Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) (No. 2) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 July 2020.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) (No. 2) Amendment Bill, and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. I further indicate that the opposition—as we have with all the bills that have been moved in this place in response to the pandemic that we are facing—will be supporting the bill.

There are two aspects to this bill, both amending the COVID legislation that came into being earlier this year. The first deals with telepharmacy, allowing for the remote attendance of pharmacists via telecommunication or information technology. The second aspect includes pharmacists, pharmacy workers and general practitioners, as prescribed emergency workers, giving these workers additional protection in the course of their duties.

Telepharmacy is already occurring in limited circumstances, namely for the provision of services in rural and remote areas where a pharmacist is not available. The opposition understands this practice has occurred for well over a decade, underpinned by a code of conduct and monitored by the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA. The practice originally commenced under a commonwealth government trial to promote rural and remote access to medicine, and has continued ever since. The opposition was advised that, while the practice continues, its legal basis is not completely incontestable, particularly if the practice were to expand. In the context of COVID-19, and an increasing reliance on remote provision of health services, this amendment came into being.

When the opposition was notified of this legislation late on Monday afternoon, it sought feedback from several stakeholders whom we knew would take a keen interest in the measures proposed. While the provision of telepharmacy in required circumstances is unanimously supported, there were some reservations expressed surrounding the application of this amendment in practice.

The concerns expressed by stakeholders centred around the fears that the measures might be utilised to a broader context or, indeed, be exploited. The extreme scenario we envisaged is, for example, a telepharmacy setting up in an inner city suburb and offering video consults and referrals to a medical depot for the collection of medicines, undercutting regional pharmacies and removing the important provision of face-to-face care.

The Chief Pharmacist assured the opposition that this amendment is not a gateway to a new business model and that the concerns of stakeholders are well understood. The opposition was assured that the legislation merely acts to shore up the legality of existing arrangements, allowing the Pharmacy Regulation Authority to grant exemptions where there is a clear need for the remote provision of services as the only option available at the time.

The natural question following on from this is: why then only seek to make amendments to the COVID legislation, meaning that this legal clarity would then lapse following the removal of the emergency declaration? The opposition heard from the Chief Pharmacist that there are indeed works underway to legislate for these changes on a permanent basis but that there is more work to be done before that legislation is ready to be introduced.

The Chief Pharmacist has indicated that, under these permanent laws, the granting of telepharmacy would continue to be governed by the Pharmacy Regulation Authority's code of conduct, with the preferred option always that a pharmacist is present. The opposition awaits the introduction of this legislation with interest and will continue to be guided by the views of pharmacists and other clinicians. The opposition would encourage the government in its future legislation on this topic to include more protections in the legislation itself, rather than the current emergency bill, which relies entirely upon the regulation authority's code of conduct.

The second aspect of this bill is the expansion of the prescribed emergency worker status to pharmacists, pharmacy workers, general practitioners and nurses. This is certainly a welcome expansion. We need to be doing everything we can to protect front-line clinicians and workers, who are putting themselves at risk to provide care to others. This Monday's version of the government's bill was limited to pharmacists only and did not include other pharmacy workers and GPs. As the minister wrote to the shadow minister, the bill was 'to include pharmacists as prescribed emergency workers for the purposes of human biological material assault'.

At the time, the minister was not proposing any protections at all for GPs, not proposing any protections for nurses and certainly not proposing any protections for pharmacy workers. The opposition was informed this limited amendment arose from a notable increased risk in the provision of pharmacy services during COVID-19. Unfortunately, pharmacists are often the messengers advising people of restrictions on medication or temporary shortages and are at a heightened risk should a customer become verbally or even physically abusive.

Therefore, the question obviously became: why does this legislation not account for all who work at a pharmacy—those staffing the entrance, stocking the shelves or serving at the check-out? Those workers might not have the university education of the pharmacists in the pharmacy; however, they are still as vulnerable to assault and threats as the pharmacists themselves—perhaps in some ways even more vulnerable. That proposition certainly was not met with any opposition from the Chief Pharmacist; in fact, I am informed she would support that.

