Tuesday, 29 October 2024

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gayle Tierney:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:46): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I want to put some comments on the record around the government’s approach to this issue and exactly what is happening in the community. I acknowledge that there have been significant numbers of families that have been affected by terrible instances of young people that have overdosed on drugs and died. Around the country 60-odd young people have died from drug overdoses at festivals and over 5000 people have died from drug overdoses and other impacts or drugs and alcohol and prescription drugs, so there is a very big issue around overdose in general. I want to make that point whilst we are debating this important piece of legislation before the house.

I also want to note that whilst there have been these issues, the government has failed in many instances to provide the promised support that it was going to around drug addiction and mental health support. As we have found out recently, waitlists have skyrocketed under Labor – waiting for treatment for drug addictions especially. Since September 2020 the number of Victoria’s most vulnerable awaiting treatment has soared by 93 per cent; that was a survey commissioned by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. Alarmingly, there were more than 4600 people waiting for treatment on any given day in Victoria in June and July this year. These statistics are the real statistics, and there are alarming issues around the inaction by the Allan Labor government. As we know, they have taxed Victorians a billion dollars a year to provide for these services, yet they are failing. I think it is important to note that whilst the government talks up a big game, it is the reality of what is happening on the ground where it is failing. With those numbers that are waiting for support and the failure to provide mental health beds and support in the regions especially, the government has failed dismally.

This bill does talk about pill testing, and it goes to a number of areas. It enables drug-checking services to be established, licensed and regulated in Victoria at both fixed and mobile sites. It will also introduce a drug-checking trial to take place for a period of up to 18 months, covering the current festival season, if you like, which I understand is due to start soon, with a fixed site to be opened by mid-2025 or mid next year. The bill also enables access to naloxone via automated dispensing machines, and I want to come back to that issue a little bit later on.

The arguments for and against pill testing have been around for many years. There have been various debates over it. There have been of course the terrible deaths that have arisen from festivals that some argue could have been prevented if pill testing was available. If you look at the Hardmission Festival, there were findings from that saying that it was not just the pills that led to some of those overdoses but also the heat and dehydration caused significant issues for a number of those people. Something that needs to be acknowledged when you are talking about this issue is that dehydration and the various other aspects surrounding an individual when they use these pills that are illegal and circulating in our community. As I said, there have been too many people that have died. It is a terrible statistic that none of us are proud of at all.

A number of people have tried to introduce bills into this place regarding this issue. I note that former Premier Daniel Andrews ruled it out. Only last year, when he was Premier, when he was still around, he said:

The government is not introducing a pill-testing trial.

…

I don’t think you can take these drugs at any level and be safe …

Pill testing can often give people a sense that it is safe to take those drugs. The pharmacology, the evidence, is very, very clear.

I might disagree on a number of things with the former Premier, but I do think he had a very good point there. These drugs are not safe at any level, and I think there is just not enough done to provide information to the general community, particularly young people, around that and the issue of ‘Well, if they’re tested, they’ll be safe and we can still partake and use these pills.’ I am sure that if this bill is passed, an evaluation around that very issue will need to be looked at, around attitudes, around the very thing that the former Premier was speaking about. As he said:

I don’t think you can take these drugs at any level and be safe …

We know that a number of jurisdictions have taken up trials of pill testing, and I am sure others will say how successful they are. I say again: on the issue around any level of taking of these pills, especially with the substances that are in them, there should be more said about the extent of the dangers. Canberra launched a six-month trial of Australia’s first fixed pill-testing site in July 2022. The CanTEST has since been extended until, as I understand, 2027. In February last year Queensland followed the ACT’s lead with a program based on that CanTEST model.

The other thing this bill does goes to the effect of naloxone dispensing machines, which will be available at 20 sites. If administered, naloxone reverses the effects of heroin and other opioids such as codeine, morphine or fentanyl very quickly, and it can undoubtedly save lives. That is certainly my experience, having worked in emergency departments and seen the reversal effects of naloxone. It has been around for a long time – it is very effective – and it can reverse the effects of those drugs, as I have just mentioned. Expanding access to naloxone is long overdue. In fact it was Minister Mary Wooldridge who did a huge amount in this area. My colleague was very well known in this space. She first led the way in 2013, so that is over 10 years ago, in making naloxone available outside of the healthcare settings, those settings that I worked in where I used it. She enabled naloxone, or Narcan, to be available on prescription for drug users and their families and carers to treat opioid overdoses without having to wait for a paramedic to arrive. We know, as I said, that the administration of Narcan can have that reversal effect very, very quickly.

During the committee stage I will be asking about this, because the government cannot tell us where these 20 vending machines are going to be situated. You would have thought they would have had that worked out. They are across Victoria, but we really do need to understand where they are. I think it is critical that, if the government is rolling these out, we do understand where these vending machines will be and that access to them can be made available for Victorians that have these sad addictions, because the scourge of opioid dependence is not confined to just metropolitan Melbourne. If they are dotted around metropolitan Melbourne, that is fine, but there are also very significant issues around regional centres. We have seen some sad stories in recent days, especially around Geelong and other parts of Victoria, around drug use.

The bill enables the operation of drug-checking services at both mobile sites and one fixed site. These services will offer testing of the composition of substances in the form of pills, capsules, powders, crystals and liquids or whatever form the drug is in; as we know, they do come in various forms now. Workers will also provide health information to help people make better informed decisions about taking drugs. My strong view is that there should be more done with this throughout the community rather than at these pill-testing sites when people are going to take these drugs and then they are getting the information about how dangerous they are. They actually should be informed before they rock up to a festival. It should be fairly well understood what those effects are. With innovation and technology we can do much more to inform people, and I will come to that point a bit later around how the alert systems are just not meeting their needs, and we have seen that with these festivals and the delay when alerts go out.

The bill also provides specific exemptions from criminal and civil liability for clients, permit-holders and authorised staff. It is a particular concern how that will be administered and undertaken and how that information will be given to people that are accessing the service.

There are a number of concerns that the coalition has around the bill. The bill defines the harm reduction information that is given to a person who provides drugs for testing as limited to sharing information about the composition of the sample, the possible consequences of using the substance, access to health and welfare services and similar assistance. This means the drug-checking workers are not able to discuss the inherent limitations of the testing – for instance, dose and potency are not tested – or that a drug sample could contain an undetectable amount of the drug or that not all drugs are detectable. I think that is a really big concern, and I think this is where the process in the bill is flawed, because it is not actually able to do everything that the bill is purporting to do.

During a bill briefing the government was not able to answer some very basic questions around these areas. I note that my colleague Ms Kealy was frustrated with the government’s approach to this bill. They literally got 15 minutes. Of the half an hour that was provided, 15 minutes went to introductions and goodness knows what, and then they had 15 minutes to get a proper overview of the bill and were not able to get answers to their questions. It was quite frustrating for the coalition to have a bill briefing like this, and I am putting it on record because I think it is important that when legislation like this is coming into the Parliament the opposition, or any member of Parliament, quite frankly, has a proper briefing. The questions that were asked by Ms Kealy were not answered for her until she was on her feet talking to the bill. That is not good enough. That is treating opposition members with contempt in relation to a very important piece of legislation, and I think it is quite disgraceful how the government has handled this entire bill process.

As I said, it is an important issue that we are debating, but we want to make sure, if it is passed, that we are moving amendments to correct some of the flaws, but equally these questions that have been asked are serious questions and need due consideration and to be answered properly. In particular some of those questions relate to the type of analyser to be used at the mobile festival sites; the specificity and sensitivity of the tests; whether the sites will be accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities; and whether the analyser will be able to detect nitazenes, a highly potent entrant in the illicit synthetic opioid market.

We have seen the impacts of nitazenes with the terrible and tragic circumstances of the four deaths in Broadmeadows. I have been informed that that was cocaine laced with nitazenes, and those people had no chance. It takes seconds. It is a very lethal component, 100 times the potency of heroin, so a tiny amount can cause a fatal overdose in a very, very short time. That is horrifying. I speak to family members, young family members – in fact I did last night. You know, they are all going off to the races. They are all going to have a ball. It is the racing season, and we were talking about this very issue. They are aware to a point, but it is about constant vigilance from family and others and that we keep talking about the dangers of these drugs. That is a terrible example, but a very real one. Tragic circumstances, but a frightening example of just how potent these drugs are.

The emergence of nitazenes highlights the importance of an early warning system to alert the community of the detection of a tainted or highly dangerous drug, yet this bill does not include a mandatory obligation for such a warning even when drug checking could identify this danger. There is a real risk of further harm when public notification of the detection of tainted or dangerous drugs is delayed. I think that is a very important element to understand. As I have said, when those four people tragically died in Broadmeadows on 25 June, the health department did not issue a drug alert until 1 July, so six days later. That is what I am talking about in relation to education of the community. If there is any understanding of what has happened here, surely the government should be making those early warning systems more efficient than six days later. This is why I am saying there is a false sense of security for young people. We are getting our pills tested, but the government is not putting out an alert until six days later to say just what is actually on the streets. That is a problem.

A further limitation is that drug-checking workers cannot disclose to people having drugs tested that civil liability exemptions in the legislation mean that if incorrect results are mistakenly given and an overdose occurs, there is no legal recourse. In the second-reading speech the minister says the exemption from civil liability ‘is necessary to shield operators from claims of negligent misrepresentation acknowledging the limitations of the testing process’. That again should be part of what is expected, and I want to say that is what the coalition’s amendments go to. I am happy to have those circulated, if I may, to speak to that.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Georgie CROZIER: The amendments that we are proposing go to these very issues. They are about ensuring that general drug-checking workers can disclose information regarding the limitations of drug testing and the client is engaging in a service where the civil liabilities have been waived. Those amendments are pretty straightforward:

Clause 4, page 4, after line 8 insert –

“(ab) information about the limitations of analysis that has been carried out on a substance, including information about the possibility that poisons, controlled substances and drugs of dependence may be present in the substance but in levels that are not detectable; or”.

That is the main point of that amendment. The other part of the amendment is:

Clause 8, page 13, after line 7 insert –

“(e) that the holder of the permit must ensure that a person who, in the course of providing drug-checking services under the permit, provides another person information described in paragraph (a), (ab) or (b) of the definition of harm reduction information also informs that other person of the effect of section 22CH(2).

This goes to the point that:

… each general drug-checking worker or special drug-checking worker, along with certain other persons, are not subject to any civil liability for acts and omissions that meet the criteria set out in that provision.”.

We think that is information that should be provided to people that are using this service. They can then have that information made available to them, and it is in the interests of full disclosure that there is no liability on these people that are checking the drugs and that the drug testing itself cannot guarantee that they can detect every single compound in that pill or liquid or crystal or whatever it is. That is a very important issue.

I will go on to say that people handing over drugs for testing and seeking to rely on the results provided should be informed that they are waiving legal rights in this interaction. I just want to make that point. But I also want to make the point that there is no fit and proper person test for special drug-checking workers who will be handling drugs for testing and are likely to be qualified chemical analysts; nor is there a fit and proper person test for general drug-checking workers who will provide information on the composition of a substance and dangers of consuming it. That is quite extraordinary. I mean, the secretary has got to be a fit and proper person, and there are other references to who has to be a fit and proper person in the bill, but not those people that are actually dealing on the ground with the consumers who are wanting these pills tested. I have got to say I find this extraordinary given that the government is introducing legislation into the other place this week around being able to be licenced fishermen. They have to be fit and proper persons, and so do their family and associates. Talk about an unbelievable disjointed approach to what a fit and proper person means – and we will argue that debate when it comes to this house. But if you have got to be a fit and proper person to be a fisherman and catch fish in the bay, then surely you should be a fit and proper person to be a worker who is checking these illicit substances. It makes absolutely no sense.

A planning permit is not required to develop premises as a fixed-site drug-checking service, with the government’s reason given in the second-reading speech being:

… so that drug-checking services can quickly become established.

This just says to everyone who is concerned about this that this is another rushed policy decision. The government has said that it intends to locate the fixed testing site in inner Melbourne, but we do not know where. How can we have proper community consultation when the government is not up-front about where these sites are going to be?

We have seen the disastrous results at the North Richmond injecting room with the location of that next to a primary school, with children having to witness people that had a fatal overdose and died. They have seen those outside their school. They have seen them in the school grounds. There is security at those schools. The residents have for years wanted government to come down and understand exactly what they are seeing with the increase in antisocial behaviour and criminal activity. It has been a honey pot for dealers. It is just extraordinary what has gone on, and the government has turned a blind eye to that community. It has been an absolute disgrace. They will not go down and address those concerns, and we do not have proper transparency around what is actually happening outside the North Richmond injecting room.

In my last few moments I want to reiterate what I said earlier: there is no safe level of illicit drug use. That is the message that should be said time and time again. We have not given up on a campaign against speeding while driving. We have had a TAC campaign for decades talking about seatbelts and speed and how it kills. We should make a concerted effort around these illicit drugs too. The government has failed at every opportunity to provide that information.

We know that individuals, because of their size or their metabolic make-up or a whole range of issues, will be affected by drugs in different ways. That can also be related to how they tolerate purity – their tolerance levels, their medical conditions and, as I said, their metabolic rates, their size and other conditions that they might have. It is very, very complex. That is why we have doctors prescribe and talk about the safety of taking prescribed drugs. There are labels on boxes for a reason – because of all of these individual factors that come into play. When you are at these festivals, adding heat and humidity and physical exertion makes an absolutely dangerous concoction. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and again, there is an inability of the government to go on and provide the education that is needed.

