Wednesday, 29 July 2026

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:14): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Cannabis Legalisation Plebiscite Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The purpose of the Cannabis Legalisation Plebiscite Bill 2026 is to require that a plebiscite be conducted to determine whether the people of Victoria support legalisation of the personal use of cannabis as proposed in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023.

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this bill:

The Cannabis Legalisation Plebiscite Bill 2026 does not limit any human right, rather it engages and promotes the right to equality before the law, as set out in Section 8 of the Charter, and the right to take part in public life, as set out in Section 18 of the Charter.

Consideration of reasonable limitations – section 7(2):

As the Bill does not limit any human rights, it is not necessary to consider section 7(2) of the Charter.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

David Ettershank MP

Member for the Western Metropolitan Region

Legalise Cannabis Victoria

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:14): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

Overview

In accordance with section 66 of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I make this Statement of Treaty Compatibility with respect to the Cannabis Legalisation Plebiscite Bill 2026.

The Bill provides for the conduct of a statewide plebiscite to determine whether the people of Victoria support the legalisation of cannabis as proposed in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. The plebiscite is non-binding and establishes a mechanism for eligible Victorian electors to vote on that question.

Section 66(3)(a)–(c): Opportunity for advice and representations

The Assembly advised that it did not wish to make a representation at this time, as its Community Governance and Answerability Framework required under the Statewide Treaty Act is yet to be implemented. The Assembly noted that the Framework will provide the mechanism through which the views of Community are reflected in its representations.

Section 66(3)(d): Compatibility with Treaty objectives

In forming my view regarding the compatibility of this Bill with the objectives set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I have considered whether the establishment of a plebiscite concerning cannabis legalisation may affect First Peoples differently from other Victorians, having regard to the ongoing impacts of colonisation and the overrepresentation of First Peoples within Victoria’s criminal justice system.

Advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples

The Bill establishes a process by which all eligible Victorian electors may participate in a statewide plebiscite. It does not confer, remove or alter rights specific to First Peoples, nor does it affect arrangements relating to Traditional Owners, self-determination structures, Treaty processes or First Peoples’ representative institutions.

The Bill may be regarded as supporting democratic participation by providing all eligible voters, including First Peoples, with an opportunity to express a view on a significant public policy question. However, the Bill does not itself advance or diminish First Peoples’ self-determination and does not alter any mechanisms through which First Peoples exercise self-determination rights.

Accordingly, I consider that the Bill is neutral in its effect on the objective of advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples.

Addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation

In considering this objective, I have had regard to the disproportionate impact that drug criminalisation and justice system involvement have historically had on First Peoples. First Peoples continue to experience higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system than non-Indigenous Victorians, reflecting broader patterns of disadvantage associated with colonisation.

The subject matter of the plebiscite – whether cannabis should be legalised – is related to an area of public policy that may have implications for those patterns of criminal justice contact. However, the Bill itself does not legalise cannabis, amend criminal offences, alter policing powers, or change sentencing, prosecution or enforcement arrangements. Rather, it establishes a process for obtaining the views of Victorian voters on whether cannabis should be legalised.

Because the Bill is procedural in nature and does not itself alter the substantive law concerning cannabis, I do not consider that it directly affects the disadvantage experienced by First Peoples arising from historic wrongs and ongoing injustices. Nor do I consider that it compounds that disadvantage.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

I have considered whether the Bill may affect the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms by First Peoples when compared with other Victorians.

Eligibility to vote in the plebiscite is based on eligibility to vote at a State election under the Electoral Act 2002, and compulsory voting provisions apply equally to all eligible electors. The Bill does not create different voting entitlements, obligations or procedures for First Peoples and applies uniformly across Victoria.

The Bill also requires the publication of Yes and No cases and the publication of the relevant cannabis legalisation bill, providing voters with access to information regardless of background or identity.

Having regard to these features, I consider that the Bill does not reduce or impair the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples. Any future impacts on rights arising from cannabis legalisation or continued prohibition would arise from separate legislation rather than from this Bill.

Overall assessment

Having regard to the considerations above, I have considered whether the Bill compounds existing disadvantage, undermines self-determination, or increases unequal enjoyment of rights experienced by First Peoples.

I have formed the view that it does not. The Bill establishes a neutral electoral process to gauge public opinion on a policy question. It does not alter substantive criminal law, affect First Peoples-specific rights or institutions, or create differential treatment of First Peoples. Its operation is procedural, applying equally to all Victorian electors.

