Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:28): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   the Allan government’s regressive cannabis laws are ineffective and its rejection of the decriminalisation of cannabis will perpetuate far-reaching and harmful consequences for many of the most vulnerable Victorians and waste valuable police, court and prison resources on a victimless crime;

(2)   at the 2025 Labor Party state conference, Labor’s members voted that:

(a) cannabis be legalised, taxed, owned and regulated by the state government;

(b) all forms of cannabis possession and use be decriminalised;

(3)   conference delegates resolved that:

(a) funds generated by a legalised cannabis industry could be used to fund:

(i) the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System;

(ii) the reform of the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) sector;

(iii) the reform of WorkCover and WorkSafe;

(iv) health-led housing;

(v) Indigenous health;

(vi) part of the state’s contribution to the national disability insurance scheme;

(b) a percentage of the profits generated by a regulated cannabis industry could be directed to the mental health, AOD, WorkCover, WorkSafe, housing, Indigenous health and disability sectors;

(4)   this formalised a similarly unanimous resolution from the 2024 state conference;

(5)   the Allan government’s refusal to decriminalise cannabis perpetuates the criminalisation of marginalised communities, including First Nations and working-class people, and lacks courage when its party’s policy platform goes far beyond decriminalisation; and calls on the government to heed its own party’s policy, beginning with the decriminalisation of the personal use and possession of cannabis.

I rise to speak in support of the motion in my name. Essentially our motion calls on the government to decriminalise cannabis. It references of course the resolution of the 2025 and 2024 Labor state conferences to implement a fully legalised cannabis market. But our motion also calls for the more modest interim step of decriminalisation, the entirely reasonable demand to stop arresting people for the possession and use of cannabis. We entered Parliament with high hopes of progressing the legalisation of cannabis. We are Legalise Cannabis after all. The name is on the tin. It seems so obvious from a health perspective and from a justice perspective that the continuing prohibition of cannabis is detrimental and it is expensive. It is based on an outdated stigmatisation of a well-used plant substance, one which nearly 42 per cent of Victorians have tried, 21 per cent use regularly and 41 per cent supported the decriminalisation of – a percentage, I might add, that has increased to 80 per cent in the time that we have been in Parliament.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates the income from a legal market for cannabis could be $1 billion a year, and that is, we understand, a conservative figure. It is hard to argue against a legal market if you can use the money to fund mental health, disability and alcohol and other drug services while simultaneously reducing the cost and resource burden on justice and corrections services. The main difference between a licit and an illicit market is that one contributes to the prosperity of the state and the other prospers criminals and works against the health and wellbeing of our citizens.

It is obvious that criminalisation is not making a huge difference to the business model of the criminals supplying cannabis. While cannabis has accounted for more than half of all drug-related arrests across Australia since 2021, 90 per cent of those people who were arrested were consumers, not suppliers. The economic and social opportunities of a legalised market are very obvious. Our party’s view is widely shared by members of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, who voted for the adoption of the legalisation of cannabis without opposition as firstly a floor resolution and subsequently as part of its own health policy platform. That is two state conferences in a row with no opposition to those changes. But I am getting ahead of myself, and I will return to that question.

The war on drugs has proven to be, let us face it, one of the worst and most damaging public policy decisions of all time. In Victoria we have already spent nearly a hundred years and billions of dollars fighting it, and yet people continue to consume drugs. It is really way past time for Victoria to remove this outdated law from the statutes. When we arrived we envisaged opening up an adult dialogue with a progressive government. We are a progressive state – we pride ourselves on it, don’t we? We would be up for trying something different, wouldn’t we? The former Treasurer saw the benefits of a legal market – why wouldn’t he? – and we had high hopes of progress based on our conversations with him. We requested costings for a legalised market from the Parliamentary Budget Office, and their report researched findings from other jurisdictions that have legalised recreational cannabis use. The numbers were good.

The report determined that the decrease in cannabis-related offences and associated sentencing outcomes would result in a reduction in operating expenses for Victoria Police, public prosecutions, the courts, correctional services and other ancillary justice related services. Surely that alone should be worth the effort. Clearly any progressive government with a little bit of courage and some imagination could see the logic in ending this senseless prohibition and seizing the opportunities that a vibrant local market could provide. All the evidence pointed in the same direction. We could see it. The government could see it. The question became how could we work with the government to bring about a reform that is, as Tony Parsons, former supervising magistrate of the Drug Court, described in his 2025 Penington oration, the holy trinity of good policy. It is the right thing to do, it is backed by evidence, and it enjoys broad community support, but apparently the government needed more hand-holding.

What about an expert advisory panel, we suggested – a group of leading experts to examine the best way to regulate a legalised market that would advance Victoria’s public health goals and generate revenue for vital services. A brand new market that could operate equitably and help repair the damage wrought by the war on drugs and its inherent discrimination. A brand new market that could increase opportunities for marginalised communities for our First Nations people. It could be based on some of the social equity schemes operating in other jurisdictions. The possibilities are really very exciting. That idea sank like a stone, no pun intended. Even taking a tiny incremental step towards a sensible and equitable policy was too bold a move for this government.

We then suggested decriminalisation instead. Decriminalisation is not ideal: it prohibits the supply side, which still allows criminals to control the illicit market, but as a first step towards a legal market at least we could stop arresting around 4000 Victorians each year, people largely from marginalised communities already over-represented in the justice system. At least we could start undoing the harms associated with arrests and contact with the criminal justice system, and at least we could free up the police, the courts and the jails to deal with the crimes that reduce community safety.

We introduced our Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023 under the name of my colleague, Ms Payne.

It was a modest bill that would have made it lawful for an adult to possess small quantities of cannabis, cultivate six cannabis plants for personal use and gift cannabis to another adult. It was essentially the same scheme that has been successfully operating in Canberra, with a few necessary improvements. During the debate we heard the concerns of members around children accessing cannabis and the inevitable increase in hospital presentations and carnage on our roads. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is not the data that was coming out of the ACT. People may cherrypick evidence from overseas jurisdictions – some are dealing with the transition to a legal market better than others – but when the data is for decrim and when it comes from a jurisdiction more or less across the border and it is looking so positive, you would think it would be hard to dismiss.

The government rejected our bill but committed to consult with stakeholders – they did not. But being the team players that we are, we agreed to refer the bill to an inquiry. The inquiry into the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023 heard evidence from the justice, mental health, health and legal sectors, the vast majority of whom were in favour of decriminalisation as a model that would serve the public health goals of harm minimisation and prevention. The committee travelled to the ACT to see firsthand evidence that the scheme is working as intended. Arrests are down 94 per cent. Cannabis use among young people has decreased. There has been no increase in hospital admissions.