As we know, those conditions – heat and humidity and the festival itself – were found to be contributing factors in the mass overdose event at the Hardmission festival in January, when nine young people were left in a critical condition. That was far too many, I acknowledge. It was terrible for those families – shocking. But harm reduction should focus on prevention – health and education strategies – as well as rehabilitation and pharmacotherapy, including methadone and hydromorphone. The opposition has been very vocal about that for many years. As I said at the start of my contribution, when you look at the failures – the skyrocketing waitlist of people that need to get off their addictions – there has been a failure by the government to deliver on the royal commission findings. They are gathering a billion dollars in tax every year. Where is that money going? It is not going into these services like it should be to give thousands of people the support and care they need. There is no question that the government has abandoned the people who are seeking help in their recovery from these addictions. They have failed to provide adequate support to thousands of Victorians, as I have said.

I will wait till the committee stage, but I have many, many concerns with this legislation that is before us. Whilst I appreciate the government are trying to address this issue, I do believe that there are concerns amongst the government, given their flip-flopping around this issue for many years. Goodness knows what they have done with the crossbenchers in listening to them. As we know, they have had concerns for a number of years. A number of crossbench members have tried to introduce private members bills on this on many occasions, and they have been knocked back by Mr Andrews and, until just a few months ago, Ms Allan. She even said back in January of this year that she was not in agreement with it. It was reported in an article after the Hardmission overdose:

Premier Jacinta Allan ruled out the harm reduction initiative …

She wanted Victoria Police to ramp up its presence at various festivals. Well, police can only do so much. They are under enormous pressure. They are 900 short. There are police stations being closed around the state because the government has failed to address community safety and the needs of our police too, who do a tremendous job. But they should not be expected to pick up the pieces because of the government’s failings on policy. I say again: these pill-testing sites, these issues, are a concern for many Victorians, but I will wait and get some more answers from government in the committee stage.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:15): It is my great pleasure to rise today to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, which the Greens will be most enthusiastically supporting. I am glad that Labor have finally come to their senses and brought forward this bill, which treats drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one.

For over a decade the Greens have consistently advocated for drug checking as a vital harm reduction tool. We have held events at Revs and I have visited Groovin the Moo to talk to punters directly about this issue, and I have seen this sort of set-up firsthand in visiting the CanTEST pill-testing service in Canberra. We have introduced multiple bills in this place over the years, some quite similar to this bill. We worked with the Reason Party to bring the first ever co-sponsored bill in 2019 and then made history again by introducing a three-party co-sponsored bill by the Greens, Animal Justice Party and Legalise Cannabis Victoria. We have worked with the community and advocated because we know that pill testing saves lives. So many organisations in Victoria have been working so hard to make this bill and drug checking in our state a reality, and I thank them all so much for their work. I am genuinely so pleased that this will now become a reality in Victoria. In fact I checked and the very first question without notice that I asked after being elected to this place was on this very issue.

This bill accepts the reality that people use drugs and that young people will experiment with them. Our job in this place is to make sure that that does not end in tragedy. This bill will create an 18-month drug-checking trial in Victoria. Through passing this bill there will be a fixed-site drug-checking location in Melbourne from mid next year and mobile pill testing at 10 festivals from this summer. People who use these services will have their samples tested and the chance to speak to a harm reduction expert about the contents of their drugs and the likely risks and effects. For many people this will probably be the first time that they have ever spoken to an expert about their drug use and received advice to help keep them safe. People will have the chance to discard their drugs should they choose. In fact we have seen in other pill-testing locations that often people will make this choice if it turns out that there is something unknown or potentially lethal in their substance.

Testing these drugs will also provide important surveillance information to inform public health alerts that the threat of dangerous synthetic opioids continues to loom over our state. We need this data. We have already had tragic deaths from nitazenes here in Melbourne. Nitazenes are incredibly strong and regularly lethal. Drug checking is another tool to assist public health teams to keep an eye out for the presence of these substances. There is much more to be done to prepare for the influx of nitazenes, but this is an important tool.

The addition of naloxone vending machines is another welcome lifesaving tool with this bill. This easy-to-use, rapid overdose-reversal drug will now be available to people from vending machines in Victoria. Naloxone is safe to use, easy to administer and can prevent opioid overdose deaths from drugs such as heroin.

It is, however, incredibly disappointing that the state Labor government continues to ignore the data and the expert recommendations that Melbourne CBD, among other places, needs a supervised injecting facility. It is wonderful that pill testing will now be available, but it should not be at the expense of another vital lifesaving tool. It was the primary recommendation from the much-anticipated Ken Lay report that a medically supervised injecting room be opened in our city. It is hypocritical to proclaim the lifesaving benefits of the North Richmond room and then refuse to open more of these overdose prevention centres so that more people can access these services. But it is not too late to change your mind on supervised injecting rooms.

When we introduced our pill-testing bill in 2019 the then Premier did not support this. More recently, our current Premier had said something similar – that she did not support drug checking – but then she changed her mind and changed the government’s policy. Drug checking will save lives in Victoria, and I urge the Labor government to change their minds on supervised injecting centres too. Open one in Melbourne, open one in Geelong – anywhere, everywhere that the data tells us to open them – because we need these services to keep people safe. On this bill and on pill testing, it is common sense. It is overdue but it is greatly welcomed, and I commend it to the house.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:19): I am incredibly proud to stand and speak in support of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024 here today. I think it is an incredible thing that we are doing. It is an incredible piece of legislation that we are bringing to the house. But it is more than a piece of legislation; it is something that is going to have a real impact on people’s lives by enabling Victorians to test pills and providing a space for meaningful conversations about use, about the risks and how to minimise these with health professionals. This legislation will save lives. For me it is also an incredibly personal issue. I lost my aunty when I was in my teens to an overdose. Growing up, I saw a number of mates struggle with alcohol and then drugs and then saw their mental health deteriorate, ending in suicide.

To be able to have mature conversations about what we know is going on in the community, what we know is resulting in the deaths of Victorians – as it is in the deaths of people around Australia, of people around the world – is incredibly, incredibly important. And it is more than just a conversation – bringing it into legislation to enable Victorians to use these services is incredibly important. The trauma for loved ones – losing a family member, a friend, a work colleague or someone around clubs, sports groups or various community organisations – has a knock-on effect, and the ripple effect from the 547 deaths that we had in Victoria in 2023 is immense.

What we are standing here debating today is not abstract or some sort of theoretical item or piece of legislation that will sit on a shelf; this will really make an incredibly meaningful difference in people’s lives, and it will remove an incredible amount of trauma. For those that do not lose their lives by overdose, for those that suffer and are fortunate enough to be saved, whether that is by bystanders who are trained and prepared or have access to equipment, which I will go to later on, which we are making more available to save lives, it is still incredibly traumatic. And it obviously takes up the time of our frontline service responders. Another incredibly important part of this discussion here today is about listening to those frontline workers who turn up and respond, who themselves deal with those traumatic situations in trying to save lives and, obviously, deal with the consequence of those who cannot, whether it is our ambulance workers turning up to that situation or our police going out to friends’ and families’ doors, telling them what has happened and what has occurred.

We can see that there is support – I will touch on this a little bit later in my contribution– from the 77 organisations connected with alcohol and other drugs that are supporting this, that have stood up and said, ‘This is what we need for Victorians. This is what we need for our frontline services workers.’ Again, with alcohol and drugs, our mental health workforce workers are represented by the Health and Community Services Union, HACSU. I know HACSU have absolutely passionately advocated for progress on this issue. I want to make a point of acknowledging them and how they have pushed for change, how they have progressed the conversation – progressed the public conversation and progressed the conversation from that expert worker led level. It is an incredible thing that they have done. Compare that to the fearful tack that is taken by those opposite when we are trying to talk about something that will save lives – that use of fear, that use of the other, of ‘they’, of demonising those that are using drugs.

In this instance we are talking about pills. We are talking about something that is at festivals. As was pointed out before, whether it is race meets or whatever it is, this substance use is happening. What we want to make sure is that individuals who are doing that can do so in a far safer way with a greater understanding of what is happening, because when we talk about risks and when we talk about harm minimisation we get better results. Ms Crozier, if I understood her correctly, basically was saying that there is no safe level of use but then went on to talk about reducing deaths in cars. Under that theory we would say no-one can drive a car – there can be deaths in cars, so nobody should drive a car. But what we do is we educate people. We put safety provisions in place to reduce the harms.

Coming back to police, by stopping police from having to go to doors and tell family members that a loved one has just died and from having to present to the coroner – as I will touch on soon; I think there are 10 recommendations from the coroner for this – we are reducing so much of that workload on frontline staff that does not need to be there if we do not have these deaths, if we do not have these overdoses.

Once passed, this bill will give the express legal authority for both mobile and fixed-site services to operate in Victoria and support the government’s commitment to introduce secure naloxone vending machines in key areas of need. Again, if people understand that these items are available and have them on hand to save a life, that is incredibly important. We are doing the same thing around defibrillation in Queen’s Hall this week. We are getting people to practise CPR. I am going to go and get my heart checked later in the week. This harm minimisation and this understanding of what to do in these events is incredibly important.

Coming back to the point I made earlier, those who are presenting to get their pills tested are having conversations that they are very unlikely to otherwise have. I think something like 70 per cent of those presenting in the ACT are having a conversation for the first time about something they never would discuss otherwise. Just broadly on that conversation level, I think we have done so much across society in recent decades on things that we would never have discussed, things that would never have been up for a conversation, Whether it is mental health, the way people live their lives, alcohol and substance abuse or family violence, all these things that were taboo and off topic we are bringing to the table so we can put some light on the situation and people can identify and go, ‘You know what, I’m human too. I need some support in this situation, and I’ll reach out for support.’ Because they can have the conversation, they can understand where those supports are and go and reach out to look after themselves, get on with their lives and live a meaningful, quality, healthy life.

The trained peer workers and technical experts will provide clients with not only that pill test but that harm reduction information, and the pill tests themselves will enable us to identify when there are bad batches of drugs circulating in our communities. I remember hearing stories about this occurring over in Ireland, I think it was, being able to identify bad batches of drugs and getting the word out as quickly as possible to ensure that people were aware of what was happening and stop deaths from occurring. I will come to the jurisdictions shortly. With the global drug market there is increasing unpredictability in what is being sold to people. That just reinforces the fact that it has never been more important for pill testing to be available to Victorians and, as we see in many jurisdictions around the world, for people to be able to access it.

I have touched on the admissions to our health system and the incredible strain that that adds, workers’ calls and health experts’ calls for this and the 10 coronial investigations to reduce the number of preventable deaths and other harms associated with the use of illicit drugs. I just come back to the opposition’s comments earlier. It is not about telling people how to live their lives; it is about listening to experts, listening to community and working with community to get the best outcomes. Experience here in Australia and international experience show that drug checking is an effective public health intervention. It does not increase or encourage illicit drug use. It has proven its efficacy over many years, with 31 programs operating globally, including in the United Kingdom, North America, New Zealand and, as I said before, here in Australia in the ACT and Queensland. So I think it is clear that pill testing is what we need and that it works, and it is just about how we best implement this service.

We are going to have an 18-month implementation trial from December 2024 to June 2026, and that will comprise both mobile and fixed-site services and will help us understand the best ongoing model for Victoria. It will commence this summer and attend 10 events over the trial period, and then mid next year the trial will see the establishment of a fixed site in central Melbourne, close to night-life precincts and public transport.

It was pointed out in other contributions earlier that pill testing is also known as ‘drug checking’ and involves the chemical analysis of illicit or unknown substances to inform individuals about what they plan to consume. The client may receive information about the chemical compounds detected, including information about their purity. We know that purity is an issue because people are taking pills that they think are one thing but have other substances or higher levels, which is leading to overdoses. So they will know the effects of compounds within drugs; if there are multiple compounds, how they interact with each other; and about any unknown or inconclusive compounds that are found. They will discuss the effects of different dosages of the pills that are presented, how they will interact with prescription medication or alcohol and what this will do more broadly within people’s lives. No-one is told the drugs are pure. No-one is told the drugs are 100 cent safe. The importance of this health intervention cannot be overstated.

I am going to run out of time shortly. I just want to reinforce how absolutely proud I am that this legislation is here in the Parliament. I want to acknowledge Minister Stitt and the Premier for the incredible leadership they have shown in bringing this to the Parliament to deliver it for the community. And there are those within this place that are supporting it and have been long-term advocates, as have so many organisations, unions and workers around Victoria. I think the thing that we can all be incredibly proud of is the fact that this legislation will save lives, it will reduce harm and it will remove an incredible amount of trauma in Victoria.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (13:55): I rise to speak about the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, which seeks to amend the Drugs, Poisoned and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to enable drug-checking services to be established, licensed and regulated in Victoria at both fixed and mobile sites. This bill is to legalise pill testing at music festivals, and it also gives permission for people to be in possession of drugs when travelling to and from venues. The Nationals oppose this bill because it puts the lives of young people at risk and sends the wrong message.

According to a study undertaken by Monash University released in January this year, from 2000 to 2019 there was 64 drug-related deaths in Australia at festivals, mostly males; 73 per cent were aged in their mid 20s; and most of these deaths were unintentional. Less than half of the deaths were related to drug toxicity and 38 per cent were related to external injuries related to a drug use setting. I want to acknowledge the words of Emma Kealy, my colleague from the Nationals in the other place, who talked about the devastating impact of these overdoses on families and friends who have lost loved ones. That needs to be acknowledged in this conversation today. Drugs can cause people to dance longer at music festivals and dehydrate, and in the crowded setting of a music festival in the heat of summer it can be a very bad mix.

The state government’s track record on drugs has been appalling, and it is getting worse. We heard Georgie Crozier, my colleague, speak earlier about the safe injecting room located right next to a primary school in Richmond. We have seen the impact that that has had on students, on families, on residents in the area and on the local businesses. Around Bendigo I regularly see people who appear to be affected by drugs. Drug-related issues are filling psychiatric wards and our emergency departments and leading to many ambulance call-outs. Recently in Bendigo $4 million was spent on a building for drug and alcohol counselling, but right next door there is a rehabilitation facility with only five beds that cannot service people overnight. There is no medical support available, so those difficult cases are sent to Melbourne. We know that there are long waiting lists in regional areas, with people and families in need of support. I remember getting a call from a mum on the day that I found out I had been elected to represent the people of Northern Victoria in this chamber. She told me of the fears that she had living with her son, who had stolen from her to fund his addiction to drugs. He had experienced mental health breakdowns and been hospitalised several times. Illegal drugs devastate lives and the families of those that they impact, and in the last year we have seen an increase in the number of deaths from drug-related harm.

