Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Press WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1946. Hospital Rating

I I The Prime Minister has seldom ap- ; ■ peared so perverse and arbitrary as ‘ he did last week, when he met a I deputation from the Municipal Association and the Counties' Association. It sought from him an an, | nouncement that the Government would adopt the Local Government Committee’s three-point recommendation on hospital rating: i.e., to stabilise the rate at the 1935-39 average, io set a maximum rate of seven-tenths of a penny, and to examine the possibility of lowering this maximum, progressively, till the rate is ultimately extinguished. Certainly, the deputation wanted what ratepayers wart—the earliest possible relief from a burden that has been grievously and anomalously increased; but it is clear enough that the deputation would have been reassured, if not satisfied, by a plain statement of the Government’s intention- Again, the deputation did not ask that the land should be wholly freed of hospital rating now r in the near future, but only, as the committee recommended, that the possibility of working by stages to complete relief should be examined. Mr Fraser appeared to make up his mind to answer as if the deputation had asked for nothing less than immediately effective relief, and as if it had asked for a positive assurance that ccmpiete relief would follow. Twice Mr Fraser said that nothing that could be done would affect the current year; and twice he spoke as if the deputation had asked the Government—and as if the committee had recommended the Govern, rnent—to “ abolish " hospital rating. The result was the unhappy' one „ that the deputation’s real request was not answered, and that the committee’s report, which has not yet been considered by Parliament, was prejudiced in the Prime Minister’s references t® it, not least in his melodramatic refusal to “ relieve “ rich landowners of their pbliga’’tions at the expense of the mass “of the people.” The landowners whose relief is seriously in question oelong to the mass of the people--, householders, small shopkeepers, small farmers. If “ rich ” landowners are not trimmed by the rate collector, they are trimmed by the Commissioner of Taxes, as the Prime Minister thoroughly well understands. It is well to recall that the committee did not advocate abolishing the hospital rate: “ Ratepayers,” It said, “ should have some financial ‘ responsibility if they are to ac- ” cept the administrative responsibility of Hospital Boards ” But it was so far impressed by the eviaence m favour of a completely nationalised system of finance as to recommend, in effect, further study of the pros and cons, and ways and means. Mr Fraser’s suggestion that more study ” is required, however, does not align him with the committee. The committee wished a specific question of policy to be investigated; on the broad issue of relief it came to a positive and unanimous conclusion. “It is evident,” the committee reported, “that some ’’ relief must be provided to rate- “ payers." This is the issue that Mr Fraser—as if making a generous concession—would open to further study. He “ agreed that there is a ’ problem to be studied.” It has been studied. It has been studied by a committee of 14 members of the House, both sides being well represented; and the committee reported on this issue unanimously and with a conviction well sustained by its review of the evidence. The committee has not deserved the criticism implied in Mr Fraser’s remark, “ The question re. ‘ quires more study than it has received.” Certainly ■ Parliament should nave a full opportunity to oiscuss z the report; certainly, before legislation is drawn, and introduced the Government should satisfy itself on the principle of relief and on the measure and method of relief to be adopted- The Prime Minister may have meant no more. If he meant no more, he said too much. But if he meant that the normal and early consideration of a report ig to be delayed while some new investigation is undertaken—chiefly because he dislikes the results of the las', one —he not only said too much but threatened to obstruct the fair working of democracy.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19460626.2.65

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
679

The Press WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1946. Hospital Rating Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1946. Hospital Rating Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert