Bills

Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 July 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:00): I will not hold up the house for long on this bill. This is a technical bill. It just corrects some inadvertent anomalies that were introduced in a previous amendment. It also harmonises some of the records of sale of some schedule 7 poisons across Australia. The bill was introduced in July and proposes to make three technical amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The first is harmonisation of records of the sale of schedule 7 poisons.

For the information of the house, a schedule 7 dangerous poison is a substance that has high to extreme toxicity, can cause death or severe injury at low exposures, requires special precautions in its manufacture and handling, may require special regulations restricting its availability, possession or use, and is too hazardous for domestic use or use by untrained persons. The bill intends to make it easier for retailers to find out the requirements to record information in relation to sales of schedule 7 poisons which, as I said, are dangerous poisons used for agricultural or industrial purposes, such as arsenic, cyanide or strychnine.

Currently, there are requirements in the Controlled Substances Act itself, as well as in the poisons regulation under the act. A set of uniform controls over poisons that includes the information recorded about schedule 7 poisons sales was developed by the Australian poisons regulator and confirmed by COAG. All jurisdictions have agreed to amend the relevant legislation to reflect these uniform controls. The reform process is expected to be completed in 2017. South Australia is the only jurisdiction that currently requires sellers to record the purpose of the purchase of schedule 7 poisons.

Other changes relate to administering schedule 4 drugs to animals. Clause 5 of the bill clarifies the regulation of schedule 4 prescription drugs, such as antibiotics. Changes to the Controlled Substances Act in 2011 inadvertently omitted the requirement that a person is only permitted to administer a schedule 4 prescription drug to an animal if the minister has licensed that person to do so. This bill seeks to reinstate that requirement. The third thing it seeks to change is clarification on the grounds of a prohibition order.

Clause 6 of the bill seeks to clarify that the minister's powers under section 57 of the act to issue a prohibition order against a person includes when a person has sold a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner. Section 57 of the Controlled Substances Act is intended to apply particularly to pharmacists to prevent potentially dangerous sales of prescription drugs. The minister can apply a prohibition to a person who has, in the opinion of the minister, prescribed, supplied or administered a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner.

The legislation is straightforward. It is a technical amendment. It is one of those bills that has been through the COAG process and I think it is a very sensible amendment. With that, I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (12:03): I rise to speak in support of the bill before us, the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, and will make particular reference to the process of record keeping for schedule 7 poisons sales. To deliver a seamless national economy in this space, the Council of Australian Governments responded to an identified inconsistency in poisons regulation. Record keeping for schedule 7 poisons transactions is inconsistent between jurisdictions and poses unnecessary complexity and compliance costs for businesses operating in more than one jurisdiction.

Proposed changes to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 will make it easier for users to find the requirements for the information that retailers must record when selling schedule 7 poisons, which include industrial and agricultural poisons such as arsenic, cyanide and strychnine, by prescribing all the information that must be recorded under the Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations 2011. Retailers sell schedule 7 poisons which may include agricultural products such as pesticides; zinc phosphide, which is mouse bait; soil fumigation, which market gardeners would use; herbicides (paraquat); and animal supplements and treatments such as drenches and cattle or sheep dips.

Under condition of licence, retailers are only permitted to sell schedule 7 chemicals to licensed or accredited purchasers. Purchasers are licensed pest control operators and primary producers such as farmers who are trained to hold a current chemical user accreditation to use these poisons. Currently, there are two requirements for record keeping in the act and four requirements in the poisons regulations. Record keeping for schedule 7 poison transactions is one of the areas of regulation that is inconsistent and needs to be addressed across borders. This amendment to the act provides the necessary change for South Australia to give effect to a national agreement between jurisdictions to achieve consistent poisons regulations.

Jurisdictions agreed to amend relevant legislation to reflect national uniform controls over poisons and include a control that prescribes the information retailers must record. The act already requires businesses to comply with other national uniform controls over packaging and labelling of poisons. Referring to the national controls over record keeping through this amendment will reduce the amount of information to record by removing a uniquely South Australian requirement, which is quite a hurdle, to record the purpose of a poison purchase, and it means the businesses will no longer need to understand and comply with multiple sets of different poisons regulations if they operate in more than one jurisdiction. I believe that will be quite a timesaver.

