AMALGAMATION.

Thames Star, Volume LXV, Issue 18240, 14 July 1931, Page 3

AMALGAMATION.

A REPORT QUESTIONED. Accuracy Vindicated. QUERIES BY MEMBERS. ATTITUDE OF BOROUGH. The attitude of the Thames Borough Council through its represeutatives on the Thames Hospital Board to the question of the amalgamation of the Thames and Wailu districts caused some comment at yesterday’s meeting of the Thames Board, in the course of which the accuracy of the report in the “Thames Star” of the remarks by Cr W. E. Hale at a meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council was vindicated when queried. The matter was brought up when the secretary read a letter, in which the Director-General of Health, Dr. M. H. Watt, acknowledged the receipt of the Board’s resolution that it was willing to consider the question of amalgamation on condition that the Government would indemnify the Board against any resultant increase in rating liability, and stated that consideration was being given to the position. Mr J. W. Dauby (Thames Borough), asked if the report published iu the “Thames Star” that at the last meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council: — “Cr Hale reported that Thames Borough and Onmemuri County were in favour of amalgamation but Paeroa Borough and Thames County were not represented and Hauraki Plains County Council representatives were opposed to amalgamation. ’ Mr Hale (.the chairman) said that he nad reported so, on tne resolution of tne last meeting of tne Thames Hospital Board. Mr Dauby said that no statement liad been made by the Thames Borough or its representatives in favour of amalgamation. He stressed the fact that he disclaimed any adherence by the Borough or its representatives to amalgamation unless certain conditions were forthcoming. Mr E. L. Walton (Hauraki Plains) said that the “Star’s” report was a correct summing up of the position and the statement. = He thought the Thames Borough was in favour of amalgamation, as was shown by their attitude at the last meeting. Mr Lange had clearly shown that by his attitude. Had the Thames Borough followed the Hauraki Plain s lead the position would have been different.

After Mr J. W. Lange (Thames Borough) had interjected and Mr Danby had risen to a point of order, Mr Lange said that the chairman had no right to get up in another place and make statements without authority. He said that all the Borough representatives had done was to extend courtesy to Dr. Watts and they agreed to give the matter consideration. Mr W. C. Kennedy (Ohinemuri County Council) did not think that the Thames Borough Council representatives had advocated amalgamation. Mr Danby said that he wished it to be shown that the chairman had assumed a position which did not exist. He wished to dissociate the Borough from the statement. Mr A. E. Robinson (Ohinemuri County Council) contended that the Thames Borough was in favour of amalgamation under certain conditions. Mr D. Courtney (Thames County 'Council) wished to define his attitude. His local body and ratepayers were definitely opposed to amalgamation and he would vote against it. Mr Hale said that he had been correctly reported and it was nothing but a “wangle of words” to say that Thames Borough was not in favour of amalgamation. He would take a resolution on the matter and if he was asked the same question tomorrow he would make the same answer. >■ Mr B. D. Chapman (Thames Borough) said that the local members would not support any amalgamation unless the requisite safeguards were given. Mr Kennedy said’ that he had not been mis-represented by the chairman and Mr Robinson said the same, adding that the chairman might have given more information to his council. The Board then passed on to other business.