Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 1936

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Pharmacy Acts, Etc., Bill. [24 NoVEl\IBER.] 1683

TUESDAY, 24 NOVEMBER, 1936.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. Pollock, Gregory) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

QUESTIOKS.

PADIEKTS FROM HEAVY VEHICLES FUl';D.

Mr. CLAYTON (!Vide Bay), for Mr. WALKER (C ooroora), asked the Secretary for Public Works-

" 1. Out of the He a YY Vehicles Fund in 1935-36. what amounts were-(a) paid to the JVlain Roads Commissioner as a local authority; (b) paid to .all other local authorities; (c) transferred to consoli­dated revenue?

" 2. What were the total receipts of the fund in 1935-36? "

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC vVORKS (Hon. H. A. Bruce, 1'hc Tableland) replied-

" I would recommend to the hon. member that thio question should be addressed to Hon. J. Dash, Minister for Transport, who is the Minister con­trolling the Heavy Vehicles Fund."

UxDIPLOniEXT RELIEF ExPEXDITURE oN PRo­PERTY OF RELIGIOUS DEXOMINATIONS.

Mr. MOORE (Aubigny) asked the Secre­tary for Labour and Industry-

" 1. Are the following the correct amounts expended from the U nemploy­ment Relief Fund on denominational properties at Toowoomba during· the two ye.u·s ended 30th June, 1936:-

Downlands College Christian Brothers' College St. Saviour's Convent St. Vincent's Hospital Glennie Memorial School Fairholme College Methodist Church

£ 6.810 1,346

378 1,265

719 514 259?

" 2. HaYe anY further amounts been approved for expenditure this year on these properties'! If so. how much respectively ?

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A:\D INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­t·ille) replied-

" 1. The figures quoted do not agree with departmental reccrds over the period mentioned. The inference to be drawn from the question to tho effect that undue preference has been shown to a particular denomination is not correct. It is the policy of the Government to approve of intermittent relief labour being utilised for ground improvement work in connection with -denominational schools ancl churches, where such labour

1684 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Death of King Gcorge V., Etc.

is available. irrespective of denomina-tion. ·

"2. It is not the practice to approve of any particular amount for these works, which, when approved, continue until completion."

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARY RESTORATIONS.

Mr. CLAYTOX (Wide Bay) asked the Treasurer :-

" 1. \Vhat was the amount per annum of the salary 1·estoration this year to the Under Secretary, Treasury Department ·1

"2. \Vhat was the amount per annum of the salary restoration this year to a clerk on a nominal salary of £250 per annun1?

"3. \Yhat was the amount of back-pay recently received by each of euch officers? ''

The TREA_SURER (Hon. \'i-. Forgan Smith, Mackay) replied-

" 1. In the case of the Under Secretary, Treasury Department, the salary restora­tion under the Industrial Court's judg­ment amounts to £104 10s. per annum­the salary of £1,100 per annum pn;id to the Under Secretary was prenously subject to a reduction of £209 per annum, but as from 1st July. 1936, will be subject to a reduction of £104 10s.

" 2. There is not a male clerk in the public service in receipt of a nominal salary of £250 per annum. The follow­ing, however, will show the salary adjust­ments which have been made in con­formity with the court's judgments. The case cited is that of a clerk whose nominal salary was £240 per annum prior to the court having complete jnricdiction over the fixation of Crown salaries­\VageB rates:-

Date. Xon1inal Salary.

Prr"entage Redurtion. Ar·tual Sal;.r)·.

Jknefit per Annum to

Cle-rk.

£ £ 8. d. £ s. d. 30 Sept., 1934 240 15 per ('t:nt. 2\l.l- 0 0

1 Oct., 1934 255 £~H ptr ann urn minimum basic wage :.:~l) 0 0 22 0 0 reduction

7 Nov., 19::1 270 11! per cent. 239 1~ 6 1:3 12 6 7 ::'\ov., 1935

I 285 11;]; per cent. 2:-):2 18 9 1" 6 8 ·>

1 July, 1936 285 £29 per annmn rninimun1 basic wage 2:-~u 0 0 3 :l reduction

7Nov., 1936 300 ditto 271 0 0 l:J 0 0 -----

Total per annum benefit since 30th September, 1934 £G< 0 ()"

"3. The Under Secretary, Treasury Department, received back-pay of salary amounting to £35 8s. The clerk, on a nominal salary of £240 per annum at 30th September, 1934, who has been granted his grade increases and the salary restorations in terms of the court's judgments and awards, received from lst October, 1934, to 30th November, 1936, a total salary benefit of £92 5s. 3d."

ALLEGED LACK OF INTERMITTENT RELIEF WORK.

Mr. MAHER (West Moreton) asked the Secretary for Labour and Industry-

" 1. Will he have inquiries made into a complaint I received on Wednesday­that on that day nine out of a large num­ber of men who reported for intermit· tent relief work at Gilchrist avenue, Brisbane, were told by Acting Ganger Byrne that there was no work available for them, and that they would, there­fore, be placed on rations, the allegation of the men being that they were ready and willing to world

" 2. Is it part of the relief work policy of the Government that l.J.nemployed men for whom work cannot be found by the Brisbane City Council are thereby deprived of intermittent relief work and placed on rations ? "

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes,' Towns­ville) replied-

" 1. The matter referred to has been investigated by the Brisbane City Council, whose responsibility it is to allot

I --·~-----·-~-·-----

t,he labour ><upplied under the Intermn­tent Relief Scheme.

"2. ?\a. llltcnnittpnt relief v::orkcrs reported by the Briobane City Council for inefficiency or refusal to work as allotted are r~vertecl to rations .. ,

DEATH OF' KIJ'\iG c;F:ORGE Y. A:\D ACCESSION OF KIMi- EDW ARD Y IlL

Mr. SPEAKER: I han· to rcJLrt to the House that I have reooived the' following letter from His Excellency the Go,-crnor con­veying a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Dominions, which I shall now read to the House:-

" Government House, Brisbane, "November 21, 1936.

" Sir,-I have the honour, by com­mand of His Majesty the King, to for­ward you herewith His Majesty's reply to the two Addresses from the Parlia­ment of Queensland, which wore adopted on August 11, 1936.

" I have the honour to be, ''Sir,

"Your most obedient Servant,

"LESLIE WILSON. "Governor.

" The Honourable " The Speaker of the House of

Assembly, " Parliament House,

" Brisbane."

South Brisbane Raillcay, Etc., Bill. [24 NovEMBER.] S1tspension of Standing Orders. 1685

"Buckingbarn Palace) ·' September 25, 1936.

"Dear :Mr. Speaker,-,, The Addres':L'f,· adO}ltccl ou ..:\ .. ugu:-:t

11, 1936, by the members of the LegislatiYe Aesembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled llaYc been laid before the King.

"His Majesty, Her Majesty Queen ~lfary, and the members of the Royal Family are deeply grateful to the mem­bers of the Asscmblv for their kind message of sympathy -in the ineparable loss which they have sustaine-d through the death of His late Maj estv King Deorge \-. "

" The King has received with much gratification the loyal assurances embodied in your Addresses, and com­mands me to convev to vou his high appreciation of them and- of the good wishes which accompany them.

"Yours very truly,

"A. H. L. HARDI:\'GE.

"The Honourable the Speaker, " The Legislative

Queensland." Assembly of

DEATH OF HO~. D. RIORDAX, l\l.H.R.

REPLY TO J\IOTIOX OF C'OXDOLEKCE.

1\Ir. SPEAKER: I han• to renort that I haYe received a letter from the widow of the late Hon. D. Riordan. 1\I.H.R., convey­mg thanks for the motion of condolence paesed by the Home on the 11th ~owmber

DEATH OF SIR L'ITTLETON GROOM.

REPLY ro ::Vforrox OF CmmoLE:-JCE.

, Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have recmvcd a letter from the widow of the late Sir Littleton Groom, eom·eyillg thanks for the motwn of condolence passed by the House on the 15th October.

PAPERS.

The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to he printed :-

RcpoTt of the Department of Harbours and Marine for the Year 1935-36.

The following- paper was laid on the table:-

Regulation under the 'Wire and ·wire­netting Advances Act of 1933.

QUEENSLAND BORDER TO SOUTH BRISBAN]j; RAILWAY MANAGE­MENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

INI1'IATION 0

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT (Hon. J. Dash, J.fu.ndingburra): I move--

" That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirable­ness of introducing a Bill to ·amend ' The Queensland Border to South Brisbane Railway Management Act of 1930 ' in certain particulars,"

Question put and passed.

LOCAL BODIES' LOAXS GUARA:'\TEE' ACT AND AUDIT ACTS AJ\iEND­.:IIENT BILL.

INITIATIOX.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRCCTION (Hon. F. A. Cooper, llremer): I move-

" That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the vVhole to consider of the desirable­ness of introducing a Bill to amend ' The Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee Act of 1923' and other Acts, in certain parti­cular:=:.."

Question put and passed.

JOHN DARNELL QUEENSLAND GALLERY BILL.

ESTATE ~ATIONAL

IxrTIATIOX.

AND ART

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTIO:N (Hon. F. A. Cooper, Bremer): I move-

,, That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirable­ness of introducing a Bill relating to certain trusts under the vYill and Codi­cils of John Darnell. late of Wynnum South, in the State of Queensland, gentleman, deceased."

Question put and passed.

STATUTES REPH.INT BILL.

IKITIATION.

The ATTORXEY-GENERAL (Hon. .r. 1\ltlllan, Carpentaria) : I move-

" That the House will, at its present •itting, re,olvc; ibelf into a Committee of the Whole to comicler of the desirable­ness of introducing a Dill to make pro­vision in relation to the publication of an annotated reprint of the Public Acts of Que~nsland under the title of 'The Public Acts of Queensland (Reprint),' and to empower the Courts to take judi­cial notice of such reprint."

Question put and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMEKT BILL.

THIRD READIXG.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFF A TRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, lthaca) fl0.44 a.m.]: I move-

" That the Bill be now read a third time."

Question put and passed.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS.

PASSAGE OF BILLS THROUGH ALL STAGES IN ONE DAY.

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, .t.Iackay) [10.45 a.m.]: I move-

" That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as wo.uld otherwise prevent the passing of Bills through all their stages in one day."

This is the motion usually moved towards the end of the session. Many of the Bills that are on the business-sheet are of a formal character. Others, of course, are

Hon. W. Forgan Smith.]

1686 Suspension of [ASSEl\IBL Y.] Standing Orders.

not. Hon. members can be assured that this motion will be used with complete discretion. I have already advised Ministers handliug Bills that when the formal motion has been moved thev should hand the Leader of the Opposition" a copy of each Bill to be dis cussed under it.

Mr. MAXWELL: And the horl. member for Hamilton.

The PREMIER : Yes. I always forget the leader of the United Australia Party.

Mr. :\L~HER (TV est cli oreton) [10.46 a.m.]: I regret that the Premier has decided on this course of action. Although some Bills on the business·shcct "'re more or less of a formal character some very important Bills have yet to come forward. The Secretary for Health and Home Affairs gave notice of a Hospital and Health Bill this morning, and there are the Racing Bill and the Income Tax Bill.

The PRE)!IER: \Yho said that? 1\lr. BRAND: The whole Press of Queens·

land. Mr. MAHER: The Racing Bill will come

before the House. The PRE)JIER : vVho said so?

Mr. l\lAHER : Well, I understood it would. lf the Press reports can be believed the Bill has been drafted. As a matter of fact, I thought it rather extraordinary that the Treasurer, who is in charge of racing matters, should allow the Press to get pos­session of a Bill before Parliament.

:\lr. SPEAKEE: Order ! The l'REMIER: As a matter of fact, it was

stolen. Mr. MAHER: Stolen? Mr. SPEAKER: Order ! This has no

relation to the question now before the House.

:VIr. ::\IAHER: Well, in passmg, I should sav that such a Brll is one of cor>oHlenrble iu!portauce to a big section of the com­munitv-in fact. all sections of the com­lnunit~ are interested in the princi1Jlcs of this Bill because of the findings of the commission that inquired into the subject. Of course, if it is not to be brought for· • ward--

The PRE)IIEH: I never said that. :\h. :\IAliER: At any rate, there is a

possibility of a Racing Bill and a Taxation Bill, anct if that is the case, obviously very important Bill·· are still waiting the con­sideration of the House, and I think it would be a mistake that these important measures should be put through all their stages in one day. That does not give enoug·h time to interested parties outside the Chamber to study their principles and mako suitable representations to the Government or the Opposition, as might be thought advisable. Perhaps the Opposition would not object to the course the Premier proposes ·O far as come of the Bills ou the business· sheet are concerned. \V c are entitled to object very strongly to its application to Bills of an important character such as I have mentioned.

It is fair neither to the hon. members of the House nor to the public, who are vitally concerned.

:VIr. :'\IOORE (A. ubigny) [10.50 a.m.] : I realise that at the end of the session -it is nece'"·ary to put unimportant Bills throuu·h all their stages in one day. HoweYN. smi1e

[Hon. W. JJ'organ Smith.

of tlw Bills that haYe been meutioned are of great irnportancc~ and although the GoYenunent rnay be desirous to get int~) rE:'te:"s, it scerns tg rue that we ought to ha Yn

an opportuuity to giYe full consideration to all in1portant rnea~ures. In connc::-·­tion with some Bills, we have to look Ll!J

preYious enactn1ents, and to c01ne to thf't second reading stage 'vithout having nn opportunity e1·en of reading the Bill--

The PREMIEH: You neYer did that:

:VIr. MOORE: I may ha Ye done so. but I do not think the Bills '"ere import>tnt.

The l'REMlER: You amended the Con­stitution on one ocasion and we did not ha Ye an opportunity of >ec·ing· the Bill until the second reading.

Mr. MOO RE: It "as a yery minor anwnd. ment, at any rate. On the other hand, these; Bills rnav contain a nun1Ler of clau~cs.

The P~E)I!F.R: You set a bad pxample for u.s to follow.

Mr. :MOORE: I do not suppme that e\·cry­thin•r I did should be followed. or tbat it would be justified in normal times. :\<)W. of course, eYcrything is plain sailing a11d it is quite easy. for t_hc Goven~n1ent to_.calT~· on; 'l'he Prermer sa1d that tl11s resoluiwn "oulu be used with discretion-but evcrythm~· depends on_ whose discret_ion is involYe~~i \Yhen the GoYernmcnt d0s1re to get a Bw through quickly in or·der that sou1c of_ thP hou. members behind them ma.1- not 11~ ye

.all opportunity of criticisi11g jt or altcnng it--

The l'nEmcn: l'crish the thougl>t: l\Ir. ~IOORE : That mig·ht be the mty iu

which the discretion of the Premier. for instancP, might operate.

The PREsiiER: The Premier is not at ail ·worried about it.

]Hr. :\lOO RE: You will probably remem­ber. Mr. Speaker, that a little while ago the Prcrnjcr gaYe a dissertation on what parlian1cntary governn1ent should be, saying that the Standing Orders provided certain specified stages for the consideration of Bills. ,,-ith a space of time between the introduc­tion and the second reading·, in order that the people might be able to giYe full con­sideration to them. He said that these Stanr!ino- OrC!ers have been deYeloped m con:-eqLH:'nce of very n1any years' experience in parliamentary procedure. It has bee:l found necessan- in the interests of the com· munitY therefore that this shonld be clonro -the ",:ule is not 'an arbitarv one. It could not be said that it is necessary for these· Bills to be rushed through all their stages in one day.

The PRDJIER: I can assure vou that the new >::Handing Order will be usc;d with grca t discretion and with regard to the sound principles of parliamentary government.

:Vlr. MOORE : The Standing Order' ":t out definite principles, and I much prefer them to the discretion of the Minister in charge of any Bill. Notice has been giYen of important Bills. and I do not think it is reasonllbk that we should be asked to rush them through. Once we ag-reed to thi' principle. tlw Premier would be able to bring forward any legislatiYe measure ancl contend that we had approYed of its being passed in one da~·. \\~hen Bills are nbhc-r! tl!rougll, an1cnding legi~lation rnu~t br­bron{)'ht in in the follO\Ylng· :;:e:;;.~ion to cntTt~ct fault~ that would ha>:e been discoYered had

Suspension of [24 XovEliiBER.] Standing Orders. 1687

adeouatc rin10 be('n allo\vod for discus~iou. llclJatc in the Home could nor do an,, harm. and I think \Ye are entitled to it in .n1attcr~ a~ important a:3 tlJe:;;e ma~T b0. . The Labour caucus are in a different posi,

t.wn. because they know the contents of all Bills-they are explained to them before­hand. The Opposition must wait until the Bill has been introduced before the> can get any idea of what it means. Very' often we consider Bills from a different angle, and occasionallv :vfinisters have deemed it advisable to accept amendments from this side to remedv certain ddects that have escapee! the not'ice of the Government Party. I do not think that important Bills should be rushed through all their stages in one dav. I have no objection to that procedure's beiri'g adoptee! in the case of small, formal Bills that an• of very little importance except for administratin• purposes, but Bills deal­ing with racing. taxation, hospitals, and health are rery important ones. and merit adequate consideration by the people before tlwy are passed through all their stages in this Parliament.

}fr. GODFREY :VIORGAN (Dalby) [10.57 a. m.]: I want to enter my. protest against the proposal b,· the Premier to pass all Bills through aJl their stages in one clay. I should like to remind him that after the Local Government Bill passed its second 1·eacling a good deal of time cl a pscd bcfmc it was taken into Committee. and that in the intervening period the interested public were given an opportunity of conslderincr it and subrnitting amcndrnentR that fhev believed wmdd improve the measure. As it. result of that course-a wis:e cour~e-the l\1inister was able to prepare a long list of nnportant am0ndn1ent:-, and n1any iHlpOr­tant a!n.endn1ents were a]i'.o suggested by the OppositJOn, most of which were accepted b"<" the Minister. That ic cl ea,. proof of hmv necessary it is that the public should be given an opportunity of kno,Ying the con­tents of a measure in order to be able to make suggestions for its amendment before it is finally passed through Parliament. I am sure that eYen the :Minister in charge of that Bill will admit that by delaying: th passage of the Bill he enabled man> ven important suggestions for its amendment to be mado to him. and that thece would not ha vo been made if the Bill had been rushed through all its stages in two or three clays. The Bill is one of the finest pieces of legis­lation dealing with local government that have ever been passed by this Parliament. but it is only the result of allowing the people to make suggestions for its a.mend­ment to the Minister and to the Opposi­twn. Contrast the attitude of the Minister in that connection with his attitude towards the Liquor Act Amendment Act last session. It was rushed through this House, and it caused general dissatisfaction all over Queens: land.

The PRE~IIER : The Opposition did not divide the House on one clause or amend­ment.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: The Bill gave dissatisfaction because in certain respects it was thought to be purely and simply for the purpose of allowing the breweries to have a monopoly in the liquor trade. Many of its provisions are good ones, but many of the sections are not regarded with satis­faction by the people because, generally, it is felt that it was passed to enable the

breweries to obtain a monopoly of the liquor trade.

:Mr. SPEAKER: Order! 'I'he PRE}IIER : You know perfectly· "'ell

that is grossly untrue. It is absolutely untrue.

;y1r. GODFREY MORGAX: It 1s not untrue.

The PRniiER: Of course it is. Your state­ment contains the margin of error that usually applies to your statements.

Mr. GODFREY MORGA:'\: The Premier says that my statement is untrue, but it is not untrue. We know that day by day­that scarcely a week passes that a brewery does not buy some hoteL

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

"'lr. GODFREY MORGAN: The Premier says that my statement is untrue; it is not untrue.

2\J:r. SPEAKER : Order 1 The hon. mem­ber was not entitled to deal with that matter in the first instance.

:Vlr. GODFREY MORGAN: No. I will not refer. to it again. The Opposition have no obJectiOn to the passage of a little trum­pery B1ll through all its stages in one ·day, bl}t hon. members !'nd the public should be gtYen ~n opportunity of considering impor­lant B1lls and making suggestions for their amendment. It would help matcriallv to make legislation such that it will not be contested in the courts. We have no cham­ber of review. If we had, it would not matter to the same extent if Bills were rushed. through this House, as the chamber of rev.Iew could t!Je:'- study them and point out rp.1stakes. As 1t IS, an opportunity should be !jiVen not only to the Opposition, ·but also to mterested persons-the general public­to study all legislation of a contentious character before it is finally enacted. Thev ~ho_uld ha Ye !1-n _opportunity of knowing wha·t ts 111 each B~ll m. order th3:t _they may point o_ut where It m1ght do mJury to a par­ticular class.

The Gov~rnme'!t are bl~mable in this ma.tter. It IS advisable to grve us the neces­sary time to scrutinise all Bills. Parlia­ment could have sat a month or six weeks earlier than it did, but in the present cir­cumstances we are quite prepared to sit up to Christmas, and even afterwards ii the Premier thinks it necessary. Why this h~:~n-y? We ~re prepared to do our work. Why _P!lsh Bills through and prevent the OppositiOn and general public from having the opportunity of perusing them? There IS no need to push legislation through all stages in one dav.

Important Bills arc usuall-c left to the last days of the session. That should not be so, because it is through the rush tactics. of the Government that defects occur in our legislation.

Mr. RUSSELL (Hamilton) [11.3 a.m.]: I am glad to have the assurance of the Premier that the Government will use dis­cretion in the passage of legislation in the last days of the session. vVe know that there are several Bills on the stocks some of which are of very great importanc~.

The measure that will cause the greatest debate will be the Income Tax Assessment Bill, if it comes on, and we know that an Income 'I'ax Bill is reported to be in process of preparation to replace the Bill

Mr. Russell.]

1688 Suspension of [ASSKVIBLY.] Standing Orders.

introduced last year and discharged from the bu~inr.:;;~-paper. rThe present Incmnc Tax Act "as put through this House with unseemly hastB. Such a measure requires careful consideration and deliberation. I suggest that ample time should elapse between the introductory, second reading, and Committee stages of such a Bill, respec­tiYely. in m·de1· to give hon. members ample opportunity to digest it. What is very important is that bodies interested in taxa­tion matters should have an opportunity of placing their views and criticisms bBfore the Govermnent. Income taxation is an abstruse question. The present legislation bristles with anomalies and injustices. Con­sequently, a new measure, which I hope we shall pass before long, should be as perfect as possible. I trust the Premier will see to it that there will be no undue haste in rushing such a Bill through this House.

The PREMIER : \V e will not do so.

J\Ir. RUSSELL: I am glad to know that. That is the most important measure the House will have to discuss, as it affBcts the whole community. I am glad to hear from the Premier that hon. members will have ample opportunity of studying the Bill in order that this House will pass a. Bill as per­fect as possible. On a previous occasion the Premier said it was not intended to proceed \Yith that Bill beyond the intro­ductory stage. Although it ma.y not be altogether a new Bill--

The PRDIIER: Ther;;.,~re only two new lH.LUL.liJlt:~ 111 LlHJ lit::\\' 1...)111.

Mr. RUSSELL: That may be so, but a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then and a good many problems have cropped up during the last twelve months that make it necessary for certain aspects of taxation to bo placed bc·fore the Premier.

The PRE1riER : Do you think it has not been d01w' My difficulty with regard to a deputation on taxation is to g-et members of the rlPnntation in agrcen1ent ''rith one another: ·

Mr. RUSSELL: That in itself shows that whrre ::-o n1:1nv conflicting interests are to be reconcile-d it would be wise for the Government to refpr such a measure to a Committee of the House.

The PRDJIER: \YNc vou in favour of that principle when I moved a motion in that respect in regard to the Companies Dill?

:\lr. RliSSELL: I do not think the motive behind t·hat was sincere, and that may be the reason I opposed it.

The PUDJIER: I do not look upon you as a paragon of sincerity You are the last man in this House who should reflect on anybody.

}'.lr. RliSSELL: One never knows what pohtical moti,·es are behind motions that are moYed in this llousP. I was of the opinion that the Premier ,,-as not sincere at that time.

"\Ir. SPEAKER: Order!

:VIr. H.liSSELL: I may have been \'Hong; if I am wrong I desire to apologise.

The PHE)llER: ""e accept your apology; you \Ycrr \Yrong.

:V1r. H.USSELL: I suggest that a measure like the Income Tax Assessment Bill should h submitted to a Committee of the House so that a good deal of unnecessary argtnnent

[1li1·. Russell.

and politic:J.l conflict \YOuld be avoided. After all. we wish to put on the statute­book a Bill that will reconcile the conflicting intcrcst3 in the cornmunity, and that is why I suggest ample tirne should be given to hon. members for full consideration of such 111easures.

The PREMIER (lion. vV. Forgan Smith, J[ackuy) [11.8 a. m.]: There is no intention to make a grandstand sprint into recess. J\"aiumlh-. we have a certain amount of business" to do, and that business '"ill be done before Parliament is prorogued. It i; nsual at the end of every session to pass a Sessional Order for the purpose of enabling Bills to be passed through all stage' in one day. For example. suppose it was the last dav of thP seQ.<ion and there were three Bills in' the Committee stage. Would it not be ><bsurd if we could not move the third read· ing of those three Bills i111mediately after the Cornmittee stages? This motion. so far fron1 stifling the wishes of Parliament, provides facilities for giving expression to its will.

The hon. member for Dalbv talked about the Local Government Bill. As a matter of fact, that Bill was before the House for three weekB and the only thing the Opposi­tion debated in the Bill, which contained rnany far-reaching principles. wac3 adult. suffrage. a matter that has been debated ad uausean1 ahnost eYer since this ha~ been • Parlinnwnt.

The hon. membPr also mentioned the Pl'eos. 1\aturallv. the Press has a right to criticise Bills and report proceedings of Par­I iarnent: hut T am afraid that the concern exhibited for the PlT'S springs from a desire on the part of some hon. members that. the Press might prepare their speeches for them. I haYe often noticed that hon. members opposite can fully cut out leading articles in ihe daily 110"'papers and their notes are based upon their criticism of the BilL

The delay in regard to the Income Tax A '·sessment Bill is no fault of this Govern­nwnt. There have been a very large number of conferences in regard to uniform taxation throug-hout the Commonwealth. Last session we introduced a Dill that embodied the uniformity then agreed upon, but we could not proceed with it, inasmuch as the Common­wealth Government had not introduced their BilL Since then two new principles have been discovered, one being that of a uniform appellate tribunal. on which obviouslv we cannot legislate unless the Common,;ealth Government first legislate to establish that tribunal. When the appellate tribunal is constituted, the judge who is appointed bv the Commonwealth Government will, for the purposes of appeals from the Queensland Commissioner of Taxes, be made a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Obviously, \ve cannot include that principle in the Queensland Bill until \'Ye know what the Commonwealth Government intend to do. and from the information at my disposal I do not think that the Commonwealth Govern­nlcnt have agreed a1nong the1nselves as to the constitution of that appellate tribunal.

The other new principle not contained in the Bill introduced last session is that dealing with taxation of Crown lease-, about which Vi'€ ha YC now made an agroe1nent that will be of benefit not only to taxpayers. but aloo to Governments. It will facilitate tumac­tious in regard to perpetual leaseholds, both f~__r rhe purposes of sale and in connection

Suspension of Standing Orders. [24 ~OVEMBER.] Unemployed TVorkirs', Eta., Bill. 1689

with an instrument of lease as a tangible security in investment and mortgage transac­tJOns.

Reference ha< been made to the proposed Racing Bill. It is proposed to bring in a Racing Bill, but I take the view that that Racing Bill should be first introduced in Parliament. The article that appeared in the Brisbane " Cc>urier-Mail" of Saturday, purporting to be a description of the Bill is a transcript of three pages of the first d1;aft that was made for consideration. Hon. mem­bers and others who have been Ministers will understand what that means. The ~':latter is being investigated at the present dme.

:Ylr. MooRE: I am glad you recognise that. Talking about Budgets we prepared, you ~omendcd that thev were all final. (Opposi­tion laughter.) It is all right! You need not look like that. (Opposition laughter).

::\Ir. SPEAKER: Order !

