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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2511 ..

pharmacy legislation. This review was completed in early 2000 and came to be known as the Wilkinson review. This review concluded that there is a net public benefit in the existing system of pharmacy ownership, even though this could be considered as a restriction on competition.

The review concluded that the ownership of pharmacies by pharmacists ensured the highest standard of provision of this important health care service—

and a high level of accountability by pharmacists—

Non-pharmacist corporate structures are more likely to focus on maximising commercial returns—for example, through encouraging greater sales in medicinal and health care products—thus leading to overservicing. Overseas experience also shows that chain store types of pharmacies do little of the across-the-counter counselling that independent pharmacies provide.

The present system of pharmacy ownership also promotes better accountability. A pharmacist who runs their own pharmacy has a personal as well as professional interest in operating their business ethically. However, company directors of a chain store pharmacy—

or supermarket—

would not have the same professional connections to the business ...

In October last year Mrs Cross introduced a motion to ask the government to investigate the current pharmacy legislation to see if there were any loopholes that would allow the establishment of pharmacies in supermarkets in the ACT. The government response to this motion clarified that “only a registered pharmacist may own the business of a pharmacy ... This does not mean that the building in which the pharmacy business is carried on cannot be owned by a person other than a registered pharmacist or that a pharmacist cannot carry on a business within a larger retail organisation if the business of the pharmacy is carried on by a registered pharmacist”.

The government went on to give the example that “if a supermarket operated a pharmacy with a registered pharmacist in charge that would most likely breach the act. As the owner of the pharmacy the supermarket would be carrying on the business of a pharmacist and would therefore be in breach of subsection 42 (1). It is also probable that the supermarket would be in breach of subsection 42 (2). Because the pharmacy was located within the supermarket store it is arguable that the supermarket would be providing a pharmacy service in breach of subsection 42 (2)”.

I understand that Mrs Cross’s amending bill seeks to address this loophole. Unfortunately, her bill was not examined by the scrutiny committee until this morning. I am on that committee, as members are aware, and we noted that there may be an argument of interference with the right to property in the bill, but there are also arguments of an overall social value that may be served. The committee also noted that there is a possibility that some pharmacies currently operating in the ACT might be affected by the bill and, in this connection, the position of pharmacies operating within shopping malls needs to be clarified.

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