Thursday, 17 October 2024
Bills
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024
Bills
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.
Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (10:30): When I was a teenager, a young girl, a teenager called Anna Wood, died from an ecstasy overdose. Some of you might remember that. She was in Sydney in 1995, and it made national news. Her death meant that I have never tried ecstasy, but shouldn’t people not have to die to prevent other people from suffering due to drug use? Why can’t we support this bill, which saves lives, without having to rely on horrific public deaths of other people? Can’t we have a health-led response that means that young people who are attending festivals and raves – enjoying life – have the opportunity to live another day and see their parents the next morning? Can’t we focus not on morals and high ground but on health and care, reality and families? Isn’t it calculatingly cynical for those opposite to oppose such life-saving care for young people?
We know that it works, which is why this government is seeking to pass this bill. We do not want to see more young people – anybody – dying that do not need to die. Seatbelts do not condone speeding. Life jackets do not mean we accept drowning. Pill testing will stop people from dying, and I support this bill.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:32): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
This house has debated this bill for a considerable amount of time. We spent all the government business program time on Tuesday on this particular bill, and we spent some time on this bill yesterday evening before the house adjourned. I believe we should be moving to the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024. We have 13 speakers on our side of the house that want to speak on that bill. If we spend any more time on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024 those people will not have the opportunity to speak.
Victorians need to have the lid lifted on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill – code for gas ban bill. Buried in this particular bill are regulatory powers for the government to secretly ban gas anywhere they want and anyhow they want. This is another example of enabling legislation which looks innocuous when it is in the house but, when the reality comes through and after the Governor in Council signs off on regulations by the government and it is enacted, no-one can do anything about. We want our 13 members on this side of the chamber to have the opportunity to talk about this particular legislation and particularly to talk about what a further ban on gas will mean for Victorian households and for Victorian businesses.
In my electorate I represent quite a few food-manufacturing businesses. They are bleeding cash with the increase in the price of gas in this state. We need to make sure there is an increased supply of gas in this state so that they can continue to operate, so that they can continue to create jobs in the community and so that they can continue to manufacture the food that you and I like to eat that is actually made here in Australia.
I understand by that look – you are raising your eyebrow at me – that this is a procedural debate, but it is a very important one to have. I would like to have support from the other side of the house to adjourn the debate on the current bill before the house and move to the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill so that can have a fair hearing in the limited time that we have left today. With three pieces of legislation on the business agenda each sitting week, I believe there should be a fair amount of time attributed to each of those pieces of legislation.
The drugs, poisons and controlled substances bill has had a fair hearing. Those on this side of the house that wanted to speak have had the opportunity to speak. I understand the government have their challenges because they have greater numbers in the house, but it is about fairness and equity, and we have 13 members that want to speak on the next bill.
The fact is that this has been debated on two of the business days this week. Why can’t we move to the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024 and, as I said, lift the lid on what is in that bill? It would give the members on this side of the house an opportunity to have their say, put forward their arguments and expose to Victorians what is buried in this piece of legislation. As I said at the start, the regulatory powers that are in this bill – they are buried in this bill so that no-one knows what they are – enable the government to, by regulation, ban gas. The Premier stitched up the Herald Sun with her announcement a few weeks ago saying that she was not banning gas at all.
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals has moved an entirely reasonable motion that the house can understand. He has made the case himself that it is a procedural motion –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?
Colin Brooks: The point of order is he is now straying from that motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. The Leader of the Nationals had started to stray.
Peter WALSH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, minister at the table, for drawing attention to the fact that I was straying in saying that the Premier stitched up the Herald Sun on a particular issue.
Colin Brooks: On a further point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is clearly defying your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals will come back to the procedural motion on the adjournment of debate, please.
Peter WALSH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As you have ruled, it is a procedural debate. It is so important that both sides of the chamber have a period of time to talk about the legislation before the house in these sitting weeks. We do not have a large legislative agenda anymore in this chamber; we usually have only three bills a week. Let us apportion that time equitably so that people have an opportunity to speak on those three bills before the house.
As I said, we have 13 members on this side of the house that want to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill, and if we do not move to it, they will not have their time. I would urge the government to support my motion to adjourn. If we finish on that bill, we can come back to the drugs, poisons and controlled substances bill.
Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (10:37): I am very disappointed that I did not get to my feet before the Leader of the Nationals, because I am very, very passionate about the bill and the contribution that I want to make. I sat in the chair yesterday, and people had opportunities to make their contributions on legislation that is important to them, and now I am being silenced. Every Nationals member has had the opportunity to speak on this bill, right? Every Nationals member has had the opportunity to contribute to the bills that they have wanted to contribute to up until today, but I have not had the opportunity to contribute.
Members interjecting.
Juliana ADDISON: I will take the interjection from the member for Polwarth about wasting time in this place. We are now going to use up 30 minutes, which could have been three speakers’ time, debating whether those speakers get to talk about it. This is about grandstanding. We are not going to agree to the motion because we agreed –
Members interjecting.
Juliana ADDISON: We agreed to a government business program, following the processes of this house, on Tuesday afternoon, and the government business program said we were going to debate different legislation across the three days. I am here representing my electorate –
Members interjecting.
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals was heard in virtual silence when he moved this adjournment motion. He was heard respectfully, and I would ask you, Deputy Speaker, to advise those on the other side of the house not to try and shout down the member, who is making valid points.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In brevity, the Speaker reminded us all earlier that the Leader of the Nationals did talk about respect for members on their feet, and I encourage all members to adhere to the Leader of the Nationals’ sentiments.
Juliana ADDISON: With reference to the Leader of the Nationals’ sentiment, he talked about fairness and equity in his contribution to this procedural debate, and I would like to see that fairness and equity extended to me and the other members on this side of the house. I would really like to talk about why pill testing is an important issue to me and to my community and to the generation coming through.
What we are seeing here is a disjointed approach. Once again the Nationals are flexing their muscles because they feel they need to be the opposition right now, because the opposition, the Libs, cannot run their own ship. So the member for –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wendouree had strayed. Please come back to the procedural motion.
Juliana ADDISON: I will take the interjection from the member for Lowan, who is not in her seat, and say that she does like it, because she is very ambitious about her leadership plans and her leadership agenda for the Nationals. I really think that the Nationals will be seizing opportunities.
Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member has defied your ruling. Bring her back to the debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wendouree – on the procedural motion – to continue.
Juliana ADDISON: I thank you for your guidance and your advice, and I thank the member for Narracan for the interjection. The procedural motion before us is that we should cease the debate on the pill-testing bill and prevent members of the house from making their own contributions – we should waste 30 minutes of the house’s time. There are only seven remaining speakers from the government side, but we will use up 30 minutes – three speakers’ time – to have a debate. The procedural motion will not be successful, so this is pure grandstanding on behalf of the Leader of the Nationals to try and show who is in charge of the ship right now. The member for Brighton does not like that. It is like an eggtimer, waiting for him to jump to his feet. But we are seeing some leadership in terms of His Majesty’s opposition, from the Leader of the Nationals, that we are not seeing from the Liberals, because the Liberals are too focused on themselves at the moment, on their disunity. Eggtimer!
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, the member who acts in the chair would understand that members cannot speak twice on a bill, and so the motion was only able to be moved by the Leader of the Nationals.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order was made succinctly and then some. The member for Wendouree, please refer to –
Juliana ADDISON: I look forward to the opportunity to contribute. I do not agree with this procedural motion.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:42): On the procedural motion, I stand to speak very strongly in support of the Leader of the Nationals’ procedural motion to move away from this current bill. For the background of the house and those watching, each week there is a set-out plan for the government that they move by way of the government business program, and this week they set out three bills. The normal process would be that each day one bill is dealt with. There are occasions where a bill is dealt with a little bit on a different day, sometimes. But the only reason for the delay in moving to the next bill is because it implements the government’s gas ban. We have just heard from the Labor Party, from the government, that they have packed out a speaking list on the pill-testing bill – a packed speaking list – to block out the entire morning of debate on the pill-testing bill so that there will be almost no time at all for any members to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024 or on what many call the gas ban bill, because we know how little time there is for debate today. There is so little time for debate today. We know how much the government wants to cover it up and not move from the current bill to the building legislation. How shameful that the government would misuse time in this house to stop debate on the third bill on their own program. I think it is important to note, by the way – it is entirely relevant.
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, he is misleading the house, because every member deserves to speak on this legislation who wants to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
James NEWBURY: Continuing on the procedural motion, the house will remember that the coalition sought to take the pill-testing bill into consideration in detail and the government said no. So we have government members standing up – and they will, one after another – to say, ‘We want to speak on the pill-testing bill, we want to speak on the pill-testing bill,’ but will they take it to consideration in detail? Scared, scared – of course they will not. This is a stunt by the government to block the Parliament dealing with the building legislation – that is what this is about – and it has been called out. It has been called out because the building legislation deserves proper scrutiny. You cannot ban gas in everybody’s home and not allow this Parliament time to consider it. A ban on gas in everybody’s home – this is draconian. No wonder the government is packing out a speakers list on anything it can think of to stop an opportunity to debate the bill. And the government has confirmed it. They have confirmed they have got a packed list that is going to take hours – hours of debate on the pill-testing bill. For those watching, this is the third day the government has debated the pill-testing bill – the third day.
Of course they are packing the time of the Parliament on this bill, because the building legislation bill is very, very concerning. It allows unfettered power. I will not go too much into the detail of that bill now. Perhaps at some stage today we will have an opportunity to at least consider it briefly, in passing. Who would know? The government have already started to pack out their speaking list for today to cover for the fact that they do not want the building legislation debated. That is what this debate is about. So the government, one after another, will stand up and say, ‘We want to talk about something else.’ Of course they want to talk about something else, and when they vote against this motion, that is what it will prove: they want to hide from the gas ban. That is what a vote against this motion proves: the Labor Party want to hide the gas ban bill. How outrageous. How outrageous that Victorians cannot have their concerns about the government’s gas ban ventilated in this chamber. What an absolute outrage. So we will shortly see the government again try and hide their gas ban by voting against this motion, but we will support it.
Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:47): Deputy Speaker, it would be no surprise to you that I rise to speak against the motion of the Leader of the Nationals. I would like to begin by just saying that government is a gift, government really is a gift, and it is something that when you have it enables you to exercise the powers that come with government judiciously. You are able to do that because you have the respect of the people of Victoria. This government takes that very, very seriously, and it really does wish that in this place of great democracy it had an opposition that would be able to come up against it for the betterment of the people of Victoria.
In our government business program this week we outlined the three bills that we wanted to bring to this place, and one of those bills, which we were on before we were interrupted with that procedural motion, is to do with not only the future for the betterment of the state but, importantly, the future of our kids. Is it any surprise that there are so many members in this place that want to get up and speak to that bill? Is it any surprise?
Gary MAAS: No. As a government, as I said, you come together in a unified way to set out your agenda, and the audacity that somehow this opposition want to come together in a united fashion to be able to debate is something that is anathema in this place. This opposition cannot come together.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the members for Polwarth and Wendouree would like to have a chat, they can do it outside and I can arrange it.
Gary MAAS: The audacity that this opposition somehow want to come together in a united fashion and debate against the government in a united fashion. We know you are not united, right? We know you are not united – come on, bathing boxes. Get back to your bathing boxes.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I must stand up in your defence and ask that the member refer to people by their correct titles.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wendouree is warned. There is no point of order that I heard on titles.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do not reflect on the Chair, member for Brighton.
Gary MAAS: Our pill-testing legislation deserves to be debated properly. It deserves to have more speakers speaking to it. I speak against the motion.
Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (10:51): I rise to support very strongly the motion that my colleague the Leader of the Nationals put forward about adjourning this debate that now has dragged on for three days. The government’s argument is nothing more than crocodile tears – ‘Oh, we all want to have our say on the pill-testing bill.’ This government, your people, voted against debating this in detail. What sort of backbench gets the dregs of speaking opportunities on the third day just to pad it out? The member for Wendouree, who is up there on the back bench like she has been sent in to keep the quorum up, wants to prattle on about this. Did we see her stand up? Did we see her and other Labor members calling for the denial of this adjournment? Did we see them argue for consideration in detail, a real opportunity to debate the merits of these bill? Did we see them do that? Did we see them stand up against their buddy? No, they did not, because this is just a political stunt, continuing this bill today.
It is a political stunt, and why is it a political stunt? Because it is designed to hide the fact that in the one week that the government put a bill out that they were happy to talk about, which was organising extra gas storage to keep the industry and their donors happy – they were happy to add a bit of storage – at the same time we have got members from some of the coldest parts of the state and new growth areas around the state saying, ‘We don’t want to let our constituents know, we don’t want our voters to know, that our big, mean, nasty hand of government can go and turn your gas off. We don’t want to talk about a bill today that’s going to allow government operatives to go and turn the gas off but, what’s worse, actually empower the government to fine and punish plumbers who want to hook up a gas cooktop.’ I mean, this is a government –
Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as you know, the member is straying from the tight procedural debate that we are debating.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed. The member also interjecting in the middle of a point of order while he is on his feet is not necessarily a good idea.
Richard RIORDAN: The reality is we must support this adjournment because it is vital that the people of Victoria get an opportunity to air their grievances and concerns about a draconian policy. This is a policy that essentially says, ‘We’re going to criminalise putting gas in homes.’
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as I said in an earlier point of order, the Leader of the Nationals trod a fairly fine line in talking about the procedural debate without getting into the substance of the bill he wishes to debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this relevance?
Colin Brooks: The member on his feet is not being relevant to the debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Polwarth had strayed. I understand context is allowed. However, you cannot debate the bill, you can only debate the adjournment of the current bill.
Richard RIORDAN: We are talking about the reasons – and we will continue to talk about the reasons – why this adjournment is so important. This adjournment is important because this government is abusing its capacity in this Parliament to stop a good, honest airing of its legislation. This government is claiming it needs to – and that it is vital for it to – continue on the pill-testing legislation. We know that on Tuesday when the government had the opportunity to put its agenda forward it refused the opposition’s request to debate pill testing in detail. As my colleague the member for Brighton said earlier, for those listening and watching, this is a natural process. If this government was genuine about debate on pill testing, it would have allowed consideration in detail so that we could have asked about the many, many loophole problems that exist in that piece of legislation.
But at the same time, the government must not be allowed to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to use a piece of legislation to filibuster and waste the time of this house when there is something as vital as the energy supply to discuss. This legislation that we are not debating today is at the heart of the housing crisis and the energy crisis, both of which this government is front and centre of. This piece of legislation exacerbates the energy and housing crises and the affordability crisis in this state, and the opposition must be allowed time to air the concerns of so many Victorians that are desperately and deeply worried about where this government is heading.
Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (10:56): It probably will not surprise you that I also rise to oppose the motion to adjourn debate moved by the Leader of the Nationals, who I notice has not actually remained in the chamber to hear the procedural debate. There has been a lot of pretence from the opposition speakers that there is some fixed rule in this place that you do one bill per day, and one bill only. Even in my own limited time in this place, I have observed that that is regularly not the case. There is a lot of variation, just as there has been variation this week. We had more than one bill on Tuesday, multiple bills – the SEC bill and other bills. We only returned very briefly yesterday to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, and there is plenty of time. I note it is not even 11 o’clock yet on the third day of the sitting week and there remains plenty of time. In fact we all look forward to the debate on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024.
But I do think that we have heard a little. Indeed as the Minister for Creative Industries pointed out, we have had some anticipation of the debate, if you like, from the member for Brighton and the member for Polwarth. It is very obvious that what they want to speak about with respect to the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill appears to be, if I may say, the same somewhat tired and repetitive lines we have heard about banning gas. We have heard those lines all week already.
Members interjecting.
Nathan LAMBERT: If I can take up the interjections, they prove exactly my point. These are matters and this is a debate that has in fact been relevant to the subject matter of a number of debates already this week. Those of us who had to sit in here during the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024 will remember what is a relatively technical bill – and I should say I appreciate the contributions of the member for Gippsland South, who of course knows the industry, the area and the technology well and who did go to the technical matters in that bill. But most opposition speakers took it to exactly the point where the member for Brighton and member for Polwarth want to go, which is to all of this talk and over-the-top discussion about banning gas. Frankly, we had to sit in this chamber and listen to I think literally north of an hour of complaints about the Minister for Energy and Resources. I do not want to in any way anticipate what we might hear on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill, but I suspect it will not be about technical matters related to that bill. It probably will not even be related to clauses in that bill, it will be further repetitive complaining about the Minister for Energy and Resources and repetition of these points about there being lots of gas and about gas being important to industry and so forth.
I reiterate that opportunities to raise those particular matters and that particular form of debate will not only occur this afternoon but have in fact occurred all week. In fact, given the very general nature of that debate, all of us in the chamber would recognise that the opposition could have used their grievance speaking opportunities to further add to that general debate.
Nathan LAMBERT: The member for Brighton interjects, and we will see, when debate comes – and come it will – on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill, the degree to which it reflects the specifics of that bill or the degree to which it goes back to the general debate to which I have just alluded. The Leader of the Nationals said they had 13 speakers who wanted to speak. He is looking for therefore more than 130 minutes worth of time on the bill. I would put politely that I suspect the substantive points that need to be made will be made a lot more quickly than that.
In finishing I also want to come back and just speak to the importance of further discussion on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill. It has been an important and high-quality debate. We have heard some personal stories of the member for Frankston, who is here, the member for Footscray, the member for Melton and indeed the member for Yan Yean speaking earlier – some very moving personal discussion about the bill that we did have in front of us until this adjournment motion. It is also I think an important bill because it has that property that we are talking about – an important broader principle about allowing health-led measures on something that is still unlawful, and that is an ethical question that is worth deliberating at some length. I do hope I get the opportunity, if this motion is unsuccessful, to further contribute to that debate myself.
In conclusion, I would very much like to oppose the motion to adjourn debate. I do hope that it loses and we can get back to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill and hear more from the member for Wendouree.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, 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 (49): Juliana Addison, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, 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, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Motion defeated.
Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (11:08): I really welcome the opportunity to stand and contribute to this bill, representing my community and having my say on a bill that is before the house today. Today I rise to speak in support of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024 and really do genuinely welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate for our state. First and foremost, I would really like to acknowledge the leadership of the Premier on this important matter and her contribution to the debate. I do share her view that our young people are smart and want information and that they should have access to honest and health-focused information. The evidence tells us that pill testing saves lives and that this harm reduction strategy allows a person who is already in possession of a drug to test it and find out what is actually in it. Many studies have found that pill testing can change people’s drug-taking behaviour, helping to save lives.
The reality in our state is that we have seen a rise in drug-related emergency department admissions and overdose deaths. The data shows that Victorian paramedics responded to more drug overdoses at festivals in the first three months of 2024 than during all of 2023. As a parent and a former teacher, for 12 years I spent time with kids while I was working in the Ballarat Clarendon boarding house and the kids were going to festivals. I was talking to them about being safe, talking to them about making good decisions, talking to them about being informed and saying, ‘Do you really know what you’re doing? Really think and be safe.’
I cannot sit down and not contribute to this important debate that will save lives. It will particularly be important to those young people – the ones that I used to teach and I used to care for, and my own kids, who are 16 and 14, attending their first music festival – and encourage them to make informed decisions about risk-taking behaviour, encourage them to actually ask questions and be informed about what they may or may not take and how the chemicals might impact them and consider whether they actually want to consume these pills at all. We know that pill testing prevents young people from using unusually strong or contaminated drugs. We know that pill testing increases the knowledge consumers have about certain chemicals and drugs and the impact and the effects that they may have.
Importantly, pill testing involves conversations around safer drug use and reducing harm with health professionals. It ultimately saves lives. One life that was tragically lost was Alex Ross-King, who died of an MDMA overdose at the FOMO Festival in New South Wales in 2019. Alex was just 19 years of age. Her brave mother Jennifer Ross-King is a powerful advocate for reform following the devastating death of her darling daughter. At a press conference on 2 October 2023 in Sydney Jennifer made an emotional plea, begging to make change so no-one else loses a child. Her advocacy was compelling, and her grief was palpable.
The reason I am supporting this bill is to save lives and prevent unnecessary deaths, like Alex’s, that devastate the lives of so many. I want to really thank the Minister for Mental Health in the other place for the work that she and her office have done to bring this bill to this place. I want to thank the department for all their efforts, because this is important legislation. There is widespread support not only across my community but across Victoria for this reform, whether it be festivalgoers, concerned parents or healthcare workers, a number of whom have reached out to my office to discuss this issue. Following another unnecessary death of a young person at a music festival, a nurse in her 50s contacted my electorate office to express her concerns and advocate for pill testing. She had never contacted an MP before about any issue but felt compelled to do it over this issue because of her strong support for pill testing and harm minimisation. We had a really interesting and informative discussion about pill testing and harm prevention from her perspective as a nurse. I want to thank her for her advocacy and so many for their advocacy who have shared their knowledge and life experience pertaining to pill testing or the consequences of their loved ones not having access to pill testing.
It was the scientific research and these conversations that have contributed to the introduction of this bill. In June this year the Premier committed to implementing a drug-checking program in Victoria, and this bill will allow for a trial to commence before the end of the year. This complements our state’s $95 million multiyear statewide action plan, which is already well underway and combating drug harm via expanded services, targeted support and strengthened oversight.
This bill proposes amendments to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 – yes, 1981; it was a long time ago that act was introduced – in order to authorise and establish a framework for drug checking in Victoria, as well as to provide relevant, necessary statutory immunities and protections. The bill will also seek to establish the supply of naloxone via secure automatic dispensing units. Sadly, I am not going to have enough time to talk about the many benefits that those dispensing units will have.
I really do want to spend the next bit of my time talking about how the trial will work and why drug checking is important, because this bill will provide the legislative basis to allow drug-checking services to operate within our state. The proposed Victorian model would begin with an 18-month implementation trial of a mixed service model, with mobile drug-checking services at up to 10 festivals and events as well as at a fixed site in a central location. The trial will provide benefits for those Victorians who make use of these services but will also benefit health services and policy more broadly by providing valuable information about how drug-checking services can be best utilised for our state. A drug-checking interaction would start with a discussion with a harm reduction worker before a qualified chemist uses a small sample of substance to analyse its content. Findings on the compounds detected as well as their effects and interactions would then be communicated by a health professional or a harm reduction worker. No-one will be told that their drugs are safe. However, crucial harm minimisation advice will be provided, along with the option of safe disposal.
The bill that is before the house provides a framework that will facilitate these interactions. It also clarifies the roles of those involved, including general drug-checking workers authorised to provide harm reduction advice, specialised drug-checking workers who are also trained to handle substances and drug-checking directors overseeing operations at all times. The bill also outlines the activities and requirements of drug-checking permits. These may be issued by the secretary to a fit and proper person, subject to any relevant conditions, and will allow for operation at either an identified fixed site or a mobile service, which must be suitable, sanitary and adequately equipped.
Crucially, this bill also provides a statutory exemption from liability for clients, permit-holders and certain staff. This means that clients can attend a drug-checking place and that the workers can do their jobs without fear of criminal repercussions for possession or supply. These exemptions will not extend to clients possessing trafficable quantities or those who are bound by drug-related legal obligations, including bail obligations. Furthermore, those involved in the provision of drug-checking services will be exempt from certain civil liabilities and from repercussions under codes of conduct for activities conducted in good faith under the permit.
Turning our backs on what is happening is not working. In recent years usage has shifted towards synthetic drugs, and our statistics show how fatal overdoses have grown. I commend this bill to the house.
Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (11:18): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, or, for those listening at home, the pill-testing bill. I am very grateful that I have the opportunity to stand and speak today. My community elected me to be their voice at the table, and it is great to be here to express my views on their behalf. There has been a lot of really wonderful debate over the course of the last couple of days, and debate with a rich lived-experience feeling coming through. The member for Melton did a wonderful debate, and also the member for Frankston and the member for Yan Yean. They all told of their lived experience of pill testing and the dangers and the harm, and I thank them for being brave and courageous enough to bring that here in this chamber.
I would like to assure the member for Brighton that when this bill passes it will not be a green light for drug use. I will not be running out to buy pills, nor will my wife or my children or their friends. I think that is just fearmongering, and it is a shame that you bring that to this chamber. Unfortunately, I feel from this side of the chamber the debate has been really substantial but on that side of the chamber the debate has been really disappointing. The reason that it has been disappointing is that all I heard on that side was that they have questions that have not been answered and that they are concerned about things. But the problem is they have got it wrong; they have actually got their debate wrong on this pill-testing bill.
This bill is about a trial, and the interesting thing about a trial is you go to trial because you do not have all the answers. A trial is about finding out answers to questions that we have, and then, when you find those answers, you find other questions. Rather than debate the fact that we do not know what this trial is going to do, let us start saving lives – what a great idea. Let us start saving lives. Let us go and do the trial and find out what we need to do, what changes we need to make and how we can further save lives and keep our community, our children, our friends and our brothers and sisters safe. That to me makes sense.
Pill testing or drug checking is not a new idea; it has not even been new in the last decade. Pill testing has existed in Europe since the 1990s. The UK, Canada, Netherlands and our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have conducted the practice, and also at home in the ACT and, I believe, Queensland. Is that correct?
A member interjected.
Paul MERCURIO: Incoming, good. The fact is in a perfect world no-one would take drugs, but the fact is people do take drugs and we cannot really stop them. We can scream about how dangerous they are and that they are illegal, but people do not really care about that.
Paul MERCURIO: That does not mean that we can just let them die in the ditch at some music festival, member for Brighton. People are prepared and will always be prepared to take the risk. They have always done that from time immemorial. The truth is, if we want to stop people taking drugs, we have got to stop drugs. Maybe that is a better idea, member for Brighton. The fact is our police forces work incredibly hard to stop illegal drugs coming into our country. Our police forces, both federal and state, work incredibly hard to stop people manufacturing illegal drugs in our state and in our country, and basically it is impossible. If it was possible, we would have done it already. There is an alternative to that, and that is that we protect and help people to make better informed decisions about whether they want to take illicit drugs or not. I am reminded that no matter how hard we work, we still have illicit and illegal drugs in jail, which you would think would be one of the easiest places to stop them. So we cannot continue to do the same thing. We have to try a different approach, and that is what this bill and, when it passes, that is what this trial will work towards. It is something different, and it will save lives.
The question is: does pill testing save lives? We have heard in this chamber way too many stories about people who have passed away from taking drugs that could have been saved. The member for Yan Yean told a story yesterday about a young girl who went to a rave, had pills in her pocket, saw a sniffer dog and, in panic and fright, took all her drugs and subsequently died. What a great idea, sniffer dogs. Let us have sniffer dogs instead of pill testing – let us not.
The fact is, as I have said, there will be people that will always take drugs. A report conducted by the ANU found that two-thirds of people who used a pill-testing service had never discussed or sought advice about their drug use with a health professional, and now, because of pill testing, they do. They are given information; they are given the opportunity to make an informed choice.
As I said, the fact is that people will always take drugs. They are not thinking about the consequences. Maybe they are overly trusting of their drug dealer or their manufacturer, or they just do not care. However, there are a percentage of people that do care, that are concerned. They know that the drugs are illegal. They are going out to have a good time, but in the back of their minds they are concerned and wondering, ‘Is this safe to take?’ We are not giving them the opportunity to find out. We are giving them the opportunity for a sniffer dog to smell their drugs and then to be sent to jail or to court or to ruin their lives. We need to change that.
I am aware too that often people will buy some drugs and take them to a party, and they might actually buy some for their friend and give them to them. I can tell you what, I certainly would not want to have to live with the repercussions if I had bought some drugs for a good time at a rave and gave some of those drugs to my girlfriend or boyfriend or whoever and they died. I just could not imagine the horror of that.
Additionally, most festivalgoers attend with groups of friends, so if one of them has drugs, then quite likely some of their other friends have drugs, possibly from the same source, possibly not. So if one person in the group has the courage and perhaps the sanity to go and have their drugs tested and they find out that they are not what they were purported to be, they can then tell their friends, who might not go and get their drugs tested. But if one person in the group does and they find that there is something in that pill that should not be there, that it is too strong or whatever, they can tell their friends, and their friends can have the choice of whether or not they wish to take those drugs.
Paul MERCURIO: There is; it is multiplying safety. Of course the best way to prevent death is not to take drugs, but as I have said, we live in reality and people will take drugs regardless.
There are some facts that I would like people to have a look at. In 2023 the evaluation of the ACT’s drug-checking service CanTEST revealed that 53 per cent of substances tested matched the expected drug – only 53 per cent. A study of English festivals found the rate of onsite medical incidents and hospitalisations from accidental drug harm is significantly lower at festivals that provide pill testing. Police and medical services in the UK attribute a 95 per cent decrease in drug-related hospital admissions to pill testing – 95 per cent.
There are a lot of other facts, but I also want to just quickly talk about how since 2021 four Victorian coroners have investigated the deaths of 10 Victorians, and they have all recommended drug-checking services. Let us think about it for a moment: 10 deaths; 20 grieving parents; 50 to 60 grieving siblings; 60 to 100 grieving extended family members; 200, 300 or 400 grieving friends from work, sporting clubs, drama groups, local church, community groups – all walks of life. Drugs do not discriminate. We need to do better.
I am really lucky my kids did not do drugs. They did not go to festivals. But I could not imagine lying awake at night wondering if they got home safe, wondering in the morning, if they are not home, if there is bad news. We need to support this bill, and I commend the bill to the house.
Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (11:28): I thank the member for Hastings for his thoughtful and compelling contribution. I rise to also support the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. We began this debate on Tuesday, as the Leader of the Nationals pointed out to us a little earlier, and I did therefore have the opportunity of visiting the 1st Reservoir Scout Group on Tuesday evening and chatting to them about the debate we have been having in this place. I do thank Ross Millward, Leonard and the rest of the Venturer Scouts for having us along. I can report to the chamber that this bill would have passed, not unanimously but comfortably, if it were a vote of the 1st Reservoir Scout Group. I think to the credit of that group, they did very quickly grasp the point of the bill, perhaps more so even than some opposition speakers.
Legislation is of course always about what we can do, what we must do and what we cannot do. As we know, the underlying principal act here basically bans the production and use of a range of controlled substances, but like most things it has some exceptions. The key point of the bill we are debating is to make operating a drug-checking service a permitted exemption for the purposes of what is proposed to be an 18-month trial of such a program. Separately but importantly, it also allows for the supply through vending machines of opioid antagonists, which for the time being largely means naloxone, and we have heard other speakers – I certainly appreciate the contribution of the member for Melton, who is next to me – talk on the very practical and important use of that drug. It is very welcome that its use will be expanded through the bill that is in front of us today.
But, as we have heard throughout the debate, the contentious part is the drug-checking part. A significant component of the opposition’s responses concern an alleged lack of detail. I say again: legislation sets out what you can and cannot do. It does not and has never described the entire implementation of any program. I note the member for Brighton is here. We all heard speak him at some length about 12-year-olds, and in fact he repeated those points through interjections earlier. He had the opportunity to move an amendment to that effect, but he has not done that. I am sure the minister will take on board all of the questions and comments that have been raised. But I think it is important to call out –
Nathan LAMBERT: No, member for Brighton, I think it is important to call out that I believe some members of the opposition are using questions of detail to avoid voting in favour of a bill that they would personally support because they do not wish to go back and explain to some of their more conservative branch members and voters why it is that they supported it.
Nathan LAMBERT: Taking the interjection, I note that the member for Brunswick in his contribution raised a similar set of implementation questions. He spoke about spectrometer sensitivity and other things that the member for South-West Coast had bought up, but he did not feel the need to then vote against the bill. That is because he recognised, as the 1st Reservoir Scout Group recognised, that what we are debating here today is the broad question of whether it should be legal to run a drug-checking pilot or not. The answer to that broad question is of course yes. As the Minister for Health said the other day, we know that drug abuse is real and we know that harm caused by drugs is real, and we need to take a health-led approach to this because there are peoples’ lives at stake. Or, as the Premier said even more simply in her contribution, this bill is about saving lives.
In arguing in favour of that proposition I would like to draw an analogy with road safety and follow very much the line of argument taken up by the member for Yan Yean. If we learned tomorrow that there was some magical technology that cost, say, $50,000 and allowed you to magically take control of any vehicle with a drunk driver behind the wheel and safely drive them home, would we do it? Of course we would do it. That would be a very cost-effective way of saving in the vicinity of 75 lives every year. I can tell you right now, if such a thing happened, it would pass through this place with the full support of everyone and very little comment.
We do in many respects already do that. If you think about barriers along highways, if you think about the semi-mountable curbs that are found on the Bell Street bridge for us locally, those road design features are not there for the average driver. They are there for people who have lost control of their vehicle at high speed. Nine times out of 10 the reason they have done that is because they are acting in an unlawful or negligent matter, and no-one says of those drivers, who contribute very significantly to the road toll, ‘Okay, let’s get the road toll to zero, except for the people who are speeding or drink driving.’ I have never heard the opposition make that argument. We have to ask ourselves why it is different for illicit drugs. Why is the idea of preventing deaths –
Nathan LAMBERT: Driving when you are drunk, to take the interjection from the member for Brighton, or driving above the speed limit is illegal, yet we do not say that those lives do not matter. So why is it that, when it comes to illicit drugs, it is so much more controversial than the idea of –
Nathan LAMBERT: The member for Brighton is making some trivial and exaggerated interjections. The member for Yan Yean made the point, to make the point another way, member for Brighton, that if someone is out on a boat and they do not wear a life jacket, which is unlawful, we do not refuse to send a search and rescue team to them. The reality is we save people’s lives regardless of the legality of their behaviour. That has always been the case, and as the member for Brighton knows, the reason it is different with illicit drugs is because there has always been a culture war around illicit drugs.
The member can talk all that he likes about evidence-based approaches, but the political right has always been very negatively predisposed to illegal drugs and very ungenerous in the stereotyped way they talk about drug users. And the member for Brighton will perhaps agree with me when I say that on the other hand the political left and the Greens and those further left of them have always, we know, been extremely positively predisposed, to a degree that often has gone beyond what the significant risk profile of illicit drugs would support.
I did think the member for Brunswick made a good contribution, in part because, unlike some Greens members with whom I have spoken, he did not pretend that drugs are low risk. We are in complete agreement with the member for Brighton – they are high risk – and I point out that he in fact voiced what I think are very real and serious concerns about fentanyl and synthetic opioids and other new novel drugs coming which are even more dangerous than some that are currently commonly used. Whilst I think there are some on the left who would just remove all drugs from the principal act, I think there is some credit that he recognised that we can in fact tackle these things through a combination of education campaigns, health-led responses and legal prohibitions, just as we do drink driving and other high-risk behaviours. To emphasise that point: we all recognise that making something illegal is often important. Making industrial manslaughter unlawful was important. Making it unlawful to pour several tonnes of cooking oil into Edwards Lake, which unfortunately locally someone did recently, is important to disincentivise them from doing it. Making the Nazi salute illegal and unlawful is important to disincentivise people from doing it. We agree with that. The same thing should be absolutely true for producing, using and distributing highly dangerous and illegal drugs, and we recognise the negative impacts on the community.
Nathan LAMBERT: But as I have just set out in my contribution, we can absolutely do that, and in complete opposition to the interjections of the member for Brighton, it is possible to simultaneously use legal prohibitions and a health-led response and an education campaign.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, we have heard from other members – I touched in my adjournment comments on the contributions of the member for Footscray, the member for Melton and earlier from the member for Hastings – about people who have direct, lived experience of seeing an overdose victim trying to find their breath, trying to breathe again. I have been lucky in my life not to have to experience that, but I have certainly been in circumstances where people have taken pills and other illicit drugs, having obtained them from someone they had met 3 minutes earlier, and they had no idea what they were doing. I think the availability and the knowledge about the availability of the pilot program that has been set forth or allowed to act through the bill today would have been important in those circumstances. Touching on the comments that the member for Brunswick and others have made about the rise of novel synthetic opioids and benzodiazepines and other drugs like that, it is also a very timely bill to reach this chamber.
I thank the Minister for Mental Health and her team for bringing it together and the mental health division of the Department of Health, who have done a lot of work on this. I do also recognise, as other speakers have done – the member for Frankston and others – the work of Harm Reduction Victoria and other advocates who have been involved in this discussion for a long time. As I said, it is a timely bill, an important bill, and I commend it to the house.
Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (11:38): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I think this has been something that has been discussed in our communities for a very long time. I do want to give my thanks, appreciation and acknowledgement to the Minister for Mental Health and for work that she and her team have done on this bill. It is really about saving lives. It is a health-led approach, and it has been done on the basis of the evidence that has been put before this government.
It is not about condoning drug use, and it is not about telling people they are good to go with taking drugs. But I think many of us in this place have heard from families and loved ones about the impact of drug use, particularly on young people who go out to have a good time, to have fun and to enjoy themselves at these festivals. Unfortunately the consequences can be dire, and either they become seriously unwell or, in a worse scenario, they pass away. I have not had the opportunity to speak to families that have had a loved one pass away under these circumstances, but I have certainly had conversations with families who have had near-miss experiences with a loved one, with their children or a sibling.
What I found is that many of those people are saying this has to happen. This is one way of protecting those young people that go to these festivals. They do not set out to intentionally harm themselves; they are just out to have a good time. I know for many families it is quite frightening. We all like to think that our kids are going to do the right thing and not take drugs, but by the same token we know that young people experiment. They are around their mates at these festivals and think, ‘I’m just going to take one pill and have a great time and go home.’ Unfortunately for some young people that does not happen. They do not get to go home. I think the evidence that has been before us, the expert information that has been put forward, is something that we as a government have a responsibility to take note of. I think the consequences of not doing that are dire for future events where these pills are available to young people.
As I said, it is not about condoning drug use. It is about a health-led approach, and we have seen that in our approach to the safe injecting rooms and the reasons why we put those in place. This is just another extension of that from my perspective. During the early stages of the debate, which started some years ago, I did question whether this was something we should do. But over time and from listening to those experts, listening to families and listening to young people I fully support this bill. I think we should all in this place be supporting this bill, because we never know whether it is going to be one of our children, one of my grandchildren. Importantly, we are here as a government to protect as much as we can all Victorians, and that includes young people that want to go out and have a good time.
This whole thing about encouraging young people to take pills – I do not think it is. In the discussions I have with young people they see it as being a really positive thing that they can have that pill tested but also have that education piece when they are getting that pill tested. I do not believe that there will be people encouraging them to take the pill, but they will be there to provide them with the information and support that they need to make an informed decision. If they make that decision, that is a decision of that young person to do that, but at least we know that there is some protection in place for that young person when they make those decisions. It is about providing Victorians with information to help them make more informed decisions. These are life-saving decisions that they will be making, and we will have amazing people there supporting them. I know when we have schoolies week down in the south-west in our area on the Surf Coast there are remarkable people that are out there supporting young people. Obviously pill testing is not part of that, but they are educating young people about drugs and alcohol, the impact of that when it is abused in some way and what they need to do to protect themselves. I see those amazing people out there, and I am pretty confident we will have those same amazing people at these festivals, providing that really good information to those young people.
Clearly the legislation will ensure all parties, including festival operators, pill-testing operators and their clients, will be given the confidence that nobody is breaking the law by operating or using the testing service. This is another important factor to this. Our police, who I understand are supporting this bill, have been heavily involved in the conversations around this.
I know the impact that this has on not only the families and loved ones but the paramedics who have to attend these events. I want to give them a huge shout-out for all the work that they do. All of those experts in the field are in support of this bill because they know that it can be life-saving.
Pill-testing services are much more than the test itself. Trained peer workers and technical experts will also provide clients with critical harm reduction information to reduce that risk, and the intelligence gathered from this service will strengthen Victoria’s current drug surveillance efforts, helping us to get on top of dangerous trends a lot sooner. We know that no drug is ever truly safe, and that is part of this. We are not saying that it is safe to do, but we know that some young people will make the decision to take those drugs. We know they are not safe, but Victorians deserve to have all the information possible to help them make better, safer and more informed decisions.
As I said, the science behind pill testing is clear: it saves lives and reduces harm. It really is just common sense. We have listened to those experts; we have made that decision to put this forward and to have that trial, and hopefully we can put this in place before the festival season starts. That gives us an opportunity over the next 18 months to see how this is going to work and potentially save a number of lives during that process as well. This is not going to be the be-all and end-all, but it is going to start addressing some of those life-threatening situations that occur particularly at festivals, so to have this in place ready for the festival season is really important from my perspective.
I know in my community many families are very supportive of this bill. I have not had a conversation with anybody that does not agree with it. Yes, there is some hesitancy about something like this, but there always will be. When people consider this as being potentially life-saving for their children, their neighbour’s children or family members, they are in full support of it. I congratulate the Minister for Mental Health for all the work that she has done, because this is really a huge reform that we need to have in place that will protect our children in Victoria and ensure a safe environment.
Ella GEORGE (Lara) (11:48): It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. Put simply, this bill is about saving lives. The proposed bill includes provisions for implementing a trial program for drug-testing services and authorises the installation of naloxone dispensing machines to address opioid overdose cases. This will allow the operation of both stationary and mobile pill-testing services in Victoria.
The primary goal of pill testing is to save lives and change individuals’ behaviour by providing them with health and safety information. As a government, we understand that whether we like it or not people will use drugs, and we also know that no drug is safe. But if people choose to take drugs, they deserve to know what is in them. Harm minimisation is so crucial and urgently needed at this time as we see the global drug market becoming more and more dangerous.
Pill testing is not a new idea. In Europe it has existed since the 1990s, with countries like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom providing pill-testing facilities to the community and at festivals for years. Services have been implemented in several countries around the world, including Canada, New Zealand and Ireland. These services include onsite and fixed-site testing. They have been successful in identifying harmful substances and saving lives.
When it comes to Australia, Victoria is not the first jurisdiction to consider pill testing as a way to minimise harm and reduce risky drug-taking behaviour. In 2018 Australia held its first pill-testing trial at the Groovin the Moo festival in Canberra and held a second trial there in 2019. Eighty-five substances were tested in 2018, and this more than doubled to 171 substances in 2019. During the 2018 trial 18 per cent of patients decided not to use illicit drugs at the festival, while 12 per cent said that they would use less of that drug.
When we compare places that have pill testing with those without it, there is not any evidence that suggests an increase in rates of drug use or mortality. In fact the evidence tells us that pill testing leads to less drug taking. The Australian Capital Territory drug-checking service, CanTEST, found that only 53 per cent of substances tested matched the expected drug. For those where an additional drug, a different drug or an inconclusive result was found, one-third reported that they definitely would not use the drug. A study at English festivals revealed that festivals providing pill-testing services had a lower rate of onsite medical incidents and hospitalisations due to accidental drug harm compared to those that did not offer such services. At a UK festival, police and medical services attributed a 95 per cent decrease in drug-related hospital admissions to pill-testing services, indicating the potential benefits of such services in harm reduction. A 2022 study showed that a high percentage of consumers in Portugal and the UK chose not to consume the drug when test results indicated that the drug was different than expected, highlighting the impact of drug testing on consumer behaviour.
What these trials in Australia and established services across Europe clearly tell us is that when people have access to a pill-testing service, when they have more information about what is actually in drugs, they are less likely to use those drugs. Ultimately pill testing empowers individuals to make well-informed choices about their substance use. According to the 2022–23 national drug strategy household survey, an estimated 10.2 million people, or 47 per cent of people, aged 14 and over in Australia had used an illicit drug at some point in their lifetime. An estimated 3.9 million – 18 per cent of our population – had used an illicit drug in the last 12 months. According to the Australian secondary students’ alcohol and drug survey in 2017, which surveyed more than 23,000 secondary school students aged between 12 and 17 years, around 4 per cent of students had reported using ecstasy, or MDMA, at some point in the last year. What this research is telling us is that Victorians, in particular young Victorians, are using illicit drugs.
These statistics are sadly all too well known across the Geelong region. The latest data from the Victorian Coroners Court has shown a concerning increase in drug overdose deaths in the Greater Geelong region. The number of overdose deaths across Geelong rose from 22 in 2022 to 27 last year, making it the highest number of fatalities in regional Victoria. Since 2014 a total of 215 people have tragically passed away due to drug overdoses in the Geelong region. A recent report from the Penington Institute indicates a 56 per cent spike in Geelong residents accidentally overdosing on drugs, from 60 in 2012–18 to 94 in 2018–22. These statistics are heartbreaking, and there is more we can do to bring them down – reduce accidental drug overdoses and prevent drug overdose deaths. That is exactly why this government is bringing this legislation to the house.
Pill testing is just one way we can reduce drug harm in our community, and the Allan Labor government is backing-in this trial with a statewide action plan to address drug harms, save lives and provide care to those in need. The plan responds to the recommendations of the Lay report and emphasises a health-led approach to reducing drug harms. It includes initiatives such as expanding access to pharmacotherapy – the use of medicines to assist in the treatment of opioid addiction – to 30 more locations across the state. This will allow up to 1500 more Victorians access to life-saving treatment. We will hold a trial of 20 naloxone vending machines alongside existing needle and syringe programs so that this completely safe medication can be more easily accessed at any time of the day to help people in a life-or-death emergency. In my local community, Barwon Health offers naloxone free from its Corio community health centre and the mental health and wellbeing hub on Moorabool Street in the Geelong CBD. The plan includes an Australian-first Never Use Alone helpline, a new helpline which will offer anonymous care and advice to individuals at risk of overdose. The purpose of this helpline is to reduce overdose risk and assist emergency services to respond faster if needed.
In partnership with Cohealth we are establishing a dedicated community health hub in the Melbourne CBD. This hub will offer comprehensive health and social support services to the Melbourne CBD community, and when it opens in 2026 the hub will be a gateway for wraparound health and social support services and provide comprehensive case management for those most vulnerable. In addition to the hub, the plan also delivers wraparound services at the Salvation Army centre on Bourke Street, which provides medical, nursing and mental health support. Delivery will commence as soon as possible in 2024. The plan will boost Cohealth street teams in the CBD and expand street outreach to two other Melbourne locations. The plan also includes the appointment of Victoria’s first chief addiction adviser within the state’s health system and the development of Victoria’s long-term strategy to address alcohol and other drug harms. This will ensure that we continue to do all that we can to reduce drug use, minimise harm and save lives.
This bill will make amendments to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to allow for the introduction of a drug-checking trial with protections for the service, its staff and its clients. The possession and supply of illicit drugs will not be decriminalised outside the service, and police powers will remain the same. Victoria will continue to consult with police and other authorities to establish a fair and feasible arrangement that does not deter people from using the service. Close collaboration with Victoria Police has been ongoing to ensure the right balance between holding drug dealers accountable and not deterring people from using the service.
Pill testing provides people with the opportunity to understand the risks of drug use and emphasises the importance of harm minimisation approaches. It is practical, realistic and proven to be effective both in Australia and overseas, because we know that drug use is dangerous but information is powerful. This bill seeks to save lives, reduce drug harm and improve public health while also aiming to reduce pressures on Victoria’s frontline services. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Mental Health for all of her work in putting together this important bill. I am proud to support the bill, and I wish it a speedy passage.
Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (11:57): I rise to make a brief contribution on this bill, which is inherently about pill testing. The Premier has said that it has taken her some time to come to the position that she has come to on this, and I am likewise. I can remember having a conversation with the member for Glen Waverley a couple of years ago on this very topic. He and I were not vastly apart, but we were on different sides of the argument. But I have also come round to supporting the concept, and I support this bill.
As I have mentioned before, I was lucky enough to grow up in a pharmacy. I think I and the member for Wendouree share the luxury of having had a father who was a pharmacist. I was surrounded by drugs – legal ones – the use of drugs and the prescribing of drugs, and that was my childhood. My father, although very conservative – I do not know where he would sit on this; I have got a feeling he would actually sit with the bill, but I will not speak for him, because he is not here anymore – was one of the early adopters of the methadone program in the pharmacy. It is not quite the same, obviously, but in a sense the methadone program is a harm reduction measure. You are still providing a drug to the person who is the addict but hopefully doing it in a more controlled circumstance that will allow them to, in this case with heroin, get off it. As an aside – I think the Pharmacy Guild of Australia might agree with me here; a shout-out to Anthony Tassone and the crew – it would be nice if the federal government added a little bit of money to the pharmacists who still do the methadone program. It essentially becomes a cost to the business because there is not enough incentive to actually do it. So all the pharmacists who do the methadone program do it pretty much out of their goodwill and humanitarian spirit, so a shout-out to all those pharmacists who do.
The complexity of this issue is that it is almost like holding two contrary views at the same time, which I have heard is a sign of intelligence. I am not going to put forward that I have that, but I will say on the one hand we have illegal drugs that most of us in this house would agree are rightfully illegal. The sale of them is illegal. The procurement of them is illegal. On the carrying of them, we tend to walk away from the illegality and the criminality, especially in personal quantities, and we do that because we understand that there are problems involved with people who take drugs. In the case of pills and especially party-related pills that we are mostly talking about, we do not want to condone the use of them, and I do not think anyone in this house that I have heard is condoning the use of drugs.
But we are naive if we do not accept that the use is common amongst some people, and those people tend to be young. I was young once – it has been a while – and I did some stupid things when I was young, not too stupid thankfully, but we all make mistakes. I have three kids, like other people in this house have children. What brings me to supporting this concept, this bill and the state moving forward on this – and I thank the Premier for leading on this – and what brings me to the decision is that in essence the awkwardness of this topic is because of the illegality of the substance. The way forward is to lessen the harm, because we know the harm will continue. This bill will not prevent every mistake by a young person. This bill will not prevent every loss of life in tragedy or some of the tragedies we have heard about from members on both sides, but it will lessen them.
Taking a pill, testing it, knowing that it is incredibly harmful and telling the public that it is incredibly harmful is not condoning the use, the sale, the procurement or the trafficking, but it is a way of us saying, ‘Be aware of what you’re about to do.’ The responsibility is still on the person who is about to take the substance, but we as a state are in a position where we can say to people, ‘Seriously, do not do this. We’ve seen what you’re about to consider taking, and it is going to be very, very bad for you. Don’t do it.’ I ask people who may be conflicted as I was to imagine standing outside a mall talking to a family who have just lost a young person and saying, ‘We had a chance that we might have been able to warn your child. But it was a bit awkward, we were a bit conflicted and it was too complicated.’
We need to have protections around this, and we can debate the finer points and regulations. None of the laws that we make in this state will stay exactly the same forever. The law is a moving feast. But moving in this direction is undoubtedly going to save a life – a quality of life. It might be my kids. It might not be my kids. It does not matter whose kids. What matters is that we have a chance to accept the awkwardness, to accept the complexity, to take it on and be accountable for that and warn people who are about to make a very big mistake what the consequences are and that maybe they should not do it at the time that they are about to do it. That does not mean that we stop telling our young people that, to quote South Park, ‘Drugs are bad, mkay?’ It does not mean that we stop telling people that they should stay away from drugs. We still do that. We continue to do that. But at the time that they are about to make that mistake, which may be the last one they ever make, we have a chance to tell them, ‘Don’t do this one. This one will be your last.’ I commend the bill.
Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:05): I too rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I understand that I am the last speaker on this bill. There have been many speakers from all sides who have had a chance to speak on this bill. I think it has probably been reflective of the debate, the number of speakers that have wished to contribute about how important this reform is and how vexed it is in many ways, as the member for Ashwood said.
I just want to reflect briefly on a couple of outstanding contributions that have been made through the course of the debate. I see the member for Melton here who spoke about his life experience and treating people who had come to harm, as well as the member for Frankston with his outstanding contribution. I also want to shout out to the member for Footscray and just reflect on what a wonderful human being she is. She is a wonderful human being anyway, but the instance that she described about coming across an individual who was obviously under the influence of drugs at the time and stopping and making sure that help came – let us hope, as the member for Melton said in response, that that young person did survive. But there is one certainty and that is if not for the actions of the member for Footscray and her friends, the outcome would have been far, far worse.
I think we have to reflect on that when we are debating this bill. This is about a harm minimisation response. It is about a health-led response to the recognition that there will be individuals, particularly young individuals, who want to take illicit substances for a variety of reasons. It is critical that we have supports in place for them to be able to make better decisions. Those supports should also be about informing them that all illicit drugs are dangerous. And that is part of the recognition; we are not denying the danger of the illicit drugs.
I am also reflecting on the comment that the member for Morwell made in his contribution. If I understood correctly, he was concerned that because the technology would not be able to provide an absolute guarantee about every single percentage of what is actually in the substance, then it was not a trial that we should be proceeding with. I feel that the only guarantee and the only certainty is that if you do not have pill testing, you can absolutely guarantee that 100 per cent of what you are taking is unknown. We do not want to see more stories of young people overdosing or taking substances that have been cooked up in some factory that are going to end their lives.
If this pill testing can help provide more information, even if it is not going to be the complete information – even if you are told, ‘Well, it’s 25 per cent, and we don’t even know what that 25 per cent includes’ – I hope that that will be a warning sign to those individuals to say, ‘Well, maybe you’re not actually taking what you think you’re taking, and maybe you should have a second thought about the substances that you’re ingesting.’ That is exactly the intention of the pill-testing program to be implemented, so that, through education and a health-led response, young people, people who are wanting to experiment with these drugs, can be better educated and can make more informed decisions.
We have to be cognisant that drug taking does exist in our society, and we have to face certain realities. If we are to be outcome-driven, our outcome must always be about saving lives and educating people about the dangers. But strict prohibition and enforcement, as we heard from the member for Yan Yean in her story, and having a sniffer dog only response is not going to lead to a better health outcome, and it is not going to lead to a better outcome for the people who are taking these drugs.
We know that the contents that are finding their way into recreational drugs these days can be extremely potent, often many times the potency of traditional synthetic substances, and there has been an increase in drug-related emergency department admissions. The call for access to drug checking and pill testing is backed by experts locally and abroad, and as many members have said, it is not a new thing; it is something that has been around for decades, particularly over in Europe. Local and international experience has shown that drug checking is an effective public health intervention that does not increase or encourage illicit drug use.
In terms of the bill itself, this bill will give the legal authority to establish both fixed and mobile pill-testing services in Victoria. It will start with an 18-month implementation trial from the end of this year to authorise, appoint and regulate both fixed and mobile pill-testing services. By mid next year the trial also will see the establishment of a fixed-site service in a central Melbourne location close to the night-life precincts and public transport.
As I said, the key drivers for implementing this service are harm reduction and education. Without having this additional program I think we as a state would be in a far weaker place to try and deal with this issue, particularly through an education lens, and ensure that we will, at the end of the day, save more lives.
In closing, it is important that we have this pill-testing information. By providing this information to the people who bring the drugs to the pill-testing unit, they will be able to make better informed decisions, and hopefully that will change their lives for ever.
That the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.