The PRE~IIER : I am referring to Bills, lUr. Speaker, and the same, of course, applies to Budgets. Does anyone suggest that a Treasurer can sit down and prepare a Budget m the same manner as he would sit down and write a letter of acceptance to an invitation? Obviously there are many drafts of a Budget, and there are many drafts of Bills. Many Bills have been p1:epared that have never been introduced into Parliament. The hon. gentleman knows that.

::\[r. MooRE: I do, certainly.

The PRE::\HER: There were some .-ery interesting ones. With regard to the intcr­]Ccllon of the hon. gentleman regarding Budgets, \Yhat is disturbing the conscience of 1 he hon. gentleman is his proposal for the further 10 per cent. cut on wages. His Government intended to put that in the Budget but were not given the opportunity o~ preparing that Budg:et, not through lack ot clc>sJre to go ahead w1th it, but because in the interim the people intervened, and said that the Government of the hon. member for _-'\.ubigny should not prepare it, that it should he prepared by somebody else. That accounts for that result.

But the hon. gentJCinan is not going to put •ne off the point I intended to make-that the article that appeared in the Brisbano •· 9ouricr-l\iail" on Saturday was a trans-l'l pt of th roe pages of the first draft for

comideration. It is obvious that someone had illegal access to that draft. It is obvious also that the "Courier-Mail" printed something that wa, illegally obtained by someone. I think it \Yould be a o·ood thing for Parliament to lc"islate tha~ no Hill. or what purports to ben a Bill. should be pulJ!ishcd until it has been ordered to be nrinred by Parliament. I think that is a fair proposal?

HoKOcR.\BLE ::\IE:\IBERS: Hear. hear!

ThP PHE:VliER : Of couJ·sc. there arc occasions n heu it is quite proper fm ::\Iinis­tcrs to anuonncc legislation. and ll("' ~ugg('S­tion would not coYer .5uch ca~es, but the proYisions of Bills, a sight of which has been illPgall!· obtaiJJccl. should not be )1llb·

11"'11E:'c1 in the ne\vspapers. ::\Ir. GoDFREY ::\IORGAX: \Yill You trv to

find out the per~on ''"ho gayc -that. (iraft Bill to the ne,Yspapcr~?

The PRE::\IIER: :\Iy oath, I will!

:\h. l\lAHEH: It should not be clif!icnlt lo lo{'av, the \vrongdocr.

The l'RE:YIIEH : ::\ o. The scent is Yerv !Jot,, and in auv ca:-:e. we shall deal satl;~ factorilv with the culnrit. It is a verv undesil;Hble thing that ~lausos of Bills should be a\·ailablt: to one section of the Press C·nly. Parliament is the place in >vh;ch a Bill should be g·iven birth. Hon. m cm hors ougllt to Sf'C' it first and f'hould order \Yhcthev m no it shall be printed and then be rn·ai!­able to en'rybodv --not confined to smnc·boclv who has illcg·ally. obt';},lnPd an opportunity o.f having a look at it.

However. I r<>poat tbat we will use c om­pll't0 discretion and justice in l'Pf':arcl to lbe public intNcst in the exerci"· of thP authority~ ('0\-cred by 1n:v motion.

l)Llcst.ion--'· That the rPwlution (Jlr. .'<mith's motion) be ngTf'cd to "--put ancl (1<l."Pcl.

(-::\E::\1PLOYED WORKERS L'JSl~R. \::\CE ACTS AME::\D::\IE:\'T BILL.

IxniATJO~ rx Co11:HTTTH.

(Jfr. Hunson, Rurand((, in flu ch-tir.)

The SEC:HETAHY FOR LABOl'R A:\'D [:\Dl~STHY (Hon. M. P. limPs. /'rncns­rille) [11.17 a.m.j: T mOY<'- ,

.. That it i~ desirabh~ that a Bill he int;·orlucccl to amend · ThP l-nemplo.Yed \Y orkers T n~urnncc Acts. 1922 to 1933.' in certain particulars."

There arc only two principl<'s in this Bill. tile rcmo1·al of the existing income limita­tion of £300 pPr annurn, and an incrca~e from four to eight in the number of ilPpOl­dcnt childrPn in rc~pect of whon1 sustenanc0 ma:v be paid. That will bring the insurance benefits somewhat into line with the nrin­eiples adopted in administering the 1~rlCm­ployment Hclicf Fund. The estirnatPcl annual cost of the proposal to rcmo'e the existing income limitation of £300 per annum will mean an additional liabilitY oi £9.000. and the jncrca~e in the an1onnt for dcpen­dants a further liabilit·c of £6.000. so that !he total additional co~t to the St·nc will lw £15.000 per annum.

The;;o amendn1cnts haYc been rrcon1mcndcd b,- the unemplo:;mont Council. which is the !JOch- that has control of the fuud and of which T am the nominal director. The Cnernployn1cnt Insurance Fund is in :;.ucl! a po.,ition that we are able to rpstore almost eompletelv those benefit, ihot were taken uwa\· bv ·the amendment to the Act in 1930 [,,. the .Mooro Government.

The Unemployed Workers' Insurance Act is one of those pieces of soeial legislation of 1vhieh we. as a Labour Party, are intensely proud. The orig-inal Act. passed in 1922, pro.-ided that the fund would be provided by three equal contributions from the employer. the employee. and the Govern­ment. Provision \Vas made also that all employees paying into the fund were entitled to receive benefits from it, and that these pa:.·ments should be made for a maximum period of fifteen weeks in any twelve months. Certain benefits were also provided for casual \\·orkers. That Act worked well. as we expected, and gave satisfaction to both employees and employers. I believe that in a country mch as Queensland, where there is so n1uch seasonal work in prin1ary pro­duction. there should be some form of insur­a nee tc~ giye InaintP.nancc to seasonal workers

Hon. Jl. P. Hynes.]

1690 Unemployed Workers' Insurance [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

who. of noccseity, are out of employment for <t considerable period in every year. Sub­stantially that Act operated until 1930, in which year the Moore Government brought down an amending Bill that limited the pay­ment of unemployment insurance to persons who had received less than £220 in the tweh·e months prior to making application for sustenance. That, in my opinion. operated harshly on certain mem~bers of the comn1unity engaged in seasonal work in primary industries. For instance. shearers and ~ugar workers, in following their occu­pation::-:. haYC to keep t\yo hon1es going and have to travel about the country to get work. If thev earned £260 in the twelve months prior to making the application they were obliged to wait eight weeks before receiviniT any aid from the fund to which, it must b~· borne in mind, they had ccmtributed. More­over. the payment of benefits wae limited to thirteen weeks. as against fifteen weeks formerly.

\Ye made a definite promise that immedi­ately the money was available we would l"estore the benefits that were taken from the _,-orkers of Queemland by the JI.Ioore Act of 1930. We have almost completely reetored those benefits to what they were when we loft office in 1929, and this is a further indication that we are prepared at all times to carry O\lt the promises that we make to the people from the hustings. The fund to-day is in a sound financial position. V\Then \Ye made the statement that we intended to restore the whole of theee bene­fits, we intended the restoration to be a gradual process, since it was necessary that we should have due regard to the accumula­tion of reserYes to safeguard ua against any e1nergcncy that might arise.

It is worthy of mention that. as far as my inYestirsations go, of all the Unemployed vVorkers" Insurance Acts passed in the world prior to the depression, the Queensland Act. passed by a Labour Administration, is the only one that really survived the depres­sion. When \Ye took office in 1932. the fund had an oYerdraft of £1.300. We decided that we would build up a reserve fund that would enable us tD overcome an v difficulties that might occ~r consequent upo;r the econo­mic dislocation of industry. and so we set out to establish a reserve fund of £300 000. That objective has almost been achie'veGI, and w \YC are now able to remove the hardship in connection with the present income limit of £300 from the shoulders of many people who have had to bear it for a considerable time.

During our gradual restoration of the benefits, in 1933 we increased the income limit from £220 to £300, but there are still a certain number of industrialists who are suffering a disabilitv bv reason of that limitation. · '

In 1934 we also increased the number of weeks for which an unemployed insured worker could receiYe benefits from the fund from thirteen to fourteen. and last year the period was raised from fourteen to fifteen. \Ve ha ,.e also dealt fairly generously with i he ca"ual workers by restoring- to them many of the benefits that they lost when the Act was amended bv the Moore Government.

This Bill will gi~·c justice to people who by law are compelled to contribute to the fund, but who, under a preYious Govern­ment. were denied the right to receiYe any benefits. I have very much pleasure in

r Hon. Jl. P. IIynes.

introducing the Bill, because, with the amendments it makes, the Act will provi-de that the persons who contribute to the fund shall be eligible for the benefits that are set out in it.

Mr. MAHER (West Moreton) [11.27 a.m.]: I hardly think that the Minister did justice to himself in making a comparison between what was necessary during the depression period, when the ~1oore GoYernment were in power and the fund was rapidly approaching an insolvent condition, because of the ccono· mic circumstances that operated at that time, and the present time, when employ­ment is in a much healthier condition and the fund is in a very buoyant state. The amending Act of 1930 made an unemployed worker ineligible for sustenance if he had earned £220 during the previous twelYe months. but there was a proviso to the effect that the Government could, by Order in Council, authorise payments of susten­ance where they believed that otherwise unreasonable distress or hardship would result.

The Act also provided that where an unemplo:ce-d \Yorked earned £220 just prior to becoming unemployed he had to wait until his earnings and sustenance payments i•t the previous twPhe months fell below £220 before recei ying any benefit from the fund. In 1933 this income limit was raised to £300. and now the Minister proposes to abolish that limitation altogether. "\Ve haYe no objection at all to that course>. now that Uw fun-d is in a buoyant condition.

The existing law proYides that sustenance payments in respect of children under tlto ages of sixteen years ~hall be lin1iterl t.') four children. but the Bill increases that limit to eight children.

The ;}1inister has pointed out thP cost of these concessions will he Yery small. Tho figures for the two additional classes of bPncfits are £9.000 and £6.000 respectiYely. Th(~ fund is ill a buoyant position. It~ credit balance at the 30th June. 1930. wa' £35.785. wh,roas the expenditure for the year 1929-30 bad exceeded the receipts by £27.000. Therefore, whate,-er action was taken bv the }!oore Go,-crnment on that occasion. was justified. and it was taken at the behest and en the recommendation of the rnemployment Council, the bodv which the Minister eaid had made the recommen­dation for the present amendments. The )Ioore GoYernment were faced with figure' tha~ showed that the fund was being rapidly extingnishecl. and 111 order to preserYe tho fund the unemployment Council made a definite recom1nendation resulting in tha 1\Ioore Go' ernrnent's introducincr an an1ond~ ing- Bill in 1930. In the days ~f the :\Ioore UoYcnnnent the fund was approaching bank­ruptcy, \Yhcreas the position of the fund to-day is entirely different. 'The reccipb for the twelve months ended the 30th JullG last \Yore £307,419, and exceeded the cxpen­chturc for the same period by £50.894. The case to-day, therefore. is entirely different to that which facccl the Moorc GoYernmcnt in the period of stress that ruled during­the whole time that GoYernment were i1-1 po\ver.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOl"R A);D I);Dl"STR\": Fonr years of a Labour Govern1nent 1uay ha v£> n1ade son1t:.. difference

Mr. :\IAHER: Tlw La hour Go,·ernmcnt ha Ye been extremely fortuna-te in ti1e

Unemployed Workers' Insurance [24 NovEMBER.] Acts Amendment Bell. 1691

improvement of conditions, which are general throughout Australia. Moreover, whilst condemning the Moore Government for the various cuts and economies that were imposed during that period, they have actually sheltered behind them. That is a paradoxical situation. Here are. a Govern­ment that condemned the Moore Govern­ment with vigour and determination on the hustings, and yet are calmly sheltering behind every economy and cut that the Moore Government were called upon to impose. The same need for those cuts and economies has not existed in the past four years as between 1929-32.

:VIr. POWER: And you are still apologising

:VIr. MAHER : The hon. member for Baroona will be called npon to apologise to the publit; '':hen he faces this charge at the next election.

This fund is so buoyant at the present time that one or two more improvements might be considered by the Minister. The disbursements from it during the term of the present Government have been-

1932-33 1933-34 1934-35 1935-36

£ 315,000 336,000 386.000 452,000

The balance of the fund as at 30th June, 1936. was £307.419. an increase for 1935-36 of £50,894. As the fund is particularly buoyant, on,e or two matters arise for the ~onsideration of the Minister. These are {a) concessions in sustenance payments. or I hI reduced premiums. ·whether the fund will remain in such a prosperous condition a~ it is at the present time depends, of ~om·se, on the quantum of unemplovment, and that largely hinges on whether the loan, 'pendings are maintained at the exist­ing rate. Of course, the seasons play a rmrt. too--

The SECRETARY FOR LABOt'R AXD I:meSTRY: A big part.

:'\Ir. :\d'AHER: A big part. Nevertheless, the buoyancy of the fund is such that the Minister might· give consideration to the hvo points that I su!Ygest. In other respects, the Opposition find nothing to complain about in the Bill.

::VIr. 2\IOORE (Aubion11) [11.36 a.m.]: I was -cerv interested in the long ·dissertation by the· Minister on the generosity of the Government in slowly working up from the depths of depression to the height~ they have attained to-day, and to hear hJm say lJroudlv that thev have been able to improve the lot of the \~orker.

\Ye have to remember. however, that last vear a good deal of full-time work was g·iven bv the spending of over £2,500,000 of unemplovment relief funds, ])l'Oviclecl, of course, by the taxpayers who pay unemploy­meHt relief tax. They arc contributing to the fund and not dra\ving from it; those "-ho draw from the fund are what the Minister calls seasonal workers, who are paid a high rate of pay beca.use their work is intermittent. One of the arguments used in tlw Industrial Court for an increase in the rates of pay in ~ome industries js that the work is intermittent. and the workers should be paid such a rate as will enable them to earn enough to tide them over the period of unemployment. but in recognition of the fact that even the total amount thus

provided was not perhaps sufficient, the L:'nemployed \Vorkers' Insurance Act was passed.

The follmving table of figures shows the state of the fund over a period of five years:-

1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30

Excess of Receipts over Disbursements.

£ + 8,675 -97,434 -69,538 +52,331 -27,212

As a result, over a period of five years, the fund gave out an enormous amount more than it got in.

It was recognised that with the tremen­dous fall in prices of all primary products, and-as the Minister ,,aiel, climatic con­dition::; h3-YP a big influence on emplo:nuent­it was necessary that the people who were in a better position than others because their employment was seasonal, and so they got higher rates of pay, should not be able to take more than their share out of the fund than those who were contributing and who were not in such seasonal employment but had to suffer from drought and the big fall in pric<s equal!; \YJth them. Consequently­in order that tlJcY should be treated more fa irlv in that abn.mmal condition of affairs --it ·\\'lS decided that the scftsonal \Vorker ,ohould o·o on the same basis as the basic wage w~rkcr, and if he earned a high rate cf pay during the seven, eight, or ten months prior to his employment_. he should have to draw on the extra amount he got until £220 fer the t.\velve months was reached rather than that he should draw on the amount contributed bv people not so well off as he was but who were also Pntitlccl to get what they put into the fund.

There are numbers of people who never come under this insurance scheme. Although the Minister has quoted four years during "\\hi eh t11c1·e has been an increar-;ing credit Lalance in the fund, thet credit balance was nn1y llHlde possible by _,..the n10aa~)re:-:_ ~ha~ were taken in 1931. \v hen the l rermers Plan had to be put into operation there was not a chance of borrowing 6d. jn Australia or overseas. At that time Goyernments brought down their expenditure to amounts more in conformitv with their revenues, and it was onlv because of this action that they were able 'to borrow at all. I-Iowm·er, since then Governments in Queensland haYe been able to borrow and spend at the rate of approximately £4,000,000 a year, and they have also had the benefit of the unemploy­ment relief taxation; and as a large amount of that moneY has been expended in giving full-time emp-loyment to those who pay into 1 he TJnPnlploycd Insurance Fnnd. jt i:-- not a Yery generOllS action on the part of the Government to restore to the \Yor kers £15.000 owing- to an amendment of tht• Act in Yery cliflicnlt and n bnormal times. In­.o;tcad ~f the fuh:otne prai.-:e that the }1inister heaps upon himself and the patting of him­self on the back that was evident in his introductory speech, he might have apolo­~ic·> cl for not having sooner taken advantage ~f the opportunity afforded him.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOL'R AXD IXDI'STRY : This is the last act of restoration.

::\lr. :V100RE: One must recognise that the opportunity was present and could have

Ji r . .!l:l oore.1

1692 UJWmployed vVorkers' Insurance [ASSEMBLY.] Acfq Amendment Bill.

been taken advantage of by the Minister. It must also be recognised that only the tre­mendous burden of the unemployment relief taxation imposed on all sections of the com­munity is making it possible for the Govern­ment to restore this amount to those who are in seasonal occupations. Those people in the communitv who are in receipt of over £78 a year' a.nd arc contributing to the "Cnemploymcnt Relief Fund are making it possible for this restoration to be ma,de.

The prosperity we haYc to-day is almost entirely dependent upon the continued expenditure of large amounts of loan money, which last year increased the interest bill payable by the taxpayers of Queensland by over £56,000 and the expenditure of over £2,600.COO of rPlief tax funds. Undoubtedl_v the people had the pri,·ilege of getting " grcaH'r a1nount of cmployrnent bv thi~ expenditure, but the money disbursed did not return anything to the Treasur_v to help Jne('t the intC're;:;t blll. That has to co1ne from the taxpa:·c>rs. who. comequ(ntly. arc <'allcd npon to rnect an extra £56.000 a y<'ar in ord•'r that the Minis­ter may be able to take credit to himself for the increased prosperity that has been brought about by the expenditure of this loan !llOliC'-Y. It onh· nePdi'i .a di1ninution of the rate" of expend.iture of loan money to bring about a condition of affairs that tlw hon. gentleman would so aptly term " defla­tion." A sum of £56.000 a year is a fairlv large amount to pay to secure present pros. perity at the expense of the future. and there is no occasion for the l\Iinister to pat ~ims<;llf on the back for his generosity, which IS bemg attamo-d by the expenditure of large amounts of loan monev for which the tax­payer has to find the. amount for interest and sinking fund-I did not take sinking fund into account when I quoted £56,000 a year.

The :Minister is only doing what is reason­able and fair under the circumstances, but to my mind it would be infinitelv better were the C'v1inister to lea Ye the Act" as it is and reduce the• nnen1ployn1E'11t relief taxatiou. which all sections of the communitv haYe to pay, instead of maintaining the iJresent rates in order that he may be generous to a small section in tho unemployment insur­ance scheme. This small section will benefit at the expense of the remainder of the community. But for the unemployment relief taxation there would not be in the Unemployment Insurance Fund the surplus that is evident to"day; there is, therefore. no ground for the Minister's self-congratu­lation.

Question-" That the resolution (Jlr. HI.Jilf'8'8 motion) be agreed to ''-·[put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRi\IAN reported that the Committee

had come to a resolution. Resolution agreed to.

FIRST RE.IDT:\G.

The SECRETAHY FOR LABOUR AC\D I:'--TDUSTRY (Hon. ~!. P. H:mes. l'olcns­,·i/le) presented the Bill. and moYecl--

,, That the Bill be now read a first time."

Question put and passed.

Second reading 0f thC' Bill made <w Order 0f the D<Ly for a later hour of the sitting·.

[Mr. Moore.

SECOND READI:\G.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A!'\D I:'\I'DUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, 1'01rn.;­rille): I moYe-

" That the Bill be now read a second tin1e."

Mr. MAHER (Wrst ~vloreton) r11.47 a.m.]: I desire to point out that we have just debated the desirableness of introducing the Bill, and although I have had an opportu­nitv of perusing the Bill and discussing its terins and conditions in the initiatory stage, there are other hon. members in the House who have not had such an opportunity.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AKD INDcSTRY: Th" hon. gentleman agreed with the prin­ciples of the Bill. There is nothing con­tentious in it.

Mr. l\IAHER: That does not mean that the hon. gentleman should deny the right to other members of the Opposition to con­sider the Bill, and if necessary acldHss themselves to it.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOcR A:>~D INDcSTRY: \Yhere arP they?

Mr. MAHER : I do not think it is rig·ht to embark on the second readin~ stage of this Bill immediateh· after the initiatory stage, and I protes"t ag·ainst this extra-­ordinary course. After all. we are going to sit to-morrow, and the second reading could well have been left till then to gi vc all hon. members--

:\J r. SPEAKER : Order :

Mr. :\IAHER: I discussed the principles on the initiatory stage, and there is noth­ing more• I wish to add except that I should like time to go more deeply into the Bill, a.nd that other hon. mcm bers sitting behind l11E:' ought to haYc the sarnc opportunity.

The SECEET.\RY FOR L\BOCR A~D IxnLSTRY · rrltcrc are only hvo siinplc arnenchnents: and the hon. gentl0man is in agreement with them. Does he believe it to be the -dutv of th•· Opposition to talk where there is' no need for doing so?

:\Tr. :\IAHER: Xo. Lut there are certain forms in the House to be follm\'ed, and I think it is only right that the Minister should withdraw his motion till to-morro·s, or even a later stage in the present sitting, and give other hon. members an opportunity of ullClNstanding the nature of the Bill.

:\Ir. SPEAKER: Order! The House has already agreed that the second reading of lhe Bill be made an Order of the Dav for a ]uter hour of the sitting. \vhich m-eal1s at any ti1nc to-da,-. Therefore this is not the ~tEi.ge at which~ such a point nuty be raised. lie-n. m<'mbers will please confine their r·:n1arks to a -discussion of the principles contained in the Bill.

:\Ir. ~IOORE (.4ubiyny) [11.50 a.m.]: regret that I haYe not had an opportunit.v of reading- the Bill. The :Yiinister has tolrl lH mor0 or less what it means. but I fppl that there has been an abnsc of the discre· tion referred to this n1orning h:v the Pre:mi.- r.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOcR A:\D INDUSTRY: \_~ ou said yon v.-cre in agrce1neut l.Vith the BilL

~\Ir. :\IOORE: I do not know whethc1· I arn in agrePinent. '.Yith it or not. I have had no c·hance of reading it. l hrard what the

Unemployed Workers' Insumnee [24 NovE~lBEP..] Acts Amendment Bill. 1693

:Yiinister said a Lout it. but I ha 1·o known "11inisters to introduce Bills in this Chamber "·ho did not disclose everything m the Bill. although the fullest information was supposed to have been given. \Vhether or not that is the case here I have no meam Df knowing.

The fact that there is a credit balance in the Cncmploynwnt Tmurance Fund to-day has been mentioned, Gut I am entirely in the· dark as to the cost of the proposed <td•Ji­tional benefits, though the }1inistcr said they would amount to about £15,000 per annun1. \Ve must recognise that the existence of a credit balance is attributable, in a .-ery large measure, to the activities of the Government in work financed from the Unemployment Relief Fund, and not to normal employment. as the term " employ­ment " is generally understood. The con­tinuance of this credit balance is depen­dent entirely upon the continuation of relief wurk Queensland is justified in feeling that as the amount of unemployment decreases, the unemployment relief tax should be lessened. As the '!Yrinister said. one impor­tant t.hing to consider is the building up of reselTP funds a·deqnate to meet emergencies. The Mini..;tcr recognises that if we get into that position where we were between 1925 and 1929. when there was a big excess of disbursements oyer receipts, the Govern­ment mig;ht be in difficulties and might find it llf, rssan- to meet a deficiency in this func:l out of reyenue or loan funds.

Arr rhc Government justified in keeping np the present rates of contribution? If \Ye find "-c are getting too rnuch l110l1Py,

shoulc:l >W not consider the truth that the less the GoYcrnment take out of the pockets of the people the better it will be for the people and the more unemployment will be r0li0Yerl?

That p01·son would be extraordinary who, ha>:ing these two an1cnding clauses before him ·.,·ithout reading the former reJeyant legislation. can understand what they mean. The Bill is perfectly meaningless unless you hHe had time to look up the amending Act of 19ZJ but we haYe only just got the Bill and hctn' had no time to read it. It seems to me that the Minister has taken advan­tage of rhe position. and that we are not .able to obtain the necessary information.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOL'R AND IxtJGSTHY:

I can "o·cure vou that there i,- no intc·ntion Dn n1y rart t~ do what you sugge:'t.

:Yir. ::\JAHER: \Ylll- can :·on not go on with t!te JH.'xt Bill? ·

~Ir. SPEAKER: Order!

M>· J\IOORE: Whv should seasonal \vorker:3. \vho receive a higher wago because their occupation is a seasonal one, obtain more b€nefits from the fund than workers in occupations that are not seasonal but who Ita Ye to contribute to the fund on a similar basis? That subject is open to Y€ry much discn"ion. If seasonal workers arc bound to take more out of this fund than ordinary \\Urker.~ iu calling.s that are not of a seasonal nature they should contribute to the fund on a highci· scale, just the same as workers' comllensation promiu1ns are fixed according to the~ risk involved in the respective occupa­tions. The seasonal work€1' receives a higher rate of ·wage because his work is seasonal, and he is bound to have periods of unem­ployment. The Minister should consider

the advisableness of increasino- the rate to be paid h:v the worker 1vlto ~it is certain will draw more out of the fn11cl tlwn other \Yorkers.

If ,.,·c read past reports 1ve shall find that in 1929 over 10,000 sugar workers came on to the fund and together drew £93,000 in sustenance payn1ents, vvhereas the large ntunber {)f vvorkers on the basic \vage. who arc ~nbject to di.sn1jssal fro1n their {_'Illploy­ment. O\Ying to circtnn~tanccs OYPr ·v\-!Jich thl?y lw H'> llO COI1tl'Ol, ha cl not the f3.!lli~ opportunity of drawing sustenance benefits, although they had to contrlbute to the fund <.~t a si1nilar rate. V\.,.hv should thcv continuullv haYe to contril>ut~ to the fun2l on the ·~anre basis in ordQr that other worker.) who receive a higher rate of vvage shall get a greater benefit from the fund than thev '! That does not ;cem to me to be quite" fair to the ordinary worker. He is placed in an unfair position because he i~ not in .a soa.sonal industrY. and he ls not ;ubjcct to similar risks of being· unem­plnyPd. \Vhy shou1d he ha YP to contribute to the fund at a rate out of proportion to tlw benefits that he is Iikelv to receive? It scorns to n1E' that the w·orl~ers who are cer~ tain tc• recciYe the greater beiwfit should contribut0 in proportion to th€ amonnt of benefit that they ,,-ill rccei;-e.

The SECRETARY FOR LAnoc-R AXD IxDGSTRY. If tlw other workers become unemployed the>y will al.;o be entitled to snstenancP P''Y· tnents.

Mr. MOORE: Yes, but they haYe to take a risk. whereas the seasonal w·1rker is bet· ting on a certainty. A seasonal worker claims before the Industrial C0urt that he should be paid a higher rate of wage because of the seaeonal nature of his occupation, but he also kno>YS when he contributes to the Unernvloy,ncnt Insurance Fund at the sam~ rate a week a:::; the work0r "ho i~ not engaged in a ~easonal industry that he is CPrtain to draw greater benefit.':! from the fund than those other workers. Vi"hy should the' other workers have to contribute to the fund Oll the sa1ne ba-,is in or.d.er to provide greater lwnt'fits for workers who are better off than they arc thenbclves, in that thPy a re in J'eccipt of a hig·her ra.to of pay? The I\1iHistc r rnigl!t consider the ach-isableness of calling upon :shearers. 1niners. \vatcrside worl~ers. ~ugar workers, and other sea:-:.onal workers to contribute to the fund an arnounc commensurate with tho benefit that thev arl~ vC'rt2in to recciYe. It n1ight be sai(i that the sBasonal workers are battening on lhe other workers who have to contribute to the fund at the same rate. \Vorken' compensation premiurns arc assessed accord~ ing to the risk involved in the respective industries, but in this case the seasonal worker undertakes no risks-they are cer· tainties. Either the seasonal workers should be called upon to contribute on a higher scale or the existing rates applicablC' to othu workers should be reduce.cL

It hardlv seems fair that >Yorkers whose pay is fixed by the court at a lesser rate than that of seasonal workers should be compelled to contribute for the ben€lit of those seasonal "-orkers who arc eerta.in to benoilt from the fund. There is much to be said in fuyour of UlV contention. and the :\lmistcr mig:ht justly give cons;dcration to i l. After a I I, the ocheme was la unchcd to gnrncl again~t the risks of unEinployrnellt-

J[,·. JlooN' '

1694 Unemployed Workers' Insurance [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

not the certainty of it. The Unemployed \Vorkers' Insurance Act was introduced for the purpose of assisting workers who inad­.-ertently or through no fault of their own were put out o£ work, to obtain a certain amount of sustenance to tide them over the period of unemployment. It was not intended that the seasonal worker, who was getting a much higher rate of pay because lw was a seasonal worker, should be able to come on to the fund to tho extent that he is doing. One has only to look through the list of workers drawing benefits from the fund to know that seasonal workers are paying into the fund without any risk at all. Their drawing of benefits is a certainty, and they should therefore contribute in a greater ratio than people who are year after year contributing for some problemati­cal benefit, a benefit they may obtain at some uncertain time or may never get. The workers who are not engaged in seasonal call ings are making conditions easier for people who are on a basis of certainty, who are in a much better position than they, and who draw benefits from the fund in a much greater ratio than they contribute. It is unjust that both these classes of workers should contribute on the same basis. To say that workers should not receive benefit from the fund until their earnings in a. given twelve months fell below the basic wage was placing all workers on one basis, but the differential rates of payment in the two cases I have mentioned is unjust.

The Minister said that the Bill would restore what had been taken away from the workers. It was not unfairly taken away. The altered basis simply placed workers suffering from unemployment on exactly the same basis. Even then the seasonal worker was on a much better basis because in the first place his wagBs were fi;,ed on the basis that he was a seasonal worker, and in the second he was paying into thB fund the same rate as a worker engaged in other industries. There are many workBrs, such as nurses in hospitals, who are insuring against a. risk to which they are hardly liable to provide a fund as an annual con· tribution to other workers who have already been paid for their period of unemployment.

The SEORF:TARY FOR L.IBOC:R AXD IXDCSTm: : ::\ urses do benefit.

:\Ir. MOORE: There are a few instances in which they have benefited. Then therE' is a large number of GovBrnment employees who contribute to the fund and get nothing nut of it. There i·s also a large number of workers in continuous employment who get nothing out of the funcj, yet contribute for ;he benefit of those engaged in seasonal occupations, who, I repeat, are in a much kttcr posirion than they. It is unfair in fixing thB rate of payment to place one worker on the basis of risk and the other on the basis of certainty.

:\Ir. NDIJ\lll (OJ:ry) [12.3 p.m.]: I am wrry that the Minister is ruohing this Bill through without giving us much time for consideration, a!Lhough there is not much contentious matter in it. Economic condi­tions have improv0d, and it is only right that priYileges that were taken away from contributors in a time of stress should be restored in a time of comparative ease.

I regret that the Minister seized on this Bill to engage in a little propaganda and

[Mr. Moore.

to have a tilt at the Moore Government. He said that in 1930 the Moore Govern­ment enacted that a. worker who had received in excess of £220 in the preceding twelve months should not receivB benefits, but the Moore Government brought in a Bill providing for the very same thing that he said this Bill will do-build up reserves. The Minister went on to say that this fund was virtually the only unemployment insur­ance that stood the strain of the depression. Why did it do so? Simply because of the provisions of the 1930 amending Bill. If that Bill had not sought to protect the fund it would not l)e in the buoyant positiOn which the Minister finds it in. The action taken by the Moore Government very definitely safeguarded the fund, so that to-day it is possible for ncry worker to enjoy its benefits.

The responsibility lies with the Minister of saying whether the fund is buoyant enough to allow workers earning higher incomes than £300 to receive assistance from it. We know that the seasonal nature of the sugar industry is taken into consideration when the Industrial Court fixes wages in that industry; the court allowing for the fact that these employees will be out of work for a period of the year and fixing their wages at a level that will enable them to earn enough during the season to tide them over the time they are unemployed. The Minister should carefully consider whether he is not putting an undue strain on the fund. The :Minister should also bear in mind the possi· bility of another period of acute depression. No one can gainsay the fact that the pros­pects of prosperity in the future are not bright. There may be hard times ahead, and if undue inroads are made on the fund an injustice may be done to the workers in the future.

In regard to the clause increasing the number of children in respect of whom benefits may be paid from four to eight, I do not think that will be a burden on the fund, because there are not many families of eight children. I am pleased that the Minister is restoring that section of the Act, because I believe the man with a large family should get a greater benefit than the man with a small family.

I do not intend to oppose the Bill. If the ::Y1inister is satisfied that both conces­sions can be granted without any undue strain on the fund, I am content.

Question-" That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr. Hynes's motian)"-put and passed.

COMMITTEE. (J.lr. Hanson, Buranda, in the chair.)

Clames 1 to 3, both inclusiYC, agreed to.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without

amendment.

THIRD READIXG. The SECRETARY FOR LABOrR .'..::\D

I:NDCSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Tout!s­l'ille) [12.10 p.m.]: I mm·c-

" That the Bill be now read a. third tin1e.''

Question put and passed.

Pharmacy Acts [24 NoVEil>IBER.] Amendment Bill. 1695

PHA,RMACY ACTS AMEND:VlENT BILL.

SECOKD READ!XG.

Th,• SECRETARY FOR HEALTH ~-L'\D HO'\IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hun! on. Jt/uJ('I) [12.11 p.m.]: I move-

.. That the Bill be now read a 3l'Coltd tilllC."

On the introduction of the Bill I ga ,-e a very full outline of its provisions and al;o indicated what it was hoped would be accom­plished by it, and I do not think there is any need for a long second reading speech.

The need for the Bill arose as a result of the rc·"r'nt developln<?nt of con1pany cont l'~)l in the calling of pharmaceutical chemists, which has been causing concern, not only to the GoYernment of Queensland, but ni o those of the other States of Australia and the Dominion of Kew Zealand. Tht; 1\c\Y Zealand Government appointed a royal com­Inission to Investigate thjs business, ancL as E result. they h.1ve prohibited any exten,ion of company control in that Dominion until the 1st ~m· ember next. In the meantime the~- arc devising a method of dealing with the position. In that Dominion. a Burertu of Industn· has been created and has lw<l conferred i1pon it the power to license shops or factories or anything else that 1nay be refencd to it bv the Dominion Government. There they propose to control pharmacies by this method of licensing shops by which they can prevent the operation of an.v person who thn do not think should control a pharmaceutical chemist's businecs.

In New South \Vales an im·ostigation is taking place. In Victoria the practice we aim at has been prohibited for many years. The other States are also endeavouring to deal with this matter. I know of one com­pany operating in Queensland. the proprietor of which has \nitten me a letter in which he points out. or appears to think. that the Bill is aimed at him or his company. At the introductory stage of the measure I made it clear that the Bill is not aimed at any company or any individual at all. The Bill is desig·ncd for the purpose of securing an efficient service to the people of Queensland. They have an efficient and personal service from qualified chemists to-dav, and we are endeavouring to main­tain ·it for them. \Ye do not propose to take fron1 an:v e"Xisting c>ompan;,- any of the rights i-c has acquired. In reference to L. A. Wilkinson (Northern) Limited. Mr. Wilkiu­..;on ''rote to n1e on tlw n1aUer, but he i~ not being deprived of any of the businoR< ho has to-day. He takes the view that it is unfair that hcJ as n1anaging director of that company, should be held resnonsib],. for tlw '"tions of his emploYees. The Bill, of

provides tl1at dir~'ctors of cornp.ani(':~. <hall responsible for infamous conduct on tl1e part of the employees of the com­pan.L That is necessary.

::\Ir. ~\[\HER: 1\~hy i, it so drastic?

Tlw SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AJ'\Tl J-f(l}JE AFFAIRS: If Pari iamcnt does a thing. it should do it properly. There are compani(_,, en1plo~·ing managers or officer~ "·hom they compel to sail very close to the "·im! in order to make profits. and then. 'hr.uld anything happen. it is the emplo~·cp who loses his calling. Should any Govern­lllent f>ricouragc that sort of buslne:-;s ·: In Jnan:.- busines.sc::;, 1nanagcrs of indiYidual ~hor~ are cxpectPd to earn a cc·rtain pPr­{'Cnhu:c of pl"ofit. That is quite conunon in

Lu:3iuejs organisation in England. Quite a number of big chain stores in England operate on that system. A man remains manag0r of a branch shop only so long as he returns a certain percentage of profit; other­wise he automatically goes out of business. That obtains particulady in the catering trade-one of the biggest catering concerns in the old country was built up on that basis -and the same applies to smallgoods and tea firms. The company itself has no con­tact whatever with the management of the individual shop. It puts a manager in charge of the shop, all supplies have to be bought from the controlling company, and he has to return a certain percentage of profit. If there is any loss the manager is responsible. If, for example. butter lost weight in a smallgoods chain-store syst.em, the manager would haYe to give short wmght in order to get the requisite number. of shillings in respect of every hundredweight of butter to return the required percentage of profit. A system of that kind in the pha~­maceutical chemist's calling would be parti­cularly dangerous.

:VIr. M,\HER: Ho\\ does the hon. gentleman JUstif_,, the cancellation of a company'" license because of the infamous conduct of nn ernployec?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:L\D HOME AFFAIRS: If the hon. gentleman listens he will hear the explanation. I am explaining to the hon. gcntlen1an and to the Committee what takes place under the com­pany control of chain stores~it is not necessarily confined to the pharmacy trade. but it do;., apply to all trades I mention­smallgoods, cafe .. ,, and all sorts of chain stores-where the rnanagcr is put in. his goods must come from the controlling corn­pail,-, and he must rPturn . a certain fixe~l percentage on the goods \nth which he B

supplied. Obviously, if wnwthing is broken or gaPs bad, the manager must do .;;;ou1ething illf'gal or wrong to rnako up for the weight -or pay for it out of his m:n pocket. These companiH do not pay such liberal wages that a rnan can afford to stand ordinary losses out of his own pocket, and. consequently, he has to find some means of making up the shortage. If the tnanag·cr of a chemisf ~ shop has to return a certain flgu_rc, and through sorne wasta.ge or some acc1dent ~r cause not undC'r hr~ control son1e lo!"s B

incurred, h" must b0u tlw loss or find f:.OUlC wa \' of rnaking; it up. That is a very serious t'hino- in the 0a!ling of a chemist. especially i1~ dispensing prescriptions. If he use3 a chean drug instead of a dear one. as prescribed l:;y the doctor,. he is indulging in a very undesirable practiCe.

Mr. GODFREY MoRGA~: Chemists say that Jn·escriptions constitute only 20 per cent. of their trade.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH Ai\D HO :WE AFFAIRS: Well, that 20 per cent. of the trade is the most important part of it. and it is that which we arc endea,·ouring· to preserve to the people.

Mr. GoDFREY lYIORGAN: The dearest part.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH _l,ND HOME AFFAIRS: Yes•. ar.C: the most important. the part that requires the skill e,nd qualifications of the chemist. In order to dispense a prescription, a chemist must bo highly qualified and ,,killed. Anybody could s01l a box of pills or a bottle of Wood's Peppermint C'urc-I haYc done it myself. \Ye do not \Yant the suburban chemist's shop

Hon. E. JI. IJa,tlon.]

1696 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

or the small country town chemist's shop to be wiped out, because a personal service goes with this calling to-day that very few other callings have. Years ago, before the development of the limited liability or proprietary company, there was a personal contact in all business, but modern financial development in trade and commerce has altered all that. To-day, the bulk of goods that we buy is suppliecl by a company that has no soul and no morals. The shareholders of the company demand only one thing from the directors-a dividend on their ,hares.

::\Ir. :";;AHER: And commercial morals, too.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: No. If a shareholder im·ests monev in shares or stock. the one thing that interests him is the dividend pay­able. He is not in direct contact with the customer at all. There is a very old saying, the truth of which was very doubtful. that " There is no sentiment in business." There has alwavs been sentiment in business when the busin-ess man has come into direct contact with his client. Immediately the responsi· bility for the service is placed upon someone who has no contact whatever with the con­sumer, sentiment lapses. I suppo,e that the sPntiment attached to business is what made the names of S<' many old English commer­cial and manufacturing houses. The names of family businesses handed from father to son became household words the world over, because there was the personal attachment to the business. Such names were those of Holbrook. Morton. Keen, Roberts0n, and so on, and lines carrying those names stood high in public estimation as regards quality and Yalue because of the personal connection between the man who owned the name and the man who owned the busine-\8. Immedi­ately those concerns became companies and the personal contact died out, they fell into rhe same line of competition as any other firm. I know one gentleman in Brisbane who started off in a small way and eventually became one of the principal business men of the city. Some years ago he turned the concern into a limited liability c0mpany. He stayed in control of the business for a while as managing director and then threw it in. He told me that the' whole show had lost its soul since he handed it over to shareholders. and that, instead of having the nght to deal as he thought best with his customers and his employees, he was in the control of the shareholders who wanted nothing but dividends. This 'development in the modern commercial world has to a great extent robbed business of its sentiment.

:Vlr. l\1AHER: I disagree entirely with that a~sertion.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: I am not concerned >Yith that. I should think there would be something radically wrong with my politics rf the hon. member for West Moreton could disprove my statement.

In the pharmacy business there is still direct contact between the owner of the business and the community. Throughout the whole length and breadth of Queensland as a general rule the man owning the busi­ness makes up the prescriptions and deals directly with the people. That man is not in the same position as an employee selling patent medicines or ordinarv commercial commodities-tomato sauce or pickles, or wmethmg of the kmd. He is often called

[Hon. E.ll1. Hanlon.

upon to give advice. In some of the smaller towns and country districts where no doctor is available the chemist acts as doctor for the community, as far as he is able.

Mr. GoDFREY MoRGA::-i: The Bill will not help the country chemist. You know that.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH Al'\D HOME AFFAIRS: I do not know how it will hurt him.

Mr. GoDFREY MoRGAX : I will show you.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AJ\'D HOME AFFAIRS: The hon. member for Dalby has endeavoured to show me a good many things-without being very successful. I will listen to him in his turn. \Ye ,,re aim­ing to save the small chemists.

Mr. GoDFREY MORGAK: The city chemists.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order l

• The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A?\D HOME AFFAIRS: The hon. member for Dalbv is one of those members of Parliament who 'continually and persistently endeavour to create hostility between dwellers in the city and dwellers in the country.

l\11-. MAXWELL: Hear l hear l

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:\ll HOME AFFAIRS: ?\o one in the com­mumty does a greater disservice to the State than the man who endeavours to create that hostility, and any hem. member of this Home who desires to do his duty to the State will endeavour to bring about a community interest between all sections of the people in this State, and will not endeavom· to create geographical antagonism. Of course. the hon. member for Dalby will get up and say anything he can that will tend to giYe people in the Dalby area the impression that I am .doing something for people in Brisbane that will be detrimental to the country people. At the end of a short period I may have the opportunity of talking with the Dalby people as to the ills and virtues of this Bill, and I can assure the hon. member that I shall be quite happy to meet the people there and to discuss that or anv other matter with them. ,

\V c arc not concerned to help the company that is going to limit the sen-ice provided. by chemists-whether that company be a Queensland or an Australian or a foreign company. What we are concerned to do is to see that the personal services of a qualified chemist in Queensland are available to the people.

I said before that the obj cction by Mr. Wilkinson to the company's taking the responsibility for the acts of its servants is one that cannot be sustained. If his com­pany employed a person to deliver a packet of pills in the town and that employee, in driving the company's motor car, knocked down a pedestrian, his company would be responsible for the act of its employee. If in the profession of pharmacy the employee is the only one to suffer, and so loses his capacity to earn a living at all, obviously a different principle is applied. Apparently, it does not matter if a big business magnate does these things, but if the employee, in his endeaYonr to earn profits for the com­pany, is held to be guilty of professional misconduct and is deregistered by th<> Phar­macv Board. he can be thrown on to the scrap-heap and lose his chance for ever of earning a li>·elihood in his profession. The company must accept some .share of the

Pharmacy Acts [24 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1697

re"ponsibility in that connection. It must have some sense of its responsibilities towards itB employees and probably it will pay a salary that will secure for it the services of an employee who is not likely to get it mto trouble.

:;yrr. MAHER (lV est M oreton) [12.27 p.m.]: I do not think that the Government have given full consideration to all aspects of this important problem. Might I ask have the Government considered theoe ~spects of it?-

1. \Vhy chain stores tradin;; in nhar­maceutical goods only should be· pro­hibited?

2. Is the present difficulty of chemists due to the manufacturing and wholesale side of the business? . 3. Are prices too high, and will public mterests be adequately protected?

4. What will be the effect on invest­ment generally of the principle of pro­hibiting the introduction of new capital?

These are four important aspects of this problem.

I do not think that the Government have considered all that is involved in a measure of this kind. If the Bill gave temporary protection to existing interests-subject to a thorough investigation into the whole busi­ness-and such investigation was conducted in the public interest, it might be justified, but it cannot be justified unless such inYesti­gation is made and it can be shown that the public interests arc receiving full considera­tion. In New Zealand and other places, where a time limit of protection has been giYcn to existing pharmacists against the intrusion of Boots Limited, a condition has been made that the drug traffic must put its own house in order, and as a result dis­pensed medicines in those places ba Ye been considerably reduced in price. The chemists and druggists have recognised the inevita­bility of thinga, and have realised that if competition from this source waa allowed prices would be substantiallv reduced. Thev have recognised what wa~ necessary and have reduced prices in New Zealand.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:'\D 1-ImlE AFFAIRS: Under this Bill the Commissioner of Prices will have power to say what prices lw thinks are fair to be charg-ed to the public.

::\lr. MAHER: That is all eye\\ ash, because the Profitecring Prevention Act pro­vides that the Governor in Council ma\· declare to be subject to that Act " an;_, goods, \Vares, or merchandise, or any se1~~ vices rendered to the people, or any other things." That power is already contained lll that Act, and it is reallv redundant to set it out again in this Bnl. The power has never been exercised in the past in respect of charges imposed by chemists and druggists. That being so, is there anv cer­tainty that it will be enforced in the ftiture? If the Minister is sincere in his efforts to reduce the price of drugs to the public and if he is honest in his belief that cxc~ssive prices have been charged why did he not mvoke that power? There seems to be some justification for such a belief. became it has been stated in the Cham bC'l' that chemists and druggists haYe frequently acknowledged that there has been an inciination ou their part in the past to g-et a hig-her pric0 from the public than >vas justified. It was in

1936-3 H

that spirit that they approached the Minis­ter, and admitted their preparedness to allow the matter to be dealt with by the Commis­sioner of Prices. The po>H'r to fix these prices has existed all along, but the GoYern­ment have not invoked the aid of the Corn· miRSioner to determine what are fair and reasonable charges for drugs and medicines. To talk of the Commissioner of Prices as being able to solve that problem is mere eyewash. It would be far better if an investigation was made on the effective lines taken in New Zealand. There. a com­mittee of investigation went into the whole oubject of control.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD Ho;,JE AFFAIRS interjected.

::\Ir. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. :NIAHER : I quoted the section of the Profiteering Prevention Act of 1920 which states that the GoYe1·nor in Council may declare to be subject to the Act-

" any goods. wares, or merchandise, or any services rendered to the people, or any other things."

That is plain English. The Minister mu@t admit the power exists there for the l:o,-ern­ment to instruct the Commissioner of Prices to undertake an im·estigation of prices charged by chemists and druggists in this State. After all. price-fixing is more or less absurd. The party to which the Minister belongs has advocated this principle for the last thirty years. Although Labour appointed a Commissioner of Prices at much cost to the taxpayer, nevertheless it is­impossible to regulate market prices. There is the law of demand and supply. If the supply is limited and the demand is great the price must rise, and no Commissione1· of Prices can control it. After all. prices fixed bv the Commissioner are nominal. I know othat when some big companies operating in motor spirit, for example, ask for an increase of 1d, a gallon the Commis­sioner invariably grants it.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: Do you suggest that by doing so he is doing something dishonourable.,

:Mr. MAHER: I am a charitable person, and a.m particularly benevolent towards my fellow men. I am not suggesting any dis­honourable practice, but the fact remains that if those companies ask for an inCl'ease they inYariably get it. I do not know the method of investigation practised, but I sug­gest that in all the circumstances as I see them the Commissioner merely accepts the ycrsion of the con1panie~. They ~irnpl:v pro­duce evidence that there has been an increase in the price of petrol in the Dnited States of America, or the shipping rates have been increased, and the price is increased accord­in~ly. It is extraordinary that both the merchant and consumer appear to be satis­fied with the Commissioner and when every­body is happy there is not much to be gained by disturbing such a pleasing arrange­mc·nt. I suppose the consumer has to sub­mit to it, but he thinks the mere fact there is a Conunissioner of Jlric0s is an ~t:-:-.,urance that his interests are being looked after. The merchant would not depart from the system of price-fixing for anything. and apparently all parties are happy; so I sup­pose all political parties \Vould be inclined to sa,-, "Let sleeping dogs lie." I do not attach importance to the provision whereby the Con1n1issioncr of Price.5 can dctenuine

ftir. ftiaher.]

1698 Pharmacy Act8 [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

what are fair prices for medicines and other thi11gs.

There arc one or two phases of the Bill that I think are rather extraordinary. On the question of infamous conduct referred to uy the Minister, section 20 of the prin­cipal Act provides for the deregistration or suspension of any chemist adjudged by the board to be guilty of infamous conduct, and clause 7 of the Bill provides that a company or association or the chairman of directors or the manager of a company shall be -ubject to the same penalty where an PillployPe, in the course of his employment, rs found guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. Even if the action of the employee is done without the knowledge of the employing company or association, or even against the express instr1,1,ctions of his employer, it is still subject to the penalty of cancellation or suspension of its [;cence. I think that is a drastic and unjust pro­vi-ion-that the directors of a pharmaceutical company should be responsible for the action of an employee to the extent that they may lwve their license cancelled or suspended.

The question of infamous conduct in a profc"sional respect is to be det<ormined by tlw board. An employee might be a heavy drinker or tL drug addict, or he n1iglit haYe sorne personal feeling:; against his Ptnp]oycr. or be approached by a rival firm and offered a bribe to do something that would bt·ing about the cancellation of Lho licence of its competitors in trade. In such circum­sta nee.- a ·dishonest employee could commit an act that might result in the cancellation vf the licence of the firm bv which he wao employed. A case might happen where an employee' who had been reprimanded by his superiors for some wrongdoing, might be offered employment by a riYal firm and do something of a malicious nat!lre with the vbjcct of injuring the business interests of his employers. He might be adjudged guilt;· ot Infamous conduct of a professional nnturp thar would result in the cancellation of the licence of his employers. That is a verv unjust provision, and I could not see any­thing in what the Minister had to sav to justify holding the manager or directors of a company or association answerable for the failings of one of their employees. It is Yf'l',l' difficult to understand why a provision sllOuld be inserted that might cause employers to find that because an employee of theirs was found gu.ilty of infamous conduct against their express orders they would be liah:e to have their license cancelled. Where is the justice of such a provision? An employee could .do something that would come under this heading of infamous con­duct entirely without the knowledge of the managers of the company, but they are to be answerable. Should not the person who i, guilt:<' accept the responsibility and take tlw pnmohment, not the innocent party?

In connection with the license fees to be impo,ecl on chemists, I desire to make a comparison. A shop m· dispensary stvloo a pharmaceutical chemist's shop must be licensed. The fee chargeable is 10s. 6d. per annum. The amount appears small when compared with the amount of £2 2s. that a stockow!1er has t~ pay for the registration of a stallion, e~]JCCially, as very frequently, a .. stockowner wrll earn a great deal less in a Year· than will the proprietor of a chemist's bu~iness. MoreoYer, a sn1all dairv farn1er having three bulls has to pay aii annual

[Jlr. Illaher.

license fee of Ss. in respect of each bulL By comparison a chemist or druggist is to be let off very lightly.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND H01IE AFFAIRS: You are at liberty to move an amendment and increase the amount.

Mr. :MAHER : I am merely commenting, in passing, on the smallness of the license fee to be collected from a chemist as agaii!Bt license fees imposed on the primary pro­ducers in various directions by legislation originated by the present Government.

Another provision in the Bill that is most unfair is that which providm that a com­pany or association consisting wholly of pharmaceutical chemists may not increase the number of its shops. Of course, this is ono of the vital principles contained in the Bill-the restriction of company enterprise. I am one of those persons who recognise the importance of preserving the rights of the individual, but nobody can mistake the modem trend-the aggregation of capital to reduce costs. It is apparent in every direc­tion. In even countrv in the world com­panies, trusts, ;nd cornbines have been incor­porated to strengthen their position finan­cially for the purpose of meeting competi­tion and in order to give employment to a wider range of people by reducing the cost of the product. But for this modern busine .. s organisation there could never have taken place that dewlopment which is evidenced in all industrial activities during the past thirty years.

'The SECRETARY FOR HF..'.LTH AXD Hmrr. AFFAIRS: You know, do you not, that when a combine obtains control of anv industrv it makes every consumer pay a hi .. gher price for the product?

Mr. MAHER: 'The hon. gentleman should know that. He created a monopoly for the brewery interests of Queensland. All the individual hotels are gradually falling into the hands of the brewerv interests of the State. The hon. gentleman should know something about the matter.

The point, however, is that what I han> stated is the modern trend. It is to be found in everv countrv. If industrial concerns wish to" maintaii-r their export trade, con­tinllte the employment of large numbers of vvorker~. and rneet their competitors frorn other countries, it has been found necessary for them to mass their capital resources in the way of companies, tru,;ts. and combines in order that they may become financially stronger and able to produce their article in a big wny at a lower rost. To endeavour to pren:-nt thnt trend i~ analog-ous to trying­to make water run uphill. YVater will find its own level. Although we may legislate to do certain things and make close pre­serves for certain interec.;ts and trv to rnain­tain prices at a certain level, it .. cannot be dcn0 inclcfinite1Y. \Yav~ and rneau~ \Vill bt' found in all tr~des-iri pharmacy as well a..s in other businesses-to overcorne these legifi­lati Ye prohibitions. If goods can be pro­duced at a chPaper price. an avenue for selling them will be found. It seems to me that W(~ are doing something '\Tong in thi~ Bill and a very grave injustice to the State when we seck to prohibit in such a drastic manner the investment of capital. either from the Southern States or overseas, which rnight mean the introduction of more efficient busi­ness n1ethods and co11fer a genuine benefit on the people of the State.

Pharmacy Acts [24 :NOVE~IBER.] Amendment Bill. 1691}

It seems ridiculous to have a provisiOn in the Bill that a company that has been <;perating in the State may not change its name. In other words, it can sell out its interest, but the name must be preserved. It is possible that a firm might have operated a number of chain stores-pharmaceutical or otherwise-fallen into popular disrepute. lost business, and found it necesaary to sell out. Is it right that the incoming purchaser should be called upon by legislative enact­ment to retain the name of the firm that brought that name into popular disfavour? If I buy a business to-morrow, I want that busmess run under my name, so that the people will know with whom they are deal­ing. I do not want to be trading under false colour~. and have somebody else's name over the business in which my money is mvested. \Vhere then is the justification for forcing this principle on the purchasers of a company pharmacy business, that the name of the vendor shall be retained on the premises m stead of the name of the purchaser? It is a very extraordinary provision. Let a man sail under his true colours and put up aboYe his building his own name! Let him advertise under his own name and let the public know with whom they ~re deal· ing!