None of the dire predictions around cannabis decriminalisation have materialised. In fact we had the privilege to meet with the ACT chief police commissioner himself. He told us that they had initially had concerns, but none had come to pass. The report was tabled with recommendations fully supported by the government members of the committee, drawing on the experience of the ACT in successfully decriminalising the cultivation and possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use with its associated health, social and legal benefits. The committee also resolved to consider adopting an approach in line with that proposed by the bill, along with any recommended amendments from the report.

It is a sensible proposal. It is rooted in evidence and supported by the majority of Victorians, but this government has ruled it out completely. They will not even consider it. We are frankly gobsmacked at the lack of courage, the utter cowardice, of that decision. We are also puzzled. Why wouldn’t the government – this progressive Victorian Labor government – support a proposal to stop needlessly arresting people? If you want to forgo the illicit cannabis market big bucks, fine. But arresting people for possessing a bit of pot – is that how they are tackling crime in this state? We are talking about allowing people to grow a few plants in their backyards and to be able to possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use. How stupid does this government think people are? As remand centres and prisons fill, does this government think that no-one knows the difference between violent crime and the victimless offence of possession or use of cannabis, that people do not know the difference between a machete and a joint? Do they honestly think people are terrified by the thought of pot smokers running amok? Are they really bundling up people who want to grow some pot in their gardens with the sort of serious crime that communities are actually contending with? Do they really think the arrest of cannabis users makes people feel safer? Let us recall that around three-quarters of a million Victorians consumed cannabis in the last 12 months. Are we going to lock them all up?

This is a government fixated on flexing their tough-on-crime credentials at any opportunity before the next election, and your average punter can tell the difference between sensible policy and kneejerk tough-on-crime rhetoric. There is a significant cognitive dissonance within the Allan government.

Last week I was truly proud and humbled to be present for the signing of Australia’s first treaty at Government House. This government has every right to be proud of that accomplishment, but this historic achievement is seriously undermined by the fact that the government continues to use cannabis as a means of shuttling First Nations people into the criminal justice system. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service told the bill inquiry that:

… Aboriginal people were eight times more likely to be arrested for possession of cannabis than non-Indigenous people. In contrast, non-Indigenous people arrested for possession of cannabis were 50 per cent more likely to receive a caution in Victoria.

Eight times as likely to be arrested, half as likely to be offered diversion – and that is not a novel fact. It is one the government has heard time and time again.

I hardly recognise this Labor government as such. I really do not know what they stand for. It is content to rest on past achievements, leaning on its establishment brand. They are about as progressive a government as can be when their policy goals are dictated by the likes of Fifi, Fev and Nick – I hope I got that pronunciation correct this time – or whatever the Herald Sun lead with on their front page. The Labor Party I grew up with stood for social justice, for equity and for human rights. It was a party of vision that introduced land rights, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and no-fault divorce. It was a party for workers, and let us face it, cannabis is first and foremost a working-class drug. It was a party that espoused progressive values and policies. At least their members seemed to hold fast to the light on the hill and their progressive values. The values these members express, the policies they want to see adopted, are befitting of a movement that introduced universal health care and free tertiary education, of a party synonymous with progressive reform. The ALP state conference resolutions are totally reasonable motions. The delegates to that conference represent the workers of this state: workers from the health, the mental health and the disability sectors; people who work in public housing and homelessness services; workers from the AOD sector and the aged care sector. They see the underinvestment by this government in those sectors and the impact that it is having on the health and wellbeing of Victorians, and they propose a commonsense solution. Revenue from a legalised market could be very useful to a state drowning in debt. Of course it would require an agreement between the state and the federal governments, but they are both Labor governments, so it should not really be hard to get some level of collaboration over the division of taxes and income. Wouldn’t it be lovely to have those funds be able to contribute to meeting the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, the reform of the alcohol and other drug sector, WorkCover, housing and Indigenous health or even to fund our state’s contribution to the national disability insurance scheme. We are not pretending it is going to pay for all of those things, but if this government has reached a point where a billion dollars is something to sneer at, I think we have all got a big problem. It certainly makes a lot more sense than simply handing it all to the Comancheros.

I hope I am alive to see the day when governments finally wake up to the fact that these policies harm people and enrich serious crime gangs. But if we are not there yet, how about the idea that even the money saved through not policing a victimless offence has utility? It is obviously not as much as what could be derived from legalising cannabis; however, the trauma and harm averted would have huge downstream positive impacts for our society and for our economy. And then there are the people of course – the many vulnerable Victorians who would not have their lives ruined by encounters with the criminal justice system. We do not want children to have access to cannabis. Children should not be consuming cannabis; it is bad for their brains. But make no mistake, for all the prohibition, kids have no trouble, no trouble at all, accessing cannabis.

It is easier for a kid to get their hands on some weed than it is to buy a packet of cigarettes. Worse, the prohibition, the ‘just say no’ approach, means we are not having the sorts of conversations we should be able to have in schools. There is inadequate education around drugs and harm reduction in school, so yes, it is quite possible that kids are not getting the right messages. We are not properly informing our young folk. Interestingly, very recent data out of Canada shows that, contrary to what is happening here, youth consumption of cannabis has fallen since the legalisation of cannabis. There was even a slight increase in the number of young people who reported that they have never used cannabis. Of course Canada accompanied their legalisation scheme with a comprehensive education program. What a bold approach: put the facts in front of young people and treat them with a little respect. Maybe disseminating information about harm minimisation and risk is more useful in reducing youth consumption than fear campaigns. Germany also recently reported no increase in use among young people or in traffic accidents since legalisation.

Given the wealth of evidence, the backing of experts and the wide public support, I really did not think we would still be having to convince this government to make at least some movement towards reform. Nobody said this was going to be easy. Decriminalisation and eventually legalisation will present all sorts of challenges, no doubt. There will be problems to solve and things to nut out, but we cannot keep doing what we are doing. Adults should be free to consume cannabis. They do it already. We are missing an opportunity to get on the front foot and to do this right. What have we got to lose?

We call on this government to respect the clearly articulated views of its own party members and reform our cannabis laws. Cannabis has been prohibited in Victoria since 1927. We are coming up to the centenary of this stupid and ineffective law. We can keep trying to deal with these same problems that we have been dealing with unsuccessfully for nearly 100 years or we can end the prohibition and perhaps get on with dealing with some new problems and some real problems with fresh eyes.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:47): I rise to speak on motion 1151 moved by Mr Ettershank calling for the decriminalisation and legalisation of cannabis. I say from the outset that Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne got me across the line when it came to industrial hemp, but they have not got me across the line on this, not even close.

Let me start by making a very obvious point about who moved this motion. Mr Ettershank represents the Legalise Cannabis Party, a party whose entire platform is built on normalising drug use and pushing ACT-style legislation, which is a so-called modest reform but I think it is a huge, progressive reform. Their advocacy relies heavily on the Penington Institute, the think tank that has become the go-to for drug lobbyists, framing legislation as health reform while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of its harm.

