GROUPING SYSTEM.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19450, 14 December 1934, Page 4

GROUPING SYSTEM.

BOARD REPRESENTATION. DEPARTMENTAL PROPOSALS. MEMBERS’ STRONG OBJECTION. Strong objection to the .proposals for an amended apportionment of local bodies’ representation on the Waikato Hospital Board was voiced by several members of the board at the monthly ipeeting yesterday, when the chairman, Mr J. J. Ryburn, presided. Under the existing arrangement the combined local bodies have 15 representatives on ihe board, which is constituted as follows: Waipa County, Leamington Town Hoard and Ngaruawahia Borough, 'two members; Waikato County and Uimliy Borough, two; Hamilton Borough, two; Waitorno County and Tc Kulti Borough, two; Raglan County and Kawhia County, two; Piako County, one; (Matamala .County, P.ularui’u Town Dislricd and .Matamala Town District, one; Otoroliangij County. Otorohangn Town District, Taupo County and Taupo Road District, one: Rotorua County and Rotorua Dorouidc otic; Cambridge, T«i

Awamutu; Morrinsville and Te Aroha | Boroughs, one. 1 The Proposed Groups. The proposed revised apportionment gives the Waipa and Waikato Counties and the Hamilton Borough two representatives each, the following County Councils one each; Piako, Raglan and Matamata; and the following grouped local bodies one each: Kawhia County, Otorolianga County and Otorohanga Town District; Taupo County, Taupo Road District, and Rotorua County; Rotorua- Borough and Putaruru Town District; Matamala Town District, Te Aroha, Morrinsville, Ngaruawahia and liuntly Boroughs: Cambridge Borough, Leamington Town District, and Te Awamutu and Te Kuiti Boroughs. Although most members objected to the proposals on the grounds that it was ridiculous to expect one member to successfully represent areas as widely •scattered as most of those grouped together, the main point of the opposition was Ihe injuslice of the franchise. Ratepayers Penalised. In many of Ihe groups. Town Boards. Counlies ami Boroughs were grouped together and whereas Ihe bgruughs had Darliamenlary I'ran ’hist: | counties had ratepayers' franchise.

This undoubtedly penalised the ratepayers, contended several members. On that basis the boroughs and towns could swamp the voting by about twenty to one if they desired, as in ■their case all residents of over three months within the age limit could vote, while in the counties only ratepayers could vote. “The country people have just asmuch right to have a -say hi the government of the Waikato Hospital by a representative on the board as the townspeople have," commented Mr J. price. The speaker added that it was absurd to think that one representative could watch over the interests cf Matamata town district, Te Arolia, Morrinsville, Ngaruawahia and Iluntly Boroughs. No single man could do justice to all areas. He thought that many towns would be better served it they were linked up to counties adjacent to them instead of to towns and boroughs many miles apart. Transferring of Injustice. Several oilier members of Ilic board objected strenuously lo the proposals, .Mrs 11. M. Wilson contending that owing lo 11 1 o 'different voting basis I lie ■scheme simply transferred the,present injustice from one district !u auolher. Although a -liange was recognised 'by many as desirable II was .thought Uut ihu vulhu; should he ou a mure .

equitable basis before such steps as those proposed were taken. After a lengthy discussion a resolution was carried to the effect that the Board objects to the proposed grouping arrangements and desires an alteration in franchise, so that if a town board, county and borough 'were grouped together the franchise in each .should be on the same basis.