO SOCIAL SECURITY FOR FARMERS

There was some heated discussion on the matter of rebates of doctors' fees for farmers. One member said that his wife had had to go into Greymouth to a doctor, and was unable to get a rebate because there was s doctor in the district where they lived. Farmers had no choice in the matter, he said; they were being penalised. In the towns the people could choose what doctor they went to. It was pointed out that in such a case a rebate could be obtained by getting a note from the resident doctor to the effect that it had been necessary for the patient to attend a doctor in the town.

If a farmer was sick, continued the same member, and was not able to work, he had to show a loss of income and that he was paying another man before he could obtain any sick benefit. He himself had been sick and had not been able to claim any sick benefit. Other members reported similar experiences. “We are paying for something we can’t draw from,” said the chairman, “and it is an old British principle that what, one pays towards one can draw from.” He thought the situation was criminal. The full ramifications of the matter were not. realised until an actual case was met with. “There isn’t any Social' Security for the farmers,” said Mr A. W. Bell. As. soon as a farmer applied for sick benefit, a member of the Social Security Department visited the district and made inquiries as to the accuracy of the returns. “Gestapo”, said another member. It was decided to place the matter nn the agenda to be brought before the annual provincial conference. Another matter in connection with hospitals was raised by the chairman, who said that twice in the last month he had had to bring seriously ill persons in to the hospital. In both cases it had been raining heavily, and the patients had had to be taken from the car on to the stretcher in the pouring rain. He thought it was disgraceful that there was no covering at the hospital for the admission ol sick persons who were brought in bj car—lt was decided that the secretary write to the Grey River Hospital Board, drawing their attention to the matter. RAILWAY FENCES. It. was suggested by Mr Bell that they should write to the Minister of Railways pointing out that Departmental officers were not carrying out their word with regard to the erection of fences along the railway lines. It was stated that an engineer of the Railways Department had said that the Department was not verv concerned if engines knocked cattle over, as they could easily crush them. Earlier, when engines were smaller and cattle were perhaps larger, there was a danger of the trains being derailed. He had indicated that the responsibility was with the farmers to see that stock did not wander on to railway lines.

The chairman said that Departmental officers were repudiating the Minister’s statement, for he had said that the Railways Department would erect fences and he had reiterated that statement since first making it. It was decided that the secretary approach the District Railways Engineer on the matter. On the matter of loading facilities at the Reefton railway yard, Mr Bell said that facilities there had been desperately small, and arrangements had been made for having them enlarged. The lines had been lifted and the loading bank had been removed preparatory to reconstruction. While in this stage, an urgent call had been received from a dredge which was making a deviation across the railwayline. The work had been dropped, and all the men rushed to that job, and there had been no loading facilities available. Some 1500 fat lambs from Maruia had' had to be manhandled several times, while a consignment of cattle had not been able to be handled at all. —It was decided that the secretary confer with the District Railways Engineer on the matter.