Wednesday, 11 September 2024

Committees

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Reference

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:43): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that the continued prohibition of cannabis forces thousands of Victorians through the criminal justice system, wastes immense police resources, empowers the illicit market and is at odds with public sentiment, with 80 per cent of Australians believing that the possession of cannabis should not be a criminal offence;

(2) requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, no later than 18 March 2025, on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023, including consideration of the impacts of the Australian Capital Territory’s decriminalisation of the personal use of cannabis; and

(3) defers the second reading of this bill until the final report of the committee is presented to the house in accordance with the terms of this resolution.

To understand why we are here today, I think it is useful that I begin by taking you back to November last year, when we first debated this bill. During debate the Minister for Mental Health, Minister Stitt, stated that:

… the government is amenable to ongoing discussions with the Legalise Cannabis Victoria Party on this topic and a process that would take the advice of experts and engage with the community.

We also heard from the opposition that:

… we need more data to come in on this.

Following this debate we continued to work with the government to understand what a process for reform could look like. While this work was underway it was important to us that the many Victorians calling for change continued to be heard. That is why earlier this year we presented a petition signed by almost 3000 people to allow for the consumption and possession of small quantities of cannabis. It only took us a handful of days to collect these signatures, a testament to how many people are sick and tired of the continued prohibition of cannabis. This government responded to our petition in July this year. In their response they cited the need for evidence-based action and that health-led policies towards drug use yield positive social and economic outcomes. So a pattern begins to emerge – a bipartisan appetite for advice, community engagement and evidence-based action. This is why today we seek to debate this motion and ensure that this government walks the talk. Taking our bill through the committee process will allow us to hear from experts, consult with the community and review the evidence, including by considering the experience of the ACT.

Debates around the impacts of cannabis prohibition are not new. In fact former Premier Jeff Kennett has stated on several occasions that one of his greatest regrets is that he did not get his party over the line to decriminalise cannabis when it was considered in 1996. Interestingly, when I review some of the newspaper clippings from this time I can see that all of the arguments put forward back then, nearly 30 years ago, are the same arguments I am putting forward today. I would like to refer to one pearler I found from 14 March 1996 in the Herald Sun from ‘Regular smoker, country Victoria’:

My husband and I are smokers (over 20 years) … We do not take other drugs. We are not mindless, crazed junkies, nor are we thieves.

We both have responsible jobs and we have two beautiful, well-looked after and intelligent children. About 90 per cent of our friends are smokers and most are successful professionals.

We used to grow a couple of plants for our own use but since we got busted a couple of years ago (three plants, $450 fine and a criminal conviction), we now buy from dealers. By keeping marijuana laws as they are we are making dealers rich ($400 an oz, $30 a gram).

Not much has changed in the conversation, nor has the price of illicit cannabis.

Turning now to the first part of our motion, this outlines just some of the consequences of the continued criminalisation of cannabis. This is not an exhaustive list. Such a list would keep us here for days, and fortunately for you all I only have a limited amount of time in this debate. What this list does show is why we will not stop pushing for changes to cannabis laws. Thanks to the latest national drug strategy household survey we now know that 80 per cent of Australians believe that possession of cannabis should not be a criminal offence. By our calculations that is roughly 4.5 million Victorians that are ready for change. Victorians are increasingly seeing places overseas and domestically reform their cannabis laws without the sky falling in. One in three of them has firsthand experience with cannabis. It is no wonder that they are asking themselves why we continue to criminalise cannabis.

Attitudes towards cannabis are clearly changing, and we must change with them. Existing laws have created a disconnect. There is a rightfully relaxed attitude towards cannabis, and most people assume that it is really no big deal. But what people often forget about is the harm that current laws cause to thousands of Victorians, particularly our most vulnerable. In 2021 there were almost 9000 people charged with personal cannabis use and possession in Victoria. First Nations people are grossly over-represented in this group. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are eight times more likely to be arrested for possession of cannabis. The criminalisation of cannabis does not protect; it simply hurts people.

Last month we stood in this place and debated the Youth Justice Bill 2024 well into the night. Most here recognise the importance of ensuring young people are diverted away from the criminal justice system wherever possible. We recognise this because there is a mountain of data to back up the fact that once a young person enters the criminal justice system they are much more likely to keep going back. When a young person has a criminal record, organisations designed to assist them with things like housing and employment often have their hands tied. People do not want to employ or house someone with a criminal record. It is already difficult for someone to reach out to a service provider and say, ‘I need help’, let alone when doors are being shut in their face. Even just the stigma surrounding cannabis continues to cause such unnecessary harm.

Legalise Cannabis Victoria has done a lot of work since being elected to help reduce this stigma. This extends to our work with medicinal cannabis patients and the barriers they face in Victorian workplaces and on the roads. These are people consuming cannabis medicinally, something that is very much legal in Victoria. Yet because of the surrounding stigma, in part thanks to the continued criminalisation of cannabis, patients are trapped in a constant cycle of judgement and having to justify themselves. Existing laws prevent patients from driving, even when they take their medication as prescribed and are not impaired. Victoria’s roadside drug-testing checks for the presence of only three substances: THC, methamphetamine and MDMA – not impairment. Medicinal cannabis is being treated differently to every other prescription medication.

One of the consequences of this is that many medicinal cannabis patients instead opt for public transport, but here in Victoria we love sniffer dogs and we love a police train station operation, many of which are often in my region in the south-east. These patients are sniffed out and then they are pulled aside like a criminal and must prove to the police that they are a patient and hope that they will be treated with dignity and respect. In the workplace, medicinal cannabis patients are disclosing their prescriptions to their employer, and for no clear reason apart from stigma they are being let go or placed on lesser duties. It is deeply troubling to us that someone can be fired from their job purely because they are taking a medicine prescribed to them by their doctor. These people are taking their medicine as prescribed, they are not impaired at work and yet they are being treated like they have something wrong.

Pleasantly, recommendation 3 of the report from the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria seeks to address this by enshrining prescription medication and treatment into the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. We hope that this government will respond positively to the recommendation but also recognise the opportunity to go further and address the continued criminalisation of cannabis to reduce stigma. If the human element is not enough to persuade a change in laws, you can look at the bottom line in the budget. Let us not sugar-coat it – Victoria’s financial position is not great. In every budget since I have been elected, I have let this government know that they are missing out on an opportunity here by regulating personal use cannabis. Victoria spends millions of dollars every year on its continued criminalisation, wasting taxpayer money on policing and the criminal justice system. It also reduces employment opportunities thanks to the criminal record it leaves people with. We know from estimates from the Parliamentary Budget Office that the 2022 illicit cannabis market in Victoria was likely worth over a whopping $1 billion. Instead of this going towards the Victorian economy, existing laws position criminal organisations to reap the rewards. Lawful cannabis could create thousands of secure jobs, cut law enforcement costs and inject hundreds of millions of much-needed dollars into our state. The need for change could not be clearer.

