Wednesday, 1 April 2026

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:49): I am pleased to rise today to make some remarks on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026. In doing so I note that I am very pleased to be talking about a bill today that I will go into some detail on. But I do wish to acknowledge that this has been put forward to us by our colleagues in Legalise Cannabis Victoria (LCV), in particular my regional colleague Rachel Payne and also Mr Ettershank.

It is important, perhaps peripherally, that in a previous debate we talked about the various roles of our respective chambers here in the Parliament. This Parliament that we are privileged to sit in – because of course we are the better chamber – has the fortune of being able to take the time to delve methodically into and analytically through legislation that appears before us, and I certainly welcome the opportunity to do so. This is a topic I have been privileged to speak on in different aspects over the course of the past 3½ years, whether it was in engaging with the inquiry from which the recommendations that led to this bill before us today arose or whether it has been in relation to the matter of medicinal cannabis use whilst driving.

The inquiry received a number of submissions from different stakeholders and had witnesses appear. I was regrettably not able to attend the hearings owing to the fact that I was in another committee at the time, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, but I did engage with the process of this inquiry. I certainly found reading the transcripts of hearings and the submissions quite fascinating. I will come back to the report a little bit later in my contribution. But what this bill fundamentally seeks to do is implement a new section of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 specifically providing for protection for people’s medical treatment for whatever condition they may be suffering and have prescribed treatment for. That may include medicinal cannabis or it may be something else altogether. My remarks will vary across the two facets of that in my contribution today.

What this is really is about the meeting point of workers rights and workplace safety. It is something that, as this inquiry explored, is a very important subject for us to be getting right, to be striking that balance in the best possible way. I will at the outset note that many of the protections are already in place to some degree through disability protections in the Equal Opportunity Act. That does provide a mechanism for some coverage for people, but there is case law both strengthening and querying that point, and I think it is an area of potential gap that is certainly well worth careful consideration. On that point I will say that this is something the government has been particularly interested in and engaged with, both through its response to the inquiry and the ongoing work which I understand is taking place right now.

The government remains committed to strengthening protections for Victorians living with a disability and indeed protections for Victorians who require medication to perform their essential work. We are also committed to ensuring that the law keeps pace with people’s lived experiences, and I think you would find no better exemplar of that commitment than in the anti-vilification laws which were passed through the Parliament about a year ago and pushed forward very strongly by this government, which for the very first time included the attribute of disability. Whether it be in that space or in the space that we are looking at today, we do have that track record of interest and of delivery and reform in this space, and it is something that I will continue to be deeply engaged with and supportive of as a member of the government, having as I said the privilege to take part in many such previous debates in this chamber.

The government – this will not be a surprise to other members in this place – consistent with the convention of not supporting private members bills, is not in a position to support this bill today. However, work is currently being done, as I say, to assess the viability of such a reform going into the future. Anti-vilification is a very recent example of that reform in this space, but perhaps the most foundational reform that I could refer to was over a decade ago when this government became the first jurisdiction in Australia to trial and then formally legalise medicinal cannabis as a treatment for Victorians.

We saw for a very long time advocates explain their frustration in seeking support and finding that the best medication for them was something that they were legally barred from accessing and the very real pain and the very real trauma that that led to and indeed the very real consequences that had for workforce participation as well. We have come a long way since that point. Indeed in a debate a couple of years ago I made reference to the fact that some 400,000 prescriptions had at that time been made for medicinal cannabis in the state of Victoria, a figure which I have no doubt has continued to grow from that point. I shared at that time, in 2024, a story of a friend who had a friend who was suffering from an epileptic fit. They were driving on the Monash Freeway. My friend had to pull over and had to physically restrain his friend on the nature strip on the side of the road – a very dangerous situation, but one which ultimately through medicinal cannabis they would find a treatment for, which was life-changing for them. The medical evidence is clear, and what we can do to improve the experience for people who are undergoing treatment through medicinal cannabis is really critical.

This draws me to another debate that we have had in this chamber and that does have a lot of interaction with the bill before us today, and that is the impairment test and how we actually define what impairment is. We know that typical tests do not accurately measure impairment, they just measure presence. What that means is someone may have taken a substance over a week earlier and be completely unimpaired by it but they still have that substance show up in any testing. This of course particularly causes concern when it comes to driving.

I was very pleased a couple of years ago to work with colleagues in the Legalise Cannabis Victoria party to formulate and refine wording on a motion which actually led to the commissioning of a report by two eminent Victorians: Tony Parsons, who is a former supervising magistrate in the Drug Court, and Dr Hamish McIntosh. Their review, which became known as the Parsons review, did extensive research into how we can best support motorists, many of whom would be using medicinal cannabis for very legitimate reasons, and engaged at a high level with 18 stakeholders to get feedback on the best way we could implement legal reforms. There were a few clear paths that came out, but the most immediate path, which was very self-evident, was that the system, as it was back then, was extremely prohibitive, as for anyone who was faced with a test result and then went before a magistrate, that magistrate found themselves with no ability to apply discretion to the case and in fact would have to then suspend their licence or otherwise impose a restriction on their ability to drive, which was deeply unfair in the case of not being able to sufficiently test impairment.

The interim solution, which has since been legislated by this chamber, was to change that rule to give magistrates that discretion so that in those cases where someone finds themselves embroiled in that, they can actually have a defence in the Magistrates’ Court and the magistrate can apply that commonsense discretion, meaning that they will not be nearly as likely to have their livelihood impacted. It does not change the fundamental issue, though, and that is why I have been very pleased to see the so-called medicinal cannabis closed-circuit track trial, which is currently underway in Lang Lang. I know members – all of us in this place – are very keenly anticipating the results of that trial. As the Parsons report outlined:

What became clear during the 18 consultations was a shared desire for more data.

This is something that I hope can be delivered by the track trial. I have had as recently as a few weeks ago, and on a number of occasions now, constituents from my electorate write to me about their concerns – people who want to or need to drive, for whatever reason, should have the absolute right to do so whilst appropriately managing their medication, as well as with medicinal cannabis. It is a genuine concern. Whilst we have updates and progress to report through the recent legislative changes, there is certainly more work to do, and this track trial will provide the basis of how we can come to a more accurate test of impairment. That in turn will assist this process when it comes to the workplace, and there is in many workplaces a direct correlation. Much work does involve driving, be it delivery drivers, the rail industry, the public transport industry, trucking, commercial passenger transport or various other jobs which people may need use of a car for. There is a direct correlation here but also a further correlation, a broader correlation, in terms of what is impairment as it relates to safe workplace conduct just as much as it applies to safe driving.

I think a further point which is worth just briefly touching on is some other work that the Legal and Social Issues Committee has undertaken in this term, and that is a separate inquiry into the decriminalisation of cannabis. That is certainly not what we are talking about today, but given that we are talking about medical treatments and impairment, in the case of such decriminalisation that is something that would need to be considered appropriately by government as well. Noting that in the government’s response to that inquiry the government did not support a decriminalisation process, that is something that nevertheless should be, albeit briefly, noted should legislation such as this or this legislation indeed pass.

