PN2795

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, Mr Irving, Ms Loukas is the next witness, is that right?

PN2796

MR IRVING: Yes, that's correct, your Honour.

PN2797

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Sorry, it's Mr Seck's witness.

PN2798

MR SECK: Yes, Your Honour.

PN2799

MR IRVING: In fact I'm not going to call - no.

PN2800

MR SECK: So Mr Loukas is available so I call - - -

PN2801

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: We'll administer the affirmation to Mr Loukas then.

PN2802

THE ASSOCIATE: Mr Loukas, could you please state your full name and address?

PN2803

MR LOUKAS: Nicholas Peter Loukas, (address supplied).

<NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS, AFFIRMED�� [10.03 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR SECK�� [10.03 AM]

PN2804

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Seck.

PN2805

MR SECK: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Loukas, it's Michael Seck here, counsel for the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Can you hear me loud and clear?‑‑‑Yes, that's better.

PN2806

Could you please state your full name for the record?‑‑‑Nicholas Peter Loukas.

PN2807

What is your current work address?‑‑‑Shop 140, Smithfield Shopping Centre. I have a number of them, (indistinct) Smithfield.

***�� NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS�� XN MR SECK

PN2808

That's sufficient. What is your current occupation?‑‑‑Pharmacist.

PN2809

Mr Loukas, you have made - sworn an affidavit in these proceedings. Is that so?‑‑‑Yes, I have.

PN2810

That affidavit was sworn on 19 April 2018?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN2811

Do you have a copy of your affidavit with you at the moment?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

PN2812

Have you read that affidavit recently?‑‑‑This morning.

PN2813

Do you wish to make any changes to your affidavit?‑‑‑No.

PN2814

I read the affidavit and tender it.

PN2815

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: The affidavit of Nicholas Peter Loukas which was either sworn or affirmed on 19 April 2018 will be marked exhibit 22.

EXHIBIT #22 AFFIDAVIT OF NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS DATED 19/04/2018

PN2816

MR SECK: May it please no further questions in examination-in-chief.

PN2817

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Irving.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR IRVING�� [10.05 AM]

PN2818

MR IRVING: Mr Loukas, my name is Mark Irving. I'm a barrister representing the applicant. Could I ask you to turn to paragraph 29 of your affidavit?‑‑‑Yes.

PN2819

You say in the second sentence there:

PN2820

In my experience accountability of pharmacists has decreased as IT systems has taken over some of the responsibility and accountability.

PN2821

You don't mean that accountability of pharmacists under the professional standards has decreased and so has IT systems?‑‑‑No, no.

***�� NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2822

And it hasn't altered in terms of the legal responsibility imposed by the code of conduct or other instruments?‑‑‑No, I wasn't referring to that.

PN2823

I've no further questions.

PN2824

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Any re-examination, Mr Seck?

PN2825

MR SECK: No, your Honour.

PN2826

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you for your evidence, Mr Loukas. You're excused, which means you can simply hang up the phone.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW�� [10.06 AM]

PN2827

The next witness is at 11.30, is that right?

PN2828

MR SECK: That's so, your Honour, regrettably.

PN2829

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: We'll simply adjourn until then?

PN2830

MR SECK: Yes, sir.

PN2831

MR IRVING: I have two pieces of homework that perhaps we'll deal with them.

PN2832

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN2833

MR IRVING: The first is the updated claim and the second is the comparison of the ages. In fact I'll deal with the updated claim first. The updated claim is the primary claim of the applicant. The difference between this rate and the rate which was sought in the initial application is simply that it's 3.3 per cent more, because it takes into account the annual wage review in the annual wage review from 2016/17.

PN2834

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So with the pharmacist - are you able to identify what the percentage of the increase is? Perhaps I should have put that in the initial request but it's something like between 6 and 7 per cent. Is that right?

***�� NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2835

MR IRVING: Yes, that's right. This primary claim maintains the old relativities, which means some of these increase - sorry, seeks to reinstate the old relativities. Perhaps in the closing we include a column to indicate what the increases are in relation to each of the classifications. Those - - -

PN2836

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: What I don't quite understand, Mr Irving, if you go to your submissions in reply.

PN2837

MR IRVING: By submissions in reply you mean the document which was filed a few days before - there were two documents that meet that description unfortunately. You mean the document that was filed a few days before the hearing.

PN2838

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, it's undated, two pages long.

PN2839

MR IRVING: Yes. Yes.

PN2840

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: I know the percentages are higher for the higher classifications but I'm just having trouble relating the primary claim to what's stated as the alternative claim in the third paragraph of the submission applied which refers to a 25 per cent claim. That is, it's unusual for the alternative claim to be higher than the primary claim.

PN2841

MR IRVING: Yes.

PN2842

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Can you have a go at that?

PN2843

MR IRVING: The differences are as follows and the conceptual differences and the actual differences are as follows. The primary claim which has been on foot for a year and a half or so is to reinstate relativities as they exist back in 1998, plus a certain amount for each of the classifications. Because it's a restatement of the relativities, there is a - for some of the classifications it's going to lead to a greater increase than for others. So for most of the classifications - sorry, for the pharmacy intern classifications there's a very big leap up, for pharmacists there's a lower step up.

PN2844

From that primary claim we have added on 3.3 per cent and they're the figures which are in the document. That's one basis on which to put. Another basis on which to put is to say there should be - if that's not the approach that's taken, there should be some other approach, and that other approach could be half a dozen different other approaches and it's figuring out what the appropriate rate of pay is. Might include retaining the old relativities, maintaining the current relativities or some mix of the two. That's the principal way in which the claim is advanced.

PN2845

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Just with the accredited pharmacists, and again whether that's dealt with by way a separate classification or perhaps an allowance, that would as it were soak up any work value changes associated with that and the home reviews and residential reviews.

PN2846

MR IRVING: Yes.

