Division
David Leyonhjelm 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,
Senate, 2015-06-23. negative: ayes 2, noes 51.
Question
David Leyonhjelm 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,
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.