Recent amendments to the National Health Act 1956 (Cth) (“NHA”) directly impact PBS approved pharmacy owners who have been referred to the Committee of Inquiry (“Committee”) and are seeking to sell their pharmacy.
The Committee investigates PBS approved pharmacists referred by the Federal Minister of Health (“Minister”) who have been alleged of misconduct and non-compliance of their duties and obligations as a PBS approved pharmacist (for more information about the Committee, see here: Federal Committee of Inquiry Referrals for Pharmacists are Increasing in Number and Scope | Bennett and Philp Lawyers).
Since we wrote that article, we have seen a continuing increase in these referrals to the Committee. The Committee has been seeking to have these matters aggressively listed for hearing in the first letter sent to the approved pharmacist advising them of the very existence of the inquiry (even though the Committee and the government have usually been investigating these allegations for some years without the pharmacists’ knowledge).
In December 2025, several sections were added to the NHA which provided the Secretary of Health (“Secretary”) with additional powers, including the discretionary power to refuse to cancel an approval where the pharmacist has been referred to the Committee.[1]
In order to sell a pharmacy, the approval must be cancelled so the new owner can obtain their own PBS approval. By refusing to cancel the approval, the Secretary effectively stops the sale of the pharmacy during the Committee process, which can take years. The pharmacist is presumably forced to continue trading in the meantime.
How the Secretary may use their discretion to refuse the cancellation is unclear and currently untested. The government has provided little guidance on the practicality of such a power. They have emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum,[2] that the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that approved pharmacists are complying with their legislative obligations, and not cancelling their approval merely to avoid responsibility and sanctions for their misconduct. As the most severe consequence of a Committee hearing is that the Minister cancels the PBS approval anyway, it is unclear why the Secretary would delay the cancellation of the PBS approval
It is also unclear if the government correctly stated the law when these amendments were passed given courts have held the Committee can continue with an inquiry even if there is no longer an approval.[3]
Section 105AB(8A) has also been added to the NHA which enables approved pharmacists to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of the Secretary’s decision. This will be a lengthy and costly process, further delaying any potential sale of any pharmacy.
So, what can an approved pharmacist do in circumstances where they have been referred to the Committee but wish to sell their pharmacy?
Firstly, due to the complex nature of these Committee processes, it is imperative that you seek legal advice as soon as you receive the referral notice from the Committee.
Secondly, if you also decide to sell the pharmacy, then engaging experienced lawyers to prepare detailed legal submissions to the Secretary in advance of a request to cancel the PBS approval to make them reconsider any decision not to effectively allow the sale should also be considered as part of any sale process.
Bennett & Philp have extensive experience in acting for pharmacy owners who are facing similar circumstances. If you receive notification from the Committee or are unable to sell your pharmacy due to 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] National Health Act 1953 (Cth) s 98(2A)(c).
[2] Explanatory Memorandum, Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 (Cth) pp. 56-57 (“Memorandum”).
[3] NTMA Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Beardmore [2026] FCAFC 23