PARLIAMENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 250, 20 September 1929, Page 4

PARLIAMENT.

SIGNING OF OPTIONAL CLAUSE.

HOSPITAL POLICY DISCUSSED.

Yesterday in the House of Representatives tlie Prime Minister announced that New Zealand would sign the optional clause of the statute of the Court of International Justice.

In the evening there was a lengthy discussion on the policy with reference to hospitals.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NEW ZEALAND TIMBERS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Sept. 19. Tlie House of Representatives met at 2.30 to-day. On the motion of Hon. W. B. Taverner, the following resolution was adopted without opposition: “That it be an instruction to the industries and commerce committee to inquire into the difficulties which have affected the marketing of fruit cases made from New Zealand native timbers and New Zealand-grown timbers generally, to inquire into the reason for the preference now accorded to cases made from imported timber and to report its recommendations as to the best means of ensuring the use of locallygrown timber in future.” UNEMPLOYED WORKERS BILL. Mr S. G. Smith presented a report from the labour bills committee on the Unemployed Workers Bill. He said that the committee, while realising that the bill in its present form could not proceed, expressed the opinion that the Government should take action this session to deal with unemployment insurance. Mr M. J. Savage said that the report of the committee was gratifying and he wanted to know now what the Government had to say. He, personally, would not be a party to delaying unemployment legislation another year and he warned the Government against imposing too great a test on Labour’s patience. Mr P. Fraser, who introduced the bill, said that tlie committee’s finding was the only possible one. He appealed to the Government to produce legislation this session. They had been told that tlfe session would last another month or six weeks. Labour would be willing to continue for another six months if the Government would promise to deal with the matter in that time. Air J. S. Fletcher said he was strongly of opinion that the Government’s proposals would not meet the situation. He was strongly of opinion that unemployment insurance legislation should be introduced this session. MATTER OF POLICY.

serrations. He protested against the secrecy surrounding the actions of the Government in such an important matter as this. It seemed that Australia and New Zealand alone were standing out, while all the other Dominions, as well as Great Britain, were signing up. The only possible reservation that he could conceive was the request that, in any inter-imperial dispute, no Dominion should have power to invoke the International Court. Surely, it would bo the simplest thing for the Dominions to agree among themselves not to refer any inter-lmpcrial dispute to that court. Air Holland asked what the position was to-day. Had negotiations been completed and if so, would the Prime Alinister tell the House the nature of the arrangement? If no arrangement had been arrived at, how could Sir James Parr state New Zealand’s attitude? SECRET COAIAIUNICATIONS. Sir Joseph “Ward said that Mr Holland did not appear to recognise that ho was discussing matters that the Prime Alinister of Britain had bound upon the speaker as secret. Every communication on the subject had been marked “secret.’-’ The Prime Alinister said that he could answer all Air Holland’s questions and make the position a very easy one for himself if he were to commit a breach of an honourable undertaking with tho Prime Alinister of Britain and those of the other Dominions, but until the correspondence had been concluded and everyone was in a position to discuss the subject freely, it was impossible to make any definite announcement. Air Holland: Could not the Prime Alinister of New Zealand follow the example of the Prime Alinister of Britain and announce his policy in tho matter ?

Sir Joseph Ward stated that Air AlacDonald had been perfectly entitled to make his statement, which had been issued after negotiations had been in progress for some time and an agreement had probably been reached. As a matter of fact, he expected a communication from the Prime Alinister of Britain on the subject to-morrow and he 'hoped that the communication would be of such a nature that he would be able to speak freely on the subject. He was able to give the House this much information: That Sir James Parr was attending the League of Nations Assembly on New Zealand’s behalf and was authorised to sign the optional clause, subject to reservations which were the result of conversations between representatives of all His Alajesty’s Governments and which, at the present stage, must bo regarded as secret. He expected, however, that a document would be signed to-day and that details would be available to-morrow.

The industries and commerce committee reported that it had no recommendation to make in relation to the petition of Wellington tobacconists against competition at cut rates by other retailers, as the petition involved a matter of policy.

