I am pleased to introduce this bill today because unlike many issues we face in this house, this is a policy problem with a simple solution. Currently, doctors and pharmacists are at risk of criminal prosecution if they use telehealth, email, text or phone calls in relation to any lawful voluntary assisted dying services. This means that people who are terminally ill and suffering and have the right to VAD services have to travel for face-to-face appointments. Even worse, patients who rely on Telehealth services due to distance or discomfort don't have equal access to end-of-life services that are supposed to be available to anyone who qualifies. This problem can be fixed by passing this bill which makes a minor amendment to the federal Criminal Code to make it clear that voluntary assisted dying is not suicide. This change has the broad backing of the states, medical professionals, academics and patient advocate groups. It is simple and could be done today. What is the problem the bill aims to fix? Let's look at four facts. Firstly, VAD is an accepted part of our health system. Since 2019, every state has passed legislation allowing VAD under strict conditions, with territories expected to legislate soon. Within this legislation, every state already has strong safeguards, at least three requests that are voluntary and enduring, at least two assessments by medical practitioners, the consideration of all treatment options and detailed processes set out to ensure that this very serious decision is given appropriate weight. The second fact, telehealth is an integral part of our health system. Telehealth has been hugely important in improving access of people in rural and remote Australia to a variety of health services, especially where specialists are needed. The third fact, there is an anomaly in the federal Criminal Code that prevents telehealth from being used for anything to do with VAD. An amendment to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act was passed in 2005, making it an offence to Council, promote or provide instruction on suicide through the use of a carriage service. That was 12 years before any jurisdiction in Australia had a VAD law. The stated intent of the amendment was the target pro suicide websites, Internet chat rooms and online cyber bullying. Suicide is not defined in the code but has been construed in its literal sense of intentional self-killing. The Commonwealth Criminal Code overrides state legislation so the laws made by the states allowing telehealth VAD services don't protect doctors and other medical practitioners. VAD is not suicide. There is a huge difference between the act of a desperate person who takes their life because they see no other way out and a rational decision made by a terminally ill person enduring intolerable suffering after discussion of the options with their medical professionals. Voluntary assisted dying is not a choice between life and death, it's a choice between a painful, drawnout and possibly traumatic death or a peaceful death with dignity. Those who access VAD services are making a choice between a hard death or a calm death. The fourth fact, there is a need for access to VAD services via telehealth. The way VAD laws have been taken up in every state shows the importance of choice, dignity and compassion when it comes to people who are terminally ill and suffering. Not allowing the use of telehealth in relation to VAD undermines all three of these core values. People are robbed of the choice or travel distances in pain, which robs them of dignity in a system that lacks compassion. At the moment doctors have three choices for patients who want to discuss VAD services but can't actually get to the doctors. They can deny their lawful right to medical assistance in dying, they can risk prosecution to deliver compassionate care using telehealth or they can insist on face-to-face consultations only. This involves not only pain and indignity for patients but also significant expense and inconvenience for doctors. This means in many, many cases, people are suffering greatly, especially outside capital cities. This is particularly bad in WA with our vast distances. There is a significant lack of equity in the provision of VAD services. This tragic anomaly is causing unnecessary harm, pain and distress to dying people and also to their friends and families. I've heard heartbreaking stories of terminally ill people travelling long distances in agony to meet doctors for a consultation in a car park or to pick up a prescription. Pharmacists are afraid to even discuss processes with doctors over the phone. The New South Wales VAD board cannot even have its meetings online because member for concerned they may be in breach of this law. When people don't have many days left to live, it's not compassionate or dignified to make them spend hours travelling long distances, usually in pain. I have heard WA stories like a man who is left deteriorating and in pain because his assessing medical practitioners were away in rural WA when the time came and he requested administration. I've heard about the ridiculous logistics of trying to get a practitioner, I care navigator and an interpreter to a rural location in person, which proved too challenging and meant the man died in pain without access to his preferred end-of-life choice. The stories are plentiful and heartbreaking. This bill makes a simple amendment, clarifying that lawful VAD is not within the definition of suicide under the relevant section. That's it, it's that simple. This bill has broad support from medical practitioners, VAD doctors, nurses and hospital pharmacists. It was identified as the number one reform priority at the inaugural VAD ANZ conference in Sydney last year and I want to thank Doctor Cameron McLaurin, medical oncologist and president of the VAD ANZ, who is in the gallery today, for his tireless work in making sure this issue is understood. It is supported by the state attorney generals, it has come up repeatedly on the agenda of the regular meeting of the attorney generals of all the states. Multiple AGs and Health Ministers have told me they are keen to this see the act amended to protect practitioners and enable greater access, particularly for regional patients. In conclusion, this is a significant problem with a very simple solution. It's good for patients and medical practitioners. We have introduced VAD because as a society, we value choice, compassion and dignity. I'm now calling on the federal government to fix this problem so that all Australians, irrespective of their postcode, have equal access to this choice if they qualify and comply with the strict conditions. And so that we show them compassion and dignity by not asking them spend their precious last days of travelling in pain and so that we respect the medical practitioners who undertake this important work by not prosecuting them as criminals. I commend this bill to the House and cede the remainder of my time to the member for Kooyong.