BUSINESS

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Health and Ageing and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:44): I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this debate on and the way in which she has engaged not just in this House around this debate today but also in the public domain, including in the media and with the government as well, particularly with me.

I really appreciate the way in which that's happened. And I thank the member for Kooyong for seconding this. As both speakers have indicated, this debate today, I think, arises out of the decision of the ALP's national conference a couple of weeks ago—a conference of which I'm proud, because it is a debate held in public.

It is telecast. It is open to visitors. It has these often very difficult, deeply held debates, and has for many, many decades, in the public light.

As has been indicated, the conference decided a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of policy, that Labor will remove restrictions in Commonwealth law on a carriage service being used in association with state voluntary assisted dying laws, and—as both speakers have indicated—importantly, while maintaining appropriate clinical safeguards. I was there for the debate.

It was a very respectful debate. I thank the conference delegates, some of whom had quite different views about this issue, for the way in which that debate was held at our conference. It was deeply respectful there, as in this chamber and right across the community.

These issues raise very deeply held views, some of which come from very traumatic personal experiences. I acknowledge that and thank both speakers for the way in which they've approached this debate today. As with all decisions of the party platform and party conference, as we've said a number of times, the government and the parliamentary party will decide any questions of implementation of our party's platform.

Responsibility for the laws that the member for Curtin is seeking to amend sits with the Attorney-General. The current Attorney-General, as the former attorney-general did, has been engaging with her state and territory colleagues about these issues. Responsibility for the second element of the party's decision a couple of weeks ago—the question of appropriate clinical safeguards—rests with me as the health minister.

Although it's the second part of the resolution of the conference, it's effectively a precondition, in our view, for consideration of any change to the laws. Reasonable people might disagree about what an appropriate clinical safeguard for the use of telehealth in relation to voluntary assisted dying might be, but I indicate my view as health minister and as one member of the government that this is a critical question.

Telehealth has exploded, as every member of this parliament knows, since COVID. The experience of that, frankly, has been quite mixed. The seconder of this motion indicated that we should simply follow—I hope I'm not verballing the member for Kooyong—a clinical judgement of a doctor about the use of telehealth.

Frankly, my experience of telehealth over the last several years, in too many instances, has indicated that, without very strict clinical safeguards, telehealth has not been used appropriately. There is case after case after case about that. I'm not convinced that the current telehealth arrangements are particularly well suited to VAD right now.

They have not been appropriate for a whole range of ways in which new business models have been developed to use telehealth in a way that I don't think is clinically appropriate. Reasonable people will disagree about what the telehealth standards should be. I agree with the member for Kooyong; I don't know that anyone has ever indicated seriously that VAD should be telehealth only.

I've never heard anyone reasonably make that judgement. When a carriage service should be used for particular steps in the VAD process is a very important clinical decision as a matter of substance but also as a matter of perception and reputation. I indicate that that is something we take very seriously.

I'm sure all members take it very seriously, even if they might disagree about the finer details on what those clinical safeguards should be. I'm very keen to continue engaging on this with members of the parliament but also with many other members of the community who have deeply held views about this; I acknowledge that. We are not in a position to support this motion today.