Friday, 14 November 2025

Clause 6 further considered (14:02)

Gaelle BROAD: Just briefly, I am very supportive of this being very specific about the information and then having it in the act so that it is under the Parliament.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarians will also be supporting this amendment. Although I accept the intent as outlined in the explanatory memorandum by the minister that this minimal information was all that was intended, I have spoken to many people who have expressed concerns about the expansion of this. I appreciate the amendment by Mr Batchelor that limits that expansion.

Amendment agreed to.

Enver ERDOGAN: I move:

1.   Clause 6, lines 15 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) For section 7(a) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(a)   to participate in any part of the provision of voluntary assisted dying, including the provision of information or referral;”.

(2) At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert –

“(2)   A registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying must not be required by any person, body, employer or professional standard, to –

(a)   advise a person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, or any other medical or health service to which the practitioner has a conscientious objection; or

(b)   give the person the information approved by the Secretary.

(3)   A registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying –

(a)   does not contravene any professional duty, standard or code of conduct; or

(b)   is not subject to any civil, criminal, administrative, or disciplinary liability, or any detriment in employment or professional standing, for acting in accordance with subsection (2).

(4)   Nothing in this section prevents a registered health practitioner who does not have a conscientious objection from providing such advice or information if they so choose.

(5)   This section has effect despite anything to the contrary in any other Act or law.”.’.

This is the first one, which is I guess on the same point about conscientious objection. I will not speak at length on this because I have already spoken earlier. I do want to obviously commend the house as well, as we have made significant improvements. Many of my concerns have been alleviated, but not all of them, through the amendment which we supported, Mr Batchelor’s amendment, which we just voted on. Thank you, Mr Batchelor, for that amendment. However, I do still have some concerns about the conscientious objection and that human right being contested and removed in effect through this section of the act. In particular I know Dr Mansfield made it sound like it is just a procedural courtesy, a simple handover. As I view it, in substance, it turns the right of withdrawal into a compulsion for facilitation. That is still my fundamental concern, and it is what I heard from medical practitioners in this field, including Dr Parnis and others, that I did speak to during this debate on this issue in the lead-up to today.

I have already outlined my other concerns about how I feel like this is asking some health professionals to surrender a very important freedom of conscience in these matters, which does not sit comfortably with me. This section has been my principal concern all along with this bill, and that is why I feel like my amendments are stronger than what has already been accepted by the house, and I urge all members to support them.

David LIMBRICK: I thank Mr Erdogan for bringing forward this amendment. Although Mr Erdogan and I landed at slightly different places in our weighing up of the expansion of the rights of patients versus the limitation of rights of doctors, I share his concern that this is my main concern about the bill, in having this limitation of rights of doctors and other health professionals, and therefore I strongly support this amendment.

Gaelle BROAD: I just appreciate you putting forward this amendment – through you, Deputy President – because I think it is so important that we maintain people’s freedom and to have that specifically put into the act I think is a positive move.

Georgie CROZIER: Mr Erdogan, I appreciate that you have brought this amendment to the house. I think your concerns are very genuine, although we have not had an opportunity or you did not reach out to speak to me about your amendments, so I have not had that conversation with you. I do appreciate and understand the intent, but I will not be supporting your amendments.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Mr Erdogan, I appreciate, value and respect your fight for doctors and for the need for people to have their conscientious objection. We did have an opportunity to have a short chat in this chamber, and I am very happy to support your amendment.

Ingrid STITT: I do not support this amendment to remove the requirement for health practitioners with conscientious objection to VAD to provide minimum information. The AMA position on conscientious objection states that medical practitioners:

… have an ethical obligation to minimise disruption to patient care and must never use a conscientious objection to intentionally impede patients’ access to care.