From what I understand this amendment will have economic benefits for South Australian retailers by reducing their regulatory burden through nationally consistent poisons regulation. The economic benefit and cost savings are expected to arise from harmonising record-keeping requirements nationwide, which reduces compliance costs and also reduces the amount of information for South Australian retailers to record.

Australian industry expects that implementing this nationally consistent approach to poison controls will in fact bring these nationwide cost savings. The major South Australian schedule 7 poison retailer was consulted about this amendment, and the retailer supports having nationally-consistent record keeping and does not foresee associated transition costs but only, in fact, benefits. I support and recommend this bill to the house.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:08): I will not hold the house for very long. I think all that needs to be said has been said, but there are a few things I would like, with the indulgence of the house, to reinforce. The first point I would make is about the red tape reduction that was mentioned by the honourable member for Elder. It is true that changes to this bill are of a technical nature, but they are very sensible changes.

In regard to the red tape reduction, it is fact that it will reduce the regulatory burden for businesses that sell schedule 7 poisons but, at the same time, it is putting different requirements on the recording of schedule 7 poisons, which is an important thing. People have to know what it is that is being administered, and it is quite appropriate for that to be properly labelled and properly recorded. I know you would be aware, Mr Acting Speaker, that there are 161 licensed retailers in South Australia comprising agricultural merchandise outlets primarily, of course, in rural locations. Everyone in this chamber knows that we on this side support our rural areas and the commitment we have to that very important part of South Australia.

Schedule 7 poisons include industrial and agricultural chemicals such as arsenic, cyanide and strychnine. Whilst I admit that it is hard to quantify the economic benefit that will occur from this red-tape reduction, I am told that industry does expect there to be minimal cost savings. It is also important to note that the clause of this particular bill will only become operational once national standards on poisons are set. Another point I want to reinforce is that those people in South Australia who operate across borders are required to meet different criteria than exist in South Australia. This is a harmonisation process, and that can only be a good thing for the management of these poisons, and these very important prescription drugs.

On the matter of prescription drugs for animals, I am told that based on the Crown Solicitor's advice these were undertaken to provide extra clarity on the sale of schedule 4 prescription drugs. In the context of this bill, the concentrates (schedule 4 prescription drugs) for animals are for antibiotics. That is what this bill is about, to provide that extra clarity. I mentioned that earlier: the ability to be able to know what it is that you are administering and what the impacts and effects of it may well be. This extra clarity provides for the licence conditions for organisations like the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, and I am told that they are supportive of these particular changes.

On the other matter of prescription drugs for animals, part of the changes being made are for the administrative update of language regarding the minister's power to prohibit a person, or supply, or administer a prescription drug, and I think that is quite a sensible move. That is addressing something that was introduced, as I understand, back in 2011, which we have now decided is something that needs to be revisited—and it makes sense.

An amendment in this clause will also include terms of 'sell' and 'supply' to remove any ambiguity for the courts when a prohibition order is active. Of course, I do not come from a legal background, but I think one of the underpinning and important aspects of our legal system is to make sure that there is clarity, and this delivers that in this particular instance.

As I said, and as the member for Morphett mentioned, they are amendments of a technical nature. They are important. A significant amount of consultation has been undertaken with respect to these amendments. They also, simultaneously, harmonise certain aspects of our legislation with that legislation that applies interstate. I commend the bill to the house, and I congratulate the minister on bringing this important bill to the house.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (12:12): I also rise to support this bill which, essentially, in a nutshell provides uniformity across Australia. It provides clarity in relation to the use of prescription drugs, and it rectifies an omission in some previous legislation that has passed this house. It is important that we have clarity and uniformity across our borders in relation to the use of these highly dangerous poisons. In saying that, it is also important that those industries that are reliant on the use of these products are able to access them and use them knowing, very clearly, what their rights and responsibilities are.