I want to acknowledge the stated intent behind this motion. We all want safer communities, we all want better health outcomes and smarter use of resources, and that is why three out of our four primary goals as the Liberal Party are to reduce and manage state debt, to have access to quality health care and to address the crime crisis. These are things that we all really care about. However, I think the motion oversimplifies the issue and misrepresents the facts, which, when you dig into them a little bit deeper, tell quite a different story. The motion is based on a widely circulated claim by the party that some 4000 Victorians are arrested every year for cannabis possession. That sounds alarming, but when I went into it I found that it was quite misleading. According to the Sentencing Advisory Council, out of 13,758 possession charges sentenced over three years, imprisonment was extremely rare – in fact less than 0.6 of a per cent.

It is almost always linked to other serious offences like assault and trafficking. Most cases end in cautions or fines but not jail. No-one is being handcuffed or sent away to prison for smoking a joint. This matters because the motion bases its argument on conflating detections with arrests leading to convictions. I think this is an absolutely important differentiation.

I want to talk about the realities on the ground. Victoria already operates under a de facto decriminalisation environment. Every 20 April thousands of people gather in Melbourne’s Flagstaff Gardens for the annual 420 rally.

David Ettershank: You’d get arrested.

Renee HEATH: Well, as far back as 2017 a Vice article reported on 4000 people openly smoking cannabis in public with minimal police presence. Officers were described as ‘happy to ignore the collective blazing of the people’. Even when arrests occur, as Legalise Cannabis’s own website affirms, most receive cautions. Is this what this motion calls prohibition?

The claim that cannabis is a victimless crime is also simply and plainly wrong. Cannabis harms are not abstract, they are real and they are measurable. For me it is something that has been very close to home, as I have a good friend who was seriously damaged by cannabis. Peer-reviewed research confirms that cannabis is mutagenic and carcinogenic, among other things; it is causally linked to 33 cancers, double the number caused by tobacco; and it is also connected to 90 different birth defects. It is associated with psychosis, depression, suicide and amotivational syndrome. I noticed we did speak about the reforms in Canada recently, but what was missed out in that was that in Canada 40 per cent of youth schizophrenia cases are cannabis related. That I think is one of the most devastating statistics that we have spoken about here. I mentioned my friend before – a lovely person, with her life completely ahead of her – who was seriously damaged with frontal lobe brain damage due to her use of cannabis, which has changed the whole course of her life forever. Overseas cannabis legalisation has led to spikes in emergency presentations of psychosis and cardiac events. Victoria’s hospitals and ambulances are already overstretched, and adding this sort of spike in cannabis-related harm will only worsen the delays and the outcomes.

Magistrate Tony Parsons asked in his 2025 Penington oration:

How often does a social reform come along that meets the holy trinity of policy reform: it is “the right thing to do”, it is backed by evidence, and it enjoys broad community support?

To that I would answer: cannabis legalisation actually falls short on all three. It is not the right thing to do, it is not backed by evidence and the community is far more nuanced than this motion suggests. Let me talk for a moment a bit more about the Penington Institute, because they are the think tank that has become the go-to for drug lobbyists. Their cannabis control plan framework frames itself as health reform while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of harm. It omits data from 60 peer-reviewed studies showing cannabis causes cancers, birth defects and psychiatric illnesses – devastating. It calculates hypothetical revenue without factoring in health and social costs that outstrip the fiscal benefit. This is not a balanced policy.

I can tell you one thing I know for certain: legalising cannabis is not going to fix our budget problems here. It is not going to make things safer. And the argument that legalisation would dismantle the black market is also incorrect, according to overseas studies and other case studies. Organised crime exists because of the vast capital accumulated through illicit drugs, enabling infiltration of legitimate industries worldwide.

Legislation does not dismantle crime, it diversifies it. An example of this is California where the black market remains larger than the legal market. Criminal networks use the framework to cover illicit grows and trafficking. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission confirms organised crime already controls part of agriculture, construction and retail in Victoria. Adding cannabis licensing will create new opportunities for criminal control and expansion.

The motion claims legislation will deliver a much-needed revenue boost to our depleted tax coffers. The international evidence shows $1 in cannabis tax costs up to $4.50 in public health and social costs. To talk about Canada again, the tax revenue is less than 0.4 per cent of federal income, while health costs continue to rise. I have already mentioned Canada, but other countries show legalisation has led to spikes in emergency presentations for psychosis and cardiac events.

Victoria’s economy, its citizens and especially its youth cannot afford another ill-thought-out policy that deepens deficits and strains services. I believe we need a prevention-first approach, a recovery-focused approach. We need to invest in mental health and education. We need to increase public and community policing and early intervention. We need to fund treatment and rehabilitation and strengthen community programs that keep young people engaged and safe, not stoned and finding more pathways to join other drug communities. This is how we reduce harm, not by commercialising drugs linked to cancer, psychosis, crime and birth defects. Real reform is not about pushing adult rights through political lobbies or following the loudest voices, it is real policy drawn from a close look at evidence drawn from hard facts and properly analysed, and protecting Victorians, especially the vulnerable, from harm. I will not be supporting this motion.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:57): I am pleased to rise to speak on this creative motion that has been brought before us today by Mr Ettershank I welcome the opportunity to share a few words and comments on it as I welcome the apparent defection of both Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne to the Labor Party. We look forward to welcoming you both with open arms. Ms Payne, I am sure your application would be readily accepted. Mr Ettershank, you may have to go through a few more processes, a few more checks and balances I think might be in order. But give it your best, and hopefully you will be joining us in these ranks soon in the lovely crimson red shirts that you have.

We certainly embrace your embracing of the party’s very strong, very proud and longstanding democratic values, and values of transparency as well, which I think is really, really important. Going to that point, our party conferences are indeed public. You can go online and access the policy platforms of various policy committees, the proposals, the motions – the motions that get up and the motions that do not get up – and partake, and we invite journalists in as well. It is quite a democratic, open and accountable process that really does highlight the strength of this party – this party that I am proud to be a member of – and the mighty trade union movement and the mighty rank-and-file branch members that bring us together at our robust and democratic state conferences. They are the appropriate forum for our party to hash out these proposals.

As I know you do know, Mr Ettershank, there is not a straightforward connection between a party decision at a state conference and the policy position of the state government. Though there is a strong relationship there, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. We cherish the fact that we do have that democracy, that we do have a safe space – a safe space at least when it is not Green Party activists storming and crashing into our state conference like we saw last year. I am not sure if Legalise Cannabis state conferences are publicly open and accountable. I know the Greens are not; they lock the doors and no journalists can go and see what happens in there. Even the Liberals have their doors wide open – you have other doors wide open in this place too, probably a little bit too much.

I know the Greens keep the doors shut for their state conferences. Do you have open state conferences? Can media attend?

Rachel Payne: We have MardiGrass.

Michael GALEA: I suspect it is slightly different.

