This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
Adults across Australia would be allowed to use cannabis recreationally, while cannabis growing, manufacturing and sales would move into a legal national market with a new federal regulator.
Adult recreational cannabis use, growing and sales were not covered by a national legal market, leaving those activities outside a licensed federal scheme. The bill legalises adult use and creates a regulator to license cannabis imports, exports, growing, manufacturing and sales, with rules for packaging and storage.
Australia had already opened a legal medical cannabis industry, with dispensing legalised in 2016 and export deals showing a growing regulated market, but adult recreational use still sat outside any national licensing scheme. The Greens used that gap, and earlier budget costings for a taxed legal market, to introduce the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 to legalise adult use and create a federal regulator for imports, growing, manufacturing and sales, but the Senate voted the bill down in November 2024, leaving recreational cannabis laws with the states and territoriesThe separate Australian jurisdictions that already control most drug laws, which critics said made the bill constitutionally risky..
Critics said the bill was constitutionally shaky and poorly designed, risking clashes with state drug laws, weak trafficking controls, and worse health, crime and road safety outcomes if recreational cannabis were legalised nationally. Those objections were raised by the government, the CoalitionThe opposition party grouping referred to in the debate, made up of the Liberal and National parties. and One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead., although One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead.'s case was partly conditional on preferring a tighter prescription-based model instead.
Senator David Shoebridge introduced this bill. It was supported by Greens, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Liberal Party; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
475 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Adults across Australia would be allowed to use cannabis recreationally, while cannabis growing, manufacturing and sales would move into a legal national market with a new federal regulator.
People and businesses would need a licenceThe legal permission a person or business would need before doing regulated cannabis activities like growing, making, importing or selling. to import, export, grow, make or sell cannabis products, and doing those things without a licenceThe legal permission a person or business would need before doing regulated cannabis activities like growing, making, importing or selling. would become a criminal offence.
People could grow up to 6 cannabis plants at home without a licenceThe legal permission a person or business would need before doing regulated cannabis activities like growing, making, importing or selling., but growing more than that without approval could lead to up to 6 months in jail or a fine.
Children would not get a criminal record for possessing cannabis, but police could seize and destroy the cannabis product.
The Cannabis Australia National AgencyThe proposed federal regulator that would license cannabis growing, manufacturing, import, export and sales under the bill. could set rules for labels, packaging and storage, including child-safe packaging and information about safety, dosage and whether products are organic.
The Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 introduces an Act to legalise cannabis for adult recreational use in Australia. The Act introduces provisions for cannabis strains to be registered and regulates activities relating to cannabis use including growing, selling, and manufacturing. The Act establishes the Cannabis Australia National Agency (CANA), which will have primary responsibility for licensing and regulating cannabis trade.Legalising Cannabis explanatory memorandum
5. The bill also creates a regulatory scheme which makes it an offence to undertake certain activities without a licence. These include importation and export of cannabis products, growing, manufacturing or selling cannabis products.Legalising Cannabis explanatory memorandum
25. Clause 18 provides that it is an offence to grow cannabis plants unless authorised by a licence or growing 6 or fewer plants at home. The penalty is imprisonment for up to 6 months or 200 penalty units, or both.Legalising Cannabis explanatory memorandum
34. Clauses 25 specifies that possession of cannabis products by minors is not a criminal offence but the cannabis product may be seized and destroyed by a police officer.Legalising Cannabis explanatory memorandum
46. This is explicitly intended to include such information as safety, dosage and organic status as well as requirements for child safe packaging.Legalising Cannabis explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia had already opened a legal medical cannabis industry, with dispensing legalised in 2016 and export deals showing a growing regulated market, but adult recreational use still sat outside any national licensing scheme. The Greens used that gap, and earlier budget costings for a taxed legal market, to introduce the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 to legalise adult use and create a federal regulator for imports, growing, manufacturing and sales, but the Senate voted the bill down in November 2024, leaving recreational cannabis laws with the states and territoriesThe separate Australian jurisdictions that already control most drug laws, which critics said made the bill constitutionally risky..
AFR reports stock surge after medical-cannabis law change
The report said a cannabis company’s shares surged after a recent legal change allowing medical cannabis dispensing for patients with life-threatening conditions, while adult recreational use remained outside a national legal market.
Australian Financial Review ↗Parliamentary Budget OfficeThe parliamentary body that produced costings the Greens used to argue a legal cannabis market could raise revenue. costs a legal cannabis market
The Greens said independent costings showed legal adult cannabis could raise revenue and cut some law enforcement costs, giving the idea a national fiscal argument.
Australian Financial Review ↗Australian medical cannabis producer lands a $92 million export deal
The deal showed a regulated cannabis industry was already operating commercially in Australia even though recreational use remained illegal.
Australian Financial Review ↗Greens introduce the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023
Senator David Shoebridge introduced a bill to legalise adult recreational cannabis nationwide and set up the Cannabis Australia National AgencyThe proposed federal regulator that would license cannabis growing, manufacturing, import, export and sales under the bill. to license and regulate the trade.
Hansard ↗Senate votes down the bill at second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage.
The bill's second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. was negatived after the government and coalitionThe opposition party grouping referred to in the debate, made up of the Liberal and National parties. opposed it, so federal law was not changed and recreational cannabis remained governed by existing state and territory laws.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. moved
Referred to Committee (14/09/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (31/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. negatived
Key criticism
Critics said the bill was constitutionally shaky and poorly designed, risking clashes with state drug laws, weak trafficking controls, and worse health, crime and road safety outcomes if recreational cannabis were legalised nationally. Those objections were raised by the government, the CoalitionThe opposition party grouping referred to in the debate, made up of the Liberal and National parties. and One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead., although One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead.'s case was partly conditional on preferring a tighter prescription-based model instead.
Criticism was substantial in Senate debate, but mostly came from parties already opposing recreational legalisation.
Constitutional and legal conflicts
Opponents argued the bill tried to regulate an area that is mainly handled by states and territoriesThe separate Australian jurisdictions that already control most drug laws, which critics said made the bill constitutionally risky., making it constitutionally doubtful and likely to clash with existing criminal drug and medicinal cannabisCannabis used as a medicine, which the draft treats separately from the proposed recreational market. laws.
Public safety and harm concerns
CoalitionThe opposition party grouping referred to in the debate, made up of the Liberal and National parties. critics said legalising recreational cannabis would increase use, especially among vulnerable young people, while worsening health, crime, customs and road safety outcomes rather than solving the organised crime problem.
Home-grow model and penalty design
One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead. argued the bill was not properly thought through because it allowed home cultivation while also imposing fines and jail terms for relatively minor breaches, and said any cannabis access should instead sit within a cheap, safe prescription systemA doctor-led access model where cannabis would be supplied as medicine rather than sold through a recreational market..
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 13 to 24. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Shoebridge strongly supports the bill and urges Parliament to legalise cannabis nationally.
Read in Hansard ↗Cash says the coalitionThe opposition party grouping referred to in the debate, made up of the Liberal and National parties. will not support the bill and argues it is badly drafted, unconstitutional, and dangerous because it would worsen health, crime, customs, and road safety outcomes.
Read in Hansard ↗Scarr opposes the bill, saying legalising recreational cannabis would increase use, especially among distressed young people, and would not solve the organised crime problem.
Read in Hansard ↗Roberts says One NationThe minor party whose senators opposed the bill and argued for a tighter prescription-based model instead. cannot back this bill because it allows home cultivation, which he opposes unless cannabis is available through a safe, cheap, regulated prescription systemA doctor-led access model where cannabis would be supplied as medicine rather than sold through a recreational market..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill is ill-conceived, possibly dangerous and probably unconstitutional, but that's pretty typical of the Greens. The government will not support the bill, and I urge all senators across the chamber to do the same.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“To be very clear, the coalition will not be supporting this bill. It is almost embarrassing, when you look at the drafting of this bill, that the Australian Greens thought it was a bill that should even be considered by this chamber. If you were serious, you would have had it properly drafted, which they haven't. It is a bill that fails every policy test.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When we have a situation where many young Australians cannot access the mental health services that they require and are in distress, need treatment and need assistance, I think it would be very, very unwise, on the basis of the evidence which has been presented to the committee, to support a piece of legislation which, based on the responses of the Australian people themselves through surveys, would lead to an increase in recreational use and, in particular, an increase in recreational use by young people in a state of mind of distress.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Shoebridge on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Shoebridge strongly supports the bill and urges Parliament to legalise cannabis nationally. He argues it will end criminalisation, create a regulated market, and deliver public revenue and social benefits.
“The Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 is a chance for politics to show it can listen, it can work across traditional divides, and it can act in the public interest. No one, apart from bike gangs and organized crime, benefits from the endless war on cannabis. This is the time to end that war and instead build a new and vibrant legal cannabis industry that is safer, more democratic and with a powerful social licence.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Shoebridge strongly supports the bill and says the Greens will keep working until cannabis is legal. He argues it should pass because adults should be able to choose what they consume, and a regulated market would reduce harm, improve safety and undercut organised crime.
“We want adult Australians to have the right to choose. We're the party who thinks adults have the right to choose what goes in their body, they have the right to know what they're consuming and they should expect a parliament to treat them like adults. I promise you today that the Greens will keep working until this is law, and we just get on and legalise it.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The war on drugs started in the US years ago. It has been a big part of the problem. We need to destigmatise it. We need a legal pathway forward. We need to accept it can have benefits and we need to educate people on how to do it properly. We need to get away from synthetic cannabis. We need to take the money from legalising it and put it into harm minimisation services. And we need to get it right. The Australian people want that from us. Please, Senators, look at this bill today and vote for it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“At this point, One Nation and the Greens diverge. The bill allows home cultivation of six plants. One Nation cannot support home grow. There is a qualification here: our opposition to home grow can exist only if Australians have access to safe, cheap, tested, licensed and accessible product, with a prescription from a doctor or nurse practitioner filled through a chemist or other suitable agent and supplied on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. One Nation introduced a bill which would have done just that, and it was roasted, including by the Greens, can I say. In an interesting example of karma, their bill met the same fate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second readingThe main vote on whether the Senate accepts a bill in principle; this bill was defeated at that stage. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (31/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (14 Sept 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (31 May 2024)
APH bill page notes
