Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:55): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit substance in Australia and 80 per cent of Victorians support cannabis law reform;

(2)   a plebiscite on cannabis legalisation would ensure that every Victorian has a direct voice in shaping one of the most significant and long-overdue drug policy reforms of our time;

(3)   we have endured nearly 100 years of prohibition, and this policy has failed to reduce use and failed to eliminate the illicit market;

(4)   thousands of Victorians continue to come into contact with the criminal justice system simply for the personal use of small amounts of cannabis;

(5)   First Nations people are disproportionately affected by the policing of cannabis and are 11 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis-related offences than non-Indigenous Victorians;

(6)   as Victoria progresses treaty, Parliament must address the ongoing inequities created by our current cannabis laws;

and calls on the government to ask Victorians if they 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.

I rise to speak on motion 1552 in my name. Nearly a century of cannabis prohibition has failed. It has failed as drug policy, it has failed to deliver better public health outcomes and it has failed as a matter of social justice. Increasingly the evidence is clear, and so is the growing public recognition that we need a different and better approach. That is why this motion calling on the government to support the Cannabis Legislation Plebiscite Bill 2026 is important. We are not asking anyone to pretend that cannabis is harmless. We are simply asking this Parliament to accept the evidence. What we are asking is that you trust Victorians enough to have their say by asking Victorians a simple question: do you believe cannabis should be legalised?

For decades governments have made decisions about cannabis policy without giving Victorians a say. We all know that cannabis is already part of Australian society: people use it, people access medicinal cannabis, people grow it. People talk openly about cannabis. What prohibition has not done is eliminate cannabis. Instead prohibition has created an enormous criminal justice footprint around conduct that for many people poses a far lower risk to the community than any legal substance. It has consumed police resources at a time when Victoria needs our police to be focused on organised and serious crime. It has brought everyday Victorians into contact with the criminal justice system, creating criminal records and consequences that follow people for years, affecting employment, housing, travel and education for the almost 4000 Victorians who get arrested for the possession of cannabis every year.

The evidence is clear that the burden of those consequences has not fallen equally. We know that First Nations Victorians are disproportionately affected by cannabis enforcement and are around 11 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. First Nations peoples continue to be incarcerated for small cannabis possessions. We heard from the Premier himself recently that he is open to discussing the removal of criminal penalties as these penalties have been shown to disproportionately impact First Nations people. If we are serious about treaty, we must also be serious about addressing the laws and systems that continue to produce these unequal outcomes.

I have been here in this Parliament for almost four years now, and throughout that time I have continued to raise the voices of people who have been impacted by discrimination, systemic barriers and the failures of cannabis prohibition. I have sat with people whose lives have been turned upside down by a cannabis charge, people who have lost employment opportunities, had their drivers licence taken away, faced stigma, been denied access to housing or been forced to navigate a criminal justice system simply because they use a substance that millions of Australians use. We have come a long way in the four years. The conversation has changed. The evidence has changed. Community attitudes have changed. Even the government’s public position has shifted to one that acknowledges that we should be focused on a health rather than a criminal justice response.

In 2020 there was an inquiry into the use of cannabis in Victoria. Its final report was tabled in August 2021. The inquiry made a significant recommendation that the Victorian government should investigate legalising cannabis for adult personal use. The government did not support the recommendations of the inquiry but indicated it was open to further discussion about cannabis reform.

In 2023 I introduced the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. The bill was about establishing a sensible and regulated framework for adult personal use of cannabis to allow for adults to possess small quantities of cannabis for personal use, to grow up to six cannabis plants per residence and to consume cannabis in private settings. It was an effort to adopt a similar approach to the ACT. This led to an inquiry to consider and report onthe Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023, including consideration of the impacts and outcomes of the Australian Capital Territory’s approach to decriminalising the personal use of cannabis. After two parliamentary inquiries into the legalisation of personal cannabis use, the Victorian government still refuses to seriously consider the evidence, expertise and experience placed before it.

Stakeholders across the legal, health, drug and alcohol, justice and harm reduction sectors have repeatedly told this Parliament that prohibition is failing. We have heard from experts about the harms caused by criminalisation, from people directly impacted by the current laws and from organisations with decades of experience working on the front line. We have also seen what is happening beyond Victoria. The ACT has taken a different approach to personal cannabis use, while jurisdictions overseas have moved towards regulated legalisation, providing valuable evidence about what reform can look like in practice. And then there is the Victorian community itself. Public opinion on cannabis has shifted considerably. Australians increasingly recognise that possessing a small amount of cannabis for personal use should not result in a criminal record or bring someone into contact with the criminal justice system. Yet despite two inquiries, expert evidence, international and interstate experience and growing public support, the government continues to drag its feet. Progress for reform has been painfully slow, and while governments deliberate, people continue to experience the consequences of prohibition.

The purpose of this motion is more fundamental than legalising cannabis. It is about allowing people who live under these laws to have a direct say about whether these laws should continue. This is not about telling Victorians what the answer should be, it is about trusting them to make the decision. If we genuinely believe in democracy, we should trust Victorians with this question. The Herald Sun asked the question on behalf of the Carroll government, and – no surprise – 84 per cent of Victorians said yes, recreational cannabis should be legalised. Once again, public opinion has delivered a resounding message in support of this.

If we genuinely believe in evidence-based policy, we should be prepared to put the evidence before the public, and if we genuinely believe that cannabis prohibition has reached a point where reform is worthy of serious consideration, then surely we should let Victorians have their say. For almost a century cannabis prohibition has been imposed from above. This motion offers something different. It is about giving Victorians a voice. It says, after decades of prohibition, after years of evidence, after countless lives affected, ‘Let people decide what comes next.’ That, to me, is democracy at its best.

There is something particularly important about doing that through a plebiscite. Cannabis policy has been debated in this Parliament for decades. Governments have commissioned reports, experts have presented evidence and courts have dealt with the consequences of prohibition. Health professionals, legal experts, researchers and community organisations have repeatedly called for reform, and public attitudes have changed dramatically. A plebiscite would not diminish the role of this Parliament – quite the opposite. It would give Parliament a clear democratic mandate to consider the next steps. If Victorians vote against legalisation, then that is the outcome that we must respect. But if Victorians vote in favour, this Parliament would have a clear responsibility to develop a framework that is evidence based, tightly regulated and focused on reducing harm. That is democracy, and surely on an issue as consequential and as longstanding as cannabis prohibition, Victorians deserve the opportunity to have their say.

Next year marks the 100th anniversary of prohibition of cannabis in Victoria. Every year that we continue prohibition, we continue to waste public resources policing personal cannabis possession, we continue to expose people to criminal penalties, we continue to prop up an illegal market, we continue to see disproportionate impacts on already marginalised communities and we continue to operate a system that after nearly a century has not achieved its stated objective of eliminating cannabis use. The question is no longer whether cannabis exists. It does. The question is whether our laws are making the situation better or worse. I believe the evidence increasingly tells us that prohibition is not working, and I believe Victorians are ready for a mature conversation about what will come next. This is not about being soft on drugs. It is about recognising that criminalisation is not the only tool available to government. It is about treating drug use as a public health and social policy issue where appropriate, rather than defaulting to criminal justice. It is about recognising that good policy should be judged by the outcomes it produces and not simply by how long we have had it.

After almost a century, we should have the courage to ask whether prohibition has delivered what it promised. The evidence is very clear that it has not. The community is increasingly telling us it is time for change, experts are telling us that it is time for change and people who have experienced the consequences of prohibition are telling us that it is time for change. So let us give Victorians the opportunity to decide. Let us put the question directly to the people: do we continue a century of prohibition, or do we move towards a legal, regulated and evidence-based cannabis framework?

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:08): I rise to make a contribution on this motion, and I thank Ms Payne for bringing this important motion to the house. It is, as we are all aware, on cannabis reform, but the central part of this motion is about a plebiscite as well. It will obviously come as a disappointment that the government’s position on this is that the government opposes this motion, but nevertheless we do have something to say about this motion.

I recently met with a group in regard to legal and illicit drug taking in Victoria, and I am always interested to hear the sorts of things that Victorians might consume. It is always disappointing to hear, sadly, that alcohol is still one of those things that is more highly consumed than illicit drugs. Illicit drug taking, again, is a problem of course, but alcohol still presents the highest level of harm for Victorians. We have a very proud record in terms of supporting the sector and a health-led approach to reducing alcohol and drug-related harm. We have made a significant investment to expand drug treatment supports and harm minimisation services for those who need them.

I am also very fortunate to have Turning Point in my electorate. Turning Point is an inpatient facility that is based at Box Hill. They do amazing work helping Victorians who want to get clean with the support that they need, both first of all in an inpatient hospital facility and then at a house where they can stay and learn about behaviours and triggers and those sorts of things and how to manage their addictions and their behaviours. Again, that just speaks to the investment that our government is making in terms of helping people who want to try and turn their lives around by not using illicit drugs and alcohol. Since 2014 our government has invested more than $3 billion in drug and alcohol treatment, support and harm minimisation initiatives, sitting alongside substantial legislative reform achievements. There is $415.5 million allocated in the 2026–27 state budget, which will allow us to continue and expand life-saving and life-changing services and initiatives.

As I just said, we know that alcohol and other drug harms are increasing. Each year more than 40,000 people access alcohol and drug treatment and harm reduction supports. One of the questions I asked the group that I met with the other day, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, was about how we are also hearing that, whilst there is a lot of focus on alcohol and illicit drugs, there is an increasing amount of people who are taking aesthetic-type drugs – peptide injectables – and we are seeing growing demand for needle exchange programs. With people who are wanting to shred, look great in the gym and all those sorts of things, we are seeing the use of peptides and those sorts of drugs increasing as well. As I said, that is putting demand on our needle exchange programs. Also, we do know that there are groups within our community that are at increased risk of alcohol and drug-related harm, and our services need to be flexible and tailored to meet people where they are at.

In terms of the plebiscite, I know I and Ms Watt are both on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and this private members bill was the subject of a SARC meeting this week. I will bring to the chamber’s attention that the SARC report that I tabled in this chamber on Tuesday includes analysis of the Legalise Cannabis Victoria bill that is the basis for the motion before the house today. The report highlights one concerning element of the bill. According to clause 7 of the bill, it appears – whether it is inadvertent or not; perhaps it is on purpose, I am not sure – it would be an offence for a person not to vote or participate in this plebiscite. Victorians could be slugged with a $210 fine for not voting in what is a non-binding plebiscite. Normally these sorts of things are really reserved for electoral processes. If we go and vote in a state election, of course the provisions of the Electoral Act 2002 apply to that. But it would be, yes, quite interesting if you were asking people to participate in a non-binding plebiscite –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is exactly what it is. So the question is really: is it on purpose or by accident? I am not sure, but it is really an irrelevant question. Either way, if you were not to participate in this plebiscite, you would be fined $210. I am not sure that that is a particularly well-thought-out strategy. If you are basically saying to someone, ‘I’m forcing you to give me your opinion about this,’ you are probably going to get a negative answer if the threat of a fine is hanging over their head. In a cost-of-living crisis, every dollar counts. The SARC report shows that perhaps, as I said, this has not been properly thought through. It is quite disappointing that, rather than trying to build social licence around participation in a plebiscite by encouraging people through education and the like and bringing people on a journey with them about this, the threat of a fine is the blunt instrument that has been chosen by Legalise Cannabis to force people to vote in a plebiscite if this bill is successful.

I might say that in 2016 Victoria was the first jurisdiction in the country to legalise the use of medicinal cannabis, through the Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016, which paved the way for other states to do it. We have taken measured, thoughtful steps on this reform. We sought expert advice from the Victorian Law Reform Commission on how to appropriately amend the law and on key issues including cultivation, manufacture and supply of high-quality medicinal cannabis products within Victoria; patient eligibility; appropriate clinical oversight involving specialists, general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists; and the need for ongoing research and clinical trials. Also the commission provided over 40 recommendations to the government, including the need to establish an independent medical advisory committee on medical cannabis to provide advice about expanding eligibility for future patient groups as well.

Any doctor or nurse practitioner in Victoria can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with any condition if they believe it is clinically appropriate to do so. Of course, today, medicinal cannabis is most often prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain, but it is also used to treat anxiety; cancer-related symptoms such as pain, nausea, and reduced appetite; epilepsy; insomnia and multiple sclerosis. Again, this is another example of this government listening to people and meeting them where they are at in terms of ensuring that people have options when it comes to the treatment or management of pain. Medicinal cannabis does work for some people – there is no doubt about that. It is not effective for some people, for whatever reason. People have different needs when it comes to pain, and it is one treatment that is available. Again, it is something that doctors or nurse practitioners are responsible for dispensing.