As a significant number of countries and states legalise and decriminalise cannabis, we have an increasing amount of data to draw from to reassure those in this place that the end of prohibition will not be the end of our sanity. One of the best examples we can draw from is close to home. That is why our motion ensures the committee will consider the impacts of the ACT’s decriminalisation of the personal use of cannabis. Almost next door we have an Australian jurisdiction that has decriminalised cannabis. We have a lot we can learn from their experience. In recent weeks the ACT government published a review of the four-year impact of their bill that decriminalised cannabis. Some of the major findings of this review are that cannabis use has not increased and remains below national averages, charges laid for cannabis offences and diversions have continued to decline to very low levels, there have been no changes in cannabis-related presentations to ambulances and hospital admissions, and there were no evident changes in the availability of cannabis.

When tabling the review the minister stated that:

Some feared an increase in harms related to cannabis use, including an increased burden on our health system and an increase in organised crime. I stand before you today with clear evidence that many of the fears raised have not been realised.

Stakeholder responses to the review were overwhelmingly positive, noting reduced stigma and discrimination and improved relationships between cannabis consumers and the police. Our motion would allow us to dig further into the review’s findings and how we can best achieve reform. Beyond looking at the outcomes of decriminalisation in the ACT, this will give us the opportunity to compare and contrast their approach to legalisation.

I turn to our proposal. For those in need of a refresher on our Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis Bill) 2023, it would allow adult personal possession of small quantities of cannabis, allow adults to grow up to six plants of cannabis at home, allow adult consumption of cannabis but not in a public place, allow adults to gift a small quantity of cannabis and prevent children under the age of 18 from accessing cannabis. Issues like the gifting of cannabis, the possession of seeds and restrictions around where growing is allowed can be examined. It is our hope that a more detailed look at the data coming out of the ACT will help mitigate some of the fears that people in this place have.

The original inquiry into the use of cannabis in Victoria occurred at a time when changes to the law in the ACT were in their infancy. We had a different Parliament, a different Premier and a different minister. It is here that I would like to formally acknowledge the mountain of work to progress this issue done by those who came before us. Specifically, special thanks must be given to Fiona Patten, a former member in this chamber who in 2021 initiated the inquiry into the use of cannabis in Victoria as well as chairing the committee. The report is extensive and invaluable and continues to assist us in the work that we do. Now more than ever we understand the need for commonsense laws that are focused on harm reduction rather than the endlessly unhelpful approach that is the war on drugs. It is our hope that a new inquiry focused specifically on our proposed model for reform will allow this government to take an informed position on cannabis. This bill inquiry is a process that would take the advice of experts and engage the community. It would enable evidence-based action and health-led policies. This is a step forward that the government has asked for, and it is time to walk the talk. We encourage this government to support our motion and to use this inquiry to free themselves from the fears they have when it comes to ending cannabis prohibition. There is a better way forward for cannabis in Victoria.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:58): I also rise to speak on the motion put forward by my colleague from the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, Ms Payne, today. I acknowledge her and Mr Ettershank for their advocacy and work on this matter and indeed Ms Patten as well, who has joined us in the gallery today, who did some considerable work on this matter in previous parliaments. It is an important topic for us to be discussing. As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, I am very much looking forward to seeing this inquiry come through onto our already busy schedule, but it is an important inquiry because it is at its heart a very simple legal issue. It is important as we look towards the legislation that has been introduced by Ms Payne – that is, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis Bill) 2023. As indeed Ms Payne said in her opening remarks, it was said by some in government at the time that more work needed to be done and more data needed to be collected, and this strikes me as being a very appropriate way for us to do that, so I am happy to be speaking today in support of this motion and in support of this referral. I am looking forward, subject to the will of the house today, to taking part in this inquiry and seeing exactly what such regulation of personal use would look like in a meaningful sense. What are the challenges that we have facing us, what are the best ways to overcome those and what are the most straightforward ways to address this issue?

It is quite pertinent that Ms Payne has included a specific reference to the Australian Capital Territory in her referral motion, because that is the one jurisdiction to have already embarked down this path. A Labor colleague of mine Michael Pettersson did a significant amount of work in the ACT on this subject. I think it is particularly relevant for us to be looking at that jurisdiction and seeing – though there are some natural and apparent differences between us – that it is by far the most relevant and the most similar jurisdiction to Victoria that we could be comparing ourselves to. So doing that work and looking from that perspective as well – to see what particular challenges and what opportunities indeed came through the ACT’s deregulation of cannabis and whether they may or may not be applicable to Victoria as well – I imagine would be a reasonably significant part of the inquiry. From what I understand, it would be a relatively straightforward inquiry as well and one that would very much seek to get to the heart of the issue, on the back of previous reports and inquiries. I believe in the previous Parliament there was one as well.

The issue of legalisation of cannabis is one that I am particularly interested in engaging with, largely because it is an area of public policy where my views have been challenged and have evolved over a space of time. I think for me personally, and as a legislator in this place, I am very, very keen to look at the real data and see the push behind it but also perhaps what some of those challenges and barriers may be. For me personally, as someone who did grow up quite opposed to what we are discussing here today, I have had the chance to read lots of reports, hear lots of evidence and talk to lots of engaged and interesting people as well, and that really challenged some of those views and preconceptions that I had. I am particularly looking forward to being able to fully devote the time to looking at this issue with an open mind and to see what the best way forward is – not the best way to serve my preconceived views or the preconceived views of anyone else, but the best approach for Victorians and the best way to frankly not be criminalising people that do not need to be criminalised and provide people with the rights and freedoms to engage in appropriate behaviour that they wish to engage in, without putting people at any sort of risk to themselves or others. I am quite optimistic to see what we might find in that, and I look forward to, as I say, very much engaging and challenging what views I might have once had but also engaging and embracing various points of view in the process.

This government of course does have a long track record when it comes to this policy area and different perspectives. We saw the nation-first – initially a trial, now implemented – program of medicinal cannabis available to Victorians. We have seen quite a big take-up of that. I believe somewhere close to 400,000 people have taken medicinal cannabis in Victoria over the almost 10 years now in which we have had it – a significant thing which was quite controversial at the time when it was first announced but is now widely accepted. Ultimately if there is a way to treat people that is more effective than other alternatives and options, it is one that we should be embracing. Many Victorians have embraced exactly that.

We are also currently looking at ways in which we can provide better access to transport for people who are taking up medicinal cannabis, and we have the road trials for medicinal cannabis, for people taking that while driving, coming into place as well. I know that that is an area that Melissa Horne, the Minister for Roads and Roads Safety, is particularly engaged in as well. It is in many ways what will be a world-first trial in real-life road conditions, to make sure that any such reforms are being done in a very sensible way that does not mean that people who are taking medicinal cannabis are unduly impacted and prevented from driving. It may well be the case, though I know that is not part of this trial specifically, that any lessons may also then lead to what we might be able to glean for situations, if there is then a changing of the rules and regulations, around the use of recreational cannabis too.