We know industries operate across our state borders, people have agricultural properties across state borders, and it is a nonsense to have different regulations. So, it is really important that we have consistent regulation and operation of these highly dangerous poisons, which can be very detrimental if used in an inappropriate manner. It is important that we have proper record keeping and that people understand exactly what their responsibilities are. It is also important, however, to ensure that we continue to have appropriate oversight over the supply chain for these schedule 7 poisons.

The act will still require retailers (those people selling these poisons) to determine the purpose of the purchase before proceeding with the sale. I think that is very important. Under the uniform controls that are being introduced, it will require the retailers to record the proof of the purchaser's authority to purchase these poisons, and their records will need to indicate the purchaser's occupation and the use of those particular poisons.

I mentioned in my opening comments an omission. Prior to 2011, the Controlled Substances Act made reference to people being permitted to administer schedule 4 prescription drugs. Changes to that act inadvertently omitted a reference that allowed organisations, such as the Museum, the RSPCA and people working with animals, to administer these drugs, so this is simply rectifying something that was omitted back in 2011.

Clause 6 provides the power to issue a prohibition order against a person who has sold a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner. What this does is provide some clarity in relation to the terms 'supply' and 'sell', so it will make it very clear that, when a pharmacist is selling the prescriptions, they are not actually inadvertently caught up in this legislation, again, just providing clarity in relation to services that are very important in our community. With those few comments, I am pleased to be able to support this bill.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:16): I rise to make some brief remarks regarding this bill. There is no need to go over the ground that has already been covered, but to highlight that this actually just offers some clarity to the supply and use of some scheduled poisons. It also allows for some uniform regulation for the people who are selling and supplying the poisons, as well as some omissions being corrected in regard to previous versions of the bill.

I want to highlight that, in terms of where we are moving forwards into the 21^st century with the use of communication systems and databases, it makes great sense to ensure that we have some consistency across our borders in terms of that usage. Also, it makes great sense with our state borders being so liquid as they are that in moving from one side of the border to the other there is some consistency around the regulation of these substances. In saying that, I would like to add that we cannot take our eye off the ball from a South Australian point of view in terms of how we regulate and monitor the supply of these scheduled poisons to our rural friends and how we support the safe use of them.

Our land, animals and reputation are always at stake in regard to this, so having good legislation, which underpins the use of all of this, I think is very important because it is what we fall back to when we are able to spruik our record of safety within South Australia. I think the poisons that we are talking about, such as the cyanides, are worrying from the point of view of the general public, and the general public trusts us to make sure that we have tight regulations around the use and supply of them.

That said, it is not about making our rules so arduous that they cannot be followed without being broken, so there must be clarity. Having had a look over this bill, I believe that clarity is in there to make it easier for people to understand. I think people expect that we are looking at the impact of these poisons on our environment, on the watertable and on other members of the community who are in the vicinity when they are being used, so it is absolutely vital that we make sure people who are supplying them for use understand these consequences and are able to inform the community about that.

I am also interested in the clause that talks about the remediation of the omission regarding delegation of authority. I am sure groups such as the RSPCA appreciate the reintroduction of this clause of the bill and the clarity around their delegation of authority to be able to supply substances under this act. With that, I will conclude my remarks and commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:21): I rise to speak on this bill in response to what has been a bevy of glowing support of the intent behind this bill. I am so enthused by this glowing support that I have to say three things. First, this is a bill that actually is done when a premier walks into a cabinet room and says, 'What the hell are we going to do in a few months' time? Find me some tidy-up bills that we can deal with so we can fill up a bit of time.' Let me explain why.

First, this bill is not about reducing red tape or doing something fabulous for farmers, it is to clarify the grounds on a prohibition order, ostensibly on the basis that the minister is not quite sure, if she issues a prohibition order against somebody (a pharmacist in particular), whether she might get caught on a technicality that he is selling the product and not supplying it. Not one single case has determined that alleged anomaly. The minister says she needs to tidy this up in this legislation to ensure that we do not have any confusion. What utter nonsense. This is a complete furphy. Clearly, someone handing over a drug over a counter, whether you pay for it or not, is a supply of a drug. That is a nonsense.

