South Australian Labor government ‘implores’ Albanese government to legislate telehealth for VAD care

South Australia’s Labor government has formally challenged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s stance on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) by urging the federal government to amend legislation to permit telehealth consultations for patients. In a letter dated July 30, 2026, South Australia’s Health Minister Blair Boyer, along with Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Kyam Maher, addressed federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, calling for legislative changes to align with modern healthcare practices. The request follows a decision by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) national conference in July 2026 to remove the ban on using telehealth in VAD care, despite Albanese’s personal opposition to the measure. The letter emphasized that the current restrictions under the Criminal Code create barriers for terminally ill individuals, especially those in regional and remote areas, where access to in-person medical services is limited. It argued that the existing legal framework fails to account for the evolving role of telehealth in delivering equitable healthcare. The ministers proposed a targeted amendment to the definition of “suicide” within the Criminal Code to exclude conduct carried out under VAD state and territory laws. This change, they claimed, would ensure consistency with contemporary medical standards and reduce disparities between jurisdictions. The letter included signatures from 19 health professionals and advocacy groups, including several VAD practitioners, underscoring broad support for the proposal. Boyer stated that no formal response had been received from the federal government as of early September 2026. A spokesperson confirmed that the position was endorsed by the South Australian cabinet, reflecting a unified approach among state officials. Meanwhile, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and independent MP Kate Chaney have introduced separate bills into Parliament aimed at enabling telehealth for VAD care. Hanson-Young criticized Albanese for allowing his personal views to override broader public interest in end-of-life care, stating that the prime minister should not let his opinion block a conscience vote. Her comments highlight growing political pressure on the federal government to reconsider its stance. Albanese has consistently maintained that mandatory face-to-face consultations are necessary safeguards for patient safety. He has expressed concerns that permitting telehealth could weaken these protections, potentially leading to ethical dilemmas or misinterpretations of patient intent. During the ALP national conference, Rowland echoed similar sentiments, expressing reservations about altering the law. Despite these objections, the state government’s push for reform signals a potential shift in policy direction. The situation reflects a wider tension between state and federal authorities on issues related to healthcare regulation and patient rights. While the federal government has historically retained control over criminal law matters, the increasing reliance on telehealth in rural and remote regions has prompted calls for greater flexibility. Advocates argue that outdated legal provisions are no longer suitable for addressing modern healthcare challenges, particularly in areas where physical access is constrained. As the debate continues, the outcome of this legislative challenge could set a precedent for future reforms in end-of-life care. With multiple stakeholders, state governments, parliamentary representatives, and healthcare providers, advocating for change, the pressure on the federal government to act is mounting. Whether Albanese and his administration will respond to these demands remains uncertain, but the implications for patient autonomy and healthcare accessibility are significant.