David Ettershank: We get lots of Labor people.

Michael GALEA: I am sure you do. It would be very good if you could learn from the Labor movement in fact and demonstrate those same principles of public accountability, as being a major political party in this state comes with that public responsibility as well. I would encourage you to follow in that lead – that is, unless of course you do decide to proceed with your application to join the Labor Party, which would be welcomed, no doubt.

There have been some wideranging contributions already in this place about the different models of reform that are before us. Mr Ettershank, I note that you did spend some time talking about the ACT inquiry that a number of us in this room in fact undertook earlier this year. That was a decriminalisation model; that was not a full tax-and-control-and-spend model. I am sure you are aware any sort of taxation-based model would be a constitutional issue, with the federal government being the one to collect those taxes and the state government then left to deliver the services – not an insurmountable problem but certainly a major challenge that would be presented before your more extreme ambitions of a full legalised model. The inquiry that we undertook did focus on that model of decriminalisation, and I have had the opportunity to speak on that inquiry in this chamber on many occasions. Indeed there was some very interesting evidence that we saw both in the ACT and then back here in Melbourne in relation to that proposed model, and what is clear is that in the context of the ACT it is a model that works well. But it is a context that we need to bear in mind, and that is the context of it being quite a unique jurisdiction in the Australian federal system but also the pre-existing scenarios of what you could call the semi-decriminalisation that had already been undertaken in the ACT in the decades leading up to it, including amongst other measures the simple cannabis offence notices that they had in place of a $100 fine prior to them bringing in full decriminalisation. I think it is important to bear that context in mind; when you are looking at the government’s response to the inquiry, it is important to bear in mind that one such success does not necessarily guarantee the same results elsewhere, and you have to ensure that the other settings are right and in place in order to achieve that.

When you look at the track record of the Allan Labor government, I can certainly see why those who support progressive policies and support progressive reform would be joining our great party, with us being the first state in the nation to introduce medicinal cannabis for treating patients who require it – indeed we have seen just in the last couple of years some further reforms in regard to the ongoing track trial but also providing that legal defence for someone who is using medicinal cannabis so that they are not unfairly punished and that, if they are driving, they have got a legal defence if they can justify that they were not intoxicated at the time. Indeed being the third speaker on this debate so far and mentioning this policy reform it would be remiss of me to not also mention the good Dr Tony Parsons, who played a significant role in supporting both your party, Mr Ettershank, and the government in formulating a work-through of that very tricky and thorny issue, and I commend him for his work. We also brought in the medical safe injecting room in Richmond and seen the life-saving changes that has had. Indeed as recently as yesterday Minister Stitt was in the chamber updating the house on the phenomenal, frankly, success of Victoria’s implementation of pill testing. We saw in the first six weeks of operation more than 500 samples tested, with harm reduction conversations conducted with nearly 300 people; going to the importance of that particular initiative, the most important time that you can talk to someone about drug harm is quite literally just before they take it. We all remember Harold the giraffe at school. I am sure most of us remember Harold the giraffe. We are a particularly blessed nation that we can all have that childhood collective memory of being taught about drugs and alcohol by a big yellow giraffe in a van that was parked outside our school.

That is a valuable time. It is a valuable time as well to be teaching young people about the risks and other scenarios that relate to any sort of drug and alcohol use, but it is also most important to be having those conversations right when it matters the most, and that is where the pill testing model has come in. We know that for one in four service users in that first six weeks of operation that conversation was the first conversation they had had about their substance use with a health professional – a really, really important statistic. For one in four that was their first conversation. The early intervention that can come through at that point – not coming from a judgemental lens but coming from a public health lens of ‘This is what you’re actually taking. This is what it could do to you. These are the effects. Even if it is taken as intended, even if it is what you think it is, this is what you need to be prepared for’ – is something that will save lives as well.

What else saves lives through this program is the two drug notifications issues that came through the pill testing program for, as the minister said, counterfeit oxycodone pills that contained nitazene, which is a synthetic drug 500 times stronger than heroin – quite a chilling statistic from yesterday. It is a very dangerous thing for anyone to be taking or contemplating taking, and in too many cases without pill testing, it would be unwittingly taken as well.

There is also the statewide action plan on drug use. Through the investment of $95 million in this year’s state budget to support the new statewide action plan to address the drug harms across the community, including expanded statewide services, targeted support for drug users in the CBD of Melbourne and strengthened leadership and oversight, with a raft of measures that will be included in that broader package, on all of these measures you can see considerable progress has been made, including as recently as the past year. I refer again to the impacts on drivers licences for people who do take medicinal cannabis and need to drive – significant reforms that are continuing to take shape. And I can well understand why all members in favour of sensible, pragmatic and progressive alcohol and drug reform in this state would be queuing up to join the Labor Party.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:07): I rise to speak on motion 1151 in my colleague Mr Ettershank’s name. Earlier this month, alongside stakeholders from a wide range of sectors, including the health, legal and alcohol and other drug sectors, we wrote to the Premier to express our deep concerns about the Victorian government’s decision to oppose the decriminalisation of cannabis following the inquiry into personal adult use of cannabis. As organisations who witness the far-reaching and harmful consequences of these outdated laws on our most vulnerable Victorians, we called on the Premier to urgently reconsider this decision. We noted that every year in Victoria an average of 7805 people get caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing small quantities of cannabis, with 3812 of these people arrested, and I note Dr Heath’s contribution in making reference to those arrests. I will highlight that this data actually comes from the Crime Statistics Agency on individual arrest rates.

Victoria’s ongoing criminalisation of adult use was shown through the inquiry to unfairly target Aboriginal communities through discriminatory policing. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 11 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police and eight times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession, while non-Indigenous people are 50 per cent more likely to receive a caution for cannabis possession. These figures confirm what Aboriginal communities have long known – racial profiling and systemic bias persist in policing cannabis offences. Our motion highlights that the Allan government’s refusal to decriminalise cannabis perpetuates the criminalisation of marginalised communities, including First Nations and working-class people. Like the former public intoxication laws that led to the tragic and preventable death of Aunty Tanya Day, cannabis laws punish people instead of supporting them. They increase unnecessary contact with the criminal legal system, retraumatise people and entrench cycles of disadvantage. As with public intoxication and as was found by the inquiry, cannabis use is a public health issue, not a criminal one.

In this open letter, we noted that the cost of enforcing the criminalisation of cannabis Australia wide is estimated to be $1.7 billion each year. This includes $1.1 billion spent on imprisonment and $475 million on policing. The decision to continue criminalising cannabis wastes millions of dollars on valuable police, court and corrections resources on a victimless offence. It also ensures the illicit cannabis market in Victoria, which the Parliamentary Budget Office values at over $1 billion, will fund organised crime instead of the Victorian economy.