Another point worthy of consideration is the power of the Pharmacy Board. Taking the control of appointments from the board and putting it in the hands of the Minister is consistent with the trend since 1917. Under thP 1917 Act, the registrar waa elected by the pharmaceutical chemists of Queensland and all other officers were appointed by th~ board. "Gncler the Medical and Other Acts Ame~dment Act of 1933 the registrar was appomtecl by the Governor in Council and all other officers by the board. Under this Bill, however, the registrar and all other officers will be appointed by the Governor in Council, which of cout·so means the Minister, upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner. It is a further C'Xample of the trend displayed in much recent legislation, partic11.larly that enacted smce the present Government came into pn>Yer in 1932, narrwly, the ccntmlising of all the power under the :Ministers of the various departmenta concerned. \Vhv should not. the board have some say in the matter as 111 the past? vVhat conditions ha Ye opera tee! to justify removing the control from the board? Is it right that the Minister should have the sole say?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HoME _-\FL\IRS: \Vhat board arc you talking about?

:\fr. :YlAHER: The board g'''"crncd by this Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH .GD HoME _\FFAJRS: What board is t.hat?

=~lr. :YL.\HER: The Pharmacy Board.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HmiE _\FFAIRS: \Vhat power has been taken from it•?

::\Ir. :VlAHER: In 1917 the registrar was ,,lected by the pharmaceutical chemists, and all other officers were appointed bv the Phar­macy Board. Under the Medical" and Other Acts' Amendment Act of 1933 the registrar \Yas appointed by the Governor in Council and all other officers by the board. l'ncler rhis Bill the registrar and all other officers "·ill be appointed by the Govern0r in Council.

Aclmittecllv it will be done on the rPcom­menclatimi of the Public Service Commis­sioner, but the change shows the truth of my argument that the control of the boards and industries is becon1ing socialised 1nore and more and the "Minister is on top.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND Ho:>rE AFFAIRS : D0 you not think it is right that the Government should take a keen interest in a board that has such a big effect on the welfare of the community?

Mr. MAHER: The Government always have the necessary pov-.,.er, and are supren1e in all things. The Minister shonld allow the practical men who constitute the Pharmacy Board to have son10 voice, as was recognised in 1917. and to a lesser extent so recentlv as 1933. Broadly speaking, the main object;0ns that I haYe to the Bill--

HoxocR.\BLE :VIE:IIBERS conversing in loud lOill'-.

l\Ir. SPEAKER: Order ! There is far too much loud conversation in the Chamber to-clay. It is almost impossible to unclentancl what the speaker is saying.

:\lr. :\1AHER: I cannot see why only the chain stores dealing in pharmaceutical goocls slwuld be prohibited. If it is right to pro­hibit the chain-store system in respect of the pharmacv business it is right to do so in H'Spect of the hotel trade. "If the one thing is wrong, it is also wrong to allow the breweries to acquire hotel alter hotel. ThEl" Minister is strongly opposed to the chain­store principle in the case 0f pharmac,· busi­nesses. but he is in favour of it in the case of hotels. The breweries arc acqninng hundreds of hotels that were pre\ wusl: owned b~· incliviclual or family hotelkcepers. The chain-store principle is evident!:" good there, but the Minister does not think it is good in the case of the pharmacies. There are grocery rhain st0rcs, too. such as H. A .. l\Ianahan and Sons, Limited, the B.B.C., and Barry and Roberts. Limited. Othe1· firms of that kind have a number of chain ;;tares yet there has been no attempt to pro­hibit the extension of that svstem in the grocery business. Therefore, it' is Yery cli,ffi· cult for me to understand whv the extension of the chain-store syRtenl in· the plHtnnaey business is deprecated by the Govenmwnt.

On the other side of the picture arises the efiect of lep:islation Df this kind on the individual chemist. I do not think that the individual chemist has anything to fear even if a company such as Boots LimitNl­ap.·ainst ·whom this legislation is particnlarl~t directed-came here. After all is '·aiel and done, I do not think that a company like this would be sati ·lied with a few retail shops in Queensland. rt would want to begin 1nanufacturing. That is \~:here the money lies---manufacturing- in a largp -..vay. Its object IYould be to hayc a manufact11ring plant somewhe1·e in Anstralia to feed the retail distributing houses that it mip:ht obtain. If that i the case, then I Yt•nture the opinion that the incli,-idual chemi.st would be in no worse position than he is to-clay. because the new company. with ·its clwrp and efficient svstem of manufacturc-\vhich it apparently. has. in order to have sUCCP"ded in the wav that it has in Great Britain-"·ould make cheaper drugs aYaiJable to the inc\ivi­dua] chemist <in the State, \vhcren·r he

::\[r. DcXSTAX: You are not as innoced a.,; all that.

Jir. Jiaher. i

1700 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

:'.fr. MAHER: I say that there has been an abundance of capital in Australia for the extension of pharmacy enterprise. The company, L. A. Wilkinson (Northern) Pro­prietary Limited, was not prohibited under existing legislation from extending the num­ber of its chain drnggists' shops through­out the State. Therefore, if the individual chemist is fearful to-day of some over;;eas competitor, he had as much to fear from L. A. Wilkinson (Northern) Proprietary Limited during the last few years. There was nothing to stop Mr. Wilkinson from acquiring additional capital and entering into competition with individual chemists on a greater scale than he did, but apparently he had summed up the prospects of the Queensland market and was satisfied that in many places where individual chemists were operating he could not compete against them, and he did not enter their province. :Neither would a company such as Boots Limited.

There is a v·ery grave principle inYolved here. If we stop-as by this legislation we shall-the introduction of capital from Great Britain or from the Southern States in the case of the pharmacy business, will it not give the impre>sion to investors in other industrial undertakings that they are. not wanted in Queensland? That is one of the gravest objections I have to the Bill-the· feeling that will be created in the minds of overseas and Southern investors that the people of Queensland want to bring up their industries under hothouse conditions and to pass legislation that will make' this State a close preserve for those who are already engaged in business-that they do not wish to encourage the introduction of fresh capi­tal for the extension of trade and industrv within their borders. •

That is the way I see it, and it is one of the gravest objections I have to the Bill. I fear the impression that will be created m the minds of men who have money to invest in other activities. Are we justified in running up against the laws of free competition? After all, business has been built up on healthy competition, and when we decide to establish hothouse conditions I submit we are heading for industrial ruin and decay.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: How old are you?

Mr. MAHER: I am old enough to know that I have been able to sustain myself in my b~siness operations only by meeting •competitiOn.

At 2 p.m., The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. Hanson

lJur,wda) relieved Mr. Speaker in the chair:

::Vlr. MAHER: At one time in mv own business operations we were met with sub­stantial competition. We feared its effects. because we were o.nly a small concern at the time and our competitors were a more highly capitalised and stronger combinatiou. YV e had either to adjust our business methods and our system of trading to meet the new competition or go out of business. \Ve learned something from our competitors. \V e learned something from their methods. They had systematised their business and made it highly efficient, and it was not long before we became aware of the methods they adopted. When we applied those methods. which were more up-to-date and more efficient, they helped to lower our costs and

[Mr. Maher.

we were able to meet that competition. So it is in all industry. If there is not the stimulus of free competition, industry is inclined to lose its punch. Competition keeps trade and commerce alive. One thing that makes for the failure of Government enter· prise is often the lack of competition. The State has a monopoly. The Minister was a member of the Labour Party when a State Labour Government had their State trading enterprises operating. One of the factors that helped to kill those enterprises was that they were more or less close preserves and protected by the State from competition. Take the State butcher shops. They were able to buy cattle at a cheaper price than the ordinary butcher, yet the ordinary butcher was able to undersell the State shops and finally gave them a knockout blow. What makes for vitality? What makes for efficiency and healthy outlook in commercial enterprises? It is this factor of competition. J'\one of us likes this competition when it arises, but we meet it and adjust ourselves to the new conditions.

If we were allowed free competition in the matter of chain-store enterprises, if we did not introduce prohibitory legislation at this time and allowed overseas or Southern capital trJ flow freely into the State, then the ven­reasons that promote their efficiency and success and enable them to thrive would soon be adopted by their competitors, who -would adjust themselves to the changed circum­stances. Very few would be hurt in the process. The fear that entered the hearts of existing pharmacists in Queensland at the announcement that these compallles were coming to Queensland was only the fear of competition. If Boots Limited had freP access to our markets it would not be satisfied with the possession of retail shops, but it would enter the manufacturing sid.e of the business and by its efficiency and systematic methods in manufacture produce drugs at a lower cost, and the individual chemist would benefit.

That brings me to the point I '?ade during the introductory stage of the B1Il, that the interests in this State that are most concerr:ed are the representatives of the large Austrahan manufacturing druggists. Th~re ar_e !Hg interests involved there, and b1g capltahsa­tion and they have had this market to them. selv~s for a number of years ?uring which they have been able to take big profits. A perusal of the . ba~ance-sheets .of. the wf!ole­sale druggists md1cates that 1t IS. a h~ghly profitable business. 0! co_urse, the. md1ndu~l chem:et possesses a scientific trammg, and IS competent in pharmaceutical matters, but he has to buy his products from the peOJ?Ie who manufacture them-and pay the pnce they demand. That being so; .the individual chemist need not concern h1mself In the struggle for mastery-the battle that .is taking place to-day between those two b1g aggregations of capital, namely, Bo_ots Limited, from overseas, and the Australian drug houses.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND Ho;~JE AFFAIRS: You are backing the overseas firm against the Australian firms.

Mr. MA HER: All I am concerned with is the public interest. I say the chain stores, whether they are in the realm of pharmacy, drapery, or grocery, have been the workers' friend and the friend of the people, because as a result of their adopt­ing a systematic. method of business and of their efficiency costs have been reduced and

Pharmacy Acts [24 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1701

the price paid by the workers, . ":nd the people generally, for these commodities haYe been reduced, thus giving them a service that hitherto tbev never had. Great Britain i~ riveted through and through with chaju stores. I know that arguments can be adduced in opposition to that system, hut after all a svstem that is fair and just and that subscribes to our laws and pays our inclu:_;.tri~l "\vages and at the same tin10 sells products cheaplr cannot lightly be turned aside. The real battle is being fought between the big interests that are disputmg the Australian market. The indivitlual chemist fears a bugbear, because he has been told that if certain things happen he will be the victim; but in point of fact he will not he the victim, because the victim will bf' the Australian drug houses, which hav,. been dealing unfairly with their chemist clientele, and through them the Aus­tralian public-unless thcv adjust themseh·os to the competition. Of course, that is what will happen. Ko doubt they are in as good a po-•ition to meet the competition of Boots Limite,] as anybody else. vVhen a big machi,erv firm entered into the Australian m a rkct ;otne years ago a great cry went up that the big firm \Vould destroy the local mamdacturcrs, but it di cl not.

The SECRETUlY FOR HEALTH AND Ho:~rE AFF.IlRf' : There is protection for our lOLc1l manufacturers.

:\Ir. :\LU-IER : If Boots Limited endea­vourPrl to bring in cheap products that would irnerfpre unreasonablv with local manufac­turer, the tariff caul~! be used in the same way to give protection to the Australian whole• ale drug manufacturer. For logically the"' overseas people \vould soon cease to import their articles for the Australian mar­ket. Their purpose is to manufacture here. to intl'oduce new capital into our midst. and establi<h retail houses, on the one hand for the distribution of those goods, and on the other to enter into competition with exist­ing Au~traJian finns tnanufacturing drngs for the individual chemist.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: That applies to all businesses.

:\h. :\lAHER: Whv then shculd we endeavour to stop ent0rprisc? Our object shou le! he to encourage it, and if our system, whcn,0r that of the pharmaceutical chemist or ntlJCl'\Yi~c. is so inf'fficiPnt that it cannot adjn<t itself to the new conditions then it must ;!O. One cannot hold hack the incoming tide. If a svstem cf business can be intro­duced into (~ueensland that will make for grPatcr efficiency, greater competency, and chc·al'"ll costs then it is futile to trv to prevent it. :'\evertheless, this Bill sets out to make it impossible for thosP who wish to do '0 to invest money in the pharmacy busi­ness in Queensland by company operations. That is a retrograde movement. and will react in other directions to the detriment of the State.

I do not think that the countrv chemist has anything at all to fear if this Bill is not pa8'rd. He has a personal following, and Yery frequently he is the only chemist in the to·wn.

Tll(' SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~D HO:l!E AFFAIRS: '\Yhat about the city chemists?

:\Ir. :\IAHER: Citv chemists have also a personal following, too, if they are good chemi>ts and good advisers to clients. The city d1emist ha, not a great .deal to fear

either. but he mav haYe much to learn from people who haYe. devised methods whereb:c thev have succeeded in other countries. If I agree to the principle contained in this Bill and gi,·e protection to the chemists of this State in the manner for which the Bill provides I am then im·olved in the prin­ciple, and if next ,·ear the Government bring down another Bill to giYe protection to the butcher. the baker, and candlestick maker. and all the rami(icatious of industry, to be consifitcnt I rnust support those n1casure5. But I cannot.

1\1r. Dl:r\STAX: That is, in private enter­prise you do nct bPlieve 1n protection for the small man.

:VIr. l\fAHER: I do believe m protection for the small man as far as rna v be reason­ablf'. hut we must recognise the trend of business organisation. If one desires cheap­ness of ('OSt. efficiency, and serYicc in any trading- business one must not stand in the way o~f those who are able to give the'-e things. But that is what we arc to-day doing. \\~e are endeavouring to perpetuate high prices and inefficiency in business against the invasion of capital that can reduce costs, g1Ye greater pfficiencv, and for all we know manu­facture the goods in our own State. I venture to sav that if the Minister \vere to approach the 'representatives of this firm against which this Bill is specificallv directed, it 1night, in return for certain ~concessions. establish a factorv in the State that would give employmeni ·to 5.000 or 6.000 workers. Nobodv knows "·hat wattle! be the outcome. Thc~e ~matters are open to bargaining, and who would r<'ject such an offer if it was made 9 \Ve must face up to the facts and use common sense in these matters. After all. the sentiment of private friendship for many who arc chemists and druggi~ts ~annat and must not sway our judgment in these things. \Ye should take a very wrong view and adopt a principle entirely foreign to Queens­land in passing a Bill of this nature, which seeks to make this State a close prcsenc for those already engaged in the pharmaceutical trade.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~n HmrE AFFAIRS: \Vhat about reading the Bill.

Mr. MAHER: I haYe read the Bill closely.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~n Ho:~rE AFFAIRS: vYe are not stopping anybody.

Mr. :iYIAHER: \Ye are stopping com· panics from extending their enterprise in this State. That is wrong. VIe should encourage all those with money to invest it and let those already in bnsines~ meet that competition-as they can if they try. . In doing that, a system of greater efficiency would be established.

Mr. Dt;NSTA~: The apothecary knows his own pills, and you cannot sugar-coat them for him.

Mr. MAHER: That mav be so, but he naturally wants to keep the Lest conditions he can. I am not blaming the apothecan· for trvino- to retain all the conditions he now 8nj;ys. Chemists and druggists are human the same as the rest of us, and any \vho have special privileges wish to retain them as long as possible, but the pubhc interest must be considered. Hon. members of the Labour I'artv do not consider the incliYidual either. ff we accept their poli­tical Yicw~, they stand for the principle of

Mr.lllaher.]

1702 Pharmacy Acts [ ASSE:YIBL Y.] Amendment Bill.

Socialism, which is that the State shall con· trol all. The individual cannot stand against State control. The Government of which the Minister and other hon. members oppo­site are members have adopted this system oi State enterprise and State Socialism in times past. Enterprises were .established to compete against the individual and entered into competition with them very unfairly, because the State did not contribute any­thing to the Treasury in income tax, through its butcher shops, fish shops, cattle stations, and other enterprises. These entered into competition with the small individual traders. There was no sentiment in it. It is difficult to understand this new-found friendship of self-avow·ed Socialists who will support State control and wipe out the individual. If I understand anything· of Socialism, it simply means mass production by the State and reduced costs. I think I know as much about it as hon. members opposite, and if they remember the objec· tive of their party they will know that it is identical with the objective of the Com­munist Party; they recognise that Socialism means that the State shall control all, and if the State. ccmtrols all, obviously the manufacture of everything must be under­taken by the State, and according to their theory will therefore be cheaper for the "\"1-orker. Here \ve haYe a condition arising that Edward Bellamy, a great Socialist \niter and thinker. who wrote " Looking Backward." spoke of when he Yisitcd Detroit. There he saw the works of Henry Ford and the \vclfare system which Ford inaugurated, and he recanted everything he had ever "Written in "Looking Back\Yard." He said, "Here is capitalistic Socialism: hero is a ,~·stem that is better than anything I haYe eYer adYocated before. There is more effici­rncy and sympathetic understanding amongst rhose who work in industrv under this form of capitali•tic Socialism ·than oYer there iYas uuder State Socialism."

The very system that Ford perfected at Detroit, whereby he is able to conquer the markets of the world. is here made available to us in regard to pharmaceutical products. The Government say "No, the people must not' have these adYantages. We do not want those companies and we do not want their capital. \Vo do not want their enterprise atnongst us. \Ye have nothlng to learn from them. \Ye are going to make Queens· :and a close prcserYe for those already engaged in the enterprise and to make the State a hothouse in regard to industrial conditions and stifle competition." That is entirely \Yl'Ong.

I regret that I cannot support this Bill, in spite of the contention that it is franwd to help the indivi·dual chemist, because of the principles it iln~o1Ye3. I cannot see why \VC

should object to the extension of chain Etores so long as they subscribe to our laws and trade fairly and honestly, and pay the prescribed wages, meet their rates and taxes. and carry on in a proper way. For that reason. and also because it seems to be dictated largely by those who have money 1nYcstcd in the v...-holc~alr> nlanufa<'tnrinp: of dmgs in Australia. I object to the BilL 2\Ioreover. I thimk that the people are entitled to the advantage of cheaper prices for drugs. Prices have been very high­' I'Hl for those \vho could afford to pay. The ,-ictims of ill-health who cannot afford to t,uy n1eclicincs at high prices should bP

[Jlr. 31ahcr.

entitled to some consideration, but there is nothing in the Bill to give any assurance of it. The power that the Minister takes is already in the Profiteering Prevention Act and need only have been operated if the GoYernment were anxious to reduce the price of drugs. For those reasons I cannot see eve to eve with the Government in intro­clucing the Bill. and I am opposed to it.

:\Ir. GODFREY MORGA::--J (Dalhy) [2.24 p.m.]: I cannot congratulate the :\Iinister for any enthusiasm he has put into this BilL I have seen him to much greater advantage on many other occasions. I think that he eeallv is not "hot " on the Bill. and from his speech in introducing it, and his remarks at the second reading stage, a·nd from certain replies to interjections, I beJie,·e that he really introduced the Bill as a duty forced upon him. I do not think that the ::\finister belim·es in the Bill, because he has already brought in legislation to a1low hotels to be run as chain hotels throughout tlw State, and we know that he believes in chain " Golden Casket" agencies. In fact. he thinks it is a good thing for one man to own a nun1bcr of agf'ncies, becau:--P he i~ able to advertise in such a wa v a.• to sell more tickete. The fact that one man controls a dozen " Golden Casket " agencies will, he thinks, lead to a greater income for the " Golden Casket " than would be made b:v single shops.

If the "'1inistor is of that opinion in tbat connection-and I belieYc he is~"·Jn; i~ he not of the same opinion in connection with chelni:-:;h;' shops? At the present tilne the .\et provides that there shall be a 'lualificd ('hcn1ist at every chen1ist's shop. and if one 1nan has half a dozen shops in varion." part~ d the cit:-· he mu.-t haYe a qualified man at each one to make up prescription•. The ~linif'tcr stre:-:-:-cd the in1portance of LaYing qualified chemists a Yailable for the service nf the public so that when a man came in and sair! that he was suffering from this. that. or the other thing the chemi't could haYe a little homely talk to him a!ed say. " I think this prescription will pnt you right and there will be no need for you to con­sult a doctor." Verv often the 1110d icine prescribed hy the chemist gives relief. That is just \Yhat happens to-day. If the peopl<' concerned are not eYading the Act. ibr re is a qualified chemist :in every shop \Yho can ach·isc people about their ailment• and whether thev should consult a doctc: He utn sav, "i can n1ake you up a p!'t -~erip­tion." .. and Yerv often the merlicim· ha, beneficial result~.

This Bill will not help the conntr~· d,emist in a11:, way. He would not be affected if the Bill was not passed. b0cause a ron~lHl n~- like Boots Limited would not e5tablish · countrv towns. \Ve kno1Y Ycrv \Ycl: chen1is"ts' shops are usually opened in country towns by young chemistc; who haYc to do all the work thcmsPlves anf1 in n1anv c:1.:::e ran­not afford to emplo:v· eyen a boy. Surh a chemist has to make up the prescrir;tions. but if someone knocks on the counter he has to leaYe the prescription and rush out and se ne the customer with a toothbrush. a not o: vaseline, or something like that. :\incty 11er cent. of his business is o\·er-tht'-( Jnnte1· sales. The chemists in Brisbane' have admitted that 80 per cent. of th"ir hll'iness represents sales over the counter. Is it necessary to have a qualified chemi•" t·) sell those goods? \Vhy should a qualified cLemist

Pharmacy Acts [24 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1703

ha Yf' rush n wa5· from his dispen::,ing ,.;ark to a custorner a pot of vascline or :-<onre-thinfi of that 30l't when the sale could bt• Jnac1(' Ly thP ordinary intelligent boy or ;iirl '! \Ye al'o know that before \Yool­worths and Coles opened business here and sold patent rnedicinc;;;. a per:5on who l'Pquircd tho:5c thing~ had to go to a chen1ist'~ shop and pay at least 20 per cent. more fot· them thau be is paying to-day. As soon a::: those bi;i hain stores orened and solei patent rnedi~incs and similar things, the chernists rcdm·ed their prices of them. Tlwy lme\c perfectly \VCll that they would have to sell for t.he sarne prices as the big clJaiu stores wct·c· selling for. \Yho benefited by that': Pate: t rncdicines are sold by storekeeper5 in { .)untrY town-~ because in rnanv casei" therP arc m; chemists' shops in those places. If a l"'l"'Oll wanted a box of D<'echam·, pill>. Ol' a bottle of :\Iollwr Riegel's syrup slH' would .uo to tllc lcieal f'torc•kceper who :-torkod thf':"-C· Thing~. In Bri.;;,banc there i~ one• coJn­lJan~·--<Hl{l 11erhap::- there are morc~tLat con­trols a number of chemists' shopo. The ::\I in~ -trr has alreadv told us that one rnan IS likely to be affpctcd and that he wi]J 'till able to run his chain stores. bnt no otl1r'l' ..::y~tern nf clwin ~torr•s w-ill be al10'.\·ed in anY ~hapf' or fornl. They will be rt'strirtt1f1 b~- tht• a11nlieation of thP princin]P to onP rnan. 0nc shop. That is what the Bill Jnean:;;. Thar ·.ns onre a principle of the Lo hour Parry-one ntan. one job-·hut it ha~ long ~o1w hy the hoard. 'Ye know that at thP

monH'llt tlu•rp are nH~n 1n position.;;. in GoYC'rnnH'nt sen·iee who arP occup_\·ing

I cannot unfh~r"tand whY that shouicllw no"- A.pplied in .'o.far as a r0 cotlCC'rned.

(~D not know 1d1Y this Bill fm.., Lccn il'trochc-ccl. \Ye hcarci a great ckQl to the t·ffPct ihat Boot~ Li1nitr>d 1Yf'l'C startiilfo! bu:::.i­Pc~::; ~\n~tralia and \H~l'(' gojng to do thi~ and That with Pxi~titH2,' bn~incss. \Y0 are li...- in~ in a period "hc'n -v.ragPs arP fixPd bv indu~:rrirt1 tribunal::: i11 aCcordancP ,,·ith the c·ost of living. \Ye knmv perfectlv \Veil that \Y<lg'C'S rise or fa11 according to finctua­tioll::;. 1n the cost of living. \Vc~ know. too. that -;:-he effecti...-c wages received bv au incli­,-idual are based on what will k.coep a man_ his ' ife. and three children and the vrn 1noment that there i:-; a redu-ction in the ro~·t of 1iYl!1~·. wages arc al~o rPduccd. \Vr lwnr. too. ;:; grf'at deal about, the 1 • ...-agc-sla~hcJ·--­thr E1Hil who .;;;ecks to rC'tlut:c '"'ages. I al~o sa~ the rnan \\ l1o seeks to 1naintain l!iQ:lt price;>:. also a wage-slasher. bccau~{· hP incrca-c< the cost of living and thereby rPducr:-- the cffcctiYc purchasing po\YPr of t1H• \Yorkt:'r.

l\Ir. FOLEY: Arc you supporting the Bill?

=l[r. GCJDFREY :\IORGAX: \\'hat i the' objN·r of the Bill"? Can the hon_ nwmbcr for ::\onlHtnb:v te1\ us whv it has been intro· clncHl' The :Ylinister ·has not told 1". The only reason adYanccd bv tho ::\Tini:.:;tpr for it..: introduction \Vas that' it vYonld · prC'­YfiHt .pxi~ting chen1ists' shop~ front lwin~· ou:'tcd fro1n lm~incss bv a SY:'ltCln of chain •.tor•" and so :;;aye th8 public fron1 lwinf! deprin'cl of the ach-ice of qualified men. The pn•«·nr Act enacts tlmt all chemists' show sha11 rx' jn charge of qualified llH~n. EYi­clcnt h: ;;;omt'one has con1c to H1e conrlusion that .if Boots Limited began operations in Bri~haur: it vvould open a nun1ber of ~hops. onl.v one of which \VOtdd be~ in charge of a qualified chmnist. .A prescription 11n~..;entt:d at all rhe othet· shops would bo inmtt•cliately

taken b~· a tnessage boy to the shop in charge of thP qualified chemist, who would dispensp it. The present Act prevent' that- Th" present Act rn·m-idcs that each shop shall be in charge of a qualified Pht'rni:-:;t, othcrwist: it cannot carrv on. If t1mt \Vf'rc not fO, pl',>

scriptions of ;ncrlical ruE:'n c·ould not be dis­pensed. Sa:,. for in:-tanct:.. BootE:. Lintitf) c·on~n1enecd opct·ation-; in Toowomnba. fot It would not be ]ikclv to opPratc in an:.-· but the large CPntrPs of" population. If a c1octcll' in Chinchilla, 100 miles a\vav. presct·ibed for a patiPnt that prescription wonld not b•· tP1Pphoned through ro 'Toowoornba and tlv-?­patic'nt would not WJ.it a da~- or <c da~· and a-half for the tnedicinc to arri...-c.

~Ir_ D1:XSTAK: You arc tc·llin<.; your o :·a fairy tale.

Mr. GODFREY :\IORG.-\X: I am not. The :VIinister in charge of this Bill said that th<• entrv of Boots Limited into the phar­ntaceutic.al trade would intsrfe·rC' \vith countrv chemists. and that \Yould p:iYC' n:-t>, to mv' resurrection of the crv of the Yersu~ the countrv. It does nor mattf'r nttlnv companies -like Boots, Lin1itc>d canw into· Queemland. the:-· would not in an:<- wa v afff'ct countrv chcrni~ts.

The onlv ~h1cct thi~ Bill v:ill acl!iC'YP i.;: to place dH•rrti,ts -unclPr the coJCtrol of the Conc­tnis~loncr of Price·,

::\lr. FoLEY: \Yhat i:;;; -wrong v.-1th that?

1\Ir. GODFREY i\ICJRGAX: There ;, nothin~ \non~ with it. Tbe point i' that there is no n~ed for this Bill to place tlw chen1i:::.ts under the Cmntni:-.;,ionPr. becau::'e thev have b0en profitecring on the people for~ vears and thev recog-nisr- the need for a red1;ction in pricCs. They ha Ye he en pro· fiteering on the people for years_ and t bee­have admitted that fact. rnasrnuch a> thev are now prepaned to come t:ndcr the Com­ruissionC'r of Prjces volnntan1~7 and rt'cluc_f' the charge for their medicine. It is a \VP\1-known fact that although 3,_ 6d. has been the general price for nut king up a pr_e~c_rip­tion. the ingredients of tnan:.~ prescnptton~ do not cost more than 3r\. or 6cL

Mr. FoLEY: \Vhat experience has the hon. n1C1nbcr had in the chcn1i~t~·y bu3incss?

