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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2520 ..

The primary intention of this bill, as all members know, is to ensure that health care remains the chief focus of pharmacists and that the professionalism of pharmacists conforms to the highest standards. This is done by ensuring that pharmacists are properly qualified, are accountable to a supervisory board and are required to own, operate and be responsible for their own pharmacies.

The role of pharmacies in society is different from that of other retailers and service providers because pharmacists are not just sellers of medicines, drugs and medical supplies; they are often the first point of health advice for many in our community; and they often act as de facto doctors and nurses, patching up cuts and abrasions, providing basic advice and making medical recommendations. Pharmacists understand the history of their clientele and are best equipped to provide the best combination of drugs and medicine that will improve the individual’s overall health. Pharmacists also provide a number of community-based health care programs. In sum, pharmacists combine the roles of health supplier, health care provider, health care adviser and health monitor.

It must be acknowledged that pharmacists are unique. This uniqueness has not come about as a matter of professional preference or mere idiosyncrasy in the legislative framework in which pharmacies operate but out of necessity—out of the necessity to ensure only qualified and responsible people dispense potentially lethal medicines and drugs; out of the necessity to ensure that only the most qualified people are in charge of health care in our community; and out of the necessity to ensure that the health of our community is placed in the hands of professionals whose priority is health care and not professionals whose priority is profit.

It is therefore plain that the intention of the bill is to have pharmacists in full control of the ownership and operation of pharmacies. Any attempt to remove full responsibility away from the pharmacists through a clouding of the issue of ownership and operation of pharmacies will no doubt create a greater likelihood in our community that drugs and medicines could be distributed by unqualified people and that medical supplies and medicine varieties could be limited because of decisions based purely on economic considerations. We do not want to see those “coulds” become “wills”.

This amendment bill is necessary because of a loophole in the current legislation that would permit a pharmacist to operate within the boundaries of a supermarket. This would create confusion about who actually operates the pharmacy. This loophole has led to a case where a supermarket and a pharmacist have under way a process whereby the pharmacist would operate within the walls of a supermarket. This deal has progressed to a level where the pharmacist has actually already begun advertising on television. This is a clear breach of the intention of the Pharmacy Act, even if not of its wording as it now stands. In the context of what we are trying to do with this bill, this development is like a Trojan horse, opening up the way towards the emasculation of the legislation that is intended to preserve the integrity of the system.

In 2001, Ms Tucker introduced a bill that allowed companies to operate a pharmacy but “only if the company is controlled and managed by registered pharmacists”. As I said then, I assumed that it was Ms Tucker’s intention to allow for flexibility within the governance of pharmacies, whilst seeking to ensure that the control of the pharmacy and its general operations remained in the hands of registered pharmacists. I believe the

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