Presently, as I was saying just a few moments ago, we do find ourselves in a space where the Equal Opportunity Act does cover disability specifically. We have seen comments from Ro Allen the commissioner – in fact I was talking about those comments with the minister at the table this morning – who has repeatedly affirmed that the discrimination provisions as they pertain to disability do apply to then treatment as well. We have seen that the submission that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission made to the inquiry affirmed that is part of a broader direct or indirect discrimination. This does still leave a gap to a certain degree, but the VEOHRC submission says:

Under the EO Act, persons with disabilities are protected from unlawful discrimination. Employers also have a positive duty to eliminate as far as possible, discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation from their workplaces. Some exceptions apply that are discussed … for example, discrimination reasonably necessary to protect health and safety.

The submission goes on to say that:

The definition of discrimination in section 7(2) confirms that the EO Act protects people from discrimination because of a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has, however it is not expressly clear in terms of how it may apply to people receiving prescription medication or treatment for a disability.

That brings us to the heart of what this bill seeks for us to address. As part of the deliberative process of this chamber and of this Parliament we also have the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, which released its routine, regular report just yesterday, including on this bill. The SARC said to the Parliament that:

The Committee notes that the EO Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in employment and employment-related areas, education, the provision of goods and services and the disposal of land and accommodation, and by clubs and club members and in sport and in local government. Each of these prohibitions (except disability discrimination by clubs and club members, in sport and in local government) are subject to exceptions (in some circumstances) where adjustments required by a disability are either not reasonable or where the person could not perform the employment or derive a substantial benefit from the activity even if the adjustments were made. Additionally, section 86(1) generally provides that a person may discriminate against another person on the basis of disability if the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect health or safety or property.

The central recommendation of the VEOHRC submission to the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry is providing for reform of the Equal Opportunity Act, and it provides two options by which to do that, of which this bill has selected I believe option 1. I think it is important to note that, in support of this reform, it is something where we will see a gap between what is already covered by disability and what is generally, indirectly or implicitly implied through treatment of that disability or other condition but not directly covered as it relates to the treatment of that condition through substances, prescriptions, including for medicinal cannabis, or anything else that a patient may be using.

I note that disability as an attribute is something that this government has been focused on supporting, and indeed, as I mentioned earlier, we have been working with people with this lived experience to make changes to laws as they become necessary, including with the anti-vilification reforms which essentially made disability, as well as sexual or gender identity, sexual orientation and racial and religious attributes, components and attributable factors under the anti-vilification laws. It has also come up through other reform work to equal opportunity legislation that this government has undertaken, namely, the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exemptions) Amendment Act 2021. Many of the concerns that relate to this do come under VEOHRC’s responsibility and the Equal Opportunity Act, but it also pertains to the Fair Work Act 2009. Much of the case law as it comes to this matter has been done through the federally originated Fair Work Act.

The Legal and Social Issues Committee conducted an extensive inquiry into the issue in 2024, and as well as submissions from VEOHRC, which I have already referred to, received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Police Association Victoria, Trades Hall Council, the Penington Institute and the Drug Advisory Council Australia, who we have seen at a few other inquiries too. The findings and recommendations of that report are relatively straightforward. Three findings were made and seven recommendations. Finding 1 in particular goes to the heart of some of my earlier comments, saying that the tests for presence, not impairment, are not effective at assessing someone’s mental wellbeing or safety in terms of being able to facilitate their work. The impairment test issue really does come back to needing that reliable methodology that I am very much looking forward to seeing through other reform and review work that is underway at the moment, acknowledging that that is the central issue.

Recommendation 3 goes to the heart of what we are discussing today, and that recommendation is:

That the Victorian Government amend the definition of discrimination in Section 7 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to clarify that where a person uses prescription medication or requires medical treatment for a disability, this is a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has.

Affirming my earlier remarks that this is something that is being actively reviewed and considered by the government at this time, the government’s response was that this would be under review, saying that the government is committed to protecting and promoting the human rights of Victorians with a disability, including by recently legislating to expand anti-vilification protections to include the attribute of disability through the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025.

Importantly, there are a range of existing legal protections in both Victorian and Commonwealth legislation that may assist people with disability who are experiencing discrimination. The EO act, for example, provides protection from discrimination for people with a disability in the workplace and in other areas of public life. It is also noted frequently through the government’s response that employers have a positive duty to eliminate, as far as possible, disability discrimination from their workplaces, and this interacts with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Fair Work Act and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, those last two being Commonwealth acts also providing a range of protections for people with disabilities.

It goes on to say that expanding the definition of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act to expressly capture the use of prescription medication or medical treatment for disability does require further analysis but it is something that could be considered as part of any future broader reform to the Equal Opportunity Act. Any future reform to the EO act will require thorough consideration of resourcing and economic impacts to Victorians and comprehensive consultation with a range of stakeholders. I am very pleased to see that recommendation not just keeping the door open, but actively committing to further pursuing that work as part of future reviews and ongoing work that has already been undertaken by the government and as part of the bedrock for a future reform.

There are also responses to other recommendations in the report, in particular recommendation 1, which the government supports in part, about where there is a well-founded belief by employers. The issue with this one is that a well-founded belief could be subjectively misused in some cases by some employers. As a former union official myself and someone who has represented workers through alcohol and other drug (AOD) screening queries, I would also be concerned about the level to which this broad interpretation, as proposed by our committee, may be misused by a small number of employers by targeting workers based on reasons of personal prejudice or performance rather than on observed attributes or observed behaviours. Nevertheless it is something that is worthy of consideration how we can get that appropriately done.

Further recommendations, such as WorkSafe conducting and providing updated advice on alcohol and other drug management policies, would certainly be very useful as well. That has received the support of government through its response to the inquiry recommendations, with WorkSafe investigating impairment testing methodologies as well to provide that further work and further support. Recommendation 7 goes to referencing the closed-track trial being supported by WorkSafe and what WorkSafe can do to continually review the new and emerging evidence, particularly through that trial, but certainly not exclusively through that trial, and through best practice cases from overseas and how that can inform better advice from WorkSafe to employers, to unions and to workers as well.

There are, as the inquiry went into, a number of key pieces of legislation that this issue pertains to. One of the key pieces outside the Equal Opportunity Act is the OH&S act, which is one of the other key pieces guiding the WorkCover system but also general occupational health and safety across Victorian workplaces. This goes to the shared duty of reducing and eliminating risks. This of course includes the role of health and safety representatives, who are a very important part of a healthy workplace culture, with employers having a duty to maintain a safe working environment and take reasonable care for the safety of their staff. Interestingly, there is actually only one sector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act that is specifically called out in relation to alcohol and other drug testing, and that is the mining industry, which is of course a relatively minor industry in our state compared to most. There are certain provisions in the act about how the mining industry must comply with its obligations when it comes to AOD testing and how that operates.

There is the Equal Opportunity Act itself, as we have already been through extensively, as well as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The various agency acts, including both the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victoria Police Act 2013, provide directions and guidance on how this testing can be conducted in relation to serving officials and serving officers, including that directions to take a test cannot be refused. They set out appropriate frameworks and parameters, including the circumstances in which a test may be directed to be taken, such as if a serving officer is involved in a critical incident due to reasonable suspicion that they may have been affected by a drug of dependence or alcohol, if they appear to be unfit for work and through some limited provisions for random testing as well.

