Pulse ·
Parliament gets a free vote on ending the VAD telehealth ban
The federal government has announced MPs will be allowed a conscience vote on whether to end the legislative prohibition on telehealth for voluntary assisted dying assessments. VAD is now legal across all Australian states; the ban on telehealth use has been a persistent equity concern for rural and remote communities who cannot reach in-person assessments.
If the free vote passes, GPs in regional and remote areas could conduct VAD eligibility assessments via telehealth rather than requiring in-person attendance — often impossible for patients with advanced illness and limited mobility. No decision has been made; the vote outcome is genuinely uncertain.
What just happened
The federal government has announced it will allow MPs a conscience vote on lifting the legislative prohibition on using telehealth for voluntary assisted dying assessments — a restriction that has created a two-tier access system since VAD began rolling out across Australian states in 2019.
Voluntary assisted dying is now legal in every Australian state: Victoria (June 2019), Western Australia (July 2021), Tasmania (October 2022), South Australia (January 2023), Queensland (January 2023), and New South Wales (November 2023). Each state’s scheme requires a formal eligibility assessment process — typically two to three independent assessments — conducted by appropriately trained medical practitioners.
The federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act currently prohibits the use of telecommunications technology for these assessments. In practice, this means that in states where VAD is legal, all eligibility assessments must be conducted in person. For a patient with metastatic cancer, advanced motor neurone disease, or another condition driving VAD eligibility, in-person attendance may mean travelling significant distances while seriously ill, or the assessment simply not happening.
The AMA has publicly backed lifting the telehealth ban. The RACGP supports the principle that access to legal medical care should not be determined by where a patient lives.
Both-and
The access equity argument
The population most affected by the telehealth ban is predictable: people in rural and remote Australia who do not have a VAD-trained practitioner within reasonable travel distance, and people with serious illness whose condition makes travel physically prohibitive.
This is the same equity gap that has driven every significant expansion of telehealth in Australian general practice over the past decade. The argument that certain medical assessments require in-person attendance is often valid — but it needs to be accompanied by a parallel commitment to ensuring in-person services are actually accessible. For VAD assessments in rural and remote settings, they frequently are not.
The AMA’s position frames this as a patient safety and equity matter: the inability to access telehealth does not prevent someone from seeking VAD — it prevents those in rural and remote areas from doing so. Legal medical care in Australia should not come with a postcoded eligibility caveat.
The clinical complexity argument
In-person requirements for VAD assessments are not without clinical rationale. The assessments are designed to establish decision-making capacity, the voluntary nature of the request, the diagnosis and prognosis, and whether the person has been informed of alternatives including palliative care. Direct observation — facial expression, affect, non-verbal cues — is part of how experienced practitioners assess capacity and voluntariness.
The counterargument: telehealth has been integrated into capacity assessment, advance care planning conversations, and palliative care consultations throughout the Australian health system over the past six years without evidence that these processes produce materially worse clinical or ethical outcomes than in-person alternatives. The claim that VAD assessments specifically require in-person contact needs to engage with that evidence base rather than resting on intuition.
There is also a practical point about what “in-person” means when a patient cannot travel. If the alternative to a telehealth assessment is no assessment at all — not a higher-quality in-person assessment — the in-person requirement produces an outcome that serves neither safety nor clinical integrity.
The conscience vote structure
The decision to allow a free vote means Labor MPs will not be subject to party discipline on the question. The bill’s passage or failure will depend on the individual positions of crossbench, Liberal, and Labor MPs. The outcome is genuinely uncertain.
Previous conscience votes in the federal parliament — including on voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory (1997), same-sex marriage (2017), and elements of abortion legislation — have demonstrated these votes can produce unexpected results in either direction. Community attitudes toward VAD have shifted substantially since 1997, with majority support in national polling. But polling support and parliamentary outcomes are different things.
My two cents
From a general practice perspective, this story has two layers.
The first is immediate: if the free vote passes, GPs who are trained and registered VAD assessors in their state would be able to conduct assessments via telehealth — potentially reaching patients they currently cannot reach because of the geography constraint. This is a change in delivery mechanism, not a change in eligibility criteria or the rigour of the assessment process.
The second layer is harder to articulate but worth holding. VAD is a legal medical practice in every Australian state. A federal telecommunications law that restricts how that legal practice is delivered is — whatever its original rationale — now in tension with equitable access to healthcare across jurisdictions. The free vote is a chance for parliament to decide whether to resolve that tension.
The telehealth component is the clearest piece. The clinical complexity of VAD assessment does not disappear on a video screen; what disappears is the geography barrier for a seriously ill person who cannot travel.
Whatever one’s view on VAD itself, the access argument is straightforward: a medical process that is legal and available in a given state should be accessible to people in that state, regardless of where they live or how ill they are.
Verdict: maybe — outcome of the conscience vote is genuinely uncertain; GP practice implications will depend on whether the legislation passes.
Sources cited
- AusDoc newsroom. Federal government to allow MPs a free vote on whether to end VAD telehealth ban. AusDoc, 27 July 2026. https://www.ausdoc.com.au/news/fed-govt-to-allow-mps-a-free-vote-on-whether-to-end-vad-telehealth-ban/
Frequently asked questions
-
Is voluntary assisted dying legal in my state?
VAD is now legal across all Australian states: Victoria (June 2019), Western Australia (July 2021), Tasmania (October 2022), South Australia (January 2023), Queensland (January 2023), and New South Wales (November 2023). Eligibility criteria vary by state but generally require an advanced, serious, incurable illness causing intolerable suffering and a life expectancy measured in months. Your GP can refer you to a VAD navigator service if you want to understand eligibility in your state.
-
If the telehealth ban is lifted, will my GP be able to assist with VAD by video?
Not automatically. GPs need to complete specific VAD training and be listed as a participating practitioner in their state before they can conduct VAD assessments. Lifting the federal telehealth ban would remove a legal barrier to conducting those assessments via video — it would not create new obligations for any GP. Patients interested in VAD should start by asking their GP whether they participate or can provide a referral to a participating practitioner.