LODGES PROTEST

Evening Star, Issue 24002, 29 September 1941, Page 5

LODGES PROTEST

PROPOSALS OF DOCTOR'S BILL END OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES “ It Trill mean the cleathknell of the friendly societies if this Bill is passed,” stated Mr P. W. Stabb at the halfyearly meeting of the Otago District Committee of the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows on Saturday afternoon when referring to the Social Security Amendment Act now before the House. He moved the following resolution “ This meeting views with concern the effect on friendly societies of the operation of the Social Security Amendment Bill as at present before the House. It would appear that under its provisions lodge contracts with medical officers would ho cancelled automatically, thus depriving members of the service of lodge doctors, from whoso profession bur society has had eminently satisfactory and efficient service since the inception of the district in 1848.” “ The ‘ Doctors’ Bill ’ will cut the sinews of life of the friendly societies, and they will bleed to death,” he went on. “X am not concerned with the political implications of the case. If the Bill is passed one of the principal sendees of the societies will be cut from under them. It will bo difficult to interest new members in the movement, and a proportion of old members, only interested in their lodges for the medical services they receive, will drop out,” he said. “It is most desirable that by conciliation a satisfactory agreement should be reached between the doctors and the Government.” Mr D. Cook, a district member, suggested the Bill would not affect the lodges, and that the question was one only between the Government and the doctors. They had no right to interfere in the matter, as any resolution passed would be used as a buffer. Mr A. R. Lawry said the lodge should have the courage of its convictions and not sit idly by and take all the kicks coming. The Bill was upsetting and disturbing, and until a definite proposal was formulated their medical contracts should not suffer in any way. “ Our protest should be against any Government scheme which robs us of the work we have done,” stated Mr J. A. Robson. “We want the Government to work in conjunction with us and to let us live. The fate of the Bill will not affect us paying twice for the one medical service we require. Mr E. Longworth said he would have protested to the doctors if they had attempted to accept the Government's proposals. “We don’t w r ant to lose our medical service or accept anything else in place of it,” he said. a What right has the Government to say that it will take our medical service from us and substitute something else?” Before the motion was put and carried Mr Stabb said: “If we haven’t enough spirit to fight for our life now we deserve to lose it, but I believe tho best results will he achieved by a resolution free from any political bias,” The resolution was carried almost unanimously, the only dissentient voice being that of Mr Cook.