CHEMIST REFUSED A LICENCE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22436, 24 June 1938, Page 12

CHEMIST REFUSED A LICENCE

♦ ACTION OF BUREAU DEFENDED “ECONOMIC OVERLAPPING” FEARED ORAL EVIDENCE HEARD IN APPEAL (VBESS ASSOCIATIOU TBLEOBAM.) WELLINGTON, June 23. The case of Mr Nathan P. Ross, who was refused a licence by the Bureau of Industry to operate a chemist’s shop at Mission Bay, Auckland, is the subject of a statement by Mr W. Stevens, chairman of the Pharmacy Plan Industrial Committee, and Mr E. R. Myers, Director of Pharmacy. “The pharmacy plan was evolved and accepted on the vote of 94 per cent, of the retail chemists in businers in New Zealand in December last and a committee consisting of seven members, four of whom are qualified pharmacists, one a business executive and two public servants, was appointed to administer the plan and also advise the Bureau of Industry regarding that part of the plan dealing with licences and transfers,” says the statement. “The case of Mr Ross was brought before the committee at its first meeting and after an exhaustive examination it was decided to recommend the bureau to decline the application for a licence. The main consideration was that the district is reasonably well served by a chemist at St. Heliers, and the opening of a chemist’s shop at Mission Bay would, cause economic overlaipping. Right of Appeal

“In every case both the applicant and the objector have the right of appealing to the Minister within three months from the date of the bureau’s decision. Mr Ross appealed, and, in accordance with his established policy, the Minister referred the investigation to Sir Francis Frazer. A special hearing was arranged to meet the convenience of Mr Ross, who came to Wellington without notice to the Minister or Sir Francis Frazer. Mr Ross was represented by counsel, and all the correspondence and reports whereon the decision was based were tabled, and an opportunity was given to reopen the whole matter, so that it is hardly correct to say that the case was decided solely on written evidence. “The committee was not represented at the hearing, and though the bureau had a representative, he did not submit any defence in regard to the bureau’s decision. “Very Much of a Gamble” “In regard to the statement concerning the loss and inconvenience to which Mr Ross had been put, it may be thajt he did not vote on the plan, but it is most probable that he knew of it and its implications. There was also an earlier enactment on licensing and its conditions, which he would or should have known about, as a man proposing to enter business on his own account. In such circumstances, unless the issue is likely to be clear-cut, any payment for an unconditional option is very much of a gamble. “It is part of the committee’s functions to arrange for an adequate supply of chemists’ apprentices and also to encourage ambitious young men who are properly equipped to enter into business on their own account, but the committee also has a duty towards them in ensuring that they have a reasonable chance of success. The main considerations in dealing with licences are the public interest and efficiency. The pharmacist’s interest in turn is closely interlocked with the public interest, and careful judgment is necessary in reconciling the two.”

Strong protests against the methods of the Bureau of Industry in dealing with Mr Ross’s application were expressed at a meeting on June 16 ol the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, when an appeal was made to the chamber against the_ refusal of the bureau to grant the licence. Mr Ross, in a letter to the chamber, referred to the personal loss which he had suffered through the length of time taken by the bureau to deal with applications for licences, and the unsatisfactory nature of the right of appeal to the Minister for Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan)., The letter also mentioned apparent incorrectness in the alleged grounds -for the refusal of the licence. Mr Ross alleged that he had been kept waiting for a decision from January 7 to May 12. and that he had been put to considerable expense for the rent of a shop, , travelling twice to Wellington, and for the engagement of counsel. As a result of the delay, he had lost his employment at a Queen street pharmacy. . , „ , . . The chamber decided that a telegram should be sent to the Minister drawing attention to the growing feeling that this case had not been fairly dealt with, and asking for particulars of the case from the Minister’s standpoint.