Wednesday, 13 May 2026

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:23): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   the Victoria Police operational manual states that:

(a) Victoria Police support the appropriate use of cautions, with the aim of redirecting eligible persons away from contact with the formal criminal justice system;

(b) in September 2024, Victoria Police updated guidance in relation to adult cannabis cautions to expand eligibility to include:

(i) removing restrictions on the number of cautions or diversions a person can be subject to;

(ii) removing the requirement that no other offences be involved unless deemed ineligible offences, that is all indictable offences that are not triable summarily;

(2)   recent Crime Statistics Agency data shows that:

(a) in 2021, 34 per cent of unique alleged offenders received a cannabis caution compared to 2025 where 37.5 per cent of unique alleged offenders received a cannabis caution, despite the revised guidance;

(b) rates of cautioning for Indigenous people are 11 times lower than the rate of non-Indigenous Victorians in the cannabis possession statistics;

(3)   given the broadened eligibility and removal of limits on cautions, the absence of a legislative framework risks inconsistent application and supports the case for establishing the cannabis cautioning scheme in legislation to promote consistency, transparency and accountability;

and calls on the government to investigate options for legislative reform to Victoria Police’s cannabis cautioning scheme.

Victoria is going through a crime wave. Official data indicates the highest number of criminal incidents recorded in 20 years. As of late 2025 early 2026, crime has risen to record levels, with almost a 22 per cent increase in property and theft offences, including retail and car theft. Melbourne is also experiencing a surge in targeted arson attacks. Carjackings, family violence, hate crimes and home invasions remain stubbornly high and have the community scared. If the Victorian government are serious about tackling crime, we need to free up police time and resources and we need to do this immediately. One solution is simple: stop wasting police time and resources on policing small-time personal use of cannabis. We are not talking about drug dealers or organised crime, we are talking about police and court time and resources being wasted on a non-violent, victimless crime. In good news, the police agree. And today I stand to debate a motion to have existing police policy brought into legislation.

The most damaging crimes are violent crimes. This is where police resources should be directed. Arguably the most damaging and persistent crime in Victoria is family violence. According to the Crime Statistics Agency, family violence in Victoria is rising, with police recording close to 100,000 incidents in the 2023–24 year and a 6 per cent increase in the previous year. This equates to an incident roughly every 6 minutes. One woman is murdered every week in Australia by an intimate partner.

At the same time Victoria Police are trying to manage critical staff shortages. There are over 1400 to 2000 vacancies, declining members and station closures. We need to ask ourselves if we prefer the police to be stopping and searching Victorians for a joint or attending a family violence call-out. The community is under pressure, and police resources must be freed up to focus on preventing serious harm and protecting victims who are our community’s most vulnerable.

Non-violent crimes, such as the possession of tiny amounts of cannabis for personal use, is not where police resources should be directed, and evidently Victoria Police agree with us. In September 2024 they updated their operations manual, or the Victoria Police manual (VPM), to prioritise cautions over arrests for personal cannabis possession. What this means is that serving police members are now recommended to issue a caution for small personal use of cannabis and not arrest. No arrest, no record, no waste of police time or court resources. This marks a meaningful shift in the policing of cannabis, and we strongly welcome this change. Let us be frank: no police officer wants to be arresting people for 5 grams of weed. I am from Legalise Cannabis Party, and obviously I do not think anyone should be criminalised for cannabis at all, but that is a discussion obviously for another day.

For background, the Victoria Police cannabis cautioning program, or the CCP, was officially implemented on 1 September 1998. It allowed police discretion to caution rather than arrest people found in possession of small quantities of cannabis. In 2024 the VPM was updated quietly, very quietly – and I will return to that point – but updated, nonetheless. The VPM now recommends that police members caution people found with small amounts of cannabis rather than arrest, and for the number of cautions to be unlimited. This is good policy. The Victoria Police drug strategy supports health-led, prevention-first approaches to tackling drug harms and treatment-based responses to use and possession for all drugs. For cannabis this means cautioning. We are so very pleased to see Victoria Police leading the way here. The reality is police do not want to waste their time on arrests for non-violent crimes.

We spoke to Greg Denham from Harm Reduction Australia. Greg was a serving police member from 1980 to 2002, a distinguished 22-year career in policing. Greg rose to the rank of senior sergeant with Victoria Police and was a senior adviser in drug policy between 1997 and 2002. Greg was around when the cannabis cautioning program was first introduced in 1998, and he was part of the design of the program. In Greg’s words:

The idea was simple – save police time and resources, protect the public and, give police members a clear way out of an impossible situation. Nobody joins Victoria police to spend their shift busting someone for a joint. But we were stuck. We never wanted to ruin someone’s life over something like that, so members were doing all sorts of things off the books – turning a blind eye, flushing it. That’s not good policing. Legislate cautioning and give officers something solid to stand on.

Greg’s views reflect what more than 80 per cent of Victorians already recognise: that personal possession of cannabis should not be a criminal offence. Criminalising cannabis has not worked. After almost 100 years of prohibition, Australians still consume cannabis, and you know what, they always will. The question is whether we want to focus valuable police time and resources on that or more important matters.

From a harm reduction point of view, we also need to ask if we want early intervention, which a caution approach offers, or punishment. To be clear on what this means in practice, if found in possession of small amounts of cannabis, Victorians who meet the criteria since September 2024 are issued a formal caution rather than facing charges or court proceedings. That means no criminal record. Having a criminal record for drug possession, no matter how harmless or small, has massive impacts on a person’s life. It can limit access to jobs, education, housing and mental health support. However, nearly 4000 Victorians are still being arrested for possession of cannabis every single year.

The cannabis cautioning scheme was introduced in 1998, almost 28 years ago, and the police operations manual was updated in 2024, but arrests still remain high, at 48 per cent, and cautions remain far too low, at 37.5 per cent. Again, more often than not the offending is minor and the individual poses no risk to the community whatsoever. I am often asked about the relative harms of something like alcohol compared to cannabis. My response often is, and often I am half joking when I say this, but it is true: would you rather come across a group of drunk people in the park or on King Street or even in your home or a bunch of stoned people? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The cannabis cautioning scheme was designed to allow Victoria Police to respond to small-time possession in a way that is proportionate and focused on reducing harm. It frees up police resources. It is also aligned with the International Drug Control Conventions and Victoria’s charter of human rights. As we know, Victoria Police are obliged to take human rights into account under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The charter identifies several rights that may be relevant to cannabis-related matters, including: the right to recognition and equality before the law, section 8; the right to life, section 9; protection from torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, section 10; and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, section 14. Under the core United Nations drug control conventions, including the 1988 UN convention, countries retain scope to respond to minor drug possession matters with education, treatment, rehabilitation and social integration rather than conviction or punishment. So both the Victorian charter and the UN drug policies share a key principle: that when cannabis use is minor, the best approach is to focus on reducing harms and avoiding unnecessary criminal charges.

