When Discretion Becomes Danger: Unpacking Tobacco Legislation in the Legislative Council

The danger of silent laws

As a medical professional, I have always believed that the law should be as clear as a diagnosis. When we draft legislation, we are creating the framework that governs our community. We need precision. We need transparency. Yet, in the Legislative Council, I recently witnessed a debate on the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill that left me concerned about the lack of concrete boundaries.

The discussion centred on how authorities will determine what constitutes an offence versus what remains personal use. While the government claims that investigators will exercise common sense, the legislation itself remains worryingly silent on specific definitions for trafficable amounts. Without clear, defined thresholds, we are left in a grey area. This is not just bureaucratic wording: it is a situation where the livelihoods and legal standing of citizens hang on the subjective interpretation of an inspector.

If you find this deep dive into our legislative process insightful, please subscribe to my YouTube channel to stay updated on our work in the House.

Defining the boundaries of justice

In my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. In fact, ambiguity often creates more problems than it solves. It creates a waiting room where the rules are hidden behind closed doors. When we ask about how these laws will function, we are told that case-by-case discretion will suffice. But in a system where penalties can be severe, discretion without a defined statutory limit is a dangerous tool. It invites inconsistency, and it risks being applied in ways that do not serve the public interest.

The government recently had to issue a correction regarding reporting mechanisms within the Act. It serves as a reminder that oversight is not just a secondary thought: it is the mechanism that keeps power in check. We need to be certain that when the department is granted new powers, there is a clear, tabled, annual report that tells the public exactly how these laws are being enforced.

The forward path

We are consistently pushing for evidence-based reform. We need legislation that is robust, fair, and above all, clear. The debate on this bill is far from over, and I will continue to hold the government to account to ensure that the rules are predictable for everyone. You can review the details of the recent chamber proceedings in the official Hansard record.

We are building a movement of people who prioritise logic and transparency over political convenience. If you want to support a more sensible approach to law-making, I invite you to join Legalise Cannabis WA as we continue the fight for meaningful, science-led policy.