PN2847

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So that wouldn't be something that could be brought to bear otherwise to the claim for wage increases for the existing classifications.

PN2848

MR IRVING: Correct. If that classification were included then it would soak it up for the others, and - or if an allowance were granted it would soak it up for the others and the definitions that we've selected here are the definitions which are found in GM6, which are the guidelines relating to the home medication review. So it defines who is an accredited pharmacist and it defines who is - defines it in these terms. That's where we've drawn that from.

PN2849

Now that's the first aspect. The second piece of homework, unless there's any further questions about that. That set of documents and the source material is 1, 2, 3 and the second source material is 1, 2, 3. One of the issues that I addressed in the opening was the extent to which there is a drop off in the number of pharmacists over the age of 40, and I pointed out that well, in the first 15 years of practices X number of employees, X number of pharmacists and then there's a sharp decline. One of the possible explanations for that was that there'd been a bubble of large increase in pharmacists in 2000 or, you know, at some stage in the 2000s which has been working its way through the system.

PN2850

We have gone back to acquire the earliest data that is available to us on the Pharmacy Board of Australia website and the earliest date available to us is from 2012, and what it shows, we say, is that there has been effectively a stable number of percentage of pharmacists in the 25-40 range, compared with the 40 plus range. In essence, the cliff has remained the same over both periods and does not appear to be a bubble working its way through the system as a result of a large influx of employees.

PN2851

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Then the drop off begins in the mid-30s, I think, which would mean, assuming people start in the profession around 25 you'd have to go at least 10 years back to work out whether there was some surge in new people coming in, wouldn't you?

PN2852

MR IRVING: The data is unavailable to us. I've given the best data that is available, but we also know this from Mr Crowther's report at AC21. What's the median wage for a pharmacist after four years? $30 an hour. What's the median wage for a pharmacist after 25 years? $30 an hour. So by the time the median wage - by the time you reach the age of 30-odd, you've maxed out what you're median wage is going to be. Sure it is that you might, you know, get a few percentage increases and there will be ups and downs and - but we know for the average median pharmacist that over the course of their career after the age of 30 they're not getting an increase. That might be a pretty telling explanation of why it is that early career pharmacists don't see this as a career with the current wages structure.

PN2853

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Irving, I might mark that as a bundle so I'll just call that bundle of data re age of pharmacists and that will be exhibit 23.

EXHIBIT #23 RE AGE OF PHARMACISTS

PN2854

MR IRVING: Sorry.

PN2855

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Exhibit 23.

PN2856

MR IRVING: Thank you, sorry, your Honour. My junior notes that the 2018 data is in the open folder behind tab 1 already.

PN2857

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, right.

PN2858

MR IRVING: They were the matters. I anticipate that I'll be a short period in cross-examination with the next witness, not as short as that, but as I anticipated we'll be finished by lunch time.

PN2859

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you.

PN2860

MR SECK: Your Honour, can I just deal with - whilst we're at it, some documentation tenders. Can I hand up to the Bench probably as a bundle and I can take your Honours through it. Can I firstly apologise to the Bench, the first document is unstapled because it was photocopied this morning at the registry, but what this is, and the Bench has heard some references to the document during the course of cross-examination is the 1994 competency standards. So these were the competency standards in place in 1998.

PN2861

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: That's the document with "forward" on the first page.

PN2862

MR SECK: Yes, that's right. The one with the document heading "forward", the 1994. They were in fact the first competency standards as the evidence has revealed, so can I tender that document and perhaps it's - - -

PN2863

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Does it having a heading?

PN2864

MR SECK: It doesn't have a heading other than the "forward", so I apologise, that's the best copy we could find overnight.

PN2865

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Is it actually entitled - I see, so if you look at the second page.

PN2866

MR SECK: Yes, that's the - - -

PN2867

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Is that the title, "Competency Standards for Entry Level Pharmacies in Australia"?

PN2868

MR SECK: That's right.

PN2869

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: If there's no objection - - -

PN2870

MR IRVING: Yes, there is.

PN2871

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, there is, all right.

PN2872

MR IRVING: I mean I've never seen this document, I don't know what it is and if this was the document that was cross-examined on it should have been shown to the witness. He should have been able to identify by reference to this document, is this a proposal, was this an idea, did this go ahead, was this rolled out, was this binding, who was this accepted by, was this an in contemplation of a committee, which committee, what did they say about it, was this applied to entry pharmacists, was this applied to all pharmacists, was this applied to hospital pharmacists? What was the - all of those questions might have been able to have been addressed by evidence if we had this document at an earlier stage, and we had somebody who had a PhD in the introduction of different models of pharmacy services in Australia giving evidence, being the first witness, Dr March. He would have been able to, by reference to this document, shed some light - some more light on this data if we had it in front of him. At the moment it's tendered and I know it's been identified by Mr Seck but he - that's not a satisfactory basis for its tender and it's too late.

PN2873

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So there's two issues there; one is the - what I'll call the authenticity of the document, two is an issue of prejudice. Is that right, Mr Irving?

PN2874

MR IRVING: Yes, your Honour.

PN2875

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Just with the first issue, Mr Seck. Perhaps what I'll do is we'll defer marking this document at this stage and you can have the time between now and 11.30 to persuade Mr Irving that it is what it appears to be or otherwise demonstrate the providence of the document.

PN2876

MR SECK: I was hoping the resolution by itself would demonstrate that but I will have a discussion with Mr Irving.

PN2877

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Well, you might demonstrate for example where you got this thing from.

