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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2528 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

COAG is yet to formally respond to this review, but I have been advised by the Pharmacy Guild that they have received statements from most state governments and also from relevant federal ministers and the opposition that they will support the maintenance of the present system of pharmacy ownership.

However, some time ago I was approached by the Pharmacy Guild about an anomaly in the ACT legislation on pharmacists. While the intent of the legislation is to limit the practice of pharmacy to individual registered pharmacists, it could allow for a company to own a pharmacy business. The company could merely employ registered pharmacists to manage the pharmacy. This would create a significant complication, in that the directors and shareholders of the company, who may not be registered pharmacists, would effectively own and control the drugs held by the pharmacy. I understand that the ACT Pharmacy Board has also raised concerns about this anomaly.

My bill seeks to eliminate this anomaly by allowing companies to operate a pharmacy, but only if the company is controlled and managed by registered pharmacists. This bill would protect the public interest by ensuring that pharmacies can be owned and operated only by pharmacists, while providing pharmacists with the flexibility of using a corporate structure for their pharmacy business should they so choose.

My bill is modelled on the pharmacy legislation in South Australia, which follows this approach. The South Australian legislation allows qualified natural persons and companies, under specific conditions, to be registered pharmacists and thus be bound by the Pharmacy Act.

The key clause in my bill is clause 18, which inserts a new section on eligibility of companies for registration. Companies which seek to be registered as pharmacists must have only one object in their constitution, which is to carry on the business of pharmacy. All the directors of the company must be registered pharmacists. The shares of the company must be owned by registered pharmacists or their immediate relatives, and only registered pharmacists may have voting rights.

The rest of the bill contains many consequential amendments, because the existing Pharmacy Act was written in terms of individuals being pharmacists and needs to be amended so that its provisions can apply both to individual and to incorporated pharmacists.

While it could be argued that this bill pre-empts the finalisation of the national competition policy review, I think it is pretty clear that ownership of pharmacies by pharmacists has passed the public benefit test and that existing legislation in other states will not be changed in this area. The existing anomaly in the ACT legislation should be fixed up without delay to be consistent with this national approach.

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore ) adjourned to the next sitting.

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