WHO IS TO PAY?

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 3, Issue 264, 29 January 1941, Page 5

WHO IS TO PAY?

EXPENSES OF HOME GUARD

OPINION OF COUNTY COUNCIL

On a number of- occasions at yesterday's meeting of the County Council the question of covering expenses incurred by the organisation of the Home Guard came forward for discussion, and the general opinion of members was that the time had arrived when the State made some provision for the covering of such outlay.

The subject was first discussed when a letter was read the Minister of National Service, in which he stated that the regulations provided that certain expenses in connection with the establishment of the Guard should be met by local authorities, the reason for this provision being that the Guard provided a body of men in each locality trained to defend their own particular district and thus it was considered only reasonable that tlie community should bear part of the cost.

The second instance was wlien a letter from the Rotorua Borough Council advised that a meeting of the Home Guard Executive had considered the question of estimated expenditure and proposed to levy local bodies in the area on a proportionate basis, this to be derived from the capital value of each body. These levies were as follows; —<

Rotorua Borough Council £15 5 3 Rotorua County Council 12 12 0 Opotiki Borough Council 3 3 0 Opotiki County eCouncil 12 12 0 Tauranga Borough Council 9 9 0 Tauranga County Council 27 11 3 Tc Puke Borough Council 2.7 3 Mt Maunganui Town Board 1 11 <> Whakatane Bor. Council 318 9 Whakatane County Council 24 8 3 Taupo Road Board 7 1 0

In adopting the recommendation of the Finance Committee that the consideration of the application for the contribution be deferred until (1) a copy of minutes of all meetings; (2) a statement as to on whose authority the levies are *Ming made and the purpose (itemised) therefore, and (3) the personnel of the executive, were received, several members spoke to the effect that the Council would not be justified in making the payment without knowing to what purpose the funds Avould be devoted.

Cr H. C. MeCready was of the firm opinion that the State should be footing the 'biLl for all expenses except those which the local bodies had undertaken as a local f affair. He felt that the movement would not be a complete success until it was a State liability and he felt that it was unfair that the ratepayers should be asked to foot the bill con-

tinually. His opinioij was shared by other members, but however, it was pointed out that the question was one which was shortly to be discussed by Home Guard committees and that it was hoped to have a definite policy adopted. Country Activities Later in the meeting the matter Avas again before the Council when the Taneatua Home Guard asked for permission to use the hall free 01. charge for drill, stating that it would require the hall on Mpnuay evenings when it was not possible to parade outside. It was also stated thtit the Guard would not make use of the building if it was required for other purposes.

Here again it was pointed out that, although the Council was asked to provide only lighting, other expense would result as damage to seats etc. would be inevitable, and once again the need for better orgj-< anisation by the State was stressed. The application was referred to the Hall Committee, the chairman.,, Gr J. L. Burnett, remarking feat he thought a small' charge should be made so that at some time the council could be reimbursed bv the State

Another request for assistance was received, tliis coming from the Matata Home Guard, which asked the Council to install a light at the football ground where it Avas intended t® drill. It was co.%~idered that in tkis case there was an opportunity for the Power Board to make a contribution of assistance.