So again, we welcome the update to the Victoria Police manual; however, we have some concerns. Interestingly, the change to the VPM is not well known. To be honest, that is a huge understatement. I was not aware of the change until quite recently. We spoke to multiple stakeholders who had no idea of this change either. We have spoken to current serving police officers and former police officers who are not aware of this change either. The VPM can only be found on CD-ROM, and to view this manual you either have to go into the State Library of Victoria or you send Victoria Police a cheque and you get sent a disc, no less. Even receiving that as a member of Parliament, I had to go around this building to find a CD-ROM drive for it to be transcribed for me. As a comparison, in New South Wales it is freely accessible online.

I talked recently to Professor Kate Seear, who by any measure is one of Australia’s pre-eminent drug reform experts and has been for decades. Kate is a lawyer and is quite literally looking at these kinds of changes all the time. She said:

I was very surprised to learn of the change in Victoria Police’s manual. I had not heard anything about it before now, and I believe many other experts in the sector will also be surprised to hear of this development.

Professor Seear was concerned this meant, in effect, that cannabis consumers and their legal representatives are still not aware that they should be getting cautioned and not arrested for personal use. Take, for example, someone convicted of a small possession of cannabis charge. At the point of arrest, if they are aware of an update they could ask the police member why they are being arrested and not cautioned. When they go to court, their lawyer could be asking the same thing. At the point of sentencing this information is highly relevant to the defence. Rights cannot be exercised if they are not known. Professor Seear agrees with the updates in the police manual and says cautions should be handed out wherever possible. This should be done in a fair manner, consistently and in line with the law and with the charter of human rights. But again, according to Professor Seear, they can only happen if everyday Victorians understand how the caution process works, know they can ask for a caution and understand what accepting one means. She also warns that police decisions must be transparent, consistent and fair – not open to arbitrary interpretation. The law should not depend on who stops you, where you live or how you are perceived – which brings me to the uneven application of cautioning as it currently stands.

I have spoken many times in this chamber about something we all know: cannabis laws are not affecting all Victorians equally. First Nations Victorians are 11 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than non-Indigenous people. This is nothing short of systemic bias. This and other statistics show the inconsistent application of cautioning guidelines. In an era of treaty, we are still locking First Nations people up for small cannabis use, and we are locking them up more than anyone else. If we are serious about closing the gap, we need real, systemic change. Fair treatment under the law should not be optional.

What I am asking for today is that we remove this grey area. The cautioning scheme was introduced in 1998. It was updated in 2024, but no-one seems to know about it, and it is being applied unevenly. The police manual is not easy to access, even for police members. We are unsure how many of them are even aware of the update to the cautioning scheme. In theory members are supposed to keep themselves up to date with changes to their operations manual. In practice this means they would have to use spare time in their shift. Who has spare time as a police officer? They would need to use that time to scan a QR code, download the manual, read it, understand it – the cautioning scheme, we know, is very convoluted – and then apply it evenly. This is obviously impractical and unrealistic.

Victoria Police need clarity, and to this end today we ask for the government to support our call to enshrine cautioning in legislation. Victoria Police already want cautioning for personal use of cannabis. Every legal and health expert we spoke to agreed it is the very least we can do: stop Victorians being unnecessarily dragged through the criminal justice system. And VicPol have led the way. We should support them and their members to do the practical thing and the right thing. Legislating cautioning ensures that we are meeting our human rights obligations in practice, not just in theory. It gives busy serving police members clarity and cover. The police we spoke to said consistently that they and their colleagues do not like grey areas. They like to know what they should be doing with absolute certainty. All we are asking is that this clarity be provided in legislation. If any Victorian is found with a small personal possession of cannabis and they meet the relevant criteria, they are issued with a caution – no arrest, no court resources, no jail time. It is a proportionate and evenly applied consequence, a caution. No-one should have their life derailed over a joint. What we need now is for everyone to be on the same page to make that a reality.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:38): The truth is that this motion addresses a highly complex area of public policy, one where our justice system, our healthcare system and the fundamental wellbeing of many Victorians intersect. It is one that I have spent some time today truly contemplating, while also thinking broadly about other issues of public health as we have a suite of public health professionals here in Parliament House today. At the very core of our approach to this issue is a foundational principle: the government recognises that drug use is first and foremost a health issue. As such, it is always open to considering reform that may divert people away from the justice system and improve the health outcomes for people who use drugs, especially vulnerable Victorians. We know that health-led policies towards drug use yield positive social and economic outcomes and that law enforcement alone does not address the issue.

There is so much that I could say in the short time that I have got, but I will recognise that the Victorian government has a position and acknowledges and recognises that cannabis remains the most widely used illegal drug in Victoria, and the effects of cannabis can absolutely vary from one person to another.

The government will continue to work across government, police and other agencies to prevent and reduce the harms associated with cannabis through coordinated efforts and evidence-based action. Within that framework the Victorian government supports diversion programs for low-level offending. We will continue to consider options to enhance diversion pathways for people who engage in low-level drug offending and continue to invest in our specialist alcohol and other drugs treatment program, recognising that a police caution is merely the first step. It is an intervention point, but for that intervention to be truly transformative, it needs to be backed by accessible, compassionate health services. We cannot simply divert people away from the justice system. We must actively divert them towards health, recovery and support. And further work is underway to consider how drug use can be better addressed as a health issue and a law enforcement issue.

Currently any person found to have a non-trafficable amount of cannabis that is not in accordance with a prescription may be cautioned as an alternative to laying charges in order to keep them out of the justice system and minimise the associated harm. To fully engage with this motion’s call for legislative reform it is important to outline exactly how the current program operates in detail. The program is governed by Victoria Police’s Victoria Police manual, the VPM, issued under the authority of the Chief Commissioner of Police pursuant to section 60 of the Victoria Police Act 2013. It states that, at law, police members have discretion as to whether an enforcement action is taken against persons found committing an offence. However, members also have a duty to enforce the law, keep the peace, protect life and property and prevent offences. Under the cannabis cautioning program police may issue cautioning notices to individuals aged 18 years or over who have been apprehended for the use or possession of small quantities of cannabis. The aim of cautioning is to divert individuals away from the criminal justice system without further action or follow-up. The VPM sets out the policy, guidance and instructions to members for the operation of the cannabis cautioning program, and cautions may be issued for summary offences and some indictable offences triable summarily. There you go.