I note that we have talked at some length today in committee about the minimal nature of the information.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I explained before. I see this as an improvement to the bill. I hear the arguments about the need to have a sensible balance between the rights of the patient and the rights of the medical professional. We should actually view laws in this place that we make as a shield, not a sword. What I see this amendment doing is creating that shield for conscientious objectors. In the electorate that Mr Erdogan and I represent there are very deep concerns about impinging on very, very deeply held beliefs and viewpoints. This is certainly an amendment that comes from a good place and comes from a huge amount of correspondence, as I am sure Mr Erdogan is getting as well, and feedback from medical professionals in our community who are very concerned about their rights, about protecting their conscience and about the need for them to be protected. So I will be supporting this amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I have indicated previously, we think clause 6 of the bill is really important and will be supportive of it. While I appreciate where Mr Erdogan is coming from with this – and other members of the chamber – as I have said before, I think patients also have a right of access to information and to health care. I think just to touch on some comments that were made earlier about things like the Hippocratic oath, we do not typically use the Hippocratic oath anymore; it is the World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva. There are some really important principles in that for medical practitioners, which are that you solemnly pledge to dedicate your life to the service of humanity:

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration …

is something in that, and –

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient …

They are really critical principles that medical practitioners sign up for, and I think that is reflected in this amendment, ensuring that they have access to that basic bit of information.

As I have said, I think the practitioner’s right to conscientiously object is a really important one. They do not have to assist in the provision of voluntary assisted dying. They do not have to be a consulting or coordinating practitioner. They do not have to be involved in administration. But if a patient comes to them and asks for some information about a legally available healthcare option, they should be able to access that information. Health practitioners are looked to for that sort of information, and they should be able to obtain it.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have already spoken at length on these matters and indicated that I wish to support Mr Erdogan’s important amendment. I guess to continue my earlier comments, our approach to this should not be about individuals and individual decision-making but how as a Parliament of a civil society we have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the whole of society. As a democratic society there can be nothing more important, in my view, than upholding the fundamental democratic principles on which our society is built, and I think the Victorian charter of human rights is a particularly profound reflection of this. As I indicated earlier, it says:

Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including –

…

the freedom to demonstrate –

his or her –

… belief in … observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.

I think to not support Mr Erdogan’s amendment is to not support the Victorian charter of human rights, and it is also contrary to, I guess, the fundamental principles of our democratic society.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I did want to just read something based on what Dr Mansfield said. While it is acknowledged that the declaration of Geneva is often the process which Australian doctors now go through, Victorian doctors, commitment to the profession is expressed in both the declaration of Geneva and the Hippocratic oath. On the Australian Federation of Medical Women website, the voice of Australian medical women, you will find the Hippocratic oath, where it talks about the importance of practising a profession with conscience and dignity, and also:

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;

I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

That, for many people in the medical profession, means that they do not feel that they can be participating or even expressing anything to do with voluntary assisted dying. It really goes against their conscience and their beliefs. So again, acknowledging what was shared by Minister Blandthorn about human rights, I do feel that this is a really important proposition and amendment that has been put forward by Minister Erdogan, and I just thank him for the work he has done on this and his acknowledgement of talking to the doctors.

Council divided on amendment.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I move:

2.   Clause 6, lines 15 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) For section 7(a) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(a)   to participate in any part of the provision of voluntary assisted dying, including the provision of information or referral;”.

(2) At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert –

“(2)   A registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying must not be required by any person, body, employer or professional standard, to advise a person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, or any other medical or health service to which the practitioner has a conscientious objection.

(3)   A registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying –

(a)   does not contravene any professional duty, standard or code of conduct; or

(b)   is not subject to any civil, criminal, administrative, or disciplinary liability, or any detriment in employment or professional standing, for acting in accordance with subsection (2).

(4) Nothing in this section prevents a registered health practitioner who does not have a conscientious objection from providing such advice or information if they so choose.

(5) This section has effect despite anything to the contrary in any other Act or law.”.’.

In this I have sought to do exactly as many of my colleagues have also been doing. These amendments are simply to allow people to have the conscientious objection. It is another attempt to go through the opportunity to have that conscientious objection. I am aware that with some of the changes we have made we have defined some of these practitioners who will be involved and who will not, so there are perhaps some areas where this could have been changed in retrospect. But again, I am such a strong proponent of people who work in the medical profession having the right to have a conscientious objection. Given that we have already attempted to vote on that, I suspect we are not going to get anywhere again by putting it forward a second time. I am considering whether I should withdraw this on that basis.