Indeed with the medically safe supervised injecting rooms in North Richmond we have seen this government be prepared to look out for people when they need it the most, and we have seen the countless – not countless in fact but I think somewhere around 60 to 70 – lives that have been saved just from that centre and the opportunities it affords people. I know some in this place like to make out that all these issues in North Richmond arose when the medically supervised injecting rooms went in, but I can very much assure those people, as someone that did spend some time in that area as a child, that those issues have been prevalent there for a very long time. Putting that service at the heart of where it is needed the most has been a really important thing. Indeed I commend Minister Stitt for her continuing work with the recent announcements and the improved access to support services for people dealing with issues with drugs. It has been a very significant step as well because, irrespective of legal questions, ultimately these things should be treated as a public health issue, because that is the way we can most effectively treat them and support people, not to stigmatise them nor criminalise them when they need help. I am very excited to see the continuing work that Minister Stitt will do in that space as well.

Coming back to the motion before us today though, we are talking about a step towards legalisation of cannabis for people in Victoria. As I said at the outset, it is a very important thing for us to get right. If we are to consider this legislation, it is something that the Legal and Social Issues Committee is well placed to look into to give that more in-depth analysis into some of the things that, as I say, will be opportunities for the state of Victoria, be they through taxation or other opportunities, and indeed into some of those challenges and risks as well. For any such approach, we need to be really, really cognisant that we are doing so in a way that is measured and considered.

I very much want to take a moment to acknowledge in particular Ms Payne for the way in which she has gone about this in a very diligent, very determined but also very respectful and reasonable way, and indeed her colleagues as well. Having just noticed the tie that Mr Ettershank is wearing, the very appropriate tie for today, I will pay a quick acknowledgement to that as well. I am very much looking forward to seeing some of the other contributions in this debate. Indeed, as I say, not to predetermine the outcome of this motion, but should it be endorsed and put through by the house I am very much looking forward to working with Ms Payne and all colleagues on the Legal and Social Issues Committee to examine this issue in proper detail before responding to the house by mid-March next year.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:08): I rise to speak to the motion before the house in Ms Payne’s name. She rang and spoke with me last week, and I thank her for that and for going through the issues. I am not going to go through my second-reading speech in the debate that we had – I do not know when it was actually, but some months ago – regarding the issue at hand. I just make the point that I do stand by the comments that I made in that contribution. I am sympathetic to the reasons why she is bringing this forward, but I stand by those comments in relation to sending the wrong message to the public.

We have a significant drug problem in this state, and as we have seen, far too many instances of issues that have arisen out of drug use, the illegal use of drugs and harm to the community. Whilst everyone might not be affected that way, there is data coming out of other countries around the world – I know it is a contentious debate, about what is happening in some of those jurisdictions – and I stand by those comments that I made too after going and seeing and speaking to experts in the field at the time and who are still in contact with me about the decline – all well intentioned – around the legal use of cannabis. However, it is concerning – the impacts on the community and especially the impacts on vulnerable people within the community – and that I think is a very sad situation that we are seeing in parts of the US where cannabis has been legalised.

I make a note too that there have been lots of inquiries into this, and the government is moving towards legalising cannabis. That is clear. They have obviously done a deal with the minor parties. That is also clear. On the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Greens Senator David Shoebridge introduced the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 and sent it off to a committee, and they thrashed it out and had it all out there. The government keeps referring to the advice of experts. I heard the Minister for Energy and Resources in her contribution in question time today, an extraordinary contribution around gas and the government’s plans to ban gas. She was talking about medical experts around gas. Well, I will just take up that point. If you look at the medical experts that contributed to the Senate inquiry into legalising cannabis – and I will read this into Hansard because I think it is important:

Physical and mental health risks

Other submitters and witnesses maintained that cannabis use can pose significant physical and mental health risks. The Australian Medical Association (AMA), for example, highlighted the following short and long-term health impacts:

People can experience immediate impacts to mental health such as reduced brain function, anxiety or panic attacks, paranoia, or memory loss. Cannabis users are more likely to develop psychoses or schizophrenia. Physical impacts can include impaired reaction time, balance, and information processing. Cannabis can be addictive and cause withdrawal symptoms. Long-term use can impair brain function, damage the person’s throat and lungs and cause bronchitis or cancer, cause cardiovascular system damage, and mental health conditions such as depression. Using cannabis while pregnant is associated with a lower birthweight of babies. Using cannabis is associated with alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.

Professor Robyn Langham, Chief Medical Adviser in the Health Products Regulatory Group of the Department of Health and Aged Care (the Department), agreed:

… there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs; and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use … [T]here’s the other perhaps less easy to measure aspect of use, which is the risks on driving and impaired driving.

They are the experts providing that evidence to a Senate inquiry on this very issue in recent months. The Legal and Social Issues Committee in this Parliament is undertaking significant work around a number of very important issues, and these include finishing off their inquiry into the state education system in Victoria – which we know is in decline. They will be handing their report to the house fairly soon. There is the inquiry into food security in Victoria and an inquiry into the management and functions of Ambulance Victoria – and let me tell you that inquiry cannot start soon enough given the massive issues that are going on within Ambulance Victoria as I speak at this time. There are many issues impacting the community that are significant to the entire Victorian community, not just niche areas that, with all due respect, a one-issue party is focused on. There is an inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers – again, another significant issue into which this committee is looking and should be putting its efforts. I should also say: if they were serious, they would put a motion for an inquiry looking at the failures of the government in mental health rehab and support for those using drugs and the impacts of cannabis use, as I have explained and as the AMA has explained to the Senate inquiry.

Finally, I will say in relation to the possession of an illegal drug here in Victoria, quantities of cannabis are defined as a small quantity, up to 50 grams; a trafficable quantity, 250 grams to 10 plants; a commercial quantity, 25 kilograms or 100 plants; and a large commercial quantity, 250 kilograms or more or 1000 plants. The police caution that – and I think everybody agrees this is completely reasonable – if you are caught with a small quantity of cannabis or heroin and it is your first offence, you will usually get a warning, a caution, instead of being charged with the offence. I do not think anyone thinks that that is overly problematic at all.

David Ettershank: There were 4500 arrests last year.

