The
$50.9 million shortfall was a fine for not reforming liquor licencing
laws and other legislation involving activities such as pharmacy.
In many ways, the liquor licencing laws have a parallel in pharmacy,
and this is possibly due to the fact that liquor is regarded by
many as an actual drug.
For example, there is a "needs test" in existing legislation
to determine whether a neighborhood requires additional liquor outlets.
This equates to pharmacy licencing i.e. the requirement for approval
numbers.
Storage of liquor requires separate premises, and this is also a
pharmacy requirement (you can see how Woolworths evolved their pharmacy
concept).
There is a set of regulations relating to the sale of liquor, and
while not quite as onerous as the Poisons Schedules in pharmacy,
there is a direct parallel.
For example, one of the NSW concerns is that with a deregulated
liquor environment, sales to children would increase.
Similar concerns exist separately for pharmacy in the deregulation
of certain medications e.g. ibuprofen, where in an open environment,
consumers would not have sufficient protection from the side effects
of these drugs, because of lack of informed supervision and the
inadequate provision of information.
National Competition
Policy does not require governments to repeal all restrictions
on competition, or to deregulate or privatise industries. However,
it does require governments to undertake rigorous reviews of legislation
that restrict competition, and to reform those competitive restrictions,
except where it would be against the public interest to do so.
Given that
the Wilkinson Report found that pharmacist only ownership of pharmacies
was in the public interest, ownership provisions are likely to
remain intact in the various state Pharmacy Acts.
In doing some
research for this article it struck me that the sale of liquor
represented such a parallel to pharmacy that it opened up a "whipping
post" that could be used against organisations such as Woolworths.
Woolworths have been known to plan adverse PR campaigns against
pharmacy, through sending "mystery shoppers" into pharmacy
environments.
This only to highlight weaknesses in pharmacy arguments for the
restricted sale of medications in a pharmacy-only environment.
The PGA might consider a similar foray into Woolworths liquor
stores to measure how they are monitoring sales to minors, to
people already intoxicated, or where there is an exacerbation
of the social problems of entire communities, particularly some
rural communities.
It is interesting
that some of the NCP licencing law requirements include setting
the legal age for consumption; liquor retailers having a working
knowledge of relevant legislation; action to stop the sale of
alcohol to intoxicated persons; a "public interest"
test for licences that focuses the social, community and health
implications.
The parallels with pharmacy requirements are compelling.
We are often
confronted through TV current affairs programs with the problems
of teenage "binge" drinking, which may coincide with
"Schoolies Week" on the Gold Coast, but more often it
is the local park with local kids as a regular event. Which outlets
supply supply the liquor, and why is it not adequately policed?
These are arguments that can be developed against major retailers
encroaching on pharmacy, and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA)
might like to develop a PR campaign around these images i.e. it
happened with liquor, now it will happen with down-scheduled OTC
medicines.
This is an activity the PGA is very good at.
On first examination,
NCP looks as though it is the blunt instrument bludgeoning the
states to come under the control of the Federal Government economic
policies, and to a certain extent this is true.
It is certainly an attack on state independence.
What is obvious is that NCP provides greater opportunities for
retailers like Woolworths to increase their force and influence,
and pharmacy is a target under the guise of NCP.
While face-saving
processes emerge in the tussle between state and federal governments,
the "soft" options will be offered for sacrifice first.
Pharmacy is fortunate to have a strong and respected lobby group
in the form of the PGA.
Pharmacy presents a reasonably united front, but never unanimous.
This is both a strength and a weakness and PGA members should
be looking to their umbrella organisation to present coherent
strategies and strong leadership.
The reward for PGA leaders will then be a unanimous vote of confidence.
|
.jpg)
