Rachel Payne MP has moved a motion in Parliament calling on the Victorian Government to put cannabis legalisation directly to the people — arguing that after nearly a century of prohibition, Victorians deserve a direct say on one of the state’s most long-overdue drug policy reforms.
The Motion – Cannabis Legalisation
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.
Nearly a Century of Failed Prohibition
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. A 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.
Unequal Impacts and Treaty
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.
Four Years of Advocacy
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 charges. 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.
Inquiries and Reform Attempts
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.
Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis Bill 2023
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 on the 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.
Other states
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.
Trusting Victorians with the Question
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.
A Century of Prohibition, and What Comes Next
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. 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?
Closing the Debate on Cannabis Legalisation
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 we are 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.
Ms Crozier
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:
Summary
Rachel Payne’s motion calls on the Victorian Government to hold a plebiscite asking Victorians whether cannabis should be legalised, arguing that nearly 100 years of prohibition has failed to reduce use, failed to eliminate the illicit market, and disproportionately harmed First Nations Victorians — who are 11 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis offences. Drawing on two parliamentary inquiries, her own 2023 reform bill, and polling showing 84 per cent public support for legalisation, Rachel argued that Victorians deserve a direct democratic say on the issue, with Parliament retaining responsibility for designing an evidence-based, regulated framework if a plebiscite returned a “yes” vote.
