IGNORES THE FACTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 3, 4 July 1938, Page 11

IGNORES THE FACTS

MR. SAVAGE AND B.M.A.

HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME

DR. JAMIESON'S REPLY

Referring yesterday to the latest statement made by the Prime. Minister regarding the Social Security Bill, Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, president of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, said it was instructive to note that after having previously declared that "the particular nature of the proposals of the Bill will not be made known until it is introduced to Parliament, and when that is done the medical profession will have precisely the same oppor-1 tunities as any other section of the I community to study it," the Prime Minister was now endeavouring to escape from the position he had got himself into by asserting that "the facts seemed to him to prove" that the Government had sought the cooperation of the medical profession in advance. The Prime Minister, continued Dr. Jamieson, cited the activities of the Health Insurance Investigation Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. D. G. McMillan, M.P., detailed discussions that had taken place between the Ministers of Health and Finance and representatives of the medical profession, and finally the evidence given by the medical profession before the Social Security Committee. Nothing more, the Prime Minister added, could be done. NEVER SUBMITTED ANYTHING CONCRETE. "This," commented Dr. Jamieson," is quite a different attitude from that taken up by the Prime Minister in his first statement, but it still ignores the facts, and must not be allowed to cloud the issue. The point made by the British Medical Association is that the Government has never submitted any concrete proposals to the association for practical advice and criticism, and still does not propose to do so, though the Bill is about to be brought down almost immediately and it concerns such a vital issue as the general health of the people of the Dominion! The discussions that have taken place in the past have only been upon proposals" of the most nebulous description, and nothing definite has ever been advanced by the Government upon which the association could advise them. That this is correct is proved by the Prime Minister's own statement on Tuesday lasfthat the Bill has not yet come before Cabinet and in these circumstances it is quite unreasonable for the association to expect a copy of the Bill or any specific information concerning its contents. Now he asserts that 'the facts seem to him to prove' that the Government has sought co-operation. How can he possibly expect the public to accept that in view of his previous declaration just.quoted? The difficulty of the association in the past has been to get anything definite from the Government upon which it could give sound advice and criticism, and now when the Government has finally decided upon something definite it declines to submit its scheme, in confidence, to the association for advice and criticism. If that represents 'cooperation' then, surely, Mr. Savage must have a different understanding of the term. REFUSAL TO SEEK ADVICE.. "In declining to furnish the association, in confidence, with its scheme or an advance copy of the Bill for advice and criticism the Prime Minister declared: 'No one outside Cabinet has a right to know the contents of a Bill until it has been brought down before Parliament.' I have already pointed out, in refutation of this rule laid down by the Prime Minister, that a draft of the present Government's Education AmenSment Bill has been in the hands of those interested in education for months past and subjected to public criticism. The Prime Minister evidently overlooked this when he made l^s statement on Tuesday, but he had no excuse, surely, for failing to remember the following statement in the Governor-General's speech at the opening of Parliament on the same day, a statement whieli. he (the Prime Minister) must have inserted himself: My Government has continued to give close attention to the matter of law reform, and the special Law Revision Committee that has been set up, comprising representatives of Government Departments, of the legal profession, and the Faculty of Law, with the co-operation so helpfully and freely extended by eminent members of the legal profession, has been considering proposals for the removal of anomalies in our general law. "Here, the active co-operation of the legal profession is enlisted by the Government in the actual drafting of the Bill, and the legal profession is doing that before even any member of Cabinet has seen it! The rule now laid down by the Prime Minister is thus quite new. It is unfortunate, however, that it should first be applied when the health of the people is at stake and in order to frustrate cooperation with the medical profession which alone can give effect to the Government's proposals. DR. McMILI/AN'S PROMISE. "Regarding the Prime Minister's reference to Dr. McMillan's visit to Nelson, our stenographic record of Dr. McMillan's meeting contains nothing resembling the statement attributed by the Prime Minister to one doctor attending, although some personal and friendly remark to the speaker of the evening, after the close of the meeting, may have afforded ground for the statement. But the record of the meeting does show the following statement by Dr. McMillan:— Provided the medical profession will treat it as confidential, we are quite willing to submit the Bill to it before its introduction to the House. If, on the other hand, ifchey will not agree to that, we will fee very reluctantly obliged not tto submit it to them, but I think you will agree that it is to your advantage and to ours to peruse it and make recommendations. The progress we envisage is that when the Bill is framed we will refer it to the profession for criticism. That criticism will be considered, the Bill will be redrafted, if necessary, and it will then have its first reading in the House. It will then be sent to the Health Committee, a Parliamentary Committee consisting of representatives of both parties and also representatives of the Independents in the House. The Health Committee will then take evidence as long as anyone in New Zealand wants to give evidence to it. • The Bill will be published in the Press, and the medical profession will be able to criticise it to their foeart's content. When the Health Committee has finished taking evidence (and it will take some months) they will propose any amendments they think necessary. The Bi]l will then be redrafted and have its second reading. Then will come the third reading. We hope when the Bill is before the Committee the medical

profession will give their considered opinion.

NO CHANCE OF ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION.

"Our anticipation of being consulted by the Government," concluded Dr. Jamieson, "was based on statements such as the above made to the profession by Dr. McMillan himself. Now that consultation is refused.

"What hope is there, then, of adequate consideration of a measure of such importance being given by Cabinet, by Parliament, by the profession, or the people during the manifold distractions of a pre-election session?"