A member interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I am happy to vote to support it and not divide on it. Again, I feel very strongly about this, living in a world where I rub shoulders with doctors, nurses and professionals all the time. Those in the south-east have expressed concerns to me that they feel constantly bombarded by the current government now and in its previous term and unable to work and live freely in this state according to their conscience without repercussions. That was the reason that I put this forward, based on the concerns that people have.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, because you said you were withdrawing the amendment and then you said you were moving it, which one are you doing?

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I am just listening to my colleague here. I am going to call it, but I am happy to take it on the voices.

Georgie CROZIER: I will not be supporting Mrs Hermans’s amendment.

Ingrid STITT: I will not be supporting the amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will be supporting this amendment for the same reasons I outlined that I am supporting Mr Erdogan’s amendment, but I am seeking not to divide.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will not be supporting this amendment on the same basis as previous comments about similar amendments.

Enver ERDOGAN: I wish to express my support for this amendment, as it is quite consistent with the principles I outlined, and I want to thank everyone for their work in bringing these really important amendments to the chamber. But I will not be calling for a division.

Renee HEATH: I will also be supporting this amendment for the reasons I outlined in my speech.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I also indicate that I support the amendment.

Moira DEEMING: I also would like to indicate that I will be wholeheartedly supporting this amendment.

Gaelle BROAD: I wish to voice my support for this amendment, because I do believe that it is important to give people freedom of choice and freedom of conscience.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs Hermans, I invite you to move your amendment 1 on your sheet 2C.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I move:

1.   Clause 6, line 31, omit “and” and insert “or”.

This is one that I feel very strongly about as well, given that we have clarified, and I do feel very grateful that we have clarified, what the secretary will be providing. And we have also clarified how a doctor will be able to do the referral, given that we have taken away the ability for a doctor to have that freedom of choice. I feel that by changing the ‘and’ to an ‘or’, it provides an option for doctors who feel that they need to work according to their conscience. By prescribing an ‘and’ it actually puts them in a situation which they still may not feel entirely comfortable, but by changing the ‘and’ to an ‘or’, it at least gives the medical profession a little bit of autonomy to decide which way they will provide that information on voluntary assisted dying. It is a very innocuous change, but it gives just the smallest element of choice to a doctor without taking away the opportunity to provide voluntary assisted dying to any patient that is in the situation where they are at end of life. So it would still allow that patient to have access to voluntary assisted dying, but it gives the doctor a choice as to how they provide that information according to their own conscience. I would strongly urge the house to please support this, because it is a very, very minor change to the bill, but just provides the tiniest bit of autonomy for doctors to have that choice. Instead of doing two things, they have the choice of one or the other, and the patient still has access to voluntary assisted dying.

Ingrid STITT: I will not be supporting Mrs Hermans’s amendment. This would have the effect of undoing the amendments that we have had broad support for, from both Mr Galea and Mr Batchelor, which were the subject of a lot of discussion across the chamber. So no, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will not be supporting this amendment. While it might be one small word change, it actually has quite a significant effect on the application of this clause. It would mean that a conscientious objector could, for instance, if someone asked about voluntary assisted dying, say, ‘You can see someone else to provide that.’ There is no obligation to actually do the referral or indicate who that person might be. It would then mean that that doctor does not have to follow through with the information requirement, which I think is one of the key things in this amendment. It is barely an improvement on what we have now, to insert an ‘or’. The ‘and’ is actually critical. So it is important that someone knows there are other people out there who can provide this service. That is useful information to have, but it needs to be backed up by some basic information which will, following Mr Batchelor’s amendments, quite clearly be information about the care navigator service and the website. That set of information altogether is what is really critical here.

Georgie CROZIER: Given my comments in relation to Mr Galea’s and Mr Batchelor’s amendments, and being consistent with that, I agree with what the minister has said and therefore will not be supporting this amendment.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I have a point of clarification. I fail to understand, and maybe that is from still being relatively new in the chamber, how changing the ‘and’ to an ‘or’ completely takes away from the amendments that have been passed by Mr Galea and Mr Batchelor. When there are two requirements at the moment and we have now simply specified what those two requirements are, it does not actually take away from Mr Galea’s or Mr Batchelor’s amendments at all, as I understand it. I would like to seek the counsel of the house, because as I understand it we are simply giving doctors a choice of one or the other. It is not taking away from whether the person has access to voluntary assisted dying. It does not mean that they simply do not have to say or do anything; they do have to do something. They have to make a choice, and they have to make sure that the person has access to voluntary assisted dying and that they have access to the information. It does not negate that; it simply gives them a choice as to how they receive that information and to what extent the doctor is involved in prescribing that information. Could I have some clarity, please, from the house, as to how this negates Mr Batchelor’s and Mr Galea’s amendments?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order or a point of clarification; it is actually a question. I believe it was the minister that said that.

