Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Motion by Ms Payne
12 August 2026
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
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.
[Council divided on motion]
Voted for: Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
Voted against: Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, 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, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
[Motion defeated 27 votes to 8]