This bill is a backflip from Labor members. Former Premier Daniel Andrews was completely against it. As recently as February 2023 he stated:

This government is not introducing a pill-testing trial.

…

I don’t think you could take these drugs at any level and be safe …

Pill testing can often give people a sense that it is safe to take these drugs. The pharmacology, the evidence, is very, very clear.

Yet we heard Mr McIntosh just now argue the need for pill testing. I should not be surprised that we are seeing this backflip with members arguing one way and then doing a complete U-turn. We have seen it before, and I think the Victorian public know that they cannot trust a word the Labor government says. The public also know that under Labor drug use has skyrocket. The harm from drugs is using up a lot of resources and placing an increasing burden on our health services, particularly in rural and regional areas. In the last year we have lost 5000 Victorians to drug overdoses. I remember speaking to a couple of nursing students undertaking placements. They talked about the high number of drug-related cases and how they were spending so much of their time on them. I have heard from nurses who have heard the words ‘code grey’ too many times, when a patient high on drugs has become physically abusive, putting hospital staff at risk.

This bill argues that drug counsellors on site at music festivals will be able to counsel consumers on how to avoid harm from drug use and provide them with information. It sounds great in theory, but I do not think someone attending a music festival with their friends will be that keen to take time out for a medical consultation or to read a brochure. It is still not clear how this process will work in practice. We had a departmental briefing, and the response to questions stated:

Incident response protocols will be finalised with relevant agencies including Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Police.

When we asked about the fit and proper person test that applies to workers, the response from the department stated:

Requirements for the special and general drug checking workers will be set out in operational guidance.

When we asked about national standards for drug-checking places, there were none. The process for notifying local businesses is still being worked out. But I should not be surprised by this either. We often see legislation that says, ‘Trust us. We haven’t worked out the details yet and we don’t know how it’s going to work in practice, but we’d like to spend millions of dollars trying to work it out.’ I understand it is hard for Labor, especially in the upper house, where there is a crossbench that includes members that are very keen to see drugs readily available to people. Maybe this bill is a case of ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’.

Bendigo has become the meth capital of Victoria. Homes are being invaded as people steal to fund their addiction, and people are walking the streets high on drugs. I moved to Bendigo over 20 years ago, and it is a very different place today. People do not feel safe walking in the centre of town. Retail shops are empty, and our kids need to be told to avoid people who are clearly impacted. We currently have over 1000 vacancies in our police force. Our hospitals cannot cope with demand. The message that it is okay to carry illegal drugs and to use drugs at music festivals is not the message that I want to send my kids or any of our children. As Georgie Crozier asked earlier, where is the government’s education on prevention of drug use in Victoria?

It is also interesting to note that with naloxone dispensing machines, it has taken a very long time – a decade in fact – for this government to show support for that initiative, which was put forward by the Liberals and Nationals government back in 2013.

This bill is flawed. The alert systems proposed do not meet the need. The testing is limited, as not all drugs are detectable.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. The Allan Labor government is a government that is proud of our health-led, evidence-based and harm minimisation focused approach to implementing reform. Earlier this year when in this place I had the opportunity to speak on the subject of pill testing I did note at the time that the government’s approach to this, as indeed to other related areas of policy, is cautious and is done in a clear, considered and methodical way, and that is reflected in the legislation that we have before us today. By taking a reasonable – still relatively short but reasonable – amount of time to consider this bill in all its detail and to fine-tune it, today we have a bill before us which achieves those targets of being focused on harm minimisation, of being evidence-based and of being health-led. This bill is the product of considerable work by the Department of Health and the minister and her office to develop an approach to the complicated issue of pill testing.

This reform is not about condoning or legalising anyone taking illicit substances. It is about acknowledging that such substances are taken at places such as music festivals, whatever those of us in this place might have to say about it. It also acknowledges that enforcement measures are unlikely almost to the point of impossibility to entirely stop this from occurring. What is left then to government is to work out how best to mitigate potential harm. Pill testing is about saving lives, not condoning drug use.

The bill before us today will enable Victorians to be provided with information that will help them to make more informed and indeed possibly life-saving decisions. The reforms will give express legal authority for mobile and fixed-site services to operate in Victoria and also support the government’s commitment to introducing secure naloxone vending machines in key areas of need. Clear legislation in this bill will ensure that all parties, including the festival operators, pill-testing operators and their clients, know that nobody is breaking the law by operating or using this health testing service.

The current laws in Victoria make it a criminal offence to possess or supply drugs of dependence, which currently captures pill-testing services. The bill before us today will give express legal authority to establish these fixed and mobile sites. They will establish a licensing framework to authorise, appoint and regulate fixed and mobile pill-testing or drug-checking services as well as enabling the supply of naloxone. These measures will make Victoria the first Australian jurisdiction to make pill-testing services – though not drug use – specifically legal. The manufacturing, processing, using, distribution and selling of illicit drugs will remain illegal activities.

In putting this bill together, we have worked closely with Victoria Police to ensure that we are striking the right balance between enforcing those laws surrounding illicit drugs and ensuring that people are not deterred from using what will be a life-saving service. Indeed I acknowledge the remarks of my colleague Mr Batchelor: when it comes to police resourcing, there is nothing perhaps more taxing on police resources than having to deal with the tragic event of a drug overdose or indeed multiple drug overdoses, as we have tragically seen here in Victoria in the past couple of years.

The bill also provides that the clients who are using the drug-checking service will be authorised and therefore exempt from criminal liability for the offences of possession and supply for the time in which they are using the drug-checking service in respect of possessing a substance, supplying the substance to the drug-checking service and receiving the remainder of the substance after a worker takes a sample. The exemption from criminal liability will only apply when the client is at the drug-checking place and for an amount that is less than a trafficable quantity. Therefore I believe that these provisions allow us to strike the appropriate balance.

It may be easy and it might make some in this place feel good to say ‘Taking drugs is illegal’, ‘If they take drugs, it’s their own fault’ or ‘Why should we test pills when we can just get the police to arrest people?’ It might sound good. It might sound simple and straightforward, but quite simply, it does not work. It does not lead to fewer overdoses or fewer deaths. Indeed there is no evidence that pill testing leads to more drug use. In fact quite the opposite – we have the evidence that it leads to fewer overdoses. We know that various medical experts and bodies, including the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, support these facts. Indeed the Victorian chair of the RACGP Dr Anita Muñoz has said that this will save lives and that:

A drug testing trial will enable people to understand what they are actually taking, including young people experimenting with illicit drugs who have their whole lives ahead of them.

She also added:

Every life is worth saving. And every day we delay is another day that people can experience overdoses and be hospitalised, or worse.

We need to act now, before the next festival season leads to even more young people dying from overdoses.

Experiences both domestically and from abroad have shown that drug checking is an effective public health 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 UK, in North America and in New Zealand. The efficacy of pill testing is clear – we already know that it works. The question is how to best implement this service in the Victorian context, which is why we, the Allan Labor government, are embarking upon an up to 18-month implementation trial from December this year to June 2026 comprising both mobile services and a fixed-site service. This implementation trial will help us to understand what will be the best model for Victoria. The mobile services will commence from this summer and will attend 10 events over the trial period, and then mid next year the trial will see the establishment of a fixed-site service in a central Melbourne location which will be close to night-life precincts and public transport.

Regardless of the setting, though, the Victorian model has two key components: testing and harm reduction education. Both of these are essential to achieving the aims of this service. Pill testing involves the chemical analysis of illicit or unknown substances to inform individuals about the contents of what they plan to consume. When the client enters the drug-checking area, they will first meet with a trained harm reduction worker, who will walk them through the process. Clients are informed that no drug is ever safe to use and that drug use always carries risks.

I think it is important to note the opportunity that we have with this service going forward for those people who will, irrespective of legislation, decide to consume recreational drugs. We all, I am sure, remember a very helpful and educational time with Harold the Giraffe in primary school, learning about drugs and alcohol and various other things. I admit I have a faint memory of some of the things that I learned in those sessions with Harold, but I definitely do not recall every single thing that was gone through. Those sorts of services are really important, and they should continue in whatever context it may be, with the assistance of a giraffe or not. But the most important time that we can be reaching people with drug education – with information that could save their lives – is the point at which they will be most likely to consume that substance.

That is why this reform is so encouraging. Because it is not just the fact of getting a pill tested and knowing what is in it, important though that may be. It is the opportunity, in the few minutes it takes for that pill to be tested and come back, to talk with a health worker, someone with experience in harm reduction and minimisation, and to ask, ‘Even if this is what I think it is, is it still safe to take on a day like today?’ – with the weather, with other situations and with other factors. These are all really, really important factors. We know that the safest way is not to take drugs at all, but as I say, that is not going to stop people taking drugs. If we can provide them with that education at the point when it is most likely to benefit them, then that is undoubtedly a very good thing

The pill-testing component itself will see a small sample of the substance taken for analysis. Those findings will be communicated to the health professional, who will then pass them on to the client in a way that is accessible and easy for them to understand. They may receive information about the chemical compounds detected, including information about purity, the known effects of each compound, if multiple compounds are detected, how they may interact with each other and if any unknown or inconclusive compounds have been detected. The importance of this health intervention really cannot be overstated. We know that people that use pill-testing services are more likely to take immediate action to reduce harm as well as engage in longer term harm reduction behaviour, including reducing the amount of the drug used and avoiding multiple substance use.

There is widespread stakeholder support for establishing a drug-checking service in Victoria. The 2018 inquiry into drug law reform recommended implementing such a pilot study. We have seen coronial recommendations, including as recently as March this year. In addition to the medical organisations I mentioned previously, we have also seen organisations such as the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Penington Institute and various other community, justice, social and youth sector services publicly endorsing a position of pill testing, including the Australian Services Union, the Health and Community Services Union – as Mr McIntosh mentioned – and the Victorian Ambulance Union and other representative bodies.

Another component of this, as I mentioned, is the rollout of naloxone to ensure that Victorians who need to use it can do so in a way that is much more accessible. Naloxone is proven to save lives and we can save many more through improved access. It reverses the effects of overdose for opioid drugs like heroin, morphine and fentanyl. It can be quickly administered by nasal spray, and it does not affect anyone who has not used opioids, so it has no potential for misuse. Victoria’s take-home naloxone program allows people to access free naloxone from a range of organisations, in addition to participating community pharmacies, under the national program. Building on these reforms. There will be 20 secure vending machines, which will be established in the areas of greatest need as part of the statewide action plan. This bill will enable those vending machines to be established, as naloxone does remain a controlled substance. Increasing the availability of this drug will significantly reduce the mortality rate from drug overdoses. Naloxone-dispensing units offer around-the-clock, anonymous access, reduce the stigma that often deters people from seeking help and offer a lower barrier mode of accessing this life-saving medication.

In coming to talk to the chamber on this bill today I do not have the benefit of a personal experience; I cannot say that I have gone to any of these festivals and taken drugs at such festivals. I am one of those strange people who do not need a different substance in order to enjoy EDM. I manage to quite enjoy it without any assistance. Indeed I have, on occasion, even enjoyed the MRI machine experience – the rhythmic banging noises around my head I actually quite enjoy for some reason. However, in coming to speak on this bill today I do greatly value the experiences of others who have dealt with these situations, whether that be personally or with a close friend or family member. I also value the evidence. It is for that reason that I am standing here in support of the bill before us today.

I support the bill because it provides the opportunity for people to protect themselves and to be safe but, more importantly, to learn, to know and to be informed about what they may not have assumed they were taking, but even if it turns out to be what they thought it was, to be informed and educated about the other risks that may also arise from that. Most importantly, I support this bill for one very simple reason: it has the potential to, and almost certainly will, save lives. It really is that simple.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:59): I rise to speak against this bill, but I would like to start off by saying I acknowledge the very good intentions of all of those who oppose my position. I just think it is an extremely strange concept, basically, to have little embassies in society for people who want to commit crimes freely. Pill testing at dance festivals, which I believe will actually normalise getting off your face at raves when we all know that being drunk or high increases the risk of sexual assault and addiction, injecting rooms luring drug-addled people close to schools, paying for sex work with drugs of dependence – what next? As a teacher, as a mother, I just do not want anybody at all – ever – giving children or young people the idea that it is safe to take drugs, not even once. There used to be a campaign with exactly those words: it is not safe to try it, ‘Not Even Once’. You can get addicted the first time. You do not know how many people it actually diverted away from that. That is not measured.

If I can go on: I just do not want to give that message, number one. If there is going to be pill testing, I say the private industry can pay for it. I do not know why we would get involved at all. We need to send a consistent message that drug taking is either legal or it is not. If it is illegal, I think it should stay that way.

I was interested to hear about the giraffe. That must have been a primary school incentive. As a high school teacher, I did not see that particular giraffe telling everyone not to take drugs. What I found was effective was showing my students the before and after pictures of women and men on ice – showing them videos and testimonies of people who did take drugs. It ruined their lives, and then they got off them and they got back on track. That was very effective. I do not think that they are that stupid. I think that they listen to us. I think that the law legitimises and promotes behaviour by what it allows. The law is a force of culture as well.