Ingrid STITT: Essentially replacing ‘and’ with ‘or’ has a fundamental impact on any clause. We have just gone through amendments that deal with both the requirement for a health practitioner with conscientious objection to VAD to provide information. All the house has adopted Mr Batchelor’s amendment, which I understand was very, very similar, almost identical, to Mr Mulholland’s amendment, to give clarity on what information would need to be provided. To only say ‘Someone else can help you’ without anything more does change the intent of the clause. I think we just need to agree to disagree on this question.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: My understanding is that whilst we may agree to disagree, it does not actually delete Mr Batchelor’s or Mr Galea’s amendments; it provides the choice. And it does not delete the option for the person to have voluntary assisted dying, because the doctor, should they choose to pick referral as the option, is having to refer to a place that is going to actually provide all the details and the information and the opportunity for voluntary assisted dying. Would that be accurate, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: This is your amendment, Mrs Hermans, so presumably you are clear on what the implication of your own amendment would be. I am not sure exactly what else there is for me to say other than what I have already put on the record about why I will not be supporting your amendment.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I respect that, but the issue is that the impression that was just given in the response was that it is going to mean that the person will not have access to voluntary assisted dying. That seems to be the objection to it, but that is actually not the case. As you and I both understand, they will have the access to it; they just will have the doctor only having to prescribe one option for themselves and having the most minute amount of autonomy in the decision-making process. Is that accurate?

Ingrid STITT: No. Mrs Hermans, I just do not accept your explanation of these matters. The point about Mr Batchelor’s and Mr Galea’s amendments is about how the scheme operates for those medical practitioners with conscientious objection to VAD. I am sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding the operation of your own amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will be supporting this amendment, but I do appreciate holistically the connections in the clauses with Mr Galea’s amendment and my amendment, which is now Mr Batchelor’s amendment, and operationally how this may make things different in different parts. But overall, I think it is an improvement to the bill, so I will be supporting it. Having read the room, I will be calling it and seeking not to divide, but that is for the chamber.

David LIMBRICK: I will be opposing this amendment. My understanding of the effect of this amendment is that it will have a sort of weird consequence in that a medical professional would be able to tell someone that they need to go somewhere else and then tell them nothing else, which I think is actually worse than what has been agreed on already. I will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That concludes the amendments on clause 6. Are there any more general questions on clause 6?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I had some questions on clause 6, and I can go to others after this group of questions. I assume there will not be a division for a little while, if anyone wants to go back to their offices. There was, Minister, a 2024 paper for the Australian Health Journal that basically found that whether you provide VAD or not, it is an added resourcing pressure. Some of our bigger public hospitals here in Victoria – St Vincent’s, for example – hire specialised legally trained VAD officers to navigate the VAD laws here in this state. They currently receive no additional funding for this. How is the government managing or supporting the resources of those services that interact with VAD, given the well publicised financial pressures on our health services?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, the 2021 budget committed $23 million over four years and $5.8 million ongoing for delivery of VAD in Victoria. That includes the statewide pharmacy service; the care navigator service, which includes support packages; the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board; the voluntary assisted dying portal, development and improvement, which is used by the VAD board for applications; and departmental staffing. Separate to that funding, it is also part of the overall funding that each health service would receive based on their budget deliberations with the department each year and their activity.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just seeking to understand the last part of your answer in regard to the overall budget – and I am happy for you to take this on notice; these are genuine questions that I can come back to – whether there is a specific amount, a specific line item, that hospitals would receive. The bigger hospitals do absorb this cost. It is a cost that is absorbed. I would be keen to know, particularly towards the end of your contribution, ballpark figures. What services are provided? What is the funding provided specifically to our hospitals to navigate the VAD laws? From my understanding many hospitals absorb that cost and it is not a cost that is offset. I am seeking greater clarification, and I am very happy for you to take that on notice.

