B.M.A. AND MR. SAVAGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 July 1938, Page 7

B.M.A. AND MR. SAVAGE

CONTROVERSY CONTINUED EXTENT OF CONSULTATION [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 3. Referring to the latest statement, made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Savage) about the Social Security Bill, Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, president of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, said that 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 in Parliament, and when that is done the medical profession will have precisely the same opportunities as any other section of the 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 co-operation of the medical profession in advance. The Prime Minister, continued Dr. Jamieson, then cited the activities of the Health Insurance Investigation Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. D. G. McMillan, the detailed discussion that had taken place between the Minister for Health (Hon. P. Fraser), the Ministre for Finance (Hon. er), the Minister for Finance (Hon. medical profession, and finally the evidence given by the medical profession before the Social Security Committee. Nothing more, the Prime Minister had added, could be done. “This is quite a different attitude from that taken up by Mr. Savage in his first statement, but it still ignores the facts and must not be allowed to cloud the issue,” said Dr. Jamieson. “The point made by the British Medical Association is that the Government, never submitted any concrete proposals to the association for practical advice, and criticism, and still does not propose to do so, although 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 it. That this is correct is proved by the Prime Minister’s own statement on Tuesday last, that the bill had not yet come before the Cabinet, and that in these circumstances it was 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 had 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 de- i finite from the Government upon i 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 ‘co-operation,’ then surely Mr. Savage must have a. different understanding of the term. In declTning 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 the Cabinet has a z right to know the contents of a bill until it has been brought down before Par- , liament.’ 1 have already pointed out', that a draft of the present Govern- . meat's Education Amendment Bill has ] been in the hands of those interested ( in education for months past, and subjected to public criticism." , Dr. Jamieson quoted an extract from the speech of his Excellency the Governor-General (Lord Galway) at 1 the opening of Parliament in reference to law reform, and added: “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 the 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 to frustrate co-operation with the medical profession, which alone can give effect to the Government’s proposals. As for the Prime Minister’s reference to Dr. McMillan’s visit to Nelson, our stenographic record of Dr. Me Millan’s meeting contains nothing resembling the statement attributed by the Prime Minister to one doctor attending, al-i though some personal and friendly remark to the speaker of the eveningafter the close of the meeting may have afforded ground - for the. statement. I DR. MCMILLAN’S 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 in the House. If, on the other hand, they do not agree to that we will be very reluctantly obliged not to 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 envis-; age is that when the Bill is framed! we will refer it to the profession I 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 I 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 1 the Press and the medical profession will be able to criticise it to their hearts’ content. When the Health Committee has finished tak- ! ing evidence (and it will take some 1 months) it will propose any amendments it thinks necessary. The Bill will then be redrafted, and have its second reading. Then will come the third reading. We hope that when the Bill is before the committee the ’ medical profession will give their

considered opinion. “Our anticipation of being consulted by the Government,” Dr. Jamieson concluded, “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 the Cabinet, by Parliament, by the profession, oi by the people during the manifold detractions of a pre-election session. MR SAVAGE’S INTIMATION. WELLINGTON, July 4. A reply to the statement made by Dr J P S. Jamieson, concerning the Social Security Bill, was made by MiSavage, to-day. He said that there was nothing likely to be in the Bill that Dr. Jamieson was not already aware of. There would be no alteration whatsoever in the principles of the scheme. It was just a question of working out in legal shape what had been put before the Parliamentary Committee which considered the proposals. The B.M.A. had had the same right to make representations as othei i sections of the community. “Long before that Parliamentary Committee sat, the B.M.A. had the right to appear before Dr. McMillan’s Committee.” said Mr Savage. _ “They i gave evidence, collectively or individually, and they were interviewed all ’ over the country by Dr. McMillan. I don’t know of any occasion when any section of the community got greater l cnsideration than the B.M.A. In this | connection, I would say quite frankly I that Dr. Jamieson is turning this into 1 political propaganda. I am not concerned with that, at the moment, but I am concerned with providing a service for the people. So far as this controversy is concerned’, it is ended. I am not carrying the wrangle any further than the representatives of the people, and after that is over the people will decide it for themselves at the poll. If they don’t want it, they will know what to do with the Government.”