Bills

Suicide Prevention Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:48): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. We are supportive of this bill. I think this is the second suicide prevention bill that has been introduced in a parliament in Australia, following close on the very first one that was introduced to a parliament in Australia by the member for Kaurna, Chris Picton, who introduced a very similar bill in another place sometime before this bill was introduced in this chamber.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for South Australians between the ages of 15 and 44. The largest data we have on suicide in South Australia, from the Institute of Health and Welfare, reveals 251 South Australians were registered as lost to suicide in 2019. That represents a substantial increase from 2018, with 212 South Australians lost to suicide. Faced with such alarming statistics, it is clear that more must be done in the prevention of suicide in South Australia.

The bill before us has an extensive history prior to reaching the parliament, as the shadow minister for health, the member for Kaurna, outlined in the other place when he introduced a very similar bill. A lot of the work is a great credit to you, sir, during your time, not just as President of the Legislative Council but for many years before that and particularly in your role as South Australia's inaugural Suicide Prevention Advocate. During that time, you worked tirelessly to advance suicide prevention in this state. A very large part of the efforts of your work is the bill we see before us today.

Unfortunately, sir, you did not get to see the foundational and trailblazing work with this bill through to fruition. As we know, on World Suicide Prevention Day in 2020, when you were lauded with a lifetime achievement award from the peak body for suicide prevention, you were removed from that role. It is a shame that those things occurred in the sequence and on that day as they did; however, that is history and we owe you a great deal of gratitude for the bill that was first introduced in the lower house and now the bill that we see before us.

It is a pity that in the transition to the member for Kavel, who took on the roles entailed in the Suicide Prevention Advocate and who I understand no longer holds those roles, we have seen unnecessary delays to this bill. As I said, I note that this is not the first suicide prevention bill introduced in Australia. The first one was introduced by the shadow minister for health, the member for Kaurna.

This bill contains many of the same elements as does the bill the opposition introduced in the other place, and that is probably not a surprise, as they are both based on the work that you led, sir. This bill enshrines in legislation the Suicide Prevention Council, it tasks the council with the development and rollout of a state suicide plan and requires ongoing annual reporting on that plan, and it tasks the council with a number of additional functions, including providing advice to the health minister on suicide prevention programs.

The bill ensures that the council will be given the resourcing it requires to carry out its legislated functions. It legislates for a suicide prevention register, a database to provide accurate and timely information on deaths by suicide. The government has included minor amendments to the bill since the draft version was circulated some 10 months ago, and I indicate that we are broadly supportive of these amendments. We note that they were filed only this week: yesterday and the day before, I think those amendments were filed, and the government has indicated a very strong desire to see the bill progress today, notwithstanding that the amendments were filed just this week.

I know, Mr President, how passionate you are to make sure that we see this come into place before this parliament finishes and before you finish your time in this parliament. I think it is fitting that we do that. So notwithstanding the government's desire to progress a bill when amendments have been filed only this week, we agree. This is important. Particularly—and the minister may reflect on this—the reporting of attempted suicides; we are keen to find out the reason for that and the particular merits of that amendment.

We indicate we are happy to support the amendments in this place, noting that if necessary we would look forward to constructive dialogue between the houses to make sure any of those concerns, particularly with one element, can be sorted out. We do not want to stand in the way of this bill being sorted out, notwithstanding that amendments were introduced as recently as only yesterday.

Noting that we are in support, notwithstanding that amendments were introduced only yesterday, I will point out my disappointment. After having spoken to you, sir, this morning about the importance of this bill and getting it through this place, in my attempted discussions with the health minister to try to make sure that happened today, he wanted to play politics with this bill, and I think that is absolutely shameful.

