HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-05-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:29): I rise today in support of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The amendment before the house seeks to increase the number of pharmacies that the Friendly Society Medical Association (trading as National Pharmacies) may own in South Australia with a corresponding decrease in the number of pharmacies that all other friendly societies may own.

Pharmacies play a key role in the community. Not only are they in locations where medications are dispensed but they are playing an increasing role in providing general health advice, and immunisations for seasonal flu programs and some preventable diseases. This government recognises that community pharmacies are among the most trusted health resources in contemporary society, which is why we have allowed easier access to vaccinations through local pharmacies. Rather than having to wait for an appointment with a GP, people aged 16 and over will be able to obtain potentially life-saving vaccines from their local authorised pharmacist. By allowing pharmacists to administer these vaccines, we will reduce pressure on GPs and hospitals, and increase accessibility to vaccines, which will go a long way to creating a healthier South Australia.

Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010, the number of pharmacies an entity may own is capped. The intent of this cap is to ensure that the market is not dominated by a single entity. The cap on pharmacy numbers has been in place in some form since 1947 when pharmacy premises were first regulated in South Australia. Similar provisions apply in other states and territories, although the number of pharmacies an entity may own differs.

Under the current legislation, National Pharmacies may own no more than 40 pharmacies in South Australia. All other friendly societies may own up to nine pharmacies, and a person other than a friendly society, more commonly known as community pharmacists, may own up to six pharmacies. National Pharmacies approached the Minister for Health for an increase in the number of pharmacies they may own on the ground that their market share has fallen since the cap was originally introduced. While the total number of pharmacies in the state has increased, the number of pharmacies that National Pharmacies may own has stayed the same.

As the minister indicated in his second reading speech, the number of pharmacies an entity may own has been the result of compromise between all parties. I note that the Pharmacy Guild is not supportive of increasing the number of pharmacies that National Pharmacies may own. However, the increase to National Pharmacies has been taken from pharmacies allocated to all other friendly societies in South Australia that have not been taken up. So, the total number of pharmacies that all friendly societies may own in South Australia remains capped at 49 pharmacies.

The legislation has been brought forward to the house despite the commonwealth government's Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation and discussions at the national level about competition policy more broadly. While the commonwealth's review is primarily concerned with remuneration arrangements for pharmacies and the Pharmacy Location Rules, it is unclear whether pharmacy ownership will be addressed as a result of submissions. However, given that the commonwealth government has an agreement with the Pharmacy Guild until June 2020, it is unlikely that any changes will be implemented from this review until this time.

The commonwealth government is also seeking to negotiate national partnership agreements with states and territories on regulatory reform which may affect the regulation of pharmacy ownership. While each state and territory has its own legislation in this area, it may be that health ministers may wish to consider a national approach to reform, which also may take some time to negotiate. Given the length of time that the commonwealth government's deliberations are likely to take, it is appropriate for parliament to consider the proposal relating to National Pharmacies ahead of these national discussions. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:33): Today, I rise to provide a contribution on the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017. The Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 provides the legislative framework for professional registration of health professionals. The act also deals with regulated matters that are not part of the national registration scheme, including pharmacy regulation. Under the act, all pharmacy premises and their owners must be registered with the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA, primarily to protect the safety of the public. The regulatory provisions include a requirement that pharmacies be limited in the number of pharmacies any entity may own.

A pharmacist can individually own up to six pharmacies, but there is no cap on the number of pharmacies owned by an individual pharmacist in aggregate. Most European countries and all Australian jurisdictions require pharmacies to be owned by pharmacists to uphold the quality of pharmacy services and to protect the sector from damage perceived to have been done by the penetration of large corporate chains in the United Kingdom and the USA.

The amendment bill was introduced on 12 April 2017. Its most significant element is to increase the limits on pharmacy ownership for friendly societies. The 2017 bill proposes to increase the cap for National Pharmacies by five, from 40 to 45—one third of the requested number—and at the same time reduce the cap on other friendly societies from nine to four. There would be no net increase in the cap for friendly societies.