There is more to this. For all adult cautions there must be sufficient evidence to charge the person with the offence. Crucially, the person must consent to the caution. Importantly, prior criminal history does not deem a person ineligible for a caution. If appropriate, a person may be cautioned for more than one eligible offence arising out of the same set of circumstances. Specifically for the cannabis cautioning program, the following also applies. It can only be used for a small quantity of dried leaf, stems, stalks and/or seeds, no plants, hash or hash oil. The cannabis must be for personal use only. The interaction between the officer and the individual is a vital point of human intervention. The investigating member must provide the person with the details of the offence committed. They must explain how they do not have consent to the caution and may choose to have the matter dealt with by the court. They must explain that the caution will be recorded in police records. However, it is not disclosable as part of a criminal history check. They outline that the caution is a formal process and provides an opportunity for the person to consider and address the offending behaviour and avoid entering the criminal justice system. They are warned that after being cautioned any further offending may result in the person appearing in court. However, they are assured that once a caution is issued, the matter is final.

Perhaps most critically from a harm reduction perspective, the investigating member may also have an informal discussion seeking the underlying reasons for an offence and to discuss inappropriate behaviour and its consequences. Once an individual consents the police officer completes the relevant caution form, processes the drugs as property in police possession and provides the official caution notice. The entire framework aligns with the Victoria Police Drug Strategy 2020–2025, which is aimed at focusing police efforts on drugs that are causing the most harm in the community.

It details Victoria Police’s commitment to preventing drug-related harm through diversion, referral to treatment and early intervention to prevent offence escalation. While police use their intensive training and discretion to determine a proportionate response, they also maintain an uncompromising focus on community safety. Where a drug-related arrest is made, it is done in the interest of both public and personal safety. As Victoria recognises, and Victoria Police recognises, that drug problems are first and foremost health issues, police use their training and discretion to determine a proportionate response. The government recognises the importance of the independence of Victoria Police when making these decisions. Victoria Police continue to tackle the problem of drug harm through a focus on targeted investigations into serious and organised crime using strategic state, Commonwealth, national and international partnerships, and on disrupting drug use and supply.

This brings me to the core request of the motion before us, which is legislative reform. Police-issued drug cautioning and diversion programs are not provided for in any legislation in Victoria. Instead they are an offence disposition approach developed by Victoria Police at its discretion, and guidance for their operation is provided to members through the VPM. Generally members have broad discretion in relation to what enforcement action, caution, infringement notice, prosecution et cetera is taken against a person found committing or reasonably suspected of committing an offence. Some direction is provided to members under legislation – I think particularly by the Bail Act 1977 and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which I know we have debated some changes to in this place.

The desire to see this scheme enshrined in legislation is often driven by a desire for structural consistency to ensure that outcomes are equitable. However, we must navigate this with immense care. It is important to note that the established statutory processes under section 10 of the Victoria Police Act 2013 prevent the government from directing Victoria Police in relation to enforcing, investigating or prosecuting individuals. It really is important to note this separation of powers, which ensures that Victoria Police can operate independently in undertaking its duty to enforce the law and includes Victoria Police’s discretion when it comes to cautioning individuals. The government acknowledges this reality and respects it. As such, any decision to take away from Victoria Police’s ability to exercise discretion needs to be carefully considered.

As we engage with the substance of this motion it will be essential to work with key stakeholders, including the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and Victoria Police, to consider what legislative options may be available and appropriate to deliver the intent of the existing cannabis cautioning guidelines and minimise risk of unintended consequences. We must not inadvertently create rigid frameworks that hinder a police officer’s ability to assess a dynamic situation and act in the best interests of both the individual and the wider community. I will come back to where I began, which is that this is a health issue.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:48): I also rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion today. I have to admit I love talking to Ms Payne about this topic. I really enjoy the debate. We come from completely different sides of belief in this. I really do enjoy talking to her about it, and there has been a lot about cannabis, hemp, all this sort of stuff, which I have turned a little bit of a corner on. This is not one of them.

I think that human rights is an interesting space, because there is a fine balance between individual liberties and community safety. It is an interesting one for us to balance and make sure we get right. I am going to raise some of those things. This is Parliament, you have to remember, so it is about debate, it is about differing ideas, and it is my responsibility to bring up the areas I do not agree with. One of the issues that I have when it comes to cannabis use – and I learned this during the cannabis inquiry – is that unlike with alcohol and other drugs, there is not a measure to use when it comes to impairment. I think that is a huge issue. So then it comes down to somebody who is already altered in the way they perceive things to make a decision about whether or not they can drive or do certain things like operate machinery.

This to me is a concern. There needs to be a way to measure impairment, because of course an individual – I should not say ‘of course’, because even that is debatable, but maybe I gave away a bit of my own bias there – should have the right to make decisions about their own life. That, I believe, is a given. But everything we do and every activity we undertake can have an impact on somebody else, so there must be a way, I believe, to measure impairment. Whether it is alcohol or whether it is other drugs that affect the cerebellum, maybe it is testing like that. Who knows? But come up with something. According to what I have read, there is a lot of different research going on. I would like to see more put into that.

I also will say that one of the things that we talk about here is the number of cautions given. We made this change – it even says so in this motion, I believe – that there should be an ability for cautions to be given at police discretion for minor offences and first-time offences. If it is for first-time offences, why would we uncap the amount of times that people are allowed to commit an offence? Surely that is completely counterintuitive. I believe it is. If there is a caution given and there is discretion given to an individual like a police officer for a first-time offence, there should be absolutely no reason to take away the number around that. It should be for a first-time offence. It is pretty black and white, I believe.

The third thing is I believe that a lot of this research completely overlooks the harms that are directly related to cannabis use. There are some, and I am going to talk about some of those not in my opinion but according to science. This is another reason why I do not want to see a blank cheque given just over and over again, ‘Yeah, sure, you can flout the law and you can get away with it,’ because even for that person making a choice – and to be honest, if that is your choice to smoke pot or whatever, it does not bother me – it is not going to be good for that person in the long run, not according to my opinion but because of the medical evidence that proves it.

Sixty peer-reviewed studies show cannabis is causal to 33 different types of cancer, double the number caused by tobacco and creating an even greater medical burden than tobacco does. That is interesting when we hear these things framed not as a social issue but as a medical issue and it is saying that it is causal to 33 cancers. If you are able to, over and over again, use a substance that is going to put you at risk of developing 33 extra cancers that you would not risk if you were not consuming it, is that going to put pressure on the health care system or take it off? I would say it would put a hell of a lot of pressure on. It ignores that 43 per cent of Australia’s smoking-related costs – this was a decade ago – were from cancers. I know that has gone up. If we are now taking the brakes off – and I think it is important to have brakes on these things – we have to realise that there is absolutely a health cost. Let us talk about it for a minute as a health issue, not a social issue, which I believe is splitting hairs really, but let us do that. This is going to put an impact on the healthcare system.

