Today's public interest debate, introduced by the member for Oatley, betrays the true state of the New South Wales Liberal Party. For the benefit of people listening or watching from the gallery, yesterday we delivered the State budget. Ordinarily, this is the day—particularly during this debate, which is called a public interest debate—when the Opposition would seek to scrutinise the budget and outline its views and criticisms of the Government's choices about how to manage the State's finances. That is not a small thing, I think members would agree.

Instead, we are debating something entirely different—something completely disconnected from the budget. I suggest there is one reason for that: It appears to be the only issue members opposite can agree on. The New South Wales Liberal Party is united on just one thing—opposing sensible, long‑awaited reform for medical cannabis patients. Why is that so illustrative of its current state? It is because the reform we are advancing as a government resolves a policy change that members opposite put in place. It was the former Coalition Government, under then health Minister Brad Hazzard, that changed the law to make medical cannabis a lawful prescription medication that is now used by thousands of Australians every day. Yet members opposite stand opposed to the logical next step.

That is the condition of the New South Wales Liberal Party today. It is reactionary, disconnected from the people it is meant to represent, and so focused on appealing to the far right that it is incapable of engaging constructively with complex policy and delivering responsible, evidence-based outcomes. It has reached the point where members opposite are debating a bill that we have not even introduced. They have not even seen it. That is the state of members opposite. They have chosen to dedicate this debate to a bill they have not read the day after the State budget was delivered. I wish the member for Oatley good luck; I really do.

While members opposite created a pathway for medical cannabis to become a legally prescribed drug, they did not finish the job. They failed to consider the patients who still need to drive to work, pick up their children and go about their daily lives. For more than a decade, patients taking legally prescribed medication have been left in limbo as a result. Both the Drug Summit report and the parliamentary inquiry into the regulatory framework for cannabis recommended that that issue be addressed—whether at the roadside or in court—including through a medical defence for those using cannabis as directed by their doctor. Our Government is acting very sensibly and responsibly on those recommendations. We are proposing legislation that distinguishes between drivers who have medically prescribed cannabis and those with illicit substances in their system.

For the first time, our drug driving laws will recognise that some drivers are taking THC-containing medicines under medical supervision. They are patients taking legally prescribed medication, and they should not be criminalised for doing so. At its core, the reform acknowledges that cannabis medicines are legitimate treatments, relied upon by approximately 300,000 New South Wales residents in 2025 alone. But let me be clear: The bill makes significant progress without compromising road safety. Under the proposed reforms, any driver who returns a positive roadside test will still receive an immediate 24-hour prohibition while laboratory analysis is undertaken. However, we are proposing to amend the law so that, in certain circumstances, drivers using prescribed cannabis medicines will be exempt from the existing drug presence offence.

A new approach will allow for appropriate tolerance of THC in the system of registered medical users. Importantly, that exemption will apply only where THC is detected on its own. If any other illicit drugs or alcohol are present, the full force of existing offences and penalties will continue to apply. Members opposite have insinuated that the policy was not developed in consultation with experts. That is absolutely false. Transport, Health and police have played a part in the development of the policy. The result is a careful, balanced reform that recognises legitimate medical use while always putting road safety first. I completely oppose the motion.