NURSES AND MIDWIVES

Evening Star, Issue 20592, 18 September 1930, Page 7

NURSES AND MIDWIVES

REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL COMMITTED ALL SAFEGUARDS TAKEN [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 17. The interrupted debate on the motion to commit the Nurses’ and Midwives’ Registration Amendment Bill was resumed in the House to-night. Mr C. L. Carr (Timaru) urged that before the Bill was passed the House should be given adequate assurance that reciprocal arrangements with the Nursing Council of England and Wales would not be affected. Mr G. R. Sykes (Masterton) said that the Nursing Council of England and Wales would not be affected. There seemed to be some confusion with regard to a cablegram from England in reply to a query concerning tbo effect of the legislation on the reciprocal ar-. rangeraents. I'ho four main hospitals in New Zealand which would come within the scope of the Bill would in England be classed as voluntary hospitals, and such institutions there were recognised as training schools _ for nurses. Hospitals classified as private institutions in Britain were those conducted purely for profit, and it was these Hospitals which were nob recognised as training schools. _ He contended there was ample evidence that reciprocal arrangements would not be prejudiced. Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier) said that the more one considered the objections raised by the Trained Nurses’ Association the more one became convinced that the reason was their anxiety over reciprocity. This could be understood because it was already difficult for all the nurses trained in this country to find employment in New Zealand. He intended to support the Bill. He looked to the Minister to reassure the House that the reciprocal arrangements would be safeguarded. Mr K S. Williams (Bay of Plenty) asked the Minister to assure the House that the high standard of efficiency in. the nursing profession would not suffer in any way in consequence of the Bill. He thought the Minister should tell the House exactly what correspondence had passed between his department and England on the subject of reciprocity. Mr W. Leo Martin (Raglan) also expressed the opinion that the Minister might have given the House more explicit information on the subject. The debate was continued by a number of members. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. G. Coates) stated that the efficiency of New Zealand trained nurses was the highest in the world. There should be every precaution taken to avoid sacrificing this position. The Lender of tbo Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) referred to the quality of the training in institutions such as the Lewisham Hospital. There should be no danger of the standard being lowered. , Other members emphasised the need for assurances that the standard of efficiency would not be lowered and that the reciprocal arrangements would not bo endangered. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) urged that tbex - e should bo some definition of the term “inadequate fee.” There should be a maximum sum fixed. Replying to the debate", Mr Stallworthy said that nurses, on qualifying, would still be given a State certificate, and that would ensure the maintenance of their efficiency and status, and would also have a bearing on the reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom. He contended that it was unreasonable to suggest that the Nursing Council of England and Wales would depart from its attitude in the past. Ho had written to the council in February last, and all the correspondence on the subject bad been submitted to the Health Committee when tbo Bill was being considered. The reply had stated that private hospitals run on a commercialised, profit-making basis could not be recognised as training schools, and in the event of New Zealand recognising such training schools the reciprocal arrangement would have to be reconsidered and modified. He contended that the element of dissatisfaction with the reply had been the outcome of a confusion of terms. He was quite satisfied that voluntary hospitals would be recognised as training schools by the Nursing Council of England and Wales, because similar nx-, stitutions were recognised in England. The whole confusion of terms had been the result of the different use of the name “private hospital” in the two countries. The motion to commit tbo Bill was xidopted on a division by 56 to 14, and the House rose at midnight.