I will just quickly step back to the SARC report. I know I have got just under 2 minutes left to talk on this motion. In terms of the SARC report, I think the bottom line was with that open question about the provisions of clause 7 then falling foul of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, because it offends the charter’s right to freedom of expression, which also may include the right to not hold or not to express an opinion on the legalisation of cannabis. It is also a negative duty, so it is like I have a right to not participate in this plebiscite. That is where this offends this aspect of the human rights charter. The committee then did resolve to write to the member seeking further information about the compatibility of clause 7 with the charter’s right to freedom of expression. I bring that to the chamber’s attention today, notwithstanding the fact that is something that does need noting.

Nevertheless the issue around medicinal cannabis, as I have spoken to, is an important one. Our government has certainly listened, responded and acted in regard to people who were seeking that as a way of managing pain.

I was just sitting here talking to my colleague Ms Watt before about what illicit drugs people are consuming. Pill testing is another important example of reform that our government has taken and listened to people about. In this year’s budget we have invested $9.6 million over two years to support a successful pill-testing trial. So again, we are quite prepared to listen, but unfortunately this motion and the plebiscite that is proposed is a little bit underdone for the reasons that I outlined. As I said, the government’s position on this motion is that we will be opposing this motion.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:18): I rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion – and I thank her for bringing it to the chamber – about a plebiscite to legalise cannabis. When I saw this, I was like, ‘It’s always interesting. What new way can we debate the legalisation of cannabis?’ It is creative. It is like the last shot in the locker for the Legalise Cannabis Party.

From the outset I would like to state that, unfortunately, I will not be supporting this motion. I apologise for that. I find it interesting that we are sort of 5 seconds to midnight and Legalise Cannabis Victoria have finally remembered why they are here and brought up the issue of legalising cannabis again, which is what you would think the party would be on about every week. I mean, you had one job over four years. I cannot help but wonder if it is somehow connected to the decision of this chamber last night to abolish group voting tickets or whether you needed to remind the Victorian people in the lead-up to the election what your party actually stands for. Because I did a little bit of analysis, and I know Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne have spoken a lot in the chamber, but Mr Ettershank has only mentioned the word ‘cannabis’ in about 22 per cent of contributions. Ms Payne did a bit better. She mentioned the word ‘cannabis’ in 25 per cent of contributions. I think these numbers speak for themselves. What is evident is the fact that this issue has not been a focus of their time in Parliament over the last four years. We have had Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank bring up voluntary assisted dying (VAD), buses, data centres, waste-to-energy incinerators, conflict in the Middle East, Palestine and Trump.

The point I am trying to make is that the Victorian people did not vote for two more members of the Reason Party. We already got rid of Fiona Patten. They voted for Legalise Cannabis. I have right-wing friends who voted for Legalise Cannabis because they truly want to legalise cannabis and they thought it was a good laugh and decided to put a number 1 on the Legalise Cannabis box. To think that people wanted you in the last four years to do anything other than spend your time solely on legalising cannabis I think gives your voters a bit too much credit. They wanted you to completely focus on exactly what your party name sets out to do. There might be policies on a website, but that is not what they are looking at on the ballot paper; it is not. They wanted you to focus on this.

I can guarantee you that, due to the make-up of this house, if you had said to the government even two years ago that you were no longer going to vote for any piece of legislation until cannabis was legalised, it would have been passed by now, because there were enough pieces of critical legislation, whether it be anti-vilification laws or whether it be treaty, where they needed both of your votes, and you just voted with them anyway. I did not see any tangible concessions that you got out that related to cannabis, which is what you were sent here for. Cannabis probably would be legalised, but unfortunately you did not spend your time here focusing on what people sent you here to do.

They sent you here with one job. As I said, I think you are giving Victorians who voted for you a bit too much credit in thinking that you should have been focused on VAD, bus routes, data centres, waste to energy a thousand times, conflicts in the Middle East, Palestine and Trump. It goes a long way back. You came in here with some sort of mandate. One of the first questions Mr Ettershank asked in March 2023 was a question on whether the Acknowledge of Country should go before the Lord’s Prayer. That is not what people were thinking about when they voted 1 for the Legalise Cannabis Party. So I say to you, if you had just focused on what people sent you here for, you might have gotten somewhere.

What I would say on plebiscites is that they are a valid means of testing support for a policy amongst the broader population on issues of social policy and of conscience – for example, the marriage equality postal survey initiated by the Turnbull Liberal government. That helped demonstrate a strong social licence for change. However, it is not a means by which serious matters of government policy should be decided. The motion asks the house to hand over serious questions of health and criminal law to a popularity contest. That is the wrong way to make policy. Cannabis law reform, like other areas of drug policy, criminal justice and public health, needs to be assessed on evidence, health outcomes, policing data, treatment capacity and the experience of other jurisdictions which have changed their laws. A plebiscite would not resolve the practical outcome questions that the reform raises. It would simply outsource a decision that does belong to this Parliament, elected to weigh evidence and take responsibility for the laws that it passes. If the Legalise Cannabis Party really believe cannabis law reform is justified, they should bring their bill back to the house.

We were elected – some of us – to lead and to provide a serious answer to the questions that matter and to fix the mess that Labor have left us, not to defer to opinion polls when the going gets tough. As I mentioned, I honestly think if I was a voter for Legalise Cannabis Victoria I would be a bit disappointed about the issues that their elected members have represented here in this place. They have focused on it for only about a quarter of the time that they have been here and have focused on all these other trendy issues. They might have been Reason Party issues. Legalise Cannabis Victoria, when people see that on a ballot paper, the voters of Victoria expect you to focus on that one thing and just that one thing. Unfortunately, that has not happened with this political party. If they had actually had a dogged determination to just focus on that thing, I reckon cannabis would be legalised here in Victoria. It would have. If you look at the make-up of the Parliament, you can almost guarantee it would have happened. But no, they decided to be part of the progressive crossbench so that they can get secret special preference and treatment by the government to do advanced deals before bills get to the chamber. Of course in return for their support of any of those bills they never got the one thing they were sent here to do, which is legalising cannabis. They never once got that passed into legislation, which I think would be disappointing to their voters. They will go out again at this state election coming up and say, ‘Vote for Legalise Cannabis Victoria because this is what we’re going to do,’ not ‘Vote for Legalise Cannabis Victoria because we’ll spend a quarter of the time on it and focus on all these other trendy issues.’ That is ultimately what they have done over the last four years and what they will probably do over the next four years should they be re-elected.