Secondly, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that, when we give drugs to animals, a person has to be licensed. This is a clause that was actually removed in a 2011 rendition of this act. This act has been open several times since then and I have been here in the parliament doing it. Did they come back in and say, 'Look, we're sorry, we mucked that up in 2011 and we need to fix it up'? No, they did not. When the bill is open, minister, go around your department and find any other little things that they have stuffed up along the way or that need technical amendment and put it in at the time. You do not need to bring another bill in and create this time to do it.

Thirdly, when everybody is singing Kumbaya in harmony, lovely harmonisation around Australia crap, let me say this—and be alert on this poisonous aspect, and I am glad the Minister for Regional Development is present—we are now signing up to a COAG agreement to all be harmonised on the basis that we are dumbing down the circumstances which will now apply in South Australia compared to what it has been. Why? Because we are all rushing to go into this harmonised, in-sync arrangement, which certainly has some benefits for the cross-farming and cross-business enterprises across states—granted.

However, do not come in here and tell us you have been to a COAG meeting, minister, and you have signed up to something that is lower and less effective than what we already have. That is not acceptable and it should not be to anybody in this house. These ministers have a responsibility to go there and fight for the highest standard. If it is going to be applied across the country and we have the best, it should apply across the country. We should not accept some trumped-up, weakened and watered down piece of nonsense from the other states. With that, I let the bill pass.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Thank you, member for Bragg, and I will overlook on this one occasion your use of the unparliamentary word 'crap'.

An honourable member: Really?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Speaker Eastick in 1982.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:24): Fantastic. You just set a new precedent and one that is much more flexible. Traditionally, regulation from the Chair constricts debate, I have to say.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): No, I want open debate.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I am glad to see the Chair setting a new precedent opening up debate, overturning 34 years of precedent set by Speaker Eastick. We have seen it overturned and I am very pleased to see it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): And I will afford the member for Newland the same courtesy.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Following on from the ruling, the member for Bragg's contribution was crap. The member for Bragg's contribution was crap, and it is very—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Yes; order!

Ms CHAPMAN: You upheld Speaker Eastick's—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Bragg, I did say the word 'once'. I will overlook it once.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You said it once and she said it once, and in the long-held parliamentary tradition, I believe the technical argument is, 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander.' If it is overlooked once, it can be overlooked a second time, and you have set the precedent now, so thank you; I am very pleased to hear it.

On the one hand, those members opposite will talk about deregulation, cutting red tape and making things easier. At one point when, in this case, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse has tried to do exactly that, they say, 'It is terrible; we should never agree to this. We are dumbing down.' What was a virtuous deregulation held up by those opposite has suddenly become a dumbing down and a weakening of standards. In fact—

Mr Picton: We need more red tape!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: More red tape. The argument by the member for Bragg is essentially, 'We have the best red tape in the country; everybody should come up to our standard of red tape.' Be that as it may, I think the second reading speech admirably outlines how the information recovered under the bit that is being removed is captured elsewhere. It is not that the information is not captured; it is captured in a nationally uniform and, I suspect, less invasive way for farmers and those buying these chemicals.

As other members have pointed out, we are dealing with some particularly hazardous chemicals. It is right and proper, as the member for Bragg said, that there should be a safety regulation around these things. The chief beneficiaries of that regulation are not, in fact, the government; in my view, they are the farmers themselves. There needs to be some regulation around dangerous substances. Most people—and this includes farmers—are happy to get along with their jobs and trust in the regulatory and safety systems that are around us. That is probably one of the great luxuries of Western society. We have good regulatory systems, we have good safety systems, and they are improved over time. Sadly, that is often on the back of unhappy experience.

One of the reasons for improved recordkeeping is to make sure that when we do have an unhappy experience and we discover, for instance, the possibility down the track that a chemical or a substance is more dangerous than we thought it was, good records allow us to go back and talk to those people who are affected, assess them for exposure to these chemicals and whether they have been affected in the ways that may have been discovered. This is obviously a hypothetical situation.

I do not think that is a bad thing in any way. It will speed up the efficiency of retrospective treatments, should they be required. It will speed up the efficiency of knowledge gathering, should that be required. Heaven forbid that we ever get to this point, but it will also ensure the widest possible compensation and that the legal arrangements in their own right are more efficient or more widespread in the event that that would need to happen. I do not think the collection of information on substances that are as dangerous as these is a bad thing. I do not think it is unnecessary red tape; I think it is proven red tape, and I think that is important.

The second thing I want to talk about is the use of antibiotics, particularly with the RSPCA. It clears up some of the arrangements around that. I am not a lawyer. The member for Bragg made some points about supply and sale. She may well be right, but it does not hurt to clarify that in a bill, seeing as it is here and we are talking about it. I think the impetus of this was not just to open it up for that particular point; the impetus was to conform with a national arrangement. Seeing as we are doing that and the bill is open, then we may as well address that.

It may or may not be a point that will ever come up, but what I do know about lawyers is they can always find an argument one way or another. That is what they are paid to do. Presumably, at some point, some defence lawyer somewhere will try to find a way, and if we have given them a way when we know we could have shut it down, that would be a shame. It may be a technicality but, in my experience, for the general public seeing someone get off on a technicality is the most frustrating miscarriage of justice you can come across. If this shuts it down, then I think that is a good thing.

Coming back to the RSPCA and their supply of antibiotics, firstly I would take the opportunity—since we are talking about the RSPCA, or at least I am—to thank them for the work they do in the community and the contribution they make. In some cases they are even taking over a prosecutorial role, which is a whole other issue in itself; that is something they undertake. I do not think anyone here could doubt the good intentions of the RSPCA or the Animal Welfare League or any of those organisations. They do a lot of work for abandoned animals, they pick these animals up.

It is an interesting exercise to think about what our society and our community might look like if there was no-one doing that role. There would be a lot more stray animals roaming the streets, I think. There would be a lot more animals that would not live as well as they do. Sometimes they are in their final days, but they would not live as well as they do without organisations such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, who not only take care of the animals but also lobby on their behalf, advocate on their behalf, to those of us who are members of parliament and also to the general community. I thank them for that role.

I do have some concerns about the use of antibiotics in animals, mainly as a result of the effectiveness of antibiotics in general over the long term and the effectiveness of antibiotics in the human population. I think there is a tendency, and in my view it is a worrying tendency, for individuals to spend more and more on the veterinary needs of animals, the healthcare needs of animals, such that health care for animals is beginning to resemble health care for humans in the way it is applied and the amount of money that people will spend.

Personally, I find that disturbing. I find it disturbing for many reasons. They are people's pets, it is their own money, and they are of course entitled to spend that as they see fit, but it seems a shame to me that such outstandingly large amounts of money are spent on animals when there is such a crying need for spending on our fellow people in society. It is more a reflection of Western society, one of the darker sides of Western society. I have talked previously about the advantages, but I think one of the darker sides of human society is the increase in the amount of money that we spend on pets and animals, often at the expense, as a society, of our fellow human beings.

That is a general concern of mine, as is the use of antibiotics. The more we use antibiotics across society—and we are seeing a movement away from the use of antibiotics in food production, for instance—the more we as humans get generally exposed to these antibiotics. More importantly, some of the pathogens and viruses, and others—not so much viruses with antibiotics—the bacteria and illnesses that we have been fighting so hard against for most of the course of human history are developing mutations and resistance to antibiotics.

That is a bad thing because, again, the catastrophic consequences to human society of widespread resistance to antibiotics by bugs, these so-called superbugs, will be deadly. It will have impacts on our society that are very difficult for us to imagine now because it is such a long time since we have been exposed to them, but there was a time when things like smallpox were common and there was no cure. Children, and weaker and infirm adults, were particularly—