Having said that, as I said the opposition will not stand in the way, because this is such an important bill. I just want to briefly highlight some amendments the opposition will be moving to seek to enshrine in the legislation. The issues group on suicide prevention: the group is currently in operation and includes senior public servants from across government, chaired by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. We think this is a worthy amendment, so we look forward to the passage—unusually, but given the importance of this issue—of this bill through this chamber today.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (11:54): I would like to thank the honourable members who contributed to the second reading discussion on the Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. I would like to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Kyam Maher for their contributions and their support for the bill. I particularly appreciate that the opposition has withdrawn its opposition to this bill progressing today and is willing to consider any possible amendments between the houses.

I am offended by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition's comments that I have been playing politics with this bill. It is a matter—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government program is in the hands of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! No conversations across the chamber.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —the Government Whip and the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is not in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The minister has the call and will be heard in silence.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This whole parliamentary week demonstrates the Labor Party's willingness to play games with the parliament and important matters such as this. Nonetheless, I do welcome the fact that they have stepped back from their opposition and will allow this bill to progress today.

I would like to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Connie Bonaros in particular for the way they spoke with great sensitivity about a topic that is not easy to talk about, and yet it is crucial that we do talk about suicide. Countering the myths is vital for reducing the stigma associated with suicide. It is an essential part of our prevention effort.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the President. He played a major role in the development of this bill through his previous role as the Premier's Advocate for Suicide Prevention, and leadership in presiding over the Premier's Council on Suicide Prevention. I appreciate his thoughtful advocacy and leadership.

I would like to thank all the people who have contributed to the development of the bill: firstly, the members of the Premier's Council on Suicide Prevention and their support staff. The council members played a major role in ensuring that this bill received considerable support from across all sectors and in the wider community. I thank members of the community and the many organisations and agencies that voiced their wholehearted support for the bill through the government's YourSAy website and by providing written submissions. I appreciate the time and effort they gave in making submissions. In considering this bill, I believe we should be gratified by the level of community support that has been shown.

I also thank those members of this place who have raised issues and sought to further improve the bill. We have taken those views into consideration and have proposed some amendments which reflect the input of various members of the house. I propose to outline the amendments and discuss them in the committee stage; likewise, I propose to address the opposition amendments in the committee phase.

There are a couple of matters that I thought best dealt with at the summing-up phase, in particular the Hon. John Darley's office, during the briefing process, sought advice as to the difference between clause 8(1), which states that the minister 'may' establish guidelines, whereas at clause 24 it requires that prescribed statutory authorities 'must' comply with any guidelines in the preparation of their suicide prevention action plans.

The bill already sets out quite extensive requirements prescribing what statutory authorities must comply with in the preparation of their action plans. The intention of clause 8(1) is future-focused and will allow further guidelines to be promulgated, if the need arises. If the guidelines are needed and exist then a statutory authority must comply with them, but at this time no further guidelines are proposed. Providing a statutory framework for suicide prevention provides the state with an opportunity to continue to lead the nation in suicide prevention.

I would also like to address an issue raised with me by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. Tragically, we know that people subject to scrutiny by investigatory bodies or professional regulatory bodies can experience great stress, and there are cases where they may have taken their own life which may well have been linked to the stress of this scrutiny. I understand the Hon. Frank Pangallo has raised the case of Chief Superintendent Doug Barr in this context.

There have been other cases that I have been involved in where people have talked about the darkness they felt and how they often thought about taking their own life during such investigations. This has occurred across many workplaces and in relation to a range of investigatory bodies and professional regulatory bodies. I think it is something we need to look at, at what we can do to reduce the stress and increase support to people under scrutiny.

Should this bill be passed and the Suicide Prevention Council established, I propose to ask it to investigate these issues and examine how employees or other people under investigation can access the right mental health and other support they may need during extremely stressful times. This council has considered issues in the past relating to specific occupational groups, and the wellbeing of medical practitioners, or for that matter other health practitioners registered under AHPRA, will be of concern to that group.

Whilst investigations and professional regulations are important, we need to look at what we can do to ensure people receive support as early as possible and at how the process of investigation can be conducted so that, as far as possible, it does not create avoidable stress. We need to think about how to handle these situations better and prevent deaths by suicide by improved awareness, and by automatically ensuring that people can access wraparound mental health support to help them cope through these situations. It is important that we recognise these are the types of issues that a dedicated Suicide Prevention Council could consider.

