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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2585 ..

environment committee advised him to separate those two functions—so he can receive policy advice and the chief planning executive could really be independent; because while ever he is giving policy advice to the minister there is always a crossover; there is always a blurring. “Which hat am I wearing today?” This is where we need to really make it if we want to have an independent planning authority.

The minister talked about the national integrated development application system. He said, “Look, we’ve done it.” But we have not done it because, by his own admission, we have a hybrid authority, not an independent authority. I thank the members of the crossbench for their support in this motion and for the thoughtful way in which they have approached this—and I thank Ms Tucker for her better set of words.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Pharmacy Amendment Bill 2004

Detail stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MS DUNDAS (9.49): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name on the lilac piece of paper [see schedule 1 at page 2600].

After a lot of debate and discussion in relation to what we are trying to achieve here, I have put forward this amendment in the hope that it clearly expresses what this Assembly is trying to achieve and addresses the concerns raised by the Minister for Health in relation to Mrs Cross’s original bill. My amendment removes the confusion surrounding the registration of crown leases and expressly prohibits a pharmacy business on, inside, or partly inside the premises of a supermarket as defined by the territory plan.

The government has tried to claim that some pharmacies could be defined as supermarkets and that this amendment could lead to further confusion. I would like to address those concerns. I think we need to realise that proposed new section 48B is but one part of the entire pharmacy act. The Pharmacy Act of 1931 quite clearly sets down that a pharmacy is a pharmacy because it must be a business owned and operated by a pharmacist registered under that act. If there is any confusion that it is a supermarket, then that can be easily resolved by looking at the fact that, if there is a registered pharmacist in control of that site and it is something that has been approved by the board of pharmacies, then it is a pharmacy.

A supermarket is something that is easily recognised in the community. If this were to go to court there would be a “reasonable” judgment—a reasonable person test. I believe that a reasonable person knows the difference between a pharmacy and a supermarket. We are amending the pharmacy act, and this debate is framed in the context of that act. We are not debating the supermarket act; we are not looking at those kinds of issues. What is

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