HOSPITAL BOARD MATTERS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19484, 8 May 1933, Page 16

HOSPITAL BOARD MATTERS

PROVISIONS OF ACT OUTLINED.

REFERENCE AT MACKENZIE COUNTY MEETING.

Referring to the estimates of the South Canterbury Hospital Board and the levies fer contributing local bodies, for 1933. which were tabled at Friday’s meeting of the Mackenzie County Counc l, the county clerk (Mr. D. JeuneL pointed out that the levies were increased by £1531. or 9.75 per cent., £553 of this being for capital expenditure and £983 for maintenance. The largest item of increased expenditure was the increase of £llOO in the grant to the Timaru Central Relie? Society this beng raised from £4OO last year to £ISOO this year. The Finance Committee recommended that the first quarter’s levy be now paid, and that the matter be reconsidered when the second quarter’s levy was due.—Approved.

Al?mber Congratulated.

Moved by Mr. W. Scott and seconded by Mr.H. H. Fisher, the following motion was carried:—“That the Council congratulate Mr. George Murray on standing for a seat on the South Canterbury Hospital Board, and on the reasonable vote he received, this show ng that a considerable number of electors view with concern the cost of social ervices.” The chairman (Mr. C. J. Talbot), said that Mr. Murray had stood as a repre entativo of Timaru, and all would agree that he polled very well. It was really surprising that a man living in the back country should make such a good showing in a town election. Mr. A. F. Campbell said that while he agreed with the first part of the motion, the latter wording might be taken as a reflection on the administration of South Canterbury hospitals. Mr. Scott: “That is not intended.”

Mr. Campbell pointed out that since 1929 Mackenzie’s levies had been reduced by £676. this showing that little fault could be found with the administration.

“I have not finished yet,” remarked Air. Murray, in acknowledging the ! motion.

Chairman’s Action Criticised.

At a later stage of the meeting the chairman reported on the conference between contributing bodies and the South Canterbury Hospital Board in regard to hospital costs. Mr. Scott expreseed surprise that Mr. Talbot had stated at the conference that the Hospital Board’s reply had “knocked the wind out of their sails.” They had approached the Board for a reduction in the levy of 25 p.c., but instead of that they had received an increase in Mackenzie’s levy of 9 per cent. Air. Talbot’s remarks had

I made it appear that Mackenzie representatives were satisfied. He for 1 one was still not satisfied.

> Mr. Alurray said he blamed himself | to a certain extent for not speaking i at the conference, especially when Mr. Talbot had stated that the Board had presented a good case. In his opinion Mackenzie should have been granted a decrease of 25 per cent., but the county’s representatives had not battled as hard as they should have : done.

Mr. Fisher said that although he was not present at the conference, it struck him that the Hospital Board had put up a very good case. It was all very well for Mackenzie to ask for a 25 per cent, reduction, but he could net see how this was to be effected. The Board’s obligations were forced upon them by the Government, a big difficulty being the increasing demands for charitable aid.

“I was very pleased I was not there to receive the rebuff the Mackenzie County Council received at that meeting.'’ stated Air. Campbell who considered that Mr. Scott had been rather unfair in his attitude towards the remarks Mr. Talbot had made. Mr. Scott should have placed his points before the meeting at the time: it was no use complaining after the job had been done. He agreed with Mr. Fisher that the Board could not refuse social service. The administration of hospital affairs was quite good. It was the inequitable collection of levies that was the trouble.

“I agree with the statement that the Board’s answer knocked the wind out of our sails, despite what Messrs Murray and Scott may say,” said Mr. W. T. Smith. He defied anyone to say anything* against the figures placed before the meeting by the Board. Like other members, he agreed that a reduction was desirable, but he was open to the reasoning that the Board were doing all they could. Mr F. J. Carter said the Council had not accused the Board of extravagance, but had asked that other avenues of taxation be explored in preference to heavy levies on county ratepayers. The chairman said he still maintained that the wind had been knocked out of their sails as a result of the Board’s statement. Air Scott had spoken at the meeting. Air Carter had suggested that the Board should procure their funds from elsewhere, but the Board had nowhere but present sources from which to draw on. The Board’s obligations were defined, and had to be carried out despite the burden placed cn county ratepayers as a result, and it had been only fair for him to admit the weight of the Board's statement. “I protest against the assumption that I have backed down.” added Mr Talbot. T still maintain that the Board should continue to do its best to reduce the levies. If I were in the same position again. I would take a similar attitude.” Mr Murray: “Automatically the present hospital system will collapse before very long.’’