THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
405 
Uniformity in Legislation. 
Mr. Huntsman moved resolution 2 : — 
“ The desirability of uniformity in Australasian pharmaceutical legislation.” 
The resolution, be said, was a very simple proposition, and one which would 
doubtless meet with approval ; but he would take the opportunity of briefly 
reviewing the past pharmaceutical legislation in the various colonies, and the 
constitution and duties of the respective governing bodies. Beginning with 
Tasmania, which was the first colony to obtain an Act, in 1842, it had a Board 
of Medical Examiners, but not a Pharmacy Board. Then followed Hew South 
Wales, Victoria, Hew Zealand, and Queensland, which had Pharmacy Boards, 
composed in each case of seven members. In all of these colonies the first 
boards had been appointed by the GrOvernor-in-Council, the subsequent boards 
being elected by the pharmaceutical chemists. Queensland admitted medical 
men to its first board, and in Tasmania the board was entirely composed of 
medical practitioners, the term of office being for two years. In Hew Zealand 
and Victoria no person was eligible for election as a member of the board unless 
he were a pharmaceutical chemist. In Victoria, Hew Zealand, and Queensland 
the term of office was for three years. 
Mr. Potts — Ho; Queensland one year. The first board only lasts twelve 
months, and an election takes place every three years. 
Mr. Huntsman continued— In Victoria two members retired annually, and 
the first two to retire were those with the lowest number of votes, and so on 
until all retired in turn. To get matters into proper working order three years 
was made the original term, but it was altered to allow two members to retire 
annually. The Boards possessed considerable powers, and could examine any 
person on oath or take a declaration. In some colonies it appeared there was a 
little variation in the nomenclature, some calling themselves chemists and 
druggists and others pharmaceutical chemists. The principal object of the power 
to inflict penalties was, of course, to prevent unfit persons from obtaining 
admission to the body as pharmaceutical chemists. For making a false declaration 
or attempting to use a forged diploma in Victoria a person was guilty of a mis- 
demeanour and liable to one year’s imprisonment. In Queensland the maximum was 
fixed at three years ; Hew Zealand, £20 fine, in default twelve months’ imprisonment. 
(The speaker here asked to be excused for any little inaccuracies that might creep 
into his speech, as it was difficult to thoroughly understand the Acts by simply 
glancing them over.) The next penalty was in connection with breaches of the 
Act. Clause 25 provided against the practice of medicine or surgery, except in 
accordance with the rights and privileges enjoyed by chemists, the penalty 
being a £10 fine, or the alternative of twelve months’ imprisonment. This 
clause was not contained in the Acts of the other colonies. It seemed to him 
that the Legislature in Hew South Wales wanted to act unfairly towards chemists. 
Mr. Mayne— In what way do you mean? 
Mr. Huntsman — In limiting them merely to dispensing. 
Mr. Mayne— It has been amended. 
Mr. Huntsman excused himself, not having read through the whole Act. 
Mr. Shitlinglaw interjected anenfe ‘‘rights and privileges” — which was 
being discussed conversationally — that the question had been decided in Victoria 
several timers. 
Mr. Mayne — And a chemist keeping open shop is allowed to prescribe ? 
Mr. Shillinglaw — Yes, as far as simple remedies are concerned. 
Mr. Potts remarked that, according to the Queensland Act, any person 
not duly registered as a pharmaceutical chemist using or exhibiting any title, 
term, or sign which might be construed to mean that he was qualified to perform 