A broader application of these rules comes through three other acts, being the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 and the national law from South Australia, which is the Rail Safety National Law Application Act 2013, in terms of rail safety for people involved in the direct and related operations of railways and other transport industries across the country. Interestingly, between these various different acts there is some variance in timelines and requirements for different workers as well, all of which was explored in the inquiry. The Equal Opportunity Act amendments would effectively apply a consistent approach of protection, even if further detail would be resolved through regulations in that or other pieces of legislation.

There are certain case studies – and I understand that my colleagues in the LCV party have discussed some extensively already – in relation to specifically medicinal cannabis and its application. In various Fair Work Commission cases, which I believe are all from other states – in relation to Haigh v Platinum Blasting Services Pty Ltd, Millar v FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd and Sharp v BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Ltd – it has generally been held that the use of medicinal cannabis, where it has been legally prescribed, has been accepted and upheld. Although in one particular case it was found that the employee’s failure – ‘failure’ is perhaps a stronger word – or the fact that they had not notified their employer of their prescription prior to the offending test had worked against them in that decision. This is an area – albeit it applies to interstate examples under the national Fair Work Act 2009 – and something that, in the provisions under the EO act that this bill seeks to address, could certainly apply.

Indeed from my time previously as a union official in supporting members through AOD findings, albeit that it is not a significant occurrence in the retail industry but when it comes to the role of delivery drivers – and Acting President Berger, you would know all too well about these issues and concerns – I know the importance of propriety in making sure that the testing regimes are fair and are not used as punitive measures at the personal whims of a certain number – a small number – of managers who are seeking to use it for purposes outside of what a reasonable testing regime would seek to achieve. There are various other aspects that this government is committed to and ongoing work in this space as well. I will pass over the contributions that the state makes to the national disability insurance scheme and indeed the state disability plan, which is due for renewal this year and which consultation is to be commencing on very shortly. There is certainly ongoing work, as I have pointed to already in this contribution, about what is being done and what the track record of this government is to achieve meaningful progressive reform.

Again I come back to the fact that this was the first state in the country to bring in medicinal cannabis, first through the trial and then through legislation, and we have seen the transformative impact it absolutely has. As we have this system, it is really important that we provide the safety so people can take medication which is supporting them – which is in many cases helping them to actually function – without unfair pressures or standards being held against them. It goes to the very fundamental right that people have to be able to work and to have their dignity, but it also goes to a level of status and understanding that, for example, medicinal cannabis – or indeed any type of prescription medication that someone may need to take – provided it does not interfere directly with the safety of their work, is not something that should be in any way viewed as less worthy of consideration.

The more that we can reform these laws, whether it be in the space of driving – as we have already done in some interim fashion, and there is more work that needs to be done – or when it comes to supporting workers in the workplace so that they have got those protections there, the less of a stigma is attached and the more they can fully contribute freely without that fear of discrimination and of being viewed or treated differently, especially in the most extreme sense but also, very importantly, in the day-to-day sense as well. The work that we can do in this place can set the groundwork for that cultural reform.

Whilst the government’s policy remains to not support a private members bill, I do point to the fact that we have a clear legislative track record of support for sensible and commonsense reform in the space of medicinal cannabis. I certainly look forward to seeing the outcomes of the work that is being undertaken on this very issue and indeed to working with colleagues in the Legalise Cannabis Party to ensure that all Victorians have the right to access their treatments and to access care that allows them to function and be the best version of themselves in society. I will continue to very much look forward to seeing that work take place.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:19): I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026 proposed by Mr Ettershank and the Legalise Cannabis Party. I respect that Mr Ettershank has brought forward this bill and, having read his second-reading speech, know that he does so earnestly, with passion, goodwill and intent. However, the Liberals and Nationals will be opposing this bill. I want to take a small amount of the chamber’s time – much smaller than Mr Galea’s – to explain why.

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 contains a very broad definition of ‘disability’, which captures many of the scenarios described. This bill risks duplication and legal confusion rather than clarity. Our main concern, however, is the risk that continually adding subcategories of protected attributes creates a never-ending expansion of the act. An activity is not a protected attribute. If medical treatment is carved out, you have to ask: what comes next? I am a St Kilda Football Club fan, a long-suffering one at that, and you have to ask: will that eventually be a protected attribute too? The Equal Opportunity Act rightly prohibits discrimination based on specific personal characteristics and attributes. These include age, gender, race, marital status and disability, and there are several more. We strongly support these protections, including the absolute equality and protection of people with disability. Though we understand the sentiment of the bill, we support the protections that are in law. We would be concerned that if we extend these protections to certain actions or behaviours, it could unintentionally imply that other actions or behaviours are not protected. We strongly support complete protection of equality for people with disability, full stop. However, this bill risks turning the act into an overly complex and unworkable piece of legislation. The bill is well intentioned but I think poorly targeted. It adds complexity and legal risk while delivering uncertain and duplicative protections that already largely exist in law. The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this bill.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): I also rise to make a contribution on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026, which has been brought to the chamber by Legalise Cannabis Victoria. The government’s position on this bill should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber. The government does not support private members bills as a matter of convention. This specific issue requires further consultation across the community and legal sectors, but overall the issue is worthy of discussion. I would like to thank Legalise Cannabis for their advocacy on this topic. They have not done anything other than consistently advocate for law reform in regard to medicinal cannabis, because people who may be suffering from chronic pain and the like might avail themselves of medicinal cannabis, and of course that has some implications for people who may drive their cars and may be pulled over by Victoria Police.

My understanding is – and I have heard my other colleagues in the chamber make their contributions and touch on this issue as well – anybody who is a medicinal cannabis user, if they are roadside drug tested and the like, they can then go to the Magistrates’ Court to have that matter reviewed. I understand that Legalise Cannabis are wanting to do more than that. It is a fraught situation, and nobody wants to be pulled over and potentially fined for taking a substance that is there to help deal with chronic pain and the like. However, there are issues around that.

I know in debates on these matters before we have talked about what impairment is and what impairment looks like. To my knowledge, around the world there is still no adequate test that determines impairment. Likewise, that is why when you look at blood alcohol content testing, a figure of .05 was arrived at. We know that impairment levels can vary widely for people, even if they are under .05 and drinking alcohol. It is a very vexed and tricky topic. As I said, on this particular issue, for cannabis there is no international standard for determining impairment, so it is inherently difficult.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge Legalise Cannabis’s advocacy on this topic. And again, this bill has largely come out of the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into workplace drug testing, which was also championed by Legalise Cannabis. As I said earlier, the government’s position is, as always on a private members bill, the government does not support private members bills, and we will be opposing this bill. But again, we are always committed to strengthening protections for Victorians who may have a disability, and we want to make sure that the laws keep pace with individuals’ lived experiences. We are constantly looking at how we can improve things and make sure the laws are reformed to an extent that keeps pace with modern circumstances and challenges.