PN2878

MR SECK: Again, it's from the PSI so. On the second issue, your Honour, two points. Firstly, your Honour will recall Dr March put on his evidence very late. It was in the week prior to the commencement of these proceedings, and whilst it was characterised as reply evidence, it was not in fact reply evidence. It was new evidence which APESMA had hoped to get through a PSA witness, did not get through a PSA witness and decided to get it through Dr March under the guise of a reply statement, but it was not done as a reply statement. I opened on the basis that I was content to cross-examine Dr March on the contents of his reply statement without prejudice to my position in being able to represent some documents in response once I managed to get on top of it and as the Bench will appreciate there were quite a number of documents which were annexed to Dr March's statement, which involved quite a bit of consideration. That's the first point.

PN2879

The second point is Dr March himself in cross-examination, the Bench will recall, said he wasn't aware of any competency standards that existed prior to 2001. He'd searched for it and once I actually identified it to him and said look, I acknowledge it exists but I didn't know about it and I forgot about it. So he wasn't in a position to actually adduce any evidence or be cross-examined on the issue because by his own acknowledgement he wasn't aware of the competency standard even though he had looked for it.

PN2880

The third point is this, is that the competency standards speaks for itself and a basis for both parties' cross-examination is that competency standards had existed but have changed over time, and in order to enable the Bench to fully understand those submissions and if there's submissions to be made along two lines. Firstly, that the regulatory environment is a relevant part of the work environment in informing whether or not there's been a change in the work value, and secondly that inferences can be drawn from competency standards as to the practices that existed at the time when the competency standards were introduced. Then in my respectful submission, in order to understand those matters and the basis for those submissions it's appropriate that the Commission has this document. So in weighing up the probative value against any prejudice which might be suffered, in my respectful submission the probative value is significant and the prejudice is minimal.

PN2881

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Right, well as I've said you have those discussions, we'll rule on that when we come back after 11.30.

PN2882

MR SECK: May it please.

PN2883

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So the further documents are - - -

PN2884

MR SECK: Are documents, if your Honour - - -

PN2885

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Are the community pharmacy agreements, are they?

PN2886

MR SECK: That's so. Your Honour or Mr Irving lobbed on us in the middle of the hearing the community pharmacy agreements in the second, third and sixth iterations. What we've done is found the other iterations and hopefully - - -

PN2887

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So we've got the fourth and the fifth. What's the other one, what's that the first or the second?

PN2888

MR SECK: That's the first one.

PN2889

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Is there any objection if we simply supplement I think it's exhibit 13 with these documents?

PN2890

MR IRVING: No, your Honour.

PN2891

MR SECK: No, your Honour.

PN2892

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: We'll add those to exhibit 13 and we'll put them in the right order, working backwards. Is that all?

PN2893

MR SECK: Can I foreshadow one more tender, your Honour - - -

PN2894

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN2895

MR SECK: - - - and I spoke to my learned friend about it (indistinct) yet is. One of the matters which had been raised in the proceedings is the change in the university degree from a three year degree to a four year degree.

PN2896

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN2897

MR SECK: There's not much evidence before the Commission on that point. We have copies of, in effect, the course content as it existed in 1998 and what it reveals and it's consistent with our submissions that it was moving from a three degree or four year degree in the late 1990s. We're making copies of at the moment, it's quite thick and subject to my learned friend saying anything we propose tendering that document as well. That will complete our documentary tenders.

PN2898

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Right.

PN2899

MR SECK: May it please.

PN2900

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: We will adjourn now and we'll resume at 11.30.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT�� [10.25 AM]

RESUMED�� [11.31 AM]

PN2901

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right Mr Seck, Ms Willis is your next witness?

PN2902

MR SECK: Yes, I call Ms Willis.

PN2903

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, we'll have the affirmation administered to her please.

PN2904

THE ASSOCIATE: Ms Willis, could you please state your full name and address?

PN2905

MS N WILLIS: My name is Natalie Jane Willis of (address supplied).

<NATALIE JANE WILLIS, AFFIRMED�� [11.32 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR SECK�� [11.32 AM]

PN2906

MR SECK: Could you please state your full name for the record?‑‑‑Natalie Jane Willis.

PN2907

And could you please state your work address again?‑‑‑My work address is Lynwood Pharmacy at Shop 6 - 9, Lynwood Village Shopping Centre, Lynwood, Western Australia.

PN2908

Ms Willis, what is your occupation?‑‑‑I am a pharmacist.

PN2909

You have prepared a statement in these proceedings dated the - sorry, affidavit in these proceedings dated 18 April 2018?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN2910

Do you have a copy of that affidavit with you in the witness box?‑‑‑Yes I do.

PN2911

Have you read that affidavit recently, Ms Willis?‑‑‑Yes I have.

PN2912

Do you wish to make any changes to your affidavit?‑‑‑No I do not.

PN2913

I read the affidavit and tender it.

PN2914

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, the affidavit of Natalie Willis either sworn or affirmed on 18 April 2018 will be marked exhibit 24.

EXHIBIT #24 AFFIDAVIT OF NATALIE WILLIS DATED 18/04/2018

PN2915

MR SECK: May it please, no further questions in chief.

PN2916

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Irving.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XN MR SECK

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR IRVING�� [11.33 AM]

PN2917

MR IRVING: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2918

Ms Willis, do you have a copy of your statement in front of you?‑‑‑Yes I do.

PN2919

Could I ask you to turn to paragraph 57?‑‑‑Yes, no problem.

PN2920

You refer there to:

PN2921

In my experience the expectation of patients is that they will be able to speak directly to a pharmacist and it's largely matched by the expectation of pharmacists that they will have sufficient time to spend with their patients to adequately meet their needs.

PN2922

Then in the next sentence you say:

PN2923

Pharmacists that don't embrace patient contact will become more like a dispensary technician than those that do put themselves front and centre to patients, and it's still largely a choice.

PN2924

When you're referring there to - you speak about some pharmacists that have embraced a model that involves a greater level of patient contact than other pharmacists?‑‑‑Yes.