Georgie CROZIER: Mr Ettershank, you interject, but I can tell you I will take the police on this any day of the week. I commend the police for their actions today and, while I am on it, I note the disgraceful behaviour by those activists that have attacked Victorian police – 24 police have been injured and police horses have been injured. I am digressing, I know, but in terms of what the police do and what they are subjected to, I think it has been an absolute disgrace. Those people should all be ashamed that they have even put the police in that situation. I have got to say they have my full support, and I wish they would throw the book harder at those activists that went out there and caused disruption and disgrace and further trashed Melbourne and Victoria’s reputation. As I say, I digress from this important motion that we are debating today, but I want to put that on the record, given today is a shameful day in the state’s history when so many police have been attacked by these ideological activists. They are anarchists. They do not even care for the state. They do not care for our country. Frankly they should just take a good hard look at themselves. I want to say that I am very supportive of the police and the actions they took today. As for the Greens motion looking into the police actions of today, that demonstrates just how nutty they are too.

Anyway, back to this motion, I think there are far more important issues that the Legal and Social Issues Committee should be looking at – as I said, the failure of drug rehabilitation in this state and the lack of mental health beds to deal with this significant problem. It is a huge problem in our community, and the government has done little to nothing, especially in regional areas, to really support people to get off these terrible drugs that they are addicted to, driving them into other areas that I have highlighted, which the experts have said occurs with cannabis use and which should not be ignored. When the government talks about the experts, I hope they look at the information provided by the AMA and other experts from their federal colleagues at that federal inquiry. With those words – I can see my time is running out – the opposition will not be supporting this referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee. They need to be getting on with the work that the community deserves to see happen, including the inquiry into Ambulance Victoria, which is in an absolute mess.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:17): I am pleased to rise today to support this motion and its referral of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023 to the Legislative Council’s Legal and Social Issues Committee. An inquiry into this bill is an important step towards sensible evidence-based cannabis laws in this state that allow for personal use and that acknowledge the reality that the vast majority of Australians do not think that the possession of cannabis should be a crime. This inquiry really is an opportunity for me and all members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee to hear potentially from a range of voices that come from right across this state on this issue. I would expect we may hear from health and legal experts and alcohol and other drugs specialists. We could hear from individuals and community groups, who would all be able to share their perspective, their research, their experience and their expertise. We have heard in contributions on this issue on numerous occasions calls for the data and calls for the evidence to be put forward on this matter – from all sides, really. Let us hear it. Let us have it out in this committee process, because that is an important part of ensuring we get to evidence-based reform. If it has been put that your position will be vindicated based on the evidence that exists, then bring it on. There should be no reason for concern. I look forward to this chamber supporting the motion.

Members of the committee would have the opportunity to hear from experts on cannabis reform and truly get to understand the evidence that supports this bill and the regulation of personal use of this plant. So many countries around the world have already acknowledged the benefits of allowing personal possession of cannabis, and so it is time that Victoria did the same. We already know that the current tough-on-drugs approach, as it is called, is not working. It is criminalising individual cannabis users. It is disproportionately affecting often vulnerable communities. Far too many people are being dragged through the criminal justice system for minor drug offences, which is putting the legal system under stress. It is leaving people with a criminal record that can follow them for many years.

As has been noted, the Greens have long been advocating for legalised cannabis in a system that taxes and regulates its sale and its use while providing much-needed funds for drug and alcohol services, such as detox and treatment facilities. We need evidence-based reform that recognises the injustices that the current system in this state is perpetuating. As a state we have already acknowledged the benefits of medicinal cannabis for many patients and have allowed its legal use. It is time now to take the next step and further reform and modernise our drug laws. I commend the work of Legalise Cannabis Victoria in bringing this bill to the chamber and then subsequently this referral for an inquiry into the bill to progress this issue through the Parliament – power to the progressive crossbench. I hope to see the successful passage of this motion, and I look forward to actively personally participating in this inquiry. I commend the motion to the house.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:20): I thank Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank for this motion to require the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. I sincerely acknowledge Ms Payne’s hard work and that of Mr Ettershank in bringing this motion to the chamber. I am pleased we are taking the time today to respectfully debate the motion and to take a considered approach to these proposals. I cannot emphasise enough the level of regard that I hold for a party that works hard to advocate in this place for exactly the policies that you stood for at the election, and I respect you and your party for that.

It is a refreshing contrast to the behaviour of the Greens, highlighted today by the member for Richmond in the other place and her absence this morning from her parliamentary duties. It breaks my heart that there is only one Liberal Party member in here right now, but I do quote deputy Liberal leader David Southwick, and I agree with him, as expressed in the Herald Sun this morning, about Ms De Vietri:

… using her taxpayer-funded salary to pull cheap stunts, incite hate, and potentially compromise safety.

He went on to say:

The Member for Richmond’s embarrassing actions have made it clear: she’s an overpaid protester, not a politician.

I guess what I want to do is round out the point that I made about campaigning and advocating for what you say. I know most Greens voters do so because they care about the environment, and I feel for them at the moment. They must be so disappointed in the Greens now that they have veered off from what is their primary focus – the environment and global warming. That is what they stood for, but they have veered off to a protest movement focused on division and hate rather than what they used to stand for. I do not really know what the Greens are about anymore – other than Wills. In contrast, working in this chamber today I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank and this motion, which includes asking the Legal and Social Issues Committee to look into experiences covered by this bill. Advocating in Parliament on the issue you were elected to advocate on – I cannot respect anything more than that.

It is always a good thing to analyse successes and also potential pitfalls when contemplating changes to policy. The decriminalisation of the possession of cannabis for personal use in the ACT provides an active guide, and when it comes to drug policy and reform the Allan Labor government proudly takes a harm minimisation approach. We have a record of reducing drug harms and have invested over $2 billion in this area to support Victorians since 2014. We were the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise the use of medicinal cannabis, in 2016. This reform means that no Victorian needs to face the difficult choice of breaking the law or watching their loved ones suffer.

It is important to note in light of this motion today that the government then took a respectful and thoughtful approach when it considered this groundbreaking legislation. We needed to ensure that the legislation achieved its desired outcomes. We consulted with the Victorian Law Reform Commission and asked how to appropriately amend the law and sought advice on key issues – in particular, on cultivation, manufacture and supply, patient eligibility, clinical oversight, appropriate clinical governance and a range of other issues; the commission provided over 40 recommendations to the government – and established an independent medical advisory committee on medicinal cannabis to advise on expanding eligibility, resulting in a staged and safe expansion.

Today medicinal cannabis is most often prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain and used to treat anxiety, cancer-related symptoms, epilepsy, insomnia and multiple sclerosis, to name a few. I think the referral to this committee is going to include the same range of voices, as has been mentioned earlier. Let us hear from a range of voices. Let us hear from a range of technical experts. Let us hear from law enforcement. Let us hear from departmental expertise. And let us hear from communities – what communities want in this space. It is any government’s job to ensure that it weaves the best possible outcome, taking into account all of that information.