Ingrid STITT: What I can say broadly, Mr Mulholland, is that our health services, including obviously major tertiary hospitals, negotiate their model budgets with the department each year, and presumably if they have need in this area they would seek for their model budgets to include this work. Each health service signs off on that process. But in terms of specific figures, I am not in a position to have them to hand right now. I can see if we can take it on notice, but we may not be able to get precise figures because of the nature of how model budgets are reached.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How is the government ensuring adequate staffing and training involving compliance with the VAD legislation?

Ingrid STITT: As well as accepting in principle the recommendations of the five-year review, Mr Mulholland, this does include greater support for medical practitioner engagement through expanding statewide availability. Obviously we are debating these issues around expanding the statewide availability of medical practitioners and supporting their psychological safety and wellbeing and enhanced training. To address the issue now, the statewide care navigator service runs a number of medical practitioner training days each year, which is where most medical practitioners who provide VAD complete the required training. There is also a community of practice providing peer support, debriefing and consultation to medical practitioners who provide VAD services to support ongoing engagement. But there will be, as I indicated, further work as a result of accepting recommendations from the five-year review.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I thank the minister for answering those questions. Again, they were all genuine answers. I am looking forward to receiving the information on that on notice, and I thank the minister for that. The minister kind of indicated in the lower house that there is no new offence created in relation to a breach of this clause. However, does the government acknowledge that compliance with civil law is a normal requirement for insurance, registration and employment contracts for health practitioners, so the penalty for conscientiously objecting to VAD is that your job and ability to earn a living could be put at risk?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, health practitioners’ registration and conduct are regulated by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which is administered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Another health practitioner, employer or member of the public can choose to notify AHPRA if they consider a health practitioner is not acting in accordance with their profession’s code of conduct or relevant registration, and AHPRA and the relevant health practitioner national board assess and deal with notifications. So the types of regulatory action a board takes in response to notifications change as risk changes.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I guess that is the whole reason I particularly asked this question. It seems to me like the government, in a roundabout way, does acknowledge that any breach of civil law could, and likely would if someone complained about it to AHPRA and others, result in a loss of insurance and possibly a loss of registration, and their ability to earn a living within their field would be put at risk. That is not a particular question, but it is something that I have great fear about occurring in my community.

I know many medical professionals who consider this as a matter of serious conscience that they do not think that they can abide by. Yes, it is something that we are all here putting into new legislation, but for people out in my community, it is very serious. They are very, very worried about the consequences and their future in the profession as a result of this legislation. I will just leave it there.

Ingrid STITT: I will comment further. Just to clarify, Mr Mulholland, that no offences or penalties have been included in relation to this part of the bill, and the Department of Health will take an educative approach to support health practitioners to meet their patients’ needs in a way that minimises what is required of them, and they will be providing guidance as well on these matters. It is important in the context of your concerns to note that there are no penalties or offences in the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: There may not be some consequences put into the bill, but the reality is that the way the bill is and the way it is being passed, doctors that choose not to refer, facilitate, have that conversation, are going to be in a situation where they will be in breach of legislation, therefore they will have the impact of the full consequences of the law. We know quite well that in the past, when doctors have tried to express their conscientious objections, when nurses have tried to express their conscientious objections in other fields – be it COVID vaccination, be it abortion and working in the abortion wards – there have been consequences for people in the medical profession.

I do want to also express – and I have this from somebody who has sent this in – that many doctors’ practices are small businesses. Putting the requirement on these small businesses, who do not provide VAD, do not wish to have the conversations, to have to find, establish and maintain the administrative records of other professionals who do, is creating that administrative red tape. I know some of that has been dealt with in some of the amendments but not really fully. People should be reminded that doctors are often in small businesses, and it would be perhaps a better outcome if the government had considered that there be specific health professionals who provide a helpline service. I know that we have passed some of Mr Bachelor’s amendments to have an internet site, but it would have been helpful if there were certain people that were set aside with a info helpline number to have that extra red tape taken out of the hands of doctors, so that those that do not feel comfortable would have had an option.

I think the situation is that in no other industry, other than what we are now prescribing here, has any legislation required a small business to refer people to competitors if they cannot provide the goods or services. In this case, with people having to be forced to have these conversations, we are not only putting these doctors with these small businesses at risk but also expecting people to have conversations which they may not feel comfortable with. This particular new section is all about having people who can actually initiate these conversations, who perhaps may not even know the full details too of patients. To me, it is negligent of the government to be pushing this into legislation, and the effects that this can have on people’s lives are troubling for me.

Ingrid STITT: Mrs Hermans, I am finding it challenging to respond to some of the issues that you are raising because they are based on a false premise or understanding of what the bill before us is seeking to do. No-one is being forced to have conversations; that is the first important point to clarify. You are also making a number of assertions about what you are saying has not been provided to medical practitioners which are also based on perhaps not having the full picture. The care navigator service provides the supports that you described in your most recent contribution. Providing VAD services is still a choice, and that is the fundamental point here.

It is probably timely for me to just remind the chamber that this provision in the bill that we have been discussing for a while aligns Victoria with Queensland and the ACT, where the system has been operating safely and effectively.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Sorry if I am a bit slow on the uptake here, Minister, but I would just like to clarify: are you saying that there will be an info helpline that will be available through the navigator services? Could you please clarify that? I obviously am not in the know if that is the case and have not been given that information.

Ingrid STITT: Those medical practitioners and specialists that provide VAD services already have access to that type of support now through the care navigator system.

Council divided on amended clause:

New clause 6A (15:05)

Enver ERDOGAN: I move:

1.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 6 –

‘6A New section 7A inserted

After section 7 of the Principal Act insert –

“7A   Application of human rights and equal opportunity legislation to conscientious objection

A conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying –

(a)   is an aspect of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief under section 14 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006; and

(b)   is taken to be an attribute for the purposes of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 as if it were listed in section 6 of that Act; and

(c)   is taken to be a protected attribute for the purposes of Part 6A of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 as if it were listed in section 102B of that Act.”.’.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my new clause to follow clause 6, clause 6A, which seeks to insert a new section 7(a) into the act. The purpose of this is similar to the principles we have just discussed, about conscience being a living principle that allows people to exist with difference but without fear. I think that is the key, that principle in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities about freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

This will ensure that where people exercise that fundamental human right they are not persecuted. I think that is appropriate and consistent with some of the other legislation we have in our state, such as the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, the human rights charter and our very own anti-vilification legislation that this session of Parliament passed. In light of that, I move this new clause, because for many people that work in the profession compassion and conscience are not competing instincts – they are one and the same. I do not believe they should be compelled to act against their conscience, and they should not face adverse action as a result of holding those instincts and acting on them or choosing not to act in relation to them.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I would like to really thank Mr Erdogan for moving this new clause. I think this is a really interesting way of looking at things. It is certainly something I would not have thought to put in there, but I quite like how this new clause is put together and how it relates to the different acts of Parliament that have been passed in this place that do provide those significant protections for people of different beliefs. I know many in this chamber who might be inclined to support this bill or oppose this amendment have spoken of the specific need – I think everyone has– to protect religious communities from vilification and from discrimination. Highlighting that in this new clause is really important. It is something that my community would appreciate. I think this is an amendment worth supporting. The intent of it is very good and it will hopefully go a long way to making clear the intent of a whole bunch of pieces of legislation in this place and not cast them to one side like they do not matter because of this. This is where we talk about conflicting rights. As I said before, legislation should be a shield, not a sword. This certainly goes a long way to doing that, so I thank Mr Erdogan for bringing this forward, and I will be supporting it.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I absolutely want to thank Minister Erdogan for his contribution, particularly for the work that he has put into this new clause to place into the amendment bill information on aspects of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, the Equal Opportunity Act, and the purposes that are underlined. I do think this new clause will protect our medical profession in Victoria and sustain our medical professionals so that they feel that they are also protected by the law. It will give some comfort to those who have felt in the past persecuted by this government through legislation, that they have not been protected, that they have not had the opportunity to be protected by the charter of human rights or that there has been conflict in legislation that has been passed in Victoria in the past. They need to know that there is some comfort and some protection and that there will not be a loss of practice, loss of their small business or loss of their services, so that we do not have a mass exodus from this state. We already have a shortage of teachers and a shortage of police; the last thing we need is a continual spiral of a shortage of doctors, medical practitioners and nurses.