We have taken deliberate steps to strengthen Victoria’s equal opportunity framework over time, including reforming religious exceptions and expanding anti-vilification protections to include disability, and the Allan Labor government recently legislated to expand anti-vilification protections to include the attribute of disability through the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025. This is legislation which the Liberal Party and their One Nation partners actually opposed as well. The Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021, which commenced in 2022, narrowed the scope of religious exceptions introduced in 2011, and that means that religious bodies and schools can no longer discriminate on a wide range of attributes in key settings, and discrimination in government-funded services is now significantly restricted. These reforms demonstrate the government’s commitment to strengthening protections in a considered and targeted way, and we recognise that people with disability should not face discrimination because they are accessing prescribed medication or medical treatment. It was a Victorian Labor government that delivered stronger protections under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability, including characteristics associated with disability. These protections provide an important foundation, including protections relating to characteristics associated with disability. The definition of ‘discrimination’ in section 7(2) makes clear that the act extends to characteristics that a person with a disability generally has. It is arguable that this already captures circumstances where a person requires prescribed medication or medical treatment.

At the same time, we recognise that the law must continue to evolve, as I said earlier, and we are actively considering how best to ensure it reflects the realities of the prescribed medication environment and treatment for people who may be living with disability. There are a range of existing legal pathways, as I said earlier. Like I said, if you are pulled over on the roadside and you are issued with an infringement or whatever, there are ways to have that reviewed in the Magistrates’ Court. But also, employers have a positive duty to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination in their workplaces, including discrimination on the basis of disability. So, as I said, the government response to the inquiry into workplace drug testing stated:

Expanding the definition of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act to expressly capture the use of prescription medication or medical treatment for a disability requires further analysis and … consideration of the resourcing and economic impacts on Victorians …

It is not a question of whether protections should exist or not; it is about ensuring that any changes to the law are clear and workable and do not create unintended consequences. At the same time, I am mindful that some industries require robust drug and alcohol policies to ensure the safety of employees and the broader community. Of course for anybody in the workplace who might be working with heavy machinery and equipment, obviously there is drug testing that happens in those working environments. Some of these environments are inherently dangerous, and working with heavy plant and equipment can be inherently dangerous, so there absolutely needs to be a balance – a delicate balance – that is struck. Nevertheless, our government has demonstrated its commitment to strengthening protections through recent reforms that, as I said, expand anti-vilification laws to include disability.

It is a challenging environment. We talk to industry all the time about what their needs are. You only have to look at the wide array of decisions that have come out of the Fair Work Commission about workers who have been impaired through drug or alcohol usage not only in construction environments but also professional driving environments like trucking or rideshare – any of those environments where someone may be affected or impaired by substances they take. These things have real-world consequences. It might be something for one person to take something to alleviate pain that they might be experiencing due to a chronic pain condition, but there is still an inherent risk to other road users and potentially to other people in workplaces who they may be working with. These are some of the things that need further careful consideration.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge the many organisations who made submissions to the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry, where these reforms emanated from. At the time there were submissions from the Drug Advisory Council of Australia, the Police Association Victoria, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Australian Industry Group, the Penington Institute, the Victorian Trades Hall Council and Harm Reduction Australia. All of those organisations obviously have an important role and stake in this matter, and they made very considered contributions and submissions to the inquiry.

As I said, this bill is larger than just being about medicinal cannabis, but it is also important to note that Victoria is a leader in medicinal cannabis. In 2016 Victoria became the first Australian state or territory to legalise medicinal cannabis under prescription for therapeutic uses. I know many people in my electorate who emailed me at the time when we were doing this and later on, when there had been further discussion around this, talked about the importance of this to them. But again it was all done in a very careful and considered way. In terms of legalising medicinal cannabis originally, this was a commitment that Victorian Labor took to the 2014 election, and we have in fact delivered on that commitment. It was followed by the 2015 release of the report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission on how to amend the law to allow people in exceptional circumstances to safely access medicinal cannabis. As I said, it has been a game changer for many.

The Allan Labor government believes in equal opportunity for Victorians with a disability across areas in which they live, work and play. We provide for disability inclusion supports in our schools, a reform which was delivered by this Labor government to provide practical infrastructure supports in kinders through Building Blocks inclusion grants, and many of us have seen some amazing inclusive play spaces that have been delivered as a consequence of those Building Blocks inclusion grants. It really has been game changing for kids to be able to play in some of those spaces. We also support Victorians with disability with transport assistance through the multipurpose taxi program; I know Mr Barton, who was a member of this place, advocated strongly for those reforms.

When it comes to the NDIS, one of the greatest social reforms this century was delivered by a Labor government, and the Allan government is providing a $3.2 billion contribution each year to that. For Victorians with disability that need specialist disability accommodation, the Allan Labor government is one of the largest providers, if not the largest provider, of specialist disability accommodation in Victoria. Importantly, we are ensuring these buildings are fit for purpose through building 27 new homes; 19 have been completed so far, and a further eight are under construction. We recognise that equal opportunity for Victorians with disability needs to be a priority, and we take a whole-of-government approach to that.

That is why we are commencing consultation shortly on the next phase of the Victorian state disability plan, which follows success of Inclusive Victoria, which was the state disability plan 2022 through to 2026. Now, at the midway point of the current state disability plan, the vast majority of actions outlined in that plan are either completed or on track. Some of the completed actions and achievements include the appointment of a chief accessibility advocate within the Department of Transport and Planning; endorsement of the national principles for the recognition of assistance animals; Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Together More Active program, which invested $1.74 million to support 15 inclusive participation or workforce development projects; and the disability liaison officers in hospitals, who have responded to 37,500 referrals from people with disabilities seeking support to access health care. The government funded the mental health interface program to strengthen the interface between consumers, mental health inpatient services and the NDIS, which is critically important. Homes Victoria is using best practice universal design principles in social housing as well. Thirty-four specialist disability practitioners are supporting families with disability with access to the NDIS and necessary supports. Emergency Management Victoria created a senior adviser for accessible communications role to support accessible public communications in emergency preparation, response and recovery.

You can see some very well thought-out actions have arisen from that plan, and our government has consistently and steadfastly been working through implementing all of those actions to ensure that Victorians living with a disability are able to feel more included and inclusive in a whole range of services. Family Safety Victoria has embedded universal design and a disability-confident and inclusive workforce into its policies and program planning for people with disability and their families who are victim-survivors of sexual violence as well. I could go on; there are still many more reforms that this government has done. But again, I just note that our position on private members bills is that we do not support them. This specific issue requires much further consultation and more detailed engagement with the community and legal sectors. It is a vexed issue, but nonetheless, I thank you and I will conclude my contribution there.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:37): I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026, introduced by my colleague David Ettershank in relation to medical treatment for disabilities and for other purposes. I think I might just start today by acknowledging some of the contributions in the chamber, because it seems as though not many people who are contributing on this bill have actually read the bill, because we are not talking about adding further attributes to the charter. What we are actually talking about is amending part of the charter, which is already there and already provides coverage for disability, and adding a part to that for clarification purposes. So the conversations that I have heard across both sides of the chamber around attributes and adding further attributes to the human rights charter are not correct. This is actually a referral that has come from the human rights commissioner themselves, and what it states is that we need clarification around that definition of what disability is, and that would include access to your medication as part of that attribute.