Our record is a strong record on harm minimisation, and I think we have very much to be proud of, as I mentioned, just even in referring to that process of coming to the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. We have got much to be proud of in the harm minimisation space as well. Since 2014 our government has invested over $2 million to support Victorians to access drug and alcohol treatment and deliver harm minimisation strategies. We have also continued to introduce considered legislative reforms to deliver new services and reduce harms associated with alcohol and drug use across our community. Victoria was the first jurisdiction in the country to legalise the use of medicinal cannabis, as I already referred to.

In 2018 we established the life-saving supervised injecting service in North Richmond, which has saved 63 lives and safely managed more than 8700 overdoses, something to be enormously proud of – and we did that under enormous political pressure, but I really strongly believe it was the right thing to do. And we have decriminalised the offence of public drunkenness so that we can focus on the health impacts of public drunkenness and the safety impacts of public drunkenness rather than locking up vulnerable people – in many cases Aboriginal people – and putting them in custody. We know just how vulnerable our First Nations people are when they are locked up.

In closing, I just want to say how proud I am of our record and how open-minded I am in respect of taking this journey through that committee. I do not sit on the Legal and Social Issues Committee, but I would be very intrigued to see the process that they do go through. The government is not afraid to make impactful decisions for the health of Victorians while also considering their safety and making sure their safety is guaranteed. We must take into account the risks and different cohorts who can be negatively affected. It is extremely important that we do not underestimate or oversimplify the potential health consequences of cannabis use, and that is why this referral will be absolutely fascinating. We need to look at how addictive cannabis can be, how much is safe to consume, how it affects different people differently and also of course pregnancy and other medical conditions and its impact. The Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee is the right place to consider this motion, and I look forward to continuing this conversation. I thank the members of the Legalise Cannabis Victoria party for their willingness to respectfully engage in constructive debate on this issue.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:30): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. I am a little bit disadvantaged because I have come into the chamber without my glasses, so some of the fine print will be difficult for me to read. However, having said that, I want to acknowledge that the interest of people in wanting to understand this better and to pursue research and further understanding in itself is a good thing. However, I do think there is a lot we can already learn from research that has taken place around the world.

As a person who has had injuries and used other forms of medication, I have never even attempted to drive when I have been on medication, because I think that that is a serious commitment to make and could endanger the lives of other people. I do think that understanding what it is to be under the influence of any form of medication – and we know that many medications say, ‘Do not consume alcohol while you are taking this because your judgement may be impaired.’ Obviously, response times can be impaired, and that is a genuine consideration. Any form of drugs that can impair judgement actually needs to be investigated further, and I for one would hate to be putting employers in a situation where their employees are at greater risk. I think that is a genuine consideration because we already have a huge number of people with workplace injuries, and we seriously cannot be increasing that by impairing the judgements that we make in the decisions that we make here in this house.

I want to quote some of the things that I am aware have come up in committee. It is going to be hard without my glasses. But I heard that:

… the current legislative and regulatory frameworks around workplace safety and testing practices may discriminate against employees who have been legally prescribed medicinal cannabis. While the Committee fully understands the concerns raised by employees and their advocates, it had to balance these with employers’ legal responsibility –

as I have said –

to keep workplaces safe.

The challenge comes down to –

not just –

how to test for impairment rather than the mere presence of a drug.

I think that we need to consider this. I do not really think that we have the right measures in place at this point in time to be able to understand the level of impairment that can take place when one is consuming legalised cannabis. I think that is a genuine consideration. I think that we need to look at the data as has been raised by a number of people. There are a number of studies that have shown the effects of cannabis and I find some of them really distressing and disturbing. I clearly do not want to see, for instance, an increase in depression and in schizophrenia. I do not want to see an increase in people wanting to take their lives, and I do not want to see anything that is actually going to facilitate that being released into our community. So I think that the understandings we need to take in this consideration are very real.

We do not feel under the circumstances at this present time that this is even worth considering in this place because there are so many things of greater importance that we could be looking at. I for one got a little bit uptight when I noticed that two areas in my region, Dandenong and Casey, have been used in this report. It would really bother me if the area of the south-east was being used as a testing ground for any changes, because this is a family area. Many people that live in this area have young families and are from other countries and aspiring to build a home in a new country, and the last thing that we need to do is start introducing things that are going to make family life more difficult or more unsafe. I have great concerns about not just the risk of injury and impairment for adults that are older but also so many other things that bother me. It can cause sleep disturbances and increase other risks. I wish I could read them all – honestly, I cannot without my glasses – but risk of violence is one of the ones that really bothers me. In the area of Casey and around the south-east we have very high rates of family violence and abuse, and in fact throughout the south-east crime is a huge issue. We do not want to add any more burdens to the lives of the people of the south-east than already exist.

I can say quite categorically that I am completely against people in the workplace being under the influence of medications that could cause harm to themselves or others. I am completely against anything that would allow more people to be injured and on WorkCover and would put them at risk. I am completely against situations that can cause more harm to businesses, because our businesses are already suffering. In fact, as we have mentioned many times in this house, people are fleeing this state to go and live in other states because they do not feel safe in Victoria, their businesses cannot thrive in Victoria and they are struggling to make ends meet. I personally do not feel that this is the right time. I do feel there is a lot of data around the world that we can look at. I was really concerned to see that in areas of conflict where cannabis has been used there has actually been a higher risk of suicide. I find that data incredibly disturbing. I think that you do need to consider the data that already exists in the United States and already exists in Canada. There are a number of countries that have done a great deal of research on the effects. I do appreciate that we have a minor party in the house that have made this their mission and that they feel strongly about it. They have the right in a democratic country to be able to pursue this, but I can say that the coalition will not be supporting this.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I acknowledge the former member Jaala Pulford in the gallery.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:38): I rise to make a contribution to motion 527 moved by my colleague Ms Payne. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Ms Pulford and the presence of Ms Patten, a long-serving member of this chamber and also hopefully soon a senator in the federal Parliament. I would also like to thank Mr Galea and Ms Ermacora for their very supportive contributions.

Back in 1971 Richard Nixon commenced his calamitous war on drugs. Over 50 years later I think it is safe to say that the war has been lost. The interminable, ineffective and exorbitant war on drugs is over and – I am sad to break the news – Nixon is dead. Maybe someone should tell those opposite.

Members interjecting.

David ETTERSHANK: You did know that – good. As my colleague Ms Payne noted, 80 per cent of respondents to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2022–23 national drug strategy household survey either opposed or strongly opposed the proposition that personal possession be a criminal offence. That is around 4.5 million Victorians in favour of decriminalisation. Those opposite, I suspect, could only dream of having a policy that enjoyed that level of support. 4.5 million Victorians support an end to the criminalisation of personal use of cannabis, and that is because cannabis use transcends age, ethnicity, level of education, labour force status, socio-economic position, marital status, household composition, sexual orientation or gender experience and postcode.