To give a little bit of history, in 1911 National Pharmacies were established with seven pharmacies, which increased to 13 in 1928. In 1947, National Pharmacies' approval to operate pharmacies in South Australia was capped at 26 sites by the South Australian legislation. This was a grandfathering provision to allow operators of friendly society operated pharmacies to continue to serve their members when a requirement for pharmacist ownership of community pharmacies was introduced. In 1961, this was increased to 31 sites. In 2006, National Pharmacies were approved to operate 40 sites. A further nine sites were approved for the use of other friendly societies, should they wish to establish pharmacies in South Australia.

The number of community pharmacies an individual or entity could have an interest in was lifted from four to six. The Pharmacy Guild submits that at the time the South Australian government was under pressure to enhance competition in the pharmacy sector. Today in 2017, the South Australian parliament is to consider the amendment to section 42 of the act to again increase National Pharmacies' approval to 45. National Pharmacies are seeking a further increase by five sites over the next 10 years.

Family-owned businesses are the backbone of the South Australian economy. Family-owned pharmacies are no exception, and they are in essence supported by family-owned businesses. In many regional centres of South Australia, we have a succession plan. A father or a grandfather has owned that pharmacy or pharmacies and passed them to the next generation and so on. There is no better example of that happening than in the Riverland.

Pharmacies are an important part of the total health effort in any community, and the Riverland is no exception. As I have said, small business is the backbone of the economy, particularly in the Riverland communities. It is estimated that there are around 4,000 small businesses in the Riverland of the 140,000 across the state, employing 249,000 people and contributing around $34 billion to the economy annually.

We have seen changes to SA Health's practices in relation to hospital pharmacies whereby hospital pharmacies are supplying pharmaceutical products to citizens who are not currently patients at the hospital. There is a centralised supplier of pharmaceutical products to those hospitals. The last thing we want to see is more pressure on those family-run pharmacies, particularly in regional areas such as the Riverland and the Mallee.

I will touch on some wonderful success stories in the Riverland. We do not have any National Pharmacies in the electorate of Chaffey. For example, in 2015 the Waikerie Chemplus pharmacy was awarded South Australia's Pharmacy of the Year for the second time in three years. That is an outstanding achievement for a small, family-run pharmacy in a regional centre. The Waikerie Chemplus pharmacy provides a wonderful service to the Waikerie community, and these types of awards are a great recognition of the pride small towns have around a family business.

The Pharmacy Guild has objected to the increase in the cap on the basis that National Pharmacies should not be allowed to grow because their exemption from the principle that only pharmacists should own pharmacies is the result of grandfathering, which should not be allowed to be perpetual.

The guild's submission is not only that the cap should not be increased but that participation of friendly societies in the industry should be at least frozen or even phased out. The guild also claims that friendly societies have unfair tax advantages and receive benefits as wholesalers, both of which are matters determined by commonwealth law and policy. The alleged tax advantage is challenged by National Pharmacies with reference to the commonwealth Treasury material, and they point out that many individual pharmacists participate in buying groups. Again, it seems that a national identity is having a heavy hand over these small and vitally important pharmacies, particularly those that are family owned and run.

Another great succession story is the John pharmacies at Renmark. Clacker John was very warmly regarded as a great family man, a great pharmacist and a caring, loving man who was always there for the benefit of his community. He was succeeded by his son Paul, who took over that family pharmacy way back when I first went to the Riverland in the late eighties. Sadly, Paul has passed and it is now a Priceline pharmacy.

The Riverland Plaza's Guardian Pharmacy is another great support for the Berri community, as are United Chemists at Renmark to another part of that community and the Berri Amcal pharmacy. These small towns are reliant on these family-owned, pharmacist-owned businesses, such as the Morgan Centre Pharmacy. Morgan is a town where the boundaries have changed and it will be moving into the electorate of Chaffey, and I welcome those constituents.

The Terry White pharmacy at Waikerie is another great story. I was doorknocking the main street of Waikerie only last week and went in to see that it is a well-presented and clean centre that gives great service and is one of the heartbeats of that business community. The Amcal pharmacy and the Cole and Edwards pharmacy in Loxton are also great providers of pharmacy services. I occasionally have to go to the Berri pharmacy in Clarks Arcade for pharmacy supplies, and they do a great job and provide a great service and great outcomes. The Karoonda pharmacy is another great story in a Mallee town, which is a marginal town. Karoonda relies on that service to provide them with pharmaceuticals and medical care.

This is a decision that this side of the house has made a stand on: we will not support an increase of National Pharmacies. I do not have National Pharmacies in my electorate, but what I do have are family-run businesses that are the backbone not only of regional communities but also of the Adelaide metropolitan and the wider South Australian business community. The Pharmacy Guild has contacted me, as have National Pharmacies with their side of the story, and I am backing the Pharmacy Guild. I am backing them because they represent small business in South Australia and they are a great representation of what locals mean to local people.

Pharmacists owning pharmacies is a great working model. I have many letters about all sorts of health issues, all sorts of services that are continually being taken away and businesses that are closing in regional centres. I do not receive any letters with concerns about the level of service provided by our pharmacists. I do not consider that we need to have more pharmacies to provide that level of medical care. I am concerned about what could be in the pipeline in the future, whether it is deregulation or corporatisation.

What I am seeing is that the hospital pharmacies are impacting on small family business chemists, and I see the duopoly breathing down the neck of every pharmacist and every convenience store as it slowly increases what we see as soft medication. Particularly for some of the care products we need, we go to a convenience store. The On The Run stores are another avenue of providing a service. Is that putting more pressure on pharmacies and those small pharmaceutical businesses? Yes, it is. This is potentially the thin end of the wedge. We have continued to see National Pharmacies come in and want to increase the number of their pharmacies, and I think we have to take a stand on this.

We do not see that there is an undersupply of pharmacists. We do see that there is a drop-off in membership within National Pharmacies, so why are we going to increase the number of those outlets? The status quo is presenting itself exceptionally well in South Australia and that is why we on this side of the house will support no increase to National Pharmacies outlets.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:45): I rise to speak to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 and to these important amendments that will help make health care in South Australia for South Australians safer, better regulated and more efficient. Firstly, I will focus on the simplification of the regulation of ready-made glasses, an issue that I have become particularly personally interested in over the past few years as my notes for speeches like this are put into larger and larger fonts and as I hold those notes farther and farther away.

Currently, under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, glasses or any optical appliance cannot be sold in South Australia unless they have been prescribed by an optometrist, an orthoptist or an ophthalmologist. This includes the sale of spectacle lenses designed to correct any abnormality or defect of sight and contact lenses, whether or not they are to correct any abnormality or defect of sight.

This raises important issues in terms of protecting and promoting eye health for South Australians. Lenses that have not been properly prescribed can cause further damage to an eye, particularly in the case of contact lenses. Glasses that are purely for magnifying, commonly called ready-made spectacles, do not fall within the intent of the legislation. Ready-made spectacles are only designed to magnify objects so that they can be read up close rather than, as I mentioned, having to hold them farther away. These types of magnifying devices do not pose the same risk to eye health.

For most people, the difficulty in reading may be put down to the ageing process, but for others there may be a medical condition, such as macular degeneration or glaucoma. If this medical condition is diagnosed, it may be possible to halt the progress of the condition and the resulting deterioration of eyesight.

This legislation requires that a warning label be attached to ready-made spectacles to advise that they are not prescription glasses and that it is recommended that the purchaser considers an eye examination with an optometrist to determine whether there is indeed a medical condition contributing to their difficulty in reading. However, in drafting a regulation to give effect to this legislation, it was found that the legislation is perhaps too prescriptive. It requires manufacturers or retailers to attach the warning label to the glasses and also prescribes exactly how the warning label should be attached to the glasses.

