Opposition to divisive ‘faith-based’ VAD bill grows
“It’s a retrograde step for NSW and undermines rights guaranteed in Australia’s aged care framework”
Eighteen health and legal organisations have signed a joint statement opposing legislation that would allow aged care providers in New South Wales to block residents from accessing voluntary assisted dying (VAD).
The Voluntary Assisted Dying Amendment (Residential Facilities) Bill 2025, introduced to NSW parliament by Liberal Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) Susan Carter on October 15, is designed to allow faith-based aged care providers to be able to choose whether a resident can access VAD within their facility.
Assistant Minister Carter said the bill was “born of conversations” with aged care providers, faith leaders, residents of faith-based aged care facilities and their families.
“This is a bill that seeks to honour those residents and allow them to end their days in peace and comfort, supported by those who share their ethos and their faith-based approach to life,” she told the Legislative Council.
“It is a bill that seeks to recognise the excellent work done by those who care for our aged in faith-based facilities and support their right to work in accordance with their consciences.
“It is a bill that is designed to recognise that faith-based aged-care facilities, for whom care is a primary value, should be able to provide that care to members of their families, consistent with their values.”
Advocates, health professionals, providers and older people from across the state have slammed the Bill, labelling it, not only constitutionally invalid, but, “cruel” and “ill-conceived”.
“The bill would mean dying people are forced to find alternative accommodation and care when they need support the most,” the joint statement reads.
“In states where providers do not have obligations under VAD legislation, residents have been forced to move facilities in their final days and weeks. This inflicts stress, anxiety and harm on elderly people in aged care and rolls back carefully crafted rights in the NSW VAD Act.
“It’s a retrograde step for NSW and undermines rights guaranteed in Australia’s aged care framework.”
The statement lists five reasons why the bill “must not succeed” :
- The bill contradicts rights enshrined in federal laws and is constitutionally invalid
- Forcing dying people to transfer to alternative facilities has the potential to causes serious harm and exacerbates suffering
- Aged Care is a person’s home. People have a right to access legal medical choices in the privacy of their own home
- People in rural and regional areas, where choice of Aged Care is limited, will be most severely impacted
- The surprise bill preempts and undermines the statutory review of the NSW VAD law, which begins next month.
Picture: Go Gentle Australia.
Go Gentle Australia chief Linda Swan has urged members of the Upper House to vote down the bill, which she says has the potential to “inflict serious harm on some of our most vulnerable older people.”
“When a person enters residential aged care, that place becomes their home. This bill would unreasonably allow an aged care home to force an older dying person off the premises,” Dr Swan said.
“This would be no matter how unwell or close to death that person is. In effect they would be forced out of familiar surroundings, and away from their friends and community.
“These politicians seem to forget that older people have rights no matter where they live. The federal aged care regulator, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, has made it crystal clear that ‘a person should not be disadvantaged if they live in an aged care facility and want information about and/or access to VAD’.”
From November 1, the Aged Care Act dictates that aged care providers are required to allow reasonable on-site access for external health professionals, and in NSW specifically, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 gives all aged care residents the right to arrange and access all parts of the VAD process on the premises, from the first request to the administering of VAD medication.
Greens NSW Spokesperson for Health Dr Amanda Cohn said Assistant Minister Carter’s bill will result in a disproportionate disadvantage for older people living in regional and remote locations, who may have nowhere else to go if their residential aged care facility denies them access to VAD.
“This bill is extraordinarily out of touch with people’s real experiences of aged care,” Dr Cohn said.
“Older people and people with terminal illness have the same rights, no matter where they live.
“Towns like Forbes, Muswellbrook and Coraki only have one aged care facility and because they’re run by a faith-based provider, this bill means residents will be forced out of their homes and towns to access their right to voluntary assisted dying.”
A statutory review of NSW VAD law is due to commence after 28 November 2025.
Email: rebecca.cox@news.com.au
Susan Carter has obviously not worked in Aged Care. Often the staff become the residents support system and to deprive them of their support and deny the resident a choice at such a time is discrimatory and heart breaking and cruel. If the organisation doesn’t want to be involved then that is up to them but have a process whereby some-one else takes the responsibility to assist when required.
There is no mention of Palliative Care in this article.
There is good palliative care in aged care facilities and therefore there should not be any worries about people suffering especially when they are end of life.
Good palliative care practices need to be available for all especially for those residing in aged care facilities.
I totally agree with the Liberal MLC Susan Carter introducing a bill to allow faith-based aged care providers in NSW to deny residents’ access to VAD.
Faith based providers and moreso Religious organizations will not participate in assisted suicide, therefore this bill is crucial for such facilites.
The religious aged care providers who want this right to force residents from their homes should come out publicly and explain to the community (including their current and future residents) why they believe their religious ideology should have priority over the end of life rights of residents in their care.