Cannabis is the most consumed illicit drug in Australia by a wide margin. It is everywhere, and its level of consumption has largely remained consistent for the last 20 years – impermeable to both prohibition and pandemics alike. That is why it is such a good earner for organised crime in Victoria. According to our own Parliamentary Budget Office, illicit cannabis pulls in around $1.25 billion a year in Victoria alone. Nationally the figure is closer to $5 billion. That is an estimated $5 billion a year in cannabis sales pocketed by organised crime. To put that in some perspective, the illicit cannabis market is worth almost as much as the entire Australian complementary medicines market, which comes in at $5.6 billion and includes vitamins, supplements and other non-prescription medicines. Nationally we spend around $3.5 billion a year on law enforcement and justice in the war on drugs. That is a lot of money. The financial burden on the state – the huge cost of policing, detention and court resources spent on cannabis-related offences – is reason enough to end this insane prohibition.

But it is the human suffering caused by our current drug policies that makes reform so urgent. Every year we expose thousands of Victorians to the very real harms of the justice system for simply possessing and using cannabis – not supplying cannabis, not trafficking cannabis. We know these are generally young people and that they are mainly from marginalised backgrounds. Anyone paying attention in this place recently would have learned that contact with the criminal justice system can be very harmful indeed, and those harms are felt most profoundly by those from marginalised and lower socio-economic backgrounds. The most recent data from the Sentencing Advisory Council for 2022–‍23 shows 5080 people were charged for possession alone. Of those charged, 4156 were sentenced and 10 per cent served actual jail time for personal possession. So to hear suggestions that this is a victimless law, for want of a better term, is rubbish. I remind members that these are consumers of cannabis, not suppliers. From 2020 to 2023 police charged nearly 14,000 people with simple possession. Over 1500 of those people were jailed and over 80 per cent had a criminal record because of it. A criminal record can have the most devastating effect on a person’s life, affecting employment prospects, education, relationships, parenting and even access to housing and finance. That is why every community legal centre in the state supports the decriminalisation of cannabis. I might also add that whilst Ms Crozier was keen to quote the AMA’s submission to the inquiry in Canberra, the AMA supports the decriminalisation of cannabis.

I would like to share a case study from the drug outreach program at Fitzroy Legal Service – an outstanding program, offering support to some of the most vulnerable people in the state. It really should get more funding. Peter, which is not his real name:

… is attended by police on a welfare check. He is searched … by police. He is subsequently charged with possession of a small quantity of cannabis.

Peter also:

… has an acquired brain injury, significant mental health challenges, and has had a stroke … has a child and is engaged with AOD services to support access to supervised visits with his child.

Peter was making progress on his journey of rehabilitation. Sadly, however, Peter is not eligible for diversion, because he has priors, and may now have a criminal record for the next 10 years because of that simple possession charge. As a result of the welfare check and cannabis charge his rehabilitation has been severely damaged and his progress set back for years.

We could prevent so much needless harm by just decriminalising cannabis. We are not talking about regulating a commercial cannabis market here. I will admit I am very excited to see regulated cannabis markets emerging across the globe, but that is not what this motion is about; nor is this a stealthy entree to the creation of a regulated commercial market, as has been suggested; nor is this motion about medicinal cannabis in the workplace; nor is it about medicinal cannabis and driving. It is rather a motion, a very small step, towards the consideration of a legal framework to stop arresting or otherwise legally interfering with thousands of Victorians on an annual basis whose only crime has been to have a bit of cannabis on their person or a couple of plants in their backyard.

The review will give consideration to the adoption and marginal enhancement of the provisions of the ACT decriminalisation legislation that has been in force for four years and has only had beneficial results. Indeed the benefits were confirmed by the recent statutory review of the ACT cannabis act which was tabled last month. Members may be surprised to learn that far from the anticipated surge in hospital presentations, rampant drug use by young people and unbridled criminal activity, the review found that since decriminalisation in the ACT, rates of cannabis use have largely remained stable. It also found that ACT residents continued to be less likely to have recently used cannabis than the national average. There has been no substantial increase or decrease in cannabis-related presentations to health services. And most importantly, charges for cannabis offences have declined steeply, reducing that nexus with the criminal justice system. In other words, the sky did not fall in and meaningful social reform has been achieved.

We do want to enhance the ACT legislation and address some of the anomalies in the legislation, such as the fact that you can grow a few plants in your backyard but it is still an offence to have a cannabis seed – a sort of interesting philosophical problem as well as a practical one – or the fact that it is legal to grow in your backyard but not to have that plant in a $20 Bunnings frost shelter. These anomalies exist in the ACT legislation; we are keen to see those resolved – and I would point out that those anomalies were recognised in the statutory review.

The bill we are seeking to have reviewed provides for a very simple and basic reform as described by my colleague Ms Payne. We know the government has been considering reform in this area for some time. Indeed in the second-reading debate for our bill Minister Stitt stated that the government wanted ‘to take an approach to implement thoughtful and effective policies that improve the health of and social outcomes for Victorians’, and happily our bill does just that. The bill inquiry would get the advice of experts, as has been discussed, and make recommendations. We need to do something different. Cannabis consumption is not going to reduce, but we can reduce harm and we can reduce the financial costs. Drug reform is taking place all over the world as jurisdictions accept the futility of the war on drugs and recognise that the spoils of that war are being reaped by organised criminals while the real casualties are their own citizens.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:48): I am pleased to rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion seeking to refer a private members bill on the regulation of personal adult use of cannabis to the Legal and Social Issues Committee, with particular consideration of the impacts of the ACT’s decriminalisation, for inquiry and report by March next year. It is very clear that both Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank are passionate and well-informed advocates for their cause, and we obviously thank them for that and acknowledge that. As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee I look forward, should the chamber agree to this referral, to the work, because I think there are a lot of interesting matters that we will need to consider in examining the range of evidence that is available to us, and we will need to do that in a thoughtful and balanced way.

I think what you can see from the Allan Labor government’s approach to drug policy and reform is that we do take a thoughtful and balanced approach to these issues and much of the action that we are seeking to achieve in this area has harm minimisation principles at its core. What I think we want to see is consideration of these issues that are complex and do have multifaceted elements to think of and consequences that we need to examine. We are keen to have that investigation done in an evidence-based way, an evidence-informed way, that is focused on health and social outcomes and sort of puts to one side the opportunity for the use of divisive rhetoric in the course of these types of debates.

