HOSPITAL BOARD LEVIES

Otago Witness, Issue 3566, 18 July 1922, Page 62

HOSPITAL BOARD LEVIES

OTAGO’S HEAVY BURDEN. The city ratepayer continues to chafe under the heavy burden of hospital maintenance, a burden that it is confidently believed has been unnecessarily added to as the result of the insane severance of South Otago from the Otago Board’s district, says the Town Clerk in the course of his annual report. This year the demand on the city by the Otago Board amounts to the heavy impost of £26,610, and there would not appear to be the least prospect of any substantial reduction in this exceedingly heavy call. With a view to showing the cost of hospital maintenance at- the four centres, the following table has been compiled, showing the estimated population for which hospital and charitable aid provision -is made in the respective districts, together with the figures of the capital rateable value of each area, the capital value of the respective cities that constitute the centre of the area, the total levy made by each of the four boards, and that portion of the levy demanded, respectively, from the cities: —

The figures are illuminating, and while it is somewhat difficult to reach any logical conclusion in an attempt to reduce them to a common factor, yet the outstanding fact is that, while Otago is at the bottom of the list in respect of poptilation served, and in comparison with, say, Christchurch, woefully short in a- capital rateable value of the district, yet wo are second only to Wellington in the amount we are called upon to provide. Amongst other things, the columns showing population and capital value of the whole area, when compared with either of the other three centres, would seem to present an almost irrefutable argument against what I have already referred to as the insane policy of diminishing the Otago Board’s area. What can be gleaned from the tables? Apart from the wide “spread” covering the rateable values of the respective districts —- from 22 millions in the case of Otago to 60 millions in the case of North Canterbury—what do the figures suggest? Working the total levy by each board for its area on the population basis, as presenting the fairest and most rational method of comparison that suggests itself, I -get this result: The 183.935 persons in the Auckland area contributed 6.60 s per head, the 112,339 comprised within the Wellington area were called upon for 7.16 s each, the 144,716 within the North Canterbury district each found 8.465, while the 96,792 left in the Otago district are required to find 9.30 a per capita. That is a wide range, amounting almost to 50 per cent, between Auckland and Otago. Whether the local board could or should maintain its institutions at the same rate per capita as, say, Auckland f do not profess to express an opinion. There may be a valid explanation for the wide discrepancy that makes itself apparent when figuring on a basis of per capita. Be that as it may, tile one outstanding and altogether disconcerting fact is that the burden of hospital management has well nigh reached the unbearable point, and calls for the closest scrutiny by those who are directly concerned with the subject.

Auckland Hospital District Population. .. 183,035 Wellington ,, ,, .. 112,339 X. Canterbury ,, ,, .. 144,716 Otago ,, ,, .. 96,792 T ALUATIOW. Levies. Whole District. City. Total. City Quota Auckland— £55,766,402 £22,592,252 £60,414 £2 4,475 W o 11 i li g ton — 35,582,574 29,345,347 40,231 32,929 N. Ca nt b v. — GO,567,954 . 18,396,761 61,251 18,610 «itago— 22,310.625 13,193,215 45,000 26,610