Conclusion

Accordingly, in my opinion, the Cannabis Legalisation Plebiscite Bill 2026 is compatible with the objectives set out in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

While the Bill concerns a policy area that may have particular significance for First Peoples because of the historical and ongoing overrepresentation of First Peoples in the criminal justice system, the Bill itself is limited to establishing a plebiscite and does not alter substantive laws governing cannabis. I therefore consider that the Bill does not adversely affect the advancement of First Peoples’ rights and self-determination, does not compound disadvantage resulting from historic wrongs and ongoing injustices, and does not diminish the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

David Ettershank MP

Member for the Western Metropolitan Region

Legalise Cannabis Victoria

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:14): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Our bill has one simple goal. We’re not asking the government to change the law, but merely to submit the following question to Victorians who are entitled to vote in a Victorian state election: ‘Do you support the legalisation of cannabis in Victoria as proposed in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023?’ That is the question at the heart of our plebiscite and the purpose of this bill.

So why are we proposing a plebiscite? I might start by sharing some fun facts I have learned about plebiscites, for members who might like a refresher. A plebiscite is not a referendum. A referendum is a vote on a proposed change to the constitution. A plebiscite does not change the constitution, and its result is not binding. A plebiscite is more of a referendum on a policy. We ask the people whether they support or oppose a proposed action on an issue. Both the yes and no sides present their case, and the people decide. In this state there is no general provision in the Electoral Act or other Victorian legislation for a default model of referendums or plebiscites. Since Federation in 1901, there have been 56 such referendums, mostly on policy issues, held across the various states and territories. So they’re more common than we might think. Victoria, however, is a bit of an anomaly. We don’t tend to utilise them much. Our last such vote was in 1956 in relation to extending closing hours, and it was defeated! A motion to extend pub hours from 6 pm to 10 pm was defeated! So I’m aware that the result could swing either way. That’s how it works. It’s the most direct form of democracy and an antidote to the deep cynicism people harbour towards the major parties at this point in time.

If the people of Victoria do oppose the decriminalisation of cannabis, we’ll take our bat and ball and go back to the drawing board. The people have spoken. But I have faith in the people of Victoria. This is a sensible, evidence-based policy, it’s the right thing to do, and it’s an important social justice issue that crosses left and right boundaries. I may not agree with people who hold opposing views to mine – but on this question I have absolute confidence in Victorians’ ability, their intelligence, their sense of fairness and their ability to see what an obviously flawed, anachronistic policy with no place in our modern society is. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the harms associated with the criminalisation and prohibition of cannabis, the extraordinary cost of enforcing prohibition, the wasted justice resources, et cetera, et cetera, this government will not, for the want of a bit of courage, take the modest and humane step of no longer arresting people for cannabis possession. I believe Victorians do support an end to cannabis prohibition and an end to the discrimination and hypocrisy of criminalising cannabis. I believe they will vote for change. But whatever the result, I believe in democracy.

The model that Victorians will be asked to vote on is the one proposed in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill, introduced in November 2023. The model falls shy of proposing a legal market for cannabis. The bill allows adults to possess and consume small quantities of cannabis – although not in public – to grow up to six plants at home and to be able to gift to other adults a small quantity of cannabis. The bill contains provisions to prevent children under the age of 18 from accessing cannabis. It’s essentially the same model that has been operating in the ACT for over five years now.

Indeed, during the 2024 bill inquiry into our personal use bill, we visited the ACT to see firsthand the benefits of their model, which has been operating successfully for over five years now. And by successfully, I mean the scheme has produced the sort of outcomes we would love to see in Victoria – a reduction in cannabis use amongst young people, no increase in hospital admissions and no changes to the road trauma stats. Arrests are down 94 per cent – Victoria Police could only dream of a 94 per cent reduction in unnecessary arrests. And whatever dire outcomes were predicted, none of them have come to pass – and our delegation heard that directly from no less an authority than the chief police commissioner of the ACT. Crucially the ACT reforms have led to ‘reduced stigma, increased willingness to seek support for cannabis use, and improved relations with law enforcement’. Why can’t we have that? Sounds better than what we’ve currently got. And indeed, recommendation 1 of the personal use bill review inquiry was that the Victorian government:

•   draw on the experience of the ACT, in successfully decriminalising the cultivation and possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use with its associated health, social and legal benefits, and

•   consider adopting an approach in line with that proposed by the Bill, along with any amendments recommended in this Report.

All the evidence points in the same direction. But the government refuses to heed evidence or expert advice.