We have since 2014 invested more than $2 billion to help Victorians access drug and alcohol treatment and deliver harm minimisation measures. We were the first jurisdiction in the country to legalise medicinal cannabis, in 2016, which paved the way for other states and territories to introduce their own legislation. In fact the recent inquiry that the Legal and Social Issues Committee undertook into workplace drug testing was able to – and I think this gives a little bit of an indication of the value that we can get out of these types of parliamentary inquiries – for the first time get some accurate data out of the Department of Health on the number of Victorians who are dispensed medicinal cannabis in the state, through data that was sourced from the SafeScript database. That is really interesting. Whilst not strictly relevant to the considerations of the debate on decriminalisation of personal use, it is interesting to look at the way in which medicinal cannabis has become an increasingly accepted form of treatment for a range of medical conditions. There were around 24,000 Victorians in May this year who had been dispensed medicinal cannabis under the laws that we introduced, not quite but effectively double what it was a year ago and around five times what it was two years prior to that. There is I think a shift that you are seeing in the community in terms of treatment options available to them as a result of the Labor government’s changes back in 2016.

Obviously in 2018 we established the life-saving supervised injecting facility in North Richmond, which has saved more than 63 lives and managed more than 8000 overdoses, and we have obviously recently decriminalised the offence of public drunkenness, which was a long overdue harm reduction measure.

I think what we look forward to in particular is having a look at exactly what the experience has been in the ACT. Obviously in the ACT, for those over the age of 18, possession of up to 50 grams of dried cannabis or 150 grams of fresh cannabis is decriminalised. The law facilitates people growing up to two cannabis plants per person, with a maximum of four plants per household, and allows personal use in your own home. In the ACT regime, which we are going to investigate should this motion be agreed to by the committee, it does remain an offence to smoke cannabis or use cannabis in a public place, to expose a child or young person to cannabis smoke, to store cannabis where children can reach it, to grow cannabis using hydroponics or artificial cultivation techniques or to grow plants in places that can be accessed by the public. There is in the ACT system – a system that was introduced by a private members bill of a Labor backbencher back in 2018 – a space that is allowing personal cultivation and use, but it retains prohibitions, particularly where there are negative externalities that you would see arising from consumption in public, or if danger or risk is made to children in the community or from making these decriminalised products accessible to others.

It also remains illegal to sell to, share with or give cannabis to another person and for minors to grow or possess cannabis, and it remains an offence in the ACT to drive with cannabis in your system. What I think is interesting, and it is probably a professional lifetime habit of trying to look for evidence and data and being interested in policy questions –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I know – Minister Shing is surprised. I did take my time while I was sitting here in the chamber just to have a little bit of a look at some data that has been made available. I had a quick read of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s results from the 2022 national drug strategy household surveyon cannabis usage. What is interesting is that the personal usage of cannabis across the community, the broader Australian community, has basically held static for people who have ever used the drug. Twenty years ago it was around 11, 12, 13 per cent, and it remains that today. What is interesting, though, particularly – and I am sure the committee will get into this – is that the survey looked at whether decriminalisation in the ACT had an impact on cannabis usage, and despite the changes that were made in 2020, in the last 12 months the survey looked at, cannabis use in the ACT was stable. In 2022–23 around 8.7 per cent of people reported using cannabis in the previous 12 months, which is consistent with where it was in 2007, many years before decriminalisation, where it ranged between about 8.5 and 10.5 per cent over that time period. What is interesting is that cannabis use in the ACT following the decriminalisation laws remains lower than it is in other parts of the country as surveyed by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I am sure we might be able to explore the reasons why this is. It is probably because Canberra is just a super-exciting place to be and people do not want to be stuck in their own homes where they need to be to undertake the personal consumption of cannabis that they have personally cultivated. I am absolutely sure that is the reason, and maybe the committee will need to probe that a little bit further.

What is interesting, though, is that the survey reveals that in the ACT people are much less likely to obtain cannabis from their friends compared to prior to the introduction of decriminalisation, and there has been no increase in people sourcing cannabis from dealers – people who would sell – although that figure and other figures about people growing their own cannabis get into small sample sizes, so we do need to be a little bit careful in looking at that.

The only other thing I will say is that there are obviously some studies underway. One by the University of New South Wales funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council found that the policy change in the ACT had resulted in the creation of regulatory grey areas that were the site of confusion and perceived contradictions, and the ability to navigate these grey areas and experiences of legislation was dependent on life circumstance, including various privileges and the perceived risk of police interference. And the study says:

Put simply: the same legislative change was felt differently by different people.

There is a lot, I think, that the committee, should this motion be successful, is going to have to investigate, and I am sure that all members of the committee will take that task seriously and examine the changes proposed by this bill and what the experience has been in the ACT and will report back to the Parliament with a thoughtful report in March next year.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:59): We need only look to this government’s handling of the medically supervised injecting room to know how spectacularly well they have failed time and again the drug users of the state of Victoria – spectacular. I know that because every time the Minister for Mental Health gets up and spruiks the figure of 63 lives saved – and I have heard it today in the chamber by other speakers, and it varies, because sometimes that figure changes depending on which person says it, which minister says it – it is the usual diatribe that comes and no-one knows where it comes from. But it almost in many ways typifies the debate we have time and again, sadly, in this chamber, which is so ill informed or uses the facts and twists them such that everyone’s point of view can become somehow reasonable or accurate or scientific.

If you had cared to look at the Hamilton report, and not many have, the first thing you would have noticed when the Hamilton report was released was it did not even include the appendix. Pages and pages – they did not even include the appendix. You actually had to request it from the department. And in terms of lives saved, what it actually found was that there was actually no coronial data to support the contention, certainly not in the first 15 months. In fact in the first 15 months one extra person died outside the injecting room in a certain perimeter than had died previously. So in the first 15 months it was an abject failure. I think it was, in all seven of the objects – that is what they were called in the legislation – that this Parliament set for itself, an abject failure.

The Hamilton review talked to a calculation – ‘modelling’ is what they said. They talked to modelling to come up with this figure of lives saved. What a disastrous, craven, twisted calculus, because there is no calculus in the report itself. To this day the minister sits opposite here and continues to quote that figure now, morphed and morphed and morphed – it is variously changing – and this is the basis on which decisions are made. It was drug overdose awareness day recently, and in this chamber the minister got up and spoke about how proud they were about reducing overdoses and all this sort of stuff. That is just complete nonsense.

I need to go back and look at the latest data, but it is sometimes hard to collect, so forgive me, everyone at home watching this. I tell you what, in the first 12 months there were 1232 overdoses in the medically supervised injecting room – that is a ratio of about 3.6. In the first 18 months that was up to 2657 – that is a ratio of 5.2, for those who can count. In the first 24 months, and that was the last time I checked the data and could decipher the information that was publicly available, it was up to 3200 – that is a rate of 5.4. I heard those opposite just speak of 8000 overdoses recently. So what we know empirically, what we know according to the facts, is that the overdose rate inside the medically supervised injecting room, the place that those opposite continually point to as a success, has skyrocketed. That is how much you care for the drug users of this state: you have actually created a centre where people can go and inject at a great rate, much greater than New South Wales. New South Wales is no success to look at either. It is an abject failure as well. If you actually care about drug users in this state, if you care about rehabilitating, not just simply giving them a place where they continue to overdose and then have very, very harmful overdoses – and we can talk about that later – then you will actually want to pay attention to the detail here.

