NSW Veterinary Law Changes: What Animal Owners Need To Know
The NSW Government is proposing major changes to veterinary regulation. While many of the practical rules have not yet been written, the reforms could influence how you access veterinary care in the future.
Key points
- The proposed reforms may influence telehealth, mobile vets, prescriptions, after-hours advice and access to care in regional areas.
- Some changes could affect how animal owners access veterinary care in the future.
- The legislation creates the framework, but many of the practical details will be developed later through standards.
- The consultation is open now, and feedback from animal owners may help shape the future of veterinary care in NSW.
Most people have never heard of the NSW Veterinary Practice Act. Yet the NSW Government is currently proposing the biggest overhaul of veterinary regulation since the Act was introduced in 2003.
While that may sound like something that only affects veterinarians, the reality is much broader. The decisions being made now could influence how you access veterinary care in the future.
That includes:
- telehealth consultations
- mobile vet services
- after-hours veterinary advice
- access to medications
- second opinions
- veterinary care in regional and rural communities
As a veterinarian who has been involved in telehealth online vet consultations for more than 20 years, I believe many of the proposed reforms deserve discussion. This is not because telehealth should be unregulated or because regulation is inherently bad. But because the decisions made today may shape how animal owners access veterinary care for years to come.
Why I’m Writing About This
My perspective comes from practical experience providing veterinary care.
In 2004, while operating an equine veterinary practice in New Zealand, I regularly advised horse owners by telephone. Sometimes it was a potential colic case. Sometimes it was a lameness issue. Sometimes it was helping an owner decide whether immediate veterinary attention was required.
In 2015, I founded Your Vet Online, Australia’s first 24/7 veterinary telehealth service.
Over two decades, I have seen how remote veterinary advice can help owners access care sooner, make informed decisions and determine when urgent treatment is required.
Of course, I’ve also seen its limitations.
Online vet advice can’t replace surgery, diagnostic imaging or every physical exam. But it can help people understand what’s happening and what to do next, and it’s that experience that shapes my view of the proposed reforms.
I also recognise that my perspective is shaped by my involvement in veterinary telehealth. As the founder of Your Vet Online, I’ve spent years working in a field that may be directly affected by these reforms.
I realise some readers may view that as a potential conflict of interest. However, after more than 20 years working in veterinary telehealth, I believe that practical experience provides valuable insight into how these reforms may affect animal owners in the real world.
Regardless of where people stand on telehealth, I believe decisions that affect access to veterinary care should be informed by evidence, practical experience and broad consultation.
Ultimately, this article isn’t about protecting any particular business model. It’s about understanding how the proposed reforms may affect animal owners and ensuring that future standards are developed transparently and in the interests of animal welfare, access to care and informed consumer choice.
What Is Being Proposed?
The NSW Government is proposing to replace the current Veterinary Practice Act 2003 with a new Veterinary Services Act.
According to the Government, the aim is to modernise veterinary regulation, improve access to veterinary services and better reflect how veterinary care is delivered today.
You can read the Government’s announcement, consultation paper and draft legislation through the NSW Government’s Have Your Say website.
The proposed reforms cover much more than telehealth. They include changes to:
- veterinary telehealth services
- mobile veterinary services
- veterinary nurses and technologists
- complaints and disciplinary processes
- veterinary business regulation
- professional standards
- workforce and access initiatives
Some of the key proposals include:
Licensing Telehealth Services
For the first time, veterinary telehealth services would be formally recognised and regulated.
Why it matters:
Future standards may influence how veterinarians provide remote advice, what information is required before providing care and how telehealth fits alongside traditional veterinary services.
Licensing Mobile Veterinary Services
Mobile veterinary services would also operate within a dedicated regulatory framework.
Why it matters:
Many owners rely on mobile veterinarians for home visits, palliative care, equine services, livestock medicine and animals that find clinic visits stressful. Future standards may influence how these services operate.
Regulation Of Veterinary Nurses And Technologists
The reforms propose formal registration and regulation of veterinary nurses and veterinary technologists.
Why it matters:
This could provide greater professional recognition and clearer career pathways while helping define the roles and responsibilities of veterinary team members.
