QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1561, 3 October 1912, Page 8

QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS.

NAVAL DEFENCE. A LOCAL NAVY OPPOSED. The Hon. A. T, Ngata (Eastern Maori District) asked the Prime Minister whether ithc speech of the Minister for Defence on Tuesday, September 21, at the opening of the Navy League Conference, may be taken as outlining.the policy of his Government on naval-affairs, and whether that policy is to favour a local navv on the lines of that of the Commonwealth of Australia. He supplemented the question with the following explanatory note: The Hon. Mr'. Allen is reported to have said, "As a New Zealander he could not take his mind away from the responsibilities in the Pacific Ocean. With these always.in view, centralisation in European waters was not all that a New Zealandcr could desire. ... No arrangement could be satisfactory to those living in the Pacific unless the British flsot commanded'the Pacific as it commanded the northern seas,. . ... They could not,divorce themselves from Australia from a defence point of view." The Hon. \V. F. -Massey. (Prime Minister) replied that the Government of New Zealand is &* present in communication with the Imperial Government,- through his Excellency.the Governor, on tho subject of naval defence in the Pacific, and the policy of this Government with regard thereto will be announced in due course. - ■ -.

The Hon. A. T. N.GA'TA said that al the Nnvy League Conference n week ago the Minister for Defence had made a statement of considerable importance from which it might be gathered cither that it was proposed to augment the present naval contribution or that some co-opera-tive arrangement with Australia . was contemplated. He had always opposed any proposal to establish a local navy and ho jivas still more opposed to a combination with Anstrnjiii for naval purposes. The Prime Minister, had evaded the question. He hoped that the present ' Government would not go- back on the traditional policy of New Zealand of making direct contributions to the British Navy. Since Canada was now readv to give the Imperial Government three Dreadnoughts time seemed to have justified the gift of the New Zealand Government in 1909., Money sunk in n local navy, would be a poor investment. The Australian Navy at the present time was a poor investment. Mr. Xpita protested, against an alleged tendency on. the part of New Zealand, under tho present Government, to go to Australia for ideas. Sir JOSEPH WARD (Aworua) endorsed what Mr. Ngata had said and regretted that ■ the. Prime Minister had not civeji an outline of naval policy. This country had a population of only one million and no population of less than 15 to 20 million? could establish a local navy that would be of any service whatever. In his opinion it would be a sad day for Now Zealand with its present population if it commenced to tinker .with a tinpot local navy. If a test of naval strength took place in the Pacific it would be with a great Power nearly equal to Great Britain in naval armaments. There was only ono way in which this country could do its pnrt—-by giving a full but reasonable contribution, to the British Navy. The people of,the Empire should agree to a per capita contribution for the maintenance of the navy. ' .

Mr. A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) said that , Mr. Ngata had contradicted himself: Ho had objected, to naval contributions being spent on specific vessels. Yet he had ■referred with pride to New Zealand's gift of a Dreadnought. The member for Awarua had fallen into the same contradiction. Mr. Malcolm contended that in order to maintain enthusiasm it would be necessary for New Zealand to contribute ships. It did not follow that there need bo divided control. It could.be arranged that,, subject to the permission of the Admiralty, vessels presented by NewZealand should control the South Pacific and tho coasts of New Zealand. The whole thing seemed to him to resolve itself into this—that. New. Zealand must have representation on the Council ot Defence. The House was at present passing hundreds of thousands per annum with an eDtire ignorance, of what the necessities of the case were. The Hon. D. BUDDO (Kaianoi) contended that defence must be left entirely to the Imperial authorities. PUBLIC WORKS.

