Ms ROSOL (Bass) – Honourable Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Health Miscellaneous Bill 2024. The Greens, on the whole, support this legislation and understand that it is mostly administrative, but we have some comments we would like to make. I also note that I was unfortunately not offered a briefing on this and I want to say thank you to my colleague, Ms Burnet, for having a briefing on my behalf yesterday and then briefing me on the briefing.
We wanted to note that this bill was introduced on Thursday with a briefing yesterday, and there are two clauses that the Greens consider to be important and worthy of looking at a little more closely. That timeframe did not allow very much time to look at these aspects of the bill more closely, particularly the amendments to the Poisons Act and there was no time to for us to consult with stakeholders on this. Also, there was no information provided that I could find about stakeholders who have been consulted on this, apart from TALS and the Aboriginal community relating to the amendments to the Coroners Act. In particular, I am talking about the aspects in part 4 of the bill which relate to the amendments of the Poisons Act 1971.
There are three parts of amendments to that act. There is the removal of a reference that points to part 4 of the poisons standard that no longer exists. Obviously, we have no issue with that and support that, but we do have some questions about including fungi into the definition of ‘prohibited plant’ to include mushrooms containing psilocybin into the prohibited plant framework. They are questions about the implications of these and what it could mean in terms of restricting access and the risks and potential negative impacts of this amendment to this part of the bill. We would be interested to hear from stakeholders who have been consulted about this and things they have commented on in relation to that change.
In terms of the change in section 13, the amendment to section 25C of the principal act, we have questions and concerns about the expansion of scope of practice, not because we do not support expanding scope of practice or do not understand the importance and the role it can play in improving people’s access to health care within Tasmania and helping them to get timely access to medications as discussed by Ms Haddad earlier, but because expansion of scope of practice is a significant step to take that involves working through the implications of it, the safety concerns, assessing the need for it and the best way forward, taking into consideration all the different views and perspectives and stakeholder positions on that. As I said, we did not have time to consult with stakeholders in relation to this.
We note that the KPMG report that was released last year focused on the expansion of scope of practice around prescription of medication within Tasmania. In looking at that report, the things I noted was that introducing an increased scope of practice was something that would have to be implemented carefully and would need to be phased in over time. It had a number of horizons – horizon 1, horizon 2, horizon 3 – in relation to that, so obviously expanding scope of practice about medication prescription is not something that should be quickly done and slipped into another piece of legislation.
The Greens would like some answers as to why this particular amendment was chosen to implement now and just focusing on that one bit. What it will change in practice and where does that fit within the broader potential changes to the scope of practice? What are the risks of implementing this change in this amendment? Which stakeholders were consulted and what feedback was received about it? I note in the KPMG report they spoke about consulting with 22 stakeholders, but they did not list who those stakeholders were. What feedback was received from the stakeholders and where do you see this change fitting, what else will have to be done in the broadening of the scope of practice about medication prescription in the future? We would love some context to that so we can understand what these changes mean and the significance and importance of them.
In relation to other parts of the bill, the Greens are pleased to see the amendments in the Anatomical Examinations Act, bringing them in line with the Coroners Act and recognising indigenous kinship relationships and the importance of Aboriginal cultural traditions, and that they are respected. We appreciate and welcome these changes.
We support the amendments to the Food Act and the contribution they will make to people having safe food served to them in Tasmania. We also support the repeal of the legislation in this act.