SIGNING OF OPTIONAL CLAUSE. The leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) moved the adjournment of the House, in order to raise, as a matter of urgency, the delay which he said was occurring in the matter of New Zealand’s signature to the optional clause of the statute of tlie Permanent Court of International Justice. He said that there was a good deal of interest as to what would be New Zealand’s action in this matter. In view of the fact that so many members of the League of Nations had already signed, or expressed tlio intention to sign this important clause, it was regrettable that tlie 1926 Imperial Conference had decided that the time had not then arrived for the renunciation of war. However, the new Government in Britain had different views on the subject and Air MacDonald had expressed his intention to sign the optional clause. The Prime Minister of France had also unreservedly declared his willingness to adhere to this clause. A cable from Britain had indicated that New Zealand was demanding some reservations and Air Holland stated that tlie country was entitled to know what were those re-

Air P. Fraser said that the leader of the Labour Party had not asked for a single secret document, or communication. All he had asked was that the Government’s attitude on the signing of the optional clause be made known to the House and the country. Other Governments had done that. • The House and country had a right to know what tho attitude of the responsible representatives of New Zealand might bo on such a question. What reservations concerning the optional clause did the Government consider necessary? It seemed that the Prime Alinister had not grasped the fact that all the people had outgrown secret diplomacy. The British Prime Alinister and all the leading countries had broadcast their attitude to the world, but little New Zealand took up tho stand that tiie matter could not be mentioned outside the Cabinet room. A frank statement should be made. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said that Air Fraser seemed to have overlooked that

one or two administrative necessities should not be forgotten. The British Prime Alinister was only one among tho several Prime Alinisters of the Empire. No doubt, frank opinions were being expressed between different portions of the Empire on this point. It was important that negotiations between the parts of the Empire should be regarded as confidential. If New Zealand to-day set down her opinion that she was agreeable to everything, she might be acting in advance even of tho British Prime Minister, who might have certain reservations. Air Fraser: Why did Canada declare her attitude? THE PROPER COURSE. Air Coates: Even Canada liad certain differences. I see no harm in the attitude taken up by the Prime Alinister. I think it is the proper course. The position is met quite well if the Prime Alinister places the cables and communications before Parliament at a later stage and the whole matter can then be discussed. I believe the Prime Alinister desires peace as much as anyone in tins House. The whole Empire should show a united front. Air AI. J. Savage said he thought the position very remarkable, because how could there be a united front when only Australia and New Zealand had failed to make their respective opinions known ? It seemed that a hopelessly minority Government _ was seeking to dictate our international policy. In times past, the Prime Alinisters liad gone to England and made agreements for which they could obtain ratification because of their majority in the House, but the position was different to-day. The fact was that a majority of the House could, it it chose, reverse tlie Government’s decision and the Government would then have to repudiate its agreement. Air W. E. Barnard said that all the Labour members were asking was for information on the subject before the country was bound to any course of action. There was the same need for a united front in the House there was among the nations of the Empire. Air J. S. Fletcher contended that the Government was the executive of Parliament and it was the Government’s duty to conduct the negotiations. He could not understand the attitude of the Labour members. Air F. Waite said it was all very well for Labour members to complain of the actions of a Government which happened to be in a minority, but Labour members should remember that they themselves had put the Government on the Treasury benches. It seemed that every now and again they regretted having done that. Air Howard stated that it was wrong to say that Labour had put the United Party on the Treasury benches. Labour liad put Reform off the Treasury benches, which was a different thing. In his reply, Air Holland said that all he had asked Sir Joseph Ward was that lie should give an indication of the policy of the New Zealand Government in regard to the signing of tho optional clause. He had not asked for the disclosure of any secret commumcation and lio could not sgg why Sir Joseph could not have complied with his request. HOSPITALS BILL. In the evening Hon. A. J. Stallworthy moved tlie second reading of tho Hospital and Charitable institutions Amendment Biil. He stated that it comprised an agreement reached between the Wairau Hospital Board and the Picton Hospital Board and was designed to merge the two districts which these boards served, to be called tlie Alarlborough hospital district, thereby meeting tlie convenience of residents. Mr J. A. Young said that the bill raised the question whether there should be a reduction in tho number of hospital districts in the Dominion. He said that some districts were merely monuments to local political ambitions —worthy ambitions, it was true—but they imposed an undue burden on local ratepayers. Air Savage said the Alinister of Health had spoken at the Hospital Boards’ Conference in favour of the introduction of private paying wards m public hospitals and lie contended that it was justifiable to assume that the Minister was speaking on behalf of the Government. The speaker insisted that this was a form of class distinction and he would like to know if such a system was part of the Government’s policy. Was it advocating the erection of private wards at the public expense for the use of the richer class, who would also he able to select their own medical and surgical attention?

The member said be was in favour of as much privacy as possible and the provision of the best medical and surgical treatment obtainable, but those privileges should bo available to every one. It seemed that the time had come for seeking some national system of financing public hospitals. The present tendency was to place on the patient as much of the cost as he could and would bear and the greater part of the burden then fell on local ratepayers. Mr D. G. Sullivan stated that people who lived in flats, etc., escaped paying local rates, and while they were bearing their fair share of national taxation, they were not paying their share towards tire upkeep of local institutions. Ho hoped the Minister would endeavour to devise a system of national financing and local administration (to the present extent) of public hospitals. Mr A. M. Samuel said be trusted that the Minister’s statement, to which Mr Savage had referred, was not to be taken as an indication of the Government’s policy. He .was satisfied that no Government would countenance any policy of the kind and he vras certain that the House would not agree to it. A system of differential treatment to patients would constitute a serious injustice. He asked the Minister whether it was intended to better the conditions of probationers and nurses in public hospitals. Ho claimed that the payment for this noble service was remarkably inadequate and the duties were too onerous. PRIVATE wards. Mr J. T. Hogan stated that the system of providing private wards in public hospitals might enable those institutions to pay their way. He admitted that the principle involved was not democratic, and for that reason alone he hoped the Minister would not pursue such a policy. Mr W. A. Bodkin expressed the opinion that the Minister’s remarks had not contained any suggestion of intention to provide differential treat-

ment. It had been his experience that under the present system owing to limited accommodation, piefeience was rigntlv given to poorer patients, on the ground that richer patien s could afford to go elsewhere. He asked why only private hospitals should ho in the position to catei toi the richer community. He could not sec any objection to catering for different classes, so long as the best possible treatment was rendered to poorer people, though the same degree ot privacy might r ot be available. Mr J. A. Nash expressed support for Mr Savage’s remarks and urged that* more inducement should be given to young men and women to adopt the medical profession in order to overcome the present shortage of house surgeons. Figures showed a decrease in the number of students attending the medical school at Otago University and he trusted that this condition would not continue He .also asked that no time should be lost in the extension of the dental clinic system. Mr W. J. Jordan disagreed with Mr Bodkin’s statement that it was difficult for rich .people to gain admission to public liosjiitals and he expressed the view that, in regard to such social service as hospitals, the question of whether they paid or not should not be considered. . . Mr IV. D. Lysnar resented criticism of the Minister and advocated separate wards, but not separate treatment, in public hospitals. Mr H. G. R. Mason described the desire for separate wards iJS snobbery. Mr W. A. Broadfoob expressed the opinion that the second reading of an almost purely local bili was not the

occasion for the discussion that uas occupying the time of the House. There would probably be an opportunity later for such a debate. Mr P. Fraser challenged any Minister of Health to try to l>ut through a bill embodying the principles that -Mr Stallworthy had been fated to hate advocated. He was certain the House would not let it pass. , Opposition to differential treatment was also expressed by Mr H. S. Kyle, who referred to the Minister s policy, whereupon Mr Stallworthy interjected: “There is a difference between a statement of policy and a statement for discussion.’’ MINISTER’S REPLY.

Tlio Minister, in reply, said that time would not permit him to reply to all the statements made. However, as regards the point raised by Mr Savage, he pointed out lie had had to make a purview of general matters of hospital administration and lie had simply stated the pros and cons of different aspects of the situation. He had not made a definite statement either on behalf of himself or on behalf of the Government. He was completely opposed to any differential treatment. He added that, while the richer classes were legally entitled to the same rights of admission to public hospitals as other classes, actually they did not receive the same consideration, as in cases in which there was pressure on accommodation, poorer people received preference He concluded by stating he was satisfied that the hospital system in New Zealand was second to none in the world. The bill was read a second time and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.