POLICY CHANGED

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3255, 21 April 1943, Page 6

POLICY CHANGED

THAMES HOSPITAL BOARD OBJECTION BY COUNTY BUILDING RATE RESCINDED A resolution that a small rate be provided in this year’s estimates as the nucleus of a building fund carried at the March meeting of the Thames Hospital Board was rescinded at the April meeting of the board when several members representing rural areas strenuously opposed the extra levy being struck. .Mr C. W. Winder representing the Thames County Council re-introduced the matter pointing out that at the last meeting he had asked that the matter stand over until he and other members had consulted the ratepayers they represented and also to hear the Minister of Health’s proposals regarding larger subsidies to hospital boards. ’

“As there appears to have arisen some new facts on the question, I am quite prepared to move that the previous resolution be rescinded and that will allow members to express their opinions,” said Mr Brenan. He accordingly moved in that direction and the motion, seconded by Mr M. A. Ellis, was carried unanimously. County Council’s Objection

Mr Winder then read the resolution passed at the last meeting of the Thames County Council objecting to any further increase in the hospital levy. He showed that since 1933 the amount the Thames County had to find had risen from £l2OO to nearly £2ooo—almost 100 per cent.

“The county ratepayers felt,” said Mr Winder, “that this was not an opportune time to increase the burden on the farmers who, with the

ever-increasing cost of production, were having a hard time.” He suggested that the extra rate should not be put on this year. Mr Ellis was of the same opinion as Mr Winder. He also maintained that the rate should be paid 'by the Social Security Fund. Mr W. C. Kennedy said that when the matter was previously introduced he had pointed out that it was in direct opposition to those people who are fighting against the present incidence of taxation.

Mr C. W. Parfitt contended that the basis of hospital rating was wrong. He thought the chairman’s suggestion to start a building fund was a wise provision. It would save the ratepayers quite a lot in the future. “As for waiting to see what the Minister of Health would do—well, you all know that in the end you will have to deal with the Minister of Finance and so far the county ratepayers have not got much from the Minister of Finance,” concluded Mr Parfitt. Mr W. Madgwick thought the previous proposition was a good one. It meant saving a little year by year, and those local bodies which .could show in a few years that they had something would get a far better deal with the Government. Messrs A. H. Sutton, A. G. Davis, W. J. Danby and A. G. Gornes thought the matter should be deferred until a more favourable opportunity. The chairman said his reason for bringing the matter forward was. that from his knowledge of the position the hospital had. reached its maximum, in fact over its maximum. The institu-

tion was due for reconstruction, and his idea was to strike a small rate now in order to build up a fund to meet the large expenditure in a few years’ time. In his opinion the previous resolution should stand, and he moved in that direction. This was seconded by Mr Madgwick.

Upon being put to the meeting the resolution was lost.'