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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2588 ..

supermarkets. The government thinks this is poor law; that raises question marks about the operation of larger pharmacies in the ACT and raises questions as to whether or not the legislation is achieving the outcome we are looking for.

I would like to clarify the government’s position on this matter. The government has always indicated—and it supported Ms Tucker’s legislation in the previous Assembly, when we were in opposition—that pharmacies should be owned and operated by pharmacists. But it is a separate question as to whether or not a pharmacy owned and operated by a pharmacist should be permitted to operate in a supermarket. What if a pharmacist wants to operate their business in a supermarket? What is fundamentally wrong with a professional making the judgment that they, for what they believe to be advantages to their business, want to operate a pharmacy within a supermarket?

It has been drawn to my attention today, and other members have mentioned it in this place, that there is an IGA supermarket which has been purchased by some pharmacists and they are going to run the supermarket and operate a pharmacy along with the supermarket. What are we saying? Are we saying that it is not all right for pharmacists to buy a supermarket, run the supermarket and have a pharmacy run alongside of it? What if the pharmacy is part of the same lease, but there are two separate shops? Is that a pharmacy or not? Is that part of the supermarket or not? That is, quite simply, an example of the difficulty of trying to define and regulate in this way, and the inherent flaws and risks in doing it on the run. The government will not be supporting this amendment tonight—

Mr Stanhope: Quite rightly.

MR CORBELL: Quite rightly, as the Chief Minister says—because of the flawed and ad hoc way in which it has been developed over the course of this afternoon. We will be looking very carefully at the implications of this, if it is passed tonight, and what the prospects are for larger chemist operations in the ACT as a result of this. Of course this definition has not in any way been considered by the scrutiny of bills committee.

Mr Smyth: This is the whole act!

MR CORBELL: This is the whole act—and that is what we have to understand.

Mr Smyth: This is the whole thing; that is all there is!

MR CORBELL: This is the whole act; there is nothing else. The act is nothing; the bill is nothing without this. The bill is meaningless without this provision.

MR SPEAKER: Order! We might as well have an all-in.

Mr Smyth: Are you giving permission for an all-in, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: My permission seems to be pretty irrelevant. Order, please! Mr Corbell has the floor.

MR CORBELL: The bill is absolutely meaningless without this provision. If members do not think it is meaningless, let us get rid of this provision and pass the rest of the bill.

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