I will go back to the motion. As I said, I will not be supporting this motion. I do not think a plebiscite is worth our time, and I am also quite concerned about what Ms Terpstra said – that you would be seeking to find people that do not participate in this plebiscite as well.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:28): The Libertarian Party’s views on cannabis legalisation are well known. In fact I spoke about it in my inaugural speech. I have been a long-time supporter of legalising cannabis for recreational, industrial and medical use in Victoria. That said, I will be supporting this motion, but I do have some concerns. I do not like plebiscites. I see plebiscites as a way of, in this case, voting on people’s rights. I did not like the marriage equality plebiscite. I do not think that people’s rights should be voted on. However, if it is a way that would be non-binding, as I understand this would be for the Parliament, and if it is a way of demonstrating to whoever is the government of the day the popularity of this issue, then I think that is a good thing.

Some of the framing of this motion I quite strongly object to – when we talk about people’s rights and that the legalisation of cannabis is somehow related to race issues around First Nations people and related to treaty. I do not think it has got anything to do with that. In fact I think Victorians are sick of talking about identity politics and race-based politics. I think the government has actually woken up to that and is taking notice of that, as I hope the opposition is also. People are sick of this identity politics. They are sick to death of it. Frankly, why not make commentary about all the different races? Well, we would not do that because it is racist, and I do not see the point of doing that. We should be just talking about the rights of all Victorians, because under the principle of equality under law, the rights of all Victorians should be equal. That is, in fact, why I oppose the treaty – the main reason. There are a bunch of other reasons, but the main reason is because I believe in the principle of equality under law, and judging whether or not we should legalise something based on whether one particular racial group is more or less affected by it breaches that principle entirely. I think that that is a bad thing.

If we are actually going to get cannabis legalisation happening in Victoria, the people that we need to appeal to are not the people that care about treaty and not the people that care about disproportionate effects on minority groups, they are the people like Mr Mulholland’s friend, who was a right-wing person who voted for Legalise Cannabis because they wanted cannabis legalised. Actually it is the conservative side of politics that you need to convince, because once you convince a large number of those people, then everyone else will just flip. We have already convinced most of the left side of politics. The reason the Labor Party do not support legalisation of cannabis is because they are scared of the reaction of the conservative side of politics. But I actually think that there are a lot of people on the conservative side of politics who would like cannabis legalisation. In fact many of them may be cannabis consumers themselves, and they would not really object to it if it was done in a way that respected people’s rights and was done in a way that would undermine organised crime.

I have said many times that I am not a fan of the decriminalisation model that has been spoken about many times here. The main reason I am not a fan of that is because it does absolutely nothing to address the biggest problem in Victoria at the moment, which is organised crime. Decriminalisation will not address that, but a legal, regulated market will do that. The fact of the matter is: there is and there always will be a cannabis market in Victoria. The question that this Parliament and Victorians need to grapple with is: are we going to have that market run by organised crime, or is it going to be a legal, regulated market? Most sensible people on the conservative side of politics would hopefully come to the realisation that they would rather have a legal, regulated market than have organised crime running it. It is an over $1 billion industry in Victoria alone for organised crime. We have seen how much damage they have done to this state, these criminal groups. If we can use the power of economics to undermine them – and if conservatives do not like cannabis or whatever, maybe they can hold their noses because of the benefits that we will see through undermining these criminal networks. I think even many in the Liberal Party would probably agree with me on that, and we need to get popular support for that. It has not got there yet. This Parliament has not done it.

I actually agree with Mr Mulholland. There are probably a few points during this Parliament where Legalise Cannabis or others in the progressive crossbench could have actually said, ‘Well, you know, we’re not going to do this unless you legalise cannabis.’ It did not happen – unfortunately, because I would have been passionately supportive of that, because it is something that I have cared about for a long time. But it has not happened. If a plebiscite is a method of giving Parliament confidence that it does have popular social licence, then I will support it. I do share Ms Terpstra’s and Mr Mulholland’s concerns about plebiscites being compulsory, but unfortunately all voting is compulsory in Australia. I do not support compulsory voting either. I think that people should be able to decide if they want to vote or not. As it is, people, if they do not want to vote, just go along and draw a dirty picture on the ballot or whatever they do. But I do not think it should be compulsory.

If people want to express an opinion through a plebiscite, I do not see a problem with that. But it needs to be framed in a way that respects the principles of equality under law and will appeal to a wide range of Victorians, not just those who care about identity politics.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:34): Thank you very much for the call and the opportunity to make a contribution, and thank you, Ms Payne, for moving aside such that I can speak on this motion today. I just want to start and say that this is a complex and sensitive area of alcohol and drug policy and our government proudly and consistently takes a harm minimisation approach. We know that these issues require a nuanced, mature and health-led conversation. For far too long, public discussions around drug reform across the country have been bogged down in stigma, which does nothing to support vulnerable Victorians. We are a government that looks towards evidence-based policies that tangibly improve health and social outcomes.

Our record over the last decade speaks for itself. We listen to health experts and to vulnerable community members and get on with delivering meaningful life-saving reform. These are complex policy matters that come with potential benefits but also potential risks – risks which our government clearly does not take lightly. We will continue working to reduce the harms associated with drug use through coordinated, evidence-based health action across the state. As outlined in responses previously, our government will continue to explore meaningful ways to reduce harm, support individuals and keep Victorians safe. This includes our government supporting diversion programs as an effective way for minor drug offenders to avoid a lifelong criminal record. These crucial programs encourage individuals to participate in alternative actions that actively promote rehabilitation, delivering vastly improved, lasting outcomes for both the person and their community.

I might just take a moment now to go to the main call in this motion, which is a call for a plebiscite on cannabis legalisation. Our government’s position is grounded in a sense of responsibility regarding how we focus government attention and public resources. We genuinely respect the intent behind wanting to gauge community sentiment on this issue, as hearing from Victorians is vital. However, we believe that our primary focus should be on funding frontline health treatment and support services. Every single dollar our government spends should be directed where it delivers the absolute greatest and most immediate impact and benefit for the Victorian community. Victorians will have the opportunity to vote on a vast range of policies, government priorities and comprehensive platforms at the ballot box this coming November.

