MEMBERS AT VARIANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22741, 29 November 1935, Page 6

MEMBERS AT VARIANCE

HOSPITAL BOARD MATTERS MR F. JONES ATTACKED CRITICISM BY DR NEWLANDS A severe rebuke to Mr F. Jones, M.P., for introducing Hospital Board matters into a political contest was delivered by Dr W. Newlands.at last night's meeting of the Otago Hospital Board. He claimed that what Mr Jones had done merited the " just contempt of every public person in Dunedin." The matter arose following a request by Mr Jones that a recent report on the Hospital by the Health Department's inspecting house manager should be made available to the press. There was a lively interchange of personalities, and the discussion was finally dropped after a motion had been passed that the report, which is published elsewhere, be handed to the press. INSPECTION OF HOSPITAL When he raised the matter Mr Jones asked that the report of the inspecting house manager concerning his recent inspection of the Dunedin Hospital should be handed to the press. He said that although ,he had agreed that the matter should be discussed after the meeting ot the board, he would like to have seen it discussed in open board. It was suggested that the recommendations in the report concerning the purchasing of stores, the delivery of the stores to the Nurses' Home, and other matters were on the right lines. He thought the public should know what was going on, and that the report was a valuable one, even though the board might not see eye to eye with it.

"DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT" ; Mr Jones also expressed the opinion that light should be thrown on the action of the Advisory Purchasing Committee concerning a certain officer of the board, who, it was suggested, had misappropriated the board's funds. Misappropriation was, of course, a term that was capable of different interpretations, but it did not seem right that the board should retain in its employment an officer who used the sarviees of the board and was later forced, as a result of an audit, to make restitution. A case had occurred in which a woman in a menial position had been dismissed for taking eggs and butter away from the hospital without authority, and he was opposed to differential treatment of the board's employees. The board*should have a report from the committee which dealt with that man. " I understand," Mr Jones added, " that the Advisory Purchasing Committee was to caution the man and let the matter go at that, without a record in the minute, but I think that when misdemeanours occur on the part of an officer who controls thousands of pounds, he should be punished even more severely than a person in a less important position. I have been asked why I did not substantiate the charges I made publicly in this connection, but I want to win an election on Hospital Board matters. 1 think statements should be made to the board on both these matters." Mr Jones moved that the report of the inspecting house manager should be made available to the press. The chairman (Mr J. -W. Dove): I can't take that motion, because the board has already moved that the matter be discussed in committee. Mr Dove added that if the meeting desired to do so it could pass on the report to the press. In reply to a question from Mr Jones, the chairman said it would be competent for him, after the discussion in committee, to present a motion that the report be made available to the press. Mr Dove assured the board that there had been no letter from the Auditor-general. The report was then placed before the meeting and discussed at length in committee by the members. It was then decided that the report should be referred to the chairman of the board, the chairman of the Finance Committee, the secretary, and the medical sivoerintendent to submit a report on it. When the board resumed its business in open meeting, Mr Jone s said he took it that the report would be available to the press. Continuing, Mr Jones said that the board in the case of the executive officer had decided not to place anything in the minutes. The Advisory Purchasing Committee had reported that the man had been reprimanded. He supposed, in view of that, that it was no use trying to alter the position. MR JONES CHALLENGED It was then that Dr Newlands rose to deliver his rebuke. "It is not fair, he said, " that what Mr Jones has said should go forth without comment. He has used an ugly word,' misappropriation. Within a fortnight of the time that the matter was revealed to the board a paragraph appeared in leaded type in an election newspaper of September 15. It appeared on the front page with all the language of forcefulness which we have come to expect in an election publication. I am satisfied that the only way in which the paragraph could have got in that newspaper was from Mr Jones. I challenge him to deny it." Dr Newlands said he did not think it was fair of Mr Jones to introduce this matter in a political contest. The speaker was going on to express .regret for having to voice thi6 criticism. Mr Jones: I don't mind. , Dr Newlands: I know your hide is thick. Mr Jones: As thick as yours, and that is pretty thick. Continuing, Dr Newlands said that not only had Mr Jones acted wrongly in using the matter as he had done, but the terms in which it had been published were a gross misrepresentation of what had happened. He himself was not defending what had been done. It should not have been done, but many things were done which Diogenes would have considered dishonest. „ ~-,-. "To take a small matter, said Dr Newlands. "I have often noticed members of Parliament using parliamentary stationery when they are not strictly en gaged on parliamentary business, and unless there had been some special, resolution of Parliament permitting it that might not be strictly justified. We know what happened in this case. The officer has the telephone installed by the board at his house, and in the course of three 'years there are toll calls amounting to £B. These ar.e questioned by the Auditorgeneral. . Mr Jones: They extended over only two years. The chairman: Three years. CONTEMPTIBLE METHODS

