25 November, 2025
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:53): I rise to speak briefly to the Statutes Amendment (Health and Wellbeing) Bill. The portfolio bill contains a number of amendments, some of which will improve the health and safety of all South Australians. I recognise the contributions of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I have a lot of sympathy with the experience of the Hon. Michelle Lensink. Indeed, I remember my late grandmother had Alzheimer's disease for many years and my family went through that process of trying to manage her affairs and work through some of those arrangements.
It is a very difficult and stressful experience for families, so I do understand the need for reform in that area.
I am concerned, however, that the government has embarked on this without appropriate consultation. I must say that is not typical for the health minister. I usually find the Hon. Chris Picton to adopt a much more collegial and consultative approach, but in this instance I think it is a case of getting to the end of the parliamentary session and trying to rush things through.
I have had feedback from stakeholders that they do not feel that they have been appropriately consulted. For instance, the Council on the Ageing SA and the Aged Rights Advocacy Service have both reached out to my office and raised a number of concerns, which I believe the government could have actually addressed had there been time for appropriate consultation. I am not moving any amendments today because I simply have not had time to work through what they might look like and to do the level of consultation required.
But I will, for the benefit of the public record, read into Hansard some of the concerns that have been shared with my office in the hope that the government can take these into consideration when they are developing some of the processes that underpin this bill. The concerns that have been raised with me relate to the advance care directive and the guardianship acts. This is a quote from the Council on the Ageing. They say:
In short, we are very concerned about safeguarding the human rights of older people. It seems these changes are being proposed not to advance the rights of the vulnerable people in this situation, but to fix a problem with the health system.
They say they have concerns both for the persons subject to the order, who would have the right to least restrictive care, as well as the substitute decision-makers, who are likely to feel under significant pressure from the system. They say they are concerned that a review from the SACAT is not required for six months, which seems like a long time. They are concerned there is no guaranteed access to independent advocacy or legal support of clear explanations of rights. They are concerned about the potentially confusing opt-out provisions for detention and would like to see those used in plain English and with appropriate supports. They are concerned there has been no co-designed process for the proposed changes.
I am concerned that, in what I am sure is an effort to improve efficiencies in the healthcare system, the government is potentially moving us down another path without appropriate consideration. These orders will come into play when older South Australians are at a very difficult time in their lives, one where their health needs are complex and their families have to make hard decisions on what is best for their loved ones going through a difficult time.
I am concerned that this could be seen as removing some of the rights of older South Australians. Really, I find myself in a difficult position because I approve some elements of the bill but I do feel that the government has not adopted appropriate consultation, and I have not been able to satisfy myself that they have got the balance right.
I will follow the committee stage and see how things progress and reserve my right on the legislation, but I do urge the government to do better when it comes to consultation with stakeholders. This is sloppy lawmaking. It has been done in a slapdash way on the eve of an election and I think the stakeholders deserved a much more consultative approach.