The intent behind the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 is simple: to make public life free from discrimination. The act recognises that discrimination causes real harm. It affects all aspects of public life, from employment to education, transport and commerce. It erodes real-life opportunities and has a terrible impact on the mental and physical health of individuals and entire groups. Worse, the greatest burden is borne by those with the least power and opportunity. Ending discrimination remains an important human rights issue. The Equal Opportunity Act is about reducing that burden and enshrining the fair go for all Victorians. Further, it is proactive. In fact, the Equal Opportunity Act includes a positive duty to eliminate discrimination, and we have that opportunity today to end discrimination against Victorians for simply taking medicine prescribed by their doctors. I make reference to that term: ‘medicine prescribed by their doctors’. This bill is not explicitly about medicinal cannabis, although obviously as a prescribed medication that would be covered. But again, contributions today allude to the fact that this is a protection based on medicinal cannabis, which is not the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is to provide protection based on medication you take in support of your disability.

To be honest, it beggars belief that we are even having this discussion in 2026. I think it is fair to say that almost all Victorians take some form of medication for something. If they do not currently, they are likely to have to at some point of their lives. Advances in medical science mean that we have access to incredible and life-changing medications and treatments. These range from over-the-counter paracetamol for headaches to prescription statins for cholesterol, to antibiotics for flus and to chemotherapy for cancer. It was not too long ago in human history that dentistry was performed without anaesthetic – can you imagine – painkillers consisted of alcohol and hope and people died well before necessary in acute pain from diseases we can now prevent and/or manage.

Advances in medical science are good, but we all know that some medications are more socially acceptable than others. As Legalise Cannabis MPs for Legalise Cannabis Victoria, we can assure you that not all drugs are treated equally or without prejudice by the law. Medications associated with lesser understood or even taboo conditions – things like mental health, sexual health, pain, addiction and so on – are still heavily stigmatised. Victoria proudly led the way as the first state to legalise medicinal cannabis in Australia, but there is still stigma due to misinformation and the prohibition of cannabis more generally. This stigma exists in the media, in the law and to some extent in medicine. It is immature and outdated; at times people even joke about it. I can assure you that being fired from your job for taking medicine that helps you is no laughing matter. Being denied housing, goods and services, access to clubs, volunteering and education and the like is similarly serious and life-changing. We have case studies and numerous real-world stories from people who have experienced discrimination for taking prescribed medicine. Many of you will know elite athletes like Lauren Jackson, Damien Oliver and AFL coaches Damien Hardwick and Alastair Clarkson, who have all spoken out about discrimination they have faced as medicinal cannabis patients. And for what – taking medications recommended to them by and prescribed to them by their doctor, that helped them? But this is not about well-known personalities or celebrities. This issue affects everyday Victorians and it destroys lives.

I would like to draw your attention to a couple of examples in a bit more detail. Angelina is a woman in her late 30s. She was offered her dream job through a national disability employment program that placed her with a major Australian organisation. Disability is one minority that can be acquired at any point. We all can, and likely will, be part of a disability community at some point, whether by injury, illness or age. Angelina became a person with a disability in 2019 when her right arm was injured at work. This led her to develop complex regional pain syndrome, or CRPS, which has been described as one of the most painful conditions in the world. The pain is unpredictable and debilitating. At first Angelina managed the pain with opiates, which caused significant side effects. Then she was prescribed medicinal cannabis to replace them. Angelina worked full-time until she was injured, but after that went back to university to retrain. She is now a high-achieving masters student. After some time, she found a new job that aligned perfectly with her studies and previous work experience. Angelina disclosed her disability during the interview process and formally accepted an internship. At this point she let the company know that she was taking legally prescribed medicinal cannabis to manage her pain. She asked whether this would be an issue and what their policies were. The job did not require any driving, she completed every check required by the company doctor and she showed them her prescription. Then she never heard from them ever again. Communication did not just slow down, it completely stopped. Angelina reached out multiple times and sought an explanation. Only much later was it confirmed, through indirect communication she pursued via the disability employment program, that the outcome related to internal policies about drugs and alcohol. This is blatant discrimination.

Rosemary has a similar story for a different medication. Rosemary lives with severe chronic conditions that require medication. She is a co-leader of an arthritis support group and works for a patient organisation. Many people with various forms of arthritis rely on opiates for pain relief, with or without other medications and interventions. Most of these do so under the regular supervision of their treating doctor. However, many report discrimination from health professionals such as emergency staff because of their need for opiates. Many feel like they are treated like drug addicts. The fastest growing group of medicinal cannabis consumers is older people living with chronic pain. Women in general are the second-largest group and are using it for anything from endometriosis to menopause to insomnia.

Medical discrimination crosses all barriers, but the people most likely to suffer often face multiple layers of compounding discrimination. To be frank, if you are a white, middle-class, able-bodied mum from the suburbs, you are far less likely to show up to emergency and be denied pain relief on the basis that you might look like a drug addict or to be drug tested at work, for instance. From people with disabilities, First Nations people, trans and gender-diverse people and younger men we hear many and varied stories about not being believed in healthcare settings, at work and elsewhere, simply because they fit an outdated stereotype about drugs. I could cite many more examples, and I am sure all of us know someone with or who has experienced chronic illness and/or a disability. These are real people with real lives, and the best possible outcome for them and for society is that they remain vibrant and active in work and in the community.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission agrees. In its submission to the workplace drug-testing inquiry, VEOHRC, a body known for its measured and fair approach, calls for medication discrimination to be rectified. It recommends that the Equal Opportunity Act be amended to add the following:

… if a person is taking prescribed medication or receiving treatment for a disability, this is taken to be a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has.

In other words, treatment for a disability cannot be separated from the disability itself.

To be clear, we are currently in an absurd situation where, for example, if someone has ADHD, discriminating against them is unlawful, but if they take their medication for ADHD to allow them to function to do their job, they can be discriminated against – in effect, ‘We won’t fire you for having ADHD, but we will if we don’t like the medication you’re on,’ which, ironically, enables them to work in the first place. Similarly, a woman trying to conceive cannot be discriminated against for trying to get pregnant, but if she is undergoing IVF treatment, her employer can object to the medication. Someone with a back injury or PTSD or migraines cannot be fired for the condition, but if they use opioids and, yes, medicinal cannabis, they can. As Legalise Cannabis MPs we hear this story time and time again.

Other people are unjustifiably and unfairly discriminated against in all sorts of settings. In the submission mentioned above VEOHRC drew specific attention to the need for prescribed medications to be protected. They said the commission receives multiple complaints of the same nature every year for a range of medications. For this reason, and it is critical, they recommended that the taking of prescribed medication itself be included as a characteristic of the person with a disability. In other words, it is not enough to imply the protection. The status quo is not working. The protection must be spelled out, and the loophole must be closed. VEOHRC went on to say that:

For the avoidance of doubt the explanatory memorandum could give examples including medical marijuana to support interpretation of the provision.

The advantage of this amendment is that it would clarify that a person who takes prescribed medication or receives treatment for a disability is protected from unlawful discrimination.

The key words here are ‘protected’ and ‘unlawful discrimination’. Medicinal cannabis is lawfully prescribed in Australia to almost 700,000 patients. It provides immense relief to tens of thousands of people, many of whom have not found relief with other medications, and I repeat: it is a medication prescribed by a doctor. We are talking about veterans with PTSD, construction workers with workplace injuries, athletes with chronic pain, women going through menopause and people going through cancer treatment who cannot eat or sleep. They are medicinal cannabis patients and they deserve dignity, not discrimination.