"When the officer was questioned by the secretary," added Dr Newlands. "he at once said that if there was any doubt he would pay the amount involved. He did so, but the matter had to come before the board. That is the whole, plain truth. If every public officer who did that was held up to public denunciation in the way which Mr Jones—why, I dc not know—would do in this case, there* would be some wonderful revelations in our public life. I think Mr Jones's motives and methods should merit tho just contempt of every public person in Dunedin." Continuing, Dr Newlands said that the other case mentioned by Mr Jones, in which a woman had been dismissed for stealing eggs and butter, was totally different She was engaged in charring, and it was noticed that in wards where she worked the consumption of those articles was out of all proportion to the number of patients. She was simply dismissed. Was the board to retain in its employ a woman of the kind defended by Mr Jones. Mr Jones: I didn't defend her. I merely spoke of differential treatment. Dr Newlands: There was no differential treatment. It existed only in your mind. __ , The whole thing, Dr Newlands added, wa6 nothing more than a very feeble attempt by Mr Jones to bring charges against the board. And the board was stlTlwaiting for them. He would say that in every case in which any fault had been reported to the board the matter had not been shirked, although it had not been blazoned forth to the public as Mr Jones had done. " I am sorry to have to speak to a newly-elected member of Parliament in this way," Dr Newlands concluded. "Mr Jones has not displayed an atom of generosity or fairness. In

fact, he has been very unfair. That is all I have to say." Mr Jones (to the chairman): Do 1 take it that the discussion in connection with the executive officer is now finished.' The chairman: Yes. "LISTENED WITH INTEREST" Mr Jones said he had listened with interest to the lecture which had been given to him by Dr Newlands. Members of Parliament, he explained, were supplied with paper by the Government for correspondence. If anyone could define when they were not using the paper for their constituents he would like to know. Mr. Jones explained that when someone wrote to him for assistance it was impossible" to say whether his help was being sought as a member of Parliament or as a member of the Hospital Board. Dr Newlands: You are not the only member of Parliament who does it. Mr Jones: I know. It shows what a little thing Dr Newlands will use to get one back. lam surprised that a man of Dr Newlands's standing should come forward to defend the action of a man who has done this, Dr Newlands: That is misrepresentaThe chairman (to Dr Newlands): You have already said that you don't condone his actions. Mr Jones then referred to the matter of telephone toll calls. He said that it looked as though what had been done in regard to using the telephone on mattere not connected with the board had been a standing practice. He could not see how any member of the board could try to minimise what had been done. What Dr Newlands thought about a certain thing and what he, himself, thought were perhaps different things. Dr Newlands: Thank God. Mr Jones: Yes, thank God. When 1 sec Dr Newlands doing certain things, I say "Thank God, I am not Dr Newlands." „ ~ The chairman: Please gentlemen, no personalities. Mr Jones went on to say that he had been attacked by the press because he had not made the report available. He had referred to the matter in Parliament and the Otago Daily Times had criticised him for that. Fifty per cent, of the revenue of the board The chairman: Not 50 per cent. Mr Jones: Well, nearly 50 per cent, of the revenue is provided by the Government, and I think I was justified in referring to the matter in the House. The speaker said he did not justify differential treatment. The chairman: Allow me to remind you, Mr Jones, that the Government does not and never has provided 50 per cent, of our revenue, although I hope the new Labour Government will. Last year our revenue consisted of 33 1-3 per cent, from local bodies, 39 per cent, from the Government, 25 per cent, from in-patients, and the balance from sundries. Mr Jones: I accept your correction. MR SILVERSTONE'S VIEW Mr M. Silverstone said that the report to which Dr Newlands had referred had not appeared in a Labour paper. It was not a paper issued by the Labour Party, but one circulated by a private person, and the Labour Party took no responsibility for anything appearing in it unless this was expressly stated. Mr Silverstone added that from the report of the Audi-tor-general it was possible to draw very serious conclusions. The board's auditor could go back for only two years. What had happened before that? The chairmna: Ho has been through them for years. Mr Silverstone: Then it is possible that he has been neglecting his duty. Possibly the auditor has been trying to hide previous neglect. The chairman: The same auditor has not acted all the time. It was true, Mr Silverstone continued, that the officer had used the board's telephone. "I don't justify that," he said, "but we have also used his labour for which he has never been paid. He is at the beck and call of the board for almost 24 hours of the day. Mr Jones thought it was his duty to bring this to light, but I do not agree that such a punishment as he suggests should be imposed on the man. It would follow him to the grave. I also think that the woman who stole the eggs and butter should have been given another chance. The chairman: She was given chances for two years. The discussion then lapsed.