Indeed, additional protection of pharmacy workers and retail workers is something the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association has been calling on the government to implement for some time. In one of their several letters to the Premier calling for greater protection of retail workers, the association recites a letter from Savannah, a worker at Priceline. The letter says:

Dear Premier,

During this pandemic I had items thrown at me (because we weren't accepting cash).

I have been spat at (because I asked the customer to respect social distancing).

I have been called—

I will not read out the names—

…(because I would not let a customer use my personal hand sanitiser that I had to purchase with my own money despite the fact that we had stock for the customer to purchase).

Retail workers have been abused during this pandemic by others who have had the luxury of working at home! Something needs to be done!

Savannah, Priceline

Savannah and her fellow workers deserve protection just as much as the store pharmacist, which is why Labor proposed amendments to this legislation to include all pharmacy workers as prescribed emergency workers.

We also raised the concern that this legislation covered pharmacists and the legislation already included hospital doctors and nurses, however general practice doctors and nurses were not protected. These workers are just as much on the front line as those in hospitals. Particularly in the context of the pandemic, the risks that our front-line workers face are immense.

Thankfully, the government understood the validity—even if they did not at the time of drafting the bill—of the opposition's concerns and the public attention garnered throughout the day, led by the SDA issuing a media release and a social media campaign that concerned their members. The minister amended the bill on Monday prior to its introduction on Tuesday.

We welcome the minister's change of heart and mind in taking up the opposition's suggestions to cover these important workers. However, it must be put on record that it was a bit rich for the minister to then jump on Twitter to claim that the bill's introduction showed the Liberals were serious about protecting GPs, nurses and pharmacy workers, when only hours before it was the government's express intention not to protect them at all.

There is a natural question as to why these changes and protections could not be made a permanent change. The response the opposition received was that this might be something that could be considered moving forward. There has been no good answer about why these changes will not be permanent, why, when the major emergency declaration has ended, suddenly these protections that pharmacists, pharmacy workers, GPs and nurses will not be needed.

In summary, we welcome the government's willingness to once again adopt the sensible propositions put by the Labor opposition to improve their COVID-19 response. I reiterate our support for the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:10): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to also speak in support of the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) (No. 2) Amendment Bill 2020. As we know, the bill seeks to do two things: firstly, it expands the definition of prescribed emergency worker to include pharmacists and other workers performing duties in a pharmacy and medical practitioners in any place where treatment or testing is provided. I note the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the expansion of those definitions to ensure that they will include all those individuals who work in this space who are impacted on a daily basis as a result of their work. Secondly, it ensures legislation is consistent with the growing use of telepharmacy.

The Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides penalties for assaults on prescribed emergency workers. Whereas medical practitioners were previously legislated for a hospital and emergency setting, they together with others will now be given added protections regardless of where medical treatment and testing is provided. Like other members in this place, I have spoken about the amazing work that medical practitioners, nurses and other hospital staff have been doing in these extraordinary times. It is fitting that those covered by this bill are also included in the definition. They have been front and centre of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Interstate reports of incidents of verbal abuse have highlighted the significant risks to pharmacists and pharmacy workers and others. We have had our own instances here in South Australia. Panic buying and stockpiling of medication has created a new breed of agitated customers, and community pharmacists, assistants and workers are in the firing line unfortunately all too often. Regardless, it is a sensible preventative measure to protect more of our front-line workers.

We do not know when or if the COVID-19 pandemic will end. It is best, I think, that we prepare for the long haul. You could say that these workers have been and continue to be the unsung heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic. They have been operating in an environment of heightened anxiety and considerable risk to their own health and safety, and they are risks which obviously they then take home to their families. They have had to explain stock shortages and limits on a daily basis to customers and deal with the fallout from frustrated customers. I understand the frustration amongst customers, but there is no place for any of the sort of behaviour this bill seeks to address towards those who are working on the front line. So I take my hat off to all of them and thank them for their service.

