CLAUSE CRITICISED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 6 December 1940, Page 6

CLAUSE CRITICISED

SOCIAL SECURITY PROVISION OF BILL ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO SPLIT B.M.A. MINISTER’S DENIAL [From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. In the House of Representatives today urgency was accorded the passing of the Finance Bill (No. 4) on the motion of the Prime Minister. Mr S. G. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, said he did not think there would be much opposition to the Bill. to the Social Security provisions of the measure, he suggested that the Government should aim at giving all hospital treatment free, and pointed out that if doctors remaining behind were allowed to build panels they would have the choice of patients, and when those on service returned they might find no practice was left to them. Under the circumstances the Government should consider holding the scheme over until after the war. He contended that the clause was an attempt by the Government to split S-c B.M.A. The Government had decided not to make a contract with the Association, but with individual members. That was a thing they would not permit in the industrial world. Mr Holland added that the Minister, of Finance had admitted it was not pos sible to compel doctors to give service and at the same time for them to give ; their best service, but he also stressed • the contention that some service shouici l be provided or some of the taxation ie- - mitted. , ? CO-OPERATION WANTED : The Minister of Housing, the Hon. H. [ T Armstrong, said that the Leader of the Opposition had alleged that the ’ Government was trying to cause a split . in the 8.M.A.. but the Government had . been working that very thing. . They wanted the co-operation of the . doctors, but the B.M.A. was the only l powerful organisation that had given , no sign whatever of co-operation. The ; Government was pledged to give free l medical service to the people whose sons and husbands had gone to the > war. It was all right for the B.M.A. to say they had to keep faith with those | of their number who had gone to the ? war, but the Government also had to ? keep faith with the people of New Zeai land. There had been no war when the Act was passed in 1938. but the doctors were just as bitterly opposed to the scheme then as they were now. They had never budged from their original conditions, but now they were saying it ' was because of the war. The Minister . added that he was not antagonistic to ’ members of the B.M.A. because there were some very fine gentlemen in it. - but the Government had done every- : thing that was humanly possible to j bring about a spirit of co-operation. ■ even to the extent of saying that it i would amend the law to comply with > something less than was in mind when the law was drafted. He added that > the Bill did not say exactly what was proposed, but the regulations had been ‘ drafted and they would give the B.M.A. * a fair go as well as everyone else. “We cannot deal with the B.M.A. as an or- ’ ganisation,” he added, “but we are going to keep our pledge to the people ’ and the people are going to get the ser- . vice. The medical profession as a whole ! will be materially better off.” ! “MATERIALLY BETTER OFF” > Mr Armstrong said that the Government would issue to every citizen a certificate which would be available at post offices and Social Security offices and probably other places, and the individual had to find a doctor himself. If the doctor agreed to accept him he signed a certificate v/hich was then sent to the Social Security Department. That gave the citizen, his wife and family the right to free medical attention. On the other hand the doctor would be free to refuse. He had the same right ot cnoice as the patient. That would be dune under th • regulations. The Government had in mind what was a reasonable fee which it was proposed to pay for every person for whom a doctor was respon- i sible. In friendly societies it was only ! thr> head of the family who paid, but in ; this case the Government would pay not only for the head of the family but his wife ana every child under 16. The Minister said that outpatients’ service': and pharmaceutical benefits would come into operation simultaneously with j medical benefits. Mr J. A. Lee expressed concern as to ; what would happen if the doctors re- j fused co-operation. In the industrial field if watersiders or tobacco factory employees refused co-operation their union was de-registered. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health had frequently stated that the Government would not permit obstruction to prevent the carrying out of the full provision of the medical services. If that firm intention were behind the present Bill in its entirety it was good enough for the people. If there was not a genuine effort to apply the full benefits, members would have to revise their present approval. The Minister of Marine, the Hon. D. G. McMillan, contended that the present scheme would be just as successful as the maternity benefits scheme. The Leader of the Opposition had advocated free out-patients treatment, but he would also remind the House that the Government too had advocated similar | treatment. He would also like to point out that a big scheme like the present | one could not all be put into effect in I a day. Very shortly the Leader of the 1 Opposition would not have any complaint to make about free out-patients’ treatment because the people would be ; receiving the attention given undef this category by their own private doctors. He also contended that far from delaying the introduction of the scheme i the war was a reason why it should be | expedited. Dr. McMillan also contended that the majority of the doctors would be only too glad to be relieved of the financial side of their profession which would be effected under the Government’s scheme, and he did not think it would be long before 90 to 100 per cent, of the doctors would be attending patients un- ! der it. The debate was interrupted by the ; adjournment at 1 p.m.