NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 34, 3 November 1933, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

Most people will agree that the New Zealand Pharmacy Board in urging upon the Government the importance and necessity of bringing the Poisons Act of 1868 up to date has a very good case. “Many lethal drugs,” says the Board in a memorial to the Prime Minister; “may be sold without any legal restrictions to-day, simply because they were not known in 1868, and are therefore not scheduled as poisons. Some of them are known to have been used by persons concerned in criminal prosecutions during the past year or two in this country.” The Pharmacy Board is a responsible body. The very fact of its existence as a governing authority in the pharmaceutical profession is an assurance and guarantee of protection to the public. On that ground alone, to say nothing of its authoritative opinions, it is entitled to be heard with respect.

- From the result of the division on the clause in the Reserve Bank Bill, vesting in the Consolidated Fund any profits from the transfer of gold from the trading banks reserves, it might be supposed that there was little argument against this procedure. Certainly Mr! Coates put the case for appropriating the profits very cogently in his statement a fortnight ago. But the claims of the trading banks have also had strong and able advocacy. It would certainly have protected the Government and Parliament from the accusation of being advocates and judges in the State’s interest if the original provision for arbitration in the event of dispute had been retained. As it is both the trading banks and the Reserve Bank have been put out of court in order to provide the Consolidated Fund with a large windfall. If the price of gold falls, must the Reserve Bank bear the loss although it gained no benefit from the rise? And is the whole premium on £4-1- to £5 million of gold coin to go into the State’s current account?

Yesterday’s debate on the Reserve Bank Bill produced more reasoned discussion than had previously been in evidence. Particularly interesting were the arguments for and against granting the Bank power to take shares in the Bank of International Settlements. It was surprising that the Labour Party should have opposed this clause because generally it is supposed to repudiate the attitude of narrow nationalism it took in this case, and just as generally it is supposed to stand for internationalism and the brotherhood of man. Hence Mr. Savage and his supporters might have been expected to support this clause which would link the Bank, however remotely, with the League of Nations, the International Labour Office and kindred organisations. It was not easy to follow the objection that the Bank would be handing over power to an outside body. On the contrary, as Mr. Downie Stewart pointed out, New Zealand would have a voice in the outside body’s policy, and some share in control rather than accepting a risk of being controlled.