This morning we heard about the program in the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, Somebody’s Daughter. It is a fantastic initiative, and if you listen to their stories, often drugs are involved – not just pills, not just injections – and once you start, it is extremely damaging and hard to get rid of. They were told by somebody that it was going to be okay: ‘You can try it; it’ll be fine.’ I just cannot believe that now we have got a government that kind of sounds a little bit similar to these drug pushers: ‘We can make it safer for you. There are little places where you can do it more safely’ or something like that. It is a very mixed message, basically. I think that products, festivals and raves or whatever they are need to be totally insured and covered by the private industry. I do not want to be paying and subsidising and supporting and legitimising drug use in these little embassies at all, and that is why I am voting against this bill.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:59): I will make a brief contribution on this bill, which I oppose. Obviously this is a morally complex area. It is not just morally complex, though; it is logistically complex as well, and both things need to be taken into full consideration. I think the government has frankly failed on both scores: the moral challenge of this issue and the logistical challenge of the issue. Also, I ought to make mention that if the government wants bipartisan support on bills like this, the department should give us more than 30 minutes of a bill briefing to ask questions on it. In fact 15 minutes of that 30 minutes was them basically reading out a PowerPoint presentation of the press release around it, so there was absolutely no opportunity to examine, investigate or dig down on this bill before we got to speak on it. We were given it at very, very short notice. Again, it is a morally complex and a logistically complex area. It was not given the respect it required, and now here we are debating it. It was very, very poor – by the department in particular.

We are here for the care of young people and we are indeed here for the care of children, and we need to send an unambiguous message that illegal drug taking is harmful – that is why the drugs are illegal in the first place – and that there is no safe level of drug taking. Probably everyone in this chamber has firsthand or second-hand knowledge of or has relatives who have been affected by the scourge of drugs. And it does not take much. I have a relative who took one of the drugs that would be under this scheme once and had catastrophic psychological damage that has affected the entirety of his life. This would have simply enabled him or people like him to exercise drug taking dangerously. I say ‘dangerously’ because of the logistics around this scheme. It is a vacuum. They are not thought out, they are not documented, they are not thought through. They say, ‘Let’s pass the law first, and we’ll sort it out later.’ Well, the horse has bolted at that point. It is too late.

This bill fails on the moral level because either it is legal and it is correct or it is not. For the government to say ‘It’s okay in certain circumstances’ puts a moral grey area into something that should, from a law point of view, be black and white. And it does not protect from a logistical point of view, and we will probably get into more of this during the committee stage.

There are some very, very simple questions that it does not even begin to answer – in fact that I think it answers them in the wrong way. Will those people submitting the drugs have every item of the drugs tested or just one particular representative pill? No answer. Will the person have to provide ID? Because if they do not provide ID, (a) how do you know you are handing the drugs back to the correct person, and (b) how do you know the person is an adult? So are we condoning handing drugs back to children? Do we or don’t we? Am I right or am I wrong? I am happy to be corrected. But they could not tell us that; in fact we could not even get to that question. Are the machines of any particular standard in identifying trace elements of drugs that will do harm? No, they are not. We do know that they have got no standards around them. To suggest that this provides safety to young people who are probably in an intense peer pressure situation – ‘Hey, we’re having fun. Come on, have this drug. It’s all right, I had it tested. Look, I’ve got the label on it. Have it’ – without any idea of the physiology of that child or what other medicines or drugs they may be taking legally, what the weather conditions are like, what they have eaten or have not eaten, what alcohol they might have in their bloodstream or what other drugs they might have taken: none of these things are logistically addressed in this bill. That makes this bill reckless. To think that my children could go to a festival like this and be coerced by peer pressure, perhaps when they are slightly drunk, into taking something that could kill them but with the banner of ‘It’s all right; we pill tested’ at the top of it – no, it does not work.

The rules do not in any way anticipate the idea – incredibly naively, I think – that there just may be bad actors out there who do not follow the rules, who use this as a way to exploit young people: ‘Look, I’ve had it tested.’ Or they know they have got a bad batch but if they can get it through testing they will be able to hand it off to someone else and avoid their responsibility for distribution because it has got this little sticker on it somewhere.

The other notion is that we are educating – It’s an opportunity to educate young people that drugs are bad.’ Young people do not need education that drugs are bad. At that point in time everybody knows drugs are bad, they know that they are illegal and they know that there is a risk in taking them. All we are doing is removing the moral hazard from it. We are also removing the legal safeguards around the people who are doing the testing so that they can never be held accountable. We do not even know what record keeping is done. As far as I can tell, unless I can be corrected in committee, those doing the testing do not keep a record of what they have tested, so there is no audit trail of what has been tested, who we got it from or who it was given back to. There is no audit trail of batches. There is no way to measure or systemise what you have recorded or what is coming in and out, so it is like a blank cheque from which no accountability will ever occur.

To say this is going to save lives is garbage. In every jurisdiction where you have liberalised things like this, all that has happened is there has been a proliferation of drug taking. When they legalised marijuana in Brixton not just marijuana usage but all drug usage exploded and they had to wind those rules back.

A member interjected.

Richard WELCH: They did – in Brixton. I was there when it happened. We do not know enough about this bill to debate it properly, frankly. We will find out more in committee if we can get straight answers then. Most of those will probably be taken on notice, or they will be, ‘Oh, we’ll do it in procedures later on.’

Enver Erdogan: The committee-of-the-whole stage, yes?

Richard WELCH: Yes, correct, that is what I am referring to. I do not support the bill, and I will just reiterate this is because (a) it fails morally and (b), more importantly, it fails logistically.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:07): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, and I would like to thank the Minister for Health in the other place for her hard work in bringing these measures to Parliament.

The purpose of this bill is to reduce harm caused by the consumption of illicit substances. It is a multi-faceted, practical and evidence-backed approach to legislation that will improve health outcomes for Victorians. That is what this bill is about. This bill is another step that the Allan Labor government is taking to deliver a better Victoria for Victorians. It amends the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to establish a legislative framework for the operation of drug-checking services in Victoria and will introduce 24/7 access to intranasal naloxone through secure automated machines supplying naloxone for the immediate emergency treatment of opioid overdose. This bill provides for the establishment of mobile drug-checking sites. It also provides specific legal exemptions to encourage the use of drug-checking services without fear of legal repercussions. 2500 entities are authorised to operate under the framework established by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2017. These include the Victoria Police forensic services site, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the University of Melbourne’s Bio21 Institute.

We have to face the facts: people use drugs. I do not; people do. In the most recent data from the national drug strategy household survey, one in five Australians self-reported that they had used illicit drugs at some point in their lives. This number is even higher for young Australians, where one in two self-reported illicit drug use at some point in their lives. To ignore drug use in Australia is not a smart decision, and it is not a scientific approach. More than that, it is a denial of our responsibility to Victorians. Over the past decade 5052 Victorians have died from fatally overdosing on illicit drugs. The last two years, 2022 and 2023, saw the highest number of deaths per year in the last decade – 547 deaths occurred in 2023 and 550 occurred in 2022. Worse than being the highest death toll of the last decade, the 2022 and 2023 death tolls due to overdose were nearly double the road toll. We can and must do better. These are not just numbers and statistics; these are the deaths of Victorians. These are your brother and your sister, your mum and your dad, your son and your daughter. Deaths are happening in our communities, and they have continued to increase despite ongoing efforts to reduce substance-related harm.

Victorian coroners have made the recommendation following 10 separate inquests that the government urgently implements a drug-checking service to reduce the number of preventable deaths associated with drug use. Pill testing both overseas and within Australia has proven its efficacy in preventing deaths, reducing risk and minimising harm. It is a practical and effective way to combat the overdose epidemic.

The ACT government introduced Australia’s first fixed-site health and drug-checking service, CanTEST, a six-month pilot, two years ago. It was operated by Directions Health Services, or DHS, in partnership with the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy and Pill Testing Australia. CanTEST was used almost 1200 times in the first year and 1800 times in the second year for substance testing. CanTEST initially provides harm-reduction information, counselling and advice to encourage choices that reduce drug use and its associated harms. Through these programs it has provided 4041 health and alcohol and other drug interventions and 225 nasal naloxone sprays. In combination with this and their work on social media, CanTEST reached 270,000 Australians in their first two years of operation. That is more than half of the population of the ACT. Over half the substances tested through the pilot program were not what their potential users expected, and some had never been seen in Australia. One test revealed a synthetic opioid thought to be 25 times stronger than fentanyl, and another found meth in a counterfeit diet pill. Approximately a third of the individuals who find their substances are not what they expected through the pill testing make the decision to discard the substance. These decisions are life-saving and would not be made without pill testing.

The success of CanTEST in the ACT is not singular. In the UK more than a fifth of individuals chose to discard their substances after receiving their test results. Other individuals altered their drug use by reducing the amount they consumed or consuming the substance over a longer period. These services do not just impact the behaviour of consumers; they aid our government and medical professionals in identifying new drugs as they emerge and before they get a hold in local markets.

Pill-testing centres are not enablers of drug addiction. They do not increase drug use. From the outset individuals using pill-testing centres are informed that there is no safe amount or level of drug use, but these centres will undoubtedly provide a critical service to prevent harm and fatalities when, and not if, Victorians decide to seek out illicit substances regardless.

The purpose of the bill is to work together on a drug-checking trial for a period of up to 18 months. The Allan Labor government trial will commence in early November ahead of the 2024–25 summer festivals. The trial will utilise for evaluation a mixed model of service. Firstly, it will trial a mobile service that attends up to 10 music festival events. Secondly, it will trial a fixed-site service in metropolitan Melbourne. The fixed-site service will operate in partnership with a community health provider. This site will be open in mid-2025.

These sites have multiple objectives. They will reduce the level of harm caused by illicit drugs or substances that contain prohibited drugs, poisons, restricted substances, drugs of addiction or any other substances. They will improve public health outcomes in Victoria related to harm caused by illicit substance use. They will reduce pressure on frontline services from drug poisoning and other acute episodes, which, with the Victorian healthcare system under record demand, will notably ease the load on paramedics and healthcare workers. They will provide efficient surveillance and improve information access and effective dissemination regarding illicit drugs circulating within Victoria, including monitoring the presence and prevalence of novel substances. They will provide users and potential users of substances with information about the composition of tested substances and the associated risks for the purpose of reducing the potential harm caused by using them.

They will provide tailored harm reduction advice and education for the purpose of reducing potential harm caused by using those substances and any other substances used by a person either concurrently or at other times. They will provide a safe way to dispose of substances that are or contain poisons, controlled substances or drugs of dependence. They will divert users of illicit drugs who may be at risk of entering the justice system by increasing access to health information and referrals to health and social services. They will reduce opioid overdose related morbidity and mortality by removing barriers to accessing naloxone. These sites will operate with the highest level of integrity to ensure that Victorians using the sites have the composition of their substances analysed in a comprehensive, safe and confidential manner.

The bill also outlines the implementation of legal exemptions that protect clients of drug-testing centres, aim to encourage their use and protect them from legal repercussions. These legal exemptions are necessary for the effective operation of drug-testing centres and the efficacy of a harm reduction approach to drug use. Let us be clear: the exemption from criminal liability, which will only apply when a client is at the drug-checking place and for an amount that is less than a trafficable quantity, is reasonable and sound policy. They also free up law enforcement to prioritise more serious drug-related crimes, such as trafficking.

For many Victorians who use illicit substances or are addicted to illicit substances, drug-testing centres are their first contact with medical professionals regarding their drug use. This service captures a section of the population who struggle with substance abuse and are not accessing support for their substance issue. By exempting these Victorians from criminal prosecution, the health and safety of these individuals is kept in focus. When a client enters a drug-testing facility, they first meet with a trained and specialised harm reduction worker. Clients are told that there are no safe drugs and there is no safe amount of drug use. A qualified analytical chemist then takes a small sample of the client’s substance for analysis and communicates the results to the health professional or harm reduction worker. These health professionals and harm reduction workers then share the findings with the client in a way that is accessible to the client. The findings shared with the client inform them as to: firstly, what chemical compounds are detected and how pure these compounds are; secondly, the known effects of each of the compounds; thirdly, if multiple compounds are detected, how they could expect to interact; and finally, if any unknown or inconclusive compounds are detected. These discussions are factually driven, not anything else nor demeaning to individuals using the drug-testing centres. They provide potentially life-saving information for the individual who is testing their substances. These discussions also include communicating information as to how to consume the substance in a way that minimises harm for the individual taking it, should they choose to consume it.

These legal protections are not without reasonable or practical limit, however, such as: the protections do not exempt individuals from other requirements relating to drug possession or supply placed on them under another legal order. Practically, this might look like: an individual who is granted bail on the condition that they do not possess a drug of dependence will be in breach of that condition of bail if they possess such a drug at a drug-checking service. Similarly, legal exemptions will apply to individuals working at the drug-testing centres. This is to encourage specialised and qualified individuals to partake in the trial program without fear of legal repercussions.

Another aspect of harm reduction and minimisation that this bill implements is the introduction of 24/7 access to intranasal naloxone through secure, automated dispensing machines. The intent is to introduce these automated dispensing machines in areas where drug harm and overdose are especially prevalent. Naloxone is a medication that can reverse overdose from opioids, including heroin and fentanyl, when administered quickly. It is a life-saving medication that can be administered by individuals without medical training. Access is critical during an event of an overdose. These dispensing machines furthermore provide anonymous access to naloxone, minimising stigma as a preventative factor for individuals seeking assistance for an opioid overdose. No Victorian should be too afraid to seek medical help, regardless of the legality or reason as to why they are seeking it. The Allan Labor government is committed to providing these naloxone-dispensing machines across Victoria as a mechanism of its statewide action plan to reduce drug-related harm. They are not a convenience for opioid users to engage in substance use thoughtlessly; they are an essential and life-saving medication for individuals experiencing a medical emergency.

