HOSPITAL ECONOMY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17950, 30 November 1932, Page 7

HOSPITAL ECONOMY

AMALGAMATION SCHEME DISCUSSION IN HOUSE A CONTROVERSIAL CLAUSE (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Five 'Government members aligned themselves with the Labor Tarty in 'he House last night in opposing the provision in the Hospitals Amendment Bill for a reduction, of districts by amalgamation. On a division the clause was retained by £8 votes to 29, .Messrs. 11. At Mime, A. E. dull, A. Ai. Samuel, d. I largest, 11. S. S. Kvle, and ill. M. Campbell voting with Labor. ‘‘The Minister knows the districts which are going to lie abolished,” said Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch Fast), “and if he does, why hasn’t he the moral courage to name them in the bill ! ’ ’ The lion, d. A. Voting: That is not Mr Armstrong repeated his assertion, and the chairman of committees, Mr S. C. Sniitli, ruled that he must take the Minister’s word. "Very well,” rejoined Mr Armstrong, “I will take the Minister’s word. lie has not been advised of the names of the districts to he abolished, and that makes it worse, for if lie did not hi l should never have introduced the bill.” The chairman ruled that this discussion was (nit of order, declaring that it was not relevant to tlie clause under discussion. “I have a common-sense way of reading the bill, and I road what there is in it,” said Mr Armstrong. The chairman: Vou must not continue in that way. Air Armstrong said that, if the Minister did not know .what districts were to be abolished, what were his reasons for introducing the bill. COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE Mr Young said he had no idea of closing any (hospitals. The bill provided for a commission to inquire into the amalgamation of hospital districts, and a commission consisting of a magistrate alone, or a magistrate and two others, could hear evidence and make recommendations. This only applied where districts could not agree. “We hear the cry every day that there is too much cost of government,” said Mr Young. “Here’s an opportunity for a test of the sincerity of members. ’ ’

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon): The Minister is trifling with the House. Mr Young declared that lie had been misunderstood. There was no specific district in mind, .and an iOrdcr-iii-Council providing for amalgamation could only be issued after the report of the commission had been considered by the Minister, and if it was approved by him, and then approved by the Cabinet.

The chairman’s ruling as to what, matter could he discussed was challenged by Mr J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn), who declared that unless he was thrown out of the House lie would discuss the clause relating to the closing of hospitals. He asserted that he was entitled to ask the Minister what the clause meant, and if be was not entitled to ask it the clause should never be in the bill.

Following further criticism of the measure, a division was called for on the clause, and it was retained as stated.

Furtfher 'progress was delayed by a lengthy discussion on the clause providing for power by Order-in-Council following a recommendation by a commission for the closing of institutions and for the restricting of forms of relief.

This clause was still before Ihc House when progress was reported.