Wednesday, 19 March 2025

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Inquiry into the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:38): I rise to speak on a report which was tabled in this place yesterday, the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s Inquiry into the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Regulation of Personal Adult Use of Cannabis) Bill 2023. This was a short, sharp inquiry conducted by LSIC looking into a very specific part of cannabis reform in this state. It was initiated by my region mate Ms Payne, who brought this bill into the chamber and subsequently this inquiry for referral as well. It was, I should note from the outset, a very narrow focus that we applied with this bill. We were specifically looking at the decriminalisation model of recreational cannabis reform, not a regulated market, and even more specifically looking at the ACT model, the territory which first decriminalised cannabis use for recreational purposes in Australia back in 2019. Victoria of course led the way with medicinal cannabis around a decade ago.

Those of us on the committee had the opportunity to engage through the inquiry and through meeting with various ACT legislators, health experts and police officers and benefited from many submissions, many other meetings and a day of public hearings as well. The ACT model fundamentally provides that people can grow their own cannabis in small quantities for personal use. It has various prohibitions, such as on sharing, on different weights and other quantities, but fundamentally that is what it does. The bill put forward by Ms Payne seeks to implement a slightly modified, slightly improved system of that model. Our inquiry benefited from a statutory review of the ACT legislation, which showed some very interesting results, as well as the Lambert review – a recent study that has been released. What we saw is that cannabis rates stabilised in the ACT following decriminalisation – if anything, they slightly decreased. We did not see an increase, as some may have expected. We also saw, very surprisingly, from the Lambert review that the THC levels in cannabis grown in homes was much lower than that found in black market-procured cannabis. We know that the black market is still flourishing in the ACT, and those who have been utilising the decriminalised system are still a distinct minority.

It is important to ask what the ACT model shows for us. In particular the committee had an interest in the health and policing aspects of the ACT model. The evidence, frankly, showed that there was not an uptick in ambulance call-outs or in emergency room presentations in the ACT, as has been seen in some overseas jurisdictions who went for the different full legalisation model. The decriminalisation model in the ACT did not appear to show that. However, it did show an increased need for those early intervention supports, such as alcohol and other drug services, which probably speaks to the breakdown of the stigma associated with decriminalisation.

We also had very productive meetings with ACT policing, who told us about the reduced pressure on their resources, although they did not report any reduced budget. Surprising, as well, was some data that they gave us on roadside testing. They found that despite a 17 per cent increase in roadside testing rates, which was concurrent with decriminalisation, they found an overall 7 per cent decrease in people who were found to be driving under the influence of cannabis – a very surprising result and encouraging.

There are a few shortfalls of the ACT legislation, many of which have been addressed in this bill and some others which have been addressed through recommendations in this report, specifically ones that go to an explicit penalty for those who allow people under the age of 18 to access their personal cannabis and also the implementation of a statutory review in the Victorian legislation. Given the wealth of data that we obtained from the ACT statutory review, that seemed a very sensible step.

The ACT did not approach reform in quite the same way we did, though. They previously had what was known as a ‘simple cannabis offence notice scheme’, which was already a step towards decriminalisation. I think it is important to note that one of the reasons that recommendation 1 of this report calls for any future reform to be government-led is because it can go through those government processes. We know that the ACT and Victoria are not equal jurisdictions. We have different population profiles, different demographics and a different history of drug regulation as well, and all of these things will need to be factored into any reform. But it is fair to say that the reforms proposed in this report provide a sensible, straightforward approach for drug reform in this state.