Previous regulations have prescribed that the warning label must be attached by cotton twine. However, manufacturers or retailers may have a more efficient manner to attach the label to the ready-made spectacles, such as a plastic tie attached to the frames or a sticker on the lenses. Under this amendment, the warning label must only be attached in a manner that means the purchaser needs to physically remove it and therefore take notice of it in doing so. This amendment simplifies regulation in this state for manufacturers and retailers.

It is, of course, crucial that people purchasing these glasses are aware of the potential risk of purchasing without an eye examination; however, it is unnecessary to specify how the warning label is attached. This amendment provides a balance between care and safety for South Australians needing to access glasses and regulation that is appropriate and enables manufacturers to provide safety messages in an efficient and practical way.

Secondly, I speak briefly to the CrimTrac agency amendment. Under this bill, minor and technical amendments are introduced to reflect the amalgamation of the CrimTrac agency with the Australian Crime Commission, which occurred on 1 July 2016. The CrimTrac agency was previously responsible for maintaining criminal history information for use between state, territory and federal law enforcement agencies.

Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010, the Commissioner of Police is authorised to share the information collected by CrimTrac with a health profession national board. This is to determine whether an individual is a fit and proper person to be registered to practise in a profession. Persons who are not held to high standards of conduct may pose a risk to the safety of the public and will therefore be barred.

As the name 'CrimTrac agency' is no longer used, there are replacements of references to 'CrimTrac' with the 'Australian Crime Commission' in this bill, which of course removes any doubt about the authority responsible for providing criminal histories for persons seeking registration as a health practitioner in South Australia. This is an important amendment to reflect the new body responsible for providing criminal histories in the process of registration for health practitioners and has no substantive impact on the operation of the act.

Both these amendments are important adjustments to ensure the proper and efficient functioning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 and therefore the health and wellbeing of South Australians. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:51): I rise to speak on the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which essentially changes our 2010 act to regulate health practitioners and pharmacies and also to deal with optical facilities, as has been indicated in the debate. Can I particularly refer firstly to dealing with optical product and the need to have a prescription and the need to be able to highlight to any prospective purchaser the dangers of buying a product that is not prescribed by a medical practitioner. Obviously, this bill is designed today to relax some of the provision so that we can accommodate the fact that there are practical aspects of the sale of glasses, in particular, which are used as a reading aid.

For the reasons other members have stated, it is important that people get advice. This area of law is one that did not go national. I just want to highlight the fact that it did not go national because we in South Australia had good law in relation to optical use and, as usual, Canberra does not know the best of everything. So, when the COAGs all got together and decided that they were going to have these national registration schemes to deal with professional standards and the like, and the registration process, optical provisions stayed in our state legislation but were not agreed to at the national level.

The reason that was particularly acute at the time was that there was a new product out called plano lenses. These were little lenses that children could buy at the Royal Show in a show bag. They could make themselves have cat's eyes, or change their brown eyes to blue eyes, green eyes or purple eyes, without any kind of medical advice or treatment or adult supervision. A 12 year old could go along and think, 'I want to get cat's eyes in my bag,' buy them and put them in their eyes. They could get stuck, and next thing you have potentially serious damage to children in the use of these products.

So, there is good reason why we had it, and there is good reason why we kept it, and I just remind members of the importance of making sure that we ensure that we do not go to the lowest common denominator when we go into a national scheme. Nevertheless, for the purposes of today's amendment, I support the same.

In respect of the amendments to deal with the merger of the CrimTrac agency and the Australian Crime Commission into a new body, this bill needs to accommodate the changes that are largely descriptive of the new name simply because our pharmacists and pharmacy personnel, who are subject to the fit and proper person test, use the CrimTrac agency for the purposes of identifying any historical record of someone who should not qualify. In obtaining the criminal history reports, that needs to be accommodated to ensure that that can continue with the new agency. I have absolutely no problem with that and endorse those amendments.