The introduction of the pill-testing centres and naloxone vending machines in this bill build upon the groundwork for harm minimisation laid out in the North Richmond safe injecting room. The North Richmond Community Health medically supervised injecting room has been used by half a million individuals since its implementation in 2018. In that timeframe it has safely managed over 9000 overdose incidents, 1100 individuals have commenced treatment for opioid addiction at the community health centre and the centre has provided almost 4000 referrals to external services for individuals suffering from addiction. The North Richmond medically supervised safe injecting room is a credit to the harm reduction approach to substance abuse. Harm reduction and minimisation is a proven way to address substance misuse and abuse in our communities. As much as we can preach complete abstinence from illicit substances, and as much as complete abstinence from illicit substances may be safest, it is irresponsible to ignore the presence and existence of drugs and illicit substances and blame them on the failure of individuals. Many factors can contribute to drug use. Our priority and the priority of the Allan Labor government should be preventing overdose deaths, reducing harms from substance misuse and improving the overall health of communities.

We know pill testing works. It has worked overseas, and it has worked interstate. It will not eliminate drug use, it will not get rid of the harms associated with drug use and it will not make drug use safer, but that is not its design or its intention. I commend the bill to the house.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:21): This is not the first time we have stood in this place and debated drug checking. It is not even the first time we have stood in this place and debated a pill-testing bill. With that in mind, I would like to start by acknowledging the work of Fiona Patten and the Greens, who in 2019 introduced the first-ever co-sponsored pill-testing bill into the Victorian Parliament. It may have taken five more long years for this government to act, but it would not have been possible without their advocacy, so I say thanks.

When we at Legalise Cannabis Victoria were elected, as a party built on the idea of harm reduction, it was clear to us that drug checking must be a priority for this government. We spent time meeting with harm reduction groups who do incredible work that without a doubt got us to where we are today. This included meetings with groups like the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. Their statement, supported by 77 health and community agencies, called on the Victorian government to legislate a drug-checking system. Earlier this year they helped to develop a drug-checking model in Victoria in collaboration with Harm Reduction Victoria and other stakeholders.

We also met with CanTEST, who in 2020 set up Australia’s first-ever fixed pill-testing service in Canberra. We heard how in the first six months they offered 675 discussions, 85 health interventions and 614 substance tests, providing vital services to their clients. Clients were able to know what they were taking and make informed decisions, knowing what to do if the worst happened. They do not tell people it is safe or encourage them to take drugs; that is simply not what these services do. The evidence shows us that those who access drug-checking services change their behaviour to reduce their risks. It is evident that these services save lives.

I would like to acknowledge all of the individuals and stakeholders who work or volunteer their time in the harm reduction space, including Pill Testing Australia, Harm Reduction Victoria, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, YSAS and DanceWize, to name a few, whose tireless workers has seen this positive outcome. Today is your win.

Earlier this year I was extremely proud that Legalise Cannabis Victoria collaborated with the Greens and the Animal Justice Party to again introduce a bill to establish pill testing in Victoria. I would like to give a special shout-out to Georgie and Aiv – or, as we affectionately call ourselves, the ‘pingers crew’ – my good friends who worked tirelessly with sick sunglasses and a sick determination to get pill testing off the ground in Victoria.

While we waited for the government to act, we continued to raise the urgency of drug-checking services in Parliament, acknowledging that while the government dragged their feet, young Victorians continued to lose their lives. There are decades of research and lived examples from over 20 countries and domestically showing that drug-checking services save lives by preventing clients from using strong or contaminated drugs. Drug-checking services allow for communication with people, often for the first time, about safer drug use, support services and harm reduction. They also help to detect new and dangerous substances before we see a mass overdose event. There has been a lot of work to get us to where we are today. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long to get here and so many lives have been lost. It should not have needed this much advocacy from stakeholders, multiple bills in Parliament and four coroners in six years recommending access to drug-checking services.

Turning now to the details of the bill, we are pleased to see that it will enable a drug-checking trial at fixed and mobile sites. These sites will be authorised to analyse samples and inform the client of potential risks and other factors which can contribute to harm. The presence of trained harm reduction peer workers and technical experts will further strengthen the efficacy of these services.

We are also extremely pleased to see that this bill will allow for the automatic dispensation of naloxone – something we and many of our colleagues have been calling for for some time now. I raised this issue in Parliament last month in the case of a THC vape that contained protonitazene, a synthetic opioid which is 100 times more potent than heroin. With the rise in substances like nitazenes circulating in the community, now more than ever we need access to medications to address opioid overdose.

We are concerned about whether these testing facilities will be equipped to test plant material. We know that cannabis can be contaminated with other dangerous substances, and we believe that those who use cannabis should be entitled to access these services. In the ACT the CAN-ACT study, funded by the Lambert Initiative, allows residents to anonymously submit their cannabis for testing free of charge to not only analyse cannabis content but also test for harmful contaminants like toxins, heavy metals and pesticides. Users of the service have said that it has been helpful in giving them peace of mind and helping them to better understand their own health. If these services cannot test plant material, we hope that in time, once these services become established, there will be greater investment so they can expand their testing services.

We do also have concerns about the level of detail this bill provides when it comes to police discretion not to charge clients of drug-checking services. While this bill clarifies that police have this discretion, it does nothing further to ensure that they do not target clients of drug-checking services. We have heard anecdotes from similar services overseas and from medically supervised injecting rooms that while most police officers do the right thing, there are instances where police do target clients of these services. It is our hope that, alongside this legislation in Victoria, there will be a change to police training that will provide direction on how to treat clients accessing these services. We will be putting forward some questions in the committee-of-the-whole stage to further clarify how this is intended to roll out and raising other queries we have in relation to the bill. All it takes is one story of a friend who was singled out by the police to scare off many more who would have benefited from accessing drug-checking services.

I would like to thank Minister Stitt and her team for the ongoing engagement on this bill and drug harm reduction more broadly. A special mention must also be afforded to the Premier, who I feel has been courageous in talking openly about her concerns as a parent and how her position on drug-checking services has changed. We congratulate this government on bringing forward this legislation and for doing so in a way that will ensure pill testing can be rolled out in time for the December festival season.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:29): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, a bill that is co-sponsored by the Animal Justice Party, the Victorian Greens and Legalise Cannabis. It amends the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to enable drug-checking services to be established, licensed and regulated in Victoria at both fixed and mobile sites. Drug-checking services will permit clients – the person that is giving the drug to be tested – to have the composition of their drugs tested and to receive harm reduction advice on the use of drugs without risking exposure to criminal or civil liability. It enables the dispensing of certain poisons, including naloxone, by automatic machines for the treatment of opioid overdoses.

The call for pill testing at music festivals began in earnest around 2015 when Fiona Patten was elected with the Sex Party following the deaths and overdoses at the Stereosonic festivals. The fact that Fiona Patten raised the need for pill testing is quite telling, as she has been a political lobbyist for the adult industry for decades and an advocate for drugs and pill testing. The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing Pilot for Drug Harm Reduction) Bill 2023 was first introduced in 2016, and this bill proposes pill testing in Victoria. What I am quite amazed at is it was not long ago that the Labor Party completely opposed this bill. In fact they historically have opposed it. Up until 2023 Daniel Andrews said that he had no plans to follow the Queensland government’s lead. In fact he said:

The government is not introducing a pill-testing trial. Queensland can do that if they choose, we aren’t …

Mr Andrews justified his tough stance on pill testing by saying that it does not make the consumption of party drugs like MDMA and ecstasy safe or reliable. I just find it fascinating that those opposite have gone from completely opposing it to now completely championing it, just listening to their speeches. I find that very insincere. Mr Andrews said:

I don’t think you can take these drugs at any level and be safe …

Until last year, Minister Stitt held the same line. She said:

I want to be very clear, though: The Allan Labor government has no plans to trial pill testing.

I find it extraordinary because when we now listen to these other speeches it is like a complete 180, and people are not saying that they are not staying true to their word and saying, ‘Taking drugs on any level is not safe and we will not be introducing it.’ They are almost demonising people who have concerns and are not supporting it.

Pill testing centres drug policy priorities around harm minimisation, which forms one part of the harm reduction pillar found within the national drug strategy. The other two pillars are reduction of demand and reduction of drug supply. Harm minimisation can be defined as politics, programs and practices that aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop. This presents a conflict and a tension, as pill testing works directly against and undermines the two other strategies in that national drug strategy, which are, like I said, drug supply and demand reduction. This was confirmed by the Australian National University’s pill-testing program evaluation in 2019, which found:

… those determined to use remained determined before and after receiving the testing service …

As with any question that is brought to this place, there are always going to be opposing views. The main arguments in favour of pill testing by advocates for pill testing are things like that it reduces drug-related harm. I just want to remind you that the first ever overdose from ecstasy in Australia was by somebody who had an idiosyncratic reaction. Somebody had a pure tablet that somebody else also took on whom had absolutely no lasting harm, and it killed her. It was not safe for her. Something that is safe for somebody does not mean that it is safe for the whole population. But anyway, I digress.

The other arguments they have are that it will provide an at-risk population with information and education. Apparently it changes behaviours around drug taking. It monitors the market for new and dangerous substances. It has been shown to help change the black market of drugs containing harmful substances, and it allows for research and data collection on the illegal drug market.

Then there is the flip side, the side on which I am standing and advocating for here today, which is arguments against pill testing. Some of these arguments are that there is no such thing as safe drug use and that pill testing normalises drug use. Funnily enough, just over a year ago I was standing on a unity ticket with the leader of Labor on that exact same point. There is limited evidence that says pill testing does work and it can provide a false sense of security. The services are legally difficult; some would say the services are morally wrong. Also testing is flawed. I have found it really fascinating reading through the different speeches of people who have raised their concerns around pill testing. Our colleague Mr Puglielli from the Greens said pill testing does not encourage illicit drug use. However, if it is an illegal drug that is being tested, it is an illicit drug. There are no two ways around it. Another interesting one was Lauren Kathage from the ALP, who spoke about pill testing being like a seatbelt analogy, and I am going to come to that in a minute. I found that quite fascinating.

Music festivals have at times resembled a scene from a hospital emergency ward, with drug-related deaths and overdoses that have tragically claimed the lives of festival goers, many of them young. In the aftermath of these tragedies, harm reduction advocates are quick to propose pill testing as the next drug minimisation strategy that could potentially save lives, and I think that that is well-meaning. I am not against that, but I think it is extremely flawed. All three parties sponsoring the bill have insisted that pill testing saves lives but quickly follow up with ‘But it’s not a silver bullet, merely a strategy among many others.’ However, I think that a silver bullet is the wrong analogy. I think a much better analogy is Russian roulette. Taking psychotropic illicit drugs is a deadly and unpredictably high-stakes game. There is a reason that drugs are illegal, and there is no safe way to play.

I have spoken about it before in this house. Not only am I concerned that the very first ecstasy drug death in Australia was from a pill that was considered pure and it was something that reacted with that particular individual’s own chemistry but also that I have had friends myself who have had to fight for many, many years and I have seen what it has taken to overcome the addiction to drugs and get their lives back, to see families that have sometimes seen their children slip away and for others it has been almost the joy of having them come back. Many precious years of people’s lives have been lost.

But we heard Lauren Kathage comparing pill testing with car seatbelts. What she fails to recognise is that driving is legal, and it is widespread because it is desired by the public. Seatbelts help make this safer. Taking illicit drugs is not legal. It is definitely not desirable to the public and it is not something that adds to the community. Arguments like these used to support pill testing essentially construct false equivocations and perceptions around drug use and they suggest that it can minimise the harms and make them safer. I know it is well-meaning. I want to see lives saved. I do not think that this is the way to do it.

Because of time I am going to skip through a few things, because I think another thing that often we do not talk about is the terrible background where these drugs are coming from. They are not coming from a pharmacy that is well regulated. They are not coming from somewhere that is safe, with good working conditions. They are coming from drug syndicates of violent people that often involve sexual assault, murder and incredible violence. The parties that introduced this might say, ‘I’m not going to wear something that comes from an animal,’ ‘I’m not going to eat meat from an animal that has been abused,’ or ‘I’m not going to buy clothes from somebody whose work standards aren’t up to practice,’ yet the same people are saying, ‘But you can buy drugs off the black market, where people can be treated incredibly violently.’ I have just listened to some amazing podcasts, and we were talking about the bill relating to Nicola Gobbo recently – the drug trade and the incredible violence and the fact that she and her children are now in hiding because of these different drug lords and the way that they operate. She absolutely did the wrong thing, but this is a group of people you cannot get on the wrong side of, because if you do, there is no coming back to Australia, there is no living a normal life. Yet here we are, supporting their business. I just think it is absolutely unbelievable.

But while I have got a few minutes left, around drug safety and harm I think there is a lot of detail missing. 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.

It is very limited.

I am going to go through just this because I do not have enough time to go through all of it in detail. There is no requirement, as a client waives their rights in relation to legal liability, to reveal the limitations of pill testing. So these people could be extremely harmed, and even though it is a service provided by the government, there is no protection. There is no requirement to discuss extensive pill-testing limitations with people. I think that will give people a heightened or false sense of security.

This is one that I find quite interesting given the other things we have spoken about: there is no fit-and-proper-person test for these workers. That, to me, seems extremely problematic given the product is illegal. It is not a health-led approach. There is no fit-and-proper-person test for special drug-testing workers even though they will be handling drugs for testing. There is no fit-and-proper-person test for the general drug-testing workers. This ignores the failures of the Richmond drug-injecting rooms, including that a pair of community outreach workers tasked with bringing drug users into the facility were among five people charged with drug trafficking. That is really quite devastating.

I am just going to skip to the end because I have got way too much stuff here. I just want to say that the parties that support these bills cannot reconcile I believe the link between illicit drugs and the paradoxes that they pose with core party principles and values. It is a dark environment that produces the pills, and it wreaks so much unnecessary destruction for countless thousands of people all over the world that is never really fully understood or exposed.

I think the argument that ‘they’re doing it anyway, so let’s make it safe’ isn’t applied across other societal areas, such as obesity, gambling, domestic violence, alcohol and tobacco. They are not saying, ‘Well, somebody’s going to do this anyway, so let’s build these structures around it.’ The same voices advocating for pill testing would boycott products that pollute the atmosphere, meat packaged from an abused animal and clothing produced by exploited workers, and so they should. However, those things are dwarfed in comparison to the harms that can be done with this particular – (Time expired)

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:45): I am going to start with a quote from the introduction to the famous essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others … In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

What that partly means is that, in a free society, people are not really free unless they have the freedom to make decisions that might be bad. In fact the role of the state should only be really to prevent people harming each other, not preventing them from harming themselves.