It is important to highlight that when it comes to the policy area of medicinal cannabis our government has proudly led the nation. Victoria was the very first jurisdiction in the country to legalise the use of medicinal cannabis back in 2016 through the Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016. This was a landmark reform that brought much-needed relief to so many families and paved the way for other states and territories to introduce their own legislation. You see, we took measured, thoughtful and regulated steps, ensuring from day one that these changes were designed solely for the benefit of Victorians suffering from severe and chronic conditions. Ahead of the 2014 election we outlined that a Labor government would modernise Victorian laws so those in need could safely access the therapeutic benefits of cannabis. We knew that families were facing impossible situations trying to support sick loved ones, often forced to choose between breaking the law or watching a family member suffer. We acted to change the law responsibly.

To ensure the reforms were robust and grounded in rigorous clinical evidence, we sought expert advice from the Victorian Law Reform Commission. We carefully examined key issues, including the local cultivation, manufacture and supply of high-quality medicinal cannabis products, to build a safe, reliable and local industry. We examined patient eligibility and clinical oversight, involving general practitioners, specialists, nurses and pharmacists, and we embedded ongoing research and clinical trials directly into the framework. The commission provided over 40 comprehensive recommendations, including establishing an independent medical advisory committee to guide eligibility expansion over time. Today, because of those necessary pioneering reforms, any doctor or nurse practitioner in Victoria can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with any condition, provided that they deem it clinically appropriate. It is now widely prescribed for chronic pain, while transforming lives by managing severe anxiety, cancer-related symptoms, epilepsy, insomnia and multiple sclerosis. We transformed the medical landscape in this state by putting health outcomes and patient care first.

Our commitment to health-led harm reduction extends across the entire alcohol and drug sector. Our government is proud to support a health-led approach to reduce drug-related harm right across Victoria. We have made investments to expand treatment networks and harm minimisation services because we know that providing care, rather than stigma, is what truly protects lives. Since 2014 our government has invested more than $3 billion in drug and alcohol treatment, support and harm reduction initiatives, backed by a further $415.5 million allocated in the 2026–27 budget. This funding enables us to expand life-changing services statewide, acknowledging that more than 40,000 people access treatment and support each year.

We know that different groups across our state face varying risks, which is why our services must remain flexible, accessible and tailored to meet people where they are at in their lives. The establishment of the state’s first medically supervised injecting service in my electorate, in North Richmond, is a clear example of our commitment to evidence-based drug policy that works. It is fundamentally about saving lives, reducing community harm and connecting people with genuine pathways out of addiction. That centre in North Richmond has safely managed more than 13,000 overdoses while relieving pressure on local emergency departments and ambulance services. Crucially, the service provides clients with holistic, non-judgmental health and social supports, connecting vulnerable people to housing, and there are mental health support rehabilitation services also available to help stabilise lives.

Similarly, I was reflecting yesterday that our Victorian pill-testing service represents another nation-leading, health-focused reform that prioritises safety. That is supported by a $9.2 million investment over two years, including in this budget, and builds on successful trials. Between August 2025 and June 2026 the fixed site tested over 4600 samples and conducted more than 2300 harm reduction conversations. For over 39 per cent of service users, this was their very first time having a conversation with a healthcare professional about their substance use. The mobile service tested a further 2400 samples at festivals and conducted over 1500 health consultations, with around 12 per cent of samples containing unexpected or harmful substances, including dangerous synthetic opioids. This service provides essential, real-time health data and warnings that prevent harm and save young lives.

Addressing drug harm requires a comprehensive, statewide approach, and that is why our $95 million statewide action plan expands access to public pharmacotherapy, with $8.4 million alongside $4.4 million to deploy the 24/7 naloxone dispensing machines in high-risk areas. We are expanding outreach teams in St Kilda and Footscray and supporting critical community facilities in the Melbourne CBD. This includes the Salvation Army’s health clinic on Bourke Street, led by Major Brendan Nottle. There is funding for an additional community health service in the CBD; $36.4 million has gone towards that. This hub in the city will provide wraparound health, mental health and social support and deliver the Victoria-first trial of hydromorphone therapy. This is for individuals with really complex opioid dependence where traditional treatments have proven ineffective, ensuring that even the most vulnerable individuals receive specialised clinical support.

Our government’s focus remains guided by evidence, compassion and continued investment in frontline health services that indeed save lives. We will continue to deliver practical, health-led solutions that protect Victorians and support families across our state. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make a contribution, and I thank the mover of this motion for bringing it to the house for debate this afternoon.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:44): I rise to speak to Ms Payne’s motion. I am slightly deviating from Mr Mulholland. I think you have raised your issues on a number of occasions in the Parliament over the last 3½ years because I have heard you speak on a number of things, especially around medicinal cannabis, and that is probably where we differ. I do support medicinal cannabis because you can regulate it and it has gone through testing and approval, and there are safeguards and rigorous testing around that. I was going back to have a look at your motion and the request for a plebiscite on the legalisation of cannabis, and I went back to look at the inquiry I was a part of when Ms Patten was here. She drove this issue before you came into the Parliament. She should have been in the Cannabis Party, really, because she was on this case for years. We did have this inquiry, and we wrote a minority report. We did not fully support the chair or a number of recommendations that were in the report, because we did have concerns about certain aspects that came before us. It was a very good inquiry, it was a very thorough inquiry, and we heard from a lot of excellent submitters in the submissions that we received and from witnesses in the hearings that we held. There were concerns that I still have around the impacts of cannabis, and I will come to that.

I just want to go back to this point about the plebiscite on cannabis legalisation. You speak about, as Mr Limbrick did actually, calling out certain subgroups of the community, and you talk about treaty. If you are looking at a plebiscite and treaty, Australia held a referendum, a basic plebiscite on the Voice, and voted no, so we have had that plebiscite and that referendum. I do not know why it is singled out in this. Certainly there was evidence in our inquiry, and we understood, that there were various individuals and others that were vulnerable and at risk of ending up in the criminal justice system.