I come to the third area of reform in the bill, to add in the opportunity for the National Pharmacies organisation to increase its current limit of 40 pharmacies to 43. In his contribution, the minister highlights three things: firstly, the historical background that National Pharmacies, to some degree, has an exemption to the rule that every pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist. It has, over the years, applied for increases. In 1961, I think it had 30-odd pharmacies. In my time in the parliament—in 2007—it was capped to an increase of 40. For the last couple of years, National Pharmacies have been lobbying government, and indeed some other members of parliament, to seek to increase that again.

In his second reading explanation, the minister makes the point that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, representing a number of individually owned pharmacies, strongly objects to that. That is nothing new of course; they always have because they represent a different group in the industry. If the government wants to come into the parliament and say that there is a justifiable reason for there being a change of the rules in a fixed pool, then they need to present some evidence to justify it.

It is a bit like having a fishing licence and the right to catch King George whiting. Everybody likes to catch them, especially doubleheaders. As a resource, it is limited and so we have a licensing scheme that gives a certain number of commercial operators the opportunity, exclusively, to have a certain catch. It allows for zones and regions and an opportunity for amateur fishermen, up to a limit, to have a share of the catch. It is managed and if there is a change in the rules then obviously that affects somebody else.

Clearly, if a minister wants to come into the parliament and say, 'I want to change the rules,' then bring the case to do that. The only thing that is disclosed in the minister's second reading is to say, 'Look, National Pharmacies have been asking me for some time to do this. The Guild says no. A reasonable compromise is three.' That is what he says, that is what he tells us in the parliament and he expects us to say, 'That's fine; that's good enough. Tick that box. It's a stab in the dark. We will just add those few.'

I say to the Minister for Health that he has to understand that this has very serious commercial consequences. We are dealing with a limited, protected, regulated market and the minister needs to come in here with a good case. He has told us that there has been a drop in National Pharmacies' market share of the pharmacy world from about 12 per cent to 8 per cent. That may or may not be a good reason to give them an extra share on the basis that they need to maintain their share.

What he should be doing is looking into the Chemist Warehouse-type introduction—I do not mean anything against this particular group—and say, 'There are new players in the field. We need to actually relook at the whole of this area and look at it in a considered way to try to balance the interests of the existing operators, protect the public and ensure that where new players have come in under the door that they are also taken into account with proper consultation, not just some stab in the dark: how do I get National Pharmacies off my back? I will just give them an extra three.'

That is not acceptable. If he wants to present to us some other reason for managing it in this way, then put it in the second reading and tell us what this is really about because at the moment it does not cut it with me and it does not cut it with this side of the house. I oppose that section of the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:59): I will try not to take too much of the house's time on this. There is only one part of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill that I find controversial and that is the part that would see the number of pharmacies held by the National Pharmacies group increase from 40 to 45.

As always when I look at a piece of legislation that is brought to the parliament, I ask myself: what is the ill we are trying to cure, and is this a reasonable cure? Does it do what it is purported to do? I have just now reread the minister's second reading contribution, and I do not think he identifies any ill whatsoever. I do not think he even purports to identify an ill, other than the fact that the company or the business—National Pharmacies—approached him and asked for an increase in the number of pharmacies they could own/manage.

There is no ill. What we have in South Australia and, I understand, in other jurisdictions in this nation, is a good working system that provides pharmaceutical services throughout the country and throughout the suburbs. We have a system that is working. We have a system that is providing a service to communities right throughout the state. Why would we endeavour to put that at risk just because one particular operator claims that their business model is suffering a little and that they see that the way forward for them is to increase the cap on the number of pharmacies they can operate?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it—and I do not think it is broke. Some people might think that those of us on this side of the house, because we support free enterprise, also support open slather. That is not the case, and some of us have been very consistent in this. I remember that I was one of the few people in this house at the time who opposed the deregulation of the Barley Board, and I was horrified that the Australian Wheat Board went the same way.

Within our economic system, there is good reason to have regulation of some industries and some sectors of some industries. The regulations surrounding the pharmaceutical industry in South Australia have served the people of South Australia very well. I believe that they have served the pharmacy industry very well. I cannot support any changes to that because all I can see is the potential downside.