While we have not received a response to our letter yet – but by all accounts it looks like Labor Party policy, as detailed in this motion – we should expect a response agreeing to decriminalise cannabis as soon as possible. Unfortunately our expectations are grounded in reality. The reality is that this government has made the decision to outright reject the sensible approach of decriminalising cannabis in complete hypocrisy of its own party policy. But more than that, Victorian Labor members voted for cannabis to be legalised, taxed, owned and regulated by the state government. You would think that this would encourage the Allan Labor government to act, but they have not even considered decriminalisation despite over 80 per cent of Victorians supporting it, positive evidence from the ACT’s experience and overwhelming stakeholder support. This is the kind of consensus we rarely get to see on any political issue.

Like Labor Party members, we are calling on the government to reconsider its decision to rule out decriminalising cannabis. While we appreciate that not every policy supported at state conferences becomes the policy of the state government, I think it is fair to ask: what is stopping you? In the government’s response to the inquiry and our bill to decriminalise cannabis, they say they will reduce harm by evidence-based action, they say they believe the ACT’s positive experience and they claim that they will monitor the issue. Their hypocrisy is glaring. If it was at all true, they would have supported recommendation 1, to draw on the ACT’s successful experience and consider adopting an approach in line with what was proposed in our bill, but they did not. What a lack of courage. This kind of inaction is inexcusable. The Allan Labor government has surrendered to the idea of being tough on crime this election. As such, Victoria’s ‘serious consequences, early interventions’ plan sounds an awful lot like the Liberal Party’s policies. I am not sure there is anything more that you could do to be tough on crime except free up police resources by decriminalising cannabis.

I want to focus on another part of our motion and an important part of the Labor Party’s resolution: that funds generated by a legalised cannabis industry would be used to fund recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System – the reform of the alcohol and other drug, or AOD, sector; the reform of WorkCover and WorkSafe; health-led housing; Indigenous health; and part of the state’s contribution to the national disability insurance scheme. While decriminalisation saves money in valuable police, court and prison resources on a victimless crime, a legal market could go one step further. Instead of funding arrests and incarcerations, we should be funding mental health services, housing and other vital social infrastructure. At a time when these services are crying out for support, it is shameful that this government’s inaction is stopping them receiving it.

When it was announced that the Allan Labor government would introduce pill testing following the joint advocacy of the Legalise Cannabis, Animal Justice and Greens parties, we had hope – a hope that this would be a government who listen to the evidence, a hope that they would have the courage to make the right decisions and a hope that harm minimisation would be a priority. I am disappointed, to say the least, but I am not entirely without hope. To echo the comments of my colleague in quoting His Honour Tony Parsons, cannabis law reform is the holy trinity of good policy.

It’s the right thing to do. It’s backed by evidence. It enjoys broad community support.

While the time for change is now, I remain hopeful that even if it does not happen now, it is only a matter of time. Get on with it, heed your own policy and start by decriminalising the personal use and possession of cannabis in Victoria.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:15): I thank Mr Ettershank for bringing this motion forward today. I will not go into the parts where it talks about Labor Party policy; I think that is a matter for the Labor Party. But I will say this: a cannabis market exists in Victoria and will continue to exist in Victoria regardless of what this Parliament does. The real question that we are facing as a Parliament and that the government is facing is whether we want that market to be controlled by organised crime or we want it to be a legal, regulated activity. At the moment the major parties seem to err on the side of letting it be controlled by organised crime, because that is exactly what is happening at the moment.

I note Mr Ettershank made the progressive case for legalisation. Let me make the case to conservatives. If they truly claim to be wanting to be tough on crime and they are offered a magical button that would vaporise, as Mr Ettershank pointed out, a $1 billion market, they would choose to not do that. The reason that they would choose not to do that is because they disrespect the individual choices of people. They disrespect their freedom because they choose to consume a flower that the Liberal Party does not like. I mean, you cannot get more anti-freedom than that, I do not think. It is a real litmus test of whether someone really, really believes in freedom or not, whether they want to regulate flowers that people consume or not. It is absolutely crazy.

I got my own research done by the Parliamentary Budget Office about the amount of police time – it was published this morning, and they did a very good job on this, I might add; I recommend everyone go and look at it – that is used policing cannabis. In the 2024–25 financial year it was almost 57,000 hours of police time. With all of the crime problems that we have in this state with people running around with machetes, home invasions and gangs and all this sort of stuff, we spend 57,000 hours of police time chasing people because they consume or sell or grow flowers that the government does not like. I mean, you cannot make up something that wasteful. It is just so incredibly wasteful. We can undermine this. We need to undermine other markets as well. I have spoken many times about how what has happened through government policy has caused an explosion in organised crime in the tobacco and vaping markets, because of their poor policy. I have called many times publicly for the health bureaucrats that have been promoting that policy to be held to account and sacked immediately.

But we have a similar problem with cannabis, although it is a much smaller market. We still have this market worth billions of dollars in Australia totally controlled by organised crime, and we just continue to go ahead with this failed policy as if magically having this is going to fix things. The idea that legalisation is going to suddenly cause all of these people that would not consume cannabis otherwise to suddenly have it or suddenly desire it – who are they? Can you name who these people are? Because pretty much everyone that I have ever met that wants to get their hands on cannabis in Victoria can do it. I do not know who these people are that are going to get their hands on it.

Dr Heath talked about the harms of cannabis. I might argue about the details of some things, but I do not argue that cannabis causes no harm. Of course it does. It causes all sorts of harm. But that harm exists right now. It is through legalisation and regulation that you can decrease those harms, because all of a sudden you are buying a product that has consumer protections. If it does not have in it what it says on the label, all of a sudden you have a problem under consumer law.

Despite my changes in views on politics throughout my adult life, I have always been puzzled by cannabis prohibition. I have always thought it was a crazy thing. I do not think that you can say that you support individual rights at all when you want to throw people in jail for consuming flowers that you do not like.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:19): I wish to thank Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne for the motion and to indicate that the government will be opposing this motion, I am sorry. The notion of legalisation of cannabis is definitely controversial. It is contested across our communities and discussion is often robust, as it was at this year’s Victorian Labor Party state conference, which has been a point of discussion during this debate.

Our government acknowledges and respects the work of the hardworking delegates at the ALP state conference and the various motions on many topics that are passed every year. As has been said already I think by Mr Galea about the openness and the level of democracy at the Victorian state Labor conference, it is certainly a very activated space. Labor’s state conference is made up of 600 delegates from across Victoria representing thousands of Labor Party members. They are an amazing cross-section of Victorian society. We have absolutely guaranteed through our quota system that we have got 50 per cent women, and many are part of our diverse union movement. We have the Labor environmental action movement, we have Labor for women, we have Rainbow Labor, Labor for all abilities and multicommunities. There are outer regional people represented and LGBTQI communities are all there as well.