PN2925

Okay, and you refer there to a sort of spectrum at one end of which is a largely dispensary type service and at the other end is more heavily engaged in patient contact service?‑‑‑Yes, that's right. The dispensing is still a primary work aspect, yes.

PN2926

So all pharmacists do a bit of both but some do more of one thing than the other?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN2927

Okay, and you say in the final sentence there that:

PN2928

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XN MR SECK

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

Most pharmacists are happy with this evolution. It hasn't increased the workload of pharmacists, merely changed the dynamic.

PN2929

The change you're referring to there, or the alteration, is a move from the more dispensary‑focussed model to a more patient‑centred model?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.

PN2930

And it "has changed the dynamic". How has it changed the dynamic?‑‑‑Well, previously pretty much a hundred per cent of prescriptions were dispensed physically by a pharmacists and patient contact was obvious but was made more difficult by the fact that the pharmacist was ultimately responsible for dispensing. Now with dispensary technicians, automated robots, these sorts - multiple pharmacists, the onus is not necessarily on the pharmacist to dispense the script although they have the final say before it goes out, but they have more time to spend with the pharmacist. So it's changed the dynamic in terms of the - how - the ease with which patients can spend more time with their pharmacist.

PN2931

So there's more time spent with patients by pharmacists as a result of these alterations you mentioned. How has that changed the function of what pharmacists are doing under this patient‑centred approach?‑‑‑Well, I'm not sure that it's changed the function as much as it's just a time thing. Is that when I first began practising I was a single pharmacist and I had to do both. Now with multiple pharmacists employed I can be - I can rest in the knowledge that if I'm spending extra time with a patient somebody else is doing the dispensing, and it just takes a lot of pressure off.

PN2932

So there's less time doing the dispensing work that can be done by a more junior employee and there will be more time for the engagement aspect?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.

PN2933

Okay, and when we talk about the pharmacists retain overall accountability and responsibility for the dispensing, the machinery type tasks engaged in dispensing can largely be done by more junior non-pharmacist employees at the enterprise. Is that - - -?‑‑‑Yes ,that's correct.

PN2934

There's been - well, I'll take a step back. You do not pay in accordance with the federal award in your pharmacies. Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN2935

Indeed it's the Western Australian award that applies in your pharmacy?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2936

And the Western Australian award is the Retail Pharmacists Award?‑‑‑2004. That's the one.

PN2937

Okay, and the rates of pay under the Western Australian award are higher for all of the classifications than they are in the federal award?‑‑‑I can't say that I've actually done the comparison.

PN2938

And by and large pharmacists in Western Australia apply the Western Australian award rather than the federal award. Is that your understanding?‑‑‑It's probably about 50/50 would be my understanding.

PN2939

And who employs the pharmacists engaged at the pharmacy that you work at or that you operate?‑‑‑Myself.

PN2940

Yourself personally rather than in a partnership or through a corporate entity?‑‑‑Well, in my main pharmacy it is myself personally. In my second pharmacy it is in a partnership. We do not have any corporate structures existing.

PN2941

Okay, that would be why.

PN2942

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: And Ms Willis, without going into the details do you pay at the rates in the Western Australian award or above those rates?‑‑‑No, we pay above those rates.

PN2943

Right, thank you.

PN2944

MR IRVING: All right, you've got a Bachelor of Pharmacy. Is that correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN2945

You don't have a Master's degree?‑‑‑No I do not.

PN2946

You don't have a PhD?‑‑‑No.

PN2947

You haven't published any articles in the field of the work practices of pharmacists?‑‑‑No I have not.

PN2948

And you haven't conducted a literary review of what has been published about the work practices of pharmacists over the last 20 or 30 years?‑‑‑No I have not.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2949

You don't annex any documents to your statement but I just wonder could you list for us the documents you specifically made reference to when writing and preparing this statement?‑‑‑I can't say that I referenced any particular documents other than the retail - well, I didn't even reference the Retail Pharmacists' Award other than to know that I pay above it. But no particular documents.

PN2950

Okay, are you aware that there's an association dedicated to the history of pharmacy in Australia?‑‑‑I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

PN2951

Are you aware there's an association dedicated to the history of pharmacy in Australia?‑‑‑Vaguely, yes.

PN2952

You're not a member of that association?‑‑‑No I am not.

PN2953

Could I take you to paragraph 21 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN2954

You say in the first sentence there:

PN2955

Pharmacists have been responsible and accountable for the safe and judicious use of medicines since the inception of community pharmacy.

PN2956

The inception of community pharmacy was about 1945. Is that correct?‑‑‑That sounds roughly correct, yes.

PN2957

Okay, and - - -?‑‑‑I'll take your word for it.

PN2958

Sorry?‑‑‑I'll take your word for it.

PN2959

Well, you've referred to a date or a time "since the inception of community pharmacy". What is the timeframe that you are meaning to refer to there?‑‑‑Well, community pharmacy has always been about the safe and judicious use of medicines. That's our primary task and undertaking and that has not differed in the entire time it's been in existence.

PN2960

Okay, so when you say the entire time that it has been in existence, when is the entire time that you're referring to?‑‑‑Well, before we had community pharmacists we had apothecaries and these sorts of things, and their function was still to provide medicines and counsel on their safe use.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2961

So your view that from the inception of community pharmacy that's what pharmacists have been responsible and accountable for has not been formed on the basis of any research in this area, or has it?‑‑‑No, that's correct.

PN2962

It's just an understanding that you have?‑‑‑Correct.

PN2963

Okay, and when you say "pharmacists have been responsible and accountable" you haven't looked at any documents which establish responsibility of pharmacists prior to 1998 in reaching that conclusion?‑‑‑Only an understanding of my legal and ethical responsibilities as a pharmacist, both through the code of ethics and my professional indemnity insurance.

PN2964

And when you say through the code of ethics, you had a look at the code of ethics in preparation of this statement to reach that conclusion?

