Independent Data Analysis
What Australians Actually Said About
Medicinal Cannabis
The TGA received 790 submissions on their medicinal cannabis consultation. We analysed 524 published responses to see if the TGA's summary matches what submitters actually said.
“When hundreds of Australians take the time to tell a government agency what they think, the least that agency can do is accurately report what was said. The data tells a very different story to the TGA's summary.”
Dr Brian Walker MLC
Member of the Legislative Council, Western Australia
790
Total Submissions
received by TGA
524
Published
66% made public
266
Redacted
kept confidential
7
Categories
stakeholder types
Who Submitted?
Submissions by Category
Category Breakdown
TGA Claims vs. Actual Data
The TGA published a summary of what submitters “said”. Here's how their narrative compares to the actual numbers from 524 published submissions. An additional 266 submissions were redacted and excluded from this analysis.
“TGA states there was 'agreement across stakeholder groups' that the framework is 'not fit-for-purpose'”
62%
Yes (313)
30%
No (153)
8%
Unsure (39)
266 additional submissions were redacted by the TGA and are not included in this analysis.
“TGA highlights 'safety risks associated with high THC-containing products, particularly when inhaled or vaped'”
32%
Yes (149)
68%
No (310)
0%
Unsure (0)
266 additional submissions were redacted by the TGA and are not included in this analysis.
“TGA's response implies support for restricting access to unapproved products”
9%
Yes (46)
82%
No (415)
9%
Unsure (44)
266 additional submissions were redacted by the TGA and are not included in this analysis.
Consumer vs. Industry Divide
Do consumers and industry agree? This comparison shows how patients/consumers responded versus industry/sponsors on key questions.
Q6: Do you consider the current quality and safety requirements to be appropriate and sufficient for medicinal cannabis products?
⚠️ 33% divergence between consumers and industry
Q11: Do you consider there to be safety risks associated with certain dosage forms of medicinal cannabis products that may require mitigation measures?
⚠️ 37% divergence between consumers and industry
Q12: Are there any dosage forms of medicinal cannabis products that should not be permitted due to safety risks?
Q15: Do you have information on safety risks or harm associated with inhaling or vaping high THC-containing products?
⚠️ 34% divergence between consumers and industry
Q16: Do you consider there to be a 'safe' upper limit of THC use?
Q22: Given the unknown safety impact of medicinal cannabis products on foetal development, do you consider there to be a need to restrict access or should risk mitigation elements be applied for pregnant or breastfeeding women?
Q23: Should restrictions or risk mitigation steps be applied to other vulnerable population groups, such as those with a history of mental health conditions, addiction etc?
Q25: Would you support restricting or preventing access to most or all unapproved medicinal cannabis products via the SAS and AP scheme?
Question-by-Question Breakdown
Click any section to expand the full data for each consultation question.
Depth of Engagement
How much detail did each category provide in free-text responses? More text generally indicates deeper engagement with the consultation.
Headline Findings
The TGA claims there was "agreement" the framework is "not fit-for-purpose" — but 62% of respondents said current requirements ARE appropriate.
The TGA highlights safety risks with high-THC vaping — but 68% of respondents said they had NO information on such risks.
The TGA's response implies support for restricting access — but 82% of respondents OPPOSE restricting or preventing access to unapproved medicinal cannabis.
Industry wants MORE regulation than consumers — 59% of industry said current quality requirements are NOT appropriate, compared to only 21% of consumers. The TGA sided with industry.
266 of 790 submissions (34%) were redacted. We have no way of knowing whether the TGA's summary accurately reflects these hidden responses.
Methodology
This analysis covers all 524 publicly available submissions to the TGA's consultation “Reviewing the safety and regulatory oversight of unapproved medicinal cannabis products” (closed 7 October 2025). The TGA received 790 submissions in total — 266 chose confidential treatment and are not included in this analysis.
Each submission answered up to 26 consultation questions (Q5–Q30) covering respondent type, quality/safety, dosage forms, THC/CBD concentrations, population groups, and regulatory reform. Responses include radio buttons (Yes/No/Unsure), checkboxes, and free text.
Data was scraped directly from the TGA's Citizen Space platform on 26 February 2026. All data is available for download as CSV above. Analysis and visualisations by the office of Dr Brian Walker MLC.
Source: consultations.tga.gov.au
Australians Deserve Transparency
When government agencies misrepresent public feedback, we all lose. Follow Dr Brian Walker MLC for more independent analysis and join the movement for evidence-based cannabis reform.
Note: 266 of the 790 submissions received by the TGA were treated as confidential and are not published on the TGA's Citizen Space platform. We were unable to access or analyse these redacted submissions. The findings presented on this page are based solely on the 524 submissions that were made publicly available.