When you belong to a really diverse and inclusive organisation, you hear a wide range of perspectives, and those perspectives and ideas are quite broad. They are the kinds of perspectives you do not hear when you belong to a homogenous group of people, where everybody is the same. That is something that as a labour movement we are very, very proud of. We do not shy away from the rigorous debate and discussion that happens at conference. The policies that are adopted at the Victorian state conference are a matter for the broader party, so they then go on to another party process after that. They are certainly not a matter for the Legislative Council.

I feel very proud to point out that when it comes to alcohol and drug policy and reform, the Allan Labor government proudly takes a harm minimisation approach because our decisions are grounded in evidence and in what we know genuinely improves the health and wellbeing of Victorians. We have consistently put people’s safety and dignity first, and we have done this from leading the nation as the first jurisdiction to legalise medicinal cannabis, establishing the life-saving safe injecting service in North Richmond and most recently launching pill testing at festivals.

The Allan Labor government listens to experts and we get on with the job of delivering a safer, fairer and healthier community in Victoria. Our record speaks for itself. When it comes to cannabis policy Victoria has led the nation. We were the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise medicinal cannabis back in 2016. This landmark reform meant no Victorian would ever again have to choose between breaking the law and easing their suffering or the suffering of a loved one. This decision was measured, thoughtful and grounded in expert advice.

Before introducing the legislation, Labor sought the guidance of the Victorian Law Reform Commission on how to modernise our laws safely. This included guidance on cultivation and manufacture, patient eligibility, clinical oversight and the need for ongoing research. The commission produced more than 40 recommendations, including the establishment of an independent medical advisory committee to guide the safe, staged expansion of access. I would definitely describe that there has been some movement in the cannabis space in recent years, and that is exactly what has happened.

Today any doctor or nurse practitioner in Victoria can prescribe medical cannabis when it is clinically appropriate. It is now used to treat chronic pain, anxiety, cancer-related symptoms, epilepsy, insomnia and multiple sclerosis. This gives thousands of Victorians access to pain relief in dignity and choice.

Our government also continues to take a careful and evidence-driven approach to medicinal cannabis and road safety, a topic that we have had debated in this chamber previously. Under Victoria’s current drug driving laws, any detectable level of THC is an offence, even when the THC comes from a legally prescribed medicinal cannabis product. Those laws carry significant penalties, including fines, loss of licence and mandatory behaviour change programs. Last year, in November 2024, the government supported a house amendment from the Legalise Cannabis Victoria party to introduce a fairer and more nuanced approach. The amendment came into effect on 1 March 2025 and will provide magistrates with discretion regarding a licence cancellation for anyone with a medical cannabis prescription should they wish to contest the licence cancellation in court. Contesting the licence cancellation in court will enable magistrates to consider all available evidence, including evidence of impairment, to make a decision, and it will remain an offence for drivers to be detected with THC in their system.

The change does not impact impairment drug driving laws. We have debated this topic of impairment and marijuana before, and we know that there is a significantly differential impact from human being to human being, and work is underway to try and understand the science of how to regulate that based on science. So currently what we do know is that the evidence on the real-world impact of prescribed medical cannabis on driving performance is still limited. That is why the Victorian government is investing in world-leading research, including a closed-circuit driving trial. This is a world-first study examining the impact of medicinal cannabis on driving in real-world conditions. The trial began in late October 2024 as part of a $4.9 million commitment to building a proper evidence base to guide future policy. This is responsible reform, protecting road safety while ensuring our laws are informed by science, not stigma.

Another more recent example of reform is the establishment of pill testing. Pill testing reform is about reducing harm and keeping people safe, and it provides a controlled, supervised service where trained chemists and health workers can analyse the contents of a pill or other substance and tell people exactly what it is they are about to take. We all know that too often young people make risky decisions based on misinformation, peer pressure or the belief that they already know what the drug contains. Pill testing disrupts that risk by giving them clear, factual information and connecting them with health advice on the spot. This trial is about saving lives by providing a critical harm reduction service, and we have got some funding announced just recently for a new round of festivals to be funded for pill testing, which includes the Pitch festival near Moyston, just at the foot of the Grampians hillside there. That festival also had pill testing last year, and it will be again funded to do pill testing this year.

The Allan Labor government has a statewide plan to find solutions for many drug harms – that is, we have committed $95 million to support a statewide action plan to address drug harms across the Victorian community. I will conclude my contribution there and thank you for your motion today.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:29): I was not planning on speaking on this motion, to be honest, but I was watching the contribution of Mr Limbrick from down in my office, doing some work, and thought I just had to come up and make a contribution and defend my colleague Dr Heath at the same time. The lecturing from I guess a pure philosophical point of view, as Mr Limbrick often does, often happens. It is easy for it to happen when you are not a party of government, it is easy for it to happen from that point of view, but I am not going to be lectured, Dr Heath should not be lectured and the Liberal Party should not be lectured about ‘You guys want to talk about freedom, and you guys are unhappy about a flower.’ I am not going to take lectures from someone who voted to extinguish the human rights of people that were wronged by the government. I think when in a position to do so, based on practical realities, Mr Limbrick also makes decisions that might not align with a clear philosophical point of view, so I do not think it is fair to attack Dr Heath or attack the Liberal Party for having a position on this issue and having a position that is quite different on this issue.

I note that Mr Limbrick probably would not like the words ‘owned and regulated by the state government’ in the Labor Party conference motion. I cannot imagine him supporting that. I know former members of the Communist Party might be pleased with the progressive flank of the Labor state conference, but is there anything Labor Party grassroots members do not want controlled and operated by the government?

I guess if I could give a little bit of advice – and I will get on to the Labor state conference – to my friends in the Legalise Cannabis Party, a little bit of a hot tip, the Legalise Cannabis Party was elected with two MPs on one issue. I know plenty of people on the right of politics that also voted for the Legalise Cannabis Party because, as outlined in the name, it is one issue. So you would think the Legalise Cannabis Party would be doing everything possible, everything in their capacity as very influential members of the crossbench and very key to the government getting through any reforms possible, to use that ability. The people of Victoria did not elect two additional Reason Party MPs to comply with the government and do deals with the government on everything. That is not why people voted for the Legalise Cannabis Party. They voted for the Legalise Cannabis Party to legalise cannabis. They did not vote for the Legalise Cannabis Party to be an additional voting bloc with the Greens or be an extension of the Labor Party’s numbers in this place.

So my advice would be to get back to pursuing the one thing that people brought you here for, which is what you are doing today. But my one bit of advice is maybe just do not comply with government legislation for the rest of this term. They voted you here for one reason. Watch how quickly the government will try to act on this if you do that. There are lots of things the government wants to do, and there are lots of things the government needs both of you on. If you actually stood up for the one thing that people voted you here for, you might find you will have some success. I will leave that as advice for the Legalise Cannabis Party.

This motion actually allows me to speak on the Labor state conference.