The bill here today does two things, and I will go through them separately. I will start with the first thing that it does, which is less controversial, which is permitting the use of vending machines to dispense the drug naloxone. For those that might not be aware of what that drug is, effectively it is a nasal spray, like a nasal decongestant – it looks very similar to that – and it is effectively an antidote to opiate overdose. It can be administered just by squirting up the nose, similar to a nasal decongestant, and it can bring back to life someone that is dying. I think that this is a great idea. My only concern is: why wasn’t it done 10 years ago? Nevertheless, the government is doing this, and I think that it is an excellent idea, making naloxone more widely available.

In the second part of this bill the thing that it does which is more controversial is it sets up a legal framework to allow both fixed-site and mobile pill testing. I cast my mind back to I think it was February 2019. Actually it was the first media presser that I ever did as an MP, and there were a whole bunch of crossbenchers, including the Greens, me, Fiona Patten and many others, and we all showed support for pill testing. The reasons that I supported it may have been different to some of my colleagues, but nevertheless we all supported it. What are the reasons that I support this? As I have said many times in this place, even in my inaugural speech, I believe that drug prohibition is one of the most catastrophic failures of policy that has ever existed. Some of the catastrophic harms caused by drug prohibition, which is still supported by this government, are that we get very poor quality substances, we get misinformation in the market, we get organised crime and we get all of these other problems.

The reason really that people continue to support prohibition is that we have this funny idea in many countries, including Australia – I would argue it is more apparent in Australia – that if the government makes something legal it is good and if it is illegal it is bad. I heard the opposition reference many times, ‘There’s a reason it’s illegal.’ There is a reason it is illegal. It is because the government put forward a bill that made it illegal and turned it into an act. That is why something is illegal. There is no rational basis for this whatsoever.

What the government is doing by allowing pill testing to happen is in my mind not a silver bullet. It is definitely not going to fix all the harms of drug prohibition. In fact it is quite a minor thing that they are allowing. Nevertheless, it will allow one thing to happen: it will enable people that are taking risks to have some more information to somewhat mitigate that risk. It will allow them to come into contact with someone who will provide them with harm minimisation information. No-one tells them that the drugs are safe; that is not how pill-testing services operate. They always tell them that they should not take the pills, but they also tell them what is inside them. Some pills can be adulterated and other ones may be more pure, which is a problem too. As has been pointed out, at this point people have already purchased the drugs. What happens in many cases – and I have heard this from many people – is that they discover that the pill is not what they thought it was and they throw it in the bin. That does not encourage drug use; that reduces drug use, which is a great outcome and maybe saves their life. Similarly, a drug can be far more pure than what they anticipated and someone may not take the full pill and again, in that manner, it may save their life because they know that what they obtained is far more potent than what they had anticipated.

The other concern that I have with the drug market in general – this is not really something necessarily for festivals and the like but more for the fixed site service, and it is something that I have been terrified about for years now – is synthetic opiates coming into Australia. The sooner that we can identify these, similar to what we would do in many other things that the government does, like, for example, food safety or environmental testing – when they find some substance which is not meant to be there and is dangerous, they raise the alarm and shut it down. Hopefully they will be able to do that with nitazenes, fentanyl and some of these other opiates that are extremely dangerous. We have seen some of the shocking consequences of those drugs entering the market in other countries, such as the United States. I think that we can only thank our lucky stars that we have not had that in Australia yet, but sooner or later it will come, and that is what I am scared of.

I do have some problems with this bill. I do not like the funding model that they have set up for the festivals, noting that it is just a trial at this stage. I would urge the government to consider different funding models for the long term. My main concern here is a moral one around whether or not taxpayers should be funding quality control at festivals. I do not think that should be the case. I think that there are other financial models that can be set up. Indeed other countries do have different models that are set up by the industry, by charities, by corporate sponsorship. There are many other creative means for funding this. I just do not think that over the long term it should be funded by taxpayers. I think that people that want these drugs tested should be funding it themselves. Nevertheless, I do not feel that this is a good enough reason to oppose this bill because the consequences of not having something like this are extremely dire. People will die without this sort of service. In fact we will save many people through this sort of service.

I would like to challenge some of the things brought up by the government and the Greens. They carry on as if they are champions of harm reduction. I would like to point out that the most deadly drug is a legal drug and is widely available, and it is tobacco. The government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, on tobacco harm reduction. In fact they have totally ignored it. Similar to the Greens, they in fact have been spreading misinformation about vaping and what it can and cannot do and how dangerous it is. They have totally ignored the principles of harm reduction, and I think that to carry on as if they are champions of harm reduction now is a bit rich, frankly. Tobacco by far kills more people than pretty much any other drug. It is a very dangerous drug, and it is totally legal. If you believe that the government making something legal means it is good, then you must believe that tobacco is good too, which it is not. It is a very bad drug, very, very bad.

On the subject of collecting information, I know that we do already have an alert system for identifying drugs. Feeding in the data that is collected from both the mobile pill testing and the fixed-site testing will enable us to get a much larger sample size for this database that is used for alerts and better information on what is happening in the illicit market so that hopefully we can get ahead of things and alert people to the fact that there is bad stuff out there and maybe encourage them to make different decisions or at least give them the information to make their own decisions about what sort of risks they are really willing to take.

I would like to briefly just acknowledge some people who have been pushing for this for years: people within my party who have also been supporting this for a long time and some organisations such as Harm Reduction Victoria, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Harm Reduction Australia, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Coroners Court and many others. Of course my colleagues from the last term of Parliament were also pushing for this along with me.

We need to do more on this sort of thing. I have seen the harm. I have actually gone to festivals. In fact I was having a debate with one of my staff earlier today about the Earthcore festival. He was talking about the 2000s and I was talking about the 1990s. Anyway, I am starting to feel old now. But yes, I did go to festivals, and I saw harms from drugs. Not everyone that takes drugs is harmed by them – in fact the majority of people are not – but some people do suffer harm, and if people can get more information that will enable them to make better decisions about their behaviour and maybe even make a decision to not partake in that particular behaviour because they discover that what they thought they were taking is not what they were taking, then that is a good outcome, I think, and should be supported.

I would like to reiterate that I do not support the funding model for this, although that is not really part of the bill; the bill just sets up a licensing scheme really. I would urge the government to think for the longer term, after the trial, about how we fund this on an ongoing basis and to explore more creative and innovative funding models than simply just paying for it with taxpayer money. I will leave my contribution there.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:57): I am really pleased to speak in support of this bill today, because drug testing and pill testing save lives. It is as simple as that. This bill does exactly what I and many other members of the crossbench have been calling for for some time, and we are really pleased to see the government finally listen to those calls. If we have the ability to respond to and reduce drug harm, we as politicians have an obligation to ensure that that happens, regardless of how we feel about drug use itself.

This bill offers a pill-testing pilot and the licensing of one fixed-location drug-checking service offering open conversations detailing both the substances provided and the associated harms and risks and issuing referrals to health or social services. The mobile service will attend music festivals and hotspots where we know drug use is already rampant. Our nation’s capital and Queensland are already offering pill testing with resounding success, alongside 28 other countries. The evidence is there to show that this works.

Let me be clear: despite what other members of Parliament have said in here today, this bill is not about enhancing access to drugs, nor is it normalising drug use. What it will do is address the failures of this state to protect its citizens from ingesting fatal substances. It will fill in the gaps where our criminal laws have fallen short in addressing the root cause of drug-induced harm and deaths. It is a simplistic reduction and frankly a very uneducated view to say that pill testing increases drug use. The real contributor to overdoses and unintentional drug harm is the lack of informed decision-making and the absence of support. Today we have the opportunity to remedy just that.

We know our youth are dying or becoming seriously ill from taking drugs. Our recent summer festival season has shown us just that. These people are dying in the shadows of our sphere of care and, until now, in the purview of this government. This bill seeks to bring behaviour that already occurs in secrecy and unchecked into the light and into the hands of the professionals who know it best. Prospective drug users will be able to have their limited quantities tested for any unknown or potentially fatal substances. In doing so a health worker is able to discuss their drug use with them so that they can make informed and therefore safer decisions. It is as simple as that. These very discussions will likely be the first of their kind for many individuals who have previously felt uncomfortable discussing it with a parent, adult or doctor due to the fear of judgement or, at worst, prosecution. Further, amnesty bins will be provided so that people can dispose of their tested drugs without consequence. This also enables the health authorities to understand what variations of drugs are being used, trends in the market and what unexpected chemicals may be found in patients and empower the issuing of real-time public alerts about new or dangerous drug compositions. By just one person testing a substance and triggering an alert we will have the ability to save not just one life but multiple others who have purchased the same batch.

Drugs are a reality within this state, and we can no longer pretend that it is not our responsibility to minimise the associated risks. If we are to expect that young people do engage in drug use once out of the schooling system, we must continue the education when they are confronted with these very opportunities. The answer to minimising drug use harm is not further punishment, for everyone knows already that their conduct is illegal. What they do not know is the composition and the potency of what they are ingesting. In Canberra the pill-testing scheme has already shown that people were four times more likely to say that they would not take their tested drugs when it was found that the substance showed unexpected ingredients, additional drugs or inconclusive results.

The 2018 inquiry into drug law reform recommended:

The Victorian Government establish an early warning system (EWS) to enable analysis, monitoring and public communications about new psychoactive substances (NPS) and other illicit substances of concern.

In 2018 novel psychoactive substances contributed to three deaths. Yet without implementation of this recommendation this figure has rapidly increased, accounting for 47 potentially avoidable deaths in 2021–22 caused by new psychoactive substances. Further to this, State Coroner Judge John Cain on 6 September 2023 recommended that the Victorian government implement a drug-checking service, following the death of a 26-year-old man in 2022 from a highly potent type of MDMA pill called the ‘Blue Punisher’, which induces seizures, multiorgan failure and brain swelling. His Honour noted that in this unregulated drug market there is a heightened overdose risk because consumers cannot be certain of their composition or strength. This is not a standalone case but rather represents the upward trajectory of deaths in Victoria from a lack of pill testing.

I think one of the worst traits for many of us as politicians is thinking that we know best and that we know everything about every topic. But I actually think one of the best traits of a politician is to listen to the experts who know the subject matter best, and experts have been pleading with us for years now to implement this service. We have been presented with an opportunity to do better and to simply listen to them about the reality we are already living in and what we can do to reduce that harm.

This bill is for the young person who feels pressured into taking drugs by their friends. This bill is for the person willingly experimenting for the very first time and those that have made the decision to continue recreationally using. This bill is for the concerned parent who has found illicit substances in their family home. This bill is for those who are drug-dependent and trying not to overdose. This bill is for some of my own friends. And I am sure this will shock precisely nobody: this bill is also for my younger self. It is for the safety of all Victorians. Today is a choice. It is a choice between a young person never returning home to their family or instead a young person having a brat summer with informed and safe choices. I commend it to the house.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:04): I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. There are two key strategies that are introduced in this bill: drug checking, or pill testing, and increasing access to treatment for opioid overdoses. Most importantly, though, this bill will save lives, as many of my colleagues in the chamber here have said. The drug-checking implementation trial is expected to reduce pressure on frontline services from drug poisonings and help save lives at Victorian music festivals and more broadly. This trial will test and evaluate models of delivery for this service, which will then be made permanent. In short, this bill is about putting in place measures to actively save lives.

I would like to start by talking about the second element of the bill, which is accessible provision of treatments for opioid overdoses. This availability is becoming more urgent. The battle against illicit drugs is becoming much more complex. New addictive products are becoming more available across the globe. More people are taking illicit drugs believing them to be one thing, but increasingly there is a real risk they are taking a deadly substance. Many of us are unaware of the extent of this rapidly increasing challenge across Australia.

As reported on the ABC on 25 June this year, the synthetic opioid nitazene is linked to a rise in overdose deaths currently emerging in Australia. This synthetic opioid has experts alarmed. Nitazenes were first detected in Europe and North America in 2019 and have been linked to a concerning increase in overdose deaths. Experts are warning it could become as crippling in Australia as the fentanyl crisis in North America. Nitazenes were originally developed in the 1950s but were never used clinically due to their addictive potency. Nitazenes are stronger than fentanyl and hundreds of times more addictive than heroin. I have heard how addictive heroin is. I have listened to heroin addicts describe that feeling, and it just amazes me that these nitazenes are more addictive than that. So this is potentially deadly in the extreme. It is believed a significant reduction in opium production in Afghanistan may have resulted in synthetic opioids such as nitazene filling the gap. Nitazene is also cheaper and easier to produce than plant-based opioids. The National Crime Agency estimates that at least two people are dying every week from nitazenes in the United Kingdom, and we are not immune. Drug alerts have been issued in almost every Australian state and the ACT since 2021 following overdoses linked to nitazenes, including drug-induced deaths.

Marianne Jauncey is the medical director of the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, located at Kings Cross in New South Wales. She stated to the ABC on 25 June:

We know there is at least 16 or 18 deaths in Victoria that have been referred to in coronial reports …

That is why this bill is so timely and important. The reality is that every person in this chamber, no matter where they sit, could lose a child or a friend to an accidental drug overdose in the name of fun, social pressure, experimentation or drug addiction. The Allan Labor government is again showing proactive leadership and tackling this issue head-on, and I congratulate Premier Jacinta Allan for her leadership in this challenging space.

This bill will enable the supply of naloxone, a controlled substance, through secure automated vending machines. Naloxone is a completely safe life-saving opioid reversal medication. It reverses the effects of drugs such as nitazenes, as naloxone blocks opioids from attaching to opioid receptors in the brain. Importantly, it carries no risk of being misused.