Mr. GClDFREY MORGAX: I have hari as n1nch experience as thP l10n. nlE'llllwr has.

Mr. FOLEY: You ha,-e not.

Mr. GCJDFREY ~IORGAX: The hon. member has a vote orr thi• Dill, and oo haYe I. Son10 time .ago '· StnithJ::. \\~eekl,v_ '' oblained a nmnber of prcscriptioth from ,hf­forent people and emplo.vecl a certified chemi5t to work out the cost of the in~Tl'­dicnb of each pr0scriptiotl. a.ud in rnany ease:-. it was found that co ... t wa~ 11ot rnore than 3d. or 6d.

l\!Ir. FOLEY: You are not taking "Snlith\; \Yeckly" as a standard·:

Mr. GODFREY :\IClRt:c\:"\: The st tte­n1cnt \Va~ not contradicted b~- the chf'tni-.Ls' association.

i\1r. FOLEY: "Smith", \\-ePklv" \'Ocli<l pnblish anything for tlH' ::::akc o.f .a. :::=en~a­tion.

Mr. GODFREY :\IORGAX: I think i;: was on sure g-round in thi~ ca:;;e. othPriYj~L' they would not haye made the publication_

The SECRETARY FOR HE.\L'rH .\XD Hmr:. AFFAIRS: As a result of an inquiry in Eng. land some year5 ago it was di~closcd that

51 r. 111 organ.]

li04 Pharmacy Acts [ ASSElVIBL Y.] Arnendrnent Bill.

ihe <average patent medicine, for which ls. 6d. to 4s. 6d. was paid, actually cost l~d. That was in pre-war days.

:\lr GODFREY :M ORGAN: That bears out my contention: In many cases the pre­scription made up by the chemist contains virtually the same ingredients as a patent medicine, many of which are made up according to a formula for which proprie­tary rights have been taken out by a chemist. The :Minister knows the chemists lmvc been overcharging. He admitted he wa.s going to stop them from overcharging.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:-ID HOME ArFAIRS interjected.

:Ylr. GODFREY MORGAN: Thev have been overcharging in the past, aJ{d now they come squealing to the Government and asking for protection. Protection from 1vhom? Did they have any sympathy for the sick public in the past? The man who is sick is very often out of work.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD Hoiln AFFAIRS: You fought me like cats and dogs on the question of proYi-ding a hospital service for the poor.

Mr. GODFREY ~IORGAN: I never fought you on that.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: Your party did.

~fr. GODFREY MORGAN: I I1cver fought the hon. gentleman on that question in my life. I believe the people who are in clistre's are the last who should have to pay thoug·h the nose for anything. The t1YO accounts I regret paying are the chemist's bill and the doctor's bill ; and I have paid many doctors' bills, &erne of them very large one". Perhaps I am here to-day lJecause of the existence of doctors; at the ~ame time we do not like paying doctors' or chemists' bills because \Ye do not sec much for our n1oncy.

::\1r. KA:oiE : ·what a bout the undertaker's bill.

:\Ir. GODFREY MORGAN: If we do not pay it the Government have to. \Ye are not concerned about the payment of the tmdertakcl'. because we are dead and we do not care what happens.

Tl1c SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AKil HOME AFFAIRS: You do not like to think of being robbed even after you are dead.

::VIr. GODFREY :\10RGAN: It would not concern ns vcn n1uch then. but it does con~ corn us very ni.uch when we are alive.

I am sorr:-· tlw Minister has thought fit to bring in this Bill. I think the Government should have waited for some time. A royal corntnission is inquiring into chain stores generally in New South \Vales, and the result of its inquiries may be helpful. I am not in a position to say whether the system of chain stores would or would not be for the welfare of the majority of the people. Chain stores have reduced the cost of living, and I am very doubtful if anv GoYernment would run cou;1ter to public opinion and abolish them. One does not endeavour to prevent some­thing beneficial to mankind. One endeavours to abolish that which is corrupt and detri­mental to the people. It is generallv recog· JJised that the chain-store people are more c,r less public benefactors, inasmuch as thev have reduced the cost of living thereb;_, increasing the purchasing power of the wag~s

[Mr. Morgan.

of the workers which is tantamount to an increase in wages. They provide the neces­saries of life at a lower cost to the consumer than when the price is controlled by com­bines, trusts, and monopolies.

The only redeeming feature of the Bill before the House is the fact that the jurisdic­tion of the Commissioner of Prices will preYent chemists from becoming monopolistic, hut without this Bill the Minister. if he so desired. could bring the operation' of the ehemists under the jurisdiction of this official. Immediately certain goods are pro­claimed they come within his prm·ince undel­the Profiteering Prevention Act.

The SECRETARY FOR HE'tLTH AXD Hmm AFFAIRS: Only commodities, and a chemist's prescription is not a commodity.

:Mr. GODFREY M ORGAN: I am very doubtful if it could not be called a com­modity.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: You could do so but vou would find yourself outside the law. -

::Ylr. GODFREY ~IORGAK: If the GoYcrnrncnt dc~ired the Commissioner of Prices could determine the price of a bottle of beer.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD Ho:ME AFFAIRS: That is a commodity.

Mr. GODFREY M ORGAN: And a close of salts is not a commodity?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS : A dose of salts may serYices given in dispensing a arc not a con1rnodity.

Yr. GODFREYMORGAN: if the Minister investigated thoroughly he would find he the necessary po\vc-r.

.\XD HO'\IE be, but the prescription

I think that the matter already ha.'3

The SECRETARY FOR HE.\J.TH AXD 1-IO'\JE AFFAIRS: \Ye went into it thoroughly, and we found we had to do it be- legislation.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: The bringing of them under the control of the Com­missioner of Prices is one of the redeeming features of the Bill. I am not in fa Your of a.llo~vving secondary or primary procluccrs, or anybody else for that matter, to charge more than is reasonable for the article they sell. EYeryonc should ref'ciYc a reasonable price for 1-iis production. It is immaterial whether he is rnanufacturer, retailer, or prin1ary pro­ducer. Thev are all entitled to receive what is fair for their goods, thus enabling them to pay their workers and continue in their industries.

At 2.44 p.m., Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAK: People have no right to profiteer. I believe in the saying, "Ln·e and let live." For mvself I am not anxious to accumulate a fortune. I want a livelihood and to live in a reasonable degree of comfort, and in my opinion eYery other person should haYe an opportunity to do likewise.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HO}JE AFFAIRS: The chemist is entitled to make a living.

~lr. GODFREY MORGc\N: That is so. The Act prcvicles that a qualified chemist n1ust be in attendance in C\ erv chPinist's shop. \Yhat is the intention of "the Dill in

Pharmacy Acts [24 NovEMBER.] Amrndment Bill. 1705

:that respect? Is that principle to be con­.tinucd?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD Ho:~rE AFFAIRS : Under a proprietary company one quali[iccl chemist could do the prescriptions for six or eight ehops, and thus the services of quali'icd chemists would not be required.

1\Ir. GODFREY MORGAX: I claim to be able to read any Act as well as any lay­man, but I may be reading the present Act wrongly. The Act states definitely that no matter how many shops an individual may have-take \Vilkinson's, for instance-he must have a qualified chemist in every one of them. What is the object of this Bill in providing for that when it is already done?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HoME AFFAIRS: The Act does not provide that there shall be a qualified chemist where there rs no business.

Mr. GODFREY i.VlORGAN: I do not quite understand that. This Bill relates to chemists' shops whether they are doing lmsincss or not, and the fact that they are there to tra,de and have their doors open means that they must have a qualified chemist in the shop at all times.

The Leader of the Opposition drew atten­tion to the selling of a business and the pur­chaser'B retaining the name of the vendor. If J ones is carrying on business and Smith comes along- and buys the shop it must be carried on in the name of J ones.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HmrE AFFAIRS: ~o. A company having more than one shop must carry on under the original name. Your Government put the same principle in the Dental Acts Amend­ment Act of 1931, that if a dentist had more than one shop he could not carry on unlees he could be there personally.

Thir. GODFREY M ORGAN: That is f!Xactly \Yhat happens in the chemists' shops to-day. If anyone conducts a shop. whether it is in the city or the country, he must have a qualified chemist there at all times. This Bill prm·ides for that principle, and I cannot sec anything new in it. I do not know if the Government are going to stop Boots Limited-I do not know anything about them, and I do not care; I have got no brief for anyone else-but what I want to see is that the public is protected. It seems that we have to bring in an Act of Parlia­ment to protect the public from profiteer­ing.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HmrE AFFAIRS: That constitutes 90 per cent. of the work of Parliament.

Mr. GODFREY 2\IORGAN: I shall be Yerv interested after this Bill becomes law to see if it makes any difference in the price of prescriptions. It will be quite an experi­ment for me to take along a prescription tlwt has been made up previously and find out if it costs less. If it does I might favour the Bill; but at present I do not feel like g-iving it my blessing, because I think the Minister has rushed in too early. He should have waited, and if it had been necessary later on, he could have introduced a comprehensive Bill ·dealing with all chain stores. \Yhy the chemist should be singled out I do not know, and I do not fe~l like giving the Bill my blessing.

Mr. l\IOORE (Aubigny) [2.49 p.m.]: I have been very interested in this Bill, particu­la.rly after hearing the Minister introduce it. and also hearing that it was greeted with

acclamation by the average chemi,t. I have heard much condemnation of Fascism m this Chamber but the Government arc cer­tainly enactil{g measures mrh as this which are nearer Fascism than anything I know. I do not think that I han read a B1ll that interferes more with the libcrtv of the sub­ject than this Bill does, and it does it by extraordinary methods to achieve what, after all, are comparatively simple objectives. The principles of this Bill go far beyond the :Minister's idea when he introduced 1t. ancl it certainlv seems to me that the pharma­ceutical chemists are putting a rope round their necks in order to try and protect them­selves from an unknown quantity which they think would create difficult competition.

Let us glance over the principles involved in some of the clauses of this Bill. Take, for imta.nce, that which refers to a firni consisting wholly of pharmaceutical chemists. Those men are allowed to have only one shop in the y;·holc of Queensland, though there may be four or five duly quaJificd men regis­tered aa chemists in the firm. \Vhat is the reason for confining them to one shop·; There could never be any expansion for that firm, and it could not have any opportunitY of reducing the cost to the public. It still has to buy in limited quantities, unless it can combine with others in such a way as the country storekeepera.

I understood that the object of the Bill w.ts to protect the men who were qualified and had passed their examinations. The protection really seems to consist of limiting the opportunities of employment and, in fact, rendering- it virtually impossible for him to get any work unless he has enough capital to start a shop of his own. It seems to me that if three or four qualified men formed a company and decided that one of them would work in Rockhampton, another in Too·woornba, and another in a Brisb:uw suburb, no harm would be done either to the public or to the chemists.

Mr. KAeiE: They have the chance to become master chemists some day.

Mr. MOO RE:' That can be dollc now. Mr. KANE: Not if they are shop assistallb.

:Ylr. 1100RE : I am speaking of a regis-tercel firm consisting entirely of qualified chemists, who can have only one shop. The Bi I! seems to bring about undue interfer­ence, and as for the g-ain by the chemists or the public, all I can see is that the public has a good deal to low. :Yiorcovcr, the students who have pasaed their pharmaceuti­cal examinations will experience serioUs diffi­culty in fmding employment unless they have enough capital to open shops for themselves. The opportunities will be infinitely fewer under this Bill, and the only thing for them to do will be to g-o to another State. Per­haps the idea is to chase them to some othe1· place in order to limit the competition amollgst those who are already here.

Then consider the position that the 2\Iinister stressed. He said that the chemist employed by a company deregistercd by the board is thrown on the indu~trial scrap-l1eap ,mcl lose' his job. He is employed only to make profits for his company and the com­panv must share the responsibility and must pay~ such a salary as will enable it to get a reliable man. My remarks in this regard rder to the clause dealing· with an employ<'<' "Uiltv of infamous conduct, the definition of ~-hich in the 1917 Act includes habitual

Mr. lfioore.]

1706 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

drunkcnnes~ or addiction to drugs. If he is dcregistercd the firn1 or con1pany is dcregis­ten~d. too, and ha:3- to close up its 'vho]e bu~iness. \Vhar an opportunity for an employee to be "'got at." and "hat an opportunity for a chemist who wanted to get rid of competitio!1 in a particular al'f'a. He could promise an employee a job at something doe if he did a certain thing. The employee might make up a pres­cription wronglv or do something- like that in order ·to get rid of th~ shop altogether, because the firrn or company can be dcregistcred as the result of an act of its employee. A firm or company is equally liable with an employee at common law for any damage that may be done, because a con1pany or firm is responsible for the acts of its agenta or emplovees. But under this Bill eYerv director 'of a com­pany and eYery member of a firm shall bo deemed to have been guilty of infamous con­duct if the act is committed bv its cmplovee Do you not think. Mr. Speaker, that that is going a very long way? I ·can under­stand a company or firm's being equallv ;esponsible with the employee for damages m accordance with common law, but under this Bill. if an employee is guilty of infamous conduct. the firm or company may be deregiStcred and preYented from carrving on ?uf'iness, though it 1nay have a dozc;l 3hops m Queemland. It is all yery well for the :\Iinistcr to 'ay that the company or firm will pay a. suffici<>ntly attractiYe salarv to get an emr•loyee that "·ill be absolutely reliable.

:c\1r. POWER: Do von not think that the company o1· firm should be responsible if it 'uggests to the employee that he should do something \nong?

}1r. NIOORE: Certainly, but the Bill does HOt eYen say that the company or firm shall be responsible only when its principals are aware of what ie being done. If the en1ploycc is guilty of an offence in one shop the cmnpany or flnn may be dercgistered and put out of business and all its shops clo8cd.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD Ho:uE AFFAIRS : I propose to moye an amendment to insert the word "knowu1gly." The clause will not be used in the way that some people expect it to be used.

:\lr. MOORE: That is not the whole point. An intolerable position is being creJtted by placing the power that I complain of in the hands of a board. I am not verv much directlv interested in the protection· of the variou~ chemists throughout the State. They h:ne been able to look after themselves fairly well up to the pr~"ciJt time. I aw n1ore concerned about the Intcrec, rs of the public-to see that the:,· get a rea~onablc scrYire at a reasonable price.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AliD HO:UE AFFAIRS: Then \vhy object to the Bill?

:VIr. MOORE : I cannot see that the Bill does that. The provision in the Bill giving power to the Commissioner of Prices to fix the prices that may be charged does not impress me in the s1ightest. Tl1e -ch<•n1ist~ "·ill be allowed to charge a di,,pensing fee, but the Commissioner of Prices is empowered to see that a fair price is charged for the drugs diepensed. The average person who gets a prescription from a doctor and takes it to a chemist to be dispensed has not the faintest idea in the world what drugs are

[Mr. Moore.

used or '"hat is their value. He will not haYc anv better idea when this Bill is passe-d. "Does the Minister think that any person who gets a prescription and has it dispensed will later go to the Commissioner of Price8 to ascertain whether he has been charged a reasonable price or not? He will not knmv what drugs are used.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HO}!E AFFAIRS: He will not have to go to the Commissioner of Prices.

::VIr. MOORE: The Bill is supposed to giYe protection to the public. They are to be charged a dispensing fee plus the cost of the drugs used in the medicine. The price of the drugs is to be f1xed by the Commissioner of Prices, including a certain amount for protlt. The ordinary individual has not the slightest knowledge of the ,-alue of drugs. The value of the drugs in th'' prescription may bo 10s. or it may be 6d. ; he has not the faintest idea. He does not even know what is contained in the pre­scription, unless he is a doctor or chemist. I cannot see where the protection to th& public lies, but I can see trem~ndonsly drastic provisions all the way through this Bill.

I certainly think that the provision thaL, where a con1pany purcha~e~ a businc'', car­ried on by an existing pharmacist, that business rnust be carried 011 in the naiTI(' of the preYious owner will n1i~iead and is uuite wrong·. It does not give any protectioi1 to the public. Apparently this Bill provides that the business must go on under the nau12 of the original O\Vl1l'l', living or dead. The name cannot be transferred. If a firm or cornpany desires to go out of business. it lntu:3t sell to somebody \Yho ib prcpar~d to carry on under its narne, no matter how poorly it may have been run or how wcil it may be run by the new owner. 'lllat does not make the slightest difference-it nn1st be carried on in the nanl(' of ti1e original owner.

The Bill provides specifically that every shop must be under the personal supervioion of a qualified chemist. The Pharrnac y Act of 1917 provides that the name of the quali­fied chemist in charge mu,;t not on!; be ou the signboard but on the top of every invoice and document issued from the shop. I should think that was ample protection fo1· the community. This Bill goes further and :;ays the namo of such per,.:;:oll 111u~t be in cverv advertisement. I do not understand what value there is in that. It may make for a little more interfeTence, but I do not 'ec where tho advantage to the community lies.

In fact, I do not see any ad, antag-e to the community all the \\ay through the Bill. I see a tremendous disadYantage in the carrying on of business. Under the Act at present on the statute-book the Pharmacy Board is appointed by the trade. The Government appoint the registrar but the board in turn selects its officers. l'ndcr this Bill the Government not only appoint the board but also the registrar. The oid board, appointed by nomination, from all associations or chemists, appointed and controlled all its offiecrs. Under this :Bill the officers arc under the control of the Government. It seems to me that the Government. under the guise of giving pro­tection to a certain section of the corn· munity, are taking almost complete control of this section of it.

Pharmacy Acts [24 NOVEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1707

Take the case of the chemist who desires to move his shop. The Bill lays it do>vn that the place of busine's shall not be moved anc1 that the business must be carried on in the position for which it is registered or that it must not be moved more than half a mile. Whv? \Ye all know how trade and conditions ·are frequently changing. ·what might be a suitable site at one time might not be so suitable with the fnrthf'r development of the district.

1\Ir. GODFREY MORGA:>: His lease may c.·xpirc•. and he may not be able to get a further extension of it.

Mr. ::\IOORE: That is so, but half a mile is the n1axin1un1 distance he can 1110\~e hi~ lnr;;;jnt_1 S~. The Bill savs-

" nor more than one half-mile from the shor1 and/or dispom.:t.ry in lieu of ,yj,;ch it i;;; ~o carrir·d on."

What is the object of that? Of what JJenofit is it to the communitv? The benefit to the communih" rnight be all in the direc­tion of a change. It may have happened that the tide of traJfic has gone another wav. that settlement has moved from one i'nci of the district to another. In many towns and counrr~· places a railway station happens to be phced at one (•nd. or a rnain roacl pa.escs tlnough another part, and gradual!:· the tide of settlement leaves one place and moves to another. I suppose the clause can be got over in the same wa v as tlw hotels used to get over the limitation that applied to them-have three or four shifts in two or three years, half a mile this yc•ar and half a mile next year. 'rhat may be a vvay of oYercoming a very difficult situation. The stringent part of this Bill seems to me the desire to limit the whole of this pro­fession. trade, or business-whatever you like to call n-to Slllgle shops, to limit it to the incli Yidual who is carrying on one shop. A company has to have but one shop. No matter hmv qualified a man may be, or how nnll,\" lllPinlH'I'S rherc !ll<lY be in a, {inn, ,they arc still eO be limiled to the ono shop. As far as I could see the idea of the n1inister \Yas that a ehcmist gave a serYice in a dis~ trict tha.r was different to the service given bv- th<? butcher and baker, because he not onl:· di,pensed medicine and sold goods (such as pato,,t meclicmes, soaps, and scents) that arc usually sold by chemists, but also acted as a son of first aiel station in the district. People >Yho did not want to go to a doctor. or did not think it worth while to go to " doctor. asked the chemist for his opinion. If he thought it advisable for them to go to a. doctor lw told them so, and if not he prc· su·1bed a e1mplc remedy that he thought \\·Ollld be efficacious. \Yhat is to be rrainccl b,· prohibiting the extension of that s;'stem' ·\Yhat is to be gained for the commu;;ity ln· ~'-aying to n firm consisting of qualified dtemists that it is to be confined to one ohop' \Yhy should they not have the oppor­tnnity of extending to various areas and giving the people in those areas the oppor­tunity of getting ad,·ice from them? vVhy should they be tied down in the absurd way set out in the Bill? All I can sav is that the pharmaceutical chemists may think they have got protection from one bogy only h> find that they have put themselves in a Yery im·idious position in regard to the rest of the Bill, and that the price thcv are pa~'ing for their rescue from the competition they fear is going to be much heavier than they c•xpectcd. I should certainly hate to put

myself in a position like this. because it is a position such as few industries in Queens­land are placed in. In the sugar industry, certainly, a man has to haxe an assignment, and if somebody else buys it the latter can carry on under his o'vn narne. There are many other restrictions in some of ot~r industries, but none of them, so far as I can see, are as drastic as the condition laid down in this Bill. In the Liquor Act there is provision about the distance a hotel can be moved in any area, but even that was extended in the last amending Act.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:-iD Ho11E AFFAIRS: There 1s no limit in the Liquor Act now.

Mr. MOORE: No. A restriction is set out here, and for the life of me I cannot see the reason for it. I cannot see what is to Go gained. After all, I suppose we do legislate or are supposed to legislate in this Chamber as far as possible in the interests of tlw whole communitv. \Yhat is to be gained by the whole community by our say­ing to a chemist who happens to be in one particular district where he has leased a shop that he cannot transfer it more than half a mile away? The interests of t lw community might demand that he do so. Of course, it may mean that he has to carr:· on and somebody else can go to the d is­trict half a mile awav. I do not think the principles set out in' this Bill are of any value to the community whatever. There will bA no gain to the community by tlw operation of the Commissioner of Prices under the Profiteering Prevention Act. To m_v mind that provision is puerile. and its operation will be an absolute farce unlesc the Government appoint a large number of inspectors to inspect the books of tile chemist to ascertain exactly what has been charged to any person for a prE"3Cription. T'hi:-' i11spcction will be ycry expensive. and onP in which the gain will be offset Ly the increa~Pcl public scrYicc salary bilL to ~ay nothing of tl1c nuisance cau~ed to t]w chcn1ists in ha Ying their book~ i11~peetecl. And who can say that the price for a cor­ta in pn2'srription is or is not excc~;..iyl' ·~ Th.e oo~t of the drug and the amount H:-'rd \Yill chang-e like the sands on the seai hare. Th• benefit to the individual from such a rnca:-Jure as this is entirely illu·iYC'.

I cannot sec that there is to be anv gain at all to the chemist. who is placing him­self in the position where he is to bP held entirely responsible for any misclc>cd on the part of any en1plo:n?e. 1-le i~ 1naking· lJim­self ~ubject to the conditions of being put out of business existence b_v the board at any time. The whole of his stock-in-trade' can be put up and sold. Although he may hctYe i a ken no part in anv Iniscoucluct or inffl Inou:­condud on the pait of his employee he is making himself subject to all these pro­visions. l have not the faint€% idea as to the value to the chemist of this class of legislation, but if the chemists of Queens· land are prepared to submit to the con­trol, dictation, domination, and inspection placed upon them by the terms of thio Hill. thPll I think >VP ha,·e reached an extra· ordinary position of affairs. EYidcntly. bee a u.;c of fear of a certain competition, they are prepared to submit to the Govern­ment interference that is proposed by this Bill.

A student of chemistry, by a measure of this sort, is placed in a most invidious

111r. Jlloore.]

1708 Pharmacy Acts [ASSK\1:BL Y.] Amendment Bill.

position. The chances of employment are curtailed, and he will almost be forced to go to some other State or country to get a job unless he has the necessary capital or places himself in the hands of some money­lender and mortgages his future to enable him to set up a chemist's shop in a small way. His opportunity for employment is being taken almost entirely away by tho Bill now before the House.

l\1r. KANE: Are you losing faith in private enterprise?

:VIr. MOORE : I am not losing faith in private enterprise, but private enterprise is being strangled and leg-roped in every possible way by the Government interference that is provided for . in the term.s of .this Bill. Private enterpnse IS not bemg g1ven a chance. A registered firm may only run one shop. It cannot expand, nor can it give a better service to the community except in one place. It cannot be said by my remarks that I am losing faith in private enterprise.

1\h·. KAxE: You say a young man cannot become a master chemist?

Mr. MOORE: ::-;ro, but I say that it does not give him an opportunity fo1· employ­ment. There is a limitation that prevents him from getting employment. "There is no opportunity for a business to expand and open additional shops. The clause that pro­vides that the name of the qualified chemist must be on the signboard and also used in all advertisements makes ~or a limitation. There will not be such an opportunity for employment as there is, and students, after passing their qualifying examination, will have to look for employment in some other State whore such restrictive legislation as this will not be in operation. They will have to try to get employment outside the State.

It is a most extraordinary thing to see Labour bringing in a Bill of this sort, with the idea of protecting one small section of the community at the expense of the rest. It is a very interesting development to find the Labour principles being watered down and eo m pletc,l0- reversed, and small sections being catered for in order to win their support, in the hope that the rest of tho community will EOt suffer too much or understand what has been going on. The principles of the old Labour Governments were to see that the community got the be,t possible service.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:o<D Hmm AFFAIRS : At a price the community could afford.

Mr. MOORE: Yes. but this Bill does not take any cognisance 'of the price the com­munity can afford-not a bit. It only gives recognition to the principle of limiting com­petition. Apparently the Government want to be quite sure that chemists in certain places are not to be subjected to what the ::V1inistcr regards as undue competition. Instead of the chemists' endeavouring to meet the condition by co-operative buying and reducing costs we find Goverment officialdom being relied upon, first to prevent profiteer­ing, and secondly to g·o about the country and keep a check on the industry-more inspectors who have to be paid for by the c-onsumers in the end. The ordinary conce;J­tion of supplying valuable services trJ the community is lost sight of. as is the face that the more service is rendered the more business will be gained, with consequential reduction of cost. Those arc very important

[Mr. 111 Nwe.

factors, and in many trades, like the grocery trade, we find operations being extended. Those trades find bnymg for cash and m bigger quantities enables them to reduce their eosts, and give a better serYicc to the con1-munitv. That idea is absent from this Bill; :;;eryic0 to the colnnlunitv is a secondary consideration. The extraordinary thing to

me is that the people to be protected are the willing sacrifice. They are limited in every po"ible way. Their businesses are open to inspection to sec that they have been con­ducted properly and prices charged have been according to a schedule as it were; and thev are tied down in the removal of pre­mis-es. If a shop sells out to a company, the purchaser must continue under the name of the vendor. That is quite wrong. To say that every company carrying on bu:=.:iness must have the name of the supervising quali­fied chemist put on the signboard, on the documents and labels, and then that a pur­chaser must carrv on under the name of the vendor seems cor~tradictory and inconsistent. vVhoever carries on should be able to do so under his own name or his business nan1e, so that people may know with whom they are dealing. A business builds up its reputation by its honesty and service, and to say that the persons responsible arc not to use their na1ne but carrv on unclc~r ~;orr1ebodv else's name' is a step In the wrong· directio!1.

I do not know who was rPsponsible for the sugQ:estions incorporated in this Bill or wh,:iher they were thought out with the idea of eliminating competition entirely. Undoubtedly the public has been lost sight of altogether. The profession of pharmacy will certainly lose much of. its attraction to manv people I know of when thev find them­selves placed under the restrictions that this Bill imposes. They will be tied down to small businc,,ses, subjected to continual Government inspection, and must themselves giYo eontinuous supervision bet"'.\coen certain hours. The chemist can go out for lunch c>nly at certain fixed times, and if he goes out between 11.30 and 12 and an mspector camps he is liable to deregistration by the board. This seems an intolerable control,of business. I can well understand the need for having a qualified man in the shop to make up prescriptions, but to stipulate for this continuous personal supervision is, to my mind, ridiculous. The Minister ma.ck some absurd statements about dentists' going out to play golf on \Vodnesday afternoon, and leaving the mechanics to do operating surgery.

The PRE:IJIER: vVhat is >Hong with playing golf?