Victorians – Australians – support the decriminalisation of cannabis. The national drug strategy household survey conducted annually by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare – the largest and most authoritative poll on the community’s attitudes and behaviours toward drugs and drug problems – has shown increasing support for the decriminalisation of cannabis. The most recent survey showed 80 per cent of Australians do not believe cannabis should be criminalised. Let’s just think about that for a moment: tell me one piece of legislation that this government has proposed that has enjoyed 80 per cent support.

Over a third of Victorian adults have consumed cannabis in their lifetime. Everyone knows someone who uses cannabis – and despite the misinformed anecdotes those opposite will inevitably trot out, those people are functional, happy, taxpaying individuals going about their lives. The most obvious reason to end the prohibition of cannabis is that it is an archaic and failed policy, based on stigma and discrimination. If prohibition worked, it would have worked by now because we have been doing it for close to 100 years. And yet cannabis consumption continues to remain steady. Decades of prohibition have done nothing to diminish demand or supply. We have spent billions over the decades enforcing laws that criminalise otherwise law-abiding citizens and force thousands through the criminal justice system. The harms associated with the criminalisation and prohibition of cannabis are far more damaging than cannabis consumption. And criminalisation disproportionately harms our most disadvantaged Victorians: young working-class people, First Nations, African Australians and Pasifika Australians.

Prohibition also forces people to deal with the black market. I’ve noted before that the difference between licit and illicit markets is that one contributes to the prosperity of the state and the other enriches criminals and works against the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Criminals don’t pay tax. They don’t follow regulations, they don’t respect age restrictions, nor do they apply rigorous quality control. So, while our personal use bill does not envisage a full legal market, which would start to dismantle the illicit market, the model it proposes would drastically reduce the harms associated with arrests and contact with the criminal justice system, and at least we could free up the police, the courts and the jails to deal with the serious crimes the community want to see prioritised. Police would surely welcome this shift, given what we know of the Victoria Police manual’s updated advice on cautioning. Greg Denham, the former senior sergeant and senior advisor on drug policy with Victoria Police stated, ‘Nobody joins Victoria Police to spend their shift busting someone for a joint’. It’s not like they don’t have far more important things to do with their precious time.

The Labor Party’s own rank-and-file members support cannabis law reform. For the third year in a row, ALP members voted at the Victorian state conference for the decriminalisation and legalisation of cannabis. It’s good policy, backed by evidence which has broad support in the community. Let’s put it to the vote.

I will turn to the details of the plebiscite bill.

•   clause 1 sets out the Act’s purpose.

•   clause 2 provides for its commencement.

•   clause 3 defines its key terms.

•   clause 4 requires a cannabis legalisation plebiscite to be held and provides that the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) must set the date within two years of the act’s commencement. The VEC may hold it concurrently with a state election, council election or at any time.

•   clause 5 sets out the plebiscite question, namely whether eligible voters support the legalisation of cannabis in Victoria as proposed in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023 – which I have pretty comprehensively covered.

•   clause 6 sets out who is eligible to vote in the plebiscite.

•   clause 7 applies compulsory voting requirements to the plebiscite.

•   clause 8 provides for the publication of the yes and no cases.

•   clauses 9 to 11 provide for the VEC to publish, conduct and declare the result of the plebiscite.

•   clause 12 confers a regulation-making power for the Governor in Council for matters necessary to give effect to the act.

It’s a simple ask. After years of filibustering, of reviews, and of consultations and reviews of the consultations, it seems that the only way to instil some fortitude into our political leaders in this state is to take this binary decision from their hands and give it to the people. Everyone in government is very gun-shy of being the one to pull the trigger, of making the right decision on decriminalisation. It matters not that our proposal is consistent with the government’s own harm reduction policies. It matters not that it is consistent with the ALP’s own, oft-repeated policy platform. And it matters not that, while denying the obvious merits of this policy, our leaders watch our justice system eat our young, our socially marginalised just so that they can be seen to be tougher on crime than their opposition.

Our democracy relies on the assumption that people can make these decisions, they are not stupid. The case for decriminalisation has been made time and time again. It has been repeatedly heard in this Parliament since 1996, when the chambers debated the legalisation of cannabis on the recommendation of the late Professor David Penington. But governments always shy away, overwhelmed by their own gormlessness or political expediency, never bold enough to rise to the moment. Given the facts and the political paralysis of both the government and the opposition over the last 30 years, we believe it is time to rely on the common sense of the Victorian people. We’ve tried everything to get this across the line. How about some direct democracy? Let’s put our faith in the collective wisdom of the Victorian people.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:29): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.