Ms Chapman: This is getting very off topic.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Bear with me, member for Bragg. People were regularly dying from what is now a disease that is preventable. In fact, in every sense of the word in common experience across our community, it has been eradicated. Even in the poorest parts of the world, smallpox has been eradicated. Imagine if it were to come back, or if something similar, a bacteria that we now currently combat with antibiotics, were to come back and become so virulent that it would have a similar effect across our community as smallpox did not so long ago.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Deputy Speaker: much as this is very interesting, it is completely irrelevant. Unless the member is going to propose that we are going to give cyanide to pet cats or we are going to have prohibition orders against people introducing antibiotics for children, frankly, this has nothing to do with this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure he is going to make it relevant.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I am, ma'am. I was just coming to it actually.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Isn't that a wonderful phrase? I am sure he is going to make it relevant.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I was just coming back to it. I think there needs to be some consideration on the application of antibiotics to animals. Perhaps in a veterinary sense or in a wider agricultural sense, there needs to be some consideration, and I think it needs to be at a national level, either through a ministerial council or through a federal government taking its own initiative.

There needs to be consideration of how widespread the application of antibiotics is. What are the possible effects of that application? How do they permeate through the food chain? How do they permeate into our human experience? What effect are they having on bugs and everything else? What sort of resistance is being built up by bugs, and how widespread are these bugs?

Otherwise—and it is the history of human experience—we will continually ignore warning signs until a catastrophe or a very difficult situation occurs, then we panic and try to catch up. We do everything we need to do and we spend inordinate amounts of resources on playing catch-up to something we could have considered at an earlier stage. This bill, and its regulation or changes to regulation or the way it treats the administration of antibiotics to animals, is a good starting point for discussion on where we might go with our use of antibiotics in our society, particularly in relation to animals. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:33): I should note that I think the Acting Speaker, the member for Little Para, was doing an excellent job. I am sure that you, Deputy Speaker, apply the same leniency to all members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that to say you didn't miss me?

Mr PICTON: Of course, we missed you greatly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Silly, silly boy.

Mr PICTON: He applied a flexibility in his rulings that you often do not, Deputy Speaker. I will not use the liberties required by the member for Bragg and the member for Newland in my contribution and I will stay within the parliamentary language. I am very keen to speak in support of the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I think 'miscellaneous' is perhaps not the best term to describe what is a very important bill as part of our COAG process for the national seamless economy.

This is a process that has been going on for a very long time, since 2008, when the then commonwealth government set up the work on a seamless national economy. These are very important projects that are being undertaken in a whole range of different areas. For instance, the Personal Property Securities Register, which is now set up, came through that process under COAG. The Australian Consumer Law, which has clarified the rights of consumers across Australia, came through that COAG process. Now this is the latest work on making it easier for businesses to trade and to operate across the whole country.

I think this government has been very supportive of that agenda across a whole range of different fronts, and we want to make sure that our businesses can operate across the country. I think this is just another way in which we are doing that. I think this is very important for those businesses that operate in this space, and I understand that there are 161 licensed retailers in South Australia and many of them operate in regional areas. We want to make sure that the regulatory burden on them is consistent with other states.

At the same time, we want to make sure that the regulation is appropriate because these are very dangerous substances that we are talking about and regulating. We want to make sure that there is a consistent and strong regulatory approach. That is really where it comes down to asking: what is red tape or what are the actual regulations that need to be in place? I think the minister, through her work as well as that of her predecessors, has argued a very strong case for South Australia and agreed to provisions that make sure that we have a good regulatory approach for these poisons in South Australia but that we do not go over the top.

For instance, one of the issues that has been discussed through this process is the uniquely South Australian requirement that we had to record the purpose of the purchase of a schedule 7 poison. That was only in place in South Australia. Changing that, however, will not reduce the overall regulatory oversight of the supply chain, and that is because schedule 7 poisons have other requirements under the Controlled Substances Act that requires retailers to satisfactorily determine the purpose of the purchase before proceeding with the sale.

There is also a requirement under the national uniform control that retailers record the proof of the purchaser's authority to purchase the poison that indicates the purchaser's occupation and context of use. That shows that there is a clear balance between getting rid of some of the regulation that applied just in South Australia and not in other states but also making sure that we have the information we need to make sure that those substances are only being sold to the right person.

