Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Friday 7 October 1938, page 13


CHANGES IN BOARD URGED.

When consideration of the Medica] Practitioners' Bill was resumed in com-mittee, the Minister for Health, Mr, FitzSimons. moved an amendment to

Clause 5, which sought to remove the provision that appointments to the Medical Board should be restricted to persons who had been registered as medical practitioners for not less than

10 years.

Mr. FitzSimons explained that the amend-ment would give effect to a promise he had made during the second reading debate that appointments to the board would be made on merit, irrespectlve ofthe period for which

a doctor had been practising,

At this stage, Mr. McGirr (AL.P., Banks-town) said that he had a prior amendment, and the Minister temporarily withdrew his

amendment.

Mr. McGirr's amendment sought to provide that the board should comprise nine members, seven of whom should be elected by a ballot of all registered medical practitioners in New South Wales one of whom should be appointed on the nomination of the Senate of the University of Sydney, and one of whom should be appointed on the nomination of the New South Wales branch of the British Medical Association. The amendment proposed also that the period of office should be three years, and that the existing Medical Board should hold office for six months after the passage of the bill, or until the ballot took place.

WHAT THE BILL PROVIDES.

The clause as printed in the bill provided for a board ol not less than seven nor more than nine members, to be appointed by the Governor, one being the nominee of the Senate of the Unlversity of Sydney, and another the nominee of the New South Wales branch of the B.M.A.; and that the term of office should be seven years.

Mr. McGirr said he felt that the medical practitioners of New South Wales should have a voice in the constitution of the board, which would govern their activities.

Mr. Arkins (U.A.P. Dulwich Hill): Would you deem it advisable to have a lay repre-sentative on the board?

Mr. McGirr: No. It is really a board con-stituted to deal with medical men, and I don't think it would be right to have laymen

on it.

Mr. J. C. Ross (U.A.P., Kogarah) said he did not favour an elected board. He thought that better administration would result from a board, the members of which did not have to seek the suffrage of the men whose affairs they administered.

Dr. Eli Webb (U.A.P.. Hurstville) said that he supported the amendment, with certain qualifications. He thought the profession should have power to elect some of the members ot the board. If the board was to consist of seven members, he thought that five should be elected by registered practi tioners, one should be nominated by the University, and the other appointed by the Minister. In his opinion the term of office should be five years, and a provision should be inserted to make a member ineligible for re-election when he attained thie age of 70 years. The members of the professjon should have a voice in the election of the board which would govern their professional conduct

and have the right to chastise them if neces

sary

Mr Arkins suggested a board of nine mem bers to be appointed for five years four to be elected by the registered medical prac

titioners and five to be nominated by the Crown the nominated members to include a layman who would be chairmani and would have a casting vote.

Mr Mutch (UAP Coogee) said that medi

cal men should not have the sole control of all health matters. He moved an amendment to clause 5 to provide that the Medical Board should consist of four members appointed by the Governor four members elected by a vote of all registered medical practitioners and a chairman who should not be a member of the medical profession to be appointed by the Governor. He said that he thought it was entirely wrong that there should be any ex celusive close corporation of the medical pro

fession.

TIhe Minister said that the amendments proposed by Mr McGirr and Mr Mutch would virtually create a new clause. In view of the drastic change that they would bring about he thought it would be unwise for him to express his views until the Government had considered the matter. He moved therefore that clause 5 be postponed.

The postponement of clause 5 clause 6 (relating to the president) and clause 9 (casual vacancies) was agreed to.

DIVISION ON AGE LIMIT

Mr FitzSimons moved an amendment to clause 7 to provide that the office of a member of the Medical Board should become vacant upon his attaining the age of 70 years which he said had been suggested earlier in the

day by Dr Webb.

Mr Atkins opposed the amendment. Mr

Gladstone he said was Piime Minister of England at the age of 82 and Sir Henry Parikes and others had done good work for New South Wales when aged more than 70 years and it was not right that the ability of a man should be measured in years.

Upon the amendment being put to a vote only eight members voted against it while all other Goveerment supporters and mem bers of the Opposition crowded on to the Government benches to vote in favour of it. The chairman of committees Mr Hedges exercised his discretion to declare the amend ment carried without counting the division and merely ordered that the names of the eight members voting against it be recorded. They were Messis Elliott (UCP Ashburn h& ) Shand(UAP Hornsby) Burke (ALP Newtown) Evans (UCP Lachlan) Aiklns (10 A P Dulwich Hill) J C Ross (U A P Kogarah) Bate (UAP South Coast) and Horsln"lon (Indus lab Stuit)

LIABILITY OF CROWN

Mr Arkins moved an amendment to Clause 14 which sought to remove the Crown from exemption from liability for any bona fide action of the Medical Board. He maintained that the board was the agent of the Crown and that medical practitioners who were wrongly removed from the register and de

prived of the right to practise should have the right of action against the Crown.

Dr Webb said that he had sufficient faith in the board to consider the clause as it stood fair and reasonable. If the board de

legistered a doctor he had the right of appeal to the Court. If the appeal was dismissed the board's decision was upheld and the doctor

should be satisfied.

Thee amendment was defeated by 35 votes to 26 Messrs Thomas Aiklns and Shand voting with Labour members for it.