It omits other proven health harms such as birth defects, child cancers, psychosis, depression, suicide and violence – violence is one, according to the data – which are all heavily evidenced in peer-reviewed research.

It is so funny, sometimes when we talk about this in relation to crime there is almost this view that, ‘Oh, the way to address violent crime is it would be a lot better if everyone was stoned.’ The data says something quite different.

I have shared a story both in committee and in here in this place of one of my very good friends growing up who fell victim to one of these side effects, as rare as they might be. You can talk about that; I am sure you are about to. I have an extremely good friend, somebody who is extremely dear to me, who suffers frontal lobe damage. She has got temporal lobe damage from smoking marijuana. Sure, it could have been purer. People say maybe that is why we need to regulate it. On that, in California, according to the data – in fact I will read it, because I know it will be picked up by somebody. They say:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The California taskforce on cannabis regulation has confirmed that the black market there remains larger than the legal market.

Even that argument, if you look at the data, does fall a little bit flat. But for my good friend it has been absolutely devastating. Every time you see her, you see this life of potential. She was one of my dearest friends. She will never work again. She now has to live in care. That is devastating and that is because of drug use. We cannot look at these things – I understand that it is good to talk about how we should give unending cautions – and not talk about why it is an illegal substance in the first place.

Just as a matter of time, I do not think that the way to deal with the crime crisis is to make criminal activities legal. It does fix the data, but it fixes nothing about the reality of what is happening on the street and in people’s lives. These are things that I think, as uncomfortable as they may be, we have to absolutely look at. During the cannabis inquiry another thing made me very uncomfortable. I have spoken about drug use and I have experienced some incredible tragedy – I am talking death, I am talking so extreme I will not even go into it – because of drug use. I am not ashamed to say it: I hate drugs. Not so much cannabis, I am not going to put that in the same bundle. But I hate them because they have cost me the lives of people extremely dear to me. What I will say is I was extremely uncomfortable when we went up to Canberra. These things sometimes can be a bit of a Trojan Horse. I know you will not like me talking about that, but in Canberra it started with just cannabis. You get a $100 fine. But now, there, it does not matter what drug it is, you get a $100 fine, with no regard for what that is doing to people’s lives, people’s potential, people’s ability to cope and the families around them.

I am open to many more conversations on this, but I will say this: I am far from convinced. I do not see how normalising drug use in any way, shape or form is healthy when cannabis leads to higher rates of psychosis, higher rates of depression, higher rates of disengagement from work or school or whatever – (Time expired)

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:59): I rise to speak in support of Ms Payne’s motion, and I thank her for bringing this important debate before the chamber today. This, at its heart, is a motion about fairness, about evidence and about a commonsense, health-based approach to drug reform in this state. It asks Victoria to stop derailing people’s lives for possession of a small amount of cannabis and to put into law what Victoria Police have already recognised themselves in policy: that cautioning should be the default response for minor personal possession. The Greens support this motion because we have long said that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Our policy platform on reducing alcohol, tobacco and other drug harm is crystal clear. Harm minimisation is often the most appropriate way to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use.

Cannabis has been prohibited in Australia for almost a century. The prohibition has not stopped people from using cannabis – in fact the opposite. What it has done is expose people to criminal charges, police contact, court processes and long-term consequences for conduct that should not actually be criminal in the first place. The material circulated by Ms Payne makes the problem very clear. Victoria Police have updated their operational manual, actually in 2024, to recommend the use of caution rather than arrest for personal possession of cannabis, which is a welcome shift by the police. But the data that we have seen recently shows that this shift is not working as intended. Crime stats reveal that cautioning remains low at 37 per cent, while arrests for personal possession of small amounts of cannabis remain at 48 per cent. Around 4000 arrests are still occurring each year, and of this group of course – as we see in so many spaces across the state – there is a disproportionate impact on First Nations people. First Nations men have the highest arrest to caution ratios across almost every age group, and First Nations Victorians generally are 11 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than other groups. It is not fair, it is not consistent, it is certainly not a best practice public health response to what is a health issue and it in no way serves justice.

The Greens justice principles are grounded in reducing harm, in reducing the overuse of criminalisation and imprisonment where they do not achieve public interest outcomes for the justice system and in addressing the structural causes of contact with the justice system. We know that criminal charges, where they are used, do not land equally on different demographics in our population, and criminal charges are not neutral here. They can make it harder to get work, harder to keep housing, harder to comply with existing corrections conditions and harder to break cycles of disadvantage and addiction, which is really pertinent to issues that people may come into contact with if they are arrested on minor possession charges. The Fitzroy Legal Service has described exactly those kinds of impacts, including where possession charges have arisen from family violence and welfare call-outs and cannabis has been used as an aggravating factor in sentencing. We know police discretion, as it is used in this state, can be applied unevenly and can be applied unfairly. We have seen that from the stats. Discretion does depend on the officer; the suburb; the person’s age and their race, housing status and appearance; and their record or their perceived attitude. Despite us hearing continually that racial profiling no longer occurs, that is unfortunately not what we see in the stats. We know that it is still occurring in practice and needs further action to stamp it out.

Once again, here we see a good policy, when it is hidden in the police manual, by all available evidence not actually being used and implemented and having the outcome of reduced arrests on the street. It is not giving effect to a legal protection and to a shift in practice that Victoria Police, based on its own policy change, clearly wants to effect. It is not providing legal protection in practice, and in this case, as Ms Payne has pointed out, the policy here – the Victoria Police manual – is barely public. The briefing notes that we have seen have noted that many legal and health stakeholders are actually still unaware of this 2024 operational manual change and that the Victoria Police manual is very difficult for ordinary people and their legal representatives – and in fact even for members of Parliament, I will note – to access. It is only available on a CD-ROM, and you need to send a cheque to Victoria Police, which is pretty extraordinary in 2026. I thank Ms Payne, after going through this ordeal of obtaining the latest version recently, for sharing a PDF with my office, which will be treasured so we do not have to go through that. This is a good policy change that Victoria Police have made internally. However, it needs further support and effect to be recognised and acted on in practice. That is why we support the thrust of Ms Payne’s motion to make sure that this change is done publicly and is put in an actionable way before cops on the beat and the rest of the Victoria Police workforce.

