The Northern Territory is excitingly at the same point in its legislative history. In response, Advocates for Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) are fervently advocating for more immediate reforms. Steve, a terminally ill patient facing an agonizing prognosis, represents the human cost of delayed legislation, expressing a desire for the choice to end his life on his own terms. In 2025, the NT will be the only Australian jurisdiction without Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) legislation. The need for change only grows stronger.
In 1995, the NT became the first region in Australia to legalize VAD under the leadership of then-Chief Minister Marshall Perron. That year, the NT parliament passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. After decades of struggle, this landmark decision opened the door to a more progressive approach to end-of-life choices. This transformative legislation took a huge blow in 1997. The federal parliament then passed a bill to repeal that law, preventing both of Australia’s territories from legalizing VAD until 2022.
Recent developments have reignited discussions surrounding VAD. In May 2025, Justine Davis went further by introducing a motion. She called on the NT government to introduce VAD, welcoming a society that allows compassionate choices and better end-of-life care. The Australian Medical Association (AMA), which once opposed VAD, has now shifted its focus towards regulation rather than outright rejection, reflecting changing societal attitudes towards assisted dying.
Historical Context of VAD in the Northern Territory
The path of VAD in the Northern Territory has been rocky from the start. In 1995, with growing public support and optimism, Marshall Perron introduced the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. The bill’s passage marked a significant milestone in Australian legislative history, signifying a progressive stance on personal autonomy and end-of-life choices.
The momentum was short-lived. Then, in 1997, Liberal MP Kevin Andrews introduced a unilateral federal law imposing a moratorium on any such measures that overrode the Northern Territory’s VAD law. This law limited the ability of Australia’s territories to pass similar laws in the future. This counterproductive legislative barrier made it impossible to even have a conversation about VAD for more than 20 years.
In 2022, this advocacy was replaced by a concerted effort that changed the tide on public perceptions. This momentum created a groundswell of support for reinstating VAD in NT. An internationally respected expert advisory panel commissioned by the former Labor government held months of hearings and consultations over an eight-month period. They built meaningful engagement with communities throughout the territory and crafted holistic recommendations to drive major, systemic legislative reform.
Consultation and Community Engagement
Community engagement has been an important part of the current effort to pass VAD legislation. The expert advisory panel held 10 consultation sessions and engaged with various stakeholders, including health, education, community, and faith organizations. Dr. Monani emphasized that “all communities across the territory were given the opportunity to contribute, and Indigenous communities did so too.”
Many stakeholders raised red flags about the extent of community consultation—both in depth and breadth. As Lia Finocchiaro noted, public debate even reached the larger cities strung along the Stuart Highway. Remote communities were poorly represented. She stated, “The original report was consulted on up and down the Stuart Highway… it wasn’t taken out to remote communities.” This shows the importance of including Aboriginal people in conversations impacting all Australians that call the NT home.
As conversations progress, some community members often find themselves vocalizing opposing opinions on VAD. Devaki Monani remarked on the complex interplay between personal beliefs and the desire for legislative change, saying, “A lot of people came up to me after the consultation and said ‘look, I’m Christian and VAD is at crossroads with my belief systems.’” This feeling is indicative of a larger discussion happening on the ground in communities about reconciling ethical convictions while respecting individual autonomy.
The Personal Impact of Delayed Legislation
The lack of VAD legislation in the NT takes a harsh toll on people like Steve. As he deals with the struggles —physical, emotional and spiritual — of a terminal illness. With just months to live, he expresses a deep need for more options in a system that provides little to none. He stated, “I’m looking forward to an agonising number of weeks,” expressing a desire to avoid suffering at all costs.
Steve’s story highlights the need that drives advocacy work. He explained his struggles with deteriorating health: “If I have a fall I’ll possibly bleed out here at home. Otherwise I can admit myself to hospital and bleed out there.” His argument for compassion strikes a chord with those of us that understand that when it comes to end-of-life choices, people deserve more control over their decisions.
Justine Davis encapsulated the sentiments driving this legislative push by asserting that “today marks a significant victory for people in the Northern Territory.” She continued, “This decision will bring much needed relief for those who are suffering,” indicating a growing recognition of the importance of compassionate choices in healthcare.
Philip Nitschke, the best known international advocate for VAD, had denounced previous resistance from medical bodies as “paternalistic.” He argued that personal choice regarding end-of-life matters should be paramount: “The argument was that doctors don’t end lives; doctors save lives. Once you start ending lives, it’ll decimate the so-called doctor-patient relationship.” His comments are indicative of an emerging and changing conversation in medical spaces about the value and importance of patient autonomy.
