David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7734:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 31), after item 4, insert:

4A Subsection 90(3B)

  Repeal the subsection.

4B Subsection 90(3C )

  Omit ", (3AF) and (3B)", substitute "and (3AF)".

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 2), after item 5, insert:

5A Subsection 90A(1)

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) This section applies in relation to a decision of the Secretary under section 90 rejecting an application by a pharmacist for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises, if the application was made on or after 1 July 2006.

(3) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 4), after item 31, insert:

31A Subsection 99K(2)

  Repeal the subsection.

31B Section 99L

  Repeal the section.

These amendments, of necessity, work as a whole and are intended to achieve the following. They remove the location rules under which the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority makes its recommendations regarding applications for new pharmacies. They remove the requirement for the secretary to comply with recommendations of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority regarding applications for new pharmacies. They allow the minister to override a rejection by the secretary of an application for a new pharmacy. The intention here is to remove the possibility that the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority, making recommendations on a whim rather than on the basis of location rules, would continue to prevent new pharmacy approvals.

The net effect of my amendments to this bill would be twofold: first, it would allow people to open a pharmacy wherever they like, including in a supermarket; second, it would turn a mixed bill into a good bill. As I mentioned in my speech on the second reading, there are many good things in this bill: price disclosure, reducing the cost of single brand drugs and the closing of the price disclosure loophole with respect to combination medicines—a notorious rort ably identified by Philip Clarke, Melbourne University Professor of Health Economics. These are all good and to be commended. But, as the bill currently stands, it leaves untouched the worst rort of all—the Community Pharmacy Authority's location rules.

In March this year, Senator Di Natale, in response to a string of damning reports about the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, made clear his astonishment that 'an agreement worth more than $15 billion could be negotiated with seemingly no transparency, accountability or appropriate process'. I concur with Senator Di Natale's view. There are many things wrong with the community pharmacy agreement. All I can hope to put right is the anti-competitive nonsense of the location rules.

To recap, the rules mean that a new pharmacy cannot be opened within a certain distance of an existing pharmacy, usually either 1.5 kilometres or 10 kilometres, depending on the area. They also ban pharmacies being placed either within, or in a position directly accessible to, a supermarket. They mandate a complex application process to allow would-be pharmacists to go into business. It is this last point to which I want to draw your attention now. In what universe is it legitimate to tell people that they may not go into business? That kind of injustice is worthy of the old Soviet bloc: 'Dear Mr General Secretary of the Communist Party, please may I open a shop?' And not just any shop—a perfectly legal, well-regarded sort of shop—a pharmacy, for crying out loud.

Repealing the pharmacy location rules will lead to more competition, cheaper medicines, better services. All of that is true and, as I and many others have said repeatedly, it is to be encouraged. However, beyond all that, repealing these rules will allow qualified pharmacists to do one of the most basic things available to free people in a free society—to go into business, to open a shop. If this government is to have any pretensions to being a government for small business then the least it can do is let people go into business. I commend my amendments.