STANDING COMMITTEE PKOPOSED. ■Mr. K. NEWMAN (Kaiigitikei) asVed the Minister for Public Works whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to constitute a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, on somewhat similar lines to that now existing in New South Wales and other Australian States. On the first session of every. Parliament in New South Wales, ho explained, a committeu is elected by ballot from both branches of the legislature, and no public works costing over .£20,000 can b<; undertaken until such works have been inquired into nnd recommended by such Standing Committee. The Hon. W. FRASEB. (Minister fot Public Works) replied: The matter will have the attention of the Government during the recess. Mr'. G. W. KJKBES (Hurunui) thought-the proposal, or a similar one, ought to be taken np by the Government, seeing th.it a Public Works Board scheme hod been one of the planks of the Government platform before the election. He thought the work raiitht-verj (veil be handed over to the Civil Service Commissioners. ■Wγ. E. NEWMAN (Kanftitikei) said he was' glad to learn that the Government would give (ho question consideration. He recognised that it was scarcely fair to expect the Government to bring down \\ proposal this session, but he hoped they might do so next session. In New South Wales a similar committee existed, ami if it were set up hero it would allow nt important public works such us r.iilwnv* oeing inquired into tiiorongniy beloro tney ware undertaken, Ifailwnye had been built in this countrv whirh should nevr have. l>cen started, und which inner would haiV been started if (hi; people nnd tin- press had had an opportunity of expressing iin opinion upon them. Mr. J. A. HANAN (invercarKill) said that ■ in New South Wales the Public Work , ! Board was merely a 'convenient bnffer between tho. Parliament and the Ministry nf lUe day. The Ijoaid in New South Wales had bertn the meant of losing Ilioupnnds of pounds fur tlio Slnie, and it had not been the means of doing awiy with lns-rollin;;.. He tliouglit: the functions of Parliament should not. be rertni:rd bv the setting \ip of an indeiiendent board. Mr. G. -W. IMIRSELI, fAvon) Kiid he ha.l nlwnvs felt that- the voting of money for public .works should not lie d»nendniit on the ennrir" nr fnvniiritinn of Hie Mliv i tjster, All this could he done aw.aj .withj

if public works proposals wero investigated by a committee. Mr. 0. V. PEAKCE (Paiea) said lui did not think it ought In be. necessary fur n committee of the Housa to investigate every little road grant, but he hoped that some scheme might be evolved lu dji away with the system of giving doles all over the country. ]lc hoped the administration of all such small votes should bo handed over entirely to the local bodies. Dr. A. IC. NEWMAN (Wellington East) approved of the idea of-sotting up a committee of (ho House, but. he confessed (hat he did not like tho idea o( banding ovci the supervision of public works to nil outside body. The House should itself take tho responsibility. The Hon. 1?. M'KENZIB (Motnoka) said he thought the system in force in New South Wales was better than that in vogue in this country; The work of supervising public works was too much for any one man to undertake. It would be better if the work could be divided in some way. But ho thought a Parliamentary Committee could do very little good, because the board to inquire into public works must be in existence for the whole year. Ho did not believe, however, that thero was anything in tho contention that tho public and the press should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on proposed railways before they were embarked upon. Railways were advocated in this country years before they wero constructed. ■ Mr. G. J. ANDERSON (Malaurn) said he agreed heartily with the opinion expressed by the member for I'atea that the roads and bridges doles ought to be taken out of the House altogether. He did not think a Parliamentary Committee would do much good, but he did think that, tho House ought to be advised on railway proposals by a board of experts.' Mr.-C. IC. AVILSON (Taumnrunni) approved of the proposal to set up a Public Works Board, but he [lid not think the board should consist of members of the House. The objection to the present system was that members were asked to vote on authorisation Bills when they knew* nothing at all about the works under review. MEAT EXPORTS. MISLEADING LABELS. Mr.. OKEY (Taranaki) directed the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that inferior moat is being placed in tins in Australia with labels "containing a coloured map of New Zealand, and no other matter' by way of printing to 6how that the contents are other thnii tho products of New Zealand. Mr. Ok?y asked tho Government to inquire into tho position. The Hon. W. F. MASREY replied that n somewhat similar statement was in•quired into by the New South Wales Government in 1910. Tho attention of the Commonwealth Government wasbeing directed to the matter. IMMIGRATION. A , DEAETH OP TRANSPORT. Mr. MALCOLM asked the Government whether they would make bettor provision for passages for immigrants so as to ensure that all dpsirable immigrants who' wish to come to New Zealand may have an opportunity of doing so? He stated that the Immigration Department had informed persons who' gave notice and paid for passages a month ago that fill berths on ships leaving Britain are booked till December. ' ' ' ' The PRIME MINISTER replied that this was one of the first matters that the High Commissioner was to .inquire info and report upon after his arrival in England. It was hoped that satisfactory arrangements would be able to bo made, for tho future, but nothing could be done until after receipt of the report in (jnestion. OLD FORMS. PROPOSAL TO MODERNISE THEM. /'Whether during.the recess he will reviso the antiquated and cumbersome procedure of this House, so that next session this House may adopt the modern ■methods of other- Parliament?." was the text question 'addressed to the Prime Minister yesterday by Dr. A. K. Newman. The reply given by Mr. 3taasey was as follows:— The. Government r<ill be glad to receive, suggestions from Vhe honourable member,.with the view of referring such suggestions to the Standing Orders Committee." Dr. Newman and one, or two other members-referred cursorily to the matter, mostly to express moderate disgust with forms which hampered the conduct of business. The only speaker to deal with tfoo subject at any length was Mr. Payne, who chiefly complained that he and other private members could not .got Bills through, while Ministers could." / . WATER POLLUTION BILL. When tho House resumed at 7.30 p.m., The Water Pollution Bill was read a second time, pro forma, and. referred to tho Agriculture and Commerce Committee. ' .. . -