The Victorian government is committed to getting naloxone into the hands of those who need it, as a part of our statewide action plan. Twenty secure naloxone vending machines will be established in the areas of greatest need. This will afford Victorians with greater access to this lifesaving medication. Despite carrying no risk of misuse, naloxone is a controlled drug. To make it more accessible via these vending machines we need to amend the current legislation, which is exactly what this bill will do. Following the passing of this legislation and a co-design process, these machines will be up and running from mid 2025. Increasing the availability of naloxone can significantly reduce the mortality rate from overdoses.

Drug checking or pill testing is the other significant reform being introduced in this bill. The data backing pill testing from around the globe is increasingly robust. This legislation is choosing to take a harm minimisation approach to illicit drugs rather than an emotional or judgemental approach. Let us face it: drug abuse is not new. Opium and opium products have been killing human beings for centuries. Pill-testing technology allows users to minimise the harm that drug taking can cause. In doing so, there is no doubt it will save lives. This data is reflective of findings around the world. It shows the percentages of people at high risk who take drugs unaware of potentially dangerous substances. At its core, the use of quality control in drug taking will actively save lives.

Although some of us are older than others in this chamber, and I am sure we all remember our own adolescence, some of us were probably more reckless or adventurous than others. Risk-taking is a natural developmental behaviour of young people, and it is also a natural behaviour of some not so young people. I know one of our colleagues, not in this chamber, likes jumping out of aeroplanes, and I confess that mountain bike riding is my adrenaline rush. We know these activities involve risk – they are not entirely risk free – but broken bones, scratches and bruises are in a completely different category to the risk associated with opioid consumption. The risks of accidental drug overdoses due to corrupted product are, sadly, deadly serious. The bottom line is that every person in this chamber, no matter where they sit, could lose a child or a friend, as I said, and that is why these two elements in this bill are so important.

In 2016, 43 per cent of Australians aged 14 and older said they had used an illicit drug at some point in their lifetime. Use of drugs amongst music festival attendees is disproportionately high compared to the general population. Ideally, drugs would not be used at all. A study of the deaths at festivals was published this January in the International Journal of Drug Policy. It was led by Associate Professor Jennifer Schumann from Monash University here in Victoria. Their survey found that of 2305 participants at 23 festivals in Victoria, almost half – 48 per cent – had recently used drugs, and 24 per cent intended to take illicit drugs at their next festival despite the discouragement.

The 2023 evaluation of the CanTEST service, which provided drug checking and health interventions in the ACT, revealed that only 53 per cent of substances tested matched the expected drug and 32 per cent of people who discovered their substance was not what they expected definitely would not use it. This is where drug checking can truly save lives. Pill testing does not encourage drug taking and pill testing does not increase drug use. All patrons are told at least once that the safest thing to do is to not take drugs, and there are many sets of data from around the world reinforcing that pill testing does not increase drug use. The Alcohol and Drug Foundation website shows that in New Zealand in 2022 they conducted testing of 73 drug-checking clinics and found that clients were more likely to use in less risky ways: 29 per cent of people said they would now take a lower dose than previously planned, 27 per cent of people said they would avoid mixing with alcohol or other medications and roughly another third of people reported they would test any other drugs they were using.

Pill testing provides a unique opportunity for harm reduction workers to inform patrons about the risks of drug use and what to do in the event of an adverse reaction. Illicit drugs are not regulated in any way. The risk of harm is so much more than for prescribed drugs. With prescribed drugs the dosage rates are not only tested but standardised and fully researched for the impacts they have on the target population. If you think of almost any prescription drug, not only are they prescribed by a health practitioner who specialises in the area, the actual packet of medicine comes with labelling and usually very detailed written instructions. We can rely on prescribed drugs; it is a regulated system.

We can also rely on legal non-medical drugs like alcohol. At least now we have clear dosage rates of alcohol. It is a requirement to list what the percentage of alcohol is on the bottle. Standardised labelling requires that consumers know what they are consuming. In addition, public education and the criminal code are very clear about acceptable versus harmful levels of alcohol consumption.

This is pretty much my pep talk for teenagers on drugs, and it refers to illicit and legal drugs: the best approach is to not take them at all. There is no consumer affairs when it comes to substances purchased off the street from an unknown maker, no recourse and no accountability. The best course of action is to not take drugs at all. We can encourage young people not to take drugs while also offering pill testing. This bill will save lives.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:17): It is a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024, a bill that will give the express legal authority for both mobile and fixed-site drug-checking services to operate in Victoria and also support the government’s commitment to introducing secure naloxone vending machines in key areas of need. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that is going to help save lives here in Victoria, and it is going to help keep people safe. It is going to better inform Victorians about the choices that they are making and help them understand what is in the things that they are putting into their bodies. It is not about condoning drug use, and it is not telling people that they are good to go. It is about providing Victorians with information so that they can make more informed decisions – possibly life-saving decisions. Having legislation and a pill-testing regime is more and more important given the volatile and unpredictable nature of the illicit drug market here in Victoria. These measures are needed now more than ever, and the clear legislative framework that is being put in place by this nation-leading bill will let all parties – festival operators, pill-testing operators and their clients – know that they are not breaking the law by operating a testing service and they are not breaking the law by seeking out one of these services to have substances checked.

The checking is important, but it is not just about the checking. The pill-testing services that this legislation will enable are about much more than that test itself. They will provide the opportunity for trained workers – peer workers but also technical experts – to provide clients of the service with critical information about harm reduction and ways to reduce their risk, and they will also provide an opportunity to gather useful community-based information to strengthen Victoria’s drug surveillance efforts, which will help authorities get on top of dangerous trends sooner. Unfortunately, under the current system, in the past we have only known that things are going wrong and that dangerous substances are afoot in the community when things started to go really wrong – when people started to get really sick. We know that the sort of information that comes from these services at a system-wide or a population-wide level will enable that information to be collected in a more systematic way.

We know that no drug is ever truly safe, but Victorians do deserve to have all the information available to them to help them make better, safer and more informed decisions. The science behind pill testing is very clear: it will save lives and reduce harm. It is quite simply common sense. That is why I am very proud to be part of a government, led by the Premier Jacinta Allan and the Minister for Health, Minister Stitt, that is proudly the first jurisdiction in the country to introduce dedicated legislation to support the operation of pill-testing services from this year.

I will not take up too much time today. I will say that the component of this legislation which I think is particularly important other than the one that is being put in place to establish both fixed and mobile pill-testing services is the framework to enable the supply of naloxone, which is a controlled substance, through secure automated vending machines. The naloxone component of this package is part of a statewide government response, naloxone being a safe and life-saving opioid reversal medication that blocks opioids from attaching to receptors in the brain. The government as part of its announcement in terms of drug harm reduction put the rollout of naloxone vending machines at the core of the statewide action plan. We are establishing 20 of these vending machines around the state in areas of greatest need, giving more Victorians greater access to life-saving medicine.

You can see through the approach we are talking to pill testing and the approach we are taking to naloxone vending machines that this Labor government is about reducing the harm that these drugs can cause in our community, about better informing those who take them and about ensuring that all Victorians are kept safe and that we do everything we can to reduce the harms from drug use.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:23): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise today and speak in support of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by acknowledging my colleagues in the other place. I did take some time last sitting week to follow several of their contributions because these changes I know are just so important to our community. I want to begin with the first speaker and highlight the contribution of the Premier and the true leadership that she has shown on this issue when she noted that her own views on this had changed. She has demonstrated what real leadership looks like – the ability to take information provided by professionals and families that have shared their stories and make an informed decision as her perspective shifted. I was touched by that and then particularly by supporting contributions from other members of the LA. The contribution by the member for Footscray was particularly powerful. She shared being at a music festival and stumbling upon a young person having an adverse reaction. You know what – she probably saved their life, so all respect to the member for Footscray for doing that.

Can I also say that we are very lucky in this place to have very powerful contributions by the member for Frankston and the member for Melton. With all the opinions on this issue shared in this place, we frequently forget it is often our emergency services personnel that respond to drug overdoses. It is the paramedics like the member for Melton or our firies like the member for Frankston who are first responders to the tragedy of drug overdoses. The trauma of a drug overdose obviously impacts family and friends, but let us not forget for a single second the impact on our emergency services and healthcare professionals dealing with the devastation of unsafe pills. It is these Victorians who have had the experience of trying to resuscitate someone who has overdosed, and we should not be placing this burden on our first responders when we know that there is a safer way to protect Victorians. This was highlighted by the Premier’s own contribution to the house. In the first three months of this year, paramedics had responded to more overdoses at festivals than the entire 2023 year.

I will just take a moment now for my own reflections in fact. With my Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services hat on I had the very distinct privilege and pleasure of joining the Triple Zero Victoria folks at their call centre in eastern suburbs, where I witnessed firsthand their extraordinary work, and can I just say these highly skilled professionals are trained to respond to a wide range of crises. They navigate some really high-stress situations with some really limited information and have incredible split-second decision-making skills, my goodness. I watched and I heard as they handled overdose calls, knowing little about the substance involved or its potency, and as people called in reciting the impacts of seeing drug-affected people in our community. There was an uncertainty that I could hear that really places enormous strain on both the call centre and the first responders on the ground. What struck me most was the dedication of these workers, who handle calls with empathy, professionalism and unmatched commitment to keeping Victorians safe.

However, without the tools to identify dangerous substances at the point of use, calls about drug overdoses and related crises continue to consume resources within our emergency services, and this is where pill testing can make a real difference. By providing access to pill-testing services we can reduce the number of overdose-related calls and allow our emergency call operators and responders to redirect their focus to other critical situations. Fewer overdose incidents mean fewer calls to 000 for drug-related emergencies, enabling our emergency services to attend to other Victorians in critical and urgent need, whether it be in relation to heart attacks, car accidents or other life-threatening events. Pill testing is more than harm reduction; it is a practical solution that supports the efficiency of our emergency services, relieving some of the pressure on our frontline heroes. It is a way of honouring the work of our highly skilled call centre staff, enabling them to operate in an environment where resources are effectively allocated and where unnecessary crises are prevented at the source.

It is important to give people the tools that they need. I cannot support this more. It is so important that those talking to people before they make that decision to pop a pill are the health professionals that can give them more than an indication of what is actually inside that little pill. I had the opportunity to listen to Paul Healey from the Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) last year. He did a radio interview, and he made a really good point. He said that at the moment people are only getting the information off drug dealers, who are in the business of making money, not welfare. We cannot let the community get health information off drug dealers and organised criminals. We have an opportunity to impact people’s lives here by giving people access to professional, unbiased health care and information.

I do not have much more of my contribution to make. But there is such an extensive list of organisations that have been involved in the development of this bill before us, and I am sure the minister will possibly speak to that today, if not later. There are a few that I want to give a particular shout-out to and to thank for their extraordinary contribution to this issue – thank you to their extraordinary leadership – HACSU, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Victorian Ambulance Union and the Australian Services Union, along with other professional associations and organisations such as the Victorian Healthcare Association, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Public Health Association of Victoria, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association and the Penington Institute. The common thread here is that they are all professionals who know and deal with this issue firsthand.

There is so much more that I could speak to, but perhaps it is worth going to a story about the Northern Metro region and the conversations that I have had, including one that I had recently with a teacher who told me how important it is for students and young people to get independent advice from professionals. She was pretty blunt about it, knowing of course that they might not listen to parents and they might not listen to their teachers, but getting advice from skilled professionals can really help important messages sink in. I am happy to know that with this bill before us there is more access to important information.

I will say to you, Acting President, and to the chamber, with this bill we are not endorsing drug use, we are acknowledging the reality of drug harms and creating a pathway to save lives. With this legislation before us, we are focusing on harm reduction and prioritising the health and safety of Victorians. I, with members on this side of the house, lend this legislation my support and commend the bill to the house.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:32): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing) Bill 2024. This really is a landmark piece of legislation. After New Zealand we are only the second jurisdiction in the world to actually legislate a drug-checking service, so I take the opportunity to warmly commend the Allan government for its courage and vision in moving this legislation and for its commitment to keeping Victorians, particularly young and vulnerable Victorians, safe.

Pill testing, or drug checking, has been recommended by pretty much everyone who has an interest in harm reduction and saving lives. It has the endorsement of the AMA, the Royal Australian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, to name but a few. No less than five coronal inquiries in the past two years have called for drug-checking services to be introduced in the state, and of course the scheme has the strongest endorsement of those working directly in the harm reduction sector. Drug checking has been effective in saving lives wherever it has been provided, and the government has clearly listened to the expert advice and to the wider community in introducing this scheme.

I would like to address some of the remarks from those opposite. Let us start with the bleedingly obvious: people use drugs. It is a fact, and if anyone believes that the ‘Just say no’ approach to drug regulation works, can I say the war on drugs is over. It has been lost, and it died with Ronald Reagan. The distinction between licit and illicit drugs is at best arbitrary or perhaps just a continuum. I doubt there is anyone in this chamber who does not partake in drugs in some form or another. All drugs carry some risk, but obviously in an unregulated market those risks are much greater. People should not have to die because they take illicit drugs. The illicit market in Victoria is huge. It is worth at least $4 billion a year, so there is definitely a demand for illicit drugs. Let us not pretend that that demand does not exist. It is not enough to just say ‘Don’t do it’. It is not enough to say some gangsters are bad and some are not, like has been suggested by Mrs Heath. The fact of the matter is all drugs are going to be out there and we need to have a mature discussion about it.

We do not wish death upon those who drive over the speed limit or jaywalk, yet those activities are potentially dangerous too. Drug checking does not eliminate all risk. All it does is provide information to a person who is intending to consume drugs about what is contained in the drugs that they are about to consume, and then armed with that information that person can make an informed decision about whether to consume the drugs. The difference between now and what this proposes is the intermediary of information about the substance, and it works. In a 2022 study 86 per cent of consumers in Portugal and 69 per cent of consumers in the UK did not consume the drug they were carrying when test results indicated that the drug was different than they expected – empirical evidence in this regard.

