House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Health Minister for the Arts Minister for Health Industries The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:00): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Health Minister for the Arts Minister for Health Industries The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:00): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 sets out the legislative provisions for the operation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. This national scheme provides for the registration of practitioners across 14 health professions across Australia and the regulation of these practitioners under nationally consistent registration standards and codes for their professions. As at 30 June 2016, 53,119 health practitioners in South Australia were registered under the national scheme. The act also covers the regulation of other related matters in South Australia that are not part of the national scheme. These matters include the registration of pharmacy premises and pharmacy depots, and provisions to ensure that optical appliances are prescribed by qualified persons only. The amendment bill before the house today makes changes to the act to give effect to an increase in the number of pharmacies that the Friendly Society Medical Association Limited may own; simplifying the regulatory requirements for manufacturers and retailers of ready-made spectacles; and the merger of the CrimTrac Agency with the Australian Crime Commission. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it. Leave granted. I will now outline these changes in detail for the benefit of Members. Increasing the number of pharmacies that the Friendly Society Medical Association Limited may own Part 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 includes provisions for the regulation of pharmacy premises and pharmacy depots in South Australia. As part of these provisions all pharmacy premises, and their owners, must be registered with the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA. These provisions ensure that pharmacy premises are suitable for the safe storage and supply of medications to the community, and that the owners of pharmacy premises are 'fit and proper' persons to operate these premises. All other jurisdictions have similar regulatory provisions for their pharmacy premises to ensure that the safety of the public is protected. Included in these regulatory provisions is a limitation on the number of pharmacies that an entity may own. The current capped numbers, which have been in place since 2007, allow the Friendly Society Medical Association Limited (which trades as National Pharmacies, and I will continue to refer to them by this name) to own 40 pharmacies, all other friendly societies to own nine pharmacies in total, and a person other than a friendly society to individually own up to six pharmacies. In this latter category will be the community pharmacists that most of us are familiar with. The limitation on the number of pharmacies that an entity may own has been in place in some form in South Australia since 1947. Other jurisdictions have similar provisions in place, although the numbers of pharmacies that may be owned differ. Restricting the number of pharmacies that an entity may own allows a number of operators and service models to operate in the market thereby creating competition. Some time ago I was approached by National Pharmacies for an increase in the number of pharmacies that they may own. National Pharmacies outlined to me that the current cap on pharmacy numbers, along with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) reforms of the Commonwealth Government, were having a detrimental effect on their business. An increase in the number of pharmacies that they may own would offset the effects of the PBS reforms on their business. The proposal put to me by National Pharmacies was for an increase of five pharmacies in three increments over the next 15 years. I was told that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (South Australian Branch), which represents community pharmacists, would be unlikely to support an increase in the number of pharmacies of this magnitude, and I asked National Pharmacies to meet with the Guild to see if a compromise could be achieved. Unfortunately both parties could not agree. I then offered to National Pharmacies those pharmacies that had not been taken up by other friendly societies as a means to increase their holdings. I had hoped that this offer may be a compromise to all parties as it would not change the overall number of pharmacies that may be owned by friendly societies in South Australia. I wrote to the major pharmacy interest groups on this proposal. The United Friendly Society Pharmacy at Mt Gambier, which is the only other friendly society that operates a pharmacy in South Australia, wished to reserve their right to own additional pharmacies and did not support a transfer of all the unallocated numbers to National Pharmacies. While National Pharmacies was supportive of the increase in numbers it was not to the magnitude that they requested, and it was likely to result in another approach in five years for an increase in the number of pharmacies that they may own. The Guild was not supportive of any change to the current cap numbers. I am reminded that when my predecessor, the Hon. John Hill, introduced the Pharmacy Practice Bill into Parliament in 2006 he spoke of the difficulties in trying to get all parties to agree to the number of pharmacies that each entity may own. The basis of the numbers as he outlined was based on a compromise reached some time ago between the number of pharmacies that friendly societies may own and the number of pharmacies that community pharmacists may own. The numbers in that Bill, and which form the basis of the Bill before Parliament today, are based on the market share between friendly societies and community pharmacies when the cap numbers were first introduced. While I am aware that the Guild does not support the increase to National Pharmacies in the Bill, I believe that it is a reasonable compromise to all parties. The increase of five pharmacies to National Pharmacies is from the current number of pharmacies allocated to friendly societies in South Australia but which have not been taken up; they are not new places, and so the market share between friendly societies and community pharmacies is still maintained. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise between National Pharmacies and the Guild. I have decided to bring this amendment to the House ahead of the outcomes of national discussions around competition policy more broadly that may impact on pharmacy regulation in the future, including any recommendations that may come from the Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation commissioned by the previous Commonwealth Minister for Health. While the outcomes from these discussions may impact on Commonwealth and State and Territory laws, I am told that any changes would be unlikely to be implemented until after the expiry of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement in 2020. Given this timeframe I believe that it is appropriate for the South Australian Parliament to consider an increase in the number of pharmacies that National Pharmacies may own ahead of any outcomes at the national level. Simplifying the regulatory requirements for manufacturers and retailers of ready-made spectacles Part 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 includes provisions for the regulation of optical appliances in South Australia. This includes spectacle lenses and contact lenses. Any optical appliance cannot be sold in South Australia unless it is prescribed by an optometrist or ophthalmologist. This is to ensure that the optical appliance is to the right strength to correct the eye defect and fitted properly. If this does not occur there is the potential for damage to the eye that may lead to blindness. However, if glasses are purely for magnifying, commonly called ready-made spectacles, they can be sold without a prescription provided that a warning label is attached to the glasses stating that they are not prescription glasses, and recommending that the purchaser should consider an eye examination by an optometrist for an assessment. There may be underlying medical reasons such as glaucoma and macular degeneration that may be causing difficulty in reading, which if left untreated, may lead to blindness. The purpose of the warning label is to alert the purchaser to consider an examination to determine whether there is an underlying eye problem which is contributing to their vision difficulties. The act currently requires the warning label to be affixed to the glasses in a prescribed manner. Previous regulations have prescribed the warning label to be affixed by cotton twine. In drafting a new regulation to prescribe the warning label it was considered that prescribing the attachment of the warning label by cotton twine may be an unnecessary impost on businesses, particularly if they have come up with an alternate method that is more cost-effective e.g. adhesive sticker on the lenses or plastic tie attached to the frames. The intent of the regulation is only to ensure that the purchaser is aware that the ready-made glasses are not prescription glasses, and that they are only a temporary fix to their vision problems. As long as this warning label is attached to the glasses at the point of sale, and in such a manner that the purchaser needs to physically remove the label, then the objective of the legislation is met. The amendment before Parliament removes the requirement about the manner in which the warning label is to be affixed to the ready-made spectacles. Optometry South Australia has been consulted on this revised provision and supports the proposed amendment. The merger of the CrimTrac Agency with the Australian Crime Commission This amendment is a minor and technical amendment to give effect to the merger of the CrimTrac Agency with the Australian Crime Commission. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law uses the CrimTrac Agency to receive criminal history information to determine whether a person is 'fit and proper' to practise as a health practitioner in Australia. The National Law also provides that a health profession regulatory board may at any time request the criminal history of an individual practitioner. Section 79 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 authorises the South Australian Commissioner of Police to provide a criminal history report when requested to a health profession regulatory board, the CrimTrac Agency or another police force or service of the Commonwealth or another State. The proposed amendment changes all references from the CrimTrac Agency to the Australian Crime Commission as the authority to provide the criminal history reports. While references to the CrimTrac Agency in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law will be amended later this year I have decided to progress the corresponding amendments in the National Law as it applies in South Australia to remove any doubt that the Australian Crime Commission is the authority to provide criminal history information now that the CrimTrac Agency no longer exists. I believe that this is an appropriate course of action to ensure that the South Australian public is protected from persons that are not of good character to practise. I commend the Bill to Members. Explanation of Clauses Explanation of Clauses Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Commencement 3—Amendment provisions These clauses are formal. Part 2—Amendment of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 4—Amendment of section 42—Restriction on number of pharmacies This clause amends section 42 to provide that— (a)	Friendly Society Medical Association Limited must not provide pharmacy services at more than 45 pharmacies in this State (currently the limit is 40); and (b)	a friendly society other than Friendly Society Medical Association Limited must not commence to provide pharmacy services at a pharmacy if friendly societies other than Friendly Society Medical Association Limited already provide pharmacy services at 4 pharmacies (subject to a different number in the regulations) in this State (currently the threshold is 9). 5—Amendment of section 74—Unauthorised dispensing of optical appliances This clause amends section 74(2)(d) to remove the requirement that a prescribed warning is attached to the glasses in the prescribed manner. The requirement on amendment will be that a prescribed warning is attached to the glasses at the time of sale. 6—Amendment of section 79—Commissioner of Police may give criminal history information This clause amends section 79 to update the reference to CrimTrac to the Australian Crime Commission established under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 of the Commonwealth. 7—Amendment of Schedule 2—Health Practitioner Regulation National Law This clause amends the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to update references to CrimTrac to the Australian Crime Commission established under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 of the Commonwealth and to delete the definition of CrimTrac. Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.