Mr. MOORE: :\'othing. The Minister is the only one who objected to golf.

The PRniiER: My only objection is that I cannot fmd time for it.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AelD Ho11E AFFAIRS: I objected to the dentists leaving their patients.

l\Ir. ::VlOORE: The Minister said that they went to play golf and left their patients in the hands of unqualifted mechanics for opera­tive surgery. I do not believe that for a moment. As for the chemists, they know what business is likely to come to the shop at an.v given hour of the clay, and it might bt' possible in many districts for the chemist to g·o out for an hour without the least inconvenience to anvone. Yet there is not a single proviso to" the clause in the Bill

PhaTrnacy Acts [2± ~OVE~IBER.] Amendment Bill. 1709

that insists upon his continuous personal supervi~ion. Doe:"S ansone ·want to put bin1-self under the terms of such a Bill 9 In anv C8:3P, if a custorner \Ycnt to one chernist's shop and found him a way he could go to another. The conditious applied under this Bill are more drastic than those applied to any other business and arc against the intcr­C":ts of the cc-rnrnunih-. Thcv arc so contrary to the interests of tlw. pharmaceutica:I chemists themseh·es that I <'annot understand their wanting a Bill of this kind.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I have to inform the House that a distinguished Yisitor, in the person of Mr. Kenneth Lindsav. member of the House of Commons and Civil Lord of the Admiralty in the -:\' ationa! Labout Government, is present. and on behalf of hon. rnerubers I have invited hiu1 to take a scat on the dais of this House.

Mr. MOORE: I have verv little more to sa0 . The Bill is a fairly sin1ple one, but it shows how far the Government have departed frot:-> the principles that they ha;-e httherto contmually supported in pursuance of their contention that public interest must come first. It shows rlearlv that the interests of .a small section of the· communitv arc to be placed above all else, but that it is, nevertheless, being bonnd hand and foot under conditions that will make its business extremely onerous instead of a pleasure. It place, those people in a position of being in constant expectation-I shall not say fear -that an officer of the Crown will come round to inspect their books to see how much. they arc. charging and whether they are g1v1ng then businc~scs their continuous personal supervision; how they are carry­ing on their businesses generally, and whether the name of each person con­cerned is inserted in every advertisement, document. or label. To me the Bill appears to be a steam hammer to crack a nuL It seeks to protect the chemist·. from competi­tiOn by a certatn company, and the chPmists apparently are satisfied to place themselves in a position ''"here thev arc rmtirclv u11der the domination and control of Government officials. The com1nnnitv is to receive an infinitely worse Eervi('e fhan it has a right h nnclor modern condition.'. If there is anything to be gained by the Bill I fail to sec it.

Mr. DOX1\ELLY (lVynnum) r3.28 p.m.]: It appeared to me that the hon. member for Aubigny was trying to stifle the ambi· tion of the young student to pass through the Pharmacy College. If the chain system of trading in the pharmacv business is per· mitted in Queensland thes€ young students \vill have nothing to look for"ard to except the position of employee in one of the chain ~tares, or vvould haYc to face such streuu:Jus competition that thev would be forced out of Qusiness in a Yery "short space of tirnc.

The lJOn. member for Dalbv made a com· parjson bet-ween a medical 1nan and a chemist, but the comparison is odious when \YC take into consideration the fact that probably in some cases it would take a chemist two hours to dispense a prescrip­tion, whereas a medical man would get 10s. 6d. for a diagnosis that probably took fiye minutes. The comparison is all the more ridiculous when we remember that it takes three years for a chemist to qualify at a recognised college and four years for a man to qualify as a doctor, and note the

difference between the charges that may be made by each to the public.

The provision in the Bill that a chemist m a, not be allowed to esta.blish a shop within half a mile of his present site is an excellent one. A chemist may be doing a fair amount of business. but if he did not have this protection a chain store could set up in business and undersell him and force him out in Ycry quick time.

There is no guarantee that if the chain­:-tore ~~'Stern of phannary carne to Queens­land it~ prices would always ren1ain on a low scale. It has been the policy of chain­store druggists throughout t~c; world to begin operations b~.~ endeavounng to crush ancl c1in1inat0 existing businesse,,.. AJter that l1P ~ bf'Pn accon1plished. prices arc p1·ogn_ ,__ ~iYelv increased until thcv reach such a leYPl that· the people are mider a greater dis· ability than before theY began operations.

I wish to make reference to a statement made in the "Courier-:\1ail" of 21st instant bv :\1 r. L. A. \Vilkinson, the governing· director of L. A. Wilkinson (Northcm) Pro· prietary Lirnited. wherein he c_riticiscs mo for a ~tatement I made on the mtrotlnctory etage of this Bill. He said that I ~ecrned to know all about hie cornpanv. and then proceeded-

" lie seen1S to kno\v very little, as all the statements he made in the House are 'vrong.:'

I clo not desire to attack :\Ir. \Vilkinson a» a pharnlacPntical chcrnist. It \Vas my dc:;;ire onlv to attack hirn as a director of a eorn­Jl<U~~- dc~1rous of cstab1i"hillg chain stores in (/uecnsland. :Mr. \Vilkinwn made " dia­boli( al statement concerning chernists out of employment in this State. On behalf of those g-0nt len1cn who are out of crnployrucnt, I '\·ic.:h to takf' ~trong exception to hi5 state­ment. :Hr. \Yilkinson stigmatises them as-

,, Iueornpetcnts, drunk~. drug addicts, and ~uch like as we kno\V aro floating around."

:\Ir. \Vilkinson, in making that statement. poese,,es a full knowledge of the Pharmac.'­Act. particularly the part that refers to infan1ous and non-profe~.-:;;ional condnct of qualified chemists. Quite a mimber of these out-of-lvork chemists obtain part-time jobs in local phannacies. If the:;;c rnen arc as Mr. \Yilkinson stigmatises them, then I am quite sure no self-rcepecting chemist in Brisbane woulcl giYe them a job.

:\lr. \Vilkinson said that I knew nothing whateYer about his business. I had no inten­tion of bringing this matter forward, but­I stress this point-I am doing it only from an industrial etandpoint. I wish to point out that Mr. \Vilkinson is not observing the industrial standard we aim at, that i~, to give <'mployment at full award rates and pre· scribed conditions to our enlp1oycPs. It i~ onh a little while since that Mr. Wilkinson was chargee!, convicted, and fined for broaches both of th0 Factories and Shops Act and tho Chemists' Assistants a ward. These facts certainly do not make his case appear any better. \Vc hope by enacting this Bill to see that everv man who is in charge ·of a chernist' s shoP \vill get a good living and fair conditions to work under.

The Opposition have described the Gm·crn­ment as helping the Fascist movement by bringing down this Bill. If a Bill does not

Mr. Donnelly.]

1710 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amrndrnent Bill.

mret \\ ith their approyaJ, we arc first mono­po]i,ts, now Fascists. and probably later Oll we• shall be accu,ed of being Communi,ts. I think this is a democratic Bill. It seek> to protect the young rr1an setting out on a ca1·eer by giYing hin1 a certain ~Pn~e of securitY in his business. After many of thc:;;e :voung · n1en heconu~ qualified and· pas.:-; out of the Pharmacy College. the family plat<> is melted down and the familv house is mort· gaged to raisf' funds to enable them to start in bn.,.,lnf'SS. These young nwn begin busi­nc~~ in a countrv town or one of the :-;ubnrbs aud eke out m; exlstPnce until tlw business becomes established. I ,,-ill tell the Home what happened in Cracow and also in Jnlia Creek. The firm I haYe already referred to opened pharmacies in both these towns in opposition to the already establish,,d busi· ness. but the latter were so cntrcnchPd in the confidence of the pPople that this firn1 ha;;; 110\Y ·withdnnYn it~ opcratioHs frmn thO::'C' tO"\YllS.

Another thing these firms do is to put a young fellow in charge and. if they a,re doing \Yell. gi,·e him a wage below the award rate: but if they are not doing well. they put the shop in his name and take a bill of sale oyer it, and allow the manager in some cases to draw about £2 10s. or £3 a week, whereas the award rate is £6 5s .. and the owner j,, bounrl to lmv the whole of his £tock from the firm who has his bill of sale. ~\ young chemist who is pinned down in that fn::::.hion j~ -in nHlch thC' -:aute no~ihol! as tl1c CO\\ lwy 'vho la~sooed the tigCr-('at: h0 ·has holrl of it and he c:wnot let it go. He has put whatcYer money he has into the shop and he triee to continue with the hope of 1naking a living·. Cases such as I haH• instanced haYe happlmcd in the metro· politan area, where firnts arc endeavouring t:-1 t•linllnatp tl1c individual chr1nist.

If :\Ir. \Yilkinson had the interests of the chemist.s at heart he would not haYe made the ,stah'mPnts he is credited with. I know :;;on1c of the old flrn1s in Bri5banf) who have hclpecl chemists, some of \Yhom are now doing w.•lJ. but these men had the oppOl'­tnnitY of hnying their stock outside the firm that aiclrd them,

I am pleased that the Bill has been intro­duced. It is the first move in QueeMland to stamp out chain stores. It is an attempt to prcycnt the AmericaniBation of the drug trade. If Amerioan methods obtained in Queensland young people would have no incentive to enter the Pharmacy College and become professional men and develop busi­nesses of their own.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AKD HO:\IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon. lthrtca) [3.38 p.m.], in reply: I wish to say a few \YOrcls in reply to what has been said by hon. members of the Opposition.

In the first place, as I said at an earlier stag·c, the Bill is aimed at providing- or maintaining what is to-day a very efficient pharmaceutical service to the people and giving that serYicc at a lower cost to the community than in the past. Hon. m\'mhers opposite have either not studied the Bill or thev have deliberately misinterpreted it. Thev have been continually making state­mm;ts that it means this and that it means that. that the Bill means a close preserve for the existing chemists and the Commi.s­sionor of Prices could have fixed the price of prescriptions long ago. and so on. It is

[Jlr. Donnelly.

all ruhbi,h. The Leader of the Opposition said that putting the power in the Bill to enable the Profitcering Prevention Act to apply and the Commissioner of Prices to fix the price of prescriptions was all eyewash and that the power was already in the Act and that this was only a demonstration, and so on. The hon. gentleman quoted the I'rofiteering Pren>ntion Act in snpport of his case. I clo !lot think there are many hon. members in this House who have in such a short time made such queer pronouncements on the interpret»tion of the law as the hon. gentleman has. So far he has not achieved the distinction of being right once--even to prm·ide the exception that proves the rule. The section he read to-day deals with corn· modities and goes on to specify " any com­modity, service, or goods ,,_service there being such a service as light (power. water. gas. and so on). The Cornrnissioner of Prices has neYcr had the power to fix the price of personal services.

The attention that a waitress gives when she brings one's lunch is not a commodity. The price of such a service has never been fixed bv the Commissioner of Prices. The price of scnice has been generally fixed by the Industrial Court. The dispensing of medicine is not a con1modity. but a personal serYice. and that is the reason why the Corn· missioner of Prices could not iH anv wav interfere with i he price charged by a q t;al ifiecl chemist for dispensing a prescription. He can fix the price of patent medic·ines and other articles, and has done so. The prices for senices such as gas and electric light are fixed under other Acts. I can hardly believe. Ylr. Speaker. that in all the years that the Prof\teering Prm·cntion Act has been on the statute-book hon. members opposite did not know it did not apply to any personal ser· vice. It applies only to commoditieB and where the word "service" is used that seJ·Yice rneans :;uch serYice as light and power. It has neycr been within the province of the Corrnni~~ioncr of PricP~ to intcrferP wirh thf' price charged for pereonal service by any professional man or woman. The Profiteer· ing Pre,-ention Act does not give the Com­missioner power to fix the fee charged by a doctor-it might be a good thing if it did­nor the fee to be charged bv a solicitor or barrister for his professional services. Neither has it g-iven him power to deal with the price charged by a qualifted chemiBt for dispensing. The hon. gentleman has, I think. also been rather unfair to the Corn· nrjc.;;;:.ion ln the ruanner in ·which he referred to it~ v:ork. T-IP said that the Con1missioner of Prices is of no Yalue. inasmuch as at anv tinw when an oil con1pany asked for an increase in the price of oil or petrol it got it. Such a statement. coming from an hon. mcmher of this House. is hardlv called for. He should know that when a co"rnpany. pro· prictor. or anybody connected with any line of p·oods make~ application to the Corn· missioncr he must eubmit evi·dence to sup­port his c1aim. Evidence of increased cost' must be adduced before the Commissioner, aud it is rather uncalled for to suggest the Commissioner of Prices neglects to do his duty by the public and perform the work that he is authorised to do under the Act. The fact that very few applications are made that haye to he reYiewed is because the proprietors do not as a rule make l],seless applications. The proprietor of a line does not make application for an increase in

Pharmacy Acts [24 NOVE::VIBER.] Amendnumt Bill. 1711

price unless he has some evidence to offer in support of his application.

Mr. MooRE: But the quantity and the cost of drugs vary so much. A prescription may contain a very rare drug.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AKD HOME AFFAIRS: I admit it is difficult, but diffi·culty is not justification for shirking. Y\" e take the power to make regulations providing the basis on which the Commis­sioner of Prices will fix his price. W o can refer it to him in that way. It is not easy to get a simple and effective method of contro1ling the price of dispensing drugs, but merely because it may prove difficult that is no illlstification, for the Government's refusing to tackle the job; and if the first attempt is not successful we shall have to continue. But we do know that the public have been paying too high a price for dis­pensed medicine>J., and we are endeavouring to provide that they shall get them at a reasonable pnce in the future. Certainly we do not want cheap medicine for the people at the expen,se of tho chemist. \Ve believe the registered chemist is entitled to a stan. dard of living as is every other person in the community, but at the same time we do not agree that the sick and suffering should be overcharged for medicines that are neces­eary to their very existence.

The Leader of the Opposition was also getting on to very unsta!tle ground this afternoon when he made such a fine case for free and unrestricted competition in indus­Uv, which he claims is desirable. If free a1id unrestricted competition is desirable in one industry it is desirable in all industries. He holds up the bloated. fat, grabbing Aus­tralian manufacturer as the horrible example of business enterprise and sheds his tears over the poor, starved, ·weakling foreign company that wants L come in and com­pete. He says competition should be free and unrc,tricted. He went on to sa v that our metal trades in this counh7 had sur­vived competition. Did the hon. gentleman know anything of politics in this rountry he would know that no nwtal trade in this c Juntry could have ourvived free and unre­sb·ictcd competition. The trade \Yould be still in the condition of the aboriginal, if free and unrestricted competition existed. The party to which the hon. gentleman belongs has fought for free and unrestricted competition in secondary industries, but has always craved the support of the com­munity in the industries in its districts. Free and unrestrictf'd competition applies just as much to the dairying industry as env other industrv and if the be-all and <'ncl-all of the hon~' gentleman's ambition is to supply a cheap commodity to the pl'O)Jle, \V hat about butter? He pointed out this afternoon the marvellous advantage~ the ~.,-orkf'r 'vould get if he got a pre~cript.ion dispensed a little cheaper. A worker might get a prescription n1ade 11p once or t\vice a )·ear, or even less than that. Personally, I hnse never taken a doctor's pre.scription, and I hrtYC been waiting ju>t on fifty years for it. But to resume the hon. gentleman's argun1cnt, 'vhat about a chPaper price for butter? EYery family uses large quantities a week, and if the hon. gentleman will get up in this House and advocate free and unrestricted competition with people in any part of Australia or Now Zealand in order to put butter on the market at a cheaper

rate I shall believe he earnest.

1\lr. M.HIER: The hon. the tariffs are used to indu~try.

is l1onest and in

gentleman knows protect intu-nal

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH Ac'.'D HO :VIE AFFAIRS: Yes, but the hon. gentle­man gets up and makes these foolish and ill­considered statements in the House and then wants to take up the time of the House in correcting them.

I1lr. lVIAHER: I did not use the term '· unre­stl·ictcd '' once.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH }.,J'\D HOJV1E AFFAIRS : I think the hon. gentle­man holds the record for personal explana­tions of what he has already said. It is 1ime he paid a little more attention to what he says in the House and considers the result of applying these queer doctrine; that he preaches here at times to other industries besides the one in which he is interested.

He also told us a very glowing storv about the cheapening of commoditie" b}· trusts and combines. The hon. gentleman represents a farming constituency in Parlia­ment. and if anybody should know the benefits of a trust or combine to a com­munitv he and all other such hon. members should. Farmers all have to use agricul­tural machinery. which has been an out­standing example of the necessity of pro­tecting an industry against unrestricted oompetition that wonld have prevented the farmers of this country from getting cheap American harvesting machinery and Aus­tralia from establishing its own har.-esting­machinery plants. The hon. gcntlcma;1 shonld know that notwithstanding the fact that there is a very heavy tariff on the Importation of machinery into Anstralia and that wage standards are higher in Australia and hours shorter than in the countries where foreign harvesting machinery is manufactured harvesting machinery is sold eh ea per in Australia than iu any other country in the world. International I-Iar­n•,tcr machinery was sold cheaper in Aus­tralia. than in other parts of the world bv that company. --

Mr. ='>IOORE: So was ours. Tho " Sun­shine" hanester is sold much cheaper in America than here.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:\D HO='>IE AFFAIUS: I am pointing out the desirability of protecting yourself from com­petition. The hou. gentleman chould know that if. at the time when his party were fight­ing the Australian proposals for national pro­tection, the farmers had had to pay the price that the South American farmers were paying for agricultural machinery, our farmers wonld have been in a bad wav. It was the competition of a highly protected secondary industry that kept the price reasonable.

i\J r. GODFREY ~lORGAX: Tho 111akcr of " Sunshine., harvesters becan1c a millionaire.

The SECRETARY FOH HEALTH A::'\D HOJ\IE AFFAIRS: Yeq, but he could not have been if it were not for the free and unrestricted competition. :-fat only would he not have been a millionaire, but thousands of his employees would have been out of \York, and the farmers would have boon pay­ing hjgher prices to A1nerican n1anufacturers. A millionaire, to be something worth while. according to hon. members opposite, must

Hon. E.lvl. Hanlon.]

1712 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

be a foreig·11er; for him to be an Australian seems an~ affront to the Leader of the Opposition.

That hon. gentlema11 went on to P:dol the value of a combinP. I should like him to take note of something that appeared in this 1norning'R "Courier-3,Iail" in regard to this industry with which we are dealing. This is the a1 ticle-

" SEXSATIOXAL RISE IN SHARE YALl'ES.

" RP~IOURED A:ILU.GAThLITTOX OF TWO

COolPAXIES.

"Sydney, :Monday. .. :;'\ egotiations are in progrc's for an

.amalgamatio11 between Boots Pure Drug­Company, Limited, the English chain store chemist company, and \Yashington H. Soul, Pattison, and Company, Limited.

"Represc•ntatin•s of the English com­pany have been conferring with the directors of the Sydney company for more than a week, but it is understood that the tenns of any amalga1nation which tnay be arranged have not yet 1 >eeu sctt~ed.

·· Ruiuonrs of the negotiation~ have ea used a sensational rise in the shares of \Ya,shington H. Soul, Pattison, and Companv, Limited. They were sold at 82s. in October, but fell to 72s. when it "as reportBd that Boots Limited pro­jlosecl to begin business in Australia. They recovered slowly to 75s., and then, when the rumours rea,ched the market, rose to 76s. 6d. That was last \Vednes­da.y. To-day they sold up to 91s., closing at 90s. 3d .. so that in less tha,n a wBek the rise has been more tha,n 15s. a, share. The shares have a paid-up va,lue of £1 each. Boots Pure Drug Company, Limited, has a' capital of £3,000,000, a,nd vYashington H. Soul, Pattison, and Com­pany has a pa.id-up capital of £315,000."

M:r. :\iAHER: That proves my case.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS : The effect of the rumour that an overseas chain-store compa,ny-not a foreign company, because most of its capital is British-is to amalgamate with \Vashington H. Soul, Pattison, and Company. Limited, .caused a rise of 15s. in the value of £1 shares. so that the shareholders in the local .company know that if the overseas company took control they would get greater profits. It does not show that the public would get a cheaper article. The combined firm would -eliminate competition and reduce the ser­,-ice to the public.

Mr. GODFREY l\'l:QRGAX interjected.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS : And no concern gives le" r0al value to the communitv than vVool­"·orths. People bet and buv lottery tickets and do thin!-'S that we in OUr wisdom SaV nre not in the interests of the commnnih: but I do not think that any hon. membcl.: opposite would sav that for sound value in Bommodities the ·chain-store 6d. and 2s. counters are the places to go. People get a far better service from a. firm or store with a local responsibility.

The .Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the. Bill creates- a close corporation of chemists m Queensland and restricts busi­ness to those who arc here. It does nothing

[Hon. E. ]}1. Hanlon.

of tho sort. If the hon. g·entleman had read the Bill I do not think it possible that he could have belie,-ed that. It contains no restriction on the opening of chmnist'3' shops. Any qualified chemist may open a, chemist's shop.

M:r. MAHER : It restricts company enter­prise.

The SECREL\RY FOR HEALTH AXD HO'VIE AFFAIRS: Yes. It seeks to pre­n:-nt companies frorn seizing control of tho industry. Ko restrictions are irnposcd upon the opening of chemists' shops. Any chemist at all ma,· open a shop anywhere without restriction. The hon. gentleman should first read a Bill before he tries to criticise it.

lion. members opposite have also objected to the provision that prevents a c-ompany that buys a chen1i.st's shop from carrying it on under its own name. Thcv contend that that provision should not be .. in the Bill. At the present time. in the case of L. A. \Vilkinson (Northern) Proprietary Limited. that name is over the door of the shops con­trolled by that company. I am not blaming Mr. \Yilkinson for that. The law allow, the name of \Yilkinson to be used. It make6 a v·ider appeal than Brown. Smith, Joncs, Ol'

some othe,· unknown although qualified chemist.

Mr. ::VIoonE: IIc has to disnlav the name of the chemist actually disp-ens.ing in the shop.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD B OME AFFAIRS: Yes. he must display his namP in the shop, but the name " \Yilkin­son " is the name that draws the trade. Chemistry and dentistry are both very highly skilled profe .... sions. but I think that public safctv is more concerned about the skill of a ch.emist than the skill of a dentist. I should prefer to have a tooth extracted badlv than haye a chcrnist use strychnine instc.Rd of rnagnesia in a n1Pdicine · that I was to take. There must be greater rcli­abilitv in the case of the chemist. As a matter of fact. chemists ma_v correct mis­takes clue to carelessness on t.he nart of doctors. Thev can detect an.vthing wrong· with a prescr{ption and send it bar·k to b0 corrected.

Mr. BRAKD: .That is vet-y often clone. The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD

II0:\1E AFFAIRS: Yee. Therefore. the reliability and skill of the dispensing chemist is of just as much importance to the com­munity as the reliability and skill of a den­tist. \Vhen hon. members opposite were in power thev prevented dentists from placing their names over the doors of dental sur­geries where they did not personally operate. They said that that was "·rong, and I quite agree that it -was wrong. Quite a number of dentists had advertised with such success in the metropolitan papers that circulatpr\ in the countl·~- that they decided to open dental surgeries at places like Toowoomba, Ipswich, and Gympic although they did not practise. there themselves. They saw an opportumtv of exploiting the results of their successful advertising, and so they established branches with their names O\ er the doors of each. Yery often they neYcr saw the place because thev neYcr went there. Hon. members opt1osito introduced a Bill to prevent dentists from carrying on their profession under their own name unless they attended the places personally and did the work themselves. 'They acted quite rightly, and I cannot see

Pharmaey Acts [24 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1713

why they should cavil at the action of this Government in attempting to do the same thing in connection with chemists which is just as important in the intere~ts of the welfare and health of the people as the work oE dentist.s.

Mr. :Y1oORE: This Bill does the opposite. It make- the company that buys a shop carrv it on in the name of the person from whmn it buys it.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: It prevents companies from putting their names over additional shops. The object of the Bill is to prevent companies from extending their operations in this connection. There is nothing to be afraid of in saying ,~,--hat we are airning at in the Bill. It is to make it impoesible for companies to extend their pharmacy business in Queensland and gain control of the trade. \Ye hRYe no desire to be unfair to the peopll' \Yho are in the industrv to-dav. \Ve arc not interfering with companies that are in operation here to-day. The original intention of the 1917 Act was to prevent the pxtension of company pharmacies, but like' <>Very other Act of Parliament that is in operation for a time, a way was found of getting round it. The company, L. A. \Yilkinson (Northern) Proprietary Limited. 1~ one of the biggest p harrnacy con1panies <>tWratiug in Queeusland to-day, and it got round it all right. 'I'here was a, loophole in the Act and it found it. \Ve do not intend to interfere with it now. The Govern­ment have no fault to find with the service rendered by L. A. Wilkinson (Korthern) Proprietary Limited. It so far has given

f!'OOd scrYice and lJioneering ser\·icc. It scen1s Ycry drastic to dcregistcr a \vholc

company for tbe act of one individual in one of its shops. But registered companies mLr,;t ace, pt some resvonsibility for the work of their servants. I know how chain-store companies operate in the old country, especi­ally in the provision, tea, catering, a,nd cafe tra.des. I know the hist-orv of the chain­stores movement well. I !~now its history in America. In each and every case the cornpany niakes thE> rnanagcr of the shop liable for the return of a fixed percentage on e\·erv article that enters one of its shops. Any wastage, br-eakage, or loss must be borne by the manager out d his own pocket, or he mnst clo something that is illegal or \\Tong to nutke up such \Yastagc. brt\::tkagc. or loss. That has been the practice of these big cbain-store cornpanics since their incep­tion. That is thc only way they can work. They must be sure of getting a certain return on their goods before sending them out. Thev plan their business that way. n-1ost of our small storekeepers, or quite a number of thorn, on taking a shop, put a few pounds' worth of goods into it and hope for the best. which -does not happen. That is how they lose their few pounds. A chain­store con1pany, such as the one in question \Yith a capital of :£3,000,000. does not go into bu,iness that wav. It sees a return on its monev before it "puts that monev into the busi1iess. That is why we have" taken some precaution in this Bill to make com­panies liable for the things they make their employees do.

The Premier, in the course of conversa­tion this morning, told me of the practice of one of the big butter companies in the old country. He pointed out that in every shop controlled by that company the manager was compelled to sign an agreement that

he would strictly carry out the provisiom of the Margarine Act, that is to say, he would not commit any breach of the law. The result was that every time the oompany was prosecuted for tinkering with this busi­ness it produced the written agreement in order to prove that it was not culpable. The result was that whereas the company escaped the manag·er wa.s fined, and often sacked, whereas the company got off scot free. Some years ago I had a conversation with a n1au in Brisbane vvho "~as tnanager of Qne of the big butter chain stores in the British Isles. I discussed with him the methods the company adopted. He was a poor ma.n, and if he did not at times cut down the weig·ht he would have had no wages left. He was compelled to weigh under because of the evaporation of the moisture in the butter, which was due to " particularly drv atmos­phere. Had he not adopted 'this· practice he would have had no \vages at the end of the \Yeek. 'l'hat is how chain stores grow. That is how thev are sure of absolute accu­rac,- in profits. They plan their profit ahead, not in the hap~azard way practised hy many persons 1 n btunness.

"When the Bill reache,s the CommitteB stage I propose to move an amendrnent makinp: the deregistration to applv onlv to the shop in which the offence is committed. It would be very drastic indeed to deregis­ter all the shops of the company for an offence in any one of its businesses. rrhat is to say, the derogistration will apply only to the shop concerned and the individual in charge of it. lf this individual were work­ing for himself the business would be deregis­terecl. Under the present law, if a chemist commits an offence under the Act he loses his registration as a chemist and his busi­ness is gone. That is not too heavv a penalty to l;>e applied to a company. "

Mr. MAHER: It is still t-oo drastic.