PN2965

MR SECK: I object.

PN2966

THE WITNESS: Not specifically.

PN2967

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So what's the objection - well, she has answered it.

PN2968

MR SECK: She has answered it. Okay, I withdraw the objection.

PN2969

MR IRVING: Can you remember what it says about the safe and judicious use of medicines as it applied in say 1998?‑‑‑No, I could not tell you that specifically.

PN2970

Would you be surprised to hear that it says nothing about the safe and judicious use of medicines as it existed in 1998?‑‑‑The code of ethics is not necessarily required to refer to the safe and judicious use. That is covered elsewhere in pharmacy Acts.

PN2971

The pharmacy Acts as they existed in 1998 as applied in Western Australia was what?‑‑‑Was the Pharmacy Act of 1964.

PN2972

The Pharmacy Act of 1964 as it applied in 1998 did not refer to the safe and judicious use of medicines, did it?‑‑‑I - - -

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2973

You don't know?‑‑‑Not in a specific sense. I would imagine, but certainly in terms of our responsibilities I guess there is some inference involved, but you have to ask my university lecturers.

PN2974

There was nothing in the professional standards that existed in 1998 that required the safe and judicious use of medicines was there? By safe and judicious I mean both safe and judicious?‑‑‑The - I'm not quite understanding where you're going with the question. It's a - if you don't - if a - as a pharmacist you don't practice the safe and judicious use of medicines you will find yourself with a very upset or - and/or dead patient and a legal liability suit. So it's certainly not - whether it's spelled out, I'm not an expert in law and legislation. It's - whether or not it's spelt out, it is something that pharmacists are responsible for and I don't think you'll find anybody to argue against that.

PN2975

You'd agree that they are now responsible, currently responsible and accountable for the safe and judicious use?‑‑‑We have always been responsible for the safe and judicious use.

PN2976

I understand that's your view but you can't point to any code of conduct, professional standard or legislation that backs you up. That's correct?‑‑‑No - - -

PN2977

MR SECK: I object. I object.

PN2978

THE WITNESS: I - no but I - - -

PN2979

MR SECK: The premise upon which my learned friend is putting the questions is that it needs to arise under some legal standard or legislation. Now to say that there was no obligation to provide it doesn't necessarily mean it has to arise under some professional standard or code of ethics, and I think the premise of the question is misleading.

PN2980

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Well, I'm not sure the question has that premise. I'll allow the question.

PN2981

Perhaps you can repeat it?

PN2982

MR IRVING: I think the witness has answered.

PN2983

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2984

MR IRVING: Just to make it clear, you can't point to any professional standard, code of ethics or legislation as they existed in 1998 that require both the safe and judicious use of medicines?‑‑‑Not specifically, but you seem to be suggesting that prior to 1998 we were a bit sort of, you know, hit and miss and I take exception to that. I can only give you the experience of my practice and that has not been the case.

PN2985

The next sentence you refer to the litigious society, "In today's litigious society". In fact I'll take a step back. If you look at the next paragraph there you refer to:

PN2986

Since 1998 there has been an increase in the level of funding offered by the federal government for services offered in community pharmacy.

PN2987

You see that paragraph?‑‑‑Yes I do.

PN2988

Okay, and that's through the CPAs that have existed since the early 90s?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN2989

And you say:

PN2990

The federal government has recognised that pharmacists have a skill set -

PN2991

et cetera, as set out in that paragraph. Are you saying that that's something that's in the CPAs themselves?‑‑‑Yes, it's called Part B of the Community Pharmacy Agreement is payment for professional services.

PN2992

And when you say:

PN2993

The federal government has recognised that pharmacists have....

PN2994

This skill set, are you referring just to the 6CPA or the earlier CPAs?‑‑‑No, the earlier CPAs are - I don't - I cannot recall specifically which CPA. Possibly number 4 where there started - where Part B was introduced and it has been an evolution since that time.

PN2995

And your understanding of what the federal government has recognised is drawn from those CPAs?‑‑‑As a funding model for pharmacy, yes.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN2996

Did you understand that the third CPA had an objective of expanding community pharmacies' professional roles?‑‑‑If you say so. I'm not - I don't dispute that.

PN2997

The CPAs also provide a funding stream for pharmacies that conduct certain - provide certain services to patients?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN2998

Okay, and the funding under the 6CPA is many hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. You understand that?‑‑‑Yes I do.

PN2999

And that funding is provided to community pharmacies throughout Australia?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN3000

You say in the final sentence that, as I understand your evidence:

PN3001

This funding stream gets pharmacists to record these activities, not really to encourage more pharmacies to do them.

PN3002

You don't dispute that more pharmacies are doing the activities that are funded under the CPAs?‑‑‑The - I have no evidence to support that one way or another. Pharmacists always provided professional services but they weren't recorded, so we have no way of knowing what the difference is between the number of doing them previously and those doing them now.

PN3003

And when you say professional services - well, I'll take a step back. When you say pharmacists always provided professional services, that's your experience at your pharmacy. That's correct?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN3004

And you draw upon no studies, further research, reports, et cetera to support the proposition that pharmacies more generally prior to 1998 provided the range of professional services that you identify in your statement?‑‑‑The training that we received allowed us to - enabled us to have conversations with patients about their health. That to me is a professional service. If you're providing guidance regarding asthma, diabetes, other chronic illnesses, if you're making recommendations on diet and lifestyle, if you're taking blood pressures or blood glucose readings, any of these things that are not specifically dispensing are a professional service and I cannot imagine that there was a single pharmacy not doing at least one of these prior to 1998.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN3005

The training that was provided to pharmacists in the 70s would have provided some training on how to speak to patients as well, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Well, I can't possibly speculate.

PN3006

Indeed the training that was provided to pharmacists in the 60s and the 20s, in the 19th century - - -

PN3007

MR SECK: I object.

