CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE (PARENTAL CONSENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:15): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In the last parliament, this bill received support from this chamber at the second reading stage. I look forward to the debate, and I trust there will be a similar outcome during this session. The form of the bill tabled today is slightly different—and I need to ensure that my colleagues are aware of that—from that which I tabled at an earlier time, though the intent is precisely the same, namely that, whenever practically possible, parents should be involved in decisions regarding the medical treatment and procedures carried out on their children. I have amended the original bill after hearing the concerns raised by some sections of the community, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (YACSA) and the Law Society being among those who raised issues with our party.

In my second reading speech on the last occasion, I argued that the current law is tilted squarely in favour of children's rights and is bad for the family because it argues that parents' wishes regarding their children's welfare are irrelevant. Indeed, I note that YACSA's representation to members in this place had nothing positive whatsoever to say about the child-parent relationship. Whilst I concede that its focus is on youth affairs—and I acknowledge that—I do not accept the premise that seems to suggest that parental rights in such circumstances are largely not in the best interests of the child.

Having said that, I acknowledge that some of YACSA's comments are worthy of consideration, and I have taken particular notice of them. In particular, I have sought to recognise in this bill the fact that there are no doubt children 16 years and older, but not yet 18 years of age, who effectively live independent adult lives, for whom parental consent is clearly not in keeping with their maturity and independence.

Therefore, in terms of this bill, we have inserted a new definition of 'independent minor'. The effect of this change is to say that, while moving the definition of child to 18 years of age, we want to make sure that those between 16 and 18 years of age who do live independent lives are recognised and catered for in all respects. We have also made a distinction between medical procedures involving surgery and/or hospitalisation or mental health facility admissions and other treatments such as prescriptions for flu medications or other ailments. That was one of the issues raised by the medical fraternity; they could see some merit but had concerns, I understood, if someone wanted to go to the doctor privately for a prescription. We acknowledge that, so we have amended the bill in that regard.

The requirement for parental consent remains at 16 years for treatments such as prescriptions, etc., but rises to 18 for surgery, hospitalisation, etc. We believe that this recognises the serious nature of surgery or mental health admissions, where it is clearly in the best interests of the child to have parental support. It could be argued that prescriptions should also have been included here as requiring parental consent. There may be instances that colleagues could think of where this might be the case; however, on balance, we consider that surgical and/or mental health interventions are far more serious concerns with often irreversible consequences, where discussions between the child and his or her parents are far more crucial to good outcomes and necessary parental support.

YACSA also noted that, 'At the age of 16 most young people are taking increased responsibility as they continue to prepare themselves for adult life.' I agree; I would argue that the approach we have taken in this bill is to make a distinction between surgical procedures and other medical treatments and to recognise those 16 to 18 year olds who live independent lives is recognition of young people and their developing sense of responsibility. Parents recognise the need to gradually cede their decision making to their children over time, so we argue that this bill respects not only the rights of both the parents and child but also the proper order of things in human development.

The Youth Affairs Council also made a great deal of its belief that young people often do not want to talk to their parents about medical issues. I am sure to some extent they are right. However, in my own experience young people can often be conflicted in as much as they may be somewhat embarrassed about their issue, but at the same time would really appreciate the comfort and support of mum or dad, or in some instances, as with my own family of two girls and a boy, I acknowledge that daughters may only want to talk to their mother. Notwithstanding that, at least they are in a situation of support and comfort from one parent.

In that context these amendments to the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act should be seen as corrective, restoring and encouraging strong lasting relationships between parents and their children which, after all, are lifelong relationships that do not simply cease upon a young person reaching their majority. As with the earlier bill, this bill would not apply in life-threatening situations, and I reinforce that to the house. If it is a life-threatening situation and the parents are not available, clearly you rely totally on the doctors. The emergency provisions of the act will remain. I commend this amendment bill to the council and look forward to contribution and debate from my colleagues in the near future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.