We need to protect our professions. We need to show respect to every individual in this state, and we need to govern for all people, not just some. On that basis I wholeheartedly support this amendment and I thank the minister for his work on it.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I also thank Mr Erdogan for this amendment. Again, as a unionist, I find this a particularly important amendment. I think it is one, as Mr Mulholland and others have spoken to, that speaks to consistency across our legislation in terms of how people are treated before the law and how their rights and responsibilities are upheld and also that people not be penalised for exercising their fundamental freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief, which as I outlined in my earlier contributions, is a fundamental human right. It is absolutely true that following the 2017 debate there are particularly doctors but others in this state as well who have experienced adverse impositions on them as a result of the positions that they have taken in relation to the application of the voluntary assisted dying scheme. I think coming from the perspective that Mr Erdogan does as a former workplace lawyer, this is a particularly important amendment that is grounded in deep experience and understanding of the law. I thank Mr Erdogan for his contribution, which I think was particularly eloquent, in relation to this matter and for his persistence with this amendment, because I think for anybody who wishes to uphold not just fundamental freedoms but also workplace rights this amendment is worthy of support, and I certainly support it to that end.

Moira DEEMING: I would just like to put on the record that I appreciate this amendment and I will be supporting it.

Michael GALEA: I wish to indicate that I will be supporting this amendment, and I thank Minister Erdogan for bringing it to the chamber. I agree that this is a fundamental principle of human rights and indeed workplace rights as well, as Minister Blandthorn has outlined. I believe that it would fit well and in accordance with this act that these rights that are enshrined in this act are further protected in the way that Minister Erdogan has outlined.

David LIMBRICK: I also thank Mr Erdogan for bringing forward this amendment. It is a very interesting, probably the most interesting, amendment to the entire bill. I have undergone a bit of a change in my views on the human rights charter, though. When I first came here I think you could call me a true believer in the human rights charter. I have gone from that to now I would happily repeal the charter and abolish the human rights commission without the slightest hesitation. I am also deeply sceptical of the anti-vilification laws. Regardless of that, I do think that it is a good idea to have this in there, and therefore I will support it.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will not be supporting this amendment. This is quite a significant amendment in that it makes conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying a protected attribute in and of itself. Religious belief and activity are protected under these charters, and that will remain so – and under all of the relevant acts. I think that is appropriate. I think there are adequate protections for conscientious objection in all of these pieces of legislation and in the voluntary assisted dying bill that is before us. I think to make a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying a specific and explicit protected attribute is a considerable change to these acts. In the interests of the potential consequences of this, with all respect, Mr Erdogan had not canvassed these amendments with me and has not explained the implications of them. I have not had the opportunity to think about what the implications of this might be into the long term. I think this is quite a significant change. I am not comfortable with supporting such a considerable change to the interpretation of some of these other acts.

Georgie CROZIER: I wanted to listen to the debate on this amendment, and I am glad I have been sitting here, because I think it has been actually quite interesting. On the face of it, it actually is understandable why Mr Erdogan would move this to enable doctors to be able to exercise their conscientious objection. However, I do have somewhat of an issue with it, given that this is not going against those people that do have the conscientious objection, it is just allowing patients that want the information to have it provided. For those reasons, I cannot support it, but I have been quite interested in this one. As Mr Mulholland just said in my ear, it has been quite creative. However, on this occasion I will not be supporting it, but I do thank you for bringing it forward and adding this interesting element to the debate.

Renee HEATH: First of all, I do not know whether to thank Mr Erdogan, Erdawine or Erdaham, but, Minister, I want to thank you for bringing forward this amendment. I think that it is very difficult to say on one hand that we support a free and pluralistic society, and on the other hand not allow people to live according to their individual conscience if that does not come under what the state thinks you should say. I think it is fantastic and I will wholeheartedly be supporting this.