To be honest, when I woke up this morning I was not expecting to talk on the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, but I was so drawn by the member for Bragg's comments earlier, which I thought were really her saying that she wanted to keep as much red tape as possible in place here in South Australia. I think that is definitely not something that this government agrees with. We want to make sure that we have simplified regulations, and that is something the Premier has made very clear, and he has announced a repeal date which will happen on 15 November later this year.

There is also a whole range of other work that is happening to look at the regulations that we have that we need, what regulations we have that could be simplified, and what regulations we could get rid of entirely because they are outdated or not needed at all. I think that is exactly the right process the minister has gone through in this bill, and I think that that should be commended. I am shocked really that this does not have bipartisan support.

Every time we hear the Liberal Party say that there is too much red tape in South Australia, I think we should look back to the 21 September 2016 contribution in the house by the member for Bragg when she got up in this house and opposed removing red tape in this area. That will show really what the view of the Liberal Party is when it comes down to it and how a lot of what they said is just pure rhetoric they do not necessarily believe in when it comes down to it.

Also, I think it is important to consider that, if they were to be in government one day, what approach they would take to these important COAG processes. Would they engage with them, would they collaborate on a national basis with other governments—whether Liberal or Labor, as almost undoubtedly there are always some of different flavours across country? We, as a government, have worked on those processes and achieved some great results. I think what we are seeing from the other side is that they are not keen to engage in those national processes and do not see having national streamlined legislation across the country as a good and desirable goal that we should be aiming for, whereas we do.

We think that you can get the right balance, where we have the right regulations here in place in South Australia but also make sure that we have a streamlined economy right around the country. I very much support this bill. I think there are some other provisions in the bill that are very important that have been discussed by other members of this house, particularly the member for Newland, the member for Colton and the member for Fisher. They have gone through some of those other important regulations about the animals, licensing and prescriptions under this bill and also some of the issues in terms of pharmacy.

It is important when we find things that need to be fixed up that the minister does the right thing in bringing them to the house so that we can address them in this way. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (12:44): I, too, rise to make a very brief contribution to the debate on the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. I agree with the points made by many of the previous members about clarification. I do not know if I would go as far as the member for Newland to say that the primary purpose of parliament is to frustrate the work of lawyers. I consider it a happy by-product. I will just reiterate what has been said by other members, particularly around clause 6, to begin with, about the power of the minister to prohibit certain activities.

Currently, as we know, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse does have the power under the current act to prohibit a person from certain activities if that person has, in the opinion of the minister, prescribed, supplied or administered a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner. However, as we have covered, the terms 'supply' and 'sell' are not used interchangeably in the act. This does need clearing up, as the member for Newland has explored. There is always a chance that a lawyer or another person is going to interpret something in a very strict way, and we are left with unforeseen and unwanted results.

For example, when a pharmacist dispenses a prescription, they are considered to be selling the medicine to the consumer, rather than supplying it. This amendment will include the terms 'sell' and 'supply' to remove any ambiguity around the nature of these activities. Clarifying the ministerial powers, as I said, will make sure that issuing a prohibition order is a regulatory option available to regulators when they investigate alleged irresponsible dispensing of prescription drugs by pharmacists.

As previous members have, I want to touch on clause 5, which is the regulation of schedule 4 prescription drugs. Currently under the act, of course, the minister does have the power to grant licences to organisations, including the RSPCA. I want to echo the sentiments of the member for Newland about the good work the RSPCA does in our community, and the Animal Welfare League too, particularly up in Elizabeth. My office regularly donates items to the Animal Welfare League, most of it at the behest of my mum, who is a very keen supporter of the Animal Welfare League and is always in my ear about animal welfare issues.

It does currently give licences to these organisations to administer schedule 4 prescription drugs, such as antibiotics, to animals. Licensing, of course, enables these organisations to operate effectively and to do the good work that they do. Conditions applying to these licences do control their activities, largely to protect public safety. As has been explored prior to the changes made in 2011, the act did make reference to a person being permitted to administer a schedule 4 prescription drug to an animal, if the minister licensed that person to do so.