One issue that MPs have raised with me in relation to this bill is impairment. I respectfully say that many people are ignorant on this issue, and they are certainly not more qualified than doctors. For starters, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 already ensures that no-one is at work while impaired. All the necessary carve-outs are already there for operating heavy machinery or vehicles or for performing any tasks that would in any way be affected by medications. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a teacher who takes medicinal cannabis for menopause so she can sleep the night before, about a student who takes Ritalin to be able to study and about a job applicant who discloses that they use low-dose opioids for an old knee injury.

I remind the chamber that the Equal Opportunity Act provides a positive duty to end discrimination, and we all have that opportunity today. The best possible outcome for all Victorians is that they can live and work without discrimination. This is doubly important for people with disabilities, including chronic illness, who have been left on the margins for too long. Inclusion is not just a buzzword; it should be practice. To deny the changes we are asking for is to support and uphold discrimination. For those of you who do that today: I beg you, as do people with disabilities, their families and their advocates, to stop talking about ‘a fair go’ and ‘Victorians doing it tough’. There are few people doing it tougher and more in need of fairness than Victorians in pain, with disabilities and who are very unwell. It is our job to protect them and their fundamental human right to access treatments that work for them without fear of discrimination.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:52): I rise to speak to Mr Ettershank’s bill that he presented to the Parliament in the last sitting week and which we are debating today. I want to thank him for reaching out to the Liberals and Nationals to explain the situation and very genuinely put the case. I have said to him that on a number of occasions I was in here listening to his contribution, and I thank him.

I have got his contribution here. I have marked up some of the very relevant points that I think Mr Ettershank made in his contribution. As were speaking before, I wanted to just clear up one thing, because were talking about the submission made by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) to the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria. I want to clear this up because there were two options that were put. As he said, option 1 was amending the definition of discrimination in section 7 to clarify that where a person uses prescription medication or requires medical treatment for a disability this is a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has. That is what this bill aims to address in terms of amending the act, and I acknowledge that rather than the second option, which I know my colleague spoke of, which was adding a new attribute to section 6, such as prescription medication or medical treatment. That is where that confusion may have occurred. I want to thank him for pointing that out and seeking that clarification. I am very happy to put that out there, what he has described, for any confusion there may have been in the house.

Before I get to that, Ms Payne mentioned Lauren Jackson, and what a magnificent sportswoman she is and what a great ambassador for her sport and for our country. Indeed I have seen her in here; we have had that opportunity many times. Her story is a very powerful one. There is no question about that. She had years of injury from basketball, and as she describes it:

‘It didn’t end the way I wanted it [to] …

‘There were highs and some pretty big lows as well.’

Jackson underwent countless surgeries during her career and often resorted to painkillers.

This is from an article that I am referring to that the ABC published in December 2021.

Chronic, debilitating pain around her knee, hip and lower back continued to plague her after she retired.

At that elite level you are subject to some pretty significant injuries with a sport like that. I know, having played netball, I am certainly suffering pain in my ankle and fingers, no question, but nothing to the extent of what Lauren Jackson sustained. She was then in that cycle of those painkillers, managing her very real chronic pain. Then she was prescribed medicinal cannabis to assist with that, and it worked – it got her off those painkillers. I think there is a huge benefit in this, and I have said it before. I know that you are very strong advocates on behalf of that, and I do believe there is a very great role to assist people with their chronic pain, cancer treatments and other areas of pain that people might sustain.

When you are talking about this bill, looking at disability and how that can be applied – so having a look at some of those areas – I do note that the inquiry report does say:

The Committee also considered the question of discrimination against employees using medicinal cannabis. This is a difficult question to answer, as there is some complexity around whether workers being sanctioned for using medicinal cannabis are being discriminated against under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EOA) or Disability Act 2006 (DA).

In VEOHRC’s submission there is a case study of that very example, and it was hard. The employer dismissed the employee, saying they were using medicinal cannabis, and for whatever reason in terms of their ability to drive or the issue that they had around them potentially not being safe – they were driving in the company, and their responsibility was as an employer – I think that is probably where that complexity is. This Parliament has put in manslaughter laws. This government has said that employers have a responsibility to their employees if they do not provide a safe working environment. I do have some sympathy for both sides here – because of that complexity and the responsibility that employers have, and I equally understand the issue around the discriminatory component that has been highlighted in this. The inquiry report goes on to say:

Employers can dismiss or discipline employees who don’t comply with an AOD policy or whose test results contravene the policy. The complexity arises because, as noted in Chapter 2, legislation provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability. A person with a disability may be prescribed medication for that disability, including medicinal cannabis, which the Committee heard provides some level of protection under the EOA and DA.

That is what the committee heard. They also went on to say that they do accept that there are checks and balances under the EOA and DA and unfair dismissal laws – that is the Fair Work Act 2009. The cases included in this chapter of the report, as highlighted, do provide some protections for employees and guidance for employers. I do think those protections are there, and we need to manage this carefully. I know that there was a study that came out just recently on medicinal cannabis, and that was highlighted in various media outlets in the last two weeks. The study by the University of Sydney Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, published in The Lancet, which is the largest ever review of its kind, found no evidence for cannabinoids as an effective treatment of depression, anxiety or PTSD. Now, they are not physical issues like Lauren Jackson had. It is saying that the evidence suggested that it could be beneficial in certain health conditions, but evidence for mental health disorders falls short. Therefore this is one of those contentious areas, I would suggest. But again, you have got to look at what the studies are and what we are being presented with and how therefore these may be assessed and interpreted by people with disability and what form of disability they actually may have. I do think it is a very complex area. I note that in this area, where they were looking at the evidence and saying that it did not have the evidence and that they could not see that there were benefits, they also said:

We know from research that THC can cause anxiety, may lead to cannabis use disorder, and mental health issues such as psychosis in sensitive people.

We absolutely know that that happens, and we must be very cognisant and aware of those issues with some people that are sensitive. The president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, in response to this particular study, said:

In most cases, there are alternative evidence‑based therapies which remain more appropriate, effective, and better understood …

As has been said by the peak stakeholder groups like the AMA and the RACGP, they know that medicinal cannabis has a role to play. They are not denying that at all, but there is more evidence coming in through these studies that are being conducted, and we need to be looking at that. I just want to put that on record because I do think there are some areas that need more work. Despite the submission from VEOHRC to the inquiry, there does need to be some more work in relation to this very important area. I did want to put that on record to say that there does need to be more work in this area. I think there is more evidence coming in.

I do understand the intent of Mr Ettershank, and I want to thank him for the really good engagement that we have had. I understand why he has presented this bill. I understand the reasons why. I understand his strong advocacy for wanting to do this as well. But I do believe that there are some safeguards in place now, and certainly more needs to be done in relation to the research for certain conditions. That includes the many Victorians with a disability, who should understand the reasons for decisions that are being made by a government.

With those words I will conclude my contribution, because I know others want to speak on this important bill. It is an important bill. It is an important debate and one that again I want to thank Mr Ettershank for bringing before the Parliament.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (17:02): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in support the Legalise Cannabis Party’s bill today, the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026. The aim of this bill is simple: to end the discrimination against people with a medical condition who access medical treatments or take prescribed medication to treat a condition. This bill amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to expand the definition of ‘a registered health practitioner’ and clarify that discrimination includes treating someone unfairly because they use prescription medication or require medical treatment for a disability.