A New Veterinary Services Board
The proposal would replace the current Veterinary Practitioners Board with a Veterinary Services Board.
Why it matters:
The new Board would play a significant role in developing the standards that determine how many of these reforms operate in practice.
New Standards
This is perhaps the most important aspect of the proposal.
The legislation creates the framework, but many of the practical details will be developed later through standards.
Why it matters:
These standards may ultimately determine how telehealth operates, how mobile veterinary services function, prescribing requirements, veterinary-client-patient relationship requirements and the use of emerging technologies.
Modernising Complaints And Investigations
The reforms propose changes to how complaints are managed and investigated.
Why it matters:
The Government says this aims to improve consistency, efficiency and public confidence in veterinary services.
Workforce And Access Initiatives
The reforms are also intended to address workforce challenges and improve access to veterinary care, particularly in regional and rural communities.
Why it matters:
Any new framework should ultimately be judged on whether it improves access to care while maintaining high standards of animal welfare.
On the surface, many of these proposals appear sensible. The real debate is not whether veterinary services should be regulated. They already are. The debate is how these reforms will work in practice, what evidence supports them and whether they will improve access to veterinary care without creating unintended consequences.
Modernising The Act Makes Sense. The Details Matter.
Few people would argue that a law written in 2003 should remain unchanged forever. Veterinary medicine, technology and consumer expectations have changed dramatically over the past two decades.
The challenge is not whether the Act should be modernised. The challenge is ensuring that the new framework improves animal welfare, supports access to care and reflects how veterinary services are delivered in 2026 and beyond, rather than how they were delivered in 2003.
Many of the broad objectives appear sensible. The debate lies in the details. And, those details have not yet been written.
Will Veterinary Care Become More Expensive?
One question many animal owners will understandably ask is whether these reforms could affect the cost of veterinary care.
At this stage, nobody knows.
The Government says the proposed reforms are intended to improve access to veterinary services and modernise regulation. However, new licensing frameworks, registration requirements, compliance obligations and regulatory oversight all carry costs.
Some of those costs may be absorbed by veterinary businesses. Others may ultimately be passed on to animal owners. That does not mean the reforms will necessarily increase prices.
It does mean that any additional regulatory burden should be justified by clear improvements in animal welfare, consumer protection or access to care.
At a time when many Australians are already concerned about the affordability of veterinary services, this is a question worth asking.
Why Telehealth Matters
Telehealth is often misunderstood. It’s not a replacement for traditional veterinary care. But it can help owners determine whether a problem is urgent, whether monitoring is appropriate or whether immediate vet attention is required.
Many owners seek telehealth because:
- their clinic is closed
- appointments are unavailable
- they can’t take time off work
- they live in a regional area
- they are travelling
- they need urgent guidance
In many situations, telehealth is not replacing veterinary care. It’s helping owners access vet advice when no other option is immediately available.
Why Consumers Find This Confusing
One of the most common questions I hear is:
“Why can my doctor use telehealth to prescribe, but my vet can’t?”
Veterinary medicine is not identical to human healthcare. Animals can’t describe their symptoms. However, many Australians are now familiar with telehealth through their own healthcare experiences.
They use telehealth to:
- discuss symptoms
- review results
- obtain referrals
- manage chronic conditions
- receive prescriptions in appropriate circumstances
As a result, many animal owners struggle to understand why veterinary telehealth is treated differently.
If veterinary telehealth requires greater restrictions, many owners will reasonably ask:
- What evidence supports that distinction?
- How does it improve animal welfare? And
- What are the unintended consequences?
The Prescription Question
This is one of the most common concerns raised by animal owners.
Veterinarians are trusted every day to:
- diagnose disease
- prescribe medication
- make complex welfare decisions
- assist animal owners to make the best decisions for their animals
This is not an argument for unrestricted prescribing. It’s an argument for evidence-based regulation. If restrictions on remote prescribing are proposed, the profession and the public need to understand:
- what problem is being solved
- what evidence supports the restriction
- whether existing professional regulation is insufficient
- how the restriction improves welfare outcomes
As a telehealth provider, I frequently speak with owners who struggle to understand why a vet may be able to make clinical decisions, assess risk and determine urgency, but may be prevented from prescribing even when records, history and supporting information are available.
