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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2514 ..

As we have seen in other industries, when price-cutting causes competitors to close, prices soon rise to the levels that they were at before the competition started. But the ongoing effects are far worse in that health care will not be provided at the level it once was.

The cost of health care products is of concern to many in the community and many people and consumer groups feel that prices are currently too high. This is a legitimate concern and one that is worth investigating. But the answer is not to let supermarkets engage in a price war and drive local community pharmacies and the provision of health care in our suburbs out of the market. Jobs will go, prices will come back up again and many of the unprofitable services that benefit so many in our community, such as the methadone and benzo programs, home medication reviews and free home deliveries, will disappear. What will be the cost of achieving a short-term win with cheaper goods? It is just not worth it.

The supermarket chains claim that pharmacies and supermarkets will have longer opening hours, possibly even 24 hours. Again, overseas experience shows that this simply is not the case. There are a number of instances where the pharmacy section of a supermarket shuts before the rest of the supermarket shuts. So even though the supermarket is open, the pharmacy inside that supermarket has been closed.

It is claimed that this bill is anti-competitive. I think there is already ample competition in the pharmacy sector, particularly in the ACT. There are several large chains, some not so large chains, cooperatives and many independent and local pharmacies operating across the territory. Competition is pointless if jobs are lost and in the end prices rise and we lose the health care benefits that we all want to support. The core issue that we need to focus on here is the provision of services and medicines to the community.

Mr Corbell put forward a very strong argument that we should not support this bill because of its unintended consequences. He also raised a number of concerns about my original amendment in relation to unintended consequences. It is a shame that the minister was not willing to work through a solution so that we could, as we all agree, find the right way to address concern about pharmacies opening up in supermarkets. For the information of members, I have circulated a revised amendment that makes it very clear that a registered pharmacist must not carry on a pharmacy business as an owner on, inside or partly inside the premises of a supermarket. The amendment is very simple. It makes our intention very clear that we do not want pharmacies operating in supermarkets.

The concerns of the minister about unintended consequences in relation to shopping centres and crown leases have been addressed. I urge this Assembly to support my amendment so that we can move forward together in this debate and lay down today the very clear message that we do not want pharmacies operating in supermarkets.

I do not support the idea that we should just leave this in the hands of the federal government. We need to take responsibility for what is happening to pharmacies here in the ACT. If we leave everything in the hands of the federal government then nothing may happen. If members of the Assembly are committed, as I believe they are, to not allowing pharmacies to operate in supermarkets, I urge them to support my amendment and to support this bill.

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