One of the areas we spoke of in our minority report concerned the evidence that was provided by assistant commissioner Glenn Weir, who is very, very well regarded within Victoria Police, and the concerns that Victoria Police had around safety and driving impacts. Looking at the issues around education, we made some very strong recommendations around education in schools and the harms of drugs, and this government has dropped the ball. They have legalised pill testing, and they have not done any of the drug education that really should be done.

One of the concerns I have is around the harms of cannabis. It came out very clearly through various submitters. I still have those concerns, and I am very concerned about the potency of cannabis now. It is a very different drug from the 1970s, when you were a young man, Mr Ettershank. In all seriousness, I am concerned about the genetically modified cannabis and the potency of cannabis. I am worried about the issue you have raised in your private members bill of having a few plants growing in the backyard and who regulates that. Who polices that? How is that monitored? It cannot be. It will not drive out a black market; it will, I believe, further a black market. We are having problems with illegal tobacco now. Alcohol and cannabis are very different in terms of the components of illegal cannabis versus those of illegal alcohol. They are two very different things. It is a very different argument. It is much harder to have illegal alcohol than to have illegal cannabis.

I have got these concerns, and I will go back to the issue around the harms caused by cannabis. There needs to be more work done on this, because too many people within the medical profession will tell you that constant use for many, many people has significant harms – psychoses – and it is awful. They are very concerned around the mental health impacts and the psychosis that develops due to cannabis use. A bit like smoking, not everyone gets lung cancer if they smoke and not everyone is going to get severe psychosis with cannabis, but there are a range of medicos who say, ‘We just are concerned around the increasing potency, the increasing numbers of psychoses from drug use and these cocktails of drugs out there.’ Putting it all together, it is causing a very, very dangerous situation and very real concerns. We see that on our roads with the number of car accidents. We cannot test for cocaine in this state. Drug testing has dropped off under this government. We have real concerns around those issues.

I want to talk again about what the AMA have said, and I will take that from a report where they highlighted the short- and long-term health impacts:

People can experience immediate impacts to mental health such as reduced brain function, anxiety or panic attacks, paranoia, or memory loss. Cannabis users are more likely to develop psychoses or schizophrenia. Physical impacts can include impaired reaction time, balance, and information processing. Cannabis can be addictive and cause withdrawal symptoms. Long-term use can impair brain function, damage the person’s throat and lungs and cause bronchitis or cancer, cause cardiovascular system damage, and mental health conditions such as depression. Using cannabis while pregnant is associated with a lower birthweight of babies. Using cannabis is associated with alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use …

I would say that cocktail of drugs is a very real concern. One of the other witnesses said:

… there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs, and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use …

I do think we have to caution this. Some will say, ‘Let’s just have a plebiscite. Let’s get over this.’ As the motion says, we have had nearly 100 years of prohibition. Well, I say, ‘Good. Keep it going, because there are too many unknowns with’ –

David Ettershank interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Mr Ettershank, you will pick me up in your contribution, I am sure, but I am concerned about legalising this drug without the proper safeguards around it. I do not support it. I think we have got enough problems with enough illegal drugs out there, and I do not think legalising cannabis is going to improve the situation at all. I just do not think it will. For most of the people where there are problems within our courts, there is multiple drug use or there are other issues related to many of these things. We need to be doing more. We need to be doing more to support people to get off drugs. We need more education around the harmful impacts of drug use, of mixing drugs, whether that is alcohol or whether that is other drugs, with cannabis. I think we are all in agreement on that point. I know this is an area that Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank have been pushing. I respect that. That is why we are having the debate. But respectfully, I do not agree with this motion today.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to speak on my colleague Ms Payne’s motion calling on the government to allow Victorians a say on whether they support the legalisation of cannabis in Victoria. I can only echo Ms Payne’s comments that cannabis prohibition is a failed policy. Since the passing of the Poisons Act 1928 we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars policing cannabis use to absolutely no avail. In fact cannabis use has continued to grow over the decades. It is far and away the most widely consumed illicit substance in Australia. Prohibition and criminalisation have done little more than waste our valuable justice resources and create criminal empires.

Attitudes have changed. At least 21 per cent of Victorians regularly use cannabis, and 80 per cent of Victorians agree that it should no longer be a criminal offence. Eighty per cent of Victorians agree that it is well and truly time to end the prohibition and the criminalisation of cannabis. I believe our Premier also agrees because he knows the impact that criminalisation has, particularly on our young people, on working-class people, on our First Nations people, on Pasifika people, on African Australian people and on lower income Victorians. He knows that our police force can be more effectively deployed tackling real crime, the sort of serious crime that is affecting our communities. If they are not wasting their time and resources busting people for possessing or cultivating small amounts of cannabis for personal use, there is no shortage of things for our police to focus on, and he would not be the first Premier to come to this conclusion. Former Premier Jeff Kennett at last year’s Penington oration stated that his failure to reform our cannabis laws in 1996 was one of the major regrets of his time as Premier. Unfortunately he is not here with us today, but Mr Davis made a wonderful contribution. Thirty years ago he was still light years ahead of where Mr Mulholland can only hope to reach.

Victorians are ready for change. The real question is why other members in this place are not and why they persist in these same tired, discredited arguments. The reason we hear so many anecdotes of problematic cannabis use from opponents of decriminalisation when the vast, vast majority of people who consume cannabis are law-abiding, taxpaying decent people is because they are not going to admit it. Why should they when it is a criminal offence and so shrouded in harmful stigma?

We have never said that cannabis is a harmless drug. People have shared stories of friends or acquaintances who have issues with cannabis, whose problematic cannabis use has contributed to physical or mental health issues, and in those cases people should have access to support. That is the heart of a health-led recovery and one which this government has turned its back on. The last thing they need is to be arrested and charged and to end up with a criminal record. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that any contact with the criminal justice system leads to further harms. It can lead to loss of employment and housing and to further contact with the justice system. So many lives ruined, and for what? We are talking about a victimless crime.

I want to pick up a couple of comments that people have made. Firstly, I thank Ms Terpstra for her usual thoughtful contribution. On the question of the compulsory plebiscite, I must say we took advice from the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel on that. I am sure if it was such a big issue we would have been more than happy to look to an amendment, but never mind. Ms Terpstra suggested that the plebiscite somehow needs to bring people on a journey. Bring people on a journey? Somewhere between 80 and 87 per cent of people support this policy. In terms of journeys, maybe Ms Terpstra could catch up with the journey that has been taken by the ALP state conference, who for the last three years have argued for this, and yet you just pretend it is not there. I mean, it is extraordinary.

