Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I want to quote from an article in the Guardian from earlier today. This is an article by Josh Butler and Melissa Davey. They write:

The lobby group representing pharmacy owners said its members were "gobsmacked" by a deal between the Greens and Labor which will see vapes sold over-the-counter by pharmacists without a prescription, claiming they only heard the changes via media release after the deal was done.

They were gobsmacked. I love that word 'gobsmacked'. It means flabbergasted, astounded. Gob, from the old Irish Gaelic, means mouth. Gobsmacked—that's what they were. The pharmacists were gobsmacked. We've had this wonderful deal which has been done between Labor and the Greens. Labor and the Greens have got together, and they've decided that their compromised position is: 'We're going to get the pharmacists to sell vaping products without prescription.' That's wonderful, except they didn't talk to the pharmacists. They didn't talk to the people who they expect to sell the product. It's almost like you're in the crowd watching the emperor with no clothes, and you've just pointed it out, saying, 'The emperor has no clothes.' The pharmacies weren't consulted. You're expecting them to sell a product. You're placing all sorts of obligations on them. They don't want to do it. The emperor has no clothes at all.

This is what the pharmacists said in their media release from 24 June titled 'Not tobacconists or garbologists':

A Bill is currently before Parliament to change the current medicines schedule for nicotine-containing vapes from Schedule 4 (Prescription Only) to Schedule 3 (Pharmacist Only).

The result of the proposed change is that nicotine-containing vapes could be available for purchase through a community pharmacy without the requirement for a valid prescription.

The Guild strongly opposes this proposal.

It's there in big bold type: 'The guild strongly opposes this proposal.' So Labor and the Greens have reached a compromised position, which is that only pharmacists can sell vaping products without prescription, but the pharmacists don't want to do it. This is quite absurd. It's absolutely absurd. It's hard to believe we're legislating in this way. It really is genuinely hard to believe.

Labor and the Greens make a deal and have a wonderful thought bubble: the pharmacists will sell vaping products. But they don't want to do it. What could possibly go wrong? Here's an idea: they won't do it. They won't actually sell the vaping products. I can give you a reason why. I've read every word of the amendment. This is what you expect a pharmacist to do when they're selling this vaping product. You're basically expecting them to do everything a doctor would do when they prescribe these products. Why are they going to spend the time and effort to do everything a doctor would be required to do to prescribe such a product for medicinal purposes when they're not being paid for that and they can only charge $25 or $35 for the vaping product? This is what they've got to do. Just listen to this list. Put yourself in the position of a pharmacist who needs to do this with respect to selling a product worth, say, $25 or $35, and you'll see the absurdity of this proposal.

This is item (11) subsection (6):

The pharmacist must:

'Must'—so they need to keep a record of this—

(a) inform the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, that the therapeutic good is not a listed good or registered good; and

(b) obtain informed consent from the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, in relation to, and before, the supply of the therapeutic good; and

(c) supply the therapeutic good in accordance with good pharmacy practice; and

(d) provide professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines; and—

It's not finished—

(e) provide contact details about smoking cessation support services to the patient; and

(f) if the pharmacist becomes aware that the patient has suffered an adverse event in relation to the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good about the adverse event in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance; and—

It goes over the page. What could possibly go wrong?

(g) if the pharmacist becomes aware of a defect in the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance.

So they've got to do seven different things in relation to selling a $25 or $35 product. They've essentially got to perform the role of a GP issuing a script, except they're not going to be able to charge for it. What could possibly go wrong? Here's an idea: they won't do it. They won't do it because it's too onerous. They won't do it because they don't want to do it. This is what the people you're expecting to do this say: 'Everyone wants to keep illegal vapes out of the hands of kids and teenagers, but the Senate wants pharmacists to stock vapes next to children's Panadol, cold and flu medicine, and emergency contraception.'

I haven't even started dealing with the issue of the Senate's expectation that community pharmacies will become vape retailers and vape garbage collectors. I couldn't find that in the amendment. I don't know if it was intended to actually be in the amendment, but I can't find anything referring to disposal in the amendment. I just make that comment by the way. I know that this is being done on the run. The Senate's expectation that community pharmacies will become vape retailers and vape garbage collectors is insulting. That's what the people whom you're expecting to sell this product and do all those things listed in 11(6)(a) to (g) are telling us.

Labor and the Greens have come up with this proposal that the pharmacists, and only pharmacists, will sell vaping products. You put all these burdens onto pharmacists, if they choose to do it, and are you then expecting that they're going to do it? Why would they? You can't make a profit selling a $25 to $35 product, providing all of that therapeutic advice and doing all that record keeping listed in (6)(a) to (g). It's impossible to do that properly, including—I just want to read this again, and just reflect on this:

… provide professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines …

Seriously?

I spent a morning with a pharmacist earlier this year, after we moved to 60-day prescriptions, and that gave me an insight into the burdens we're placing on our community pharmacists. I saw the interactions between that pharmacist and their patients, the issues they had to deal with on an unremunerated basis and the pressure they were under. Owners of community pharmacies are working six or seven days a week because they cannot afford to employ other pharmacists in their stores. I can tell you that, with that shopping list of things they're required to do under this model, it will not work.

You should have the review. I suggest you have the review in a month, after the new scheme comes in, rather than in three years, because I think that we'll know it's a dud after a month. It will have failed miserably. You will have people from all over Australia coming into the pharmacy saying, 'I want to buy vapes,' and the pharmacist will say, 'We don't do that.' The more I think about it, you will see a proliferation of signs across community pharmacies all over Australia saying, 'We do not sell vapes.' What are you going to do then? What's plan B? Because you didn't even talk to those people you were expecting to play a key role in relation to this compromise. It's absolutely astounding. I wish you good luck, but I deeply fear this is going to be an unmitigated disaster and that you will be back in this place in a number of months with plan B, whatever that will be.