Statutes Amendment (Health and Wellbeing) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2025.)

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (23:35): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Health and Wellbeing) Bill 2025 and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. The bill was introduced by the minister last sitting week, and it is a pretty substantial portfolio bill that seeks to amend 13 pieces of legislation across the health and wellbeing framework. These include the Advance Care Directives Act 2013, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 1988, the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Act 2022, the Blood Contaminants Act 1985, the Controlled Substances Act 1984, the Food Act 2001, the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993, the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004, the Health Care Act 2008 with consequential amendments, the Mental Health Act 2009, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003 and the Suicide Prevention Act 2021.

In his second reading speech the minister described these amendments as really a series to update, modernise and enhance the operation of our health laws here in South Australia. Whilst it is largely technical in nature, the bill does touch on really a broad range of areas, from aged care to mental health and assisted reproductive treatment, suicide prevention and food safety.

We were really thankful for the briefing by SA Health that we received. We appreciate the time provided by those public servants and also the speed with which they came back on a number of the questions we had. We are supportive of the changes in this bill—the proposed amendments. I think clearly one of the biggest changes is to the Health Care Act, particularly in relation to new incorporated health services. That is a big change for the way in which health governance is structured in South Australia.

Probably one of the biggest things that we wanted to get on the record, which we spent a little bit of time discussing in the briefing, was the amendment to the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. We appreciate the need to make some of these changes; however, we did have concerns about the fact that it makes clarifications that a person is not obliged to provide information requested by a conciliator through this process. We had concerns about whether this would result in less information being provided and/or disclosed through the commission and whether this would have a negative impact on the people of South Australia getting answers about the health care that they receive in our public health system.

We were satisfied with the response that we received from SA Health. Obviously, conciliation is just one of the many ways in which people can have their complaints reviewed in relation to their engagement with the health services in South Australia. Other than that, a number of the amendments really were clearing up some technical elements which we support. I note that my colleague, the member for Frome, will be making some contributions. This is a bill which we have both worked together on. We will be going into committee just to get a few more things on the record from the minister. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms PRATT (Frome) (23:38): I also rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Health and Wellbeing) Bill 2025 and indicate, as did the member for Schubert, that the opposition will be supporting the bill, while noting that we have reserved some questions for closer inspection in the committee stage.

A broad and complex piece of legislation by virtue of the number of acts that it encompasses, introduced by the minister to amend 13 separate acts within his health portfolio, this is in essence an omnibus bill, a legislative housekeeping exercise to designed to bring clarity and some administrative consistency to the way the South Australian health system is governed and delivered.

This bill touches on matters as diverse as reproductive technology, controlled substances, blood contaminants, mental health, ambulance licensing, food safety, suicide prevention and the structure of our health governance framework. While the opposition accepts the rationale for this tidy up, it is certainly an opportunity in committee to ensure that these amendments are both practical and safe, particularly when they interact with the rights of vulnerable South Australians in relation to regional health and mental health services.

From the minister's second reading explanation he makes it clear that this bill seeks to tidy up outdated provisions, improve administrative practices and ensure consistency. We agree that these goals are sensible in the main. We also agree that, for the most part, the amendments being put forward are commonsense reforms—they ensure that our legal frameworks keep pace with advances in medicine, technology and governance practice.

In relation to the advance care directives amendments, it is worth noting that there are provisions in the bill that deserve some closer scrutiny—for example, a new section that confers additional powers on substitute decision-makers to determine that a person who has both given an advance care directive and has impaired decision-making capacity may, upon discharge from hospital, be placed in a residential aged-care facility.

While we note the briefing that was offered to the opposition, and we thank the minister and his team for that, there will be an opportunity in committee to explore that a little bit more to ensure that the intent of this amendment is aiming to prevent delayed discharges and ensure safe transitions for those patients who cannot safely return home. The bill also provides that this detention power may only be exercised if no guardian with similar powers has been appointed under section 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993.

I will not continue to prosecute the details, given the time of night and the fact that we are going into committee. I think the member for Schubert has detailed what is obvious to the house, which is that with a number of amendments in 13 acts encompassing this omnibus bill there is a lot of detail to pay attention to. We understand the government advises the house that these amendments intend to bring clarity and consistency to quite a complex web of information-sharing rules. It is clear, through the amendment bill, that there is an effort to tidy up bills, make sure they talk to each other and harmonise them with some commonwealth acts as well. On the whole, it makes sense.

It is clear that this bill represents a package of updates to South Australia's health laws. It is seeking to streamline outdated provisions, enabling more flexible service delivery and strengthening those governance structures that patients rely on. I do thank the minister and the departmental staff, always, for their detailed briefing on this substantial bill. Both the member for Schubert and I look forward to the committee process that is upon us so that we can ensure that these reforms are serving all South Australians, particularly those who are living in the regions or are ageing well in place. With those remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (23:43): I want to thank both the member for Schubert and the member for Frome for their speeches and for their support for this legislation. I look forward to discussing some of the issues that they would like some more information on in the committee stage of the debate.

I want to thank all of the officers from various parts of the health portfolio who have had input into this portfolio piece of legislation, but particularly some of the key officers who have worked on it: Alicia Tsogas, Scott Hodges, Josie Crowley, Peter Knapp and also Josh Harmer from my office. Thank you to all of them for their very important work in bringing this legislation to the house. I move that it be supported by the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Ms PRATT: I should clarify that my first question relates to the advance care directives. It is simply a clarification in terms of the language that is used in new section 39A—Persons to whom this Part applies, where, as I interpret it, all three of subsections (a), (b) and (c) must be in play for a decision to be made. My question is: who decides that there is an advance care directive and that the person has an impaired decision-making capacity and is admitted as an inpatient at the same time? Who determines that those three elements are in play?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have is that two elements of that are statements of fact, one in terms of having an advance care directive and the second being an inpatient of an incorporated hospital. Subsection (b) would be the judgement of the medical practitioner, the doctor who would be caring for that patient.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Ms PRATT: Again, this is a question around the language in the drafting. I refer to new section 39B(2)(b), 'the action is reasonably necessary'. Can you provide some understanding around the use of the word 'reasonably' and how that would be defined or interpreted, and who would do that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Again, similar to the previous question, this would be the medical practitioner, the doctor, who would be in making this judgement, and it would be reasonably in the context of the their clinical judgement. Based on their experience in clinical treatment, they would form that judgement.

Ms PRATT: How might any conflict between a substitute decision-maker's authorisation and the later guardianship order be resolved in relation to new section 39B(7), where this section refers to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993? I am assuming there is some harmonisation taking place between the two acts, but my question is: how might any conflict be resolved between a substitute decision-maker's authorisation and any later guardianship order? How do the two acts speak to each other?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice that I have is that the guardianship act would come into play where there was not a substitute decision-maker, essentially. This section obviously is specifically in regard to where there is a substitute decision-maker under an advance care directive. If that was not the case, then obviously the provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act would apply.

Ms PRATT: With regard to new section 39C(3), my question is in relation to the timeframe. Why was a six-month timeframe chosen? Could this delay expose individuals to unnecessary detention before that oversight occurs? What was the advice with the six-month timeframe?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This was arrived at in consultation with SACAT. In talks between Health and SACAT, this was the figure that was arrived at. In terms of the context of this, obviously this is only specifically in relation to aged care. Obviously, all the rules, the quality safeguards, the inspections and the commonwealth regulations apply in terms of aged care, so in that context it was the government's view that this is a reasonable approach, given our consultation with SACAT about when we should set that. The other point to make is that this is within six months, so it could well be before that as well.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Ms PRATT: In terms of consultation—and I did not have the benefit of attending the briefing to ask about consultation—has the Attorney-General's Department or the Human Rights Commission been consulted to assess compliance with the charter of rights for residents of aged-care facilities or the Aged Care Quality Standards where that act is referenced in clause 20, part 2? Has that consultation taken place, and, if not, why would it not be necessary?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Clause 20, part 2?

Ms PRATT: In reference to clause 20, section 1 and section 2.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There was extensive consultation with the Attorney-General's Department in the drafting of this legislation. It is obviously something on which we have been working with them for some time. In terms of the Human Rights Commission, I do not believe so, but, again, when it comes to aged care, there is obviously a very significant amount of regulation that applies to the federal aged-care system. This is limited to that system and the regulation that applies to federal aged care.

It is also consistent with what we believe happens in other states and territories across the country as well, and so we do not believe that there are human rights issues associated with it given that the rights of people within aged care will be well protected through the commonwealth regulations in the act.

Clause passed.

Clause 21 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.