Voluntary Assisted Dying, Conscientious Objection

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing about his use of government resources.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: All members here and in the other place would have received my emails regarding the health minister's anonymous report, on official government letterhead, that he distributed to all MPs late last week. I seek leave to table my email and the minister's document, marked 'Official and sensitive'.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Despite what it claimed, the Wellbeing white paper was a misleading, inaccurate, unbalanced and biased attempt to present an argument against conscientious objection by institutions, including one of the state's largest hospitals and providers of palliative care, Calvary. I note that the minister probably won't get a Dorothy Dixer to acknowledge Palliative Care Week to pay tribute to the wonderful caring work done by places like Mary Potter Hospice. In response to the minister's document, Calvary last night sent a letter to all MPs. I seek leave to table that document.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In the letter, Calvary states its opposition to VAD, in that it is inconsistent with their fundamental ethic of care and that, even if the bill is passed, Calvary, including its hospitals and aged-care institutions, will not participate in VAD and is seeking the right for organisational non-participation to be legislated. My question to the minister is:

1. By sending the document on his departmental letterhead, has the minister now formalised that the Marshall government has a formal policy position supporting VAD, when this bill is a private members' bill and subject to conscience votes?

2. Who authorised and authored the document, and was it ever presented to the Liberal party room for endorsement of this new health policy?

3. Did he check the document for any factual errors and lack of balance?

4. Why did he allow it to misrepresent the positions of the AMA, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Pharmaceutical Society?

The PRESIDENT: Before calling the minister, I remind the Hon. Mr Pangallo that that explanation was laden with opinion and that he should keep opinion out of his explanations. The minister has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:27): The Department for Health and Wellbeing and its attached units often provide information to the parliament to inform parliamentary considerations, particularly in relation to private members' bills and parliamentary committees, so I strongly reject the assertion that for SA Health to provide information to parliamentarians is a misuse of public money.

This year, the Department for Health and Wellbeing or its attached units have provided information for the parliamentary consideration of two private members' bills, the Termination of Pregnancy Bill and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill. I note that the Select Committee on Statutes Amendment (Repeal of Sex Work Offences) Bill 2021 has specifically asked for the Chief Public Health Officer to be a witness before its committee. I am not surprised. I would be disappointed if this parliament and its parliamentary committees didn't seek to be properly informed in the consideration of bills before it.

On some occasions, SA Health even takes a position on a bill. The department supported the Termination of Pregnancy Bill. Wellbeing SA does not have a position on the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill, but it did provide background information to members and that information was provided on 16 March 2021. Up until that point—in other words, in spite of providing information for the consideration of two separate pieces of legislation—I had received no objection from an honourable member that that was a misuse of public resources.

Further information was provided by Wellbeing SA on 25 May 2021 to support members in their consideration of the issue of institutional conscientious objection, and no recommendations were made in the paper. To be frank, I find it baffling that the honourable member could interpret the paper the way he has.

He has also made comments about my position on institutional conscientious objection. He is making assumptions that he should not make. As a person of faith and as a person who does respect not only the individual right of citizens but the right of citizens to participate in faith communities, I will be attracted to a well-formed protection of institutional conscientious objection.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo has a supplementary.