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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2592 ..

After much discussion with Ms Dundas, it was decided that it would be best to approach the issue of pharmacies in supermarkets in a different way. Ms Dundas’s amendment does that, whilst maintaining the spirit and intention of the original bill. Ms Dundas’s amendment will ensure that pharmacists cannot operate within a supermarket and, as this is the intention of my bill, I will therefore, naturally, be supporting Ms Dundas’s amendment. I reiterate that it did not matter to either Ms Dundas or me whose name was on any amendment. We were only interested in ensuring that we were addressing the concerns that were brought to our attention. That is what has occurred with this amendment. So, of course, I support this amendment.

The issue of scrutiny was raised yesterday. This bill is something that had to be addressed in a very quick manner. I must show my appreciation to Mr Stefaniak for calling an urgent meeting of his committee to look at this bill, which should have been sent to the scrutiny of bills committee after it was tabled but, for some reason, it did not get to the committee. I appreciate the support of the Clerk, Mr Duncan, and the members of the scrutiny of bills committee, Mr Hargreaves and Ms Tucker, for ensuring that this bill was looked at.

The committee’s first concern was that the bill may affect some pharmacies, particularly those operating in shopping centres. My support of Ms Dundas’s amendment has ensured that this concern has been alleviated. The second concern was that the bill was so broad that it may have unintended consequences. Ms Dundas’s amendment substantially narrows the scope of the bill and hence the scope of this bill and its potential to have substantial unintended consequences is no longer an issue.

The third issue raised by the committee revolved around the level of administrative change that would need to occur and further changes to the law that would need to occur if the provisions of proposed new section 48B of the Pharmacy Act were included in law. This point is now obsolete as Ms Dundas’s amendments, which, of course, I shall be supporting, will have no effect on crown lease administration.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (10.18): The opposition will be supporting the amendment. We will be supporting it for a number of reasons. One is that it is a neat solution to the problems that have been raised. It is an example of what you can actually do when you work together. How the situation lines up is that we have Mrs Cross, an Independent, the Democrats, the Greens, the Liberals and the community working together to achieve something, and we have been working on it since 31 March when the bill was first tabled.

I want people to draw a parallel with the approach that the government has taken to this bill and this amendment tonight. Like the German retreat from Stalingrad, it has been inexorable, it has been slow and it has been painful, but it is still going to have the same outcome. I think that the sad thing about it is that so many ordinary Canberrans, many of them small business people or people who work for those small business people, have seen today how the Labor Party operates.

I want to go to the point that Mr Corbell made in his latest speech when he said that in opposition his party had supported Ms Tucker in her action against having pharmacies in supermarkets. The question is: what happened? Where did that support go? Was it just

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