A member interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have been to plenty of Liberal state conferences; they are great fun. I have been attending them for a good 17 years. But this allows me to talk about Labor state conferences, and we know there have been several controversial motions. Labor state conferences seem like, from the policy proposals being put forward, the normal things you would hear from the Greens members of this place. That is what the grassroots members of the Labor Party seem to think. Again, they want everything controlled, regulated and taxed by the government – almost control of the entire supply chains.

One of the things people at the Labor state conference were very up and about on is protest laws. They were arguing against protest laws in the city, arguing against giving police the powers to de-mask people, arguing against giving police the powers to move people on, arguing against giving police the powers they need to break up violent protests – that is what the Labor state conference did. No wonder the Premier and the Allan government have been so weak on this issue of protests. She comes out and says she wants a mask ban at protests and then what she actually proposes does not go anywhere near that. In fact police have to wait until someone attacks them for them to have a reason to de-mask someone, leaving our police vulnerable, compromised and without the powers that they have themselves requested. Why? Because they are answering to a whole bunch of radicals at the Labor state conference – which is what they are doing right now.

We know there are all sorts of other wacky things that they come up with. They all hate the AUKUS agreement.

A member: Not all.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Some people.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I know. We saw this last week. I can usually trust Mr Erdogan on these kinds of issues. But unfortunately it seems like the majority of the Labor Party state conference do not like AUKUS. They do not like the creation of jobs that is going to come with it. They do not like the capacity to have nuclear-powered submarines. They do not like the fact that this strengthens and protects our national security in a time of global uncertainty. There are all sorts of wacky motions.

We of course all saw – last year, it might have been, or the year before – the scenes where members of the Greens political party came to visit the Labor Party state conference at Moonee Valley Racecourse. Unfortunately that caused a bit of a lockdown, so I read. But I would not be sufficiently taking the advice of the Labor Party state conference as gospel on these kinds of issues.

Jacinta Ermacora: You’re such an expert. That’s your advice.

Evan MULHOLLAND: My additional advice. I am not sure that the Labor Party state conference is the best place to start for good policy in this state.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:39): I rise to speak in support, on behalf of my Greens colleagues, of this motion, which calls out the hypocrisy of our state Labor government. As has been noted already in this debate, the members of the Victorian Labor Party at the grassroots level clearly support decriminalisation of cannabis, for the last two years having voted in support of it at their state conference, and yet this government continues to ignore these members and ignore the evidence.

The government ties itself up in knots to acknowledge the medicinal benefits of cannabis while still supporting the criminalisation of recreational use. We need a health-based response to drug use in our community and not one that sees people locked up, increasing the burden on our courts, on our community legal centres and on individuals who are caught up with fines and charges they cannot afford, or worse. The system is not working, and it is time for a change.

Imagine how much could be done to prevent crime and to focus on early intervention programs if so much time, energy and resources were not being expended on charging and locking up people over a plant. What we have seen from this state Labor government is reactionary justice policy that seems to come straight out of a Herald Sun playbook, with the raft of new laws and so-called tough-on-crime responses seeming to be written on the fly. We saw an announcement from the Premier last week with literally no legislation ready to back up the policy. They are just throwing ideas out into the void, hoping they will stick, that the public will support them and that this will translate somehow into votes come election day. What is missing from all these announcements is evidence-based policy that will actually make our communities safer.

They are ignoring the experts, people like the community legal centres, which are begging them to offer solutions that will actually tackle the root causes and build our communities in a way that prevents crime from happening in the first place. They are begging them for a criminal legal system that is fair and just and that does not disproportionately capture marginalised communities and does not drive people to reoffend. We need way more investment in early intervention and community building programs, investment in public housing so that everyone has a safe and secure place to live, more social support and an increase to income support payments so that people in our state are not trapped in poverty.

There is a lot more that can and should be done, but these tough-on-crime slogan campaigns are not it. Around 4000 people are charged with cannabis possession in our state every year. We should be keeping these people out of the system by legalising and regulating cannabis. Labor grassroots members have voted for what has exactly been Greens policy for years. We want to see a state government owned and regulated legal cannabis industry where the taxes raised are reinvested back into social supports that benefit people who use drugs and also the wider community. Labor grassroots members know it, the Greens know it and the crossbenchers know it. Now it is time for this Labor government to act.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:42): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Mr Ettershank’s motion. Obviously the topic of cannabis law reform in the state is one that Mr Ettershank, Ms Payne and a few others and I have had occasion to discuss on previous occasions, being members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, which inquired into the bill that Ms Payne introduced that mirrored the settings in the ACT. We conducted an inquiry which Mr Ettershank in his contribution, and Ms Payne as well, talked through in some detail, so I will not traverse that territory again. I will, however, take a little bit of time to traverse the territory that certainly members of the government have I think a unique capacity to talk about in the course of this debate, and that is what happens at Labor Party state conferences and what they mean.

It is interesting to hear just how many people have a view about the Labor Party, its internal mechanisms and what implications we can draw from that. Unfortunately both in terms of the contributions that have been made in the course of the debate and in terms of the motion, they just get bits of it wrong. I think it is important that we clarify some of that here. Firstly, to say – and I do not know whether this is an overegging in the motion – at point (5), where it talks about the party’s policy platform with respect to cannabis decriminalisation. You can find a copy of the Labor Party’s policy platform on the Labor Party’s website. You can just Google it if you like. There are two places where cannabis is described in the Victorian Labor Party Platform 2022–2026, at 2.7.1 and 5.1.7, and both of those contain the same words: that Labor will ‘continue to support access to medicinal cannabis’. That is it.

There are a range of other matters that we traverse in terms of harm minimisation, alcohol and other drug services, but if this motion purports to tell you what is in the Labor Party’s platform, that is what is in the Labor Party’s platform – nothing more, nothing less. What Mr Ettershank in his motion is seeking to get to is that there were some resolutions that were passed at Labor Party state conferences that presented in terms that are summarised in the motion a position of that resolution at that conference. What I will say is that urgency resolutions passed by the Labor Party at its conference do not form part of the Labor Party’s platform until the party’s platform conference decides it, and that will be held next year. So we really just need to clear up what is in the Labor Party’s platform and what is not in the Labor Party’s platform, and I think we should do that from people who are members of the Labor Party and attend Labor Party conferences, not from people who are not. If anyone in this chamber wants to come along, if anyone in this chamber wants to see the light – it is a light on a hill, but see the light nonetheless – make the conversion, I am sure you can. There are some organisations that remain proscribed organisations in the Labor Party’s rules – for good reason, I should say. I will not go into that now, because there is a bit of tension in our history about it, but they remain proscribed organisations. But unless you are members of those organisations – come along, we will let you in, and you can enjoy watching our proceedings.

