WHY OPPOSITION RELAXED

Evening Star, Issue 24006, 3 October 1941, Page 4

WHY OPPOSITION RELAXED

SEVEN Of EIGHT DEMANDS CONCEDED

(Special.) WELLINGTON, Oefc. 3. Why the Leader of the Opposition did not proceed with his amendment to tho medical practitioner clauses of the Social Security 'Bill was explained by Mr Holland to the House_ of Representatives to-day. He claimed that seven out of tho eight points for which his party fought had been conceded in the latest amendments. The Bill as introduced represented six years of Government planning- and now as amended it contained the results of Government planning plus the Opposition’s contribution. (Laughter from Government members.) Mr Frost; Did the Opposition ask for tho increase la fees? Mr Holland: No; but after six years of planning the Bill was so unsatisfactory that when the Opposition protested it was blown inside out. Tho Opposition, ho continued, said the Bill would socialise tho profession, which would be coerced into coming in or starving. That objectiort had been removed, and it was no longer compulsory for a doctor to come in. They objected to private practice being made unlawful, and tho Government gave way, Mr Armstrong: It was never unlawful. . , Mr Holland declared thatthe original Bill prevented a_ practitioner from demanding or accepting any fees other than those he was entitled to under the social security. Mr Armstrong; You can’t read. That lias not been altered. Mr Holland: The Minister knows he has given the right to doctors to receive fees. There is the right of private contract between patient and doctor. Tho Opposition's third objection, ho continued, was that when tho doctors on active service came back they would be State employees. They fought this and the Government gave way. Mr Richards: Wonderful man. Mr Holland went on to say that the Opposition contended that if a patient wished to pay a doctor more than tho prescribed fee he should have that right The Government had given way. It also objected because the orignial Bill fixed the fees by statute The minimum was still there, but the patient could pay more if he wished. The Opposition’s sixth objection was the flat rate of payment for service rendered day or night. Now the Government was carrying out its trade union principles by allowing overtime rates. The Bill originally struck a deadly blow at the friendly societies, but the pressure of public opinion and Opposition argument resulted in an amendment that the medical service rendered friendly societies could be charged to the Social Security Fund. There were still one or two objectionable features, as the Bill made it unlawful for a doctor to recover bis fees, which tho Prime Minister frankly admitted was discrimination against one class. Mr O’Brien: If you talk much more

about it this side will throw the Bill right out. (Laughter.) Mr Holland pointed out that under the amended Bill a doctor could claim in tho courts for some of his service, though not for all. If he did something outside general practitioner service he could sue for fees. He still-contended that under tho new system, the medical service would deteriorate. Another deficiency in the Bill was that there was no provision for preventive medicine. Tho difference between the Opposition and tho Government was that the Opposition preferred to give those who needed and could not afford it a full service now. Mr Richards: With the brand of poverty. Mr Holland, commenting on the constant interjections from the Government benches, declared: “ It is a very noisy morning.” Ho was reinforced by tho Chairman of Coiiiihittees, who said there was a tremendous noise, and tho continual mteejection must scop. Xno jucauer ol tno Opposition, concinmng( sa.a tne opposition wanted a lull consultant, specialist, ana suigicai service lor tnoso unaoie to pay imi ices, and wno nugnt not do aoio to enter tne puouo ffospitais. All tnesu services were outsiuo me Jim umess tne patient entered tno puonc nospitais, wmen were aireaay overcrowaeu. ” 'me Xieauer oi tno opposition,” repl.ea mr l\usn, ” lias not given reasons »vny ne snouid vvitnuraw ins amendment —not a single justmcaeiou.” me minister, quoting irom tne amenunieut, snowed mat it required postponement ox me x»Ui tni tne doctors overseas came duck, nut tne plain met was tuac me opposition feared public opinion, tnuugn tiiey would vote out tne ji.u u ciiey nad tne power. Members would recall How wnen the Prime Minister asked the Opposition if they would vote for a free medical service to everybody, the Opposition Leader hedged, dodged, and squirmed. (Laughter.) Ho could not give an answer. Postponement was demanded in tho amendment for a second reason, the shortage of doctors. There was still a shortage. Finally, it demanded relief from social security taxation till the medical service was ■provided. •‘There were three reasons inside that amendment,” said Mr Nash, “ and every one still operates. It is plain, simple unadulterated humbug.” Mr Osborne; A hooey amendment. Mr Nash, continuing, said that tho Prime Minister was quite honest in his statement that he thought the doctors had agreed to the original Bill, because they had asked that something in it be taken out, and when this was done he could assume there was no further objection; but this proved to be wrong. The main point to be emphasised, however, was that a free general practitioner service was now available to everybody in the Dominion, because the Social Security Fund would pay the patient 7s 6d per visit by way of refund. If wealthy persons were keen to pay the doctor themselves, they could still do so. The suggestion that tho service would deteriorate was, he considered, sheer humbug, for a tremendously large proportion of the doctors were keen on their quality of service. Actually, the Leader of the Opposition was voting for a Bill which ho said would deteriorate tho medical service. Any Government was always prepared to take help from an Opposition in improving any Bill, but on this occasion they got no ideas from that quarter. “I am particularly pleased about this Bill,” concluded Mr Nash, “ I believe we will get the doctors’ co-opera-tion. What pleases me most is that now, for the first time in our history, everyone, irrespective of income, can have the medical service necessary for health if this Bill is passed.”