HOSPITAL DE-RATING

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5945, 19 May 1944, Page 3

HOSPITAL DE-RATING

ATTITUDE OF TAURANGA COUNTY COUNCIL

POSITION EXPLAINED BY LEGAL ADVISER

The present members of the Tauranga County Council are not prepared to take what they consider to be the illegal pledge advocated by the Auckland Provincial Executive of the* New Zealand Farmers’ Union with regard to the abolition of hospital rates, a unanimous decision to this /effect (being reached at the monthly meeting of the council.

The pledge referred to is that candidates for seats on county councils should refuse to strike the hospital rate, if necessary.

The question was raised as a result of a decision by the annual meeting of the Tauranga branch of the union to ask the council to reconsider its attitude, in the light of legal opinions obtained by the union and which were opposed to the opinion obtained by the council and considered at its previous meeting.

At Friday’s meeting of the council, Mr W. I. Rushton, newly-elected president of the Tauranga branch of the union and the secretary (Mr S. J. Parker) were present for the purpose, Mr Parker stated, of gaining information and to be of assistance to the council if they could. The council’s solicitor was also present at the meeting and after the County Clerk (Mr H. Lewis) had read a further opinion by him which was more in the nature of an amplification of his earlier opinion, a copy of which has already been published, he answered several questions and further explained the position of councillors.

It was pointed out by the chairman (Cr C. Hume) that he had been told that both the Opotiki and Whakatane County Councils were 100 per cent behind the movement, but. he had been in communication with both these councils and had been informed that they were not accepting it.

In his remarks, the council’s solicitor stated that the position as he saw it was that the average farmer knew that the incidence of hospital rating was unfair and knowing that a movement was started to get the county council, which was a subordinate branch of the Government, to “buck” the Government from which it obtained its powers, instead of going to the fountain head. The question was one for political action. He added that the people could ask the council to do only what it had power to do. The council was not a law-making institution, and if every elector signed an application asking the council to do something which it was not entitled to do, that would not give validity to the act. A county council was a body corporate which was bound by the limits of the law which created it. It was not for men of standing in this district to adopt the tactics suggested. “You are expected to act within the law; there is no shadow of doubt about the position.”

In reply to a question by Cr C. H. Ball, the council’s solicitor said he would say definitely that it would be illegal for any candidate to sign the document set out by the Farmers’ Union. He pointed out that when the creature “ bucked ” the creator the creature usually came in for a bad time. The County Council was the creature of the statute and it was not for it to buck its creator.

The view was expressed by the chairman that the. campaign had been ill-conceived. He would admit that the rate was unjust but the campaign was poorly based with nothing to support it—only talk that everybody was supporting it. He added that he had made a statement at a meeting of the Katikati branch of the union, and he intended to abide by that statement. It was to the effect that he was prepared to help the ratepayers as much as he could within the law and sooner than break the law he would resign his position. He intended to call his ratepayers together and tell them that. He was militant enough in lots of things, but he thought they should start on something worthwhile. If the petition of the Farmers’ Union had been amended to state that those signing it would refuse to pay the rate, then he would be prepared to sign it. “Let the farmers refuse to pay it if they want publicity,” added Cr Hume. He would give his personal support with all the power he had, but he was not prepared to break the law. He was going to call his ratepayers together and they could decide. He felt it was the duty of the council to endeavour to show the ratepayers both sides of the question. He was not going to stand by and let them hear only one side. “Make it something worth while and we’ll be in, boots and all,” concluded Cr Hume.

It was pointed out by Mr Rushton that he was not behind the campaign, and was, in fact, very much opposed to it. His view was that this should not be done by the Farmers’ Union but through the Dairy Board. He added that the Tauranga executive of the Union had decided last week not to take any action in connection with it. He was not one who wished to break the law. Cr J. T. Reid said he had made his attitude clear; he would stand by the chairman in his views in every form.

Cr H. Bragg said he would not support anything that would mean breaking the law. After further discussion the following motion, moved by Mr C. C. Kennedy, and seconded by Cr Ball, was carried unanimously:— “That the council is prepared to support its ratepayers in any movement within the law to have the hospital levey abolished, but the council is not prepared to take what it considers an illegal pledge advocated by the Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union, in its resolution as circulated.” *