If the law continues to favour arrests, people will continue to be arrested. If the government agrees with Victoria Police that cautioning should be the default, then it should make that clear in legislation. This is also consistent with a broader harm reduction approach, which the Greens have called for. The Greens have called for the legalisation of personal drug use, the legal regulation of cannabis, pill testing, expanded treatment and rehabilitation and policies that direct people to health services and addiction support rather than punishment, which can exacerbate disadvantage and inhibit recovery. My Greens colleague Aiv Puglielli has put it plainly in his standing petition: Victoria needs to get smarter on drugs, and people who use drugs should be directed to health services for help, not prison for harm.

Though we have heard some wideranging comments from MPs in the debate, this motion does not ask the Parliament to solve every issue in drug law reform today. It does ask us to take one practical, evidence-based step to realise Victoria Police’s own internal policy intent and to make cautioning real, consistent and enforceable. No-one’s life should be derailed over a joint. I thank Ms Payne for bringing this motion to the house, and the Greens are pleased to support it.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:06): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion today regarding the changes that have been made to the Victoria Police operating manual in relation to guidance on adult cannabis cautioning, the recitation of a range of crime statistics and a request and a call for the government to investigate options for legislative reform to the cannabis cautioning scheme. In listening to her contribution and the genesis of the motion here today, the diligent work that our colleagues in Legalise Cannabis have undertaken in the last couple of years demonstrates the steadfast tenacity – I suspect that is probably the best way to describe it – with which they have pursued these issues. Certainly, having spent many hours in a range of inquiries dealing with some of these matters, it demonstrates the steadfast commitment that they, Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank, have to this issue.

I think what we see before us today is obviously a ventilation of pretty sensible sections of the Victoria Police operating manual in relation to the guidance the Chief Commissioner of Police is setting out to sworn officers here in the state of Victoria about their approach to the issuing of cautions with respect to those who would otherwise have been liable for an offence. I think that in the context of debate here – and I know that members in this contribution have walked this important line – and I think more broadly, it is important to say that the Victoria Police Act 2013 is very clear that operational decisions about policing in the state of Victoria should be made by the chief commissioner and that it is not appropriate for government or for ministers to be issuing directions to the chief commissioner about how police do their job. That is not what this motion calls for. I think the motion is very, very clear in calling for a legislative framework, and that is entirely appropriate. That is the way that these matters should be dealt with. But I think more broadly, in the broader community, if others are engaging in commentary on this I think it is an important line to hold, because I do not want to be in a state where politicians direct police how to do their jobs. The law should direct police, and the law should create the framework that police enforce, but I think the protections in the police act serve us all very well in a democracy.

The role that cautioning plays in policing is an important one. It is not just in the context of cannabis-related offences that the guidance that exists in the police operating manual from the chief commissioner to sworn officers in the state is an important part of how policing is undertaken in the state of Victoria.

It is not a new function; it is not a new element of the way that the police do their job. It applies in a range of settings, so I think it is an important feature of the way that policing is undertaken in this state, and that it is undertaken thoughtfully and in accordance with established processes and procedures, I think, is critical. More broadly, Ms Watt in her contribution did articulate a very clear position on behalf of the government that we do understand that harm reduction, particularly in respect to cannabis, is a very important part of the government’s policy framework, particularly for personal use or personal possession, and that we will do whatever we can do for individuals to prevent drug-related harm through the use of diversionary processes, referral to treatment, early intervention – everything that we can do as a government to support or to prevent offence escalation for those involved. Certainly the way that Victoria Police undertake their approach to tackling drug harm is targeted at the serious and organised criminal ends of the system, leaving the issues around non-trafficable small personal quantities not in accordance with prescription able to be cautioned within the framework set out by the chief commissioner in the operating manual as an alternative to laying charges. Obviously that has the very important benefit for those individuals of keeping them out of the justice system and reducing the harm that may be associated with the pathway that criminalisation of that sort of behaviour leads to.

The framework that exists here in the manual, which has been described and uncovered through Ms Payne’s work, demonstrates that this is the sort of benefit that Victoria Police has recognised in this approach. It is important to say that police are trained and have the discretion to determine what a proportionate response in these circumstances is, and it is important that the independence of Victoria Police in making those determinations on a case-by-case basis is reflected. The policy intent of the motion to try and provide a greater legislative basis for that is something that obviously Ms Payne is keenly advocating, and the government, in supporting the motion, notes that that work would have to be done to figure out how that would operate, and is clearly open to the consideration of that work being undertaken.

I think the other broader question that we have, and obviously the debate has strayed a little bit from the intent of this, is to look at how individuals who may be caught with small amounts of cannabis receiving cautions in accordance with the framework is then sort of merged a little bit into the role that charging for cannabis-related offences occurs within the context of a range of other charges that have been brought against individuals. I think in some of the other contributions so far in the debate that may have blurred a little. I think that it is quite clear that the intent in general terms of cautioning arrangements – what they are designed to do – is to ensure that individuals are warned and cautioned and diverted from engagement with the criminal justice system. I think that is distinct and separate to the question of people who are being charged with a series of other crimes having a cannabis-related crime added to their charge sheet, and I do not think it is helpful in the context of the debate to blur those two issues, because they are fundamentally different and distinct.

We do know that people in Victoria use cannabis. There is reality to that, and we know that the effects of that use can vary considerably from one individual to the other. That is why it is important that the range of supports, the range of treatments and the range of other sorts of programs that we need as a state are consistent with the harm minimisation framework. It is why organisations like Victoria Police in their role in our criminal justice system have taken the time to develop processes and procedures as outlined in the operating manual to recognise that framework and to understand that there are circumstances where it is appropriate for individuals to be treated with a caution rather than a charge. That is a decision that police should be making on a case-by-case and independent basis.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:16): Our motion does nothing more today than ask the government to formalise in legislation what has been an established police procedure – but one that is not being applied evenly and one that very few people outside of a few Victoria Police officers even seem to know about. The cannabis cautioning program has been around since 1998, and since 2024 – as Ms Payne explained – the Victoria Police operations manual has recommended the use of unlimited cautions for personal cannabis possession over and above and in lieu of arrests. This is very good news. After seeing a disappointing lack of reform in the cannabis space, this represents real progress.

We have spoken many times about the wasted police and court resources that go into prosecuting cannabis possession charges and just as many times about the disastrous, life-changing consequences imposed on people who have been busted for a small amount of weed, so this change of procedure is very welcome. Unfortunately, as my colleague Ms Payne noted, the new policy has not translated into more cautions being issued or fewer arrests being made, so we are still averaging around 4000 people a year being arrested simply for having a small amount of cannabis on their person. At a time when Victoria Police is facing chronic staff shortages and there are currently, I think, somewhere around 1500 vacant positions for sworn officers that need to be filled and we are seeing a rise in violent crime, do we really want our police wasted on taking down kids smoking joints? The police certainly do not want to. They know it is a waste of time, and they are more aware than anyone in this chamber of how a single brush with the criminal justice system can cascade disastrously and destroy lives.

