REPLY TO MR. SAVAGE.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 4 July 1938, Page 7

REPLY TO MR. SAVAGE.

B.M.A. AND SOCIAL SECURITY. PRESIDENT RETURNS TO ATTACK. (By Telegraph —Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. Referring to the latest statement made by the Prime Minister regarding the Social Security Bill, Dr. Jamieson, president of the New Zealand branch iof the British Medical Association, said it was instructive to note that the Prime Minister was now 7 asserting ( facts that seemed to him to prove that 'the Government had sought the co--operation of the medical profession in I advance. "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, though the Bill is about to be brought dow r n almost imi mediately and it concerns such a vital issue as the health of the people of the Dominion. "In declining to furnish the association in confidence, with its scheme or an advance copy of the Bill for advice and criticism, Mr. Savage 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 that a draft of the present Government’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 his Excellency’s speech at the opening of Parliament in xcfcrencc to law reform, and added: "Here the active cooperation 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, "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 a 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 w r ill 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 will not agree to that, we will be jVery ■ 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 envisage is that when the Bill is framed w T e will refer it to the profession for criticism. That criticism will be considered, the Bill will bo redrafted if neces- . sary, 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 hearts’ content. When the Health Committee has finished taking evidence (and it will take some months) they will propose any amendments they think necessary. The Bill will then be redrafted, have its second reading, and 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 tlie statements such a'p the above made to the profession by Dr. McMillan"'himself. Now 7 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 1 the profession, or by, the people, during the manifold distractions of a pre-election session?’’ ,