Finally, I wish to offer my condolences to everyone bereaved by suicide. I look forward to a future where people with lived experience of suicide do not have to struggle with the associated stigma and have the care and support of the community.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 4, after line 9 [clause 3(1)]—Insert:

Issues Group on Suicide Prevention or Issues Group means the Issues Group on Suicide Prevention established under section 19A.

This is the first of three amendments on the same issue. It seeks to establish in legislation what already exists, the Issues Group on Suicide Prevention. As the amendments further on talk about, it consists of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and the chief executive of each administrative unit of the public sector. It allows for deputies to be appointed to the issues group. It is something that already occurs, and I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Should the amendments find favour with this chamber—as I hope they will, given the spirit of cooperation—we are prepared to move forward with this today and look at it in the other house. I expect it will find favour with that chamber in the same spirit of cooperation. If there are any issues to do with this, we like the amendments—we have some concerns but understand the need to pass this and sort it out between the houses.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether this clause was in the opposition's bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his question. I do not have a copy of the opposition bill which, as we canvassed in the second reading, was the very first bill ever introduced on suicide prevention in Australia, the bill introduced by the member for Kaurna, Chris Picton. I do not have a copy of that with me so I cannot answer, but it certainly was not in the copy of the second bill that was introduced some time later by the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It does raise an interesting point because the honourable member reflected that there were similar elements between the opposition bill and the government bill. The main reason why there are differences is that the opposition drew on a draft of the bill that had not been subject to consultation. The government, in contrast, believes in engaging the community and undertaking consultation and the government bill reflects the views of the community. So we believe the government bill should be preferred.

In relation to the issues group, this amendment is not supported. Under section 24 of the Public Sector Act, public sector administrative agencies consist of departments and attached offices. The current department list includes the Auditor-General's Department. I will not read the list, but let's just say it is more than 20. The proposed amendment would place all of these administrative units on the proposed issues group. The honourable member refers to the issues group being current practice. The issues group that his amendment suggests is not current practice.

More importantly, by using this definition, it leaves out critical public sector agencies such as SAPOL, SAFECOM, South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service, SA Ambulance Service and Veterans SA. This was precisely the type of difficulty expressed in trying to draft legislation to establish the issues group in the bill, namely, how to define which agencies should be included. But I do make it very clear that the government established the issues group, the issues group continues to exist, and I am happy to give an undertaking to the house that the government has no intention of stepping back from the issues group. It is a valuable cross-agency network.

This amendment would make chief executives of each Public Service administrative unit, or the nominees, members of the issues group. It is essential that nominees are those persons within the relevant public sector agencies who are best able to advise on the issues that are significant for suicide prevention within their agencies, the communities they serve, the wider community and on any interagency issues.

Additionally, some agencies had two members to ensure input from these diverse areas on the government issues group. It is the government's view that we should continue to maintain that flexibility to get the right people around the table and not be constrained at the issues group level by statutory formulae.

Finally, under the amendment, the minister may appoint a deputy of a member. In undertaking this function, it is assumed that the minister would obtain nominations from each agency—that is, a member of the proposed issues group. There is, however, no requirement for the minister to choose a deputy from that agency. This statutory process for appointing a deputy is both potentially cumbersome and problematic.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his contribution and I agree that there may well be things that need to be tweaked. It is disappointing. As I foreshadowed, there are, particularly with the reporting of attempted suicide, concerns that have been raised about whether that should be an amendment or not, but we are prepared to accept what is in the bill at the moment and sort these issues between the houses.