The legislative change we are seeking is modest, necessary and already part of the police procedure, so why don’t we just do it? If anyone is unconvinced that this would be welcomed by police, they should look at the ACT. In Canberra, of course, decriminalisation of possession of small amounts of cannabis occurred in 2020, and six years later it is still working just fine. This is a big step forward from simply cautioning. The chief commissioner of the federal police in the ACT told the parliamentary inquiry into personal use when we visited there that while police initially had many concerns about the drug changes, none of them had come to fruition – other than that police arrests are down by 94 per cent. It is worth noting in that context that a health department review of the legislation after its first five years of operation found that usage among young people had actually decreased and there had been no increase in hospital admissions or any social or health indicators that could be identified.

I would like to address some of the contributions my colleagues have made in this debate. But before I do, I just want to talk about the recent 420 event. We held that in Sunshine, and I would like to compare that to previous events in Flagstaff Gardens. It is a tale of two 420s if you will. 420 is an annual protest and a celebration of cannabis. It is a protest against prohibition, and so people turn up, have a bit of a picnic, light up a spliff at 4:20 and then go home. It is all very pleasant and very chilled – or at least it was. The 420 events held in Flagstaff Gardens in the last couple of years were marked by an intimidating and excessive police presence. Last year we had 60 armed police officers – who were being paid, I think, double time and a half or triple time because it was on Easter Sunday – with sniffer dogs, basically searching, handcuffing and detaining anyone they thought might have cannabis on their person. It was such an unconscionable waste of resources and did nothing more than harass and traumatise otherwise law-abiding people and foster resentment and mistrust of the police, and that was not lost on the police concerned. Compare that with the event held at a park in Sunshine four weeks ago. There were half a dozen police officers, but they kept their distance and were both exceptionally professional and unfailingly polite. There were people consuming cannabis responsibly, listening to music, drinking tea and eating cakes, and that was because it was called, after all, the 420 High Tea. It was extremely pleasant and everyone had a lovely time. Why can’t that be the norm?

I want to return to the motion, but before I do that I would just like to pick up the comments from Dr Heath, because we have both been through the personal use bill inquiry and the workplace drug testing inquiry, so we have heard a lot of witnesses’ evidence. I want to say, first and foremost, that I mean absolutely no disrespect, nor do I belittle your life experiences with friends and such who have been affected, as you said, by drugs – I think probably in a more generic sense. There are thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and it is very easy to tick a selective group of those and say, ‘It’s terrible.’ It is basically the DFA, or the Drug Free Australia, approach to research. Mainly they footnote themselves or these ancient studies. It is also known as the Reader’s Digest devil’s lettuce approach to medical research. We have been through these inquiries. We have heard so much evidence, and it is quite clear that cannabis consumption has not fundamentally changed in consumption quantities over decades. It is quite clear that there are no major medical indicators coming from places where it has been fully commercialised, and that is the reality.

But I think, most importantly, this discussion was very well clarified by Mr Batchelor in his contribution. We are not debating: is cannabis good for you or bad for you? We could equally debate: is Coca Cola good or bad for you? And I suspect it is worse. It would certainly be much worse if we were debating alcohol or tobacco. It is a fraction of the harms. But putting that aside, this debate is: should we be keeping young people in particular and people from marginalised communities, who we know are overwhelmingly the victims of the justice system for minor offences, out of the criminal justice system? That is the debate. That is the question we are seeking to clarify, not: is weed good for you or bad for you?

Serving police officers want clarity and they want certainty, and as Ms Payne noted, the police we spoke to want to know what they should be doing. They do not like grey areas. The formalisation of the cautioning scheme in legislation will fundamentally help police. They know that their time is being wasted. I think Ms Payne quoted Greg Denham, an experienced officer, and those were his exact words: ‘Nobody wants to do weed paperwork for a minor offence.’

Community, justice and health stakeholders all agree on the damage that even one encounter with the criminal justice system can inflict on people. They are in lockstep on the need to stop arresting people and funnelling them through the criminal justice system for a small amount of weed. And 80 per cent of Victorians agree that it should not be a criminal offence. I do not know how many times we have debated issues where there is that level of community consensus about legislation that should be changed. But we are not debating that, we are just trying to say ‘Keep people out of the criminal justice system in the short term’. Cautioning should be legislated. It is the best way to reduce those systemic biases towards First Nations Victorians, young working-class people and other marginalised communities and ensure that there is consistent and equitable application of the cautioning scheme. I commend the motion to the chamber.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:26): I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion put forward by Ms Payne today and to speak to it a little bit earlier than I expected, because I see that the opposition list has completely collapsed. Mrs McArthur, I am disappointed that you have run out of steam. She is not engaging with me at the moment, but I am sure she will be in the next motion slot. But only one speaker from the coalition – that is okay; good of you to turn up anyway.

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion moved by my region colleague Ms Payne and I thank her for raising what has been quite an interesting discussion. It is far from the first time that we have discussed cannabis and related matters in this place. As has been referenced by colleagues, including Dr Heath and Mr Ettershank just now, we have engaged through the Legal and Social Issues Committee with various inquiries, in particular in relation to an analysis of the ACT model of decriminalisation, which I have spoken about numerous times in this place and may come back to to address some of the points raised by the members if time permits.

What we effectively have here is a rather good situation in a lot of ways, as Ms Payne referred to in her opening remarks – that is, that Victoria Police is already taking the proactive step and, with the Victoria Police manual, undertaking the caution approach, which seems to be inherently eminently sensible. Effectively the position that we are in today is a situation of legislating to reflect reality.

I do want to note at the outset, though, that whilst at a high level that is a perfectly sensible and straightforward thing to do, and the government will be supporting this motion today for that reason and because we do maintain a health approach to the matter of cannabis and alcohol and other drug issues more generally, it is important to note that the statutory processes under section 10 of the Victoria Police Act 2013 naturally prevent the government from directing Victoria Police in relation to enforcing, investigating or prosecuting individuals. I would expect and hope that the reasons behind that restriction are eminently obvious to all members.

What this does is ensure that Victoria Police can operate independently in undertaking its duty to enforce the law, including Victoria Police’s discretion when it comes to cautioning individuals. As such, even though we would effectively be legislating what is already in practice, it would behove us to be mindful of any such step that we were taking to remove Victoria Police’s ability to exercise their discretion. The appropriate consultation processes would therefore inevitably need to take place with Victoria Police and with the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Health in order to ensure that the enactment of this change would not bring about any adverse, unintended consequences. Like many other members, this is something that has recently come to my attention, these updates to the Victoria Police manual, the VPM.