These are reasonable questions that deserve clear answers.
Is The Real Issue A VCPR Or A Physical Examination?
One of the key concepts in veterinary regulation is something called a veterinary-client-patient relationship, often shortened to VCPR.
In simple terms, a VCPR means there is an established relationship between the veterinarian, the animal owner and the animal being treated. Traditionally, this has often involved the veterinarian physically examining the animal or visiting the property where the animal is kept.
Supporters of strict VCPR requirements argue they improve continuity of care, prescribing safety and accountability because the veterinarian already knows the patient and its medical history. At first glance, that sounds sensible. However, in practice the issue is often more complex.
In large veterinary groups, multiple veterinarians may have access to the same records despite never having personally examined the animal.
In some livestock and production animal settings, a veterinarian may only need to visit a property periodically to maintain a formal relationship, even though day-to-day care decisions are based largely on records, history and information provided by the owner.
This raises an important question. Is patient safety improved primarily because a formal VCPR exists, or because the veterinarian has sufficient information to make a safe clinical decision?
For example, if a veterinarian has access to detailed medical records, photographs, videos and a thorough history, should that be treated differently from a veterinarian who technically has a VCPR but has not personally examined the animal for many months?
There are no simple answers.
However, as the Government considers how telehealth and remote veterinary services should operate in the future, this is likely to become one of the most important discussions in the entire reform process.
Are We Solving A Demonstrated Problem?
Before introducing new restrictions, licensing requirements or prescribing rules, it is reasonable to ask what problem the reforms are trying to solve.
If telehealth services, mobile veterinary services or other emerging models of care are causing significant animal welfare concerns, the public deserves to understand the nature and scale of those concerns.
- How many telehealth or mobile vet-related complaints have been made?
- What types of issues were involved?
- Did they result in harm to animals?
- Were they isolated incidents or evidence of a broader problem?
The consultation should clearly explain the evidence used to support these reforms, including the scale and nature of any telehealth-related complaints over the past 20 years.
That doesn’t mean any mobile or online vet advice is risk free, nor does it mean regulation is unnecessary. It simply means that decisions affecting how animal owners access vet care need to be based on demonstrated evidence and proportionate to the risks being identified.
Who Will Write The Rules?
Perhaps the most important issue is one that has received little attention.
The rules have not yet been written.
This legislation only creates the framework. The detailed standards will be developed later by the proposed Veterinary Services Board. Those standards may ultimately determine:
- how telehealth operates
- how mobile veterinary services operate
- remote prescribing requirements
- veterinary-client-patient relationship requirements
- use of emerging technologies
In many ways, these standards may have more impact on your access to veterinary care than the legislation itself.
That is why transparency and consultation matter.
The future of veterinary care affects not only vets, but also pet owners, horse owners, livestock producers, veterinary nurses, regional communities.
Given the significance of these decisions, many stakeholders may reasonably expect the standards to be developed through a transparent consultation process involving veterinarians, veterinary nurses, animal owners, livestock producers, regional communities, telehealth providers and mobile veterinary practitioners.
Why Your Voice Matters
The Government says these reforms are intended to improve access to veterinary care. Most of us, vets and animal owners, support that goal. The challenge is ensuring the final framework improves welfare, preserves access, supports consumer choice and is based on evidence.
The consultation is open now.
Importantly, the standards have not yet been written.
If you value access to veterinary care, whether that’s through your local clinic, a mobile veterinarian, after-hours advice or telehealth, now is the time to understand the proposals and have your say.
Because the decisions made today may influence how you access veterinary care for years to come.
Looking For The Veterinary Perspective?
This article focuses on what the proposed reforms may mean for animal owners and consumer choice.
Veterinarians, practice owners and industry professionals may also be interested in my companion article examining what the NSW veterinary reforms mean for veterinarians and veterinary businesses, including professional judgement, prescribing, workforce sustainability, business ownership and the future of veterinary regulation.
Want To Learn More or Have Your Say?
Read the proposed reforms and submit feedback through the NSW Government consultation process:
