Wednesday, 18 June 2025

Department of Health

Review of the Operation of Victoria's Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:39): I rise to speak on the review of the operation of Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (VAD act), published in October 2024. I rise to give voice to profound concerns shared by representatives of over 2 million Victorians as articulated in a very powerful submission from Victorian faith leaders, including the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, the Board of Imams Victoria, the Hindu Council of Australia, Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria, Sikh Gurduara council, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, the Chaldean diocese of Australia, the Syro Malabar Eparchy of St Thomas the Apostle, the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Melbourne, the Maronite eparchy of Australia and many others.

These communities provide invaluable care which spans over 130 years in our hospitals, aged care facilities and social services and is driven by a commitment to holistic care for the most vulnerable. Their submission highlights a deeply flawed consultation process regarding the proposed changes to the VAD act. These amendments were not recommended by the five-year review of the act. Indeed the government explicitly stated the review would not consider legislative changes. Yet here we are with vague proposals, rushed consultation and a distinct lack of transparency. I have been pleased to undertake discussions with all of these communities and thank them for their willingness to articulate this Labor government policy to their communities as we go on with this important debate.

All parties, whether proponents of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) or not, deserve to know how these changes will be legislated given the sensitivities and strongly held views on matters of life and death. Proper, thorough public consideration and consultation are absolutely essential given this gravity. Many of the proposed changes were deeply explored by this Parliament and rejected. When the legislation first came to pass a few years ago, it was heralded by the Labor government at the time as the safest in the world with 68 safeguards, safeguards which this government is now trying to rush through and redefine as access issues. Safeguards, by their nature, curtail access. The responsibility is on this government to carefully explain, in consultation with Victorians, what has changed from a clinical perspective rather than an ideological one to warrant such amendments.

Many of the proposed changes would critically weaken protections for vulnerable Victorians. This is particularly concerning when many barriers already exist in accessing palliative and normal end-of-life care services in Victoria, particularly for patients and residents who have complex needs, are based in rural or regional areas or are experiencing significant vulnerabilities. Data also shows that feeling like a burden is a key reason for seeking VAD measures. These amendments thus have the potential to make VAD more accessible than normal end-of-life care services. The environment such a situation creates is inherently coercive.

Let me be clear: VAD is not health care, and forcing conscientious objectors to violate their beliefs is an affront to deeply held principles. It goes against all advice to date. The current VAD act states that all persons, including health practitioners, have the right to be shown respect for their culture, beliefs, values and personal characteristics. The final report of the early inquiry into end-of-life choices strongly recommended that health services, as well as individual health practitioners, not be forced to participate in assisted dying.

VAD is a complex area. It requires sensitivity rather than interjections, and a blunt approach without consultation, which requires all health care professionals to provide minimum information, could also give rise to the risk that inappropriately trained health professionals could end up providing incomplete or inaccurate information, such as shortening time between requests or reducing safeguards. I say to the Minister for Health: publish an exposure draft of the changes and allow for public consideration as demanded by faith leaders or, frankly, abandon this legislation completely.