HOSPITAL LEVY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 11 June 1926, Page 4

HOSPITAL LEVY

OBJECTION "BY WAIMEA COUNTY COUNCIL "REFERRED BACK TO THE BOARD" Arising out of a letter from the Hospital Board to the Waimea County Council at yesterday's meeting notifying that the Council's share of the levy for the ensuing year was £4319, considerable discussion ensued. Cr. Wilkinson moved that it be referred back to the Board, "as a protest against this continued increase in rates." He went on to say that it was costing £34,000 to run one institution in the district—more than the total revenue received by all the contributing bodies in the Nelson district. There must be some extravagance somewhere. He was not going to make a wholesale denunciation on the Board; he dared say they did their work as well tis they could. But they must take into consideration that the Board was not a rating body—the Council was the responsible body and the rating authority. "It strikes me very forcibly,"' he continued, "that we are nursing* a baby we cannot afford to carry and it is getting burdensome to every ratepayer in the district." The letter should be referred back to the Board asking that the estimates be revised for the year. The people could not afford to pay their rates. "Cr. Berryman, who is a member of the Board, is everlastingly coming here and telling us how lie is looking after the interests of the ratepayers and yet as a member of the Board assists in putting up the rates, which ratepayers cannot afford to pay." Cr. Wilkinson went on to sav that* it was costing sheepfarmers £3* per bale of wool to pay their rates. "Something must he done and we must make a protest," said Cr. Wilkinson. He was not making a general slap at the. ■Board, but that body had not taken into consideration the capacity of. the people to pay. He was satisfied that some of the expense was ahsolutely unjustified. Cr. Berryman: What?

Cr. Wilkinson: The expense of beautifying the grounds for one thing. I understand also that an appointment was made to the hospital that was never advertised and very fewpeople knew anything about it." These things should come to light. It is absolutely scandalous for an institution to cost more than the whole province put together. I speak on behalf of the ratepayers." Cr. Berryman. So do I. The chairman: You don't consider them. ,

Cr. Berryman was rising to speak when the chairman asked if he waa seconding the motion.

Cr. Berryman: I will do so pro forma to get a word in. He went on to say that the Board had been accused of extravagance. The extravagance was not on the Board hut on the County Council.

Cr. Corder: You must take your share of it.

Or. Berryman went on to sav that in the Christchurch district the cost per head was 14/fi a nd in Nelson only 9/4. Was that extravagance? Or. Wilkinson: You have not taken into consideration local conditions. Cr. Berryman: It is due to very careful administration. He added that the Nelson City only contributed 5/5 per head as against 9/5 by the County. This showed an amendment was needed in the Act. The Board had been complimentefjL for its,administration time and time "again. - ~~"

Or. Wilkinson: You are not jrettinoit to-day."" • :

I. Cr. Renyon supported, the motion. , The hospital levy was piling up and a protest must be made.' If it went on it would cripple the ratepayers. The Council got the blame for the increased rates, but they could really not help rates going up. Cr. Macmahon supported the motion. % It appeared to him that the svstem of election to Hospital Boards was not as good as it used to be when the Council appointed its own representatives. Cr. Berryman had stressed the great increase in rates. The greatest increase was in the hospital levy. Cr. Berryman: No." Cr. Wilkinson: Yes. Cr. Macmahon added that the motion would show that the Council was dissatisfied with the amount levied. He knew the valuation had something to do with it. Nelson City was undervalued and the County over-valued. Cr. Hewetson sa'id the resolution would serve no good purpose; at the same time it would do no harm. The Council would have to face the music. The position would be improved when a new valuation was made. Personally he had been as careful as he could on the Board. Maladministration levelled against it had not been borne out in fact. If any other member of the Council was on the Board he would have done the same. The Board had been as careful as it could.

Cr. Corder asked what was the average number of occupied beds in the hospital. For the sake of argument taking at at 50, there was one doctor at £9OO a year and a junior at £l5O. Were two doctors necessary? ? Cr. Berryman replied that a second doctor would save his salary in the anaesthetic fees previously paid to outside doctors..

Cr. Corder: Does that do away with calling in other doctors?

Cr. Berry man: Yes, except in major operations, when three doctors are necessary.

Cr. Corder: If that is so that ex plains awav that.

Cr. Hewetson said what was paid in anaesthetic fees was made a charge on the patients receiving it. Cr. ('order: Then it is not necessary to have a second doctor. It is the thin edge of the wedge. Probablv the junior doctor's salary would go up'* Cr. Berryman: No.

Cr. Corder: You never know. On this Council you are always trying to keep down rates. The attitude of some members of the Board is quite different Quite recently there had been an increase on the hospital staff. Cr. Berryman ' said the increase amounted to about £IOOO a year. The fees had been put up and the Board would goi it back in this way. Cr .Corder: You may. He added than with members on non-rating bodies their attitude seemed to be Quite different. Cr. Berryman: No.

Cr, Corder: 1 am glad to hear it. Cr. Hewetson said the maternity block—which the Health Departmen't said was to be established—necessitated some increase in the staff. The money received in fees would make it selfsupporting. Cr. Corder: It will never be selfsupporting.

After Cr. Berryman had explained that not more than £2">o would be contributed by the ratepayers to the grounds improvement the motion was put and carried on the voices, Cr. Berryman voting no.