The SECRE'l'ARY FOR HEALTH AND HO:Y1E AFF "\IRS : The Leader at the Opposition thinks the amendment is too drastic, but such a provision is not too -drastic for a poor battling chemist whose life's savings would be invested in the place of business that might bP deregistered. He would lose his livelih(lod as well as his life's savings. It is too drastic to make the same monetary penalties on a company a::, on an individual chemist who would not be able to vvork again.

Mr. MooRE: ]\;"ot too drastic if the maM himself does it, but it is a different matter to n1ake an ernvloycr re:'ponsible if an employee does it.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~D HO :'viE AFF "\IRS: Ho has to accept some of the responsibility for his employees ..

In regard to the 1uanaging director. ,,.c, propose to qualify the wording of the clause to give him the opportunity of saying that he had no influence in the committal of the offence, but companies have to take some responsibility for thP acts of their· staff. If any big company opens a chemist's shop and its staff supply \'.Tong drugs or arc care­less in their work the company that makes the profit must take some of the responsi­bility; otherwise, there would be no end to the way in which companies of that kinrl could drive their employees to commit all the breaches of the law imaginable.

Mr. MooRE: They have not been driving them to do it up to now.

Hon. E. 111. Hanlon.J

1714 Pharmacy Acts [ASSE:MBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:\TD HO:'IIE AFFAIRS: They may if they get the chain-store svstem. The decent citizen, who has some personal responsibility to his client. is not likelv to do that. but the sharc­lwldei· living in 'America or· England, who had shares in a company operating a shop in Paddington, would not be concerned about mv health; all he would be concerned about would be the dividend he was going to get on his shares. He is in a different position to the local citizen who carries on a business.

I believe the Bill will result in maintain­ing what is a very valuable service in Queens­land. There are some hundreds of chemists established throughout the State who are giving a very valuable service to the com­munity, and the Bill will prevent that ser­vice from being wiped out and "·ill pro­vide for the supply of that service to the com­munity at a les.ser cost than they ha vc been paying in the past.

Question-" That the Bill be now read a second time" (Jir. Hanlon's motion)-put and passed.

C Ql,DJITTEE.

(Jfr. Hauson, JJuranda, in the chair.) Clauses 1 to 3, both inclusive, .agreed to. Clause 4-" Repeal of S' et ion 13 (2) "­

:\lr. l\lOORE (clul!igny) [4.8 p.m.]: I should like to know what the object of thi~ clame is. Section 13 (2) of the Act .sa,s-

- " X o person shall be admitted to the final qualifying examination unless he has attained the age of twenty-one years and has fulfilled all the conditions pre­scribed."

I suppose there \vas a reason for fixing the , 1ge of twenty-one before a person wonld be allowed to have the personal respon.'l b1 h t" of conductin'" a chemist's shop. This Bii\ wipes out tl~at section, and l?r~-.umably a lllinor can assume that responsibihly.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon. [thacu) [4.9 p.m.]: 'Cnd~r the Act no person can sit for his exammatwn before he reaches the age of twenty-one. and all \Ye are domg now is making provision. not that a perso.n can be registered as a chcn1ist before he ~s 1\YCllt~-onC'. but th:lt he (_"111 sit fnr ln::3 c-x<~lllruHrion bf'forc he' rc•aC'hc" tluu ag·e. :\ urnbers of Young rncn qualify and are reach- for th,~ir final examina lion at the ag-e 'of nineteen, but at present t_hey car:not 3 it till they ai·c t·wenty-one. Obviously, tl1-t1

infiicts a hardship on these people, who have tn keep up their studies for almost _two more vears or take up the course aga1n SIX n1onths bdore their majority. All the Bill seeks to do is to allow them to complete that examma­tion, but they will not be able to be regis­tered till they reach the .age of twent.,--one.

Clau, e 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6. as read, agreed to. C'bu.;;c- 7-" _y t w net ions 2fJA rul.(l 2fiB-

lnfam ous conduct in a professional respect by. company, etc."-

The SECHETARY FOR HEALTH A~D HO:\IE AFF~'\IRS (Hon. E. l\1. Hanlon, ltlu1ca) [4.11 p.m.]: I moYe the following a:rnendment-

., On page 4. line ~3, after the word­' employee'

insert the words-' in any shop and/ or dispensary.' "

[Hon. E . .'d. Hanlon.

This amendment will necessitate consequen~ tial amendments, but the principle will be that the responsibilitv for malpractice wil1 be on one shop and n'ot on the whole of the business conducted by a company.

Amendment agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, ltlwca) [4.13 p.rn. :] I moye the following amendment-

" On page 5, line 3, ~fter the word-­' respect'

insert the words-. in respect of t}w carrying on L.! it of such business in ouc-h shop and 1or dispcn:sary.'"

Tl1is is a consequential amendment.

:\1r. :\lOORE (Aubigny) [4.12 p.m.]: I do not intend to object to the amendment, but I recall that when speaking to-day the :\1inister suggested that an employer, whether an individual, con1pan~·, or firm, must be responsible for the misdeeds of the employee. In his explanation he elated that a chemist in a one-man shop could have hrs shop deregistcred for misconduct. Of course, that could be quite justifiable. But take the case of a chemist who has an employee. The c•mplo:vee has to be regiotercd, otherwise the employer has to give continuous personal _,upen-i,ion to the shop, \Veek in and week out. The employee does something that is construed as unprofe6sional conduct. The employer then, in addition to ha.ying to take his common law responsibility for the act of his employee, is liable to clereg-istration and to havt' ]Jis livelihood taken from him. It is all very fine to say that an employer must be rerSpon~ible for the acts of his employee, but I do not know of anv case in which the la'" goes to the. extent of taking away frotn a man the whole of the means of his liveli­hood because of a misdeed or unprofessional conduct on the part of an employee. This Bill pn?sc1·ibcs no altcrnati\-o penalty. After the recommendation of the oflicers of the GoYernment. the board can determine that the ehop be deregisterecl, because of some act committed by the emplovec. 'The shop ma;;- be left in charge of a qualified employee, hut becau.se of unprofeB:-;ional conduct on rhe part of that employee the business can lw cleregistered, and thus closed up. 'This is an extremely drastic penalty to place on any individual without any recourse to a •:ourt of law. There can be a rehearing c-crtainlv. it seems to me that the same prlneipl'e involved in tl1c ca~c of tho one man as of a company or i1rm. where the P.·rPtltv i~ the closure• of the wlwlc of the hJ..,in•:,·:::~.

Imag-lne the opport:_miti(''3 there arc' for doiug it ! Suppn~e tht•rc '"ere two chcrnist:--~ ...hop:::. in a ~In all place aud one '' antcd to

of the ollwr. liP could induce an in th0 oppo~ition shop to do sorne-

1nlproff'~~1onal or infamon.::, nwkinp; it hi~ while, and hl'ing about clcrcgi:';­

trati0n of the oth0r ~hop. It secn1s a Yery drao;tic puni-,hmcnt for ~omrthing over \vhirh t}J(' snrH•rvi ing chemist might have no con­troL If it is a mistake in a prescription he is liable and has to bear his responsibilit:;-, but this is going beyond what most Acts provide in giving' the board the povvcr of deregistra tion and taking a way a person's livelihood.

Pharmacy Acts [24 NovE~IBER.] Amendment Bill. 1715

Takt~ the c a,se of a young n1an going out ia the country and establishing a shop. He will try to get some help so that he has not to be tied clown to the shop or chemist's hours inclefmitely. He gets a qualified assistant as soon as he can afford it. and that qualified assistant might do something unprofessional. but the principal has to bear all the respon­'ibility. His shop is clercgistered, and he has no compensation. The same thing hap­pens to a company or a firm. ThP Minister sa vs he has modified the clause considerablv i,; that only the shop in which an employee Pmploycd by the company committed a mis­clemcanom· would be closed. but the penalty i, very drastic, and is liable to a great deal of abme. Any person in selecting an employee is careful to tr:-· to get one of good character and one who is painstaking. but no one can tell what temptations might com0 in the ·way of his f'Inployel\ and an ernployer rnight suddenly find himself dcregistererl he ea use of sorne nli~dcnlf)anour his assistant harl committed.

The board has all opl'ortunity of recon­;.iderin£· the matter at a future time-it might aeregister for a certain time-but what g-ood \Youlcl that be? Suppose a chemist in a COUntry town were cleregistered for twe!Ye months or some time like that. Could the pcoph' do without a chemist's shop for that period·: Sou1cbod:v c1~e won1d co1ne in, and the original chetnist woulJ lose his business. I do not know to what length the board has to go to get PYidenC'e to prove infamous or Ullprofcssional conduct. but a tremendous re,pomibility is placed on the shoulders of ehPrnist:;: :::.elertin!I assistants. and a ver:v "~ide power is given to the board. Tlw l\lini~tc·r. in introducing the Bill. said thnt. t !JP eu1ploycr. us far a~ hi~ legal position i~ .::·oncC'rnec1, is C'quall~· responsible-or i~ ,~holly responsible-for the acts of hi.s

The Hill g0es further and places m hands of a board apjlointcd hy the (;-on~rn:nent thP j)O\YE'r to df'rcgister for ~uch period as the,- like. if not for all time. Deregistration for a period is almost as ~p,·crP a:.; I"ODlpletc deregi:·tration. becaus0 it dof's n{1t giYc the nvu1 on opportnnit~· t_o 5-t:.-trt a;xain- in a plarc unless he relic:-:; entircl;.~ r•n the ., •JJj>ath:-- of the people in that area. Ff~· is nor nllowecl to praeti~e his profession although he is perfectly qualified, not because he did anything vyrong, but because an 0mployee of his did something wrong. Surely there shonld be sonw oppertunit7 for

11 a''Jleal against the ]Wnalty imposed. Eithn rlw board will haYc to gloes over thin!!'' that shoukl not be pardoned, because it realises it wou1r1 be unjust to make two J><·ople .uffer for the fault of one, or else it \\·ill ha\·e to ·wipe out the bnsinc:::s and al1c.1w :;.onJf'onc else to con1c in. I c·an hardlv credit. that ~udt drastic proyision:-; us those i~ clause 7 lHC int0nded. It seems to me that the ehemist· han• been singled out to bear an cxtraordiJJary responsibility and suffer a rno:"t seYE'l'C punishn1ent.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:'\D HO~IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. J\I. Hanlon. Ithaca) [4.23 p.m.]: The proyision is made here for an appeal by the company con­eemed to the Supnc>me Court to decide ques­tions of fact. A higher court again could de.·ide a question of law. but the rehearing lwfore the Supreme Conrt opens up the YYhole question whether the board has clone the riuht thing or not. This Yvill make the bo~rct Ycry 'careful. If the individual

chemi>t C'l' the company think> that an unfair thing ha> been clone it can apply for an injunction until such tirne as the appeal is heard. and the busine:.:s can be carried on in the usual way. It is all right to put a matter beyond appeal wlwre there is little prospect of an injustice's being done, but obviously it would b~~ an injustice if a serious punishment ''ras impo~ed for a slight rnisden1eanour. ThP Supreme' f'ourt does not merely hear the (jl!Cstion on n point of rule or law. but rPhoars it. and c1ecic1es the facts for itself.

There are a rnunber of arnendn1ents conse­qtwntial on the alteration in that clause.

" On page 5, line 9, after the word­' chen1ists '

in:--ert the \Yon1s-• in the :-;hop and, 1or di~pC'lL"-ary con­cerned.'''

Amendment agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:'\D HO}IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. }I. I-Ianlon, Itltaw): I moye the following ame11rlment :-

"On page 5, liue 10, after the word-' be'

insert the words-' in relation to the shop andjm· dio­pensary concerned.' n

Arncndnh'll[ agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:\D HOME r\FFAIRS (Hon. E. }l. HallloJ;. ltluuu): I lllOYe the following auu?-ndrnent :--

'·On page- 5. line 21, after the 'H>nl--• chc1nlstf'

in~crt tllc \Yards-' in the shop and/or diopl'l1,<ar,\~ con­cerned.' "

Allwndrucnt agreed to,

The SECEETARY FOR HEALTH c\:'\D HOME c\FFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hcwlon. Jth((ru): I mo,-e tlw following- amendment:--

,. On pago 5. !in<' 24, after the \Yard­' be·

inc,ert ihe words-' in relation to the ~hop and 'or dis­pensary concerned.' "

.L\nll'ndrnPnt agreed to.

Tlw SECUET~\RY FOR HEALTH .1.:'\lJ HO:\IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanloll.

ltltucn_): I lEOYe tht> following a1nenchner~t :-" On page 5, line 27. after the n·ord-

' apply' im0rt thl' words-

' in respect of the carr\ 1ng on b~ ~t of the business of pharmaceutical chemists in the shop anrl/or rlispen­sa.r.'l concerned.' ''

_\mcndment agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:'\Ll HO}IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. :\I. Hanion. ltlwcu): I moye the following- auwndmenl :--

" On pag0 5. line 39. after the \\Ore!--' sccbon '

in::3ert the \Yorcb-' in re:Spect of the carrYllliT on b~· it of the bu~inE'f'S of phar~nacentical chen1i~t~.:;, in any :;;hop and/or dE~ pensary.'"

Amendment agreed to.

Hon. E. JI. Hanlon.J

1716 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

::\lr. ::\Lc\.HER (ll"<sl Jforclon) [4.29 p.m.]: I propose to rnoYc an amcnrln1ent to on1it a 1l words from line 41 to 55 on page 5, and from line 1 to 8 on page 6. ~

The Cl-L\IR:YL\::\': The Minister proposes to tnove an arHcndn1cnt on tho:-.0 \Yards. Therefore, to preserve his right. I ~ngg0st that the hon. member for \Yest 1\Ioreton should first of all move an amendment to omit. all words from line 41 to the word " shall " on line 48 on page 5.

::\lr. ?viAHER (West M01·eton) [4.30 p.m.]: move the following amendment:-

" On page 5, lines 41 to 48, omit the follo,ving words:-

' 20B. (1.) \Vhere a company as defined b'. "The Companies Act of 1931 " is, under and in pursuance of section 20A of this Act, deemed to have com­mitted infamoll,s conduct in a profes­sional respect by reaBon of any act done or omitted to be done by an employee of such company then, and in any such case, the chairman of directors or manager or other govern­ing officer, by whatever name cal1ed, of suc:h company shall ... ' "

If that iB carried I shall move the omission of the remaining \vords I have mentioned-

also be deemed to have committed infau1ous conduct in a professional respect and may be charged and dealt with by the Board under and in pursuance of scdion twenty of this Act accordingly.

" (2.) \\'here an association of personB registered as a firm under 'The Registra­tion of Firms "''cts, 1902 to 1912,' is, under and in pursuance of section 20A of this Act. deemed to have committed infan1ous conduct in a profec;sional respect by reason of any act done or omitted to be done by an employee of such association then, and in any such case, eYery member of the firm shall aho be deemed to have committed infamous conduct in a professional renpec~ and may be charged and dealt with by the board under and in pursuance of section bYcnty of this Act accordingly."

The amc ndments proposed by the J\1inister do not meet the situation. As the ?vlinister now a(hnits, the clause in itB original ~tate was most dra.stic. An employee could, \lith­ont the knnwlcdge of the directors or con­h·ollers of the business. automatical1y put a company into liquidation, and th:·ow a large number of employees on lhe ldbour rnarket.. The ~Iinister now seeB, in Yiew of the criticism of the Opposition, the equity of the case-that it is not right that such d!'astic power should be contained in the Bill. Even with the amendments the Minister has moved the clause is still open to very great abuse. Is it right, even with the qualification he ha, made, for any employee to damage the business of his directors by involving it in the cancellation of itB license merely because he may do some wrong Y The onus is placed on the shoulders of thP members or directors of the company to prove that they chd not know, and had no rneans of kno\ving, of such acti0"'1 or mis­conduct. That is verv difficult for them to prove. So the clause· still places them in a very invidious position indeed. As I pointed out em the second reading, various classes of employees possessed of a grudge against their employers, because of Bome fancied

[Mr. Maher.

slight or reprimand administered in +.he course of business, may become sulky and obstinate, finally deciding to get OYon with their employers. Such a one may do some­thing that might be construed by a board as being infamous conduct. It is rcgrett.ab1e that the Bill does not define infamous conduct. There is no definition in the exist­ing legislation, either.

The SEcRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HmiE AFFAIRS: There is none in the Dental or ::\ledical Acts or in the British Act. The definition waB cut out to save punishment.

M1·. MAHER: It is a cardinal rule of British justice that where there is " doubt the person affected should receive the benefit of it. Experience may have found that it is not ach·isable to define infamons conduct. I take it that it is left entirelY to the board to detPnnine what is iufatnm1:-~ condurt. bnt the fact remains that an employee could do a great deal of injustice to his employer if his word was taken against that of the direc­tors or members of a co1npan:v. It i3 an cxtraordinaril? difficult position for any firm to be placed in. I think the penalty is far too drastic.

M v amendment seeks to omit the proposed new· section, which gives this power to the board. I feel that the members or directors of a firm could be placed in a very difficult position by the action of an irresponsible or dishonest employee. Is it not going t<?o far to cancel the license to conduct a busmess? \Vould it not bo much better to fix a fine or some other punishment less drastic, with the qualification the Minister has submitted? There is no doubt that the board would ask for evidence, but there is room for a gross injustice-for a miscarriage of justiee­bccan"e one 1nan's w-ord i,s as. good as another's, and it is .hard to say whom t~e board would believe. To cancel a man s license because of infamous conduct on the part of his employee is to my miJ?.d entirely wrong. The amendments the 11lmster has proposed still leave it open to very graYo abuse. as the controller of the bus mess has tc) proYc that he did not kHow aud had no means of knowing of such act on the part of his employee.

Then, again, ·as I said earljer. there is always the jealousy engendered in compe­tition between rival houses and the possi­bility of some maliciously-minded employer's bribing an employee of his rival to do some­thing whereby his competitor would be put out of business. All these things are possi­bilities. \Yhere big interests are involYed and large profits are concerned, very strange things have happened in tfle past, and may happen in the future. vVe cannot regard them as being remote and unlikely. I think that justice and reason can only be served in this matter by omitting so much of the clause as inserts the proposed new section.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, Ithaca) [4.39 p.m.]: I .have no intention of accepting the amendment, because it ·would destroy the real objectiYe of the clause. I cannot see any justification for eliminating the responsibilitv that is placed on the pro­prietor or a company. The average prac­tising chemist will not do things that are wrong for the pleasure of it. In the case of an employee who became a drug addict, obviously nobody could hold the employer responsible; but if the employee is illegally selling drugs and the profits are going into

Pharmacy Acts [U NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1717

the firm's pockets then the firm knmYs some­thing about it and must accept some of the responsibility. The drug traffic is one of the most difficult things to deal with in our modern ciYilisation, and every possible handicap should be placed in the way of it. 'When a profit is made from an illicit traffic such as that the person who gets that profit should bear part of the punishment. Wh11t is the good of merely punishing the unfor­tunate p0r::::;on who reallv has to rnakp hi~ liYing doing what he is· told? This claClS~ makes the employer responsible for part oi the conduct of the emplovee. And then there is the appeal to the 'supreme Court. ~f. a.n employer. or "' propriet&ry, thinks a ra1r deal has not been received from the board &nd that the decision has been undulv ha~·sh he or it can, as I have previously pomted out,, apply. for a stay of proceedings or for an mJunctwn to prevent the board from putting its decision into effect. On appeal, the Supreme Court will review the whole of the facts. It will not be a case of hearing argument on some technical point.

:VIr. MOORE (:iubi_qny) [4.41 p.m.]: I can­not follow the hon. gentleman at all. This clause does not de&! with illicit drug traffic.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~D Ho}!E AFFAIRS: It deals with professional miscon­duct.

:\1r. MOORE : The Minister now endea­vours to put up a case under the guise of illicit drug traffic, but this clause does not deal with that.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~D Ho::.lE AFFAIRS : That is unprofessional conduct.

:Ylr. 1\IOORE: It may be, but, as has been pointed out by the Secretary for Agricnl­ture and Stock, how can the chemists be held liable in a case where a veterinary surgeon or others purchase ft drug in Ycterinary quantities. which, I understand. is seven times those required b,- human bcjngs? -

The SEcRET.\RY FOR HF.\LTH A~D Ho}!E AFFAIRS : That would not be misconduct.

Mr. 2\iOORE: This clause provides for the conduct of the chemist. The proposed new section 20B, suhsection (1), reads-

. . . The chairman of directors or manager or other governing officer. by whatever name called, of such company shall also be deemed to have commilted infurnous conduct in a professional re:-pect and may be charJed and dealt with b:· the Doard under and in pursuance •Jf section 20 of thi.' Act accordingly."

Another subsection provides that-. . . Everv member of the firm

shall also be dc'emed to have committed infftmous conduct in a professional respect and may be charged and dealt with by the Doard under and in pursu­ance of SAction 20 of this Act accord­ingly."

I do not know whether theoc provisions are governed by the proviso in clause 8-

" Provided that nothing in this sub­section cont&ined shall prohibit or be deemed to prohibit an association of persons consisting wholly of pharm&­ceutical chemists and registered as a firm under ' The Registration of Firms Acts 1902 to 1912 ' . . from carry-on ' the business of pharmaceutical chemists where such business is c&rried on at one shop and/ or dispensary only."

This goes very far. For instance, a number of pharmaceutical chemists may be registered as a firm. Their living is dependent upon the c·arrying out of their work, for which they iJCtYe pa~sed the necessary exan1ination. A pa:f­ticular employee is charged with unprofes­~ional or infarnous conduct. Every member of that firm is then deemed to have committed rnisconduct in a rJrofessional re~pcct, and may Le charged nnder the new subsections 20A and 20B of this Bill. Does the hon. gentle­man see the position? It is Yery difficult for every member of the firm to be able to prove that he knew nothing about the mis­conduct. H.e is judged guilty until he c&n prove he d1d not know of what the indi­Yidual 'vas doing.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:ND HosiE AFFAIRS : If the general manager is afraid of losing his job he will not allow anything of that nature at &11.

:VIr. 1IOORE : It is not only the general nJanager who is in\·olYcd; every rnernber of the firm is brought >~ithin these provisions. It is &11 very fine for the Minister to point to the fact th&t an employee may he sciling drugs illicitly or quantities gre&ter than are required for prescriptions, but the etuployoe ma" not even put the money he rcc•,ive' for the drugs intp the cash box. It is very difficult to check up on such a pr&ctice. The­per:,on to ·whom the drugs ·were sold ha.s to be found, and, naturally, purch&scrs arc in and out of the shop all da0 . Is the manager or every member of the firm to measlll e up out of each particular container how much l1as been ,old each dav in order to discover "·hat has been sold? I think the penalty is an extrao1·dinary one, and for every n1e1nbee of the firm, or the general m&nager, or the managing director to be judged guilty until he can prove that he is iunocent and had no me&ns of knowing anything a bout it is placing them all in a very difficult position. The Minister has gone ont of his way to make the penalty extra­ordinarii,, drastic above wh&t might happen to chemists for failing to meet their ordin&ry responsibilities. The hon. gentleman seems to think it is quite easy, but I think it is ver-, difficult and it covers a Yery wide area. If every member of the firm can be deemed to be guiltv until he proves his innocence, ,,,o introdt1Ce quite a new rn·inciple into a statute. An indiYiclual is usually held to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. but here he is regarded as guilty aud the l'rown or the board has not to prove any­thing. It merely makes an assertion.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: Is it not oln·ious that the manager of a fin11 cloes not -want anything wrong to hal>pen?

:VIr. J\lOORE: A manager of a bank doe,; not '" .i11t anything wrong to ha11pcn in the \Yay of an en1ployec's seizing the money, but in some cases he cannot prevent it.

The SECRETAHY FOR HEALTH AXD Ho~n; AFFAIRR: He does not assess the bank tills at half their value and put the profits in his pocket.

Mr. MOORE: No, and this individual might not put it in the till either. Ho might put it in his own pocket and be guilty of unprofessional conduct in that w&y.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:ND Ho~tE AFFAIRS: A firm would not be responsible for th&t.

Mr. Moore.]

1718 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. MOORE: How is it to pron' whether it got the money or not? It is all vct'_l· well for the Minister to sav that the finn "ould not say, even if it d.id get it. The penalty is tremendous; if an indi,·idual e1nployee of a fir1n cornmits infamous con­duct, every member of the firm is deemed to be guilty. Surely the Minister cannot aesert that that is fair? 1'\o one would dream of convicting people in any other trade, or preventing them from doing busi­ness because an employee was guilty of infamous conduct.

The :Minister is looking at the question from the point of view of profit or gain to the company. It might not be a case of selling illicit drugs at all. A chemist might be using inferior drugs or doing many other things that would render him liable. but the Minister selects one particular offence. Hr· has told us that the firm might make no profit at all. Why should an employee d<? it for the benefit of. the firm? If he is gomg to sell illicit drugs he might do it for his own benefit and the firm might find it diffi. cult to prove whc're the money went. The penaltv is out of all proportion to the offence. considering the impossibility of proving a misdemeanour agaimt an employee. The Minister has watered down the punishment a little. If eYery member of the firm, or the company manager. can prove that lw did not know and had no means of know· ing he is exempt. but otherwise the whole business is closed. If a person is runmng a chemist's shop-and he is only allowed to run one according to a later clause-and the whole business is closed up because an cmplovec is guiltv of infamous conduct. I cannot understa,{d a clause of that kind, en'n \Yith the proYi'o that an employee shall haYe a chance of praYing his innocence after he is first held to be guilty. Th~ clause is too drastic altogether.

The· SECRETARY FOR HEALTII AND HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. :\I. Hanlon, lthuc'l) [4.50 p.m.!: The board will have to art in a judicial capacity, and act in acc0rd~ a~:cc with th•· 'videnc·c. It will not be taken for grantee!, lwcause the board is appointed f rmn the profession b.Y the GoYCrt1n1cnt and g-iYcn a task to do v-ith the necessary powers to do it, that it will act without a sense of responsibility. Their fuuction is purely judicial. and we must take it for granted that the board \Yill carry out the task in the right wa~·. If it fails to do so it leaYes itself open to ridicule by reason of the fact that the person punished has an appeal immediately to th" Supreme Court for a rehearing.

It is no use hon. members saying that it is enough if the emplo_vce is punished. If the firm desires to make a quick profit by the sale of drugs it must be held ~esponsible. There is no misconduct in the authorised sale of drugs on a prescripti<m, but if the firm is tl·ying to make mom\)' hy the illicit sale of drugs-on which there is an immense profit -there is no reason why the people who get the profit should not bear part of the blame. If the company does its job properly in checlong up drug sales, there will not be much rhance of the emplc,yec's getting away with the drug·s or selling them. There is a danger to the community that we must "Yoid, and I do not think that the penalty 1s too severe.

Amendment (Jlr. Jlaher) negative-d.

[Mr. Moore.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS (lion. E. M. Hanion, IthurrL) [4.53 p.m._l: I mon' the followin;.: an1endmcnt~

"On page 5. line 48, after the \Vord­' shall'

in:-;ert the wonh-' (unless he proYes that he did not know and had no n1eans of knowing of mch acts of infamous ccnduct in thP professional sense)' "

:\'Ir. MOORE (A.ubirJny) [4.54 p.m.]: How is be to Jll'OYe that he had no means of know­ing? The clause op<ens up limitless possibili­ties. The Minister said a little while ago that if a man was looking after his business properly aud checked up his clrug·s he would krlDI\'. Suppose, for instance, that the assis­tant was selling drugs and thev were nct checked up for a week or a month because it was thought the man was trustworthy; theu when it came to a question of the boarcLo deciding the question of infamous conduct, th,, point is no1 whether the man knew. but it will be said he had means of knowinz in that he shoul-d have checked up twic'e a \reek.

The SECRET-\UY FOR HEALTH AXIl HO:VE AFFAIRS: The clause is fair.

2\Ir. MOO RE: What is fair·: The ~linis­ter puts in an arnendn1ent to ~ay " unle~s he had no n1eans of kno\Ying."

The St:CREL\I'.Y FOR HE.\LTH -\XD HO:liE AFF \IRS: It could be put in as " know­ingl~?," but you would never g0t anybody then.