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL. The House then went into Committee on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill which was approved without amendment, after a brief discussion. PHARMACY BILL. . THE DISPENSING OF PRESCRIPTIONS. IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS. The Pharmacy Amendment Bill was next considered in Committee. Mr. T. 11. DAVEY (Cliristchurch East) moved to add the following new clause:— (1) Every medical practitioner or his assistants is guilty- of an offence who accepts, or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept, or attempts to obtain, or solicits from any registered chemist or his assistants any monetary gift or other consideration as commission on prescriptions made out by such medical practitioner ov his assistants. (2) Every medical practitioner is (tniltv of an offence who instructs any patient as to where his proscriptions shall be dispensed, or uses any prescription forms containing the name or place of business of any registered chemist. (3), Every registered chemist is guilty of an offence who pays any medical practitioner or his ngent any monetary gift ,or other consideration as commission on prescriptions. (4) Every registered chemist is guilty of an offence who supplies any medical practitioner with prescription forms containing any notification regarding his name or place of business. (5) Every person who commits an otfence against this section is liable to r fine not exceediug fifty pounds.

Doctors and Chemists. Mr. Davey said that tho practices which his clause was designed to prevent were rifo in many parts of the Dominion. It was manifestly unfair that there should bo an arrangement between a .doctor and a chemist in regard ,fo the dispensing of prescriptions. Recently a doctor in Christchurch had been compelled to pay damages to a chemist with whom he had endeavoured to prevent one of his patients dealing. Some, doctors used prescription forms supplied by chemists. Those forms uoro at the bottom thu words: "This prescription to bo made up by so-and-so chemist." Other doctors made up -prescriptions in a code which could only be read by one particular chemist. -Mr. .1. A. YOUNG AVaikato) corroborated all that Mr. Davey had said. Ho had s-oeii prescriptions Inuring tlie uamo of n doctor at the top and the name of a ■chemist at the. bottom. lie had also seen code prescriptions which could ofily be dispensed by a particular chemist The Hon. If. .11. IM-fODfiS offered to accept sub-clauses..'! and I if Mr. Davey would withdraw sub-clauses 1 and 2. ThV Minister explained Unit ho did not wish to mix up the I'liariiiacy Act with the Medical Practitioners .Act. Mr. Davey said that if the Minister offered' to accept sub-clauses ;i and ■! he admitted the fairr.c« oi the proposal as ,\ whole. , Tin , clause would not be effective if the first poition kcyq dropped. Ole asked tho Minister to accept (he, who]» clause on the understandin; that, if the Crown Law Officers advised'that the first: uortion should not !.-e included in the Pharmacy \o.t, it should lie removed when Hie Bill came before the Legislative Council. Mr. (,;. UTJT-γ; OlirMi-lnti) fiihliorlH .tha ckuiE as it stood, maiiitaiuinz that J

