Advance Care Directives (Review) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be disagreed to.

The Legislative Council has moved two amendment that I have moved not be accepted by the house. This has been part of previous discussion in this house and also the other house. I do not feel the need to go over the reasons yet again. I do note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros made a good contribution in the other place that outlined why it is that the expert advice that has gone into drafting this bill has recommended that we do not go down the path that is recommended in these amendments. That is also why, when the Hon. Stephen Wade first brought this legislation to the parliament, he did not go down that path either. That is certainly what the government's view is, and we will ask that the Legislative Council review again their position.

Ms PRATT: I want to recognise the efforts of all contributors in the other place as they considered these amendments and thank the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Frank Pangallo for their contributions and, indeed, the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I think the amendment before us was well considered by the upper house.

If it is the will of the government to reject the amendments as they were passed by the Legislative Council, then I take this opportunity to note my disappointment that we are approaching a deadlock because to defer this is to delay, noting that Professor Lacey in 2019 put forward her recommendations, all 29 of them, and that the upper house has been on the record a couple of times now in recognising the importance of reforming the current legislation as per Professor Lacey's recommendations.

To defer it, to send it back to the upper house, means that three years have lapsed—in fact, closer to four—since Professor Lacey's recommendations were first published. Two years have passed since the upper house passed similar amendments and, sadly, it lapsed, and 12 months have passed since this current version was introduced and has been sitting idle on the Notice Paper.

I do want to recognise the compromise and goodwill that I think the Minister for Health and Wellbeing and I have found on an amendment regarding non-binding life-saving treatment in the face of advance care directives that may stipulate or try to create a provision for suicide by stealth. I note that the minister and I got close to resolving this bill, but we have reached an impasse when it comes to the order of signing and that, while some very important contributions were made in the Legislative Council recognising Professor Lacey's lack of recommendation in this space, there is still the matter of key stakeholders like the Law Society and close to 900 signatories that were calling for the removal, if you like, of any order of signing. It does seem to be a missed opportunity not to resolve this here and now.

I conclude my remarks by expressing my disappointment that so much time has passed given the importance of the Advance Care Directives (Review) Amendment Bill 2022 being finalised for substitute decision-makers, the owner of the ACD itself, lawyers when they are involved and need to be involved, all parties, who have participated long and hard in this process. I would like to see it resolved before the end of the year.

Mr TEAGUE: Can I just ask if there is some explanation for why the government has formed this view? It is not a matter that is incapable of expression. It is a practical process and all the rest of it. Is there some sort of insight? This might get an airing at the deadlock conference or something down the track, but here we are in the committee. Is there some sort of elucidation as to the government's point of view about this?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Heysen and also the member for Frome for their comments. We discussed this when we debated the bill in this house and the amendments that were similar that were moved by the member for Frome last time. The member for Frome, in her contribution, referred to the need to secure the implementation of the recommendations from Professor Lacey in her report. It is my understanding that her report recommended what we are doing in relation to the order of signing, that we keep the order of signing as it is. That is certainly also the strong view of the advisory group that advises the government in relation to advance care directives, that we should maintain that.

I do acknowledge that the Law Society has a different view, and that is represented by the amendment that has been moved successfully in the Legislative Council, but, very similar to the decision in the drafting of the bill that happened under the former health minister, Stephen Wade, this government has taken the approach of keeping the order of signing. That is for a number of reasons, as we have articulated previously, but it is about making sure that there is a strong emphasis in terms of making sure that your substitute decision-maker knows, understands, accepts taking that role but also the decisions that you want that person to make.

I mentioned briefly the contribution from the Hon. Connie Bonaros in the other place, because I thought that she very well set out, in her own personal circumstances in her own family, how she thought that, I believe, her sister would not be in the situation where she would think that her sister would take on doing what she would want to do. These are difficult decisions. These are life-and-death decisions, and you want to have complete clarity in terms of the person understanding what it is that they are accepting and what it is that you have in your advance care directive, that the person will follow through with that as you requested.

Hence, while I understand that the Law Society has a point to make in terms of the efficiency of the process, of doing it a different way, the government has taken the advice of Professor Lacey, of the expert group that advises us on this issue, and also what was consistent with, under the Marshall government, its position on this matter. Hence, we will be asking the Legislative Council to review its decision in relation to this.

Motion carried.