HEALTH DEPARTMENT CHARGED WITH REPUDIATION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22622, 27 April 1948, Page 6

HEALTH DEPARTMENT CHARGED WITH REPUDIATION

DISTRICT NURSING AGREEMENT

of the Cook Hospital Board yesterday expressed keen dissatisfaction with the interpretation placed by the DirectorGeneral of Health, Dr. T. M. Ritchie, on the agreement reached at a recent conference in Gisborne upon the control of district nursing services in the Cook Hospital district.

Th board had been under the impression that the conference had agreed to leave control of the services in the hands of the board, and that the department would appoint nominees to a committee which would co-ordinate the activities relating to the work of nurses employed by the Health Department. The director-general in his letter indicated, however, that control of district nursing services were transferred by the conference to the department, and that the committee on district nursing would act only as an advisory or liaison body. Basic Principles Abrogated Mr. H. H. Barker described the letter as the “most flagrant piece of repudiation be had ever known.” The board had conferred with Dr. Ritchie and other officers of the department, and had reached a definite agreement. Yet almost before the department’s representatives had left the building they had proceeded to cut across the basic principles of the agreement. Mr. Barker pointed out that both the conference on district nursing and that, more recent, with the Minister of Health, Miss Mabel Howard, had taken place in committee. The press had been excluded .by the express wishes of the departmental representatives. When the Minister had visited Gisborne and met the board almost the first thing she had said was "There are no reporters present, are there? We don't talk for the press!” Today the board was being criticised for having excluded the public from knowledge of what had gone on in those conferences. Board Thwarted and Ignored The effect of the repudiation, said Mr. Barker, was that the board was completely thwarted and ignored in its desire to establish a sound district nursing service. It was to become a mere rubber-stamp, to be wielded by a “bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington.” j Mr. Barker moved that the board exi press extreme dissatisfaction with the attitude of the department towards disUrict nursing services, and called upon j the department to adhere to the agreement made with the board that the control of such services should for one experimental year be placed under a committee representing the board and the department; and further that this board instructs its representatives on the committee to insist on adherence to this agreement.” Mr. G. W. Armsrong seconded the motion. Strong Action Contemplated The chairman of the board, Mr. J. B. Williams, deprecated any action that might handicap the success of the district nursing committee. He agreed that the department’s officers had taken steps since the conference to undermine the agreement, and that the board had to take strong action to substantiate its point of view. He pointed out that Dr. Duncan Cook was to visit Gisborne for a first meeting of the committee, and that the matter, no doubt would come up on that occasion. He did not think, Mr. Williams said, that the board should enter into a battle of correspondence with the department prior to Dr. Cook’s visit. Mr. Barker offered to amend his motion to insti'uct the board’s representatives on the committee to ‘‘press for” rather than “insist” on performance of the agreement. “Inconsistent Running” By Department I Mr. H. IT. Dods; I was present at the ; conference and followed’ the discusI sions and details of the agreement (closely. All I can say is that if I behaved upon the turf as these departmental officers have behaved over this agreement. I would be disqualified for life for inconsistent running. Mrs. E. R. Scott agreed with previous speakers that the agreement had given control of the service to the committee, and that subsequent actions by the depai-tment had been directed to whittling away the committee’s authority. Mr. W. C. Kohn followed the same line of argument. “What is the country coming 'to when he have these 'heads' here and reach an agreement, and then have them going back on the agreement?” asked Mr. A. M. Trafford. Mr. Hall, agreeing with the protest, suggested that it be sent to the Minisier of Health, with a copy of the report 'on the discussion between the board j and the director-general. The motion was carried unanimously, j A motion by Mr. Hall, to the effect that the motion be notified to the Minister of Health, was held over until a report was received upon the forthcoming initial meeting of the committee.