The next thing I just want to quickly clarify is, again, a little bit of confusion that exists in the course of the debate here, and it is in the motion, about this revenue nirvana that a regulated cannabis market in Victoria would create. It says in the terms of the motion that a marketisation of the cannabis industry in Victoria would lead to a revenue nirvana that would be able to fund all these services. That is a position that is advocated by Mr Ettershank. I am not sure that it is entirely consistent with either the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia or the decisions of the High Court, because, as we know, under the terms of the constitution, section 90 grants exclusive powers with respect to excise to the Commonwealth, and the High Court in Ha v New South Wales and more recently in the Vanderstock decision held that states cannot levy an excise on goods. That is why we do not have excise on tobacco anymore. The state used to levy an excise on tobacco, but we do not anymore because the High Court in Ha ruled it unconstitutional. It is the exclusive power of the Commonwealth. So even if the state wanted to legalise the cannabis –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: That is why I said Vanderstock, Mr Mulholland. If the state wanted to regulate the cannabis market and make money from it via the means of excise, that is unconstitutional. The workaround that Mr Ettershank seemed to allude to in his remarks is that somehow we could do a deal with the Commonwealth where they could collect the tax for us, thereby circumventing this mechanism, and all of a sudden that is going to solve the constitutional barriers. The problem with that approach is that there are other sections of the Commonwealth constitution, particularly the taxation power in 51(ii), but also the provisions of section 99, which preclude the Commonwealth from applying taxation differentially between the states. So we cannot go to the Commonwealth and say, ‘Can you please just levy an excise on cannabis in Victoria and pass us back the funds?’ They cannot do it, because the way our federal taxation structures operate is to ensure that Commonwealth taxes operate uniformly across the country. So we cannot do a special deal and say, ‘We want an excise, a tax, on cannabis here in Victoria, and can you please pass us back the revenue?’ because it would be in breach of section 99 of the Commonwealth constitution. I think they may be technical arguments, but they are fundamental arguments to the tenor of this motion, because the motion says that somehow the regulation of a cannabis market in Victoria is going to allow us to fund all of these other services.

I might draw an analogy to the way that back in the 1980s Victoria was a nation leader and a world leader in the way that we used excise on cigarettes to lead a tobacco control movement. We have VicHealth in this state because the Cain government decided to put a tax on cigarettes – increase the cigarette excise – and fund health prevention measures. The problem with trying to adopt the same approach on this product as we did on tobacco in the 80s is that there was a High Court decision in 1997 which ruled that it was unconstitutional and which put all of the revenue from tobacco excise into the coffers of the Commonwealth. So we cannot just do it again, because the High Court changed its interpretation of those provisions of the constitution in the interim. It is not as simple as it would appear on the face of this motion, and it is not as simple as what Mr Ettershank in his contribution said he would like us to do.

What we have in this state is a government that is committed to, as our platform indicates, supporting medicinal cannabis. We have facilitated the regulation of the medicinal cannabis industry, and it has enabled those who need access to cannabis for medicinal and therapeutic purposes to do so. We have that in this state, and that process is well accessed and well utilised. We also have a range of other drug and harm minimisation measures, which in particular my colleague Ms Ermacora has taken us through, and also the great work that Minister Stitt over the course of this week and last week has talked about in respect of the way that, for example, our pill testing service is operating. But to get back to the central point about this motion and both what it says about what we as the Labor Party say – I think I have adequately articulated why that is a bit of a misrepresentation – and secondly that what the motion also thinks we could achieve by somehow creating a magical marketplace that would deliver us streams of gold is probably not a reality under the terms of our constitution.

We know there is great passion from Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne on this issue. We have talked with them at length about these issues, and we cannot deny their advocacy and their passion for the cause. This motion, however, for the reasons I have said, cannot be supported.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:52): Can I firstly thank all of those who contributed to this in a very frank and intelligent and at times amusing manner. I have so much to reply to and so little time. Can I first of all pick up Dr Heath’s point about Penington being the go-to place for advocates of drug reform, and could I remind you that until earlier this year the chair of the Penington Institute was indeed Kathryn Greiner – yes, that Greiner. Can I remind you also that in terms of the Penington Institute itself we are talking about, if you look at their board of trustees and directors, a royal suite of leading medical and health experts that oversee this. This is not some sort of bolshie – what did you say – go-to place for advocates of drug reform. Can I also just put some history in this too, and if I may just speak in the context of Penington and also Mr Davis, who I am really glad has joined us today. Penington was obviously employed in this place when you guys – remember; some would – were sitting on this side of the chamber, and of course Penington recommended the legalisation of cannabis, and Mr Davis made a very, very erudite speech – and I genuinely compliment Mr Davis on his speech in May 1996 – endorsing legalisation and expressing a very valid concern that it could lead to increased use of tobacco. It came that close to being done almost 30 years ago, and reading the debate at that point in time it is to us deeply, deeply depressing that we are still talking the same garbage. We are still having the same futile arguments and dancing with shadows, or as Paul Keating would say, ‘wrestling with a column of smoke’ – doubly appropriate in this context.

I was really disappointed, Dr Heath, to hear you extensively quoting Drug Free Australia, an organisation, as we saw in the hearings, that were most prominent in their submissions for almost totally footnoting only their own publications. I will perhaps just leave it at that, because the rest was just embarrassing. Another thing just to put it into some perspective, is you quoted some really impressive stats – most of them came from Drug Free Australia, so let us just take that for what it is. Can I just suggest if you want a simple indicator, look at the table of harms and look at all of the other drugs that cause so much damage to people’s health. Right down the bottom at about number 15 or 20, you will find cannabis – so if we can get rid of the other 20, that would be great.

In terms of the contributions from our Labor colleagues, can I first of all thank Mr Galea for his generous invitation. I think there is something about inducing parliamentarians, but let us not go there. In taking Mr Galea’s and other contributions, we have heard about how the Labor Party state conference is representative of a broad cross-section of society, and yet they voted unanimously – they voted unanimously to do that. In the context of Mr Bachelor’s last contribution about the constitution: you are wrong.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: You are wrong. Can I just suggest that in terms of the advice that the former Treasurer got, you are wrong, and in terms of the advice that was provided by the Parliamentary Budget Office, you are wrong, so you are wrong. Having had that erudite legal analysis, I am surprised that you did not vote against the resolution at the state conference, but anyway, that is probably another thing. I also note that the program that you refer to on the web, whilst it goes to 2026 theoretically, was last updated in August of 2023, predating both of those state conferences. In terms of Mr Mulholland –

A member interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: I really appreciate the advice. I often wake up and think, ‘Where will I get inspiration for political success?’ And I go, ‘Far out, I’m going to go to the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. I mean, they know how to do their stuff.’ I love you all dearly, but seriously, I will give you a yell if I need advice, thanks. Can I just conclude in saying thank you to everyone. This is a reform that is long overdue. Yes, we have used the Labor Party platform as a foil, but at the end of the day, the case for reform – whether it is legalisation or decriminalisation – is overwhelming, and we call on the government to take action.

Council divided on motion: