Rachel asked the Legislative Council to consider Legalise Cannabis Victoria’s amendments to the Roads and Ports Legislation (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025.
Medicinal cannabis has been legal since 2016. Yet while roadside drug-tests do not screen for other prescriptions such as benzodiazepines and opiates, it remains an offense to drive with any amount of THC present in one’s system regardless of impairment.
These amendments would afford drivers who are prescribed medicinal cannabis the same freedom as those on other legal prescriptions, given that they are not impaired. While these crucial amendments were supported by the Greens and several crossbenchers, they were ultimately negatived.
Tuesday the 29th of July 2025
Victorian Legislative Council
Rachel Payne (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
I move:
That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider an amendment and a new clause to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide that medicinal cannabis that does not impair driving must be treated in the same manner as other prescription drugs.
I move my amendment to the Roads and Ports Legislation (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. My amendment is to amend and for a new clause to be proposed in committee.
I just want to acknowledge Minister Shing’s commentary in respect to the closed-circuit driving trial that is currently underway and that we are in a predicament here where we have had medicinal cannabis legal for nearly 10 years and are trying to find a balance there. Obviously Legalise Cannabis Victoria have advocated for medicinal cannabis patients to be treated like any other patient on prescription medication.
Amendments:
(1. Clause 1, page 2, after line 3 insert –
“(ia) to provide that medicinal cannabis that does not impair driving must be treated in the same manner as other prescription drugs; and”.
2. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 5 –
‘5A Offences involving alcohol or other drugs
After section 49(3C) of the Road Safety Act 1986 insert –
“(3D) Subsection (1)(bb), (bc), (h), (i) and (j) do not apply to a person whose blood or oral fluid contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol from a legal cannabis product –
(a) which is a prescription drug; and
(b) for which the person has a prescription or other authority to obtain, possess and use that product; and
(c) which has been used in accordance with that prescription or authority.
(3E) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (3D) does not operate to exempt a person from the application of subsection (1)(bb), (bc), (h), (i) and (j) in relation to any other prescribed illicit drug which may be present in the person’s blood or oral fluid.”.’.)
Harriet Shing (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts):
We are talking about prescription medication, and I do take issue with claims that medicinal cannabis patients then top up with recreational cannabis. I could point to the fact that someone that may be prescribed a medication such as valium or benzodiazepine may also find themselves topping up their medication. So, I think that looking at those distinctions might not be as relevant anymore when we are talking about looking at that distinction of prescription medication and patients’ rights.
I just want to again, perhaps for avoidance of doubt, indicate I was not suggesting in the course of my sum-up that this might well be a top-up with recreational cannabis; it might well be a level that exceeds a prescribed dose. Again, we just do not know, and so without knowing it is then very difficult to understand what the nature or the extent of impairment might be in any situation where medicinal cannabis has perhaps been prescribed to a certain amount. A top-up may occur because of a recreational volume but may actually occur because of a prescribed volume that is brought forward in dose, for example. I would hate for you to conclude that in fact I was suggesting that prescription cannabis was only ever sitting alongside, in that 44 per cent, the use of something other than prescribed volumes or amounts of cannabis as prescribed.
David Limbrick (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I note some of the minister’s comments earlier about the science of this and testing for impairment. I would like to make the point that the whole reason for roadside testing is meant to be to test for impairment, because what everyone cares about is whether or not someone is impaired, not whether they have some substance in their body; they care whether they are a danger to other drivers on the road. It is very unfortunate that in the case of THC it stays in the body for a long period of time and is detectable well after someone is impaired.
I would say that if we are looking for the gap in the science, the gap in the science was when roadside drug testing was introduced in the first place, when they introduced a testing mechanism which did not test for impairment and which continues to not test for impairment. Many people are very unjustly being penalised, having their licences taken away and being put through all sorts of trauma, and they pose no risk to other drivers on the road because they are not impaired – but we do not know that because they never actually test, or rarely test, for impairment. I have been told in the last term in Parliament that the reason that they do not test for impairment – even though we have an impairment test, which is rarely used – is because it is very onerous on the police force and takes a long time. There is a lot of paperwork and a lot of stuff involved; they do not like doing it. The roadside drug test is a lot easier when you can just test someone and you do not need to actually prove that they are impaired. This is an injustice that should never have come about. It should never have happened. I do not actually care whether it is prescription medication or not, or indeed some illegal drug; what actually matters for road safety is whether or not someone is impaired. That is the only thing that we should be testing for, and that is not happening in Victoria at the moment.
I acknowledge that the government is doing these tests at the moment to try and come up with some sort of test for impairment, but in the meantime we have very large numbers of people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. I have met many of these people. There are people who have lost their licences and people who could benefit from medicine who are choosing not to take that medicine. They are taking more dangerous medicines, such as opiates, which they do not test for and which do cause impairment, but for some unknown reason – well, actually, I know the reason. The reason that the government does not insist that we test for opiates and benzos as well as cannabis is because there is a social stigma on cannabis, and there does not seem to be a social stigma on opiates and benzos.
The company that produces the roadside drug tests that they use at the moment also produces another one for a very similar cost that tests for opiates and benzodiazepines. The government has not instructed the police to use this. They do not use it because they could be pulling half the drivers off the road; that is why. They are not going to introduce that because there will be an absolute uproar, but as the number of medical cannabis patients increases, the noise from these patients that are suffering this injustice will increase over time. It will get to the point – and I think even the government acknowledges this; that is why they have agreed to this roadside testing stuff that they are talking about – where it is unbearable, and the government will have to face the fact that what is happening is an injustice.
Katherine Copsey (Southern Metropolitan):
The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We thank Ms Payne for her continued advocacy on this matter and the reminder to the chamber and to the government of its importance. We hope to see it successful in its intent in the very near future, before the end of this term.
Deputy President:
The question is that Ms Payne’s amendment 1, which tests her amendment 2, be agreed to. Those voting in favour of the amendments, I invite you to stand in your place now.
Thank you, you can resume your seats.
Those voting against, I invite you to stand in your place now and indicate ‘my vote is with the noes’.
Thank you, you can resume your seats. The results of the division is ayes (7), noes (28), therefore the amendment is lost.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
Noes (28): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Amendment negatived.
Related:
> Let medicinal cannabis patients drive – Rachel Payne
> Medicinal Cannabis Driving Reform – Rachel Payne
> Legal Defence for Driving Medicinal Cannabis Patients – Rachel Payne
> Driving While Impaired – Rachel Payne
> Tradies and Parents Campaign for a U-turn on Unfair Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws – Rachel Payne
> Driver Impairment Statistics – Rachel Payne
> Medicinal Cannabis Driving Trial and Pill Testing – Rachel Payne