This comes after the 2024 inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria, with the final report’s recommendation 3 calling on the Victorian government to amend the definition of ‘discrimination’ in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to clarify that where a person uses prescription medication or requires medical treatment for a disability this is a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has. This recommendation by the Legal and Social Issues Committee during the inquiry could make a real difference for many people who are currently facing discrimination based on the type of prescription medicine they take.

We know so many never proceed with complaints about their treatment because of time, lack of understanding of processes and systems and many other barriers. The Allan Labor government has sat on this recommendation for nearly two years. In their government response to the inquiry in November 2025 they say that any reforms to the Equal Opportunity Act 2020 would require thorough consideration of the resourcing and economic impacts on Victorians and comprehensive consultation with a range of stakeholders. However, we know from history that when this government is motivated to make change it happens. This amendment put forward in this bill by the Legalise Cannabis Party is sensible and is supported by many stakeholders who engaged through the inquiry process.

It is 11 years since medicinal cannabis was legalised in Victoria, and thousands have been prescribed this treatment. It is the Greens position that someone with a medicinal cannabis prescription should be treated the same as anybody else with any other medical prescription. It is about time our laws kept up with the reality for so many Victorians. No-one should experience discrimination for following doctors orders. People using medicinal cannabis for relief from pain and suffering should be given proper access to this clinically proven treatment. Stigma should not stop people from accessing medicine or penalise those who use it.

If we are serious about drug harm reduction, we must turn our focus to impairment and harm. Any medication that causes impairment should be taken seriously. But when people avoid taking prescribed medicines due to fear of discrimination and judgement, their symptoms worsen, and this can cause greater impairment and further health risks. We must shift to a health-based approach to drug use. This accepts the reality that many in our community use drugs. As the first essential step to reducing drug harm we must stop the discrimination. I commend this bill to the house.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:06): President, thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution and for confirming just then that I will indeed have an opportunity to do so. I do that following the contributions of Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank, who I on odd occasions just refer to as my neighbours. I know that this is a bill that is enormously important to them and their agenda as members of the Legalise Cannabis Victoria party.

Legalise Cannabis Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026 is a bill that is largely born out of the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into workplace drug testing. I think it is worth putting on the record that whilst I am currently a participating member in the Legal and Social Issues Committee, this inquiry was conducted before I was able to join and so I cannot make a considered contribution about the work of that inquiry, but I say thank you very much to the members that participated in it. I know that the inquiry itself was something championed by my colleagues here.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the diverse range of organisations that contributed submissions to that committee inquiry. The breadth of perspectives provided was essential to understanding truly the complexity of this issue from every angle. I acknowledge the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Police Association Victoria, the Penington Institute, AI Group, the Drug Advisory Council of Australia and Harm Reduction Australia and the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Association.

I do understand the position of the Legalise Cannabis Party. However, the chamber will be aware that as a matter of convention the government does not support private members bills and therefore will not be supporting the bill before us today. However, we are always committed to strengthening protections for Victorians with disability and ensuring that the law evolves and keeps pace with people’s lived experiences, and this debate truly does give us a sincere opportunity to have a discussion on the issue of medical treatment, because that issue is certainly a worthwhile one. The government is undertaking the work to assess the viability of such reform into the future and has taken deliberate steps to strengthen equal opportunity frameworks over time, including reforming religious exceptions and expanding anti-vilification protections to include disability.

We recently legislated to expand anti-vilification protections to include the attribute of disability through the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025. This is a crucial and critical piece of legislation that the Liberal Party and their partners One Nation shamefully opposed. The Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021, which commenced in 2022, narrowed the scope of religious exemptions introduced back in 2011. This means that religious bodies and schools can no longer discriminate on a wide range of attributes in key settings and discrimination in government-funded services is now significantly restricted. These reforms demonstrate this government’s commitment to strengthening protections in a considered and targeted way.

We recognise that people with disability should not face discrimination because they are accessing prescribed medication or medical treatment. It was the Victorian Labor government who delivered stronger protections under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, including characteristics associated with that disability. These protections provide an important foundation, and the definition of ‘discrimination’ in section 7(2) makes it clear that the act extends to characteristics that a person with a disability generally has. It is arguable that this already captures circumstances where a person requires a prescribed medication or medical treatment. At the same time we recognise that the law must continue to keep pace, and we certainly are considering how best to ensure it reflects the reality of prescribed medication and treatment. There are a range of existing legal pathways available to support people with disability who experience discrimination, including under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009. Employers also have a positive duty to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination in their workplaces.

As we said in the government response to the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria:

Expanding the definition of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act to expressly capture the use of prescription medication or medical treatment for a disability requires further analysis and … consideration of the resourcing and economic impacts on Victorians …

This is certainly not a question of whether protections should exist, it is about ensuring any changes are clear, workable and do not create unintended consequences. I am mindful that some industries require robust alcohol and drug policies to ensure the safety of employees and the broader community, and our government is committed to ensuring that workplace drug testing treats all workers fairly, respectfully and with dignity.

Whether it is through nation-leading wage theft laws, the introduction of industrial manslaughter laws – laws that were introduced before I enter this place but certainly I was able to watch from afar and show my considered support for – the implementation of the vital nurse-to-patient ratios or the guarantee of free TAFE, which only passed yesterday in this chamber, this government has always placed the focus and interests of workers at the very forefront of our agenda. This bill encompasses the broader scope of medical treatment. It is important to reflect on Victoria’s role as a pioneer in medical cannabis reform, as these progressive shifts are a landmark of Labor governments.

In 2016 Victoria made history as the first Australian state or territory to legalise medicinal cannabis under prescription for therapeutic uses. This was not an overnight decision. It was a core commitment that we took to the 2014 election, one that we proudly delivered for the community. It is one that I have spoken about a number of times in this place. That landmark reform followed the 2015 release of a comprehensive report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission which carefully detailed how a law could be amended to allow people in exceptional circumstances to safely access medicinal cannabis. Since then this reform has been a genuine game changer for Victorians seeking therapeutic relief.

We recognise that people with a disability should not face discrimination simply because they are accessing these prescribed medications or other necessary medical treatments. And as we look to the future, we remain committed to ensuring our laws continue to evolve to reflect the lived realities of all Victorians. In other areas we believe in equal opportunity for Victorians with disability across the places in which they live, work and play. We provide for disability inclusion support in our schools, a reform delivered by this government to provide practical infrastructure support to kindergartens through the Building Blocks inclusion grants. We also support Victorians with disability with transport assistance through the multipurpose taxi program. When it comes to the NDIS, our state provides a $3.2 billion contribution each year to ensure Victorians get the support they deserve.

We are also taking the lead in housing, where our government is currently the largest provider of specialist disability accommodation in the entire state – and I think that was a contribution made by earlier speakers to this debate. I will also just perhaps take a moment to reflect on the disability inclusion in school settings. It certainly is something that I was able to examine as part of the school funding inquiry, which is currently underway through the Legal and Social Issues Committee. Can I just thank Mr McCracken for his work in chairing that inquiry; through it we have been able to hear from a range of witnesses – which is publicly available. I do look forward to that report being tabled in this place rather soon. We are not just providing beds in our state as part of that work I spoke about earlier with the specialist disability accommodation; we are also ensuring that buildings are fit for purpose through the construction of new homes. In fact there are 27 new homes, with 19 already completed and a further eight under construction. This level of commitment is what real progress looks like. It is about building a state where disability is not a barrier to a full life, whether it is in the classroom, it is in the workplace or it is in your home.

