Recent amendments to the National Health Act 1956 (Cth) (‘NHA’) have a direct impact on PBS approved pharmacists who have had their personal registration suspended under a State or Territory Act.
Under State and Territory law, a pharmacy owner who has had their registration suspended is generally provided 6 months to sell their pharmacy from the date their registration is suspended or cancelled.[1]
Introduced in December 2025, the new amendments provide the Secretary the discretion to:
- suspend an approval of a pharmacist where their registration has been suspended under State or Territory law;[2] or
- cancel an approval of a pharmacist where their registration has been suspended under State or Territory law.[3]
The Government has emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum,[4] that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure consistency with the intention of the NHA and to mitigate risks to public safety. The Memorandum specifically outlines that it would be contrary to the intention of the NHA for a pharmacist with a suspended registration to retain their ability to supply pharmaceutical benefits under the PBS. This new position creates an interesting conflict with the previous and well-established provision from the State and Territory Acts providing suspended pharmacists 6 months to organise their affairs and sell their pharmacy.
These amendments raise complications for pharmacists as they provide little context or guidance into how the Secretary may use their discretion on these matters.
The State and Territory suspension process is already challenging enough for practitioners facing suspension of their registration. In short, the suspension process in each State or Territory (other than New South Wales) is governed by the uniform Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (“Uniform Act”). When the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA”) receives a tip-off regarding a pharmacist’s conduct, the suspension process is triggered. The National Health Practitioner Board (“the Board”) is then notified and if the conduct poses a serious risk to health or safety, they will bring an immediate action under s 156 of the Uniform Act for suspension of the pharmacist.
These new amendments will especially impact approved pharmacists in NSW. Unlike other States and Territories, the NSW Pharmacy Council (‘the Council’) in recent years has been highly active in disciplining alleged misconduct of pharmacists. The Council has the power to take immediate action to temporarily suspend a registration under s 150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law NSW. Importantly, this is not a final suspension, but rather a temporary restriction of a pharmacist’s registration while the Council’s hearing is taking place. The hearings are often listed with very little notice given to the pharmacist and suspensions can be handed down very quickly.
Before the Council or the Board makes a decision to officially suspend the pharmacist’s registration, the pharmacist must be given time to make submissions.[6] These submissions may validly and reasonably explain the context to any allegations of misconduct made against the pharmacist, and the temporary suspension may be removed.
The complication with the new amendments is the Secretary now has the power to suspend or cancel a PBS approval when a pharmacist’s personal registration has been suspended under State or Territory law. The NHA does not distinguish between a temporary suspension and a final suspension under State or Territory law, which seemingly provides the Secretary the power to cancel a PBS approval before the pharmacist has made submissions to explain their conduct.
As the amendments are very new, the Secretary’s discretion has been untested in court. It is also unclear whether the Secretary will respect the ongoing State and Territory process before taking action, which may result in the pharmacist’s approval being unfairly suspended or cancelled regardless of any valid explanation for the allegations made against them.
There are several serious business risks involved when a pharmacist’s approval is suspended, including:
- Potential loss of value in the pharmacy when attempting to sell the pharmacy;
- The inability to pay employee’s wages;
- The inability to pay bank loans; and
- The inability to pay suppliers.
To mitigate these risks, it imperative you seek skilled legal representatives to assist you as soon as you receive notice of any potential disciplinary action. It is likely that if the Secretary does take action a pharmacist will need to both appeal the disciplinary action in the state tribunals and appeal the decision of the secretary to the Administrative Review Tribunal. All of these actions would need to be done urgently.
Ultimately, these amendments provide a landscape which is highly complex and difficult to navigate. Bennett & Philp have extensive experience in acting for pharmacy owners facing similar circumstances. If you are impacted by these legal amendments, please contact Andrew Lambros of our office urgently.
To receive invitations to upcoming events, the latest updates and exclusive insights tailored to the pharmacy industry, please register your details here.
This publication covers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not designed to express opinions on specific circumstances It is intended for information purposes only and should not be regarded as legal advice. Further professional advice should be obtained before taking action on any issue dealt with in this publication.
[1] For example: Pharmacy Practice Act 2006 (NSW) s 25(5) (Other similar provisions exist in other State and Territory legislation).
[2] National Health Act 1953 (Cth) s 94A.
[3] National Health Act 1953 (Cth) s 95.
[4] Explanatory Memorandum, Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 (Cth) pp. 54-56 (“Memorandum”).
[5] Explanatory Memorandum, Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 (Cth) pp. 54
[6] Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW), s 150A; Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (Qld) s 157 (Other similar provisions exist in other State and Territory legislation)