Mr. iVIOOHE: I know it is difficult. The J\Ilni:.;tcr is ju~tified in using the word " knowingly," but it may l;>e impossible for the person concerned to prove he had no means of knowing. If he says that he had no means of klwwing the retort can be made, "You could have checked uli', ey;ry night. You ought to- haYe known. 'Ihe same can be said in connection with defalca­tions bv an accountant-if the auditor had been tl;ere all the time he would have dis­covered them. It is very easy to say that these things should be done, but it is Yery difficult to run a business and to know all the time that everything that should be done is being done. It is easy to say, "You hac! the means of knowing, and you could have knovvn, or you could have paid sorncone else to be there checking up all the time.''

'l'hc• Minister is making it very difficult fnr the individual concerned. I can under­"fancl calling on him to prove that he did not know, but how can he prove that he had no means of knowing? The amendment imposes a double-barrelled burden of proof. He must prove that he did not know and that he had no means of knowing. That makes it almost impossible for anyone to clear himself, because he can be told that he had means of knowing if he had con­ducted his business properly.

Let us suppose that there is an appeal to the court. Does the judge consider what was in the Minister's mind? Does he not comider only what the Act actually says? If it says that he must proYe that he did not know and he had no means of knowing, ho may be asked, "Did you not have any means of knowing? Could you. not ha Ye

im·e;tigated the matter or asked someone to check up the quantities day by dav t0 see whether the drugs had been sold"" This is a double-barrelled imposition. and

Pharmacy Acts [24 :NOVE::I!!BER.] Amendment Bill. 1719

It places a firn1 or con1pany in an inYidivus po~ition. The :\Iini:;:ter ha~ endeavoured to water down the implications of the Bill a' i1 orig·inally ~rood, that a finn or cornpany may be deregistercd \Yhcthcr its principals bacJ. a chance of kno\ving or not, but he has made it verv dif!lcult indeed fer a 111t.'l11ber of a firn1. 1nana6cr. or cornpany director to absolve hims·elf when ho has to prove not onlv that he did not luJO\Y lmt also that he had no means of knowing. The clansr, eYcn as he prop0scs to an1end it. is too r!mstic altogether, and it does not give an opportunity to anybody to clear him­self. I do not believe in an imposition like this, which places a firm or company entirely at the mercy of its employees. A clwmist may be deregistered and consequently the -hop may be closed and not able to open ag·a.in. Smncono else may con1e in and the business of the former establishment lost, 110 matter to \Yha.t extent it had beu1 de,·eloped. And all because of infamous coJJduct on the part of an employee~ I can understand a firm or company's being held responsible to some extent, but not to the extent outlined in this clause.

The SECRET.~HY FOR HEALTH .'1.:\'D IIO:iiE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, !thaw) r4.59 p.m.~]: Apparently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition believes that the Pharmacy Board will be out to injure every­boclv in the trade. It is there to protect the· public and to sec that the business is curied on properly. He objects to the \YOrds, •· has no m0ans of kno,ving,'' but they arc there for a very good purpose. Anybody conlcl say that he did not know because be did not inquire or look into the matter. That only proves he did not know. althongh it may have been his duty to know. On the other hand, he may have had means of knowing and had neglected or had deliberately refrained from m'ng tho"' rneans t0 rnakc hirnsclf acquaint0cl IYith the fach.

There is an old English story that is worth recapitulating, as it fits the case. An old 'ea captain named "'-'elson received from hJS admiral a signal be r!id not agree with. He pichd up hi.s telescope. placed it to his blind eye, and looked long and hard at the signal. He could not re[Ld thP sign[11, hut he had the means of knowing what th>1t signal was if he so desired. That applies to busiiH. os. Anyone can put the telescope to his blind eye if he does not want to know what is going on. If a person has not the means of knowing what is going on then no one will makG him culpable. It must be conceded that the nwmbers of the board will be men who arc both reasonable and fair. Obviously, if it possesses a rea­·,onable doubt as to the culpability nf the company or firm then it will not take any action that will injnre them. I cannot see that the board will in any way me the pO\vers it possesses to injure a person in business.

Amendment (Jir. Hanlon) agreed +." The SECRETARY FOR HEALTII .\:\'D

HO:ME AFFAIRS (Hon E. M. Hanlon, Jt/w('u) [5.1 p.rn.]: I moYc the following amendment:-

" On page 6, line 4, after the word­' shall '

insert tho words-' (except in tho case of any such member who proYes that he did not

know and had no means of knowing of sueh ~t or infam?};s conduct in a professwnal sense.)

Amendment agreed to. Question-" That clause 7, as amended,

stand part of the Bill "-put; and the Com­mittee divided:-

AYES, 34.. ~!r. Bra;-;sington

Brure Dulcock Clark Com·oy Cooper Copley, W. J. Dash Donnelly Duggan Dunstan Foley Gair Gledson Hanlon Hayes Healy Hi1ton

_\lr. Ili:-.:Iop Hynes JC'::·-on Kane Kcogh King Larr~ombe

:VI ann :-.!ullan Power S~1ith Water>< \\'ellington \Yiiliams, T. L.

Tellers: Brown ~!cLean

~TOESJ 9·.

.'\lr. Clayton Daniel Edwards Maher ~1:oore Xicklin

)Ir. \Y'"alker

Tellers: Bell Plunkett

Rewlved in the affirmative.

Clause 8-" Amend.mcnt of section 25-Rcstriction on corporations, etc."-

11r. MAHER (West Jiorcton) [5.10 p.m.]: I should like some information from the Minister on this clause. which is one of the Yi:a 1 clauses of the Bill. The section it seeks to amend prO\·idcs tbat no company shall carr,- on business as pharmaceutical chemists, exce'pt-

" (a) A company or association consist­ing wholly of pharmaceutical chemists;

··(b) A company carrying on in Queens­land the business of 11harmaceutic11l chemists, and duly registered before the first day of 1:\eptembor, one thousand nine huindred and seventeen ;

" (c) A friendly society duly regis­tered."-

In "·hich cases certain conditions as to management by qualified men, etc. Under this clause a company or association, whether consisting wholly of pharmacentical chemists or not 1na:v continue only if actively carryrng on business at tho ci,tc of the 'passing of the .-\et. but it mav not increase the number of ir" ~hops altho~1gh it n1ay change pre1niscs "~ithin a distance not exceeding half a mile. It may not change its name. It loses all its rlg:hts under the Pharn1aeY ..:\et whPn it cease' J

to' ea rrv on the busincs~ of pharmaceutical chernistS.

These ar<' rather stringent conditions. A company cannot increase the number of its shops and is restricted in the removal of its premi.scs to " distance of half a mile. If >l company has giYen good service t0 the people of the State, performed all the functions that could be reasonably expected of it. and charged reasonable fees, why in1po~e a lirnitation on it? As far as I an1 av\.·arc, only one company has been operating in Queensland since the 1917 Act >vas intro­duced, and the .Minister has said th~t he had no complarnts m any way agamst rts opera­tion. Can anybody say that even if the

.Mr . .Maher.]

1720 Pharmacy Acts [ASSE11BLY.] Amendment Bill.

busine,,s was controlled by individuals any greater service would be given to the State or any better service to the people who patronised its shops? Is not a blow being struck at company enterprise when we approve of a clause of this kind?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AKD HOME AFFAIRS : Vve are not interfering with exist­ing companies.

Mr. MAHER : I know he is not interfering with them, but he is restricting any further expansion. The Minister has no evidence to show that the company that has operated in Queensland or such company as may have operated has not performed its duties to the public and to the State properly. Is there anything to be gained by restricting its activities?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOi\IE AFFAIRS: It applies to all companies whether they are Queensland, American, or British. It iB company pharmacy we are objecting to, and not to any particular company.

Mr. MA HER: I recognise that. Is it the intention of the Minister to confine the pharmacy business to individuals?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOiliE AFFAIRS: Yes, as fccr as possible.

Mr. 11AHER: That may be a desirable ideal, nevertheless the companies that have operated in our midst have carried out their jobs satisfactorily and given service to the community. There have been no complaints against their operations, at least the Minister has not offered any. This clause involves a very g-reat principle. vVhen we shut our doors to the extension of existing local enter­prise in the pharmacy business and to the introduction of Britieh capital, we are doing something that I am sorry--

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AxD H011E AFF.\IRS : That is the objective and the major principle. vVe accepted that on the second reading.

Mr. MAHER: That is all right, but I am entitled to say something on this clause, which is the vital one of the Bill. I am entitled to point out the very real and very gra YC dangers that confront us when we •lam the door in the face of the company investors from overseas or the South who might want to come here and invest their monev. There is the difficulty-that we shut them out.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND I-Io;m: AFFAIRS: \\'as it not slamming the door in the face of an overseas visitor in the case of Mrs. Freer?

Mr. MAHER: Mrs. Freer's case has no relevancv to this Bill. That was an indi­vidual c'ase, but this Bill affects the people of Queensland. When overseas and Southern investors get to know that we have slammed the door in the face of enterprise so far ,as plHll'nlar~. is concerned. it 'vill haYe reper­cussions that will be detrimental to tho State. That is the great danger involved in this clause. I ask the Committee whether the ideal of catering for individual chemists is worth the sacrifice of the bigger thing­the encouragement of capital investment in our midst from overseas or the South? After all, the company chemist who is here has done his job, and the Minister has no complaint about him, He has satisfacto_rily .-:atered for the pubhc, yet the B1ll cles1gns to limit the expansion of local pharmacy companies and deliberately slams the door

[111r. 111aher.

in the face of overseas pharmacy companies. The fact that we have clone this will become known, and the people who are concerned with the investment of money in company enterprises of all kinds will be disposed to give Queensland a very wide berth. The.v will say, " It is a State run by a Govern· mcnt that clo not want capital from out­side.''

Mr. JEssox: That is a silly argument.

Mr. MAHER: What is silly about it? The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AxD HmrE

AFFAIRS: That was said often and better than you can say it thirty years ago.

Mr. :MAHER: Although it might have been said better and often thirtv vears ago. the fact remains the Governn1ent did not heed it, and we have drifted backwards so far as con1pany inYestlnent i~ -concerned. The Labour Government, after having been in flOwer for almost twenty years, have not m!'de any progress in our secondary inclus­tnes.

The PRE>IIER : I am surprised to think the hon. gentleman has such a jaundiced view of the State.

Mr. MAHER: It is with great sorrow that I have to take into account the cold, hard :;;.tatistics, and as a carn1y Scat the Pre1nier should be able to appreciate those cold, hard statistic,, which indicate that we have not advanced in our secondary industries in the last twenty years.

Tho PREMIER : The difference between vou and mo is that I get the real fa.cts. (Laughter.)

Mr. MAHER: I have got real facts and the Premier knows it, too. '

The PRE1IIER: You are quotin"' "Bunchv top'' now. 0

"

l\Ir. iYL\HER: I am quoting fal·ts, honest. to-goodness facts, and the Premier knows it, and his JOCular irrelevant interjections will not cut them clown. The unfortunate fact is that successive Labour Governments have given the cold shoulder to people who could have inYested money here. It is not only the cold shoulder and the clisparagina- word that have been given them; they h~ve also been subjected to harsh legislation, increas­ing taxation, and all those things that tend to keep capital out of our eountrv. The abolition of the Legislative Council' was a clear example of the Go,-ernment's desire to make it difficult for people who wanted to im-est large quantities of capital in the State. They thereby took away whatever protection might have been afforded in regard to legislation. Inve8tors from oYer­seas take into account the fact that the one State in Australia that lacks an L; pp er House is Qucemlancl. 'They have the choice of Kew South \Vales and Victoria as States that afford a measure of protection to !arge capital investors because of the fact that Cpper Houses exist there. so Queensland g-eb the "go-by." \Ye have heard l.he cTv here. " Down with the capitalist!" in t'Cason and out of season, fron1 tho hus~iug . .; and elsewhere. by hon. members of the Goyermnent Party. \Ye have heard the crv. " The beef barons are taking the big profits out of the State." \Ye have had attacb !mm time to time on all who make an effort to create employment and to circulate' mane_,- . \Ye haYP done enough in that djrection with­out ma-king things worse by slamming the door deliberately in the face of those who

Pharmacy Acts [24 ~OVE111BER.] Amendment Bill. 1721

wish to invest money in this State-not only w far as pharmacy in concerned, but in all other directions. These facts get about. The Government, in a desire to be kind and con­siderate to certain interests concerned with the manufacture and distribution of phar­maceutical products in this country. are taking a stand that in the long- run will have a bad effect upon the State's reputation. I di.slikc the clause as much as I dislike the Bill.

::\Ir. MOORE (Aubigny) [5.23 p.m.]: I can­not understand the action of the Minister in putting in the Bill sucy a paragraph as that found in lines 32 to 40 on page 7. \Vhat j, the idea of limiting such a firm to one shop, where it consists wholely of pharma­' eutical chemists' If there are five or six ;wrsons. why should they not be entitled to have two or three shqps?

A GOYERCi"li!ExT ME::YIBER: That makes a chain.

::'.Ir. MO ORE: What does it matter? Why shoulrl not those people be able to open shops with the same rig·ht as any other individuals? There would be no disadvantag·e in that­rather an advantage, because they \vould be able to buy in large quantities.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:-;lJ HO}!E AFFAIRS : This gives them the right to open a shop.

::\Ir. ::\100RE: If they have a shop in Bris­bane thev cannot have one in Rockhampton, or Townsville, or Mount Isa. What is the objection?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AxD HmiE AFFAIRS: \Ye do not \vant chain shops.

::\Ir. ::\IOORE: This is not a firm consding of people who are not chemists.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AxlJ Ho,IE .·\FFAIRS: This applies to a firm that may 1JaYe rPgistcrccl but never commenced busi­lless. \V hen the l 917 Act >vas passed, some of them registered under a firm name in order to evade the Act. and some of them ha,·e not opened one shO)p yet.

:\fr. ::\100RE : That is not a reason for confining a firm consisting \vholely of phar­maceutical chemists to one shop.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HO}!E AFFAIRS: \Ye are not allowing any more ron1pany pharrnacie;;;_

::\Ir. MOORE: ThiB clause -does not refer to companjes, it refers to firms consisting \\-holly of pharmaceutical chemists. \Vhy can they not open two or three shops, say one in \Varwick and one in Toowoomba, provided they are constantly supervised by qualified chemiets? 'What difference does it make if they open three shops as a firm or as three differL•ut indiYicluals '? No injtH'~.- i-3 do11c to the public, because all the men are qualified. I could understand the contention if all the men were not qualified.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: If you allow them to open t\yo or three shops what limit would you fix? The Bill is designed to limit the number of shops.

::\Ir. MOORE: Xo. The Bill provides that they shall be nnder the constant personal mpenision of a qualified chemist. ·why could not one member of the firm open a shop in Brisbane and another member open a shop in, eay, Gympie or Maryborough? Because they are banded together as a firm they are not allowed to do that, but they could do it as separate individuals. Would

not fiye or six qualified men banded together as a firm be able to conduct their business on a cheaper basis anrl thus give a grE-ater service to the community?

Mr. DuxSTAx : And if there were fifty of them they would be a chain.

Mr. :\IOORE: Fifty qualified pharmaceuti­cal chemists. What is wrong with allowing each of them to open a separate shop if they are all qualified? What is the difference between fifty qualified chemists banded together as a firm and fifty indiYidual qualified chemists?

:\fr. PowER: They would be able to defeat the objects of the Bill.

::\lr. :VIGORE : That would not defeat the objects of the Bill. That would not aJlow them to haYe prescriptions made up at one central place.

JVIr. PO>VER: It is a back door "ay of e,·ading the Bill.

:VIr. MOORE: It is not. All the chemists in the firm would be qualified and it is ridiculous to say that because they are banded together as a firm they cannot open more than one shop.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AJ'\D HO :VIE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, lt!taca) [5.28 p.m.J: When the 1917 Act was passed certain people registered as firms so that thev would not appear as ea rrying on business' in their own name. The Btll now provides that only companie; at present carrying on pharmacy business may continue. I know of one case where the fee for the n:gistration of a firm has been paid for nineteen years and uot one shop opened. This provision gives that company or any ether company the right to open one shop, otherwise it could not open any at all.

Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clau"'s 9 to 15, both inclusive, as read,

agreed to. Clause 16-" ~Ten· so ction JOB-Prorisions

as to prices of pharmaceutical goods"-

~Ir. MOORE (A_ubigny) [5.30 p.m.]: I do not quite know on what basis prices of pharmaceutical goods are to be assessed, especial!~, when one considers the Yarying prices of drugs, and the fact that there enter into the subject the quantities in "hi eh they are used, the mann.er of using the1n, and comn1on ~ense jn the1r use. The ~Iinister said on the introductory stage that there was to be a prescription charge, pre­mrnably fixed on the tim~ taken to dispense the prescription. The hon. member for \Vynnum to-day sugge,-ted that some pre­scriptions took two hours to make up. That being so, the yrescription , ~harge will be based on the tune tal<en. lhen there will haYe to be considered the price of the drugs, plus profit. Drugs are to be a. commodity under the Profiteermg Prevention Act of 1920. The time of the chemist is to be taken into account when the Commissioner of Prices arrives at a prescription charge. I sec the greatest difficulty-exactly the same difficultv encountered in fixing the price of 111ateriaul in dra1lers' shops. There '"ere so manv different qualities that it was impos­-oible" to regulate and fix the price. Anyone who went into the question of fixing· the -ocllin~ price of boots knows that there are so ma-;,v different qualities that a price could not be" fixed that would be of any benefit. The position is exactly the same under this

Mr. Moore.]

1722 Pharmacy Acts [ASSEl\IBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Bill. There are so many varieties of drugs. and such a tremendous number of them u5ed in preparing prescriptions, some in n1inute and others in greater quantities, that it would be almost impossible to fix a prescription charge that would be of any benefit to the public. Therefore, what the Minister describes as justice to the public is very remote indeed.

Provision is made in the earlier part of this Bill for the appointment of inspectors under the Profiteering Prevention Act of 1920. Are these men to go round, inspect the books, investigate what prescriptions have been dispensed. and what the costs and charges are. or i,s it to be left to the indiYidual \vho has .a prescription dis11enscd to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Prices that he has been unjustly charged? To mv mind. this clause is of vcrv little value,· bcuwsc I cannot sec how it ·is pos­sible for the lavman to know whether he has bee_n actual(v overcharged or otherwise How wtll >: mer':'ber of the public who gets a prescnpt1on dispensed have the lea,t idea in the world whether he ia being trpated reasonably or not? He will not know unless he takes the matter to the Commissioner of Prices.

This clause is put in in an enJea-..-our to try to make the Bill palatable to the g·eneral community. Apparently, as the :}1ini~ter suggested, the consciences of pharmaceutical chemists pri,·ked them, and there was to bf' a general reduction in the cost of tn·escrip­tions. He said there was not to be a flat rate in the future. This clause has been inserted with the idea of lulling the public mind to sleep in order that it may not be hostile to the principles in the Bill. which will prevent them from securing the benefits of any competition,

Mr. KA:-!E: That is unjust.

Mr. ?.100RE: It may be unjust, but it is common sense. I should like some informa­tion as to what poosible method there is, considering the tremendous divergence in price and the variety of the drugs that arc used, of assessing the value of a prescriJ2-tion.

The cl a use does give an instance in the paragraph that reada-

" (4.) For the purposes of this ~ection ' pharmaceutical goods' shall mean and include all drugs which, or any salt derivative or compound of which, are compounded, dispensed, or sold by phar­maceutical chemists aa medicine."

I do not know how these pharmaceutical chemiets carry on operations. but it is known that they have some very ·expensive drugs for which there is verv little call. I do not know whether they keep a stock of these and thus have an amount of capital lying idle all the time, because they might hasc to me them at some time or other. or whether they have a system wherebv · the wholesale druggists charge them for" what they use. All such factors enter into the calculation of what is a fair price to charge for a prescription. If one chemist has to make a preparation that consists of very expensive drugs that are very seldom used and have to be kept for a long time on the shelves of the dispensary, naturally the fact that capital has been lying idle during that period has to be taken into consideration when fixing the price for the prescription. That will make it practically impossible for

[Mr. JJ.foore.

the Commissioner of Prices to fix a fair price for prescriptions.

This clause ~eems to be inserted for tlw purpose of trying to secure confidence that is entirely unwarranted, because the opera­tion of it is going to be so difficult and so complicated. It would mean such enormous calculations in the various parts of Queens­land, according to the business done by the various chemists, and beoause of the capital involved in keeping products on their sheh·ee; longer than others, that it would virtually b0 a dead letter. I should hke to know what basis the Minister intends to use and what he suggests as the method by which the Profiteering PreYention Act is to be used to provide that the charges for prescriptions shall not be unreasonable. Competition is eliminated on the distinct understanding that the chemists ha vc put their house in order and are not going to charge a flat rate for prescriptions, as the JY1inister said was done in the past, and that they will not charge exorbitant rates because the thre.at•croed com­petition is eliminated.

A GoVEHX~IE:-<T :'11£:\IllEH: You are not coll­cerned with the community.

~.Ir. MOORE: I am one of them, and I am vital! v concerned. I should J;ke to !mow from the" JYlinistcr how he intends to se•' that the prnvisions in this Bill are enforced or even administered at all, because to me it scen1s aln1ost in1possih1e.

The SECRETAH.Y FOR HEALTH A:\D HO:\IE AFFAIP.S (Hon. E. M. Hanlot!. Jt!wra) [5.38 p.nt.J: T!w speech of thl' hou. gentleman has lwen the most interesting contribution to the debate this aftcruoon. because at an car1ici· stage the \vho1e attack made on the Bill \Yas on the ground that th0 C ~nHnissioner of Prices had not Lecu asked to deal \vith the matter previously. The Leader of the Opposition and several other hon. members opposite made the point that lwd we desired to do so we could have set the price-fixing machinery in motion long ago, and now· the hon. gentleman points out-which is the truth-that it is a verc· cliificult thing to apply the price-fixing regu­lations to the serYices of the dispenser. \'\~e are bringing it nnder this Bill and giving the Conlinjssioncr of Prices po\vcr to fix those Jll'iccs. _-\clmitlcdlv it i" difficult-I ,a.id that before-but because it is difficnlt is no justification for the Government'> neglecting to attempt to do it.

The PREmER: The presence of the power in the Ad will be a wholesome deterrent to the profiteer.

Th0 RECRETARY FOR HEALTH A:\D HO'YlE .\FF_\IRS: \\-e accept as true the stqtpmE'nt that tlH' prircs chargt1 d for pn'· scriptiono obviously were too high, and we have to find a way of dealing with them. \Yhat W<' ha,-e deciclccl is to bring the prcn-i­sion i:cto the Pharmacy Act, not into the I'rofitcering Prevention Act. The hoard will have power to police the Act. \Ye lay. down the principle that by Order in Council. the CoYPrnor in Council rnav n1akc regulations n:latlno- to the basi:-: or ·bases on ·v~:hich. or the m;thod bv which. the Commissioner of Price' ,hall d'etcrmine what ,.hall constitute a reasonable n1axhr1um price. As it appears to me. if the Commissioner of Prices fixes a price ·for a prescri11tion at the cost of the drngs. plus a. disrwnsing fee. plus a. reason· a b!e profit on the ch·ugs. the onus will be on the board to police his determination, and 1[

Pharmacy Acts, Etc., Bill. [25 NoVEliiBER.] Questions. 1723

a person who receives a prescription thinks he is being overcharged, he can forward it to th~ board for it to investigate the charge. It must not be forgotten that the Bill lays down very stringent conditions regarding mi~conduct in a professional sense.

::\1r. MDORE: That is, charging too much?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIRS: o,·ercharging would be professional misconduct.

}fr. MAHER: Not at all.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A".:\D HOME AFFAIRS: What graver misconduct

·could any trader commit than to charge the public illegally. Is that not misconduct? It may not appear so to the Leader of the Opposition.

::\Ir. MAHER: Infamous conduct?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A".:\D HOME AFFAIRS: It may not appeal to the hon. gentleman, whose business depends on gettin." as much as he can for any commodity he selh. That is his outlook " Give me all I can get for as little as I can give." ".:\ o doubt that is an accepted mc>ral in business -give the least possible for the greatest possible return ! That is the accepted ethics of bu.sincss to-clay. But if the law provides that a certain fee shall be the maximum and ,omebody charges a greater amount. that somebody is committing a breach of the Act, and can be dealt with.

:'vir. MAHER: A breach of the c\ct. but not infamous professional misconduct.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS: I maintain that it would be infamous condurt. I maintain that it is infamous conduct to defraud the community by charging such a price.

:\lr. :iYlAHER : Then there will be a number nf cancellations.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AXD HOME AFFAIHS: That is exactlv the hon. gentleman's outlook-if business people can rob the community they should be permitted to get away with it! I do not agree with that Yiew at all. I sav that if the law pro· Yides that butter shall be sold at a maximum price of Is. 3d. a lb. the man \Yho charges 1~. 4rl. u Jb is ~tealing-, and Ftoaling i~ InisC'On­duct. 'When tlw article is sold to a lwlple'B '•r sick person the offence is not any the lighter-it is professional misconduct. The board can dc>:c] with anv chemist who is found to be (·hal'ging 1nOre than the rate laid dov;·n bv the, C;;n1missioner of Prices. That person can be dealt with under the ;'Jause dealing· "'·ith profP~:'ional IniscmlCluet. Th•'re is no cloubt about that.

The Bill nroyicles for the appointment of inspectors who 111a~; Yisit phanuaclPs, in~pcct the book, and account< and ascertain \Yhat i"- being charg;Pd for prescriptions. There i:-~ a1<:;:o the power for <Hl~' pcr3on \vho thinks ho has paid too much for a prescription to for­\Yarc! it and the receipt to the board. which IYill inYC''3tignte \Yhat is a re~sonablc prire.

:\Ir. :\lOO RE: T' the board a full tiwe job?

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A".:\D HO~IE AFFAIRS: The secretaryship of the board is now a full-tinw job. \Y c ha Ye mad0 it so by Act of Parliament. The public :merr'<t will be conscned. The hon. gentle. man co1nplained Parlicr that the secretary •,f the hoard was previous!:;- an employee of ,JJe board, and said it v.as Fascism for the GoYcmment to appoint a puhlic senant.

:J.1r. :MoonE: The registrar '\Vas always a public serYant.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOl\IE AFFAIRS: The secretary of the Pharmacv I3oard is now a public servant. The secretarv of all the boards is now a public serva;;t, the one officer acting as secretary for each of the professional boards, the :Yledical, Pharmacy, Dental, and Nurses' Reg·istration Board:::.

:\1r. l\lAHER: One officer for them all?

The SECHETARY FOR HEALTH AXQ HO:YIE AFFAIRS: Ho is the secretary of all these boards, and they all contribute pro t·ata to the office expenses. That enables the seeretary to keep records and to continually exercise some method of policing the working of the various proYisions. He is responsible to the public for consen-ing the public interest and not, as formerly, responsible to the profession for consening the profession1J-l interest. Hon. members ,hould understand the difference between the interest of the profession and the interest of the community. That is why we deliberately took from these hoards the power to appoint their own secre­tary (who looked after d1e profession's interest) and made it an appointment in the public service-an officer appointed to have regard to the interests of the public. Tbat is plain enough and sound enough. In policing this measure we hope to be able to achieve success bv that method. The board n·ill be charged" with the responsibility of policing it, and if we fail, well, we fail, but I do not sec that we should accept failure before we attempt to put it into operation. If the first basis we lay down fails, we shall find another, but merely to sav it will be difficult does not prove we shoufd not accept a difficult task in the interests of the corn· munity. The clause will result in a consider­able reduction in cost of dispensed medi­cines to the community.

Clause 16, as read, agreed to. The House resumed. The Cn.umiA:-.; reported the Dill with

am0nch11ents.

THIRD READ!:\G.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HO::\IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. YI. Hanlon, ltlwca): I move-

" That the Bill be now read a third tin1e."

Question put and passed. The Home adjourned at 5.47 p.nL