it was necessary in the interests of the public. Mr. G. M. THOMSON (Ihineclin North) raid that the cjuuti! proposed i>y .Mr. Davey would moot with general approval. Up «-as satisfied that there was frequently collusion between doctors ami chemists, ai-d it was very desirable that this should be prevented. He would suggest one amendment to Mr. Davoy's clause, however. The proviso that any medical practitioner should be adjudged guilty of an offence, who instructed a palient as to whore his prescriptions should be dispensed was too drastic. Sometimes new drugs of considerable- value were only obtainable from one chemist and it would be very unwise to prevent doctors tolling their naticnts where- such drugs could be oMaiiicd. Mr. Davey said that lie would agree to omit the proviso to which Mr! Thomson objected. An Amendment Accepted. The Hon. R. H. I!MODES said that he would accept sub-Clauses !! and 1, and if, after consultation with the Crown Law Officers, he came to the conclusion that tho other portions should bi> included in the- Bill, he would have them<idded in the Upper House. Dr. A. K. NEWMAN said that most, of the members of the Medical Association were opposed to their members taking commissions, but some doctors did so. At Hid same time, he hoped the Minister would not accept the first portion of the clause, on the ground that if it were passart into law it would prevent-a doctor honestly advising; Iris patients as to what chemist (bey should go.to, Some chemists sold cheap anil inferior substitutes for good drugs, and it would be very unwise to prevent doctors protecting their patients against such practices. Mr. Davey accepted the last proposal of the Minister, and ■sub-Clauses II and i were approved. The first portion of the clauso was held over.for redrafting, it being understood that the proviso prohibiting a doctor advising a patient as to what chemist he should patronise should 1» struck out. At the suggestion of the Minister, the fine Was. reduced to £2(1. Code Prescriptions. Mr. J. A. TOTING (Waikato) proposed the following new clause-.—Every medical practitioner or any. of his assistants is guilty of an offence who for any-mone-tary, or other valuable consideration issues any prescription in any code 01 form which preclude; such prescription, being compounded or made up by any registered chemist. Every parson who commits an offence against this section is liable to a fiiie not exceeding .£'2o. Br. Te KANGIHIEOA said thai in many large hospitals-standard piescrip. tions were used, forms .for which were made out by number. The. Hon. E.'H. RHODES declined to accept the amendment, on tho ground, first, that it sought to amend the iUcdical Act, and, secondly, that what the hon. member intended was covered by the clause moved by Mr. Davey. " Dr. A. K. Newman commended tho decisiou of the Minister. Mr. Young said that his object was to draw public attention to att abuse. He had seen a dozen or more prescriptions which could bo dispensed only by particular chemists. The public had a right to liavo their prescriptions made up wherever they pleased. Friendly society members were frequent sufferers under this abuse. Mr. DAVEY* said (hat thero was nothing about code prescriptions in his amendment. Hospitals could oasil/be exempted from tho operation of the clause proposed by 51. Young. Mr. I). P. LEE (Oamaru) said that subclause four of Mr. Dnvey's amendment was of very little value. The matterbrought up by Mr. Young was important, and he would like to .sec legislation introduced to deal with it. Mr. Young withdrew his amendment on the Minister promising to consult tho Crown Law Officers, and to bring in legislation on the liues suggested by the member for Waikato, if they approved tho proposal. The Bill was reported with- amenuments.