Mr Mulholland, my friend, seriously, getting career counselling from you is about as welcome as an ice-water enema. We have used every option, you say, but then we have not talked about it enough. Well, make up your mind, son. I think it is that schizophrenic quality in so many of your policies that might be eroding your voter base. I also compliment you that I think apart from your last sentence, across your 10-minute contribution you did not actually mention anything to do with what this motion is about. I think that is a first. I have never seen quite that level of irrelevance in a debate.

Mr Limbrick says that conservatives need to be persuaded. Well, I think they have been persuaded. Let us face it, this is the elephant in the room here. Yes? If somewhere between 80 and 87 per cent of the people support decriminalisation, they want it decriminalised, that leaves somewhere between 13 and 20 per cent who do not know or do not support it. I guess that is about the same, really, as your primary vote at the moment, isn’t it, for the Liberal Party? What wouldn’t you – or the Labor Party, for that matter – give to come to the Victorian people and put up something that has 80 per cent public support? The elephant in the room here that nobody is talking about is the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus within the community for this change. The arrogance is so utterly staggering. You shared your contempt for democracy last night in scuttling proportional representation, and you have just reinforced the isolation, the contempt, that is held for so many politicians today. It does not matter what the overwhelming majority of people want; it is what you think is good. I will tell you what, Mr Mulholland, do not hold your breath if that is your secret to success in politics.

I would like to thank Ms Crozier, who I think made possibly the only contribution to date, apart from Ms Payne’s, that addressed the motion. I respect her views. We do not agree, but at least she is happy to put them forward and to speak honestly and openly in a public debate, as opposed to half-arsed career counselling.

The bottom line here is that as jurisdictions around the world face up to the failure of cannabis prohibition to deter use and its extraordinary cost and legalised cannabis uses, they change. I think it was Menzies who said, ‘Why do I change my mind? When circumstances change.’ Maybe you should think about that, Mr Mulholland. I mean, you can get your name carved on the desk there, but seriously.

It is time for us to trust Victorians with the question: do you support the legalisation of cannabis? It is very simple. It is very obvious. And those who oppose it I would suggest have an ulterior motive. I am not sure if this is parliamentary, but if you are not willing to demonstrate the courage for change, if you are not willing to demonstrate a commitment to democracy – if you are not going to wee, get off the pot. Let Victorians decide how they wish to see this issue treated, because we are all going to be old and dead by the time you folks come to some sort of a consensus. Let us let Victorians decide.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:02): I am pleased to rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion relating to cannabis use and calling on the government to ask Victorians if they support legalisation of cannabis in Victoria as proposed by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank have been tireless advocates for their clear position that the personal use of cannabis here in Victoria should be decriminalised. That was certainly the core of the bill that they proposed a couple of years ago, which essentially sought to adopt a model similar to that which exists now in the ACT and propose that that be adopted here in Victoria.

I will not go through the details of what that proposal was, because there has been debate on those matters in the past. As a consequence of a referral this chamber made, the matter and that bill were examined by the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I was part of that inquiry, and we tabled a report into the provisions of that bill a couple of years ago following some quite interesting debates and evidence we received both here in Melbourne and on a trip to the ACT to hear from those including the capital policing unit in the AFP and also drug and alcohol support in the ACT and members of the ACT Legislative Assembly. I think it is fair to say that the government in its response to that parliamentary committee report made it clear that it did not support the recommendations in that report to consider the issues raised in the bill. There are some concerns about that.

I think one of the further issues personally that I have with the motion here today is this notion that the way we resolve this question is to put it to the people through a non-binding plebiscite There have been other speakers in the course of this debate that have sought to posit arguments for and against the use of a plebiscite as a means of indicating public support for a matter. I for one am not a big believer in the use of indicative plebiscites to determine or suggest determinative positions of the Victorian people on matters of public policy. Fundamentally I believe that this Parliament exists in a framework of representative democracy for Victoria, and it is incumbent upon us as members of this Parliament to be the ones who, duly elected by the Victorian people at free and fair elections every four years, get to make laws for the state. I do not think that putting standalone questions to the people on indicative policy issues is the way that our democracy has operated and should operate. I am a believer in parliamentary democracy. I am a believer in the way and the will of the Parliament to achieve those changes.

I think there are many ways in which policy change gets enacted, and sometimes it is a tireless grind. We have certainly seen – and I am not using this in the pejorative – relentless advocacy from our colleagues on the crossbench, from Legalise Cannabis and others, supporting their position on the decriminalisation of adult use of cannabis here in the state of Victoria. I think to achieve the outcome that they are seeking, the elected representatives in this place have got to continue that relentless grind and see that it is not a solvable issue by way of an indicative plebiscite, survey, poll or whatever, which, effectively, a plebiscite delivers. I think that in our constitutional context, taking questions to the people should be restricted to matters associated with the constitutional framework that exists. Certainly we were having a debate in the Parliament yesterday about a matter for which one of the further steps that some advocated for could only be determined via a referendum. I think those are the appropriate circumstances in which matters should be taken to the people directly. I think that matters of policy are ones that the Parliament needs to do its job on, and at this time there is not support in the Parliament for the provisions of the bill that Ms Payne’s motion seeks to advocate.

What we have from the government I think are a couple of really important indications of an approach that is focused on harm minimisation, health and therapeutic benefit. You see across the board from this Labor government after more than a decade in office that harm minimisation has been an incredibly important part of our approach to drug law reform in this state, with things like the medically supervised injecting facility; like the permanent drug-checking service, the pill-testing service, with the fixed site and the mobile sites; and like the additional focus on the rollout of pharmacotherapy and the way that, in a nation-leading first, we have got the rollout of things like the naloxone vending machines. It is a consistent approach to support harm minimisation and support those who do use drugs, because they do exist in our community. People do take illicit substances in our community, and this government has very clearly adopted a harm minimisation approach to make sure that those who are using illicit substances are doing so in a way that is both fully informed about the consequences and supported within a medical framework when they need it. I do not think that you can in any way, shape or form suggest that this government is not serious about the harm minimisation approach that it takes to illicit substances and drugs in our community.

