RATIONS CUT

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 213, 8 September 1944, Page 6

RATIONS CUT

MENTAL PATIENTS CRITICISM AND ANSWER (By. Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, this day. The fact that although officers of the Mental Hospitals Department had certain necessary 'requirements for the improvement of the institutions, the voi:e for rations in the estimates had been cut by £12,000, was strongly criticised in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. Poison (Nat., Stratford), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who said that the use of fictitious figures in the estimates not only deluded the House and deluded the committee, but struck at the basis of the whole system. Mr. Poison said the committee had endeavoured to scrutinise the estimates carefully in order to give some lead to the House. Regarding the details he would say definitely, as a member of the committee, that some of the estimates were not such as should be approved by the committee, or considered by the House. One estimate, that for war damage, was considered by the committee to be. unreasonable. War Damage Estimate Last year war damage expenditure was £478, yet the sum set down in the estimates this year was £12,400. In these times that. was purely a I guess, as war damage was now unlikely to occur. It had been said that it was also to meet earthquake damage, or other disasters, but there was no legislation saying that the Government would take the responsibility. The Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser: The Government has indicated that it would do that. Mr. Poison continued that the position before the committee was so unsatisfactory that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, was asked to discuss it, but he (Mr. Poison) had not been enlightened. Another account for the people who could not speak for themselves was the Mental Hospitals Department account. The officers of the Department had certain requirements. They wanted to improve the ration system, maintain reasonable conditions in hospitals, and see that adequate provision was made, but they were told by the Treasury that they had. to cut their vote. Money for bedding, stores, drugs and rations were cut arbitrarily, and the greatest cut of all was made in rations. Where the Department had estimated £109,00U odd for rationing it was cut by no less than £12,000. Although it was necessary and desirable to improve the rations, and the Minister in charge had announced his intention of improving them, that rendered the whole of the estimates farcical. The Prune Minister, Mr. Fraser, j said that similar methods had been followed for years. , The Minister wanted to make certain expenditure, but was confronted by the Treasury with ft demand that the figures be brought into conformity with the money available. The Minister naturally tried to get the money to make improvements, but it tne money was not available cuts had to be made. He was not going to defend cuts in rations, but he was not going to criticise the officers who had to make those cuts. They had never had the men or material to j make the mental hospitals as good as they would like, and they should make such hospitals the last to be cut. Nothing Sinister in Cut An improveme nt in diet did _ not necessarily mean increased rations. It was more a matter of better balanced rations. There was nothing sinister in the cut, and he was sure the only explanation for consent to such a cut was a belief that it would be replaced. In the Supplementary Estimates the vote had been adapted to the money available, but with mental reservations. That system had always worked, and there never had been anything sinister about it. Mr. Poison (Nat., Stratfcprd). I am not suggesting this is sinister, only that it is misleading. Mr. Fraser said he would stand up for the probity and honesty of the Estimates as a whole ever since he had been a member of the House.

Request by Treasury The Minister of Finance Mr. Nash, explained that the Mental Hospitals Department required £109,000 for rations, but its estimates showed a proposed expenditure or £97 000, or £12,000 less than the sum which the head of the Department said was required. Questions elicited the information that all Departments had been requested by, the Treasury to cut down their estimates of expenditure, and the ration item was reduced, though the fact that a new ration scale had been approved showed that, instead of a cut m rations, it was intended to improve them. The Credit in Aid figures showed that it was expected that £215,000 would be obtained from the sale of produce from the hospital farms, so that obviously there would be a surplus of food. Another item was £5000, which the Department expected to receive for the maintenance of patients. This, it was found, was the proportion it expected to get repaid out of the £113,000 owing to the Government from patients prior to the social security payments operating. Mr. Goosman (Nat.. Waikato) contended that the Minister's explanation showed that the Estimates were false, and had been falsified in that the amount for rations was less than the Department intended to spend. Point of Order Raised A point of order was raised by Mr. Richards (Govt., Roskill) as to whether the term "falsified" was Parliamentary. A long argument followed on this question, Opposition members contending that the word had not been used with any sinister intent. This view was upheld by the Chairman of Committees, Mr. McKeen, who expressed the opinion that no imputation had been made against any member of the House. He warned members, however, that some of the terms they were using were getting "very close to the edge" of being unparliamentary. Mr. Mclveen's ruling was challenged, and Mr. Speaker eventually ruled chat no word conveyed more odium than the word "falsify," and, when used in connection with a document, it meant to alter fraudulently. Therefore, it suggested dishonesty, and it did not matter what was in the mind of the person using the word. It was out of order, and he ruled accordingly. Mr. Goosman immediately withdrew the word, and the House adjourned for luncheon.