Wednesday, 12 November 2025

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (23:29): (2092) My adjournment matter is for the Attorney-General in the other place, and it relates to an inconsistency in the Road Safety Act 1986 which is impacting medicinal cannabis patients who are caught in roadside drug testing. In November 2024, thanks to Legalise Cannabis Victoria’s campaign on behalf of medicinal cannabis patients, Parliament amended the Road Safety Act 1986 to allow courts to exercise discretion in relation to the licence cancellation of a driver who tests positive for THC and has a lawful prescription for medicinal cannabis. The reforms, which commenced in March, recognise the legitimate therapeutic use of cannabis and allow magistrates to employ a fair and discretionary approach aimed at preventing unfair penalties for drivers who use their medication responsibly, as prescribed by their doctor, and are not impaired when tested. However, the intent of this reform is being undermined in practice due to procedural and legislative barriers, and people are still being placed in a situation where they face a criminal record simply for using their medication as prescribed. This is due to section 59(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which explicitly states that offences under the Road Safety Act 1986 are excluded from eligibility for court-ordered diversion. The combined effect of these provisions is that magistrates are not able to apply the discretion that was intended by the amendment, even in cases where a person’s conduct was entirely lawful under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. This outcome undermines the legislative intent of the 2024 reforms. The action I seek is that the Attorney-General immediately resolve this conflict and implement a solution to enable medicinal cannabis patients to actually access the discretion of the court, as the Parliament intended.