PN3008

MR IRVING: Right, I can move on.

PN3009

Can I take you to paragraph 19 of your statement. You refer there to home medicine reviews?‑‑‑Yes.

PN3010

You don't employ any accredited pharmacists at either of your pharmacies. Is that correct?‑‑‑My business partner in my second pharmacy is an accredited pharmacist.

PN3011

You haven't done the training yourself?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN3012

You aren't familiar with the specifics of the assessment process involved in becoming an HMR accredited pharmacist?‑‑‑Not the specifics but I have a broad understanding.

PN3013

And you're not familiar with the specifics of any course content of what specifically is taught in the course of these HMR reviews?‑‑‑Again not specifically, but I have a broad understanding. I have completed the first stage of the accreditation process.

PN3014

You have given evidence throughout your statement about changes in - or the replication, the repeat of skills in areas such as clinical interventions and DAAs et cetera. In preparing your statement you didn't contrast at any stage what the regulatory requirements were or what the professional standards were governing the provision or the exercise of those skills by pharmacists in 1998 compared with the professional standards that now exist. That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑I have not made that contrast, no.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN3015

And you haven't made the contrast of looking at any competency standards that were applicable 15, 20 years ago with those that are applicable now in relation to any changes in those skills?‑‑‑The competency standards have evolved around government funding. If the government's going to fund something it - there has to be a protocol written about it, and that's how these things have evolved. It doesn't mean that we necessarily did them differently before.

PN3016

I asked you about whether or not you'd done the comparison?‑‑‑No, I have not done the comparison.

PN3017

Okay, and you haven't done the comparison as to the code of conduct, as to what was required to do the job back in 1998 compared to now?‑‑‑No, I am speaking from my experience as a professional pharmacist.

PN3018

No further questions, your Honour.

PN3019

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you.

PN3020

Ms Willis, can I just ask you a couple of questions about your statement?‑‑‑Certainly.

PN3021

In paragraph 22 you say that there were various professional services which had been done in 1998 and before, but then the federal government funded them through community pharmacy agreements. Is that right?‑‑‑That's correct. There's been a steady shift from government funding from being purely supply driven to a combination of supply and professional services. This is not extra money, it is just a change in the way the model is funded and the change in the expectation of what the government wants for that money.

PN3022

All right, I mean I'm just trying to understand why the federal government wanted to shift funding in the way that you've described unless it had a policy objective that pharmacists would do more of this sort of work than they did before. That is if - well, put it another way. If pharmacists were doing this sort of work to a degree which was satisfactory, why were they getting paid more to do it? Can you explain any of that to me?‑‑‑The issue is more around the fact that remuneration for the dispensing function was actually waning. Pharmacists were doing these professional services but it was either free or it was patient subsidised, and the true cost of providing these services was basically cross-subsidised by the funding being put into the dispensary. As that funding started to dwindle there was an agreement made between the pharmacy and the government to start funding the provision of professional services as a means of recouping that funding.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN3023

All right. Thank you, and then finally in relation to paragraph 44 where you discuss down-scheduling of medicines?‑‑‑Yes.

PN3024

So I'm sorry if this sounds basic, but if it's a prescription only medicine then by the time the pharmacist deals with it the patient has been diagnosed by a medical practitioner and that practitioner has made a professional decision that the prescription is appropriate for the patient's condition. Is that a fair summary?‑‑‑That is correct, but our training around these medications does involve an understanding of the diagnostic criteria.

PN3025

All right. When it's down-scheduled so it's not prescription only, am I right in saying that in that circumstance, the pharmacist may in effect take over the whole of the diagnosis function? That is, someone just comes to the counter and describes some symptoms and then the pharmacy without any input from a medical practitioner may say "This product is suitable for your condition"? Have I understood that correctly?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, that's correct.

PN3026

Right, and are you able to say whether - I mean obviously some products are down-scheduled, some products are up‑scheduled. Has there been a trend one way or the other?‑‑‑The trend has been for the down‑scheduling of products. It's very rare for something to be up‑scheduled, codeine being the most recent example.

PN3027

Yes, all right. Thank you. Anything arising from that, Mr Irving?

PN3028

MR IRVING: A couple of things arising.

PN3029

First in terms of the scheduling, the Poisons Standard has I think it's 14 schedules. Number 1 is not used but there are some 14 schedules, is that correct, in the Poisons Standard?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN3030

Okay, and doctors prescribe certain drugs in certain ways from schedules 4 through to 13 or so?‑‑‑No, there are very few schedules that actually apply to pharmacy.

PN3031

Okay, and Schedule 3 medications are medications that are = what is the pharmacist's role in the dispensation of or the dispensing of Schedule 3 medications?‑‑‑Schedule 3 means that they are able to be sold over the counter in a pharmacy but they must involve the direct input of a pharmacist in the decision making process.

PN3032

And Schedule 2 is what?‑‑‑Can be sold over the counter in the pharmacy with appropriate advice given, not necessarily by a pharmacist.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN3033

And when we talk about down-scheduling we're talking about moving from somewhere within the Schedules 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 et cetera down to Schedule 3?‑‑‑No, I reject the - - -

PN3034

That's one part of down-scheduling?‑‑‑Yes, we're move - we can schedule from Schedule 4 to three, three to two and two to unscheduled.

PN3035

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And the second thing is you mentioned in answer to a question from the Vice President that there's no extra money in terms of professional services. Under the second CPA the cognitive pharmaceutical services were funded to the extent of $4 million. Under the 6CPA they're funded to the extent of $613 million. You'd agree that there is considerably more funding now for the exercise of cognitive pharmaceutical services?‑‑‑Not in terms of the total funding envelope. They're just - there has just been a funding shift from supply to provision of services.

PN3036

And you say that's apparent from looking at the agreements themselves?‑‑‑Yes.

PN3037

I have no further questions.