I have got to say, at the midway point that we are at of the current state disability plan, the vast majority of actions outlined in the plan are either completed or on track. Some of these achievements include the appointment of the chief accessibility advocate within the Department of Transport and Planning and the endorsement of the National Principles for the Regulation of Assistant Animals. There is Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Together More Active program, investing $1.74 million to support 15 inclusion, participation or workforce development projects; there are disability liaison officers in schools responding to 37,500 referrals from people with disability seeking support to access health care; and I had the good fortune as part of the earlier testing with Metro Tunnel, in fact, to work with the disability inclusion folks to make sure that the Metro Tunnel is world-class in disability inclusion. It is certainly something that has been strongly fed back from disability advocates since taking on the Metro Tunnel and seeing those five new stations.

I want to perhaps, with the benefit of having the Minister for Mental Health here, also talk about the government’s funding of the mental health interface program, which strengthens the interface between consumers, mental health inpatient services and the NDIS. There is also Homes Victoria, which is using best-practice universal design principles in social housing, and there are 34 specialist disability practitioners that are supporting families with disability to access the NDIS and further supports. Something dear to my heart is Emergency Management Victoria’s new position of senior adviser for accessible communication, which ensures that accessible public communications are available in our emergency preparation, response and recovery. Only yesterday was I speaking to representatives from autism organisations here in Victoria who were presenting and meeting with members in Queen’s Hall about the importance of accessible communications for people with autism in emergency settings. I will say that work around advocating for people with disability never stops, and the Victorian disability advocacy program continues to fund agencies that support systemic and self advocacy for people with disability.

There is Family Safety Victoria and their embedded universal design of disability-confident and inclusive workforces in their policy and programs and planning for people with disability and their families, making sure that they are centred around considering the needs of victim-survivors of family and sexual violence. As I mentioned earlier, Victorian government schools are using disability inclusion funding to recruit and train staff and purchase and upgrade resources; there are1240 schools that have transitioned to new funding and that model. And of course across the entirety of the Victorian public sector the Victorian Public Sector Commission is leading work co-designing a neurodiverse employment toolkit to support the recruitment of and include workplace adjustments for neurodivergent employees, something that has come up, again, with some of the representatives that are here all week with the autism organisations here at the Parliament.

There are state-owned creative organisations, including the National Gallery of Victoria, the State Library Victoria, Museums Victoria and the Arts Centre Melbourne, that continue to be guided by disability plans and routinely host accessibility events. These are just some of the examples of the progress that this government is making towards a more inclusive and accessible state. As I have just outlined, there is work that continues, whether that is through the Legal and Social Issues Committee and our inquiry right now into school funding or the many, many advocacy meetings and efforts that are continuing to take place with disability organisations. Whilst I know that this is a very worthy bill, I reiterate my earlier position.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:21): I too rise to speak on the private members bill, the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Medical Treatment) Bill 2026, which seeks to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to provide for the protection of persons with disability from discrimination on the basis of using prescribed medication or receiving other medical treatment for that disability. The bill substantively seeks to insert some additional provisions in the ‘Meaning of discrimination’ section of the Equal Opportunity Act that effectively attempt to mirror an existing section in the act that describes what is meant by disability. The structure of the act, after describing what attributes are protected by the act, follows on in section 7 talking about what discrimination means and about direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute or a contravention of other sections and further that discrimination on the basis of an attribute includes discrimination on the basis of a range of other characteristics. There is that existing provision in section 7(3) that states that:

For the purposes of –

the meaning of what discrimination is –

… if a person with an impairment is accompanied by or possesses an assistance aid, being accompanied by or the possession of that assistance aid is taken to be a characteristic that a person with that attribute generally has.

Essentially, using that structure, the proposals put forward in this private members bill seek to add further clarification on the use of medications. The analogy being drawn is between aids or assistance equipment and medication being prescribed to the person by a registered health practitioner for the medical treatment of that disability, and the use of that medication is taken to be a characteristic that the person with that attribute generally has, and therefore the construction of the preceding sections of the act would render the use of that medication properly prescribed to be one of the elements that is brought into the calculation of what is meant by discrimination against the attributes defined earlier in section 6 of the act.

The genesis of this private members bill from our colleagues Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne is a range of sources. There has been a lot of advocacy here. We considered some of these issues, and some of these issues were raised, during the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into workplace drug testing, which I think was in 2023 or 2024 – the years and committees seem to blend into one at this point of the term. But there was some really interesting evidence given to that committee about how particularly workplace drug testing arrangements occur. Many witnesses came forward to that committee and described how their experience of being at work and using prescribed medication was being impacted by actions of their employer. Certainly on the face of it, what this private members bill seeks to do is to ameliorate and provide action with respect to that purported discrimination in protection of the attribute of a person with disability using medication.

Obviously there are a range of matters in terms of the operation of the Equal Opportunity Act that apply here. There is a fundamental commitment from the government to making sure that Victorians with disability have their legal rights protected. The range of matters that evolve and change in the broader community with respect to the discrimination and issues that people with disability face are ever-changing over time. We as a government are always cognisant of those issues, monitoring them and making sure that we strengthen those protections. The way that the government is seeking to progress these issues is not by way of a private members bill. As other speakers have articulated, whilst there may be some good reasons why some of the issues that this bill is seeking to deal with need to be addressed, the government is not of the view that this bill is the vehicle to address them.

What we have done is strengthen a range of matters with the equal opportunity framework here in Victoria. It was a year ago that we made some pretty significant changes to a range of anti-vilification laws that have changed and strengthened the protections particularly that people with disability need and brought stronger protections in those anti-vilification laws to include attributes of disability into the broader protections that exist within the anti-vilification framework. I think those laws passed in this Parliament a year ago this week is just one example, a very concrete real and recent example. They come into effect some time later. They sought to and indeed have now included disability as an attribute that is protected by that anti-vilification framework.

I made a members statement earlier highlighting that of course the laws we passed last year that included disability as a protected attribute under the anti-vilification laws were opposed by the Liberal Party and by the National Party. As I mentioned in my members statement earlier today, we still have not been told by them why they voted against those laws last year. Earlier today I was talking about it in the context of religious and multicultural groups being the beneficiaries of the protection that that legislation introduced – the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025 that was put forward and passed by the Parliament last year. Earlier I was talking about the other provisions, but it is equally relevant now to remind the Parliament that the anti-vilification and social cohesion act that we passed last year also includes the protection of disability as a protected attribute.

What I am trying to say with that is that it is very clear that the government takes the protection of people with disability and strengthening the rights of people with disability very seriously. We have made substantial improvements to the protective framework that exists in a range of laws. The issues that this bill seeks to address through the amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act are ones for which we have received considerable evidence, and we have received some quite heartfelt witness testimony as to what the benefits would be. It is just that the government does not view this private members bill as being the vehicle to achieve them.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:30): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.