Even before the pandemic, Australians visited community pharmacies 18 times a year on average; that is 450 million annual visits. Ninety-seven per cent of people living in capital cities in Australia and 65 per cent living in regional areas live within 2.5 kilometres of a pharmacy. A pharmacy is a relatively easy and fast option and a first port of call for many. I believe there are moves to expand the testing sites to include pharmacies—or a trial, at least—which makes perfect sense when you consider the unique position pharmacists and their staff are in in terms of being able to assess symptoms and offer a prompt testing service.

With the changing landscape, there has been a shift to a greater reliance on technology in all industries, and the health sphere is no different. COVID has given us the opportunity to modernise how we do things. This bill makes legislative changes to expand the role of telepharmacy past the pilot programs already in operation to make clear provisions for its use in consultations. I understand that 20,000 people have already benefited from this service in South Australia and that it is particularly beneficial in rural and remote areas. So it makes sense in this environment and beyond that we should be considering these measures.

A pharmacist is still required to be on site for a minimum of three hours per day, as I understand it. So it is not the case that pharmacists will indefinitely work remotely. A shift to telepharmacy will not replace the ongoing need for face-to-face contact in the long term. A pharmacist is still needed on site to administer a flu vaccination; to assist a new parent to monitor the weight of their newborn baby; to assess a minor sporting injury, for example; and for myriad other issues. There are many aspects of the pharmacist's role that still require physical attendance.

There is also little risk for misadventure with prescriptions of schedule 8 medicines unable to be provided remotely. So it does make sense. There does not seem to be any argument against this. I think it is a very sensible measure, but considering that we were only provided with this bill in the time frame that we have been—and I appreciate why that is the case—there may be opportunities for questions during the committee stage of this debate in relation to some of the concerns, if there are any to be aired, especially given the lack of time to be able to consult with anyone.

I trust that the government has consulted. I do trust that there is general consensus in terms of the support for this bill. This has been a recurring theme in terms of COVID bills. It is what it is, and there is not much, unfortunately, that we have been able to do about that. I think we have all tried our best to deal with these issues as quickly and as timely as possible as they have arisen.

We are somewhat comforted by the ticking clock on the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, which is due to expire in nine weeks. All of these issues will have to be reassessed at that time, but there are no guarantees, of course, that things will return to normal anytime soon. In all likelihood, I think we are all expecting that declaration to be extended—I do not know, I am speculating, but it is really difficult to contemplate, at this stage, what a post-COVID landscape will look like.

With all that we have learned this year, no doubt there will be new opportunities to expand the role of many of our professionals going forward. I thank the government for introducing these very important measures. With those words, I indicate our support for this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:18): I did not put myself on the list, so I apologise to the chamber for that. Obviously, we know that these are emergency bills, and I will keep it brief. The Greens do support this bill today, as we have supported the other COVID emergency bills. We commend all members of this place for having the flexibility to move these things so fast. We know this is a virus that also moves fast, and we have just seen on the news that it is another 484 people in Victoria today. These figures in Victoria keep going up; they are quite frightening. We are in very testing times.

When people seek medication from pharmacists—the anxiety and stress that is being effected—I would say that nobody should be abusing the pharmacist but also that we need to ensure that the medicines are there. I have been back and forth between doctors and pharmacists, trying to access medication for asthma. I know that just the small anxiety that I felt as a result of not being able to breathe and of not having medication that would help me breathe is a position that we are also putting patients and consumers in. We look forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (11:19): Could I thank the opposition and each of the members who have spoken who have indicated their support. The government appreciates the cooperation of all parliamentary groups for each of these COVID-related bills. It is certainly not our usual practice to progress bills at such speed.

I know the council would be reassured by the fact that effectively this whole set has a sunset clause on it. As the Hon. Connie Bonaros suggested, these elements are perhaps the shortest lived because they are the most recent, and considering that the overarching framework expires at the withdrawal of the major emergency or on 9 October, I understand, whichever is the earliest, these measures will be subject to review relatively soon.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked why we are not making permanent changes. It is in the spirit of that, shall we say, short fuse consultation that we have not chosen to ask the council to make permanent changes to the legislation. As the honourable member rightly highlighted, the government is working on legislation to make some of these matters permanent. In that context, I think it is actually helpful to, if you like, see the COVID response life of these amendments as part of the consultation about the next.

We appreciate that not only has the parliament not had the normal time to consider all of the implications of these provisions, but that is also true of stakeholders, so we appreciate the tolerance of both the parliament itself and stakeholders. We will be very alert in terms of monitoring both the intended and unintended consequences of these measures over the duration of this bill.

The Hon. Connie Bonaros highlighted that we may well need to extend this legislation beyond 9 October, but of course that is a matter for this council. The government will form a view as to what it believes should be done. I certainly cannot foresee that we will not need some legislative accommodations beyond 9 October, but let's put it this way, this pandemic has brought many surprises, and I am sure there are many surprises to come.

If I could reiterate the advice that the Chief Pharmacist gave to the opposition, telepharmacy provisions are certainly not stepping away from the primacy of face-to-face consultations. It is certainly not a gateway to a new business model. That is not the government's intention. As the honourable member rightly points out, telepharmacy has been used. I think the trial the honourable member referred to was in 2004, so it is a well-established part of the service set, particularly in rural and regional South Australia.

The honourable member posed a question about whether or not the legislation should refer to the authority's code of practice or whether it should be in the legislation. I think that is a legitimate question for the parliament to consider in the context of future legislation. It has increasingly been the Legislative Council's view, as I understand it, that the council is uncomfortable with legislation that references external documents over which it does not have control, because effectively when one does that the parliament runs the risk of delegating to an external body the legislative function itself.

I think the opposition raises a legitimate point. As I understand it, the government has provided copies of the relevant codes to the opposition, but we would be urging that we do not seek to insert them or reference them in the short term, and that in the future we consider whether they should be referenced as external documents within the legislation or, as the opposition suggested, put in the legislation itself.

In relation to the prescribed emergency workers element, the honourable Leader of the Opposition is quite right to point out that the government has expanded the scope of the provisions that were tabled on Monday. Even in the short time frame that is available to us, the government is more than willing to make good legislation better. Not only did we take up the suggestion of the opposition and ensure that pharmacy assistants and other employees in pharmacies were covered by these provisions but also GPs and people in general practice or medical centres, nurses and other health professionals who might be involved in a COVID testing clinic.

As both the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Connie Bonaros highlighted, one can easily imagine the circumstances in which a pharmacy patient could be anxious and frustrated, and they might be inclined, but should be discouraged, from expressing that in any form of violence. It is also other contexts where that risk exists, for example, a nurse, a paramedic, or the like, who might be delivering a testing clinic. As we saw in the last couple of days, we have had a significant increase in presentations to the clinics, which is great, but it has led to some delays, and that can lead to frustration.

Again we ask people to be patient, we ask people to not take out their frustration on those who have put themselves on the front line to provide health care to others. This legislation continues the strong commitment of this parliament to back our health workers, in terms of protection, as they deliver care. As I conclude my remarks, I again thank the opposition and the other parliamentary groups for their indication of support and assure members that, as we go to the revised COVID set, or permanent legislation, the government will certainly be keen to look at the impact of these provisions in the short term and undertake more normal consultation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a number of questions at clause 1. My first question to the minister is: when were the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society first informed of the government's proposed changes to the legislation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would answer this in two ways: first of all, I am advised that probably in March the Chief Pharmacist established an expert group consisting of the Pharmacy Regulation Authority South Australia, the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia to discuss a whole range of matters in relation to COVID. Telepharmacy was certainly a matter discussed by that expert group.

In relation to the issue of safety of workers at work in pharmacies, that issue was raised with me by the Pharmacy Guild I suspect in the last month or two. In terms of the legislation that was distributed to members on Monday, that was also distributed to a range of stakeholders for their views.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his response. Just so I am clear, is the minister saying that it was distributed on Monday afternoon to that range of stakeholders as well as to other members of parliament or was it stakeholders before that?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that stakeholders got the bill at about the same time as members of parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When did GPs, nurses or their representatives receive a copy of the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let's be clear: the bill was only approved by cabinet on Monday. Since then, my office has had discussions with the AMA and we have provided a copy of the revised bill to the ANMF.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To be clear, were the AMA and the nurses federation provided a copy of the bill at the same time as representatives of pharmacies?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, they were provided a copy subsequently.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is that because it was not intended, until the opposition raised it, to include GPs or nurses in the protection this legislation provides?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government has already indicated that we have expanded the scope.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to telepharmacy, can the minister assure the council that the amendment does no more than clarify what is currently the practice of the Pharmacy Regulation Authority to grant exemptions for telepharmacy in limited circumstances?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I can confirm that is my advice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister assure the chamber that the telepharmacy amendment would not allow for the potential of market manipulation, including the creation of new business models offering pharmaceutical services?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Of course there is a risk, but we have considered that risk is low because the services will be considered on a case-by-case basis under the oversight of the pharmaceutical authority. Certainly, the opposition's concern is legitimate. There have certainly been concerns in relation to the use of telehealth in the expanded arrangements that the commonwealth has put in place, that that has led to some unhelpful market developments. I think that is why the commonwealth has narrowed the scope of that significantly. My understanding is that, as of Monday past, a person will not be able to access telehealth services unless they are accessing them through the GP of their normal engagement.

Perhaps I could address the concern this way: the commonwealth is clearly expanding telehealth in terms of medical services into territory it has not been in before. But we would argue that this is merely an affirmation of a journey that started in 2004, and we are taking a conservative approach by just making sure that it has the legislative base that it needs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister able to inform the chamber how many Pharmacy Regulation Authority exemptions for the provision of telepharmacy are currently active?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that we understand—and the officer who is with me is from the department, not from the authority—that there are currently six pharmacies that use the service, but we understand that may be with one registered owner.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the limitations of the advice that can be received immediately and maybe it is something, if not with absolute clarity now, the minister can bring further answers back on. Can the minister give an indication as to whether they are in very remote regional areas? What is the nature of the exemptions?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Certainly, what I am advised is that we can indicate that they are all regional; none of them are metropolitan.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has the department done any work as to how many applications they expect to receive for exemptions for the provision of telepharmacy as the result of the passage of this legislation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that we are not expecting any more. We are consolidating the legislative base for those that are currently using it. One needs to remember that in the context of the evolving pandemic not only do pharmacists have the opportunity to apply, I think it is, to the authority rather than to the department to provide the service but also they have the opportunity to engage the legislation in relation to emergency provisions. It may well be that, if the pandemic was to progress, the emergency provisions element might be more useful than telepharmacy. I am about to get some counselling, I think.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This might help inform the counsel that the minister is about to get. My next question was going to be—and the minister talked a little bit about it very briefly—is the minister able to outline the process by which a pharmacist applies for an exemption, and then what is the process of being granted this exemption?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of the outcome of my counselling, it was highlighted that the telepharmacy is particularly about enabling pharmacists to provide services remotely. Emergency dispensing is particularly about patients who in an emergency circumstance need additional supplies.

In relation to the use of telepharmacy during the pandemic, whilst I am advised we do not expect additional applications for telepharmacy, it may well be part of our response to an emergency situation that telepharmacy services are established. For example, if a particular regional pharmacy was affected by a COVID outbreak and had to close down, it may well be that we use telepharmacy to try to maintain services to that community.

