Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026: what it proposes

The short answer

Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026: what it proposes

The Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026 is a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young on 13 August 2026. It would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to clarify that the use of telehealth for voluntary assisted dying (VAD) does not constitute an offence under Subdivision G of Division 474 of the Criminal Code when carried out in line with state and territory VAD laws. The bill responds to a 2023 Federal Court ruling, Carr v Attorney-General (Cth) [2023] FCA 1500, which found that the ending of a person's life as authorised by Victoria's VAD legislation could be defined as assisting or counselling suicide under the Commonwealth offence provisions, with the result that telehealth consultations for VAD could be captured by the criminal law. As introduced, the bill was read a first time in the Senate on 13 August 2026 and the second reading was moved the same day. It is before the Senate and has not been enacted. The explanatory memorandum states the amendments would apply retrospectively so that medical professionals who used telehealth for VAD before commencement are protected.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill would do

The bill would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to clarify that it is not an offence under Subdivision G of Division 474 of the Criminal Code to use a carriage service (such as a phone, email or videoconference) in connection with acts or omissions that are lawfully carried out in accordance with voluntary assisted dying legislation in the relevant state or territory.

Subdivision G of Division 474 currently makes it an offence to publish or distribute material that counsels or incites suicide via a carriage service. The explanatory memorandum states that this offence was intended to prevent cyberbullying and prohibit pro-suicide websites, and was not intended to block access to appointments with medical professionals in relation to VAD.

The bill would not require telehealth to be used, and would not make it the only permitted method of consultation. It would also not amend the safeguards in each state and territory that ensure a person makes a free, informed choice, has decision-making capacity, and faces no pressure or coercion. It would not change how VAD medication is administered.

Evidence review

Why the bill was introduced

The explanatory memorandum explains that the Criminal Code does not define the term 'suicide', and therefore does not exclude voluntary assisted dying from the relevant criminal offence. This has the effect of allowing VAD to be captured within the meaning of 'suicide'.

In Carr v Attorney-General (Cth) [2023] FCA 1500, the Federal Court ruled that the ending of a person's life, as authorised by Victoria's VAD legislation, could be defined as assisting or counselling suicide, and so telehealth consultations for VAD could qualify as a criminal offence. The memorandum says the ruling supersedes state and territory laws which do allow the use of telehealth during the VAD process.

The memorandum states the ruling, and the lack of clarity in the legislation on definitions of suicide, have opened VAD clinicians and medical professionals up to significant liability, forcing discussions on lawful VAD to occur only at face-to-face appointments.

Evidence review

Who the bill would affect

The bill would primarily affect medical professionals and clinicians involved in voluntary assisted dying, by clarifying that telehealth consultations conducted in accordance with state and territory VAD laws are not federal criminal offences.

The explanatory memorandum argues the current position undermines equal access to healthcare for people living in rural, regional and remote areas who face greater barriers to attending in-person appointments; creates a two-class medical system in which those who need telehealth cannot access it; and undermines state and territory authority over VAD schemes, which are largely created and administered by the states and territories.

Evidence review

How VAD is regulated in Australia

Voluntary assisted dying is regulated by state and territory legislation. Victoria was the first jurisdiction to legalise VAD, followed by Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Each scheme sets its own eligibility criteria, safeguards, and processes, including requirements about how many doctors must assess a person and how requests are made.

The Commonwealth Criminal Code operates alongside these schemes. This bill is one of a series of private members' and senators' bills that seek to adjust the interaction between Commonwealth criminal law and state and territory VAD schemes.

Evidence review

Retrospective application and commencement

According to the explanatory memorandum, the bill would apply retrospectively to ensure any medical professionals who used telehealth for VAD prior to the commencement of the legislation are protected.

The Act would commence the day after it receives Royal Assent. The bill has not yet passed the Senate or the House of Representatives, and has not received Royal Assent.

Evidence review

Parliamentary status

The bill was introduced in the Senate and read a first time on 13 August 2026, with the second reading moved the same day by Senator Hanson-Young. It is listed as before the Senate in the 48th Parliament.

To become law, the bill would need to pass the Senate, be agreed to by the House of Representatives, and receive Royal Assent. As a private senator's bill, it does not form part of the government's legislative program, and its progress depends on the support of the Senate and the government's willingness to allow time for debate.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer