Tuesday, 15 October 2024

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (15:03): I rise today to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. At the outset I think it is important for the chamber to pause and reflect upon those young people who have lost their lives at music festivals – people who had gone out to have the time of their lives, who had probably been planning it for a very, very long period of time, but who sadly did not made it home to their loved ones. It is a situation that no friend wants to witness – nobody wants to be hospitalised and feel that that could have happened to them. And it is certainly not a situation that any family member – any parent, any sibling – or any friend would ever want to hear had happened.

That is the biggest challenge when it comes to dealing with issues and the impact of drugs and alcohol in our communities: they do take lives. In the last 10 years we have lost over 5000 Victorians to drug overdose. This is not just about illicit drugs, it is also about over-the-counter drugs and harms and overdoses due to alcohol. It is something that as a community we accept and often turn a blind eye to when in fact the harms of alcohol are very deep in our communities. They are drivers of violence, including family violence, but too often alcohol and other drugs (AOD) are overlooked in terms of their impacts on our community.

There are many different views about different policy ideas within the drug framework. I have been the Shadow Minister for Mental Health for a long time now – I think about seven or eight years – and over that time there have been many differing positions about different ideas that were put forward to the Victorian people for consideration. I have certainly taken my time to listen to the harm reduction sector, to talk about what we like and what we agree with and to talk about what we do not necessarily agree with. It has always been a respectful conversation. I deeply respect the work of the alcohol and other drug sector and particularly respect their tenacity in wanting to see change, in wanting to see more support for the alcohol and other drug sector, but most importantly in making sure that we have more supports available to Victorians who are going through the challenges of using alcohol or other drugs, often to deal with past traumas in their lives when they cannot access other mental health supports, and for those who have no other alternatives. They do not know how else to deal with the traumas that are impacting their every day, with their mental health concerns or with other contributing factors to the reasons why people use and misuse drugs and alcohol.

We have had a briefing on this bill. However, a number of questions that the Liberals and the Nationals asked remain unanswered. It is very concerning to me that a policy that has promised so much, particularly to parents of Victorian young people who are heading to music festivals, has been so grossly under-researched and underdeveloped in terms of the ability of the government to share that information not just to the Liberals and Nationals in this chamber or the other chamber but also the Victorian community. We have a responsibility on this side of the chamber. It is not just the Liberals and Nationals; it is the Greens in this chamber as well and the crossbenchers in the upper house. We have an obligation to scrutinise legislation. We can best do that by having a full understanding of what model the government is proposing and having an open discussion around that.

I am very fearful that the government’s lack of ability to answer the questions that have been put to them in a timely manner or with any detail at all actually indicates that there is no detail around how pill testing will operate in Victoria in the upcoming summer. This is how soon we are talking about this being rolled out. We are talking about legislation that will come into place. Then we have got –

Juliana Addison interjected.

Emma KEALY: I pick up the interjection from the member for Wendouree – I realise it is not parliamentary to do so – of what harm would be done. I was raised by amazing parents, and they always embedded in my way of thinking that you do it once and you do it right. Member for Wendouree, my concern is that the government is not doing this right. This is policy on the run when basic questions cannot be answered about how this legislation will operate in practice. We have a number of questions which remain outstanding and cannot be answered. If the member for Wendouree says, ‘That’s not right,’ it is – that is actually correct. We put a number of questions to the government. In fact today my contribution will go for more time than the amount of time we were given to ask questions. I will note that the questions that were taken on notice during our bill briefing, including questions from the sectors that we work with in our community and the AOD sector in particular, were unable to be answered. If there are promises of what this will deliver, that is fine, but you need to have substance behind it; otherwise it is nothing more than mere words.

I have key concerns around the construct of the legislation. I think there are some issues with how this bill has been drafted which will restrict essential information from being passed on to clients who share their drugs for testing within that environment. From my experience as a laboratory scientist, as a lab manager and a regional lab manager for the state of Victoria – for all labs in Victoria and Tassie – someone responsible for drug testing, who has undertaken drug testing before, who understands what it means to set up a laboratory for testing, I am able to share my firsthand experience, because I have had a job in the real world. I have not just come through political offices to get my job. I am able to apply that and use that knowledge and experience, including that of the people that I engage with and speak to. I have key concerns around how this legislation has been put together, and I would urge all members of this chamber to review this legislation, because it has to be right. There is no doubt this legislation will get through both chambers of Victoria’s Parliament. We know that the support is there, and therefore there is an obligation upon the government to ensure that whatever legislation is in place will meet the needs and what is being promised in the media releases.

I would like to outline today a variety of different issues that I have around the legislation and the limitations that the legislation puts in place that restrict the opportunity to access information, which I think is critical to young people making decisions around how to interpret the test results that will be provided to them. I also have other concerns around how this model will operate in terms of information which is not being provided publicly, whether it is around the staff and their training and qualifications or whether it is around how we link into an emergency drug reporting or alert system or when we look at other challenges that we have seen in jurisdictions in Australia in regard to access to insurance cover, which can pull apart the opportunity to run and operate pill testing very quickly. I have other concerns around the planning permits not required for the fixed testing site. There are issues around fit and proper person tests.

These are basic things that we see in other pieces of legislation which have not been applied fully in this legislation. We have not got details around key elements of how the sites will operate, particularly the mobile sites, knowing that we are restricted in the type of analyser that can be utilised in a mobile site. There are questions from the AOD sector, the alcohol and other drugs sector, as to what the limitations are of that testing and whether it will in fact be sensitive or specific enough to be able to identify some of the up-and-coming dangerous drugs that we are concerned might become present in the community of Victoria. We also have concerns around other aspects, including how we can do better to look at some of those other risks that are inherent for summer music festivals. I will share my experiences of music festivals in my own electorate – the Pitch festival, for example, earlier this year ‍– and reflect upon Hardmission. It is a story that was shared many, many times through the media earlier this year and was the trigger for the government to put this policy in place.

Of course I would also like to touch on naloxone. There are two provisions or two main focuses of this legislation. One part is establishing a pill-testing service in the state of Victoria. The other is around naloxone, expanding availability of naloxone and of course making naloxone available through vending machines at 20 sites, apparently, across Victoria. I will start off on naloxone, because I think that that is a story which really starts off in Victoria with the former Minister for Mental Health, Mary Wooldridge, who was in the Liberal–Nationals government. Mary really led the way when it came to looking at ways we can implement harm reduction strategies by looking at opportunities to access drugs that can reverse the impact of opioids or to expand treatment and rehabilitation options.

Mary really only got some of the way through the reforms that she was establishing. The recommissioning was dismantled by Labor when they came into government, but it was certainly – and this is what I hear from the AOD sector – making great strides towards a mental health system in particular but also an AOD support system that was more responsive to the needs of Victorians in the place that they needed it and when they needed it. That is so essential when it comes to AOD treatment and support and also mental health support.

Mary did an incredible job in that she actually launched the first availability of Narcan, which is a brand name, or naloxone to be made available to drug addicts and their families and carers by prescription. This was a huge step forward at the time in that naloxone, which reverses the impact of heroin, was something that would be made more widely available not just to medical professionals but also through prescription so you could have something handy on your person at home or wherever those drugs were being utilised so that if somebody did accidentally overdose, somebody near to them would be able to administer Narcan, which is naloxone, to reverse the effect of heroin and other synthetic opioids such as codeine, methadone, morphine and fentanyl. It is used by paramedics now and it was then, but this is something that would take it out of that medical setting. That was back in 2013.

In 2014, a year later, there was a commitment by Victorian mental health minister Mary Wooldridge, a Liberal Party member, that there would be a trial of syringe vending machines of naloxone. That was in 2014, and yet here we are 10 years later – many overdoses later, many fatal overdoses later, after many lives lost to heroin and other opioid overdoses – rolling out the legislation today. It is of course positive that 10 years on from that commitment by the Liberal–Nationals we are seeing the rollout of naloxone in vending machines. It is something that is well overdue, but we do need to make sure that it is done in a way that can deliver support to most Victorians.

We asked during the bill briefing where the 20 units would be located, and unfortunately we were not able to learn that information. One of the concerns of the AOD sector and also of my colleagues – particularly my Nationals colleagues in regional Victoria and the Liberal member for South-West Coast, my neighbour to the south, as she is – is that there are not going to be any vending machines available within hundreds of kilometres of our people. To say that there are not heroin issues or opioid-related issues in our community is both naive and wrong. It is incorrect. I do encourage the government to ensure that rural and regional Victoria does not miss out when it comes to access to drug and alcohol support, because, sadly, time and time again we do see our regions miss out. We see our regions miss out when it comes to residential rehabilitation. The member for South-West Coast and I have been working for a very long time to secure funding. For seven years we have been fighting for funding for the Lookout. There are no public drug and alcohol rehab beds available in the south-west of Victoria. The Lookout is a fabulous model. It incorporates a focus on the Indigenous community. Everything the community have done and the Lookout committee have done to establish this model is excellent. It deserves funding. The people of south-west Victoria deserve access to local support.

I also mention the member for Mildura, who is seated behind me. She has been a fierce advocate, as was her predecessor Peter Crisp, the former member for Mildura. Both of them tirelessly worked to try and establish a residential rehabilitation service for the Mildura community. In the north-west of the state there is no access to public residential rehab beds. This is a disgrace. We need to make sure that all Victorians can access residential rehab. If they want treatment, they should be able to access it. At the moment the waitlist for residential rehab is just growing in Victoria; in fact it has doubled over the past three years. There are 5000 Victorians on the waitlist for residential rehab, and yet we do not see any investment in those services. This must change to save Victorian lives.

In regard to my concerns with the legislation specifically, new section 20AA(5)(b) states that general drug-checking workers are not authorised:

to provide a drug-checking service other than the service of providing harm reduction information.

In the legislation we actually see a definition of ‘harm reduction information’. This is very positively affirmed on the substance that has been detected within the pills or the drugs that have been provided for testing. I note it is not just pills, it is also other substances. It can be in other forms. And I note that it is (a) information about the composition of a substance, including information about the presence of poisons, controlled substances and other drugs of dependence in it or (b) information about the use of that substance, considering its composition. And then thirdly, it is around information and advice about access to health services, welfare services and similar assistance.

I am deeply concerned that when you look at the parts of that legislation, in that a general drug-checking worker cannot speak – there is a legislated ban on speaking about anything aside from that ‍– it means that automatically you cannot talk about what is not within those drugs that have been provided for testing. It means that by law the general drug-checking worker cannot share limitations about the testing. As I said, the government could not share with us the analysers that will be put in place. They could not share the sensitivity or the specificity of the testing. They could not share whether it will be National Association of Testing Authorities accredited or not, whether it would be a known category S lab – a specialised lab – in accordance with the national pathology standards. That information is not available. We also therefore have a limitation that general drug-checking workers cannot share key information that is in this legislation which is that civil legal liabilities have been waived. If someone makes a mistake and gives somebody the wrong results, which can happen, there is actually no civil action that that person can take if there is an overdose, if there is a wrong result or if there is a fatality. It is something that I believe needs to be changed in legislation to include discussion around what the limitations are of testing but also around legal liabilities being waived. I think that that is essential in terms of informed decision-making and, particularly around harm reduction, in informing people what is in a substance but most importantly what is not detected because your analyser is not sensitive enough to pick up that drug.

I pick up on that because it is an area of concern that the alcohol and other drug sector has in particular that the quality of analyser that is being put in place in the mobile sites is not sensitive enough to pick up some of the highly potent new drugs that are entering into the Victorian drug system. The one that is most topical is around nitazenes. Nitazenes are a hundred times more potent than heroin, and so it is a very, very, very tiny amount that needs to be present in a drug in order to perhaps be at a potency and at a strength which is fatal to some Victorians. This promise and this commitment that we are testing drugs to pick up dangerous drugs is one thing, but if you are putting in place analysers that do not have the sensitivity to pick up those highly potent drugs at tiny, tiny levels of detection, that is a big problem, particularly when you couple it to the issue that I raised before – that the general drug-checking workers cannot share that information about what is not detected in the drugs that that have been submitted for testing. It is something that must be addressed.

We know that this is an issue in Victoria. Recently, in June, we saw the horrible fatalities of four Victorians in Broadmeadows – a 17-year-old and three adults. They thought that they were using cocaine is what is understood. It had nitazenes in it, and nitazenes are so, so potent. It is likely these people died within between 30 seconds and 2 minutes of taking the drug. There is no time to call an ambulance. There is no time to do anything. It is horrific. If we are looking at what the Premier has said and the minister has said in their public media statements about reducing the harms of some of these newer drugs, then we need to make sure we have got a testing protocol but also analysers in place that can actually do what you are promising to deliver.

There are other concerns I have around linkages within the legislation to mandatory obligations for an early drug warning system. Again, this is an issue that has been raised over and over by the alcohol and other drugs sector – that it is taking too long to notify the Victorian community when tainted drugs or dangerous drugs are identified. There are two examples of that. One is the example I have just mentioned, the Broadmeadows nitazene-tainted cocaine that resulted in four horrific fatalities of Victorians. We look at the time frames around that. These four people, their bodies were discovered on Tuesday 25 June. It was not until Monday 1 July that Victorians were issued with a drug alert. That is six days of an extraordinarily dangerous substance being in the Victorian population when Victorians were not given any information even though the government had that information. That must be put in place.

If we are serious about harm reduction and informing the community and saving Victorian lives, which is the constant line that is rolled out, then surely an early warning system should be mandated through legislation when you have got a drug-testing service. It is a minimum obligation of the government when they are funding a drug-checking service to say, ‘We are also going to share these results with the community in a very short time frame’ rather than sitting on the results for a week. It is not unusual to see – I am not picking one out of the sky that had a very long turnaround time on results. If we look back at the Hardmission Festival, there were obviously a number of overdoses to arise out of that – a mass overdose event. But that was on Saturday 6 January. It was not until Friday 12 January that a drug alert was issued. It is too long. That should be mandated in the legislation. We need to make sure that any tainted drugs are widely broadcast to the community, particularly when the government are responsible for testing of that.

There is another aspect around these events that I have just referred to, particularly when you look at music festivals, and it is the inextricable link between music festivals and heat and humidity and overexertion – those physiological injuries which are leading to people being hospitalised and unfortunately to fatalities. In studies that arise out of festivals where they have had pill testing we will always see the number of drugs that were tested, the number of drugs that were not what people expected, the number of people who discarded drugs. That is fine, but let us look at the outcomes as well. Are we seeing the same level of overdose at those festivals before and after? They are mixed results. I think we see sometimes some picking and choosing of which data we look at, but there are certainly some festivals where there has not been any decline at all in overdose or hospitalisation following an event versus sometimes there is fewer. Sometimes there is more. It is not consistent. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and I think it is very dangerous for anybody. I have heard this, and I hope I do not hear it during today’s today debate. Pill testing may inform people about the choices they make about taking drugs, but it will not stop drug overdoses. It will not stop people dying from fatal overdoses either. I wish it were the case – all of us wish that that was the case – but we cannot overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to drug use in Victoria.

As I have stated, I am very concerned about the limitations that the government have put in place around dealing with particularly the pathology testing side. When you are issuing a government-issued test result in a laboratory, we need to make sure that that laboratory is appropriately accredited, that it has got a licence that puts obligations upon how testing protocols are developed, that ensures quality assurance and a quality control system. That is something that is standard practice for every other laboratory that is open in Victoria and Australia. It provides consistency. It is something that the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council has mandated to support state governments and federal governments to ensure we have a level of testing where we can rely on the results. That should be a minimum requirement as part of this legislation.

We also note that there is no fit and proper person test for special drug-checking workers, even though they are going to be handling the drugs for testing. There is no fit and proper person test for general drug-checking workers, and this is noting that some will be employees and some will be volunteers. We need to make sure that particularly people who are handling the drugs can pass the fit and proper person test. That is something that is not unusual in other pieces of legislation.

We note that no planning permit is required to develop a premises as a fixed drug-checking service. Again, we do not see any consultation with the local community, and we have seen what has happened with that with the proposed second injecting room in the former Yooralla building on the corner of Flinders Street and Degraves Street. We look at what has happened with the medically supervised injecting room in the middle of one of the highest density public housing areas in the state of Victoria, where there has been –

Michaela Settle interjected.

Emma KEALY: The modelling indicates there may have been some change. However, the outcome has not been in place; in fact it has never been evaluated. Is it appropriate to have an injecting room next door to a primary school? Is the location right? That is something that everybody would like evaluated, because maybe moving it would be a good outcome and actually provide a pathway of opportunity to stop these stories that come out time and time again of dead bodies next to a primary school. That is not an appropriate way to treat children. There is no evaluation about the site. I am happy –

Members interjecting.

Emma KEALY: That is simply modelling. The death rate has gone up, sadly, I would like to say. When there are dead bodies outside primary schools and you are having schools shut down because there are dead bodies that primary school aged children are walking past, that is inappropriate. I cannot support that as the mother of a four-year-old and an 11-year-old. I would never support that for my child, or any Victorian’s child, particularly those people who have no choice about where they send their children to school. If they live in those public housing towers, they have to send their child to the nearest public school. They do not have a choice about sending their children somewhere else. You should listen to those people you purport to represent.

There are issues around so many aspects of how Labor deal with drugs and alcohol in this state. SafeScript is nothing more than a software-flagging system. There has been no additional access to alternative pain management support. It just has not provided any support, and of course people cannot access treatment. We are still seeing horrible overdoses from people who are addicted to prescribed pain medication. The government have cut funding just this year to Reconnexion, the only benzodiazepine-specific counselling service in the state. We have persistent issues around access to forensic alcohol and other drug treatment in Frankston. The waitlist is on hold time and time again – it has been the case for years. In Frankston we have seen this transition to opioid replacement therapy from a doctor who was treating many patients and prescribing methadone and other opioid replacement treatments. There are people in that area who have not got anyone. They are wanting to seek treatment and help. Their doctor has now retired. There is not capacity in the public system to provide that support. The residential rehab waitlist continues to grow, and over the weekend we heard that the Labor government have now scrapped their intent to implement all of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System recommendations. We want to see the government get on with a hydromorphone program. We want an expansion of residential rehab. We want to see naloxone availability in rural and regional Victoria. We want to commit to the mental health royal commission recommendations.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:33): It is great to rise on what is really important legislation for Victoria: the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. It is important for a number of reasons. It shows the values of this government and the work that we have done to bring this policy to bear and to bring this forward for consideration and the leadership of our Premier Jacinta Allan, who spoke passionately about why this is so important for families and as a parent thinking of the future of her children. Indeed when we think of our kids when they go out, we hope for the best, but we cannot control all elements that will confront them in life, including the impact of recreational drugs or illicit drugs. This policy that has been delivered to this Parliament builds on the work that we are doing as part of the state action plan – the $95 million that is being invested, which I will come to very soon.

I sat here for 30 minutes listening to the shadow minister, the member for Lowan, and I was waiting and waiting to see if the member for Lowan would address the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in June of this year when he said that this would green-light drug use in our state. That was some of the more inflammatory language around this policy, which is in operation in the ACT and Queensland, and said it would give a green light to the illicit drug trade in our state. I was waiting for 30 minutes to see if there was a correction of opposition policy. You see, the shadow minister did every bit of work to try to tear down a piece of legislation on this important topic of saving lives in Victoria and dressed it up as attacking the substance of the bill, when the Leader of the Opposition is vehemently imposed and does not listen to any evidence in this space. The member for Lowan talked about listening to the experts and supporting families. Well, Professor Jennifer Schumann said recently in coverage in the Age that there is ‘no evidence from anywhere around the world, from 30 years of drug-checking services’ that pill testing gives a false sense of security. We have got a situation here where, at the bookends of the shadow minister’s speech, there were the comments about the safe injecting room, in the absence of evidence, all the way through to saying we need to rely on the evidence and support those families, but she did not address some of the damaging comments and sensationalism that the Leader of the Opposition put forward in his comments in June. It just goes to show that you cannot trust the opposition in any part of their shadow policy.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask you to draw the member back to debating the bill that is before the house and not using this time to attack the opposition.

Tim RICHARDSON: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a point of debate. I know it is really awkward that the shadow cabinet has no idea of how they present on this bill, and that comment has not been judged.

A member interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: It is not ridiculous at all.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will make a ruling. There is no point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: That is exactly right. I know it is awkward, from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in the absence of any evidence on this topic. We did not hear any contribution or anything addressed. I know that is really sensitive, because being at opposite ends, I can only imagine what the shadow cabinet would have been like, and the member for Lowan has put her views forward in the absence of any evidence from the Leader of the Opposition in presenting on this bill. We have had the courage, in the face of such horrific sensationalism, in the face of more than 547 lives lost to overdose in Victoria in 2023, to come forward and say, ‘We need to find a different way. We need to listen to the experts, and we need to support people who might make one choice that can destroy their lives and have an intergenerational ripple impact on their loved ones in the future with an overdose that sees a loss of life.’ The member for South-West Coast might run a little bit of commentary on that. Hopefully she will stand up and address whether she stands by the Leader of the Opposition’s point that this is a green light to the illicit drug trade. Is that the position that the shadow cabinet has in this space – dressing up their position on the bill or attacking the bill and all of its elements, when this is a trial and being run out in its –

James Newbury interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: At least the member for Brighton unlocks that, which is at direct odds with the member for Lowan. The Manager of Opposition Business just said, while sitting in his place, that this is a green light to the illicit drug trade. When we listened to the member for Lowan, she demanded an evidence-based approach. I am seeing just in this spectrum on the bill the absolute chaos that forms shadow cabinet policy. That is why we in the Allan Labor government listen to the experts. We have gone and consulted and engaged with the community to make sure that we save lives. It is not about posturing on politics to see what angle would best be suited; it is about supporting –

James Newbury interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Brighton says it is about principle. If only principles saved people who have overdoses when they take illicit drugs. If only the member for Brighton and his principles were standing at the festivals saving people at those times. This is the absolute straw person antics of those opposite. It is all about a quick grab and not about the policy. Thank goodness we have a minister like Minister Stitt in the other place.

Emma Kealy interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Lowan can detract from the member for Brighton’s comments and scream and yell at me about this. We gave the member for Lowan the courtesy in her contribution making some points around an evidence-based approach and engagement. The member for Lowan has had the opportunity. I know it hurts that there is such division and impact here.

This is why Victorians do not trust the opposition on this and why they back the Premier and the Minister for Mental Health in rolling out this really important reform, because this summer cannot wait. Once again when we front up to music festivals in six to seven weeks time waiting for a few questions about how the trial runs out, we cannot wait for more people to lose their lives and we cannot wait for more posturing on politics, for an absolute symptom of a solution based on the member for Brighton’s principles on any given day. I mean, I tell you, he is a nightmare to some people. This would be a nightmare in policy. This would be an absolute nightmare in policy if it were implemented. No, we listen to the experts, and we have got a yardstick for how this works in ACT, in Queensland and in international references. Thankfully the Premier and the Minister for Mental Health had the courage and the guts to come forward and make sure this was the decision.

When you listen to the family members who have been impacted – those with lived and living experience of the loss and trauma of losing someone to overdose – if only there had been that drug information, if only there had been that support, if only people had been empowered with the knowledge of what they were confronting, then that might have diverted them away. Every bit of evidence shows that. Most people are then informed, and they might not go on to take the substances. I go back to Professor Schumann’s point that absolutely destroys the member for Brighton’s contention: not across the world in 30 years of empirical evidence is there any sense of encouraging drug use in the evidence. But that does not matter to those opposite.

Beyond that very important point, you are saving and supporting fellow Victorians who might take a substance just at the youngest age of being able to legally attend festivals and then end up overdosing and ending their life. What are we talking about here? We are talking about positive policies, and we go across then to others that have shared their experiences. Those opposite are not fronting up to overdoses like our dedicated paramedics, who have told us time and time again, ‘Don’t sit on your hands, legislators, do something. We front up each and every day and have to bring people back. We have seen the benefits of safe injecting rooms. We see the tragedy. We see the trauma.’ Then VicPol has to front up to someone’s house and say, ‘You’ve lost a loved one.’ They were only thinking that they were going to a music festival to have fun. They have taken something and they have lost their life. If we can do anything to lower that risk and lower that harm, I go back to the fundamental point from the Premier sitting at the table and then talking about what she would think about for her children.

We hope that children and our kids in the future will not use illicit drugs, but just in last 12 months 1 ‍million people have taken cocaine. That is the reality that we are confronting, and one in six Australians has taken illicit drugs. The member for Brighton and others would go, ‘Let’s just wait for a utopia,’ or do we have a health-led response that acknowledges the difficulties in this circumstance and provides the health offering, like we will see with the state action plan, the most ambitious investment in alcohol and other drug reforms – $95 million invested by this government – that will save lives. Thankfully, Victorians who know their kids are going to music festivals this summer know that their kids, if they take illicit drugs, will be safer with the option of pill testing. That is what the evidence shows, and that is what Victorians expect – leadership in this space.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:43): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. This is a very important bill because there is a big change taking place in Victoria. The thing is, when you want to do something, you should always do it well, and when it involves pharmacology, you should do it absolutely to the letter. You cannot afford to make a mistake when it comes to drug administration.

We know there are children and young adults going to festivals, we know they are taking drugs and we know that families and parents are very, very concerned, and rightfully so. As a mother of 21- to 30-something-year-olds, I absolutely understand the environment that they are talking about, and I know that is what the children are doing. So you would be Blind Freddy if you did not understand that was happening; however, our job here as legislators is to make sure we do things right. We had the bill briefing just last Thursday at 4 o’clock. Now it is Tuesday at 4 o’clock almost, and we were not given the amount of information that I think I needed to be able to understand what we are actually implementing here through this bill and through this legislation.

In fact during the bill briefing, which was restricted to a half-hour, only 15 minutes was given to answering questions. The first 15 minutes was given to government spin, just repeating what was in the documents that we had available to us to read ourselves, so it was a complete waste of time. I ask: why was the government frightened of actually giving us information? What is there to hide? Surely, particularly for this, where you want to make sure you are getting it right, everything needs to be on the table so we can understand it. I could not get information on how the process will look and who will be getting – not who will be getting contracts; I understand commercial-in-confidence information ‍– more availability of resources as technology changes so we can be confident that the analysing machines will be able to detect the new substances as they are developed. In fact quite a lot of information was not able to be got. We submitted a raft of questions, and I can go through some of those questions. But they promised those questions would be answered before we were speaking on the bill, and to this minute I have not received the answers. I was at a family funeral gathering, and I stepped out for the bill briefing and came back in. I was talking to an intensivist – someone who works in accident and emergency – about the importance of getting this right, and to a question she asked me I said, ‘We actually asked that question, but the government couldn’t give us the answer.’ It is just really concerning.

We have got drugs that are coming in like nitazenes. New drugs are being developed – synthetic opioids – that are causing absolute grief. It appears these will not be able to be identified in the analysis that is done on these drugs, so when you go to the pill-testing authorities at a festival they will not be able to test for a raft of things that you need to know about. What a false sense of security that would give a young person who knows nothing about drug taking when they hand over their drug and they are told it has got certain things in it. But they cannot tell them what it has not got in it, so the testing advice will leave the person who is trying to feel confident by doing the right thing, they are thinking, by getting it tested without all the information that they need. Firstly, under the legislation the testers and the workers will not be able to speak about anything aside from what is in the legislation, so they cannot share the limitations of the testing. They cannot tell the person, ‘The testing’s actually limited, so don’t be that confident in what we’re telling you.’ The legislation prevents the workers from even saying, ‘We won’t be able to guarantee that if something happens you can legally or civilly do anything about it. We’ve taken away your rights to be able to do anything.’ What is the reason for that? Are the government not confident in the program themselves so they are frightened about that?

It is a most concerning piece of legislation. It is not good to just do something. It has got to be something that is going to be effective, and I cannot see how this is going to be effective; in fact I think it could be more dangerous. There was no understanding of how you could identify the client. If you gave someone some pill-testing advice and there was a readout of the chemicals that they thought were in them and then that person goes off and sells those drugs with that chemical analysis and someone dies, what are the legalities around that? What happens to someone who uses this as a dealer? I am pretty sure they are not honest people, and this might be an opportunity for them to peddle something that is very dangerous if they swap in what they actually want to sell and use the information that is given through the chemical analysis readout. This is a very, very concerning piece of legislation, and it is identified to me as concerning because the information has been so difficult to obtain. In fact we have not even got it.

The other part of this bill is the rollout of naloxone in vending machines. This was an idea that was 10 ‍years ago put forward by Mary Wooldridge, the Minister for Mental Health in the 2010 to 2014 period of the Napthine–Baillieu governments. Ten years on, if this was a government that was serious about change, we would see these out in the community already, so only seeing 20 of them for the whole state makes me wonder how many will be available in South-West Coast. Narcan is a trade name; naloxone is the generic name. It is a significantly effective drug when it comes to reversing heroin overdoses, for example. So having it available is not a problem, but why 10 years? I mean, that does not tell me this is a government that is really serious about putting a dent in the problems we have with alcohol and drugs and problems we have with substance abuse. In fact if this government were serious, we would not be seeing 5000 people sitting on a residential rehab waiting list. We would see a government that was getting on with building, for example, a residential rehab facility in South-West Coast. An extraordinary need exists in South-West Coast, which was identified seven years ago. In fact it is longer – it was nearly nine years ago, actually. It was in 2015 that that was discussed, when I was first elected to this Parliament.

The community have worked to jump through every single hoop that the government could possibly think of to put in front of them to make sure that this facility was meeting every requirement. They have done that. They have had committees that have been down to make representations to the Department of Health and ticked every single box there could possibly be to be ticked, and yet the government continues to make excuses as to why it cannot be delivered. There is nothing wrong with building that residential rehab right now. The only thing getting in the way is the government. The money is needed immediately to do that. It is a $40 million build. Considering the waste of this Labor government on project after project, this is a significant amount of money that is important for us in South-West Coast but a very small amount in view of the $40 billion collective waste that this government is responsible for. That puts in perspective to me that the government does not really care.

This bill is a look-good, feel-good one, but there is no substance to it. So it is worrying me as a parent and as a nurse. I begged and begged for places for individuals who I had been nursing and case managing who needed rehabilitation beds to get back their lives from substance abuse. I have actually been in the position of begging, and I have had mums and families beg me to help them get support for their families. When you have actually worked in that environment and become close with a family and wanted to help them get through their journey and you have not been able to get any support because there just is not a bed available, you really do know just how important it is. When you see a budget which was $36 million – I have upped it to $40 million because we all know that building costs have gone up – you see a government that really is callous and does not care, because we should have had that rehabilitation centre in South-West Coast so families could rehabilitate at home. We should have had that years ago, and we should not keep getting told as a community that the government has found another hoop we have got to jump through, getting the community’s hopes up that, once they have ticked that, at the next budget that is going to be announced. Yet here we are, the only community in the whole of the state of Victoria that is still awaiting an announcement. Get on with it, government. The money needs to be delivered. The beds are desperately needed. Having 5000 on a waiting list of people needing support for drug and alcohol rehabilitation is absolutely out of control. The government has a huge responsibility to deal with that.

I have major concerns with this bill. I do not believe the government care like they purport to do, because if they did, we would see the drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre delivered already in South-West Coast.

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (15:53): I am really pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill ‍2024. I say so because rarely a day passes by in my role when I am not asked to step into someone else’s shoes and when we do not find ourselves sitting down and hearing someone’s story, being asked to share their perspective on the world and sometimes briefly to shoulder their burden. We are also asked in these roles almost constantly to empathise with experiences that we do not sometimes fully understand – to comprehend circumstances that often look or sound nothing like our own. Indeed, Acting Speaker, I would put it to you that that is the privilege of the job that we do every single day – these glimmers of life that make us better, more understanding leaders of our community, interactions that round us into more caring and compassionate people. They also remind us of why we are here in the first place. We are here to understand, to empathise and ultimately to act.

But occasionally you have an interaction, one of those interactions that you just cannot shake. Sometimes you walk into a room and without warning a new perspective is thrust upon you. You sometimes hear a story that is so powerful and sometimes so painful that it does sit you back in your seat and you share a moment so private and privileged that it lingers with you for days and weeks. Sometimes you step into shoes so heavy they weigh down on your own convictions and they have the power to rewrite your perspective. This is where I want to be up-front in my contribution to the debate in the house this afternoon on this bill: my views on this issue have changed over a period of time. If you had asked me quite a few years ago, I would have told you that I was not convinced about pill testing. But when I became a parent and as my kids became a little bit older my perspective shifted.

What really convinced me was meeting Victorian parents of children who have been deeply and personally impacted by this issue – regular, loving, caring everyday parents who have come in and sat with me and told me about the realities of what their kids are up against and that we know many Victorian young people are also up against. They also told me honestly about the worry they feel every time their son or daughter heads off to a festival or when they leave the house on a Saturday night for a party or to go to a club. They also shared some really deeply personal and confronting stories of kids who took risks, who overdosed, who ended up in hospital or worse.

One of these mums told me something so simple and so obvious that I could not forget her words. She said young people are smart; they just want information. If they are handed a pill at a music festival, they want a professional there who can tell them exactly what it is and exactly what it does, without shame or stigma. And if young people are reaching out and asking for information about their health and safety, she said to me, and we have the power to give it to them, then why on earth wouldn’t we? Drug use is complex but pill testing is not. I know that this is a debate that can at times be clouded by controversy and stigma, but this bill that we are debating here in the house this afternoon should not be controversial at all. Parents just want their young people to be safe; so do I. As a mum my one and only responsibility is to protect my kids. But as Premier of this state it is my job to keep every Victorian child safe.

Every parent wants to believe that their child is the exception, that they would never put themselves at risk, that they would never make a silly or a regretful decision and that when it comes to something like drugs they will always make the right choices. Ask any parent and they will tell you exactly the same thing: we all want to believe that the worst would never happen to our child. While we so badly want that to be true, we know it is not, and there are some families in our community today who are living every family’s worst nightmare. Many of us in this house are parents, and while we would rather not imagine it, it is likely that some of our children, maybe many of our children, will at some point in their lives face that choice. It is likely that as parents what we can say to our kids will only carry so much weight. We will not be there standing over their shoulders. We will not be there to step them through the risks and the dangers, and we will not ever get to make that choice for them. It is why as a parent I want to know that when our kids – everyone’s kids – are put in that situation, they will have all the tools and information that they need to keep them safe.

I challenge any member of this house to sit with parents like I have or to listen to Victorians who have lost a child to an overdose. I ask you to share and consider and shoulder their burden, to hear their worries and just try for a moment to stand in their shoes. I ask every member here today to confront their own preconceptions and to listen to those families and what they are telling us. Young people are smart and they want information; remember that. If a tool is there to keep them healthy, to keep them safe and keep them alive, then who are we to stand in the way of it? My preconceptions have been confronted and challenged, and that is why I am supporting the bill before the house today.

If I can share one final heartbreaking statistic, in the first three months of this year paramedics responded to more overdoses at festivals than for the entirety of 2023, more in just the first three months of this year than for the entire 12 months of 2023. As you can imagine, this was a statistic that was accompanied by a lot of headlines and even more outrage, because we know fear makes news, but it does not solve those real problems that we are up against. But there is a quiet majority of sensible, compassionate parents out there who are not interested in fear. They want leaders to get their heads out of the sand and do the right thing, and that is certainly what parents have said to me. That is why this bill, which supports pill testing, is about saving lives. It is about keeping kids safe. But also, importantly, it is about having honest, open and health-focused conversations, and it is based on evidence that exists already around the world, evidence that tells us and guides us around what works.

I want to be clear in supporting this bill today and supporting the great work of the Minister for Mental Health, who has brought this bill to the Parliament today: pill testing most certainly does not make pills legal. What this bill is focused on is keeping our kids safe, nothing more, nothing less; not making pills legal but keeping our kids safe is what this bill is focused on. I feel very strongly that this is something that no member in this place should feel the need to stand in the way of. It is not making pills legal; it is about keeping our kids safe and arming them with that honest, open health-focused information. Again, the evidence internationally can guide us on this matter. Evidence absolutely can guide us on this matter, but so too can the powerful voices of those parents and families who have had their own lived experience and who have had some incredibly tragic circumstances around their own lived experience and are imploring us to act. That is why this bill is before the Parliament this afternoon, and I hope that it can receive the support of this house and the Parliament as a whole as we continue to work incredibly hard to keep young people safe, to provide them with health-focused information and to support them every day. I commend the bill to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:02): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I am glad to follow the Premier and her contribution and do intend to make a few brief comments. The Premier is not known to stand for many things, but one thing this Premier will be known for is giving a green light to illicit drugs. That is what this Premier will be known for. This Parliament is a make-up of community leaders, and our role is to set standards, rules and laws for the community. The Premier just spoke about this bill because, in her words, she is seeking to make people safe. This bill allows any person of any age – a child – access to a government service that green-lights their drug use. That is what this bill does. This bill allows a child to walk into a government facility – there is no age limit on this service – and have their drug green-lit. Shame on the government. This bill is about a breach in a basic fundamental principle, and this Parliament and we in this place should say no to illicit drugs. This Premier, who is known for little, is saying yes to illicit drugs.

Victorians can see it. They absolutely can see it. There is a reason why there has been a total collapse in the support of the current Labor government; there is a reason. It has not just happened by chance. A third of the government’s vote has collapsed, a third of the government’s vote, and that is because this government does not stand for principle. Shame on this government for allowing a bill into this place that allows children access to government services that green-light drug use. That is what this bill does. There are absolutely no age limits on use of these government services. Let me tell you, the coalition put a raft of questions to the government, serious important questions like, for example, details around what drugs can be measured. That is not an unreasonable question. What sensitivity will there be in the testing? The government was not able to answer it. Not only did they not answer it but they have not been able to answer it. Not a single speaker in this chamber on the government’s side has stood up and provided detail around those issues, not a single speaker, and there will not be. There will not be a speaker who stands up and says, ‘What can be tested? How sensitive is the testing?’ because the government do not know, and they refuse to answer.

The Premier spoke about keeping the community safe. The government will not provide any estimate of the impact of this policy, but common sense would tell you this will not even touch the surface in terms of drug use; this will not touch the surface. Not only is the policy wrong but it is poorly implemented – only Labor could do that. It should be noted that we know that soon after the Premier took the role – following the former Premier, who stood strongly against pill testing – we saw multiple briefings where the new Premier was anonymously quoted as supporting pill testing and, by the way, open to cannabis reform – same briefings. Premier Allan is open to pill testing and open to cannabis reform, so what is next? What is next? This bill is shameful, and what it is is craven populism. That is what this bill is about. The Premier who stands for nothing has picked to stand for something because she thinks it wins her a vote. That is what this bill is about.

The basic questions around the operation of this program cannot and will not be answered by any speaker from the government side in this place: the sensitivity of the testing, the types of drugs, any age limit access to these facilities. Can a 12-year-old walk in and have access to it? Can a 13-year-old? No government member will stand up and say, because the bill allows for it. The bill allows children access to these government services. And then when you use this service, you waive your civil rights. Government members have not spoken about that one either. You immediately waive your civil rights. You waive your legal rights. Why? Because we know that testing will not properly and carefully assess for every dangerous substance, so it will not keep people safe. We know it will not keep people safe.

We also know that workers who work in this program cannot talk about limitations of the testing. It is specifically ruled out of the bill. The workers who provide these services have been given specific, set guidance on what they can talk about, but limitations are not one of them, so you cannot say to someone, ‘We can’t test for everything, but we are going to take away your civil rights’. This is the detail of the bill.

This bill on principle is wrong. It is wrong. It is a green light to illicit drugs. We know that the Premier is open to cannabis reform. That will be the next one. When the Premier chose to stand for this issue ‍– the Premier who does not stand for things – the Premier made the wrong choice. As a community leader she made a wrong choice in saying, ‘I approve as Premier children having access to drugs.’ We must always in this place stand up for what is right, and saying to children, ‘Use drugs when we test them’ is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is wrong in principle. Victorians will see and have seen through this Premier. They know and are seeing through this Premier, which is why there has been a wholesale collapse in support for the Premier – a wholesale collapse. There is no question about that. The 49th Premier is the Premier who has chosen to say, ‘I choose as Premier to green-light illicit drugs.’ Now it is through pill testing, but we know what is next, because the Premier ensured that it was reported. Pill testing first, cannabis reform next. It is shameful, and Labor should stand condemned for this outrageous bill being put to the Parliament.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (16:12): That is the most gutless response to this policy and this legislation that we have seen in a very long time. Victorians take drugs. That is an undeniable reality, and we cannot just police it away. Every day, every night in every single suburb Victorians are taking illicit drugs and they are rolling the dice on substances that they do not and cannot truly trust. They are taking that deathly risk, and they will continue to take that deathly risk. That is the reality. No amount of moralising to young people or heavy-handed policing is going to change that reality. What we can do is work to mitigate the risk that illicit drugs pose to people’s lives, and we can do that by prioritising the health and safety of Victorians. We can and should rightly prioritise the health and safety of Victorians over any other metric, because frankly lives should be the most important metric of all. Everyone in this chamber will either be or know someone who has taken illicit drugs. They will either be or know someone who has had a concerning or unexpected reaction to those drugs. If they are lucky, they will not be or know someone who has had a serious or life-threatening reaction to those drugs, but that is only if they are lucky.

This bill, the Victorian government’s Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, represents a progressive step forward in our evidence-based approach to drug harm minimisation. It is not about legalising illicit pills and substances. That is the warped narrative of those opposite. Pill testing is a health-led response. It is a prevention response to a real-life health risk. It is an approach that seeks to reduce the negative consequences of drug use – drug use which, like it or not, has caused far too many overdoses and far too many deaths. Every single one of those deaths was preventable – preventable by not taking those drugs in the first place. In that critical moment of decision, that life-or-death moment, that contemplation and that weighing up of risk which people go through when they think about taking a pill – in that moment when they have the pill in their hand, when they are thinking, ‘Should I or shouldn’t I’ or ‘I may as well’ – how could we not want Victorians and especially young Victorians to have every bit of information at their disposal to potentially prevent them from taking that pill?

This bill will go to the heart of the issue, supporting the establishment of mobile and fixed-site drug-checking services in Victoria, including at music festivals. It will also progress the government’s commitment to introduce secure naloxone vending machines in areas of need, a life-saving treatment to rapidly reverse opioid overdose. This bill gives people the opportunity to have substances tested for dangerous additives, high doses or unexpected compounds and, importantly, to receive crucial education from trained peer workers and technical experts about the risks involved.

This vital conversation could be the first time a person speaks with a health worker about using drugs. It could be the first time they truly get an understanding of the risks. These are life-changing conversations, life-saving conversations. The information could be about the effects of different dosages, how substances interact with each other, the importance of sleep and hydration and the impact of hot weather, all of which can vary significantly, particularly at music festivals. This is about harm minimisation; it is not about harm elimination, because we are not so naive as to think that we can convince every Victorian never to experiment with illicit drugs. But it is about establishing an additional safety mechanism to prevent drug harms in the community. In so many aspects of our lives there are elements of risk. To reduce these risks we implement legislation that increases safety. This is no different. This is a practical response to the undeniable reality that Victorians use drugs. It does not make it completely safe, but it empowers people with information and resources they need to make safer and more informed choices.

Earlier this year nine people were hospitalised after taking drugs at a music festival, and Victorian paramedics responded to more drug overdoses at festivals in the first three months of 2024 than during all of 2023. The criminalisation and messaging of ‘Just don’t take drugs’ is not working; it is not enough. Alarmingly, the drugs are more potent and more complex than ever before. In the past 10 ‍years over 1100 new drugs have been identified, and we are witnessing the potency of synthetics increasing dramatically. In Victoria in 2023, 547 people tragically lost their lives to overdose, and 42 of those deaths involved new psychoactive substances.

Recently I joined the parliamentary friends of harm minimisation at an information session in Parliament on the synthetic opioid crisis. It was frightening to see the trends occurring overseas and how they are showing up here in Australia, where drugs are contaminated with traces of fentanyl or the newcomer, nitazenes. Nitazenes were developed by researchers around 60 years ago as an alternative to morphine but because of their high potential for overdose were never released. However, over recent years they have shown up in the illicit drug market. They have been found in tablets which were meant to be oxycodone, in heroin, ketamine and cocaine. This drug, which is showing up in Australia, is stronger than fentanyl and hundreds of times more potent than heroin. These drugs do not come with labels. They do not come with warnings. There are no ingredients lists. The potential for these substances to be deadly is extremely high, with as little as 2 milligrams enough to cause death. The message from researchers and advocates is that we cannot sit on our hands. We must be ready for new and more complex drugs entering the illicit market, and we must be agile enough to respond.

Pill testing can help detect new potential substances and provide timely, valid data about illicit drug markets. This is particularly useful for emergency services and can be used to provide early warning systems, helping protect the whole community and strengthening Victoria’s drug surveillance efforts. It should be organised crime that pays the price for circulating these substances, not the people who are using drugs, and drug-checking services can help us achieve this.

This bill can and will save lives. It is backed by experts locally and abroad. Since 2021 four Victorian coroners have recommended the government implement a drug-checking service for illicit drugs. Drug checking is overwhelmingly supported by the health sector, including the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association and the Penington Institute. In the words of Dr Anita Muñoz, chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners of Victoria:

This is a victory for common sense and sound policy over tired rhetoric and a ‘war-on-drugs’ mentality that gets us nowhere.

…

The Government has not only listened to the College, and a host of other groups, but acted decisively to introduce mobile and fixed sites. It’s such a fantastic outcome. Drug testing is not about condoning illicit drug use, rather it’s a sensible harm reduction measure.

Thank you, Dr Muñoz. I completely agree. The Allan Labor government is listening to the evidence. We are listening to the experts and we are acting because there is no time to wait. Those opposite are arguing that pill testing gives the false impression that it is safe to use drugs, but the evidence shows us a different story. Local and international experiences show that drug checking is an effective intervention that does not increase or encourage illicit drug use. It has proven its efficacy over many years around the world, with 31 programs operating globally, including in the United Kingdom, North America and New Zealand. Closer to home there are pill-testing services in the ACT and Queensland, and the outcomes in the ACT give us a good indication of what might happen here in Victoria. The ACT data shows that over two-thirds of people visiting the fixed site reported never previously accessing a healthcare worker for information or advice on drug use before, half the drugs were found to contain substances not expected by the person and 39 per cent of the services were used by young adults aged 24 and under. Approximately one in 10 samples tested resulted in that drug being discarded at the service. These are powerful outcomes.

I mentioned it briefly earlier, but I want to come back to naloxone in the short time that I have left, because we are enabling the supply of naloxone through secure automated vending machines. Naloxone is a completely safe, life-saving opioid-reversal medication, and we are committed to getting it to the people who need it. That is why we will establish 20 secure naloxone vending machines in the areas of greatest need, and we are making amendments through this bill to enable that to happen.

The evidence is there. The need is urgent, and the consequences of inaction are far too grave to ignore. As policymakers we have the responsibility to act on this and act on this now, and for that reason I commend the bill to the house and I commend everyone who has been involved in putting this bill forward.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (16:22): Today I rise to make a contribution on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. We do know that there is a significant issue with drug substance abuse and also the criminal activity of drug crime. Music festivals are a place where young people are out to have a good time and we know that they are also an environment where the opportunity to be exposed to drugs is increased, but we know that this issue goes much more broadly. Labor had a firm stance against pill testing, and as recently as February 2023 the government said that they would not be introducing a pill-testing trial and that pill testing can give people a sense that it is safe to take drugs. Yet here they are now with a completely different position with this bill before the house.

Police Association Victoria Secretary Wayne Gatt said pill testing would fly in the face of long-accepted policing principles, personal responsibility and the law. ‘Our view remains that pill testing is not the panacea to the issue,’ Mr Gatt said in a statement. The state’s powerful police union has also criticised the move and said the government needs to clearly outline how it expects police to respond to drug taking at music festivals. Police also have unanswered questions. The government has not provided sufficient information with this bill, and there are significant areas of concern and critical flaws in the drafting of this legislation.

The government has not provided significant information through the bill briefing and to the public to fully understand and evaluate the drug-checking service model. We had many questions on this side of the house at the bill briefing, and we have not received those answers. How are we expected to support a bill without the information that we require? There is no mandatory obligation to enact an early drug warning system if a tainted or dangerous drug is detected by the drug-checking service, thereby withholding health information from the community. This is contradictory to the Minister for Health’s second-reading speech, which states the drug-checking trial will provide Victorians from all parts of the community with the health information they need to reduce drug harms and save lives. The government were unable to provide details around what analysis would be used at mobile sites, the limitations of testing, test sensitivity and specifically the testing protocols, turnaround times for testing, whether mobile or fixed testing sites would be NATA accredited, or details surrounding the cost of testing or the number of tests to be completed each day.

There is concern that the analysis intended to be used for mobile testing will not be able to detect nitazenes, the emerging class of drugs of most concern to the alcohol and other drugs sector. Despite messaging around pill testing, mobile analysis will not be able to test the potency of a drug, so the result cannot be used to dose-test substances. The legislation does not mandate referral of novel, impure or other dangerous drugs to the centralised drug-testing service for confirmation or further initiate an alert when extremely dangerous drugs are detected. There is no fit and proper test for special drug-checking workers, even though they will be handling drugs for testing. New section 20AA(5) states that general drug-checking workers are not authorised to provide a drug-checking service other than the service of providing harm reduction information. The definition of ‘harm reduction information’ is extremely limited to information about drugs detected in the sample, information regarding possible consequences of using the substance, and information and advice about access to health services, welfare services and similar assistance. The legislation therefore does not allow for the general drug-checking worker to discuss the limitations of testing – for example, that a drug could be in the drug sample but below detectable limits – or allow for disclosure of vital information around the waiving of civil liabilities, as outlined in the legislation. This is a highly concerning drafting error which could impact on the ability of drug-testing clients to receive information that would affect their ability to make an informed decision around consumption of the tested substance.

A Melbourne mother whose son survived a drug overdose at the Hardmission Festival this year said she had mixed feelings about the pill-testing trial. She said her son was hospitalised and placed into an induced coma and intensive care for two days. She said no-one can determine how each individual will respond to taking drugs and if it is safe to do so. There are also additional risks when alcohol is mixed into the equation, as we know. In January two women were hospitalised after suspected drug use at the Juicy festival, where heat was found to have also played a role in the impact. Not everyone is affected in the same way. What if there are other medications being taken? What measures are in place? There are many unanswered questions and alarming flaws in this bill. This will now be the sixth proposal for pill testing to be introduced to the Victorian Parliament since 2016, and they still do not have it right. New section 22CD, which provides exemptions for clients from supply and possession offences, does not limit police officers’ authority to exercise discretion in not charging a person in the vicinity of a drug-checking place in order to use the service.

There is no such thing as safe drug use and pill testing, and this bill fails to address the real dangers of relying on pill testing when tackling drug consumption. This is because onsite testing has significant limitations. It cannot measure drug potency, predict individual reactions or account for dangerous interactions with alcohol and other substances. Education does remain paramount in addressing drug-related harm, with the biggest risks being overdosing and mixing drugs and alcohol, as well as overheating. The government should be focusing on evidence-based strategies to reduce drug-related harm by investing more funding and support in drug addiction and drug and alcohol rehabilitation, in education for reducing drug harm and in mental health support. The Allan Labor government has failed to implement other effective harm reduction strategies. There is currently no drug early warning system available. Opioid replacement programs have been wound back as the government has failed to recruit doctors to prescribe the methadone opioid replacement therapy.

The form of pill testing that the Allan Labor government is proposing and seeking to legalise is not a safe or reliable way to manage drug taking. It is a trial that fails to address the real dangers of drug consumption. You only have to look at this government’s failed handling of its self-injecting clinic in North Richmond, right next door to a primary school. It has constantly been plagued with issues. But it is the most vulnerable regional Victorians in need of drug and alcohol rehabilitation who continue to be snubbed by the Allan Labor government. In the minister’s overview of the bill he says that it is the government’s aim to improve public health outcomes in Victoria related to harm caused by illicit substance use, yet the government could not answer basic questions that remain outstanding. Communities are calling out for support and for drug rehabilitation facilities, and we know the need for these types of facilities will continue to grow. Drug and alcohol addiction is devastating the lives of people, and the Allan Labor government is failing to deliver enough support, despite Labor’s mental health tax raising $1 billion annually. A recent survey undertaken by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association revealed a staggering 93 per cent surge in the number of Victorians waiting for treatment since September 2020. Alarmingly, more than 4600 people were waiting for treatment on any given day between June and July this year.

It is appalling that my community, like many other regional communities, does not have adequate drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities. The government is ignoring our calls for support. People in the community who are ready to seek treatment for drug and alcohol addiction are told that there are lengthy waiting periods and they will also have to go elsewhere to seek treatment, isolating them from their loved ones and support. Victoria’s most vulnerable residents are being left behind. Communities are feeling the impact of drug and alcohol addiction and mental health issues. Ask families who are living every single day with a family member with addiction and who are not getting the support that they desperately need. When addiction takes hold it can ruin lives, and there is not enough support to treat addiction.

I wish to also raise a community organisation called The Cottage in my community, which offers a secure residential program for men and women. It is a not-for-profit organisation. The community has funded and come together to support this centre. But, as we know, there are so many more people that need help, and this facility is only a drop in the ocean for my community. But I praise their efforts, and I praise the contribution they make. I also spoke recently to some of the participants, some of the people at The Cottage, who are suffering drug addiction, and it is interesting when they talk about the social interactions and the opportunities that they had to come into contact with drugs.

I do feel we do need to do so much more. It is irresponsible of the government to present this bill in the current form, which clearly has many issues, and for the government to not answer critical questions of concern. It should be no surprise that we oppose this bill.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:31): It is a pleasure to get up and rise on this bill today. Can I begin by acknowledging the minister, the unions that have supported this move, the department, experts and colleagues. I am the co-chair of the friends of harm reduction for Parliament, so thank you to that group. I have got to say it makes me really angry to sit here and hear such absolute tripe and rubbish coming from that side –

Kim O’Keeffe interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will answer your questions, member for Shepparton. You said there was no monitoring. Yes, there is, and I will get to that in a second. You said that there was no early warning system. Pill testing is the early warning system, and I will explain why in a second. You also missed a great chance to talk to three professors at a Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association event that was held in the last parliamentary sitting week, and I note that there were no Liberals or Nationals at that event talking to those professors. I will speak a little bit about what they said because it is clear that pill testing saves lives. I found it really interesting that the member for Shepparton quoted VAADA, because it is VAADA that say that pill testing is what saves lives, and they support it – VAADA, who you quoted just then.

Since 2021 four Victorian coroners have investigated the deaths of 10 Victorians following exposures to adulterated or high-dose drug products. They have recommended again and again that governments implement a drug-checking service for illicit drugs, including recently in March 2024. Various organisations have publicly supported drug checking for several years, including the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Public Health Association of Australia, VAADA and the Penington Institute. So you have got to ask yourself, on a subject like this: why are we listening to these absolute academic nobodies across the line talking about dealers using pill testing to check their product? You have totally missed the point.

If you had gone to the Parliamentary Friends of Harm Reduction event where these three professors from VAADA actually spoke, you would have learned that there is a massive issue globally. While you see this as just pill testing, there is a whole other story to this, and there is a wave of misery coming. They have seen it in the States, they have seen it in Europe, and it will come here. It is already coming here. We saw it in Broadmeadows only months ago when four people died. Do you know why those people died? Do you know? Because our experts are suggesting to us – there is no conclusive evidence yet – that those four people ingested cocaine and that that cocaine was cross-contaminated with something called a nitazene, and that nitazene was cross-contaminating whatever drug lab there was. Nitazenes are the new fentanyl. Australia has had a relatively small – in comparison to Europe and America – fentanyl crisis. In America fentanyl is absolutely destroying communities. The US Drug Enforcement Administration reported nearly 80,000 deaths from fentanyl in 2022, making up roughly 70 per cent of the 110,000 fatal overdoses in that year.

The focus on fentanyl in Australia is that we might have got away with not having to deal with as much of that trauma and crisis as other states and nations, but now we are looking at something called nitazenes. The member for Northcote spoke about nitazenes, so I will not talk about them, but we are at risk of an outbreak of these highly potent drugs. As the member for Northcote said, they were developed in the 1970s. They are far stronger than heroin or fentanyl. If heroin has a strength of one, to give people some context, fentanyl is at 50 – 50 times stronger than heroin – and these nitazenes can be 500 times stronger. The issue that first responders have and that friends and family have is that, while fentanyl and heroin will give you usually a 25-minute window in an OD to give Narcan, or naloxone as it is also known, with nitazenes people can be dead in 2 minutes.

It is a real issue. Why is it an issue for us? Because roughly 1 million Australians have used cocaine in the past year – that is almost 5 per cent of the population; 2 per cent, or 400,000 Australians, have used MDMA in the past year – that is 3 million or so reporting a lifetime use; and 1 million, or 5.3 per cent of Australians, report recent non-medical pharmaceutical drug use. As things like nitazenes come onto the market they are very hard to detect. We are hearing that is not like finding a pallet of cocaine somewhere, like on Border Security; this is coming through in envelopes the size of stamps. This stuff is so strong that the cross-contamination will easily kill so many people in our community, so it is about being prepared for that.

I talked about early warning drug signals and also getting the message out to the community. For the knowledge of the member for Shepparton and other people across the aisle, there are drug signals that are developed in Victoria. The old premise goes that if we cannot monitor, we cannot manage a problem. So we have residue analysis of used syringes, which is about 160 samples a week; we have the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia – Victoria, which is overdose blood toxicology through hospitals; we have the coronial findings, which is overdose blood toxicology; and we have voluntary drug samples with drug checking. In a lot of ways pill testing actually supplements that; it gives us some more information about new drugs on the market, and we are seeing a ton of new drugs coming onto the market now. But we are not saying to people, ‘Take the drug.’ We are educating them on that and we are getting data so we do not have what happened in Dublin.

There was an emergency response in Dublin quite recently – there was a nitazene overdose. On 9 ‍November 2023 the health executive in Ireland was notified of an unusually high pattern of opioid overdoses occurring in the Dublin CBD among people attending homelessness services. These reflected early signs of drug market changes and the emergence of nitazenes. There were 40 overdoses in 36 hours among people who used heroin in the Dublin CBD, so the suggestion there is that the heroin was cross-contaminated with nitazenes. Rapid responses helped to protect a lot of people, but the takeaway in Dublin was that these substances can emerge without warning and that outbreaks require urgent responses and preparedness. In Dublin they got to the point where they were putting large LED signs up saying ‘Extreme overdose warning’. We certainly do not want to get to that stage, but we know that we need to prepare and that this could happen in Australia.

We actually do have drug alerts currently. The department will issue drug alerts and they will get them out to different health providers, but I can see that not everyone can see the risks. I do not think it is about being narcissists or being idiots; I think it is about a lack of education about what is happening overseas. We heard someone before talking about naloxone and how they had failed to introduce a program like this in 2010. Well, maybe you should have introduced this program in 2010 and we would not be here now. I cannot wait for the day when people – families, friends, people who are using drugs – have naloxone in their bag or their pocket, because it is such an easy solution to save someone’s life.

I will end my contribution to this debate by saying something really simple, and that is that there is nothing – and I am sure the member for Melton will agree with me – that will stir your insides like resuscitating or ventilating a young kid who has OD’d on heroin or pills. And at the time you do not know. You might be asking family and friends, and they do not want to tell; they do not want to be part of it. But there is nothing like feeling that kid’s life ebb away as you are on a bag valve mask filling their lungs with oxygen and seeing that they are still not breathing, filling their lungs with oxygen and seeing that they are not breathing, and filling their lungs with oxygen again and seeing they are not breathing.

You know that if that person, these days, could have tested their pill or had naloxone, they would not have been in that position. You can shake your head over there, but the nonsense that I have heard from those across the aisle just speaks volumes to the fact that they still think that drugs are something on the outer edge. Drug taking is something that is mainstream. Saying no, like Ronald Reagan advised ‍– say no to drugs – and having a war on drugs is akin to telling people our age that we should not drink. It just does not work. It is stupid. A health response is what we need, and a health response is what has been put forward by professionals, by professors, who even told us in the last parliamentary sitting week, ‘This is what we need, and this is what we want,’ to help people now but to be prepared for what might happen in the future. I commend this bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:41): I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I will take on board the comments of the member for Frankston, but let us start off – and I am probably a little bit more pragmatic about these issues – by saying that drugs are a problem in our society; there is no doubt about it. Drugs have been at festivals since Woodstock back in the 1960s, and they will probably continue to be at festivals when my kids are my age. I do not encourage anybody to put something in their mouth when they do not know what it is. That is pretty sound advice.

But the reason we are opposing this bill – and I listened very carefully to the member for Frankston’s contribution – is that we had more questions to ask. When the government is putting through a bill like this, we are talking about people’s lives; it is a very, very important bill. This side of the house had a lot of questions to ask. We had a bill briefing at 4 o’clock last Thursday. We did not get a lot of answers to the questions that we had. It was put forward that we have consideration in detail, which I thought was a great idea for this particular bill because, as the member for Frankston just explained – and quite passionately – there are answers to the questions. The member for Frankston articulated it very well, so why couldn’t the minister come in and give us the consideration in detail so we could fully understand the bill? I do not think that is too much to ask. We had consideration in detail for the WorkCover bill. Minister Pearson sat in that chair. He sat there for I think it was about an hour and a half, and we got to ask him questions. It was important legislation for the government. It was very important. Minister Pearson knew it was important. He knew if he did not get these reforms through, WorkCover was in a lot of trouble. So he had consideration for the opposition to enable us to ask the questions.

When the government are trying to get a bill through that they are obviously passionate about – they obviously want to save lives; I do not think any government produces a bill not to save lives or not to do the right thing – why not give us the consideration to let us ask the questions that have not been answered. I do not think any reasonable person would say that that is not a fair thing to do. I cannot understand the minister’s reluctance to enable consideration in detail to answer the questions that we want to ask. We are talking about a piece of legislation that is going to enable testing of pills, and it is going to give –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): There is quite a lot of audible chatter in the house. Can we have some respect for the member for Narracan.

Wayne FARNHAM: Thank you, Acting Speaker, I appreciate that. This is important legislation. This is legislation where we do not want young people to think it is a free-for-all to take pills. We want this legislation to be an education tool, to say, ‘This is in this pill, don’t take it. Your side effect will be A, B, C or D.’ This is legislation where we have to be very, very careful, and this side of the house has to be convinced that the government has it 100 per cent right. It is okay for the member for Frankston to stand up there and talk about it – he has got a medical background, so does the member for Melton. They probably understand the consequences of these drugs better than I do, and I respect them for what they did in their previous professions because they would have seen horrific things. I stand to be corrected, was it 547 people that died?

Paul Edbrooke: Something like that, yes.

Wayne FARNHAM: I do not want to see 547 people die from overdoses, but I need to understand the bill. I need to understand from my point of view just how pill testing physically works. Does it test the pill? Does it tell you what is in it? Does a big red alarm go off and say, ‘Don’t take this, it will paralyse you’? I do not know how it works, and that is why the consideration-in-detail stage, I believe, is a very important aspect of this.

I am really disappointed with the minister. If this bill is so important – it is important; I am not downgrading the importance of the bill – why did we get a bill briefing at 4 o’clock on a Thursday for half an hour when there were a lot of questions to be answered? We were trying to get a bill briefing earlier in the week. I do not think it is too much to ask that this side of the house has all of the information and gets all of the questions we need answered, and that is where consideration in detail would have come in. We should have consideration in detail on this bill for a good 90 minutes, not 15 ‍minutes for asking questions. Fifteen minutes was not long enough to get the questions answered that we wanted. If the minister had enough respect for us on this side of the chamber to do consideration in detail, there may not be an opposed position to this bill.

Our shadow minister has concerns about the bill, and it is her job to look at the bill and go through those concerns. There are some concerns. For example, there is no mandatory obligation to enact an early drug warning system. This comes back to the four young adults that overdosed not that long ago at another music festival – the member for Frankston touched on that as well – and the alert did not come out for six days. I would assume if the authorities knew what was in the drug or what caused those deaths, that those alerts would come out a lot sooner, so we do not put more lives at risk. It is something I think we need to work on with the government.

Education is a big part in teaching young adults about the side effects of drugs. The member for Frankston was talking about nitazenes. I have not heard of this, but 500 times stronger than heroin is frightening. I have not heard of it as a 50-something-year-old, so how many young people have not heard of it? Why don’t we get the education process going? We have ads for skin cancer. We had ads as kids – Slip, Slop, Slap! I do not doubt the potency of this drug – that is not what I am saying – but if this drug is as dangerous as it is proposed to be, why aren’t we educating people on it? Why don’t we have a television or social media presence on this? Why don’t we warn them of the dangers of it? Why don’t we warn them with education on drugs?

Members interjecting.

Wayne FARNHAM: I am listening to the hecklers over there, but I will tell you what: I grew up with a sister who was addicted to drugs. I am sure if she had had an education, she probably would not have gone down the track she went, plus then it became generational. What I am saying is from experience: educate people. It is not a debate across the chamber, it is a fact. If this drug testing does work and if this drug testing does educate people on the dangers, great. If it saves lives, great. But give the opposition the opportunity to ask the questions so we can be clear in our heads that your legislation is 100 per cent foolproof. That is what we want. We are not asking for much. We are asking for clarity. We are asking to be educated by way of consideration in detail. I do not think that is too much to ask, and that is why we are opposing this bill today.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (16:51): I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I think those on the other side seem to have missed a very basic point about this debate. This debate is about saving lives. It is not about the opposition. I have heard endless contributions from the other side about the questions they raised and the things they want to do. This bill is about saving lives.

I was listening to the member for Narracan talk about the need for education, and one of the things that comes out of this pill-testing model is indeed that very thing. In the ACT 70 per cent of people who use pill-testing services have never previously discussed their drug use with a professional. So the drug testing and pill testing at festivals and in Melbourne will be a very real and probably for many a first-time opportunity to talk to somebody about their drug use.

We have time; we could, if we were the other side of the house, procrastinate endlessly. But I ask: how many lives will be lost in that time? We now lose more young people to drug overdose than we do to car accidents. Whilst those on the other side would like to prevaricate, I want to see action. I have got a 21-year-old son and a 23-year-old son. I know the circles they move in and I know the parties they go to, and I want to make sure that we as a government are supporting and protecting young people as much as we absolutely can.

The member for Narracan suggested that perhaps if we had given the opposition more information, they may have supported the bill. I think it really just goes to show what disarray the opposition is in. I had the misfortune of having to listen to the member for Brighton’s contribution, which seemed to take us back to the war on drugs. I think my good friend and colleague Mr Edbrooke was suggesting we had Ronald Reagan in the house and we should just say no. We have come a long way from that time, and we understand that drugs are now a prevalent thing in our community. The member for Brighton suggested that pill testing in some way would condone drugs. We do not condone drug use, but I certainly will not condemn a child to death because you want to prevaricate and posture for your base on the other side. This is an incredibly important step that we are taking in protecting young people.

Delightfully, my electorate is home to some really famous and fantastic music festivals. I love going to Golden Plains and I love going to the Meredith Music Festival, and we now have Beyond the Valley, which I believe is the largest music festival in Australia. When I see those kids going to those festivals, I want them to have the opportunity to speak to someone, to have that contact. I cannot remember which of the tawdry contributions it was from the other side, but someone was talking about the fact that there are all of these other factors, and indeed there are – heat and lack of water. They all contribute to those overdoses. But it is just such a strange mentality to say, ‘Therefore we should take away all supports for them.’

What I would say is that once we have pill testing at those festivals, there will be an opportunity to talk to those kids face to face – talk to them about making sure they consume enough water, talk to them about keeping out of the heat. I must say I really do raise my hat to the Meredith Music Festival. I went a couple of years ago, and it was incredibly hot. They made a really strong effort to talk to people in the audience: ‘No judgement. Just make sure you’re keeping your water up, keeping your liquids up.’ So something like pill testing at festivals is quite literally a lifesaver, and I cannot believe the prevarication from the other side and the horror that we might lose lives.

I listened to the member for Lowan. She was screaming across the desk about dead bodies and how children in Richmond have to see dead bodies on the street. What I would say to her is that that dead body is someone’s child. They need to remember that. These people are using drugs for many reasons: for some it is recreational, and for some it is because they are from very difficult circumstances. Each of them is someone’s child, and their lives are just as important as those of all of the children in our community.

I grew up in Castlemaine in the 1970s. There was very strong drug use. I lived through the 1980s heroin crisis, and I have seen that drug use. I have seen it with kids: someone turns up and offers you something and, with peer group pressure, off you go and do it. Some suggest that we can just turn a blind eye and stick our heads in the sand. The member for Brighton would have us wage a war on drugs, and we would achieve very, very little.

I also want to flag something that I think is incredibly important in this program, which is the naloxone vending machines. I had the honour of working at Ballarat Community Health and working with the pharmacotherapy people there at one point. They were giving naloxone out in the regions at that point. It is an extraordinary lifesaver. It cannot be used for any nefarious purposes; it saves lives. I did hear the member for South-West Coast complain that none of these services were available in the region. I would just like to bring to her attention that the federally funded naloxone-in-the-home program has been going for quite some time and that indeed those services are available in the regions. As I said, Ballarat Community Health do an extraordinary job in outreach work – much more broadly than Ballarat – and making sure that people have access to naloxone. On the thought that there will be vending machines across the state, I can absolutely guarantee the member for South-West Coast that I will be making sure that regional and rural Victoria also have access to those services. It is something that I think our regional MPs are pretty fierce about, and I am certain that we will ensure that those services are available across the state.

As I said, it is so important that kids can have access and someone to talk to. This is not about condoning drugs. No-one is going to say, ‘Good to go. Have another pinger.’ The services are about talking to kids about the chemical analysis of what is in a drug and what they might face but also offering that real wraparound support. For those on the other side to want to deny and delay is just extraordinary. How many more lives of young people do we have to lose before those on the other side can move away from some sort of ideological, Reaganesque war that we are never going to win.

I would like to point out that this legislation has enormous support locally and globally. We have worked with many organisations – over 77 organisations – including the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Public Health Association of Australia. I am delighted to understand that Youth Affairs Council Victoria are also very supportive of protecting our kids in rural areas through pill testing.

For those on the other side to suggest that there has not been enough discussion – that we are making some sort of woke, unilateral piece of legislation – is just extraordinary. This legislation is about protecting young people. It is about accepting that there is an issue in the community. It is about accepting that young people are experimenting with drugs but making sure that we are there wrapping our arms around them in any way we can.

This government has done some extraordinary work in this space, and I certainly commend this government for the safe injecting room. We believe in health-informed harm reduction. There is no point in being Reaganesque with your head in the sand. It is about harm minimisation, and this legislation will go a long way to supporting young people in that moment. Someone said, ‘I would rather the last person my child talks to be someone who can give them a bit of health support and advice than a paramedic that’s taking them away from an overdose.’ I commend this bill to the house.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (17:01): I will say a few words on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I was catching a tram home from the Midsumma carnival a couple of years ago and I had forgotten I was wearing a T-shirt calling for pill testing, so I was a bit startled when an older passenger pointed at me and announced, ‘Now that’s something I do support,’ and the tone he used suggested that he would not support a lot of Greens policies. As an advocate for pill testing, something I have learned over the years is that so many older Victorians do support it. Parents of young adults, for example, say that it is a no-brainer. That is because whatever their attitude is to party drugs, what every parent of a teenager wants to hear is the reassuring sound of the door closing quietly in the middle of the night when the teenager comes home after a late night out.

When the Greens introduced a private members bill very similar to this one five years ago, then Premier Andrews indicated that Labor would not be supporting it because he did not want to send a green light to people using drugs. He, and the police he regularly quoted, were very concerned about sending the wrong message. What is the right message? Is it a message that ‘Drugs are bad’ and ‘You get what’s coming to you – don’t touch it, because it might kill you, and we won’t want to do anything to reduce that risk’ – or is it a message of care and concern which says, ‘Let’s test that drug for contaminants and just make sure that it’s what you think it is. We want to make sure that we reduce any harm that you might suffer if you are going to use these drugs.’ At long last this bill sends a message of concern and care.

The story of this bill is, in part at least, a story of a shift in official attitudes towards currently illegal drugs. It might be an achingly slow shift, but it is an important shift. So I want to acknowledge at least a decade’s work by groups and individuals who have called for pill testing in Victoria despite repeated rebuffs from the major parties. I am thinking of parents like Adriana Buccianti, whose son Daniel died after taking an untested pill in 2012. I am thinking of groups like Harm Reduction Victoria, Harm Reduction Australia, Pill Testing Australia, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association and Students for Sensible Drug Policy who were so helpful when we brought a bill in five years ago, and so many dozens of healthcare organisations.

The first co-sponsored bill in the Legislative Council, the first bill to ever be sponsored by more than one party – in this case it was Reason and the Greens – was a bill calling for pill testing five years ago. Then this year there was a three-party-sponsored bill calling for pill testing. There have been at least four coronial reports in recent years calling for pill testing. This bill shows that if enough people call for change, it will eventually come.

The bill provides legal protection to allow an 18-month trial of pill testing, also known as drug checking, to be provided at music festivals and next year at a fixed site. Clients of the service will be given harm reduction advice, which we know from trials in Canberra is as important as or more important than the drug-testing process itself. After appropriate counselling clients often discard their drugs. The drug-testing results will inform surveillance of the illegal drug market and enable public alerts to be issued. The bill also introduces vending machines for naloxone, which, as we have heard, reverses opioid overdose if it is given quickly enough, and that is a useful addition to the current supply through pharmacies.

The circumstances which bring us this bill should also be considered. This policy was announced at the same time the government announced that Melbourne’s CBD would not be getting a medically supervised injecting room, so it seemed like something of a consolation prize. Experts working to reduce the harm from drugs in Victoria have been wanting a supervised injecting room in the CBD for some time. A much-anticipated report by former police commissioner Glare called for this, because with one to two deaths per month from opioid overdose in the CBD, here is a chance to save some lives. People die because the opioid, usually heroin, stops their breathing and because they are not resuscitated in time. Making naloxone more widely available, as this bill does, is a good idea. It might help if enough people have it on hand when someone overdoses and they are confident to give it quickly enough. Other recently announced initiatives, including more resources for pharmacotherapy and a small trial in a couple of years of hydromorphone, might conceivably also help reduce this death rate. But one factor will make a huge difference, and that is out of our hands, and that is whether or not potent synthetic opioids like fentanyl or nitazenes become common in our illicit drug market. They have been popping up here and there, and there was the well-publicised case of four people who died in a house in Broadmeadows a few months ago. But if they become common, there will be a significant increase in overdose deaths, and when that happens, the government will be obliged to set up more supervised injecting rooms, where people will not have to wait for an ambulance before resuscitation begins. Injecting a potent synthetic opioid in the presence of someone who is trained in resuscitation who can respond immediately is much safer than doing it with someone who might be carrying naloxone and might be able to use it.

What has this got to do with drug testing? Drug testing might not normally be expected to save many lives. Sometimes we go for a couple of years without a death in a nightclub or a music festival attributed to taking an untested pill. But an increase in more potent opioids, like the nitazene which killed four people in Broadmeadows, will make drug testing more important. Nitazenes have been turning up now in drugs sold as cocaine and MDMA as well as heroin, and it may also become necessary for heroin users to get their drugs tested to ensure that they do not overdose. This was not something we contemplated when we introduced a bill like this five years ago – nitazenes were not even discussed – but it raises an important question: will the spectrometers used by the pill-testing trial be sufficiently sensitive to detect nitazenes in very low concentrations, where they can still be harmful? I urge the government to listen to advice on this and ensure that Melbourne has the right equipment to respond to the likely emergence of potent synthetic opioids.

We still have a long way to go in reducing drug harms in Victoria, but this bill is a clear step forward, and I congratulate all who have worked for a decade or more to get us to this point. The Greens will support this bill.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (17:09): It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to contribute on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. It probably comes as no surprise that I strongly support the legislation. In saying that, I want to begin by saying that I respect the position taken by some who are opposed to this measure in the community – not the member for Brighton, having had to sit through that ghastly performance. I am sure he is deluded enough to think that that was some sort of audition for him, but it was ghastly all the same. Others have come to this matter with goodwill and honourable intent, but in the end we are going to disagree on the best way forward.

For my part, I am going to rely on one very telling and one entirely irrefutable fact. This debate has been going on in this Parliament for at least two decades. Over that time some of the language has changed and some of the science has improved, but the basics of the issue remain the same. The irrefutable fact is that 20 years have passed and we are back here where we started. What that demonstrates to me is that the goodwill that leads people to oppose pill testing – that honourable intent that leads people to support the status quo – leaves us with an approach that simply does not work.

The drugs are still available. People are still taking the pills. People are still taking the risk. Twenty years ago the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee released its report into amphetamines and party drug use. Carolyn Hirsch, who was a fine member of Parliament and a great local representative, addressed the Council on why the committee had recommended against the introduction of pill-testing kits. She said:

There is quite a divided opinion in the literature about these kits. The committee on balance has recommended ‍… that pill testing kits should not be made available to the public …

The lengthy report of the committee looked closely at supply and demand reduction. However, it is the section on harm minimisation on which I will focus today.

The committee noted, for example, the submission of the YWCA calling for the availability of drug-testing kits or facilities for people to test the purity and relative safety of the drugs they have purchased. The report describes how in 2001 the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee of the 54th Parliament visited the Vienna Social Projects Association. There they observed an innovative project called Check it!, which involved testing drug substances in an onsite laboratory during raves. The Youth Support and Advocacy Service submitted that, consistent with a harm minimisation approach, users in Victoria should be able to quickly test and verify any substances being sold as MDMA or ecstasy in order to reduce the risks associated with party drug use. They said:

One of the hazards associated with MDMA/ecstasy use is the unknown content of the pills.

So as a Parliament the position we were in then was in many respects the exact same position that we are in now. As I said in in the beginning, I fully respect the position that was taken in 2004, as I respect those who remain opposed to pill testing in 2024. But I am forced to ask: is 20 years not enough to show that the current approach is simply not working? In April of 2021 then Coroner Spanos had this to say:

… as long as illicit drug use exists in the community, Victorians will continue to be exposed to the risks of unregulated drug markets. Furthermore, the successful operation of drug early warning systems internationally, coupled with submissions from those working in harm minimisation, demonstrated that these evidence-based interventions could save lives.

Coroner Spanos recommended that the Victorian Department of Health urgently implement a drug-checking service and a drug early warning network. Coroner Spanos’s conclusion was in response to the investigation into the deaths of five men. The men, aged 17 to 32, died in five separate incidents between July 2016 and January 2018 after ingesting what they believed to be MDMA and/or magic mushrooms. The circumstances as released by the coroner were:

Each of the men exhibited erratic and distressed behaviour after taking the substance, including headbutting walls and furniture, hallucinating and paranoia.

In four cases the men died of mixed drug toxicity following seizures and respiratory distress. In the fifth case, the deceased leapt from a 10th floor balcony and died from his injuries combined with mixed drug toxicity.

In April 2022 Coroner Gebert echoed the call for a drug-tracking service and observed that:

People have always faced the risk that drugs obtained from unregulated markets are not what they expected: more potent, or adulterated, or even completely different to what was represented by the supplier. Where this occurs, the potential for harm including overdose and death is increased. The appearance of NPS –

new psychoactive substances –

in unregulated markets has substantially increased this risk, because NPS are often substituted for other drugs and represented as being other drugs. The rapid evolution of NPS means that suppliers may not even know what they are offering in the market; and the highly variable effects between NPS with respect to onset of action, potency, interactions with other drugs, and so on, mean that developing informed safe use practices is extremely difficult.

I want to talk briefly about the testing regime in the ACT. Obviously there are other examples around the world to also consider, but I will confine my comments to Canberra. In 2023 Australia’s first government-sanctioned drug-testing service, CanTEST, issued its first red alert, which is the highest level of warning, following the detection of metonitazene in a yellow pill masquerading as the pharmaceutical drug oxycodone. At the time, CanTEST made this telling statement:

Unlike many of the other detections reported in Australia, the recent detection of metonitazene in Canberra was not predicated upon the overdose of a young consumer. The whole point of drug-checking or ‘pill testing’ is to prevent such tragedies and provide an evidence-based alternative to the potential consumer, as happened here.

The CanTEST Health and Drug Checking Service Program Evaluation: Final Report from April 2023 shows just why regulated pill testing is so important. Firstly, a third of trial users had done some pill testing in the past, predominantly colorimetric reagent tests with limitations around accuracy and the type of information yielded. Eighty-four per cent of trial users had taken drugs before, so, far from encouraging people to take drugs or creating new drug users, the ACT service ensured that people were able to access accurate information. The report includes interviews of service users, which I think are useful to hear. A female aged 20 said:

… I was going off to a four day festival over here and I had bought some for myself and my friends … because I didn’t want to provide stuff to my friends that was potentially dangerous or anything like that.

A female aged 33 said that when getting drugs, you never really know what you are getting, where you are getting them from and, especially for things like powders and pills, what they have been cut up with. I think that shows just how important it is to provide people with accurate information. One other impact of the testing was that some people decided to use less of the drug than they originally intended, and virtually everyone who used the service told someone else about the results, so there is somewhat of a multiplying effect.

We have heard several contributions here today, but I thought it was incredibly important to get some context of what has occurred in this place over the past 20 years. In 2004 there was an inquiry into this very issue, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that pill testing should have been a part of what we have done in this state for some time. We have found ourselves in the exact same place now. This is incredibly important legislation, and I commend it to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:19): I am more than happy to rise to give a practical, pragmatic, real-world point of view on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024 – the pill-testing bill. You will know by now, Acting Speaker Mercurio, as anyone who knows me does, that I am a very practical and pragmatic person, which is probably why I am a National. We have had many, many questions around this bill and its implications, and as the member for Narracan pointed out several times during his contribution, there is simply not enough information and evidence to support this. There is just not.

The member for Lowan, who had a career before politics in health care and in science, is someone that I am going to take a lot of direction from. The member for South-West Coast, again, has worked in health care. I have never worked in health care, so of course you look to your mentors, like the member for Lowan, for those sorts of opinions. I will get to those a little bit later on, but as far as I am concerned, as a mother and a stepmother, there is simply not enough information in this bill for me to be comfortable with it. However, it has allowed for some conversations that may have otherwise been very, very difficult or perhaps not have ever happened at all, so for that I am grateful. However, there is the how, the where and the what. What exactly is being tested? If it is not picking up nitazenes, what is it testing for? How reliable is it? How is the information shared? Is it going to be shared? As far as the legislation goes now, no, it is not. What is in the pill that you are testing? That information of what it is composed of does not have to be shared, so then what is the point? Where will it be available?

We are all for harm reduction of course regarding drugs and alcohol in particular, and obviously we are all about practical ways to go about harm reduction. There is the residential rehab facility that the member for Lowan referenced during her contribution obviously, and the 5000 people that are on the waiting list for residential rehab in Victoria for alcohol and other drugs is alarming. We are still waiting, after my predecessor Peter Crisp and the member for Lowan worked tirelessly on a policy in 2018 and obviously previous to that in 2014 as well – for years and years – to help facilitate that. There are no residential beds in my part of the world, yet when you have a look at the statistics they are alarming. This affects so many families.

Yes, we are on the way. There are steps in the right direction. Recently we had the location announced for our alcohol and other drugs residential rehab facility. But in the true style of the government there was very little, if any, consultation with the surrounding community, the neighbours. When the announcement was made via a press release and printed by the local press, the community was befuddled as to exactly what the facility did, how it looked and what solutions were going to be around the infrastructure, the transport infrastructure in particular, given the site that has been chosen. The former Minister for Mental Health was very, very helpful in helping me get some local elders on that location selection committee. She was very, very helpful, the member for Dandenong, in getting local elders on that selection committee, because there was a great amount of alarm when things were starting to move forward and there were no local elders. The Aboriginal community in the north-west of this state, the largest in this state, obviously need to be consulted. These are the people that we are desperate to provide these facilities for, because if they have to leave country, they are not going to get treatment. They are just not. The location was vitally important, so I do thank the former Minister for Mental Health for her assistance in that. The location has been announced, but still there are 5000 ‍people on the waiting list. That is not harm reduction.

But I did say earlier that I was going to give a pragmatic real-world account of this pill-testing bill. I am still a festivalhead. Good Things Festival is coming up even in my mid-40s. I know that is kind of pathetic, but whatever; it is our thing. The ones in the middle of the bush – the bush doofs, as they are affectionately known – were never my scene, but when I was a young person we had Big Day Out, we had Groovin the Moo in the regions, which was amazing, we had Triple J’s One Night Stand and we had great rock festivals. In my day – and I may have been very, very naive – I was so scared because of my parents, in particular my Italian father, that if I was to touch anything illicit and anything happened to me I would not be standing here today. I was so scared of him, and my mother was probably worse, to be honest. But in my day I was not aware. Like I said, I could have been naive, but I was not aware of any sort of chemical or synthetic drugs going around in the 1990s. We knew that people would go there and we could smell things being smoked or whatever, but synthetic drugs were just not even on my and my friends’ radars until Splendour in the Grass and a little bit later on when there were sniffer dogs at the gates of these festivals.

However, I also mentioned earlier that this bill has led to some conversations with my teenagers, in particular my 17-year-old stepson, who has the most magnificent mane of long curly hair and looks like he could be a rock star. But it did allow for some conversations that otherwise we might not have had. I asked him about this pill-testing bill, and he is very, very smart – in fact sometimes smart to a fault where his common sense maybe lacks a little – but he is also very, very sensible. He is a type 1 diabetic and his health is at the forefront of his mind all the time. When I asked him how he felt about going to festivals in the coming years and about pill testing – I did say, ‘This is obviously completely hypothetical because you would never do anything like this, would you, darling?’ – the response I got was concerning. He is obviously very well versed in this and it is something that he and his friends have spoken about. He did say that he has seen so much about fentanyl that it scares the pants off him and that he has no interest in going anywhere near that. He is not a festivalhead, let me say that; he does not go to concerts. His 15-year-old sister loves a Taylor Swift concert and she has just been to see Olivia Rodrigo, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. He is not. But he did say he does not want to experience anything close to that. However, he said if he knew where the pills or the drugs were coming from, he probably would not get them tested. That to me is really alarming. You might know where you have got them from, whether it is from a friend or whatever, but there is a whole chain of events that takes place before then. He did say that if he did not know where they came from, he probably would, and he would take whatever the test said as the truth.

The member for Lowan and lots of members in this place on this side of the house have pointed out the lack of information contained in this bill on the how and the what, and we know that nitazenes are not being tested for. It is really concerning from a mum and stepmother’s point of view, particularly of young people, with festival season coming up that they will rely on and put their faith in the fact that they could have a pill tested and what comes back, even though we know the person testing that pill cannot share the information gathered. They do not have to share what is in it, if they can even tell, because we know nitazenes are not being tested for. The limitations around this testing just create so many areas of concern, not just for me but obviously for other members on this side of the house and other parents. How can it not? Like I said, when I was going to festivals in my 20s and early 30s I was just too scared – I am still scared of my parents, let us be honest – to do anything. And now, with all of these synthetics and the things we see in the news, we should be scared, and we should not be relying on an unreliable piece of legislation – (Time expired)

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (17:29): I too rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I have given quite a bit of thought to this bill and what my position is – party position and position in government but also my personal position – because I certainly do not condone or believe people should be taking drugs. I know there have been a lot of conversations around people’s positions and their history growing up and drugs, drug use and drug taking, and certainly drugs have been a very sad part of the lives of members of my family. So when I reflect on this bill, I too have come to a conclusion, particularly after watching a very special video that the Premier put out, talking to parents – talking to mums like me – about the importance of trying to keep our kids safe.

It has been really good to hear the contributions here in this house, even from those opposite who are speaking against this bill. At the end of the day, this is a bill that is about a trial, and it is about trying to save some kids’ lives. We may not be able to save them all, because if you are going to take a pill at a music festival, for instance, it is voluntary to go and have it tested. I really hope that those in the upcoming season of music festivals that want to take a pill – whether they are a kid, a young person or an adult – get it tested if the option is there, because it could save their life. We know it does save lives. We do trust in the research that we have undertaken and received from overseas. We know testing saves lives. No-one deserves to lose their life because of a drug overdose, whether it is at a music festival or on the streets of Richmond.

Appallingly, the member for Brighton talked about the Premier not standing for anything, which was absolutely ridiculous. I feel that the Premier in this instance is standing up for the kids – standing up for young people who take a silly risk and make what I think is an absolutely stupid decision at a music festival – because drugs do ruin lives. They do not just ruin the person’s life who takes them, they ruin the family that are then left with the aftermath of permanent damage, if not death, of that person in some instances. The Premier is standing up for young people, and she is standing up for families that have tragically lost their loved ones to drug taking and drug overdose and drug effects. Also, she is standing up and trying to prevent it from happening again. Indeed when this bill passes this place, lives will be saved. Never forget that – lives will be saved. We just will not hear about it, right, but they will be saved, no doubt, this upcoming festival season.

As a parent, I love to say that my darling, newly minted 14-year-old Emily and Leo, at age 11, will never take drugs. I would like to think they will not even drink alcohol. I freak out thinking of them driving a car. But I am not as much of an idiot to not think that the time will come when they will do some of this stuff.

The member for Narracan talked about the importance of education. Education is so important, and that is why we have had a real focus on making sure kids at school, as part of the curriculum, get the right education about drug taking, about sex and even about things like vaping and the effects that they can have on you and the consequences on your life. I hope to God that my kids are listening to that advice. I hope they listen to their mother and they listen to their father. What frightens me most is if they are out and they listen to their friends and they make a split-second decision, a decision that could change their life.

I know this has been talked about previously and the number of people that died unnecessarily from taking drugs at music festivals last season was listed. We know by following New South Wales what is happening there. We do not want to see a repeat of that. I do not want my kids to be a statistic. They might not ever take drugs, and I would certainly not be encouraging them to do so. But this bill that we are talking about here today – I hope that it does pass this place and that those in the Legislative Council go ahead and pass it in their place – is about saving the lives of people that make that split-second decision. Maybe they have thought about it in the days before. Maybe they have done it before. We know that just because you have taken drugs before does not mean that from the pill in your pocket you are going to come out okay.

Some people are okay to take that kind of risk, and some people are not. We have heard, here in this place, us as adults reflecting on whether we were that kind of risk-taker. I was never that kind of risk-taker. I still do not think I am today; it is just not in me. That was not because of my parents, who said, ‘Yes, drugs are bad. Don’t take them,’ it was purely because in my family my mother’s adopted brother has been a terrible heroin addict who has spent his life in and out of jail – overdoses, the whole thing. This man has a terrible life. The drugs have ruined his life. He is now I think in his 70s, completely estranged from his family, dirt broke, and, do you know what, he still takes drugs. It amazes my family that he has survived to be in his 70s, and if it was not for charities and it was not for religious services that are happy to be non-judgemental and look after people coming in and out of prison, he would be on the streets. Indeed many times in his life he has lived on the streets, much to the horror of his mother, my mother and her siblings. But that is what scared me off drugs. I also did not like losing my mind. I like having my mind; I like knowing what I am doing.

So I was never one to take those risks, but I watched all of those people around me, and there were many growing up in the surfing town that I grew up in – everyone was taking drugs. They never thought twice about what was in them, just like we know that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people across the world are addicted to vaping or are starting vaping or are occasional vapers. It is an illegal substance. You do not know what is in that either, and that is certainly not tested, and it is usually chopped up and cut on the same floors where heroin and other horrible, horrible drugs are being imported into this country. That is not tested either. We know that people do take risks, and sometimes they do not see them as risks. They just do not think twice about it. They like it and they have fun doing it, or it is what their friends do. But this bill and this debate here today is not about us legalising drugs or encouraging people to take drugs; it is about saving the lives of people who are otherwise going to take a drug at a music festival, and we want to find out this year at these music festivals how many people are happy to have their pill tested and how many people are worried about what they put in their mouth when they swallow and, in the hours to come, what will happen to them.

We have heard great contributions here in this place, and I will not go through them again, about the terrible, terrible things and extremities that are in these drugs and making them more potent than heroin. As I said before, I saw what happened to an adopted uncle who has been a heroin user his whole life and how terribly addictive that was and how many times when I was at my nan’s place he was completely off his face. I remember that as a child quite clearly. Again, he has never been able to beat that addiction. Drugs, in my mind, ruin lives, and the people that are taking them at music festivals are not bad people. They are there to have fun, and they think the drug will enhance that fun. The last thing we want to have happen to those people, particularly our young people, and the last thing I ever want to see happen to my children is for them to make that decision and not come home at the end of the night, when, had they had an option, which they may or may not have taken, to have that pill tested, that service was available to them there and then.

I also want to put on record that it is really disgusting hearing the member for Brighton try and highlight, exacerbate and be hysterical about the amount of consultation or lack of consultation that he and his party have had. It is my understanding that the member for Brighton and the member for Lowan were some of the very few members that turned up to a briefing on Thursday that lasted for 32 ‍minutes, I think, not to be too exact. They asked 17 questions, and all 17 questions have been answered. So for the member for Brighton and the member for Mildura to sit there and pretend otherwise gives a sense of really how seriously they take this debate.

Because this debate is so important, here in this place I do want to reiterate that I wholeheartedly support the bill. As someone that does not believe in taking drugs, I do want to see this option available as a trial at the upcoming music festival. I would encourage people that attend that music festival: if you are intending to take a drug, think twice, but also go and have that pill tested, because you never know – it could save your life and save a whole lot of heartache with you not being around at the end of that day. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (17:39): I was one of those people that was in the forum to listen to the briefing on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. Yes, there were not a lot of us in there, but my goodness, did I have more questions once that had finished that I needed answered for me to be able to stand here and deliver to my community on what this bill is about. Question after question was asked, and they were not Dorothy Dixers or questions that were meant to try and trip up the people in the meeting with us – ‘We’ll take that on notice.’ The next question – ‘We’ll take that on notice also.’ The next question – ‘Oh, we don’t know. We’ll take that on notice.’ These are sensible questions at the start of a, hopefully, sensible bill that will protect our children that want to go to a music festival – or it does not matter where they go to – and give them some confidence, if that is the road they want to go down, that we are going to have a service there that is going to work. Well, I am unsure it will, with the answers that we got.

As the member for Mildura said before, I think it was 4 minutes past 4 today that we got answers to the questions that were asked in that briefing. As far as I am concerned, it makes me ask why this is being rushed through. Surely we can have the questions that we have. And they are not just questions from outside of Parliament. I am sure they are questions for those on the other side sitting over there that members in their communities would have. These questions need to be answered. What are they testing for? Where does the information go once they find out what is in the pills that they are testing at these events? Is it only the one pill that is getting tested? What about the rest that they have got with them?

In my former life as a plumber we used to work in some pretty terrible places, where we walked into where they were actually making these drugs. I am tipping that one pill that you have is not exactly the same as the second one or the third one, with the way they mix and create these pills, which they want to sell to our children. Sometimes it is not our children, sometimes it is adults that have been doing party drugs – and let us call them party drugs as we move forward here. We do not know what is in them.

How does it all work? We are going to have mobile units that are travelling around. Are they going to be as well prepared with the equipment that is needed as a permanent facility? The equipment that is in these mobile units that are actually going to be at these events – what tests will they go through? That was one of the questions that I think we had: what regime do they go through so that they are working – that they are picking up whatever it is they are looking for? We do not know what they are looking for in these drugs. Some of the ingredients that go into them they are not testing for. Why not? Why is it so hard? Why can’t they pick up exactly what the components are that are in these pills that people are there selling to our kids?

I think every member that stands on their feet today will be talking about the impact and the trust that they have in their children that go to these events – it does not matter where they are, whether they are in inner-city Melbourne or whether they are out in regional Victoria – and what the effects are going to be. For argument’s sake – I do not take pills, but I will use myself as an example – is a pill that I take going to affect my mate if he has one as well? I can have a nut and my mate can have a nut and he can go into anaphylactic shock. What are the changes, and what are the differences going to be?

As I said, when we sat down in the briefing and the government side went through what was happening ‍– that was fine – we only had 15 minutes to ask questions. If they had answered questions, we may have been able to ask only three or four questions. But the answers were, ‘We will take it under advisement.’ These were the people that were sitting down, engaging with the community – well that is how I feel as a local member – and are talking to doctors, talking to community members and talking to physicians and chemists about how this is all going to work. They did not have the answers for us.

To walk in today and still not have any answers up until just a little bit after 4 pm, when they came through, makes me a little bit sceptical of the whole set-up of it. Are we rushing this bill through for the upcoming music festivals around regional Victoria? Are we rushing it through so we can say, ‘Well, we’ve tried to do something,’ just so we can tick that box off and make sure that we feel good about ourselves legally? How about we harden up and have discussions in the chamber and discussions when we sit down and have these bill briefings. One of my issues when I am sitting there listening to it and it is going on is: are the Labor MPs being briefed differently to us? They are standing up and telling me as I am listening, ‘No, this is the way we need to go, and it’s going to do A, B, C and D.’ Well, that is not what I got out of the bill briefing.

It is really incredibly worrying, the fact that it is something so important and that it affects so many people in our community. Everyone is standing up and saying that we have got to have trust in our kids, whether they be 13 or 14 or up to 21 or 25, whatever it is. They are going to make choices. If they choose to actually use these party drugs and have a good time and they walk up with confidence to get their pill tested, what is the result going to be? Is it going to be only a tokenistic result, where they will say, ‘It hasn’t got this in it,’ and give it back and say, ‘Oh, and good luck. Go on your way.’ I do not want that. As a Parliament we need to make sure that if we do need to make better commitments to our young people, with these amendments we get pill testing right the first time. It is not good enough that we hope no-one will die in this round of music festivals, especially if they are out in regional Victoria, where if someone does have an episode and we have got to call an ambulance, there is that wait time.

It just does not make sense to me – and I will use it – as a father with kids of that age but more importantly as a person that is standing up trying to make sense of this controlled substance amendment for pill testing, about which everyone is saying, ‘This is great.’ For me, going through that bill briefing, I did not get the sense that it was great. That is why I wonder sometimes when we try and push bills through and we do not have time to engage with Labor and the minister and ask them hard questions – if you do not have the answer, say so so we can actually force that issue and find out the answer. It is very easy sometimes to be blasé and come up with an answer – ‘I’ll take it on notice and find out.’ The week before, we are in here talking and standing up, the member for Lowan is on her feet talking and we still do not have answers to these questions about pill testing. I find that to be very, very poor form from any government. We need the answers. We need to make sure and know that when these festivals are taking place, or when someone is in a nightclub and they are taking a pill, they have got the opportunity to do the right thing by themselves and go and get the pill tested, for one. But, two, they need to know with confidence that the results they are getting are true and well managed.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (17:49): I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to follow on from others and contribute to debate on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. As others have mentioned, the genesis of this bill is what has been a long-running discussion and debate in many instances within our community. I have heard members reference some of the work that was done previously, quite a long time ago, to bring this very important piece of legislation to the house.

As I have said on numerous bills that we have had the opportunity to bring through this chamber and of course debate as part of the Allan Labor government, we are a team that is committed to listening to experts, listening to those that work within the field and following the science and indeed the data. Listening to this debate, as I am sure others have done, has been interesting in a number of different ways. We had the Premier’s contribution, which in my view was both powerful and passionate and spoke to a changing of mind. I think in so many instances what we need to see in this place is leadership that is exactly that – listening to experts; listening to the community; and working with those that, as I mentioned before, work within and with communities – to formulate legislation, initiatives and policy that are responsive to the needs of the community.

What I think is in many instances disappointing and is really the counter to sound and strong leadership is not having the courage to follow your convictions when it comes to changing one’s mind when it comes to an issue this important. We know that one life lost, one Victorian life, is one too many. Having the leadership to come into this place, to go out to local community and to speak to the media about an issue that is incredibly important and touches the lives of so many, particularly those who have lost a life because of these matters, I know on this side of the house is something that I am incredibly proud of our leader for doing. For members on this side of the house to be able to do the same thing I think is incredibly important; it goes to the heart of what separates us from those opposite.

I do want to get to a number of the mechanical aspects, if you like, that are contained within the legislation, but I do just for a moment want to speak about what I think we have seen from those opposite within this debate. That is a team that is poles apart when it comes to not only this bill but a whole range of matters within our state. There are of course different views when it comes to any matter that comes before this house, but what I think we have seen in many respects is a quite measured contribution from some over the other side on this piece of legislation and a will, if you like, to learn more, to ask more questions in what is a really complex space. I cannot knock that, but what we can knock is an ideological position that was taken by a couple of members that goes to fear and goes to spreading misinformation within our community, which is frankly shameful. Those opposite need to be called out on it. I am actually not sure how you could park yourself in the party room, have what needs to be a considered, respectful debate on these matters and then have members of your own team going around spreading misinformation and fear – no. What the Victorian community deserve, those that have lost loved ones to the harm that is caused by drugs, is of course a government that is respectful, that is measured, that is mature in a way that listens to the community and provides the framework that is there for those who need it when it comes to this legislation.

I think what this piece of legislation does first and foremost is save lives. We see time and time again, frankly shamefully, from those on the other side of the house, a whole series of stunts and performances that go to perhaps leadership, perhaps ego, perhaps a whole range of different things, but the internal machinations of those opposite should not dominate and reflect legislation that needs to be brought to the Victorian people, that saves lives, because a government’s first and foremost responsibility is to our community, to make sure that we are listening and to make sure that we are working hard every single day for the people of this state.

Unfortunately what we have seen in the relatively short couple of hours that this piece of legislation has been up for debate are really disappointing and shameful actions – but I will say not from all. What I think that shows is division. Victorian people deserve a whole lot better than that. They deserve leadership. They deserve a team – that is on this side of the house – making the hard decisions, and I mentioned the Premier’s contribution before.

I also just really briefly want to touch on the member for Frankston’s contribution. Acting Speaker, you know, and I think everyone in this house knows, the member for Frankston has done some outstanding work as a first responder. Knowing and understanding that contribution – and I can see my good friend the member for Melton has just wandered into the chamber – and the important work that is done by our first responders, particularly within this space when it comes to harm reduction, prevention and supporting our community, is something that needs to be taken on board in the context of this debate. That is something that I know we as a team are very proud of, not just their contributions on this bill – the member for Frankston spoke and the member for Melton has not spoken as yet, I believe.

We make sure that we are listening to and working with our communities right across the state to ensure that this legislation is robust and, as I said before, goes to saving lives. We know that local and international experiences show that drug checking is an effective public health intervention that does not increase or encourage illicit drug use. In fact there is proven efficiency over many years around the world – 31 programs operating globally, including in the UK, North America and New Zealand. Closer to home, the house will be familiar with, and I have heard others mention, the services that are in operation within the ACT and Queensland. The efficiency of the testing is clear and we know that it works. The question as to the implementation of this service within the Victorian context goes to why we are providing those provisions around embarking on the 18-month implementation trial from December 2024 to June 2026, comprising both mobile services and fixed site services, to understand the very best model for Victoria.

Making sure that we are supporting all Victorians at each and every opportunity should be a very simple proposition. We are not prepared to roll the dice with not just young lives but the lives of people as they go right through the journey of who they are as individuals. We want to make sure that we are providing a service that supports them and is about that proposition of harm minimisation. I go back to the ability to spread fear, the ability to spread misinformation and the ability in so many ways to take the cheap, lazy, nasty road, if you like – that should never be an opportunity that comes to this place. But what we sadly see, time and time again, is that. What I am proud to say is I know that all of the members on this side of the house, who I know and work with very closely, put their community first, put people first and work hard every single day to listen to communities. They also are not fearful and not ashamed to change their view. I think that that is both political leadership and political maturity. For those reasons and many more, I commend the bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (17:59): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

And I desire to move that this house condemns the Hamas terrorist atrocities of 7 October 2023, which saw 1195 people murdered and 251 taken hostage, and that this house grieves for those killed –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Order! You can only move one thing at a time, and that is that the debate be adjourned.

John PESUTTO: I am speaking to the issue – that this house grieves for those killed and calls for the immediate release of all hostages, supports Israel’s right to self-defence and stands with Victoria’s Jewish community amidst rising antisemitism. On 7 October 2023 the world witnessed an atrocity. Not only was it an atrocity that visited unspeakable violence on innocent people living in Israel, it was a direct and violent and horrific assault on the international liberal order – the idea that the rule of law ought to protect all peoples wherever they may live. Whilst the global community has never been able to achieve that for all human beings wherever they may live, wherever the rule of law pertains we should fight to defend it. The people of Israel deserve that. They were denied that on 7 October, and those hostages who remain in violent and dark captivity deserve their freedom, their peace and a reunion with the families they miss and love and the communities they cherish.

The people of Israel had done nothing wrong. It was Hamas, an evil terrorist organisation, that undertook this incursion – an atrocity in breach of international law – and it is Hamas that remains at the core of this problem. It is Hamas that is the source of military operations that are necessary to protect the people of Israel and its borders but also, hopefully, in the future Palestinians of goodwill who continue to live under the violent hand of Hamas and those who continue to live under the yoke of an equally evil and terrorist organisation in Hezbollah. That must always be recalled in debates about this very serious matter – that Hamas and its allied organisations are the source of violence and horror in the Middle East and beyond.

I wish also to impress upon the government that Australia’s Jewish community and in particular Melbourne’s Jewish community deserve the protection and security they are entitled to receive. We have seen rising signs and activities that constitute rank antisemitism. We cannot and should not allow that to stand. I know my colleagues and I on this side of the house in this motion, in earlier motions and in commitments we have given to the Jewish community of Victoria in previous gatherings, not only express our strong support and our emotional unity with the people of Israel and Victoria’s Jewish community but also our commitment to take real action to protect all peoples and in this case members of Victoria’s Jewish community.

It is a disappointment, I must say with some regret, that the government is not joining us in this motion today. We feel it is a necessary and important motion to express to all Victorians, not just to Victoria’s Jewish community but to all Victorians, that the principles which underpin the liberal international order must be defended anywhere and everywhere at all times, because a threat to the freedoms and security and harmony within Israel and violence directed towards members of the Jewish community here in Melbourne or anywhere else in the world represent a threat to the security and dignity of all peoples no matter what their religious, racial or ethnic backgrounds. So we stand ready to work with the government to ensure the safety of all peoples and in particular Victoria’s Jewish community.

I finish by reminding the government that we must stand strong and must always remember in our rhetoric and discourse on this important matter that the source of this conflict and the source of the instability and the insecurities that have been spawned are the actions of Hamas and now the actions of Hezbollah and other evil associates and proxies who wage a war of violence on innocent peoples. Peace cannot long endure, and it will elude our best efforts to build harmony across the world if we allow assault on the principles of freedom and democracy and equality to successfully be perpetrated by evil organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah. To Victoria’s Jewish community, to the people of Israel: we stand with you.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (18:05): I follow the Leader of the Opposition and was obviously on my feet previously for the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I take the opportunity to say to members of the house, those that are streaming and of course anyone within our communities right across the state that this government and indeed, I should make the point, all members of the house express our deepest sympathies to any of those people within the Victorian community, those across our nation and indeed those that are in the Middle East right now dealing with the horrors and the atrocities that are happening as we have the opportunity to speak in this house.

As I am sure so many members do, both as a local member and, when tucking my five-year-old daughter into bed at night, often having a laugh and a game before she goes to sleep, as a parent, I do reflect on what is occurring in the Middle East and what we are seeing throughout that broader region. This government and of course the Premier and others have since the beginning of this most recent conflict I think articulated a very sound and important message, and that is that in no instance is it ever okay for violence, for harm, for damage, for lies and for misinformation to be spread within our community and for harms to be perpetrated against one community by another.

What I think we know and understand through a whole range of work that has been done by this government and broadly I think in many instances in what should be in a bipartisan space is, being a previous Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs, that we have done some significant work around our anti-racism taskforce. What that work showed and continues to show – and I thank and acknowledge the members that are on that committee – is that there are of course opportunities for division and fear to be cast within communities. Our role as a state – and this has I think been very strongly prosecuted and articulated by the Premier and of course the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and others – is to provide for peace within our community.

What I think is shameful is when we see some that should be in positions of leadership – and I do not think those people are in the house right now – spreading fear and division and causing damage to be done further. This may not reflect in the way that you are thinking it is reflecting, Leader of the Opposition. What I am saying, to be very clear, is that in no shape or form is violence within our state okay and that this government will continue to provide for safety right across our community. We of course have a strong working relationship with those men and women of Victoria Police and initiatives like the anti-racism taskforce and so many other agencies which do very important work within our local communities to provide for peace and security, but in no shape and in no way is it ever okay for that violence to be spread through communities. We will, certainly as local members, continue to work with our multifaith communities to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent harm and violence and to call it out when it presents itself within our community.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (18:10): I rise to support the motion that this house condemns the Hamas terrorist atrocities of 7 October, which saw 1195 people murdered and 251 taken hostage; grieves for those killed and calls for the immediate release of 101 hostages; supports Israel’s right to self-defence; and stands with Victoria’s Jewish community amidst skyrocketing antisemitism.

Can I say at the outset, 7 October saw the largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. It is something that many of the Jewish community have been grieving for 12 months now. Even the federal Parliament took time out to debate a motion to consider how important 7 October was. Although the words may not have been agreed upon, they at least debated the spirit of a motion. It is very disappointing today, as a sign of good faith, to put this motion forward to the government and for it to be rejected and for us not to be able to do the same here in the Victorian Parliament, particularly since the state of Victoria has the largest Jewish community in Australia.

We have the largest Holocaust population outside of Israel per capita, and we have such a strong, steadfast Jewish community that has contributed so much to our way of life, not just in Jewish causes but in health and in education. In just about anything, our Jewish community has been there for Victoria in the time of need. And yet in their time of need, following 7 October, unfortunately the backs of the government have been turned. I think that is very, very disappointing. I would hope, in a sign of good faith, that the government would support this motion today, because it is a very basic motion. I would still implore the government to support this motion.

On 7 October and since 7 October we have seen an escalation in antisemitism here in our home like we have never seen before. I want to relate what happened in the Parliament in November 2023. We had October, but in November we had families of hostages come into this Parliament. Many of us got to meet those families and hear about their desperation, their calling for their loved ones to be returned. Two of those were friends of Noa Argamani. Many of you will remember Noa Argamani, who was dragged away on a motorbike and taken hostage for 245 days. Her boyfriend was also dragged away, and he is still a hostage and has not been returned. Noa was released on 8 June. She was released on a day when I, the member for Brighton, the member for Mornington and Renee Heath and David Davis from the other place were in Israel visiting the Nova site from which she was kidnapped. Kids at a dance party – kidnapped; celebrating life and peace, they were kidnapped and taken hostage by terrorists. She was liberated. Unfortunately many have not been – 101 hostages remain in captivity, and we plead for their release.

What Noa did do, despite people thinking she would never do it, was dance again. She danced and celebrated life, because she believes it is important to show those that she will never be held in captivity again and that freedoms are so important. That is what we want: the message to be felt by everybody, no matter who. We understand loss of Palestinian life is horrific, but the real enemy is Hamas. This whole situation happened on 7 October because of Hamas terrorists. Unfortunately the left want to cancel 7 October like it never happened.

A member interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The left, many of those that march in the streets. I did not mention the Labor Party; I said the left want to cancel 7 October like it never happened. We as members of Parliament should not be doing that. That is why this motion is so important: to memorialise 7 October each and every year as an important mark of respect for those people that lost loved ones during that time. That is why this motion is so important. It is no different to what we do to memorialise the atrocity of the Holocaust and every other significant day that people experience for other communities that also experience grief. That is all we are asking. We are pleading for that. We want the antisemitism to stop, we want the hate to stop, and I would implore the government to support this motion.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:15): I think one thing I do want to very carefully express is that what we have here is a procedural motion, and that should not be conflated with an extraordinarily serious and very emotional – for all the correct reasons extremely emotional, because it is extraordinarily upsetting – situation that is happening in the Middle East. I should say I along with many other MPs from different parties attended the commemoration on 7 October, and I did that with genuine empathy and compassion because of the sadness that I feel on a personal level and that I think many people would certainly feel with regard to the horrific situation that has been unfolding since that day. Certainly what Hamas has done – it is clearly a terrorist organisation, and no-one is resiling from that here and now, least of all me. But that particular issue is distinct from the government business program that has been agreed on, and it can sound and it can look unemotive and can actually look harsh when we are conflating a procedural motion about a government business program that we have to do every week with discussing a whole range of extremely complex and difficult issues.

I think it would be extremely unfair if this particular procedural motion and the premise upon which we have procedural motions was to be distorted for the purposes of in any way conveying a lack of conviction or empathy for the suffering that is going on in the Middle East. I just think, in fairness, we are all adults here, and if we are going to be really prudent but also really compassionate on this issue, then we must be really prudent and compassionate in the way we discuss this particular procedural motion. I would be absolutely mortified if anyone were to take advantage of the motion which we have here, the procedural motion, for the purposes of interpreting a particular position on this horrific conflict in the Middle East. That would therefore mean we would then be interrupting the government business program all day every day in Parliament, and then we would lose the structure and process and certainty. We have to have some certainty and processes so that the community understand that we actually come here with a purpose to deliver outcomes on particular legislation that is before the Parliament.

I would like to seek a level of unity and respect on the premise upon which this procedural motion is based, and I would ask and I would appeal to the best in humanity to not conflate that with the horrific circumstances of what has been occurring in the Middle East, not least for the poor hostages who are enduring their incredible suffering and indeed suffering on all sides in the Middle East and also here in the communities that we represent. Certainly I will say that we feel it deeply. I do not wish to speak for everyone, but I know with my colleagues we are all feeling it deeply. I am not worried about my own suffering; I am worried about the suffering of those directly impacted by the horrific circumstances that are unfortunately continuing at the present time. So just to be clear, the reason we have not been launching into proceeding on the particular matter that has been raised – which is extremely serious, and no-one is resiling from that – is because of the procedural elements and actually the agreement that we seek each parliamentary sitting to be able to have a government program, otherwise it would undermine the premise of ever having a government program. I hope that that is very clearly understood and is not misinterpreted as me or anyone else having any lack of empathy for the circumstances upon which the motion has been put forward.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:20): I rise in support of allowing an opportunity for this Parliament to debate this important commemoration of the atrocities of 7 October. That is what the vote that will shortly take place is – allowing this Parliament an opportunity to not only debate the important motion but also vote in commemoration of the atrocious events that happened on that day. It is a similar motion in many ways to the one that was put through the federal Parliament. This morning the coalition sought to move a motion, and the government denied leave. I think the record stands clearly in relation to the government denying the opportunity to debate this, and at no point in this week is there any time set aside by the government to put through a motion in this place to acknowledge the darkest day not only for Israel, not only for the Jewish people and not only for the friends of the Jewish people but more broadly for all good people in the Western world. All we have asked for is an opportunity to put through a motion in this place and for this Parliament to recognise the atrocities.

One year ago a number of us stood to speak in a bipartisan way on the atrocities of 7 October. It was almost one year ago today; it might have even been 15 October one year ago. A number of speakers on that day said, ‘True friendship will not be measured by the speeches of today, but it will be measured by the friendship over time.’ It is easy at the time to deliver words that you think are appropriate, but for many since, they have talked out of both sides of their mouth. That is a fact, and the community knows it. People are talking out of both sides of their mouth, because this Parliament could have been provided with an opportunity to commemorate not just the atrocities of those affected. The member for Caulfield spoke eloquently about him, me and a number of others being in Israel and visiting the sites of the most tragic and horrific events, which are absolutely burnt into my memory for the rest of my life. Today, and this Parliament this week, should have been an opportunity to commemorate those horrific events. It is not something that you simply do once afterwards and say, ‘Well, tick that one off, and we don’t need to do it again.’ One year later there are still hostages being held, and they deserve to have people around the world speak on their behalf. We could have done that, and we could have done that in a bipartisan way. That is what the coalition is seeking to do: to say to this chamber, ‘Please, let us have an opportunity to not only debate but put through a motion in recognition of those who have passed, of those who have been held hostage and also of the fight for the free Western world, which this fight is in the Middle East.’

I know a number of members have spoken about the recent commemoration event and the Jewish community’s feeling. The feeling in the community is so incredibly strong because we have seen a rise in antisemitism that is ripping at the fabric of the welcome that people in the Jewish community feel in our state. We should find every opportunity to stand up with them and say, ‘What you are feeling is wrong and we will never allow that.’ And that is what this, today, could have been: an opportunity to stand up in friendship and walk in partnership with the Jewish community through a motion of that kind. There is little wonder that the foreign minister, having accepted attendance at that event, was forced and shamed into not attending by the community. So strong is the community, both Jewish and broader, on the outrageous and disturbing acts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs over the last year – the lack of empathy and friendship shown by the Minister for Foreign Affairs – that the foreign minister was forced to not attend that event. This would have been an important bipartisan opportunity, and it is disappointing the government has not provided it.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (18:25): I want to start by acknowledging my good friend the member for Albert Park. I think she put very eloquently the reason that the debate should not be adjourned this evening. That is not to say that there are not sentiments in what the Leader of the Opposition said that I do agree with. There are many people in this place who continue to mourn what is happening in Israel and in the wider Middle East and grieve for the hostages that are still there after a year.

I want to reflect on what the member for Brighton just mentioned, which was about what he would claim was a lack of respect from members on this side in terms of the Jewish community. Respect does not only have to happen inside this chamber. In actual fact it is a lot more important that it happens outside this chamber. The member for Brighton referenced the 7 October commemoration event, and I think it was very important. There were many people both from the Liberal Party and from this side of the house, the Labor Party, that attended – including the Premier, the Deputy Premier and many local MPs – to show their support. It was a fantastic gathering. It is sad that that gathering could not happen in a perhaps more public place. People had to register, and the venue was only notified a couple of hours beforehand. This is the security situation that the Jewish community now live with in Melbourne, which is a tragic circumstance. The best way to show our support is actually by attending these events.

As I said, the Premier, the Deputy Premier and many people on our side did attend that event, along with – numbers have varied – somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 members of the Jewish community. In a community of maybe 50,000, 60,000, almost 20 per cent – 15 to 20 per cent of the entire community – turned up to an amazing evening of testimony and of song that was really just a moment of reflection for everyone. I think those are the occasions where it is important that leaders on both sides stand up and are present. And in terms of some of the most egregious forms of antisemitism that we have seen on our streets when we have seen the flags of terrorist organisations flying, that is when it is important that those incidents are called out. We have seen the Premier call them out and we have seen the Prime Minister call them out. That is where people are watching; that is where people are seeing what is actually happening and where the leadership occurs, much more so than trying to create a procedural debate to move off the government business program.

I want to reflect briefly also on what the member for Sunbury mentioned about having a conversation with his children about this issue. I know how difficult it is to have a conversation with my children. They are now 11 and eight and they are starting to be much more aware of what is actually going on in the world and have so many questions. I find it so difficult to actually answer those questions at the moment on what it means to be a Jewish child growing up in Australia and all the security issues that need to go with their school. It is a difficult conversation for any parent, let alone a parent of a Jewish student at a Jewish school. I think they are the opportunities to have those discussions, not necessarily in the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): The house is debating the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. The Leader of the Opposition has moved that debate on the bill be now adjourned. The question is:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Assembly divided on Josh Pesutto’s motion:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner

Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:36): I think it is really fundamental and it is always important when you are looking at any legislation, or any reform for that matter, to examine what the purpose behind it is. That is fair and reasonable. With regard to this legislation, the purpose behind drug checking is to reduce harms, including preventable deaths associated with the use of drugs obtained from unregulated drug markets. Fundamentally, I think one of the most important elements here is the health intervention, and I am going to speak a little further to that in a moment.

Somebody was asking before why we are rushing this through, and I think that it has been overwhelmingly proven that there is a clear and very much apparent evidence-based imperative to proceed with this particular reform. I want to clarify that. In Victoria there have been 10 coronial investigations since 2021 that have recommended urgent implementation of a drug-checking service to reduce the number of preventable deaths and other harms associated with the use of illicit drugs. I did hear earlier an assertion: ‘Where’s the evidence? Where’s the backing behind these particular reforms?’ Well, I am very happy to say – happy is probably not quite the correct word – that this is backed by evidence not only locally but also globally.

We have to be really honest about the changing dynamics of narcotics as well. A contributing factor to an increase in harm from illicit substances has been the increasing potency of synthetic drugs and the emergence of new psychoactive substances. We could just pretend it is not happening and hope, but all the while we have to think about the risk that this would leave for our community and particularly those who are electing to use illicit substances. I should be clear that it is not in any way about encouraging or coaxing the use of illicit substances – no one can vouch for the safety of narcotics. That is not the issue at all. But if we think about it, having this particular reform in place and having the drug-checking mechanism actually opens a conversation that many young people would not otherwise have to unpack not only exactly what the particular narcotic that they are putting forward has but also the side effects and dangers that can result from those drugs. That sounds to me like a really important and helpful conversation, at a minimum, to have. We do need a non-judgemental mechanism that is not going to act as a deterrent for a young person coming forward with a particular substance, because what an amazing opportunity that is to be able to intercept and inform them about the drug that they may or may not proceed to use after having that particular health intervention.

I think it is important to be really clear about the premise on which we are putting forward this legislation to the Parliament. It is not about endorsing illicit drugs. It is not about asserting that they should be taken or that it is a good idea to take illicit drugs – far from it. But it is about having an important health intervention mechanism in place that facilitates a data-based, should I say, but also non-judgemental discussion. I am saying ‘young person’, and I think it is broadly accepted that that is kind of the scenario in which this is likely to occur. It may be someone a little older as well, so I will allow for those contingencies. Nevertheless it is a really important conversation that may very well divert them from taking a risk over and above the risk they are already taking if they choose to proceed with an illicit drug.

I just want to clarify some of the processes which this particular legislation is supporting. What does drug checking look like? What does it actually mean? Because I have been hearing some fairly confusing and I am not sure necessarily fact-based discussions and concerns. At least this is a good opportunity in the chamber to be able to peel away some of the myths and to explain what it actually means for the younger person who is interacting with the health professional.

Drug checking involves the chemical analysis of illicit or unknown substances to inform individuals about the contents of what they are planning to consume. I think that is probably broadly understood, but I just wanted to start there in that component of the process. When a client enters a drug-checking area, they first meet with a trained harm reduction worker – because that is the purpose here; we are really seeking to reduce harm to Victorians – who walks them through the process. Clients are informed – and I think this is really, really important for those opposite who are feeling a strong sense of reservation about proceeding on this reform – that no drug is ever safe to use and drug use always carries risk. I think that is a really important thing to be conveyed to a person who is considering potentially taking an illicit drug – that they should have clear information about the risks involved in what they are doing. Then a qualified analytical chemist takes a small sample of their substance for analysis. This is usually a very small scraping of a pill or sample of powder. Following the analysis, the special drug-checking worker will communicate analytical findings to the health professional or harm reduction worker, who will then share these findings with the client in an accessible way that is easy to understand.

A client may receive information about the chemical compounds detected, including information about their purity if available; the known effects of each compound, and if multiple compounds are detected, how they may interact; and if any unknown or inconclusive compounds have been detected. That is also important, because I also heard a discussion about, ‘What about the unknown?’ Well, isn’t that a point: that if there are elements in there that are unknown and that you cannot necessarily detect the impact of, that surely is important for that person to know – because when we are looking at the level of risk, I would think that one would be potentially factoring that in. The discussion will also include advice on how to minimise harm should the person still decide to use the substance – yet again telling them about the potential ramifications of what they are about to do. So again, it seems to be a really good, commonsense approach.

What is the evidence that drug checking works? In 2022, drug-checking clinics in New Zealand tested 1720 samples, with the following findings: 29 per cent of individuals decided to take a lower dose than initially planned, 27 per cent chose to avoid mixing drugs with alcohol or other substances and 29 per cent stated they would test any additional drugs they intended to use. In April 2023 an evaluation of the ACT’s CanTEST service found that 53 per cent of substances tested matched the expected drug, with an additional 2 per cent containing both the expected drug and another substance. Thirty-two per cent of people who discovered their substance contained an additional drug or a different drug or returned an inconclusive result said they definitely would not use it. Here we are seeing the benefit of having that important health intervention, because if we did not have that, then we can imagine the very many contingencies that would otherwise unfold.

I did just want to also provide a little bit of clarity about the briefing that was provided to the opposition. There was a 30-minute briefing, which is standard. There was a 7-minute presentation; the rest was allowed for questions. Seventeen questions on notice were provided on Thursday night. All answers were provided before debate commenced this afternoon, just to provide clarity about that for the chamber. But when we have heard –

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is misleading the house. That is actually not correct. I did not receive an email before I spoke on the bill, so that is incorrect.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): There is no point of order.

Nina TAYLOR: Okay, so there are a variety of opinions on this matter, but – (Time expired)

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (18:46): The evidence has been long, loud and clear. Pill testing saves lives. When people use pill-testing services, they are less likely to take drugs containing dangerous substances, they are more likely to take a reduced dose and they are less likely to be at risk of overdose if they do take drugs. I want to acknowledge the years of advocacy from the community, from the harm reduction sector, from people who use drugs, from the friends and family of those who have died from overdose, from the health professionals and from the progressive crossbench and the Greens. At long last this historic co-sponsored bill from the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice will mean that Victoria will have pill testing at music festivals across the state as well as at a fixed site in the city. Covered by legal protections, participants will be able to share a sample of their drugs for testing and receive back information on the composition of the drugs and any potential impacts. They will then be able to make an informed decision to either keep their drugs or safely dispose of them. If participants do decide to take the drugs and keep them, workers trained in harm reduction will be able to provide information on how to make drug taking safer. The drug-testing results will also inform the surveillance of the illegal drug market and will enable public alerts to be issued.

We are thrilled with this bill. We are also thrilled that naloxone vending machines will be introduced by this bill. Naloxone is a fast-acting, easy-to-administer safe medication that reverses opioid overdoses. This bill is welcome and necessary, and it signals a really significant shift in the political approach towards drugs and harm reduction. But it is also bittersweet because at the same time as agreeing to support this bill, the government has also walked back a critical harm reduction initiative to open more medically supervised injecting rooms. Last year over 547 Victorians suffered from a fatal opioid overdose. 2022 and 2023 recorded the highest number of fatalities ever on record in this state. With the possible introduction of potent synthetic opioids like fentanyl and nitazenes into the illicit drug market, that risk becomes even more acute. Given these stats and given that the City of Melbourne has the highest number of heroin deaths out of any Victorian local government area, it is devastating that the Labor government has abandoned its promise to open a medically supervised injecting facility in the CBD. The advocates and the experts that have been pushing for pill testing and widespread naloxone access both –

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): I bring the member for Richmond back to the bill.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI: The advocates and the experts that have been pushing for pill testing and widespread naloxone access know that both measures save lives. Those same advocates and experts have been pushing for more supervised injecting rooms, and they will continue to push for that because medically supervised injecting rooms also save lives.

In my electorate in North Richmond we know the impact that a supervised injecting room can have. In just a few years over 9115 overdoses have been successfully managed, over 3800 referrals to health and social services have been made, over 1000 people have been put on opioid pharmacotherapy and over 2000 people have been tested for hepatitis and other bloodborne diseases, almost 400 of whom have started hepatitis C treatment. This is thanks to the incredible work of the North Richmond Community Health centre and their dedicated team of staff offering support and saving and changing lives. I commend this bill but warn that pill testing and naloxone do not remove the need for more medically supervised injecting facilities. There is more work to be done, and I truly hope the government reconsiders and opens more medically supervised injecting rooms before more people die of preventable overdoses.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (18:51): I have got to say I am very proud to be speaking to this legislation, and I honestly believe that it is one of the single most important pieces of legislation that I have spoken to in my time in this place so far. For the very first time in our state’s history this bill, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, will give the express legal authority for both mobile and fixed-site pill-testing services to operate here in Victoria. This is something that simply would not have happened without a number of advocacy groups and of course HACSU, the Health and Community Services Union, who have worked tirelessly advocating for this to occur.

This bill will establish a licensing framework to authorise, appoint and regulate both fixed and mobile pill-testing – so drug-testing – services, and it will support the government’s commitment to introducing secure naloxone vending machines in key areas of need. The science behind pill testing is very, very clear, and I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues earlier – it saves lives as well as reducing harm. We know that no drug is ever truly safe, but Victorians deserve to have all of the information possible to help them make better, safer and of course more informed decisions – decisions that ultimately will save lives.

Like in other jurisdictions around the country and around the world, drug harms are increasing here in Victoria. Tragically a total of 547 Victorians died from drug overdose in 2023, our state’s second highest ever annual figure and well above the annual road toll. This is too many Victorians, and it is important for us in this place to, without judgement and without stigma, reflect on these lives that have been lost and acknowledge the grief of the loved ones who have been left behind. But more importantly, we must act.

In Victoria for the close to a decade it has been in office this Labor government has always taken a health-led response to addressing drug- and alcohol-related harms. It is why we are so proud to be the home of one of only two safe injecting facilities in the Southern Hemisphere – and it is a pity that the oh-so-passionate member for Richmond, who was just lecturing us about safe injecting rooms, has already left, because having two safe injecting facilities in the Southern Hemisphere, with one here in Victoria, is something that we as a government are proud of. It is why we have doubled our annual investment in drug and alcohol treatment services and supports, and it is why we are proudly introducing pill testing from this summer. With the global drug market becoming increasingly unpredictable and more volatile, the need for pill-testing services has become even more important.

Over the past 10 years more than 1100 new drugs have been identified, and the potency of longstanding synthetics is increasing. Of the 547 overdose deaths reported in Victoria last year, 42 involved new substances. This has been accompanied by an increase in drug-related emergency department admissions. Victorian paramedics responded to more overdoses at festivals in the first three months of this year than during all of last year. Like most people, may I dare say, in this place, when I was younger I too went to a number of festivals, and I loved them. I had a great time. I was there with my friends, and I went to too many to remember. We had wonderful times together, and we made long-lasting memories. But I shiver to think that any of my friends, who I love, my family members, me or any of the thousands of other people at those festivals could potentially have lost their life there just because they made a choice without being able to be fully informed of the risks they were taking. Some people may think that those who consume drugs are stupid, but no-one has the right to stand in judgement and say that someone else deserves to die just because that person makes a choice which they may disapprove of.

The case for action is clear. Local and international experiences all show that drug checking, also known as pill testing, is a highly effective public health intervention that does not encourage or increase the use of illicit drugs. A pill-testing service will reduce the risk of people overdosing on both unexpected and high-potency substances as well as reduce illnesses or death from drugs obtained from unregulated drug markets.

People may be familiar with the pill-testing services which already operate in the ACT and Queensland, but while these other jurisdictions have commenced their own pill-testing trials under already existing legislation through operational guidance, Victoria will be the first jurisdiction in Australia to explicitly make the provision of pill-testing services legal, with no grey areas whatsoever. Legislation means that staff and clients can have confidence that no-one is breaking the law by using, operating or hosting this service. The bill provides that clients using the drug-checking services will be authorised and therefore exempt from criminal liability for the offences of possession and supply when they are using a drug-checking service in respect of possessing a substance, supplying the substance to the drug-checking service for the purpose of testing or disposal and receiving the remainder of a substance after a worker takes a sample. This exemption from criminal liability will only apply when the client is at a drug-checking place and for an amount that is less than a traffickable quantity.

When a person or client enters a drug-testing area they first meet with a trained harm reduction worker, who walks them through the entire process. The client is informed that no drugs are ever safe to use and drugs always carry a risk, as we all know, then a qualified analytical chemist takes a small sample of their substance for analysis. This is usually a very small scraping of a pill or a sample of powder. Following the analysis, analytical findings will be communicated to the health professional or harm reduction worker, who then shares these findings with the client in an accessible way that is easy to understand. A client may receive information about the chemical compounds detected, including information about their purity if available; the known effects of each compound; if multiple compounds are detected, how they may interact; and if any unknown or inconclusive compounds have been detected. The discussion will also include how to minimise harm should the person still decide to proceed and use that substance. This could include information on the effects of different dosages, information on interactions with other substances the person has already ingested or intends to ingest and advice about the importance of sleep, hydration, adequate nutrition, the weather, environmental conditions et cetera.

I have gone into all of this at such length because I want to emphasise that this is expert technology and expert advice. It is not something that we have just made up on the run. Nobody is ever told that they are good to go. Nobody is told that their drugs are pure or safe. The importance of this health intervention can simply not be overstated, because we know that people who use pill-testing services are more likely to take immediate action to reduce harm as well as engage in longer term harm reduction, including reducing the amount of the drug used and avoiding polysubstance use. For many people this will be the first time that they discuss their drug use with a professional. This unique opportunity for education will shape behaviour.

Various professional organisations, alcohol and other drugs services and health, community, justice, social and youth service sectors have publicly championed pill testing for a number of years. I am very proud to single out and pay special tribute today to the mighty Health and Community Services Union, otherwise known as HACSU, for their strong and consistent advocacy for these services. HACSU represents the thousands of workers in our alcohol and drug public mental health workforces –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required by sessional orders to interrupt business. The member will have the call when the matter returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.