A number of my colleagues, the member for Chaffey in particular, talked about the various pharmacies and small businesses throughout their electorates. I am not going to go through in a similar manner and name all the pharmacies within my electorate, but my electorate is well serviced. Albeit that my electorate contains a number of quite small communities, it is well serviced by pharmacists, who provide an invaluable service to those communities.

I would not like to see any changes to the regulations concerning the cap on the number of pharmacies that can be operated by any of the parties, which may threaten the delivery of service in my electorate and, I think, may threaten the delivery of this service throughout the state. There being no ill that needs to be cured, and there being no worthwhile reason for these changes, I find that I cannot support them.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:03): I thank honourable members for their contributions. National Pharmacies approached me because they were seeking to grow their business in this state. They wanted to open additional pharmacies to cater for growing demand for pharmacies and the services pharmacies provide, and they wanted to grow their business.

I thought that the Liberal Party in this state supported business and supported job creation. Obviously, I was mistaken in that belief. The Liberal Party in this state wants to cling to some pretty outdated notions about restricting the ability of National Pharmacies to be able to grow their business, and so be it. I have been seeking a compromise in good faith between the Pharmacy Guild and National Pharmacies for about two years now. I have said from the very beginning to National Pharmacies to seek a compromise with the Pharmacy Guild. That was not able to happen.

In consultation with my department, I came up with this formula, which only seeks to increase the cap by five pharmacies. I think the notion that community pharmacies are going to be devastated by National Pharmacies being able to open an additional five pharmacies is frankly absurd. But, nonetheless, I was assured by the lobbyist working on behalf of National Pharmacies that such a move would have the support of the Liberal Party. I will certainly be going back to National Pharmacies and raising with them that perhaps they need to think about their choice of the lobbyist they engage, who seems to promise things he is unable to deliver. But that being by the bye—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it wasn't. I assure you that it was a lobbyist who was a former member of this place from the other side of the house who I would have thought would have a bit more of an idea what the thinking might be within the Liberal Party than he obviously does. I do not want this issue to be an issue of political contention. I thought it was a modest and reasonable compromise, but I would indicate that if this does not have bipartisan support then we will seek to withdraw that particular clause that raises the cap and will do so between the houses—unless of course the Liberal Party in this state changes its mind between the houses. But I am more than happy to have that withdrawn.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If the opposition have an amendment tabled giving effect to that, which I understand they do not, I am more than happy to go into committee and do it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr KNOLL: My question merely is to reiterate the fact that essentially we will be opposing this clause and it is a question to the Minister for Health. My understanding is very much that in order for National Pharmacies to increase their business either they need to cannibalise an existing pharmacy or seek out a greenfield site, and given that we have 0.6 per cent population growth, as the Attorney stated this morning, those greenfield sites are going to be few and far between and will be very easily catered for by the existing players and under the existing rules. I would like the minister to present evidence that there is business growth in this space to justify the need for National Pharmacies to increase the number of their pharmacies.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Schubert would be obviously very comfortable in North Korea. Given his remarks, he obviously believes that government should be dictating how many businesses a business owns and whether there is suitable demand.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The deputy leader!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think the member for Schubert would have a very different view if this parliament took the position that it knew better about where to open Barossa smallgoods outlets around the state and whether there was sufficient demand.

Mr Knoll: There is always demand for good sausage.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I know the member for Schubert has spent a bit of time trying to sell his smallgoods on the internet, but that is beside the point. I generally take the view that it is for individual businesses to decide whether there is sufficient demand. It is not something that the parliament should be prescribing—whether there is sufficient demand. I would point out that in the outer suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide I would not hold the view that there is a surfeit or surplus of pharmacy outlets. To suggest that five additional outlets by National Pharmacies across South Australia are somehow going to destroy the business model of community pharmacies is frankly absurd.

As I said, I proceeded with this on the understanding that it would have bipartisan support. It is not something I want to make a political issue out of. If the Liberal Party cares to amend the bill to remove that clause, I indicate government support.

Clause negatived.

Remaining clauses (5 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (12:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT