HOSPITAL LEGISLATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18447, 7 January 1922, Page 13

HOSPITAL LEGISLATION

TO THE EDITOR. , Sib. —I road with interest this morning ■your subleader dealing with hospital legislation. The most important part of tms proposed legislation, so tar as Otago is .concerned* 'is that compelling our ratepayers to find about £14,000 for South •utugo. Such an unusual 1 course is being ■adopted in this connection, which comparatively ‘few people understand, that I take the Kberty oi writing you in the hope that every effort will bo made to prevent an injustice being done to the ratepayers ol the Otago Hospital District. ... When a Hospital Board erects buildings Tlhe ratepayers are levied for half the cost .and the Government provides halt tne amount. In other words, forcapital expenditure the levies are subsidised pound tor pound. The commissioners who recently proportioned the assets and liabilities between the Otago and £oufe Otago a , assessed the amount at £13.958 as the value ' «f the buildings remaining m the Otago .■area and being the South Otago Boards .share in this respect. Ot this warn South 'Otago contributed roughly £7OOO, which ..earned the Government subsidy for a similar Now a clause in the Bill before Parliament ’is framed for the express purpose of compelling tho ratepayers of Otago to hand over to South Otago the whole of the £13,958 (the department escaping us {responsibilities) instead of half this amount. This is most unjust as I shall endeavour to prove. . ' .. Wore it possible to remove from tne 'Otago Board's area to South Otago bundlings to the value of £13,958 the claim would )be satisfied. The Otago Board could then :re-ereot such buildings at a cost of i (bUU ito the for which they would bo levied, and it would obtain the usual subsidy from the Government of £7OOO, and thus the £14,000 worth of buildings would 1m replaced. , It may be contended, and I understand tthat it is, that as it is impossible to remove the buildings on which the Government originally provided the subsidy it would be called on_ to pay the_ subsidy twice, hence the legislation. This is not correct No one would expect the Government to pay a subsidy twice. Should the Otago Board hand over to South Otago £14,000 to erect buildings, then tho position would be that South ■Otago would have £14,000 worth of; buildiings which only cost its ratepayers. £7OOO, ■while Otago would have £14,000 worth of buildings which would cost our ratepayers the full £14,000, because the Otago Board is being asked to refund to South Otago the £7OOO it contributed together with the £7OOO subsidy. It is surely obvious that if there should be £14,000 worth of buildings in the Otago district and £14,000 worth of buildings in South Otago district the Government subsidy should bo £7OOO in each case. L Again, the South Otago Board, levying .direct on its ratepayers for £7OOO for capital •expenditure would receive a similar amount by way of subsidy, so that if the Otago Board is forced .to levy on our ratepayers Kt should be for £7OOO, carrying a Government subsidy for £7OOO, which is ,not .■given to tho Otago Board, but handed over to South Otago, making the £14,000. By .no stretch of imagination can it reasonably ibe held that the Government would bo paying the subsidy twice on the sdrne build-, ings. As this is a matter affecting every ratepayer in tho district, I trust I have put the •position clearly, and that every effort will bo made by the local bodies and all interested in combating what will be a groat injustice if the, Bill is allowed to pass in its present form.—l am, etc., A. F. Qiteloh. Mosgiel, January 6.