I would ask the minister to perhaps reflect as to whether the concerns he has raised might be concerns that can be sorted out between the houses because once we vote against this, it is lost for good and there is not the opportunity to look at it between the houses. I would ask the minister, perhaps in the spirit of cooperation, to allow this amendment to stand so that we can do that like we are doing with his amendments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I certainly do not intend to support a flawed amendment. Of course, the House of Assembly is a house of parliament. They can move an amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I note what the Leader of the Opposition has just outlined. I think it is worth putting on the record that SA-Best has undertaken a great deal of consultation in relation to this bill with the minister and his advisers and indeed with Dr Brayley also. We have undertaken that level of consultation because we appreciate that this bill is a framework and does not include all the nuts and bolts, it does not include all the substance.

Ordinarily, we are very reluctant to support bills that do not provide the nuts and bolts and leave things to regulation. I think in this case, given where we are at with the establishment of this framework, there is the potential that we will do things which will circumvent the ability for those who will be responsible for this to do what they want to do, or what they need to do.

I have met with the minister's advisers, I have met with the people who will be tasked with doing these roles and with Dr Brayley, and been given enough assurances around what the issues group will do and what they will be doing. I do not want to regret my words, minister, but I accept that that is being done in good faith and that there is nothing in that which will prevent any of the things that the Leader of the Opposition wants to achieve but, at the same time, we will not be hindered by prescriptive provisions around that.

The advice we have had from the minister is that the amendment is problematic and there may be issues with certain appointments and so forth as a result of the way it is drafted. Putting that to one side, the other issue is that it does not allow for the flexibility that not the minister has told me he requires but the people who are undertaking the work have told us they require. Frankly, I would trust them more than I would trust the minister, with respect to the minister, which is exactly what we have done throughout the course of this entire bill. For those reasons, I am comfortable at this stage with what I have been told at the ground level is being anticipated and what that will look like.

I do think that at some stage we will be back here debating this bill in another form because there will be a number of other things that we might have to address. I am very cautious at this stage of doing anything that is going to hinder the work that has been done that underpins this legislation. It is very much in its infancy and so we do not want to be putting any unnecessary burdens in place. It is for those reasons, not because I do not agree with prescribing an issues group as such, that we have indicated to the minister and indeed to those people who have advised us on this that we will not be supporting this amendment.

If there is another amendment that is to be moved that addresses those issues then of course we would be open to that, but my firm view in this instance is that we do not need this prescriptive provision in this bill. If it was in a form that was not prescriptive then that is a different story. Again, I am confident that the work that is being done at the moment—we are not being asked to take the minister's word for it—is already happening and I am satisfied that it has been happening to an acceptable standard.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her contribution and I agree with it. I think it is important to stress to the house that the Premier's Council on Suicide Prevention and the issues group that is associated with it, and the work of the Premier's Advocate, has been dynamic and organic, particularly under the leadership of our President.

I think we need to be careful that we do not actually stifle that continued evolution. The community engagement is significant and I do not think it is appropriate to take the leadership of that work out of the hands of the Premier's Advocate and the Suicide Prevention Council. In that sense, it is somewhat different to other bodies. It is not a ministerial controlled body, if you like. It has a broader remit and its own leadership.

In terms of any issues that the opposition might want to consider between the houses, I would also be very open to not only consider any alternative amendments that the opposition might want to propose in the other place but also to give undertakings. I recognise the fact that the undertaking I gave earlier to the continued operation of the issues group was at the specific suggestion of SA-Best and I certainly am happy to give that assurance. The government believes that the Suicide Prevention Council in itself and the issues group have both quite distinct contributions and that both of those contributions should continue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I might just add in relation to that, in relation to the undertakings that were given to us, there were issues that were raised by my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo specifically in relation to the role that various agencies have on that issues group involving first responders. The last thing we would want is a bill to go through that does not actually envisage first responders—whether they be our firefighters, our ambos, SAPOL, or whatever the case may be—having a role in the issues group.

The concern, obviously, is always going to be that we do not want to prescribe those groups at the expense of another group which may have an equally important role to play on that issues group. They are the discussions we have had, for the record, for the benefit of other members. They are the discussions we have had with the minister and his team in relation to that issues group and ensuring that they actually cover the broad scope of agencies, government agencies and bureaucrats, if you like, that ought to be covered. The undertakings that we were asking for specifically related to the explicit inclusion of first responders into the issues group.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her point. The Hon. Frank Pangallo's discussions in relation to the first responders is a contributor to the amendment. One of the amendments the government is asking the council to consider confirms, again, the relevance of the work of the council to first responders.

The Hon. Connie Bonaros's contribution does highlight another area where it would be important to maintain flexibility; for example, in the Ambulance Service. If they were able to have more than one person present, they might have a person from management, they might have a person with lived experience, and so, again, this is an area where I think it is valuable to be organic.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–2]—

Page 7, after line 7 [clause 9(2)(i)]—Insert:

(iva) at least 1 must be a current or previous first responder with lived experience of suicide, or experience supporting other first responders with lived experience of suicide;

This is the amendment that I adverted to in relation to our discussions with the Hon. Frank Pangallo. In moving this amendment, I would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Andrew McLachlan CSC, Senator for South Australia, and also SA-Best members, the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC and the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC, for their advocacy, keen interest and advice on this matter, which is to include on the membership of the Suicide Prevention Council a nominee who is an emergency first responder as a prescribed person.

The government welcomes and supports specifying this additional priority group to the membership of the council. Emergency responders have a significant risk of suicide arising from the nature of their employment and their consequent and high exposure to traumatic and traumatising incidents. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention notes that first responders, including police, firefighters, ambulance and other public safety and emergency responders, are crucial to ensuring public safety and health. In doing so, they may be at elevated risk of suicide because of the environments in which they work, their culture and stress, both occupational and personal.

This stress can be acute, whether it be associated with a specific incident, or chronic, an accumulation of trauma from multiple events. I think it would be fair to say that it may well be cumulative. Somebody might experience trauma in their childhood. They may serve in the military. They might come back and take up work with the Ambulance Service. They take that stress with them.

Occupational stress in first responders is also associated with increased risk of mental health issues as well as suicidal behaviours, such as thinking about or planning suicide and suicide attempts. As a group on which the community relies to protect their safety and health, there can be a culture of expectation about their capability and resilience in both the community and the work environment. This expectation is often at odds with the experience of first responders and the research about trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder.

It was my privilege to sit down with first responders on Kangaroo Island recently and talk about the stress they have experienced coming out of the bushfires there and how important it is to provide mental health first aid and ongoing mental health support and other supports to people who have experienced traumatic experiences such as that. Including a person who is a current or previous first responder with lived experience of suicide or experience supporting other first responders with lived experience of suicide will add this area of important and critical knowledge and expertise to the Suicide Prevention Council.

During the consultations, there was a strong recommendation from respondents to identify and include members in priority population groups, as well as other areas of expertise, on the membership of the Suicide Prevention Council. While first responders was not a group that was mentioned in the consultation, it was also the intention of clause 9(2)(i) of the bill to ensure that the membership collectively has the knowledge, skills and lived experience of suicide to enable the council to effectively carry out its functions. This is reinforced by including, out of the 13 members, nine specified areas of experience or knowledge, including lived experience of suicide and one that must have experience or qualifications prescribed by the regulations.

In considering the make-up of the council's membership, there has been a conscious effort to allow for emerging priority population groups or sectors that should be reflected in the council's membership over time. One measure to enable this was providing the minister the discretion to nominate three other members whose knowledge and experience will be valuable in the operation of the council. This amendment would lead to the number of positions over which the minister has discretion changing from three to two. The addition of first responders is supported and helps enhance the capacities of the council to carry out its functions.

The use of the words 'at least' before each prescribed area of membership also expresses an intention to reflect as much intersectionality where possible in the membership of the council. For example, a first responder may be nominated who also meets another listed requirement. This will further strengthen the council's knowledge and expertise. I want to reinforce the point that membership of the Suicide Prevention Council is not the only way this bill will ensure and respond to the needs and interests of both known and emerging priority population groups and communities at risk of suicide.

The state Suicide Prevention Plan and the suicide prevention action plans that prescribed statutory authorities will be required to provide are measures for enabling this. For both types of plans there are community consultation requirements which will also produce information about issues for emerging priority populations and what suicide prevention action is required. Research and epidemiological information and other information on suicide, including information from the suicide register, will be considered in their preparation. I anticipate there will be improved information to facilitate prevention strategies addressing risk factors for first responders. I commend the amendment to the council.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 10 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not proceed with my amendment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 20, line 35 [clause 35(1)]—Delete ‘and suicide attempts’

I indicate to the opposition that I certainly appreciate that this amendment does need explanation and the government is happy to provide that. If the opposition needs further information, having received the explanation, we are more than happy to talk between the houses.

During public consultation on this bill there was considerable interest in including suicide attempts in the suicide register. In drafting the bill it was thought that this could be completed by including general data on attempted suicides in that register. However, the suicide register's defining purpose is to collect data on persons who have died by suicide in order to provide epidemiological information that will support the prevention of suicides.

The data required is extensive and collected in a manner that must preserve the privacy of individuals and their families. A high level of protection is in place to prevent the release of data that could possibly identify a person because of the means, method or location of death. The suicide register builds on the Coroner's register, which provides findings on the cause or circumstances of death for reportable deaths.

The suicide register will expand this to include an assessment of suicide probability. These deaths may not have undergone a Coroner's investigation, but information available suggests the person may have died by suicide. The type of circumstance where suspected suicides are thought to occur includes motor vehicle accidents where it is difficult to confirm intentionality. The information and data collection process requires significant epidemiological rigour to determine if these suspected suicides are eventually categorised as unlikely to be known, highly unlikely, potential or highly likely to be suicide.

The suicide register is not appropriate for obtaining and including information about suicide attempts. Including suicide attempts would involve a whole different process to obtain information from sources such as hospitals, ambulances and others to identify attempted suicide. Work is being undertaken, through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Suicide and Self-harm Monitoring Project, to examine ways of improving information and data about suicide attempts. While this work is at an early stage, information about suicide attempts will be made available and published.

To include attempted suicides would be to expand the suicide register beyond its remit. This would not be consistent with the agreed national approach for establishing suicide registers in all states and territories, as led by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. All states and territories are collaborating with the institute to ensure a consistent approach for data definitions, data collection, analysis and register management requirements to ensure the quality and validity of the information, appropriate release of information and to protect privacy.

The register relies on obtaining and reviewing significant personal information obtained during the Coroner's investigation, review of hospital clinical records, police information obtained during the investigation, as well as collecting any additional data in accordance with coding rules and practices. There would be a significant resourcing impact if suicide attempts were included. Given the level of additional information and analysis that would be required, a significant increase in resource capacity would be needed, and this would not necessarily ensure the level of reliability and validity that is needed for information to be of sufficient use for preventing suicide attempts.

There are also significant difficulties in distinguishing attempted suicide from other injuries or situations. Until there is a way of consistently ensuring this, the data would be of questionable quality. A significant amount of very sensitive information is collected about suicides for the suicide register, and in deciding to move the amendment it has become abundantly clear that expanding the register to include attempted suicides would have significant privacy control concerns, since there would be a much larger group to manage and a person would have their name in this register for life. I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: SA-Best does support the amendment for the reasons that have been outlined by the minister, but I think it is important to place on the record some additional information, which we sought straight from the horse's mouth, if you like, from the briefings that we have had with one of the people, or indeed the lead person, the guardian, if you like, of the register, who will be responsible for the design, implementation and management of that register.

For me, I am satisfied that the focus of that unit is one of suicide prevention, and inevitably that will take into account suicide attempts. The advice, as I understand it, from the guardian, if I can call her that, is that while the inclusion of suicide attempts is extremely problematic in a prescribed form—and I am not going to promise to get the terminology right here—it is accurate to say that it will not mean that suicide attempts will be excluded from the register itself, because the design will inevitably include, if I can call them this, markers that will be included in the register, the constructs that underpin that register, and they will be broad enough for that group to be able to identify clusters and triggers and potential suicide attempts.

It is not just going to be limited to completed suicides, but it will inevitably be able to pick up, potentially, suicide attempts; it just will not be a prescribed requirement that that be one of the roles, for the reasons that have been outlined by the minister. I think that is a really important factor. It certainly is for me, but I am satisfied on the face of it, based on the information that we have received from the experts in the know, the people who will have control of this, that they have envisaged many of the questions that I have asked regarding the register about attempted suicides and, indeed, about suicides that are completed, and that they will be able to undertake that work, albeit not necessarily in a prescribed form.

I would like to raise one other point perhaps at this stage, which was the subject of those discussions, about the input into the information that is required for the register. I think this is very important and I am hoping that the minister is going to give an undertaking, which I may not have asked him for previously. One of the important things that came out of that conversation, or at least one of the conversations that I had, is that the regulations are broad enough, or take into consideration the requirement for the MOU that is going to be entered into, to include the sharing of information between those agencies that will be party to that MOU.

From my recollection, I think it was the Coroner, SAPOL and I cannot remember the third one, but I think the point that was made was that it was very important that when we come to the stage of making regulations what is required is sharing information back and forth between the agencies or bodies that will be the subject of those arrangements. If we cannot go back to SAPOL, if we cannot go back to the Coroner, if we cannot go back to—and I am sorry that I cannot remember the third one—then that is going to be an inhibiting factor. So I think it is envisaged that when the regulations are drafted that will be taken into account.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am certainly happy to give an undertaking that we will pursue the suggestion, because to me it certainly seems to have value in so many areas. I know that in the work the honourable Minister for Human Services has been doing in terms of safeguarding people with disabilities, information sharing with the commonwealth has been a significant issue. I know that in relation to child protection, information sharing between agencies has been a significant issue. Certainly, I believe that the work of suicide data collection and analysis would be supported by information sharing.

Considering the honourable member's posing of the question of who might be the third group, we do primarily think that the information exchange would be between the Coroner and the custodian of the register within the Department for Health and Wellbeing, but it may well also include SAPOL. Trying to think of the answer to the honourable member's question, I thought there might well be information that might be valuable to be shared with the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee. So I think that is a point well made, and I certainly give an undertaking to the honourable member that I will ask the relevant officer to explore that opportunity.

I concur with the comments the honourable member made in terms of the fact that the register might still have information which is broad enough to identify clusters and trends, and the work of the Premier's Council on Suicide Prevention has certainly addressed issues such as that. I can recall the issue in relation to access to lethal means by people in the veterinary profession. So we do want to identify clusters, and we do want to act early. I would also make the point that even without a cluster our officials continue to monitor attempted suicide data and statistics, and that will continue.

The honourable member referred to the horse's mouth and then dubbed her 'the guardian'. This particular officer is collecting a range of titles. I know that the Attorney-General had her as an adviser in the other place, and following that work she was dubbed 'the professor'. So I will let her know she now has a new title: she is both the professor and the guardian.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Guardian of the register.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Guardian of the register. Certainly, I would like to thank that officer and all the officers who have worked so hard in suicide prevention over the years and, in particular, in bringing this bill to the house.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to clarify for the benefit of those who have not been part of those discussions, the MOU that I was discussing covers Wellbeing SA, which sits under the Department for Health and Wellbeing and the Coroner and SAPOL. I think they are the three parties we are talking about. They are the three parties we want to make sure are able to share information back and forth in relation to those issues we have just outlined.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just by way of clarification, Wellbeing SA is part of SA Health, but it is a distinct administrative unit from the department.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 36 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not moving this amendment.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (42 to 44) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (12:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.