These are issued by the Chief Commissioner of Police periodically under section 60 of the Victoria Police Act 2013, and it states that at law police members do have discretion as to whether enforcement action is taken against persons found to be committing an offence, but naturally that goes with the obligation to enforce the law, keep the peace, protect life and property and prevent offences. Under the cannabis cautioning program, police may currently issue caution notices to individuals aged 18 years or over who have been apprehended for the use or possession of small quantities of cannabis. The aim of course is to divert individuals away from the criminal justice system without further action or follow-up. The VPM’s caution sets out the policy, guidance and instructions to members for the operation of the cannabis cautioning program, so they can of course be used for summary offences. They can also be used for some indictable offences which are triable summarily, so for all adult cautions, which additionally includes cautions for shop steal, drug diversion excluding cannabis and other adult cautions. There must be sufficient evidence to charge the person with the offence. The person must consent to the caution. Prior criminal history does not necessarily deem a person ineligible for that caution, and they may be cautioned for more than one offence arising out of the same set of circumstances. In relation to cannabis specifically, these rules apply if the amount is in relation to a small quantity – that is deemed to be up to 50 grams of dried leaf, stem, stalks and/or seeds – and the cannabis must of course be for personal use only.

There are various end processes which are followed, whereby the investigating member will be required to provide the person with details of the offence committed as well as explaining that they do not have to consent to the caution and may choose to have the matter dealt with in court; that the caution will be recorded in police records, however it is not disclosable as part of a criminal history check; that it is a formal process and provides an opportunity for the person to consider and address the offending behaviour and avoid entering the criminal justice system; that after being cautioned, any further offending may result in the person appearing in court; and that once it is issued the caution is final. They must also have an informal discussion to seek the underlying reasons for the offence and to discuss inappropriate behaviour and its consequences. If an individual being offered this caution consents, the police officer then completes the relevant caution form, processes the drugs as property in police possession and provides the official caution notice. It is a straightforward and far more commonsense approach to dealing with these types of offences – people seeking to consume small amounts of cannabis and having it on them for their own personal use. We are not talking about large quantities, and we are not talking about drug dealers, we are talking about these people that do choose to take it up.

There are some comparisons with the previous ACT model, which Dr Heath referred to, but it is not the same as the simple cannabis offence notice, which was the charge of $100 that the ACT had in place. That is probably an evolution, probably another step forward, which was one of the various options open to our inquiry to consider as part of its deliberations. Indeed whilst there is still further analysis being done by the government on the way in which we progress reforms in this space going forward, whether that may be an option, that would actually be a step-up, and that would have no relation to the decriminalisation of any other types of substances. I do not necessarily buy into the wedge argument that is being made there, because the whole point of having legislatures – the whole point of having statutory reviews – is to evaluate, consider and challenge proposals; when appropriate, put them into legislation, into policy and into regulation; and then of course measure the outcomes of that. Indeed through the ACT model we did see that the model appears to be very successful in working for the ACT. It is a unique jurisdiction in many ways of course, the ACT, but it is in this case particularly unique, given its history of having a different legal framework in the lead-up to its decriminalisation with those simple cannabis offence notices. Whilst I have spoken frequently in this chamber in support of what the ACT has done, the number one question that I would like to see answered – that is not putting it on any one person – is: how do we best replicate those results in Victoria? I think if we did have that surety that we would have the same results in Victoria, it would be a very straightforward thing for us to be considering to legislate at some point. But factoring in the various different circumstances, that is where that further work needs to be done.

In the time I have left, I would also like to reflect on the comments about health impacts. Now, I am certainly not an expert, and as someone who is not particularly personally au fait with these types of drugs, I am probably not the best-placed person to ask. But as someone who is been on quite a journey with this debate – indeed, having a family member who is no longer with us in large part because of difficulties with drugs, which started with cannabis – it is something that I have reflected on. My personal views have been challenged, because the more I engage with the subject, the more I see about it, the more convinced I am that having these discussions out in the open, having a healthcare framework on it and not an overly legalistic and overly punitive one, is the best way in which we can support people and indeed divert people off bad pathways. Certainly that is the case with pill testing and the on-the-spot drug information and advice that we can give people. I would just register those remarks to conclude my contribution to this motion, which I will be supporting today.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:36): I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will be supporting this motion from Ms Payne regarding the cautioning system for cannabis possession. I do so with some hesitation though. I do not like the cautioning system at all, and I doubt Ms Payne does much either. It is nothing more than lipstick on the pig of prohibition, in my view, and I think it is time to call out the bulldust that we hear from the major parties in here on this topic. Every time I hear cannabis debated in this place, it makes me more angry.

Firstly, I will start with the government. The government claims that they treat drug use as a health issue. A police officer does not give a caution to someone who eats too many hamburgers. They give them a caution because they are committing a crime. Either they are committing a crime that you think is bad enough that they should be removed from society, or they are not really committing a crime that is bad enough. You do not really think that they are hurting anyone and give them a caution. That is what is happening. You are not treating it as a health problem at all. The government claims to care about making an impact on organised crime. Well, you know what would make an impact on organised crime? Taking away a billion-dollar market from them. That is what would make an impact on organised crime. It seems that every action that the government takes makes it easier for organised crime in Victoria and makes it more palatable for organised crime in Victoria.

On the opposition side, I heard Dr Heath talk about how we have got to remember why we prohibited cannabis in the first place. Let me tell you why Australia prohibited cannabis in the first place. We did it in 1925 because we got pressured under a stupid international agreement, the Geneva Convention on Opium and Other Drugs, even though recreational cannabis use –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Limbrick is misleading the house. I would have no clue why we did criminalise it, and I never spoke about that.

David LIMBRICK: I distinctly recall Dr Heath talking about why we prohibited it in the first place, but here is why we prohibited it in the first place. Australia got bullied into signing an international agreement despite having almost no recreational use of cannabis in Australia in 1925. It was available over the counter as a medicinal substance with almost no regulation. We got bullied into signing that agreement. That is why we prohibit it in Australia. Recreational cannabis use only became a big thing much later on.