The second is the very clear framework around which this government has enacted significant changes in Victoria for those who need cannabis for therapeutic purposes. It was a commitment that Labor made on coming to government to establish a framework for the legalisation of therapeutic use of medicinal cannabis in this state, the first jurisdiction in the country, in 2016, to move towards access to medicinal cannabis. That is a step that other jurisdictions have now followed. We passed those laws, we sought clear advice from the Law Reform Commission and we set up a regulatory framework that thousands of Victorians are now using to access at a medicinal level the cannabis that they require to support medical conditions, based on the advice and direction of healthcare professionals. I think what that demonstrates is that, again, the government, in considering issues associated with cannabis use but also other drug use in the community, takes an approach that is founded in harm minimisation and that focuses on therapeutic benefits but does so, driven by the Parliament, in a thoughtful and considered way. I do not think that a plebiscite is the way to achieve further steps on drug law reform in this state.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:12): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of my Greens colleagues to speak on this motion before us today, noting of course that the Greens will be supporting it. As the motion itself says, a plebiscite on cannabis legalisation would ensure that every Victorian has a direct voice in shaping one of the most long-overdue drug policy reforms of our time. We can for sure, as has been canvassed, have a discussion about the exact way in which we do that and that process at a more technical level, but at a principle level, this is a good idea. It is a good idea to me; I am a huge fan of democracy, not on a selective basis but continually. Democracy is a wonderful thing. This proposal to hold a plebiscite about the decriminalisation of personal cannabis use sounds like a great idea, and I think there are a lot of people out there, as we have heard today in this debate, who think this would be excellent.

Over 40 per cent of people in this country have tried cannabis at some point in their life. Even more, somewhere around 80 per cent of people do not support the criminalisation of cannabis. We have heard it in this debate today. And yet people get elected saying they are representative of the broader community. They get into this place, and they do not have the guts to even look at this stuff. That is the issue that we are confronted with here. So I think it is reasonable to find pathways to give people that direct input, to hold up a yardstick to see just how we are going in representing community attitudes on this stuff. That is what this puts before us here today.

The decriminalisation model that the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023 engages with is very similar to the one that has been in use, up and running, in the ACT for several years now. It is one of those things: when you get more Greens elected and they get into shared government, these things become possible. When I and members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, colleagues from this place, undertook the inquiry process into this bill, we went up to Canberra. We saw just how things were operating up there, and what we saw, pleasingly, was that there had been no increase in road trauma and there had been no increase in hospitalisation. In fact we heard there had been less young people using cannabis, which might seem counterintuitive. And given that this is a decriminalisation model, arrests were, unsurprisingly, significantly reduced. It means less people were being needlessly dragged through the courts for minor possession and use.

Victoria should be seriously considering engaging in this scheme. So it was disappointing that despite all of that evidence – despite all of the processes, all of the reviews, all of the work that has gone into presenting to this government what people think about this issue, the evidence that exists around this issue and has for many years – the Labor government have refused to support the majority of the inquiry recommendations into this and they continue to keep their heads in the sand and act as if our current cannabis laws are fair and reasonable. Yet thousands of Victorians, it says in the motion, continue to come into contact with the criminal justice system simply for the personal use of small amounts of cannabis.

We should be changing our cannabis laws. With an election looming it is time that parties in this state offered bold, positive and progressive reforms like these for Victoria. The Greens would like to see cannabis fully legalised and regulated, and that is what we will vote for in this place. In saying that, every Greens MP elected into this place or the other place puts us another step closer to this important reform. With safe, legal and regulated access to cannabis, people will be able to responsibly enjoy a brownie or some home-grown bud in the same way they currently do a beer. The revenue earned can be invested into health promotion, it can be invested into education, it can be invested into support services, all of which right now need more government funding. We should not be running people through the criminal justice system for possession or consumption of cannabis while organised crime continues to profit from a flourishing black market. It is time that our laws were updated, so bring on democracy. I commend this motion to the house.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:17): I just want to thank everyone for their contributions today and make a few statements in regard to some of the contributions that have been made. I particularly would like to acknowledge Ms Terpstra, Mr Mulholland, Mr Limbrick, Ms Watt, Ms Crozier, my colleague Mr Ettershank, Mr Batchelor and Mr Puglielli for making a contribution today. I think at the outset I will look at Ms Terpstra’s contribution, as someone else who is part of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. We obviously took advice from the amazing staff at the parliamentary counsel, and their expertise is always very much appreciated. I think listening to the experts in how to draft legislation is what we rely on in this place. But I would take note of the fact that if that was the most alarming thing in this SARC report, when we have literally had this government turn around and say that they are going to not allow prisoners 1 hour of access to fresh air, a breach of the charter of human rights that was acknowledged in that report, then I think that you have got your priorities around the wrong way.

Mr Mulholland – not that he is here – I do not want to give him a civics lesson, but I will acknowledge that he thinks that vicarious liability is a trendy issue. What is fascinating about being part of Legalise Cannabis is that it is a bit of a broad church of people who are our membership base, and many of our membership are victim-survivors. So some of the issues that we do present before Parliament may not be cannabis related but are always in line with what our party principles are. Ms Watt highlighted the fact that medicinal cannabis was introduced a decade ago now and very much celebrated that. I think it is important to acknowledge that cannabis as a therapeutic product is exactly why we are calling for it to be regulated, because that is why people access cannabis. Those that grow their own at home do so because they are using it therapeutically.

I acknowledge Ms Crozier’s contribution, and I also acknowledge that many of the other contributors today highlighted their time on committees, whether it be Ms Crozier and Fiona Patten working on that committee around the use of cannabis inquiry, I think that was in 2020, whereas we had the inquiry into the personal use of cannabis and looking at the ACT model in 2023–24, from memory. What was evident throughout that process was that the expertise there was saying that we know more now. I do not think we have ever identified cannabis as saying that it is harmless. We all acknowledge that there are harms and risks associated with cannabis. But what we do know is that the greatest harm is caused by the interactions with the criminal justice system, as my colleague Mr Ettershank pointed out. In saying that, I think that we have had a rigorous debate today, and I think it is important to also acknowledge that the democratic process here is something that we should hold strong. People having their say on things that are fairly outdated laws I think should be something that we should be normalising. The fact that we are at 100 years of prohibition next year of cannabis is something where we should be allowing there to be rigorous debate on that, whether that be in the public forum and influencing us in Parliament, or whether we continue to look at laws that may not be fit for purpose and how we might action that. In summary, I thank you all for your time today.

Council divided on motion: