PROTECTION ?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 114, 15 May 1936, Page 8

PROTECTION ?

CHAIN PHARMACIES. CHEMISTS APPREHENSIVE. CASE FOR BOOTS, LIMITED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The hearing of the petitions for protection against the extension of chain pharmacies in New Zealand was continued to-day, Mr. W. J. Jordan, chairman of the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, presiding. The Minister-of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. U. Sulliva'n, was present. The morning was occupied with the evidence of Mr. Charles Leslie Butchers, registrar of the Pharmacy Board of Victoria, who gave the result of recent observations of the operations of chain pharmacies in England, America and on the Continent. He said they were a menace to the small owner. There were some 2000 chain pharmacies in Britain, and the total number of pharmacies was 14,000, which seemed to show the chain stores selected the key positions in the large centres as the basis of their operations.

In answer to a question by the Minister, Mr. Butchers said that the coming of such a firm as Boots, Limited, to the Dominion would make great changes and some control of chemists would be necessary to keep chemists in existence in the public interest. Mr. Hogg, addressing the committee on behalf of the friendly society dispensaries of New Zealand, said the dispensaries maintained that they played a very important part in the social services "of the country, and any disruption of their organisation would result in a burden being thrown on hospital boards and other institutions. The dispensaries asked to be allowed to retain their existing rights. Petition Supported. Speaking on behalf of the Wholesale Drug Trades Association of Great Britain, Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., said liis clients joined wholeheartedly with their customers in New Zealand in urging that in the public interest and in the interests of what they deemed to be a useful and necessary profession, chain pharmacies should not be permitted in New Zealand.

Mr. 11. F. O'Leary, K.C., opening the case for Boots, Limited, submitted that if the prayer of petitioners against. Boots, Limited, were reported on favourably and legislation were introduced the result would be that New Zealand would be barring an organisation which would be an asset to the country. He detailed the romantic birth and phenomenal grbwth of the company and the exceptional conditions under which its employees worked. He submitted that Boots* Limited, were not a chain store in the true sense of the word; they were chemists, and their stock was no different from that carried by any well-equip-ped chemist. Boots, Limited, vended their prescriptions at moderate prices, and allowed themselves a fair return only. There could be no mass production of prescriptions. "If you prevent Boots, Limited, from carrying on business here you will bring about the abandonment of the competitive principle and destroy a public advantage," added Mr. O'Leary. If no restrictions were placed on its activities, Boots, Limited, proposed to open a factory in New Zealand within 12 months. The committee adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday next. »