This bill proposes an amendment, which I agree with, to the act, that will return to the previous provisions by reinstating this reference. This will provide certainty to licence holders and regulators that a person is permitted to administer a schedule 4 prescription drug to an animal, when licensed to do so by the minister. This amendment will also make it clear to a person, who may not have held a licence in the past, under what circumstances it is appropriate for them to apply for a licence. With these words, I join others in commending this bill to the house.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:48): I rise to support the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, which was introduced to the House of Assembly on 7 July 2016. It is my understanding that this bill proposes to make three technical amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The first is the harmonisation of records on the sale of schedule 7 poisons. Basically, the bill intends to make it easier for the users to find out the requirements on retailers to record information in relation to sales of schedule 7 poisons, which are dangerous poisons used for agriculture or industrial purposes, such as arsenic, cyanide and strychnine.

Many from the city would not be aware of those poisons in practical use. However, those from regional areas, particularly the South-East, use those poisons for a variety of reasons. I guess one of the main issues is the proximity of the Victorian border to South Australia and the bringing in together of a national jurisdiction.

Currently, there are requirements in the Controlled Substances Act itself as well as in the poisons regulations under the act. A set of uniform controls over poisons that includes the information recorded about schedule 7 poison sales was developed by the Australian poisons regulators and confirmed by COAG. All jurisdictions have agreed to amend their relevant legislation to reflect these uniform controls, which again is fantastic for conformity across state borders. It is expected that these reforms will be completed at the end of 2017. South Australia is the only jurisdiction that currently requires sellers to record the purpose of the purchase of schedule 7 poisons.

The implication is that when the regulations are updated, they will cover the names of the purchasers of those poisons (section 16(4)(a)) but will not require to state the purposes for which they were purchased. The name will be recorded but the intended purpose will not. The current government asserts that the change will not reduce overall regulatory oversight of the supply chain for schedule 7 poisons because of the requirement under the Controlled Substances Act that retailers satisfactorily determine the purpose before proceeding with the sale and a requirement under the national uniform control that requires retailers to record proof of the purchaser's authority to purchase poison that indicates the purchaser's occupation and the context of use.

Given the security context, I think the minister should be questioned as to why we would reduce information recorded and searchable in relation to dangerous poisons. Regarding the administrating schedule 4 drugs to animals, clause 4 of this bill clarifies the regulation of schedule 4 prescription drugs such as antibiotics. Changes to the Controlled Substances Act in 2011 inadvertently omitted a requirement that a person is only permitted to administer a schedule 4 prescription drug to an animal if the minister has licensed that person to do so. This bill seeks to reinstate that requirement.

Clause 6 of the bill seeks to clarify that the minister's powers under section 57 of the act to issue a prohibition order against a person include when a person has sold a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner. Section 57 of the Controlled Substances Act is intended to apply particularly to pharmacists, to prevent potentially dangerous sales of prescription drugs. The minister can apply a prohibition to a person who 'has, in the opinion of the Minister, prescribed, supplied or administered a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner'.

The government is concerned, I guess, that when a pharmacist dispenses a prescription they are selling the medicine to the consumer, not supplying it. I think the deputy leader addressed that quite well in her comments. We would like to see a reference in there to 'selling' as well as supplying drugs, just to remove any ambiguity around that. To the point of cutting red tape, I will take a little bit of interest in that. This current government is one of the few bureaucracies that could have a $15 million regional investment fund that costs about $13 million to administer.

Just yesterday, we had a guest speaker come in and talk to us from the livestock industry. I was amazed that out of the drought concessional loans, $6.7 million, I believe, was distributed to farmers in need at a cost of about $4 million to $5 million in administrative costs. When we start talking about cutting red tape, I would like the government to reflect on its own practices of excessive bureaucracy and the excessive costs required to administer some of these programs.

The current one which affects my area is the dairy concessional loan, which, to date, I do not think anybody has applied because the bureaucracy requirements are so high that it would be untenable for them to do so. God knows what the cost of administering that program would be. When the government talks about cutting red tape, I think it needs to have a good, hard look at itself and some of the costs associated with its bureaucracy. With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS (Taylor—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (12:55): I would like to thank all honourable members who have made a contribution today.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS (Taylor—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (12:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 14:00.