PN3038

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Any re‑examination, Mr Seck?

PN3039

MR SECK: No, your Honour. Can the witness be released?

PN3040

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN3041

Thank you for your evidence, Ms Willis. You're excused and you're free to go?‑‑‑Thank you very much.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW�� [12.03 PM]

PN3042

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, so the document, has there been any progress about that?

PN3043

MR SECK: I've spoken to Mr Irving. He doesn't dispute the authenticity of the document but he still as I understand it objects to its tender.

***�� NATALIE JANE WILLIS�� XXN MR IRVING

PN3044

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, we've heard the submissions about potential prejudice. Does anyone want to add anything?

PN3045

MR SECK: Only to add one more thing, your Honour. Your Honour would have heard the cross‑examination of Ms Willis about whether or not she has undertaken a comparison between the competency standards of 1998, which are the ones which I've handed up, and now. It's obviously an issue which is now being raised by Mr Irving at least twice in cross‑examining Ms Willis and Mr Pricolo, and I think there was somehow implicit criticism that comparison hadn't been done and that's another reason to support why there's no prejudice.

PN3046

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Do you want to add anything, Mr Irving?

PN3047

MR IRVING: Very briefly. To the extent that it's tendered, it's tendered as we don't dispute its authenticity. It is what the document says it is. My friend has put some glosses on that but what the document is is apparent from its terms and it goes no further than that.

PN3048

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right. Thank you.

PN3049

Mr Seck, what was the date of this document?

PN3050

MR SECK: I think 1994, your Honour. I think.

PN3051

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, we propose to admit the document having regard to the objection to the document raised by Mr Irving on the ground of prejudice. We think it is fair in all the circumstances to admit the document, having regard to the reasonably late filing and receipt of the reply statement of Dr March which itself annexed a large range of documents. So I'll call the document the 1994 statement of competency standards and that will be marked exhibit 25.

EXHIBIT #25 1994 STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY STANDARDS

PN3052

MR SECK: May it please your Honour.

PN3053

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So is that the close of your evidentiary case, Mr Seck?

PN3054

MR SECK: As I foreshadowed beforehand, your Honour, there were just a few more documents which I wish to tender. I've shown them to my learned friend and there are no objections to these documents. I'll hand them up in a bundle. There are three sets of documents which I have handed up. The document on top is extracts from the introduction and the contents page of the Quality Care Pharmacy Program. The Bench will have recalled that yesterday there were questions asked of Mr Pricolo in particular about the QCPP. There was also reference to it I think in Professor Krass' cross‑examination. This document is the introduction and you'll see later on there is a table of contents. We haven't tendered the entire contents. As Mr Irving showed yesterday, it's a very thick document. So I tender the QCPP document.

PN3055

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, so extracts from the Quality Care Pharmacy Program March 2000 will be marked exhibit 26.

EXHIBIT #26 EXTRACTS FROM THE QUALITY CARE PHARMACY PROGRAM MARCH 2000

PN3056

MR IRVING: Could I just mention very briefly about that document, it is marked March 2000. You'll see at the back the index is from 2013, the table of contents, and I don't understand that it has been - - -

PN3057

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: 2003 you mean.

PN3058

MR IRVING: Sorry, 2003, and I don't understand it's said that this is the reflection of the current document. But we've got no objection to the tender, and if my friend wants to come up with the current document and the current table of contents, we'd have no objection to that tender tomorrow.

PN3059

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: To be clear, this is part of the same document, not from two different documents, Mr Seck?

PN3060

MR SECK: That's true. It's one of those like a loose leaf document.

PN3061

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: I see.

PN3062

MR SECK: Where there are things which are interwoven. So they're from the same document, but I will get instructions as to whether or not there's a more up‑to‑date one, and if it's appropriate we can tender that document.

PN3063

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right.

PN3064

MR SECK: The second document is - the two next sets of documents are the course content of the university handbook for the Bachelor of Pharmacy degree for the University of Sydney and Charles Sturt University between 1996, 1997 to 2018. So thick one is the University of Sydney course content and the thin one is the Charles Sturt University course content, and I understand - - -

PN3065

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: So these are again extracts, are they?

PN3066

MR SECK: They're extracts, in effect, of the subjects which were taught.

PN3067

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, so undergraduate handbook extracts for Charles Sturt University 1996 - 2018 will be marked exhibit 27.

EXHIBIT #27 UNDERGRADUATE HANDBOOK EXTRACTS CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY 1996 - 2018

PN3068

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: And extracts from the University of Sydney handbook for 1996 - 2018 will be marked exhibit 28.

EXHIBIT #28 EXTRACTS FROM UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY HANDBOOK 1996 - 2018

PN3069

MR SECK: May it please. That completes the case for the Pharmacy Guild of Australia.

PN3070

MR IRVING: Two other things quickly. We have a copy of the Poisons Standard as it currently exists or as it existed in March 2018, not all 18 schedules or 14 schedules but Schedules 2 and 3 which might be of some assistance. They are a federal legislative instrument, so.

PN3071

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Having regard to Ms Willis' evidence can we do a point in time comparison of Schedules 2 and 3 to an earlier date to see whether Schedules 2 and 3 have expanded?

PN3072

MR IRVING: Yes, it might take a week.

PN3073

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Right.

PN3074

MR IRVING: I've been down that wormhole, your Honour.

PN3075

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right.

PN3076

MR IRVING: And the current state of the evidence is one witness said there was one document or one item in Schedule 3 in 1998, the other witness said there were no items in Schedule 3. There are now 60 items in Schedule 3. When one looks at the 2007 document, which is the last document that I can find through the federal legislative instruments mechanism, the 2007 ones show 45 items which are the same or essentially the same in 2007 compared to 60 now.