The opposition talks about respecting individual liberty. I call BS on that as well, because you cannot respect individual liberty when you want to criminalise someone and give them a caution because they are consuming a plant that you do not like or you do not approve of. That is not what liberty is about. Liberty is about respecting people’s individual choices, whether you approve of them or not. This is at the core – we see the major parties here make no movement on this whatsoever. They just continue with prohibition. The police know it is a joke. The police do not want to give out cautions and arrest people for possession of cannabis. They know that they have got far more important things to do, like arresting people for arson attacks or for home invasions or all these other things. But instead they get stuck giving cautions out to people for consuming flowers that the government has said that they are not allowed to have.

It is the most ridiculous use of police resources that you could think of, yet we continue to do it and the opposition still complains that we have a lack of police resources. Well, why don’t we get them to stop doing silly things like policing possession of cannabis, because it is just a total waste of time? We always end up talking about the health effects. Whatever health effects happen, whether it is illegal or not, they are going to happen anyway. We have one of the highest cannabis consumption rates in the world, despite prohibition. It makes no difference whatsoever. At least in a legal, regulated market we would know what products we were getting.

That brings me to my other point. We do have a legal, regulated market in Australia through the medicinal cannabis system. It is working pretty well, and pretty much the main difference between someone who accesses cannabis through the black market or the legal market is that they are not as knowledgeable and they do not know how to access it through the medicinal market. It is a bit of a joke, really. There was another reference to California and how Californian legalisation did not destroy the organised crime trade in that state. That is actually very true, and we should be able to understand exactly why if we look at the newspapers in Victoria every morning. We know exactly why we get black markets involved in otherwise legal products like tobacco and alcohol: it is because of excessive taxes, and that is exactly what California screwed up. They screwed it up through excessive taxes and excessive regulation. It was still profitable for organised crime to be involved in the drug market there, and they continued to be so in exactly the same way as organised crime is involved in the tobacco and alcohol market in Victoria. Despite these being legal products, it is very lucrative for organised crime to get involved in the same way that organised crime is involved in the cannabis market in California. The lesson for us all is very clear: if we want to undermine organised crime and if we want to maximise the useful use of police resources, the thing to do is to have a legal, regulated market for cannabis, which is what we should have had all along.

I do not like the ACT model either. The ACT model does nothing to address the supply side, which is organised crime. In fact it makes it easier for organised crime. I do not like the ACT model, despite it being a very slight improvement for consumers at least. It does not address the organised crime model. If anyone has been paying attention, organised crime is out of control in this state. We need to do everything we can to attack organised crime, and the way to attack organised crime is to undermine their markets, which the government have the ability to do, and they choose not to.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:43): I am pleased to speak on this motion. Certainly from my perspective, harm minimisation is where the evidence points us, and any opportunity for the police force to participate in harm minimisation by choosing to use a caution in the context of cannabis is a good idea. To provide a legislative framework that allows for a more consistent approach is also a constructive approach. We know about the absence of referral to supports and that taking the opportunity to figure out that a different course of action to deal with the issues that are sitting behind any kind of problematic behaviours associated with the use of cannabis is a better approach than a punitive or punishment approach to what should be seen as a health issue if it is causing problems. I appreciate that Legalise Cannabis Victoria is very clear that use of cannabis should not be seen as a problem in itself.

But we know with many legal drugs like alcohol that people do have problems with addiction, and that certainly is the case for cannabis as well, so it makes a lot of sense to include a process that provides a connection between a health service and a therapeutic support framework and the policing framework that we have got at the moment. That is where the cautions sit.

If we put this scenario in the context of Indigenous – Aboriginal – people and their experience of this, as has already been said in this chamber, we know that discretion to caution can inadvertently be used inconsistently and in a way that might inadvertently be judgemental of a person’s characteristics or circumstances rather than independent. That is another reason why having a more consistent approach and a more legislated framework that gives some clarity to avoiding discrimination in this context is also useful.

From the perspective of regional Victoria, policing in regional Victoria is a very personal thing. For any community that has got a police officer, or any police officer that has got a community, police officers live and work in their communities. There are no other suburbs. They live and work in their community, so they are almost compulsorily required to be on local committees and are shoved into leadership roles. Hence they know everybody, and this then becomes a really challenging situation to use cautions and not use cautions in different situations. Some families they know very well, others they do not. I think overall this is a very good idea. In the very short amount of time that I have had to contribute on this, I think there is a lot to be gained by supporting such a notion.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:48): First and foremost, I just want to thank everybody who made a contribution today. Everyone made very thoughtful and considered contributions. Ms Watt, Dr Heath, Ms Copsey, Mr Batchelor, my colleague Mr Ettershank, Mr Galea, Mr Limbrick and Ms Ermacora, thank you all for your valuable contributions.

At the outset it is really important that we do bring our personal experiences to what we debate in this place. With all due respect, I think it is really important to note that, be they experiences of loved ones or those that are dear to us, both positive and negative, those experiences are always are going to have weight in how we debate in this place, including, as Ms Ermacora said, from regional perspectives through to inner-city living or suburban perspectives.

I would like to point out, in relation to Dr Heath’s contribution around measuring impairment – and I think we have all reiterated this throughout this debate – that is not what this motion is trying to debate. When it comes to impairment, though, police do have the ability to test impairment. But what is happening currently, particularly with the roadside drug testing, is that police are measuring presence, not impairment. They have the option to test impairment, but they do not use that. I guess it does also highlight, while we are here today talking about cannabis cautions, that police have the option to use the caution but they may not be privy to that information or may not know that it is accessible. We are calling for this for that clarity – no more grey areas for police. They want to get on and do their job, and they want to do it well. They want to serve their community. As Ms Ermacora pointed out, many police officers are valuable members of their community, particularly in regional Victoria. This is about taking the pressure off police.

They have finite resources that need to be utilised elsewhere, particularly while these brazen attacks are going on all over this state. Picking a kid up for cannabis is not high on their priority list, and we want to take that pressure off them. Mr Batchelor, I thank you for your comments in relation to where the law should direct police. I think we are all in agreeance here that legislating policy, good policy that police are already using, is a step in the right direction to providing that clarity, providing that guidance and removing that grey area.

Another point I just wanted to make, and these are conversations I have had in and outside of this chamber, is when I make reference to roughly 4000 Victorians being arrested each year I want to make it very clear that I am talking about Crime Statistics Agency data, and I am talking about individual, unique offences. That is someone actually just being picked up for cannabis possession only. And when we do say that there are roughly 4000 a year, that is us keeping track of data over the last five years, including those unique offences. We do also have the data for offences where there may be cannabis as part of other convictions. But when I do specifically talk about individual arrests, I am talking about individuals.

I think this is a fairly easy step in the right direction because, as my colleague Mr Ettershank pointed out, 80 per cent of Victorians think that cannabis use should not be a criminal offence. So let us legislate. Let us let the police get on with their jobs. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion agreed to.