Ingrid STITT: I am indicating that I do not support this amendment of my colleague. I have already made some comments in relation to a different amendment about how the freedom to hold a belief, such as conscientious objection to VAD, is absolute, but that has to be balanced and subject to reasonable limitations so that patients can also exercise their freedom. The right to conscientious objection is already protected under human rights and equal opportunity legislation, and indeed, the bill before us and the VAD act, so on that basis we will not be supporting the amendment.

Gaelle BROAD: I just want to thank the minister for putting forward the amendment because I guess this has been a big issue in the bill for me, so I see it certainly as an improvement. I do feel that there has been a shift in this debate that will widen, and the safeguards that were put in place when this was first debated back in 2017 are now being seen as barriers that are being removed. I feel that this would go some way to addressing the concern I have with that expansion. So I will certainly be supportive of this.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 7 (15:25)

Michael GALEA: I move:

6.   Clause 7, page 9, lines 2 to 4, omit “a registered health practitioner who is not a registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner” and insert “certain registered health practitioners”.

7.   Clause 7, page 9, lines 7 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(1) This section applies to the following registered health practitioners who provide health services or professional care services to a person –

(a)   a registered nurse (other than a nurse practitioner);

(b)   a registered psychologist;

(c)   a registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioner.”.

8.   Clause 7, page 9, line 34, omit ‘Law.”.’ and insert “Law.”.

9.   Clause 7, page 9, after line 34 insert –

‘8B Discussion about voluntary assisted dying must not be initiated by other classes of registered health practitioners

(1)   This section applies to a registered health practitioner who –

(a)   provides health services or professional care services to a person; and

(b)   is not a registered medical practitioner, registered nurse, registered psychologist or registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioner.

(2)   A registered health practitioner to whom this section applies must not, in the course of providing health services or professional care services to a person –

(a)   initiate discussion with the person that is in substance about voluntary assisted dying; or

(b)   in substance, suggest voluntary assisted dying to that person.

(3)   Nothing in subsection (2) prevents a registered health practitioner to whom this section applies providing information about voluntary assisted dying to a person at that person’s request.

(4)   A contravention of subsection (2) is to be regarded as unprofessional conduct within the meaning and for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.”.’.

These make amendments to clause 7 of this bill, which in turn make amendments to clause 8 of the act – specifically, amendments to the new section 8A, as well as I am proposing a new section 8B. This has been canvassed already in the chamber earlier this morning, but I will confirm that the amendments that I am moving here will provide that a discussion about VAD may be initiated by a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, a registered nurse, a psychologist and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioner. It specifically defines those five health practitioners as being able to initiate VAD discussions. In keeping with the existing provisions of the bill, this will require it to be done in the context of broader end-of-life conversations. It will also provide that health practitioners not in those five categories will still be able to discuss VAD with the patient if that patient is the one to initiate the conversation.

Georgie CROZIER: As consistent with my previous comments and questioning to Mr Galea around the broader aspects of his amendments, I will be supporting these amendments.

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated earlier, I will be supporting Mr Galea’s amendment.

Gaelle BROAD: Earlier we had similar ones, but mine was perhaps more restrictive to limit that conversation to doctors. I think a restriction is better than no restriction in the bill, but I do see this being an extension of the ability to bring up the topic with people, certainly an extension on the safeguards that were put in place in 2017. I prefer that it not be in there but am otherwise supportive.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I agree with Mrs Broad, and I thank Mr Galea for bringing this to the house. As I have stated earlier, I feel very strongly that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should be having the same medical attention and care and opportunities as everybody else, and I am concerned that with the addition of this, this is going to potentially take away from that. However, because I think it is an improvement on what is currently in there – which is extending out to all sorts of medical practitioners – and it is providing some sort of scope that is bringing it back to only certain professional people, on that basis, in spite of the fact that I still feel that I would like to offer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the same options, rather than the additional option where they may not get the same level of care and understanding, I will be supporting this amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will be supporting this amendment. I will have some questions to flag later, just more broadly on clause 7. I thank Mr Galea for the way in which he has gone about these amendments and for the pragmatism he and others have shown. His amendment, but also the amendment by Jess Wilson and Daniela De Martino, obviously attracted quite a bit of support. I think it really touched on a big issue where the government, the minister or advocates from that side of this bill had slightly overreached. To get this outcome is a really, really good thing. I will be supporting it.

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]