We talk about cannabis. I love how there was some reference before to the AMA. The AMA, in their press release of 16 November 2023, said:

We also know there are already many Australians suffering detrimental health outcomes caused by recreational cannabis use. We see poor mental health outcomes from cannabis use including anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia, memory loss and an increased incidence of schizophrenia.

Cannabis use can lead to physical ill-health conditions such as bronchitis or cancer, cardiovascular system damage, and impaired reaction time and brain function.

My colleague Ms Crozier referred to these before.

You can just keep digging, boys and girls. You only need to put in a simple word search in Google to find one study after the other. Then you look at studies into the correlation between recreational marijuana laws and intimate partner violence. We are banging on in this state – those on the other side, that is – about protecting women, and they are about to legalise it. What does that do? It sends the rate of incidence of violence against women through the roof. Yet again, to set up another committee when there is so much data already before us –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: I am not a fan of any committee, Minister. Committee, inquiry, review – you call it what you want, but the public does not care. All the public knows is that you are using taxpayers time with members of Parliament getting together having another talkfest to satisfy themselves that their arguments are right or wrong or this or that or the other. What a complete nonsense. Even the CDC, from memory – google it, I am sure we can fact-check this – say one in 10 people will become addicted to cannabis. So we are assigning tens of thousands if not millions of Australians who may be enticed by legal cannabis, recreational cannabis, in the future, to actually just roll the dice. The irony is that those who are against retaining the illegality around cannabis are the same people who also argue against gambling. Well, there is no better gambling in this state than trying drugs. ‘Go on, give it a go’ – is that what they are trying to say? You cannot gamble with your money, but you can gamble with your health. That is sensational. That is it. You have only got a one in 10 chance of being addicted. Well, that is not good odds by my language. I am a little bit old fashioned, so forgive me, Minister, but I just do not think –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Forgive me, but I do not have time because I know my colleague wants to speak. I will wrap myself up in cottonwool and just sit here quietly for the rest of the time. I apologise for taking too much time from my colleague, but I think my position is clear. If we are serious about helping those affected by drug misuse and abuse, if we are serious about actually getting people off all sorts of drugs, and we do not even need to talk about the ones that are legal – I mean, that is the elephant in the room, and we could go down that path because that is the elephant in the room. If you were serious about it, you would not be supporting this motion; you would not be supporting the government’s nonsense with the medically supervised injecting room, which just does nothing but harm and has not saved lives.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:05): In the short time I have, firstly, I would just like to say that I will be supporting this inquiry. I was involved in the last inquiry into cannabis in this state, and I think it is well known that I was very disappointed with the outcome of that inquiry. In fact I was so disappointed, I expressed premature disappointment, got into trouble over that and had to apologise to the house.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, yes. I will be supporting this, but I will not take part in the inquiry lest I make the same mistake of being disappointed again. But I will say this: as Mr Batchelor pointed out, what has happened in the ACT is that cannabis use has not gone up. And to anyone who knows anything about prohibition, that should be no surprise, because the idea that there are hordes of people who want cannabis in Victoria or in the ACT and cannot get it is absolutely laughable. But my problem with the ACT model and the bill, which would be well known, is that it does not go far enough. I think that decriminalisation, as they have done in the ACT, does not solve one of the very, very big problems with the drug market, and that is the supply issue around organised crime. Nonetheless it does solve the issue around criminalising people for using a flower that the government does not approve of, which is patently ridiculous.

Nick McGowan interjected.

David LIMBRICK: So is opium, but that is another matter.

Nick McGowan: Well, let us legalise that too.

David LIMBRICK: That is another matter. Nonetheless I will be supporting this, and I hope some of these issues around how we deal with having decriminalisation of a market but also dealing with organised crime. I personally agree with Mr Ettershank: I would like to see a free market, basically, as free as possible, so that organised crime is out of the market and it is a legal, regulated market.

Nick McGowan interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Thank you for those interjections. Nevertheless, this is merely a referral to a committee. I eagerly look forward to the results of that committee, and hopefully I will not be as disappointed with those results as I was with the last committee.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:08): I want to thank everyone first and foremost for making a contribution today, and I just want to bring it back to the issue here, because what the motion actually is seeking to do is to investigate this bill, to have a bill review before the Legal and Social Issues Committee. It is about parliamentary process. It is about the levers that we have available to us to look at the validity of this bill and see if it is fit for purpose, see if more information is needed. I appreciate that many of you have raised concerns around health and wellbeing, around mental health, around the impacts on vulnerable communities, around resourcing of police and the impacts on the judicial system, the police and prison systems and the costs associated. This is why we are seeking to have a look at this bill and see if it is fit for purpose.

For those that have been against the principle of moving forward with cannabis reform, my question to you is: what do you want to do? Do you want the status quo to remain? Because it is not working. It is nearly 100 years of failed public policy, 100 years of failed legislation. Now, if this were any other form of legislation, it would have been scrapped by now. To continue to perpetuate arguments that are outdated, unfounded and, frankly, stigmatising, is really quite inappropriate.

To take you up on some of your points, Ms Crozier, you say that we are sending the wrong message to the public, I would argue that you are sending the wrong message to the public. To your concerns raised about the most vulnerable in our community and the impacts on them: what has the criminalisation of cannabis done and who has it impacted the most – our vulnerable communities.

Interestingly, I work quite closely with the AMA. We have done a lot of work around access to cannabis and medicinal cannabis in the hospital system, and we are working quite closely on making sure that medicinal cannabis patients have access to their medication and vaporisers to ensure that their healthcare approach is particularly led by the hospital system. But in regard to the AMA, how many lives have been destroyed by the overprescribing of benzodiazepines? Is this something that the AMA is taking up, and is this something that is at the forefront of their questioning?

I would also like to talk about Mrs Hermans’s contribution; in particular you raised the issue around the south-east. As a member for the South-East, as well as my colleague Mr Limbrick, we know very well how much cannabis is something the people of the south-east really do care about. The latest Penington data shows that in the local council areas of Casey, Greater Dandenong and Knox, 10,977 people were arrested for minor cannabis charges between 2018 and 2023. Now, are you saying that you do not care about those people? Is that what you are saying? Because to indicate that you think that this would cause major issues in the south-east is just untrue. We also have to remember that I got elected under the Legalise Cannabis banner in the south-east for this particular issue – 5.15 per cent. That was my first preference primary vote.

Wendy Lovell: What about the 95 per cent of people who didn’t vote for it?

Rachel PAYNE: It was the highest vote out of any of the regions for Legalise Cannabis, so I do argue with you that it is a really important issue for the people of the south-east. I will not continue, because I am just going to get more fired up. But I do thank everyone for their contributions today, and I commend the motion to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.