PARLIAMENT HOSPITAL RATING AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 August 1946, Page 2

PARLIAMENT HOSPITAL RATING AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Labour Members . of Committee

Vote'Against Their Own

Recommendation

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 6. The eight Government members of the Select Committee on Local Government were put in the position of having to vote against one of their own recommendations in the House of Representatives to-day, when an Opposition amendement to support the committee’s recommendation on hospital rates was defeated by 39 to 30. The Government counteracted the amendment by moving a cleverly worded further amendment, which was carried without dissent. The motion before the House was the formal one that the report be referred to the Government for consideration —the usual one as a basis for discussion on a Parliamentary paper. The Opposition amendment, moved by Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo) was the following addition to the motion: “And that the Government be urged to introduce legislation to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the committee to stabilise hospital rating at the rate per £ of capital value on the average. for the years 19.35-39.”

Government Move.

The Government’s amendment was moved after tea by Mr. F. Hackett (Grey Lynn). It was to strike out the words of the original amendment after “urged” with a view to submitting “to adopt such measures as the Government deems advisable to give effect to the desire of the committee to secure an equitable readjustment of the incidence of hospital rating, taking into consideration the increase in hospital expenditure due to social security, free hospital benefits for many patients in public hospitals formerly not provided for adequately, the extended and more scientific treatment and care of patients, and other factors which have added very materially to the cost and maintenance of hospitals since hospital rating was enacted.” When the Opposition amendment was moved the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) commented: “That’s only a piecemeal resolution anyhow.” Mr. W. J. Polson (Oppn., Stratford), who followed Mr. Hackett, described the Government amendment as a miserable subterfuge designed by the Prime Minister to enable the eight Government members of the Local Government Committee to run away from their recommendation. Described as Trap. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) was the next speaker and he described the Opposition amendment as a trap into which the Government would refuse to walk. Mr. Hackett’s amendment went' as far as any reasonable member of the Opposition could expect. No Government, without abdicating its powers, could pledge itself in advance to implement all the recommendations of any Parliamentary- comm it tec. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Oppn., Tauranga) interjected to suggest that the Government was trying to prevent a vote of the House on one of the committee’s recommendations. Mr. Fraser undertook to do ail that Mr. Hackett’s amendment asked for. The Leader of the ©position (Mr. £. G. Holland) vigorously attacked the Government amendment as an attempt to confuse the issue and asked members of the committee indiviually whether they were going to be “yes men.”

GOVERNMENT MAY INTRODUCE UNIFORM RATE

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 6. A statement that the Government was thinking along the lines of the uniform hospital rate that he had suggested was made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Nordrneyer) when he spoke in the- local government debate in the House of Representatives this evening. He- said he was in a position to know the Government’s mind,, and his proposal was in no sense a red herring. An announcement could be expected soon. The committee had recommended stabilisation of rating, not at the level obtaining when the Social Security Act was passed, but at the average of the four preceding years. Variations in valuation standards which existed as between one part of the Dominion and another would be as nothing compared with the variations in the rating charges which would be confirmed if the committee’s recommendation was . given effect to. The result would be to g'ive a premium to hospital boards or to local authorities contributing to those hospital boards which in the years 193539 did nothing, and would penalise boards which had attempted to put their house in order during those years. ‘•When I recommended the House to consider a uniform rate, I knew the Government was thinking along those lines. It was in no sense a red herring.” said Mr. Nordrneyer. It was true that lack of uniformity in valuations' might lead to some injustice, but he thought the wisest course was for the House to agree to the principle of uniform rating, and then see that uniform valuation standards were applied as soon as possible. Mr. J. Ackland (Opposition, Temuka): That will take 10 years. Mr. Nordrneyer: I don’t think it will take as long as that.