PN3077

So I could get you the 2007 version easily but getting the earlier versions is the devil's own work. Part of the reason is that these are schedules to the Therapeutic Goods Act. The Therapeutic Goods Act has a provision which says we can gazette what's in the schedules, and working one's way through what goes in and what goes out of each of these things over a course of 15 years will get one what the actual schedule was in 1998. It's just a really - it's a very time consuming exercise.

PN3078

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: That's what juniors are for.

PN3079

MR IRVING: I wouldn't be so cruel.

PN3080

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: I might mark that as an exhibit.

PN3081

MR IRVING: It may well be that there is a shorter route in. It may well be that the Pharmacy Guild have a copy.

PN3082

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right.

PN3083

MR IRVING: And if so it would be great to see it.

PN3084

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right.

PN3085

MR IRVING: I can tell them that one of the ways in to try and find a copy is that what's in Schedules 2 and 3 are the outcomes of resolutions of the Australian Health Medical Council. They produced a uniform Poisons Code. They met twice a year. They updated it twice a year. That then flowed through to the TGA which then flowed through to the various state Acts, but there must have been a uniform Poisons Code produced on a regular basis for the use of pharmacists. Hopefully we can track that down, which would give you the best evidence on the issue.

PN3086

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, well I might mark this document as an exhibit. So Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Poisons Standard March 2018 will be marked exhibit 29.

EXHIBIT #29 SCHEDULES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE POISONS STANDARD MARCH 2018

PN3087

MR IRVING: The final thing is this. Mr Seck was given the opportunity to open at the beginning of the case and declined, and he was given the opportunity to open at the commencement of his case and declined. I am worried that tomorrow afternoon I am going to find out for the first time parts of Mr Seck's case that he has kept close to his chest. Given our extensive opening, it might be more useful for the Commission and certainly more useful for us if we heard from Mr Seck first about what his case is tomorrow morning.

PN3088

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: What do you think about that, Mr Seck?

PN3089

MR SECK: Your Honour, we've obviously set out our position in two written submissions already and it was really for the sake of time that I didn't open. It wasn't because we weren't prepared to open. But our position really doesn't deviate significantly from what's set out in our written submissions. There's obviously going to be a bit more detail by reference to the evidence, and we'll take the Bench to the evidence. But there's no reason, in my respectful submission, we should depart from the usual approach. That is the applicant is the one which is seeking to vary the award to increase the wages by reference to work value considerations.

PN3090

Whilst we don't talk about onus in the context of four yearly reviews, it needs to be supported by focused, probative evidence in accordance with the guidelines set out in the preliminary jurisdiction hearing. There's no reason to depart from that and we'll respond to it. It's a bit difficult for us to respond in circumstances where I don't think we've fully heard the applicant's case either, to be fair. So that's our position. We're not trying to conceal anything nor are we trying to alter our position from what has already been set out in the written submissions. So we would oppose that approach. Can I indicate also one - - -

PN3091

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Sorry, we'll just deal with that.

PN3092

Mr Irving, I think we'll take the conventional approach that is taken in this Commission. But obviously if either party encounters some issue of prejudice in terms of a submission which could not reasonably have been expected then we'll deal with that as it arises.

PN3093

MR IRVING: If the Commission please.

PN3094

MR SECK: Can I indicate one further thing, your Honour, that my learned friend has tendered the statutory provisions and the like as part of his opening, and one of those documents is now exhibit 29. I was going to take at least the position of taking your Honour to some of the statutory provisions which existed in 1998 just to explain the statutory basis for the code of ethics and the various professional standards. I'll show that to my learned friend tomorrow but I don't envisage it's going to be an issue.

PN3095

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: You mean you'll show him shortly after we adjourn?

PN3096

MR SECK: After we adjourn.

PN3097

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN3098

MR SECK: I'll show it to him certainly before tomorrow but as soon as I can, and if it's necessary I can tender it. But I had understood this is simply part of the statutory matrix that applies to understanding the work value issues. So I'll hand up a copy of those documents to the Bench tomorrow, and Mr Irving and Ms Knowles will have a copy of that as soon as possible.

PN3099

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, so we're going to start at 9 am. The parties can assume there might be one or two questions. What's the best estimate as to what time we might finish by, assuming we have a normal luncheon adjournment?

PN3100

MR SECK: I anticipate being probably about two hours.

PN3101

MR IRVING: I might be a bit longer but I - - -

PN3102

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Well, can we assume we'll finish by four?

PN3103

MR IRVING: Yes.

PN3104

MR SECK: I think so.

PN3105

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right. Thank you, we'll now adjourn and we'll resume at 9 am tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2018 �� [12.17 PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS, AFFIRMED................................................. PN2803

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR SECK................................................... PN2803

EXHIBIT #22 AFFIDAVIT OF NICHOLAS PETER LOUKAS DATED 19/04/2018............................................................................................................................... PN2815

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR IRVING.................................................... PN2817

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN2826

EXHIBIT #23 RE AGE OF PHARMACISTS................................................. PN2853

NATALIE JANE WILLIS, AFFIRMED......................................................... PN2905

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR SECK................................................... PN2905

EXHIBIT #24 AFFIDAVIT OF NATALIE WILLIS DATED 18/04/2018... PN2914

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR IRVING.................................................... PN2916

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN3041

EXHIBIT #25 1994 STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY STANDARDS.... PN3051

EXHIBIT #26 EXTRACTS FROM THE QUALITY CARE PHARMACY PROGRAM MARCH 2000....................................................................................................... PN3055

EXHIBIT #27 UNDERGRADUATE HANDBOOK EXTRACTS CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY 1996 - 2018................................................................................. PN3067

EXHIBIT #28 EXTRACTS FROM UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY HANDBOOK 1996 - 2018............................................................................................................................... PN3068

EXHIBIT #29 SCHEDULES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE POISONS STANDARD MARCH 2018............................................................................................................................... PN3086