In terms of the honourable member's question and in terms of the process by which a pharmacy would become involved in telepharmacy, the government has provided copies of some documents to the honourable member for Kaurna that relate to this process. Applications are made to the Pharmacy Regulation Authority of South Australia (PRASA). There is an application that is undertaken. It is likely that PRASA would visit the pharmacy in the context of that application and it is our understanding that PRASA undertakes ongoing assessment of telepharmacy services.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister able to outline when the government intends to introduce legislation that would more fully enshrine telepharmacy outside a declared emergency?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it relates back to the consideration of government about the next step in this pandemic. I think the Chief Pharmacist has indicated to the opposition that ongoing legislation is being developed. We are talking about nine weeks and we are talking about government decisions as to what extent the temporary sunset clause type of legislation, like this COVID bill, is the next step or whether some or all of these measures are sought to be made to change the primary legislation. These are discussions that the government needs to have.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Will there be legal uncertainty over the telepharmacy situation in regional SA when the emergency declaration ends and the effect of the COVID legislation then finishes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is certainly my expectation that there would either need to be an extension of the COVID provisions or, at the end of this bill—which I recall is about 9 October—a change to permanent legislation. Considering the range of legislation involved, one can see the attraction of an extension, but that is a matter the government needs to consider and it is also a matter that parliament needs to consider. As I said in my comments to the Hon. Connie Bonaros earlier, it is hard to predict the progress of this pandemic.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer. I cannot recall, but is the minister able to inform the chamber as to when the current emergency declaration in fact comes to an end?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I cannot, I am sorry. My understanding is that they are 28 days by 28 days. I might just seek advice.

The CHAIR: Will the Hon. Mr Wade resume his place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: He taunted me.

The CHAIR: Yes, I know. We do not have a blood line in this place; maybe we need to.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There is blood everywhere here.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It is almost always his fault, but that was mine.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that the COVID-19 emergency response bills, the series of them, lapse when the major emergency is withdrawn or on 9 October, whichever occurs first. My prediction is that 9 October will occur first. In terms of the date on which the current declaration of a major emergency expires, I will need to get back to the member, and I am happy to do that. It is certainly before 9 October, and the government will need to consider any recommendation from the State Coordinator to extend the major emergency.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That leads to my next question. The likelihood, as the minister outlines—and that is understandable given where we are, not just in Australia but around the world—is that 9 October may well come and it will not be time for the effects of the COVID-19 bills to end. Is the government already looking at how to extend that and planning for when parliament resumes after the winter break as to whether they need to come back reasonably soon, given the likelihood that 9 October will be the first date?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member is right to encourage me not to try to speak beyond my station. The minister responsible for the Emergency Management Act is the Premier. I know on matters such as this he is in regular consultation with the Attorney-General because of the legal issues that arise. I have no doubt that work is being done on transition options. As I said, the two obvious options that appear to me are that some of the matters in the COVID response bill may be put to the parliament as ongoing changes, but the other option would be the further extension of the emergency response approach.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has the government consulted the guild, the society or any other stakeholders regarding the intention to introduce legislation outside the COVID regime that would normalise telepharmacy practices?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My expectation is that the Chief Pharmacist, in her discussions with stakeholders, will continue to consider what permanent legislation might look like. As I indicated earlier, perhaps one of the benefits of a test run like this bill presents is that any unintended consequences are considered. This council is well aware of the value of sunset clauses. We do not normally use nine-week sunset clauses, but it will be an opportunity for the experience of this period to feed into any enduring legislative changes that parliament might wish to make.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Going back to a comment that was made a little while ago, as far as we are aware there are six exemptions that are currently provided for telepharmacies that are active—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Six pharmacies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —six pharmacies, yes—and all are in regional or remote areas. I think I am getting it right but, just for clarification, if the situation does not change in terms of the COVID situation getting worse, does the minister envisage that there will be no more exemptions granted? Am I understanding that correctly?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think I answered this question earlier. It can only be an expectation, but my advice is that we have no reason to believe there are any pharmacies beyond the six that would seek to use the services with the passage of this bill. Having said that, as I indicated earlier, it may well be that in an emergency situation the government itself or other authorities might seek to use the telepharmacy tool as a response to a particular situation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think, minister, that is completely understandable. As the situation changes, the response necessarily will as well. In terms of future legislative changes to regularise the practice of telepharmacy, would the government's intention be simply to clarify existing practices or to look to expand further the use of telepharmacy?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think that is asking me to anticipate legislation and anticipate the outcome of the consultation process. As I have already indicated, there will be policy issues that the government will need to consider in terms of, for example, the issue that the honourable member raised in his second reading contribution of whether or not the code of practice should be in the hands of the authority or whether it should actually be part of the legislation.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (11:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.