Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4093 ..

Mrs Carnell: There is no recommendation on it.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It will be less painful if you just let him finish.

MR BERRY: The approved text of the report is very clear because it goes on to say this:

There was a view within the committee that conflict of interest can be perceived or actual and that the methadone program is a case where government funding is involved in the management of a program which could provide a subsidy to the Minister's pharmacy should it become involved in the program.

A further point of concern within the committee is that the Minister's registration as a pharmacist and the management of the pharmacy are regulated subject to the Pharmacy Act 1931 for which the Minister is responsible.

The committee also noted that the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 has a direct impact on the management of pharmacies, in particular - - -

Mr De Domenico: We have read it.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Steady, Mr De Domenico. You will have 20 minutes all to yourself in a minute. Order!

MR BERRY: The report continues:

... in particular with regard to the keeping and dispensing of drugs of dependence.

Mrs Carnell, you must not have read these comments - - -

Mrs Carnell: It says that there was a view. It did not say it was unanimous. In fact, I know it was not.

MR BERRY: This text could not have appeared in this report without the approval of the committee members.

Mrs Carnell: "There was a view".

MR BERRY: This text could not have appeared in this report without the approval of the members. There was no dissenting view, even from the Liberals. They even agreed with the text. So both the Pharmacy Act - - -

Mr Hird: No, we did not.

MR BERRY: You did. Yes, you did - - -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .