OMINION PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18807, 1 December 1932, Page 7

OMINION PARLIAMENT

HOSPITALS BILL. CLOSURE MOTION APPLIED. "NEEDLESS REPETITION.” (By Telegrrapn.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. During consideration of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Amendment Bill in the House this evening Labour members raised opposition, to the clause giving power for hospital boards to be directed to provide maternity hospitals. The Minister of Health, the Hon. J. A. Young, said there were seven St. Helens hospitals in the Dominion, which provided 131 maternity beds, and 3S hospital boards already provided maternity services. The clause woud not reduce St. Helens Hospitals’ services to people. In some cases hospital boards had questioned the legal right of the department to call upon them, to provide maternity beds, and it was desired to make the position clear. The clause was passed.

Labour members expressed approval of the clause fixing the mkximum for hours worked by nurses in public hospitals at 56 weekly. They advooated that the maximum should be further reduced to 48 weekly and that it should also apply to private institutions. The closure was invoked for the first time this session during the Committee stages of the bill. Throughout the greater part of last evening and during the whole of this afternoon Labour speakers had discussed the sixth clause, which gives yie Government power by Order-in-Council to abolish hospital districts on the recommendations of a commission. The Chairman of Committees, Mr S. G. Smith, read a list of subjects which he ruled could not be discussed on the ground of tedius repetition. Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour —Manukau), came in conflict with the Chair by proceeding to discuss one of these subjects, and on being called to order, he declared he had as much right as the Prime Minister ‘ or Minister in charge of the bill to discuss any subject he wished. He was prepared to resign his seat and contest an election on this issue. To Effect Economies. “We can admire the persistence and ingenuity of members on the other side,” said the Prime Minister, the ltt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, " but I think we have now had a fairly long discussion on this clause. I have not asked for urgency at this stage because I thought I could leave it to the reasonableness of members to decide that the House should not sit too long hours. The speeches I have heard to-day are simply repetitions of what 1 heard last night. The Opposition have no intention of discussing the clause, but simply wish to drag out the debate as long as they can.” The object of the bill was to secure a reduction in the cost of hospital services, said Mr Forbes. Did members think that the country was to-day as prosperous and wealthy as ever it ha-1 been? A great deal of the load was being carried by country districts and farmers looked to Parliament to see that there was no wastage and no overlapping. " We can’t balance our Budget today and we are not paying our way,” said Mr Forbes. “We are not paying our expenditure on hospitals. Supposing the hoards came to us and we had lo say, ‘We have not money.’ Surely then the position would be worse than ever. “ I have already announced that a commission is to be set up to inquire in the possibility of securing more economic administration by local bodies. This bill provides one method of going into the question to see where the leakage is occurring and how it can be stopped and savings made for the benefit of ratepayers, particularly those in the country.” Labour speakers continued to proJong the discussion and eventually Mr Young moved that the question should be put. There was immediately an uproar from Labour members, who asked why their questions were not to he answered. The closure motion was carried by 37 votes lo 18 and the clause was retained by 34 votes to 24. Messrs If. Atmore, H. M. Campbell, J. Largest, A. E. Jull, H. M. Rush worth, A. M. Samuel and C. A. Wilkinson joined the Labour members in voting against the clause. new year session. QUESTION NOT CONSIDERED. WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Owing to the probability of further legislative action being required before the end of the financial year, Mr C. 11. Clinkard (Government Rotorua) asked the Prime Minister, Mr Forbes, in the House to-day, whether tlie Government had considered the feasibility of adjourning Parliament during December to a suitable date in the new year. ” ’l’he Government has not considered the matter,” Mi- l’orbes replied.

REPLY TO CHALLENGE

MR. SEMPLE AND MR. COATES. RE OTTAWA AGREEMENT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) NELSON, Wednesday. A reply has been made by Mr. n. Semple, M.P.. to the Rt. lion. J. G. Coates’ acceptance ol‘ bis challenge that if anyone could prove that as a result of the Ottawa Conference employment was going lo be made for our people, be would resign his seat and heap out of politics for the rest of his life. Mr. Semple said Mr. Coales’ stalement was no reply a! all. The Labour party never criticised the Ottawa agreement in so far as it applied !o y'cw Zealand primary producers. Criticism was directed against those clauses which robbed New Zealand of its independence m the matter of developing industries which the Labour Pariy considered natural lo me Dominion. H was on Uds ground that the assertion that the agreement, rather than add lo employment would veduee it. was based.

If benefits were accruing, Mr. Coates should explain how it was that New Zealand butter had fallen on the London market by approximately 20s per cwt. since the Ottawa Conference opened, and now, although New Zealand had a 10 per cent, preference against Denmark, Danish butter still continued at a level of about J2Os per ewl. The most effective answer, however, was Mr. Forbes’ statement that next year New Zealand would lie faced with t lie most difficult year in Iho history of the country. If Mr. Forbes was right, what could he said for the Ottawa agreement?