I would like to pick up a couple of other questions. One of the ones that I think is extraordinarily infuriating is the suggestion that – and we have heard this from the usual suspects – the use of pill testing is effectively green-lighting children’s drug use, which is just preposterous. I cannot decide whether those opposite are being naive or disingenuous or both, but this frankly dangerous and reactionary garbage, which ignores the recommendations of the Coroners Court as well as the strong backing of the AMA and other peak bodies, is really, really unhelpful. If we are to have any sort of impact on reducing drug-related harm in this state, we need to accept some confronting facts. Drug use among those under 18 is rising, okay? It is not something we are just asserting. There is any amount of statistical data that supports this. It is a fact. Children as young as 14 are regularly using drugs. Nobody wants to see children taking drugs, but if they are taking them, they certainly deserve the same access to information as their adult counterparts. The better informed they are, the better decisions they can make. It might save lives, and to suggest it is encouraging drug consumption is just gratuitous garbage.

There is an argument that has been put up that we should not do this because we cannot test for every variety of drug. The opposition has complained that pill testing will not be able to test for everything and is particularly concerned about nitazenes and that they will not be tested for. This is another furphy. Nitazene testing is entirely possible. You can already buy nitazene and fentanyl testing strips in retail outlets. We are not splitting the atom here; this is not cutting-edge science. However, and this is a really critical point, novel synthetic opioids are constantly changing – that is why they are called ‘novel’ – so some will be picked up and some newer synthetics may not. For the opposition to attack the proposed drug-testing program on the basis that it may not be able to capture every imaginable drug reeks of, at best, the pursuit of perfection being the enemy of the good. The technology available at drug-checking services would be expected to use the best technologies and methods available. They will be able to test the make-up of most pills, powders, crystals or liquids and identify harmful chemicals that can lead to death. Importantly, the analytical chemist at the service may also be able to recognise additives that cannot be readily identified. This is a major red flag that would-be consumers can be advised of by harm reduction workers.

Ultimately, while not taking drugs is always the safest option, drug checking is a pragmatic approach that provides a unique opportunity to reduce the inevitable use of drugs. As explained by the director of the drug policy modelling program at the University of New South Wales, Professor Alison Ritter, who is an expert on drug policy:

… encouraging young people not to do drugs is –

not –

mutually exclusive from offering –

drug checking –

… you can do both things at once …

That was her quote. In other words, we can walk and chew chewing gum at the same time and implement meaningful harm reductions.

To those who argue implementing drug checking is endorsing drug use, I say this: the opposite of ‘Just say no’ is not ‘Just say yes.’ This is not a black-and-white issue. There is a middle ground where we can educate drug users, we can foster trust and we can create a stronger safety net. When people choose to experiment with drugs the options for parents should not be limited to simply saying no. Instead we can guide people towards making safer choices, encouraging them to get their substances tested. The aim should be to ensure that our young people remain safe and healthy, even in the face of potentially risky decisions.

In conclusion, drug-checking services and the naloxone rollout are long-awaited harm reduction measures that are an important plank in the state’s response to alcohol and other drugs. We are delighted to see this spirit of progressive reform flowering within the Labor Party and are equally excited about the soon-to-be-revealed statewide AOD strategy. We will be seeking clarification on some aspects of the bill in the committee stage, but I would heartily commend the bill to the house.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:41): Can I thank all members for their thoughtful contributions to this important bill. I will make a few brief comments because I know we are keen to get into committee.

I want to be really clear: pill testing will save lives, and increased access to naloxone will also save lives. These two important harm reduction initiatives are needed now more than ever. Evidence internationally shows that the global drug market is becoming increasingly unpredictable and dangerous. More than 1100 new drugs have been identified in the Victorian market over the past decade. As my colleagues have already mentioned today, tragically last year a total of 547 Victorians died of overdose, including 42 from novel substances, and this is nearly double the state’s road toll. Each of these lives lost is a tragedy for the individual, their loved ones and the wider community. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the grief of those impacted by the loss of loved ones but also their bravery and advocacy for a health-led solution to minimise further tragedies occurring to other families. Pill testing and increased access to naloxone are two such solutions. These initiatives are not about giving the green light to drug use, they are about giving Victorians access to the services and the information they need to make safer, more informed and potentially life-saving decisions.

Seventy per cent of people who use the ACT’s pill-testing service had never discussed their drug use with a professional before. Since becoming operational CanTEST in the ACT has supported thousands of health-focused educational conversations that would otherwise not have occurred. Because we know that people who access these services are likely to pass on that information to their peers, many more people are benefiting from this vital information.

Once this bill comes into effect, staff, clients and operators will have the confidence that nobody will be breaking the law by using, working in, operating or hosting these important services. It will also support greater access to naloxone, building on our government’s strong record of making sure that this life-saving drug gets into the hands of those that need it the most.

The bill will give express legal authority to establish both fixed and mobile pill-testing and drug-checking services in Victoria. It will establish a licensing framework to authorise, appoint and regulate both fixed and mobile pill-testing or drug-checking services, and it will enable the supply of naloxone, which is currently a controlled substance, through secure, automated vending machines. There are a few issues that were raised through the debate that I feel I need to respond to. There is no evidence anywhere in the world where these services have operated that they have led to increased drug use or given people a false sense of security, leading to increased overdose deaths. In fact the evidence shows us that actually the opposite is the truth.

Our government has more than doubled the investment in drug services and support since we came to government in 2014. In this year alone the Victorian budget for 2024–25 has invested more than $376 million towards funding to deliver alcohol and other drug (AOD) services. This includes critical surveillance funding for the rapid and precise intelligence on drugs program, producing valuable statewide intelligence about emerging drugs, and the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia – Victoria, EDNAV, providing clinical toxicology reviews of severe drugs to collect and share drug harm data with other jurisdictions. This legislation will bolster these existing services by making sure that we have access to information earlier, supporting faster alerts and potentially reducing adverse outcomes.

On residential rehabilitation, our government’s record speaks for itself. Since 2014 our government has more than doubled the number of residential rehab beds across the state, with the majority of those beds located in regional Victoria. This includes new services in Corio and Wangaratta and a youth residential rehab facility in Traralgon. I also recently announced the site for a 32-bed withdrawal and rehab facility in Mildura, which will provide services to individuals across the state’s north-west.

We will speak to the amendments proposed by the opposition in more detail during the committee stage, but I will say now that the nature of these amendments demonstrates a misunderstanding about how these services actually work. The government will not be supporting these amendments because they are simply unnecessary. In relation to harm reduction information, the bill already authorises special and general drug-checking workers to provide advice on the limitations of the testing process. Informing clients of the limitations of drug checking is an important part of the harm reduction information. Harm reduction education encourages individuals to understand risk and rethink their choices, thereby promoting safer behaviour and saving lives.

In respect to client information about waiving civil immunity, the amendment as drafted would be interpreted as requiring drug-checking workers to give information that may amount to legal advice, which would not be appropriate. The drug-checking service provider will be expected to provide general information about the civil liability exemption, and this is standard practice in other types of services, including in the ACT and Queensland, which require clients to sign a waiver. The Department of Health will work closely with the drug-checking service provider to develop the appropriate protocols for advising clients of the immunity, and this will be based on best practice and informed by appropriate legal advice.

The Allan Labor government proudly takes a harm reduction approach to the impact of drug use. One of the most important ingredients of any harm reduction measure is addressing the stigma surrounding drug use, which prevents people from seeking help and information. The evidence shows that people are more likely to seek help for problematic drug use if it is available in a health setting that is free from judgement, and that is exactly what this legislation will enable. It is also why we are the proud home of one of only two supervised injecting facilities in the Southern Hemisphere and why we have committed to Victoria’s first and Australia’s largest trial of hydromorphone. The introduction of pill-testing services and the establishment of 20 naloxone vending machines around the state builds on a track record of initiatives to reduce AOD harm in our community. I could not be prouder to commend this bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:56)

David LIMBRICK: I only have one question for the minister. In the Libertarian Party we are always interested in competition and innovation, and I initially had concerns that this bill might lock in a single service provider, effectively creating a monopoly and potentially stifling other novel approaches to service delivery. Can the minister confirm that this legislation allows the flexibility for organisations to apply for and potentially receive a permit to operate a service whether they are government funded or not?

Ingrid STITT: I can confirm that in relation to the issuing of licences under the framework there is flexibility. We have been pretty clear on there being one fixed site and 10 mobile festival sites that will form part of the trial, but the legislation itself will not restrict further licences from being issued. In terms of the operators who might operate a licence, that would be obviously subject to the commissioning process, and there are procurement arrangements out in the market right now. But I cannot see any reason why it would be restricted to any one type of organisation or another as long as they have the technical and health expertise required.

Rachel PAYNE: Even in small doses, nitazenes can be lethal. What assurances can you provide, Minister, that the equipment used at these drug-checking services will be able to detect even the smallest amounts of these kinds of lethal substances?

Ingrid STITT: I have to be careful in what I do say given that there is a procurement process underway. We are obviously aware of the various technologies that are available for these sorts of services, but we are very clear that the technology that will be used for these services will need to be in line with international best practice standards. Of course one of the key requirements will be the detection of new or novel substances such as nitazenes and fentanyl.

Rachel PAYNE: With the rise of dangerous synthetic opioids and, as you have mentioned, some of these novel substances in Australia, it is potentially a question of not if but when there will be a major overdose event. So just in relation to the flexibility of drug-checking services, how will the changes in this bill ensure that we have flexibility to scale up drug-checking services and support early detection in the case of a mass overdose event?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Payne, we obviously have surveillance processes in place currently. We do that in two ways – one, through the data and samples that are collected through the emergency department presentations. The other is through the collection of used drug paraphernalia across different festivals and the like. I think one of the key benefits of introducing a drug-checking service is that it will significantly bolster our ability to detect problematic substances before something goes wrong, and that will indeed strengthen our surveillance capacity as a state. Obviously, we are very concerned about the rise in synthetic opioids that has been detected both in Australia and globally, so we are looking at how we can strengthen the early warning and surveillance systems through the reforms that we are dealing with in the bill today.

Rachel PAYNE: From the first reading of the bill, we are concerned that testing offered at these drug-checking services may not extend to plant material at this stage. I just want to confirm that the legislation does not exclude plant material. Is there an opportunity to extend these services in the future so that they can test for plant material, particularly if there are emerging substances?

Ingrid STITT: It does not exclude plant material, but it is not going to be part of the service that we are standing up as part of the trial, and I think that that is consistent with CanTEST, for example. They are unable to provide testing services for plant material, and our model will not provide that either.

Georgie CROZIER: I have got a few questions, and I will probably just go to clause 1 for most of them. In your media release of 10 September you said the mobile service will begin during this summer’s festival season. That starts in a few days time. So given you just told Ms Payne that the procurement process was underway to be able to test, could you tell us when the service will be up and running?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, we have been very clear in all our public statements in relation to this that we will be ready for mobile testing from December this year to coincide with this year’s summer festival season. We have indicated that we will be providing five mobile festival testing arrangements.

Georgie CROZIER: Five or 10?

Ingrid STITT: Five this year and five next summer, so 10 in total. The procurement processes that are underway and are out in the market now we believe will be concluded well in time for us to be able to stand up the mobile testing services.

Georgie CROZIER: Have you got a date?

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated, December this year.

Georgie CROZIER: I want to go through some of the questions that the opposition put to the department around various aspects. You possibly have some of these. It is just clarification around or elaboration on some of those answers if we could. We asked about the breakdown of service funding between 2024–25 and 2025–26. In one of the responses that you provided you said that $4.4 million would be allocated to the delivery of the naloxone vending machine trial, but I want to understand what funding has been allocated specifically for the operational requirements of this trial.

Ingrid STITT: It was part of our statewide action plan announcement. Within the envelope of that $95 million there was $4.4 million attached to the rollout of the naloxone vending machines across the state. I am going to choose my words carefully about pill testing, both mobile and fixed site. Because we are out to market I do not want to prejudice in any way that procurement process, but there was an allocation in the budget for standing up this service within that $95 million statewide action plan.

Georgie CROZIER: How much of that $95.1 million has gone towards education and awareness around reducing drug harm?

Ingrid STITT: We already have, over and above this initiative and the matters that are within the scope of the bill, quite a lot of alcohol and other drug education that we deliver through our school system. In particular in years 7 to 9 there are programs within the curriculum around drug education. There are obviously already harm reduction initiatives that the government supports through programs such as DanceWize that already are present at many of the music festivals across the state, and we have worked closely with other organisations in the AOD sector, including Harm Reduction Victoria. We obviously fund a number of different organisations through our general AOD investments and initiatives, including the harm reduction program that is delivered by the ADF. That is the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, which is a national organisation which provides important drug and alcohol information right across the Australian community. It is funded by both state and federal governments.

Georgie CROZIER: I think in that response you gave a broad suite of responses. In education the Department of Education I presume would be funding some of those awareness programs in schools as part of the curriculum, as you highlighted. The ADF is getting Commonwealth funding. But I still think it is important for the house to understand, as you highlighted in the response to the opposition, that there is $95.1 million for the statewide action plan to reduce drug harm. Clearly, because of the procurement process that you just highlighted to the house, you are not willing to provide that envelope of funding or how much the pill-testing trial will take, but will that be provided at a later stage to the Victorian public?

Ingrid STITT: I can give you an approximate figure. It is $4 million for the 18-month trial, approximately. As I said, I cannot be more specific than that, because we are out in the market right now, and the department are running that procurement process with all the appropriate probity measures in place.

Georgie CROZIER: Could I just go to the accreditation around the services. We asked about whether the mobile drug-checking services will require accreditation, and what is concerning I think is the ability for the mobile testing sites to analyse substances, whether that is capsule or pill or crystal or whatever form the drug comes in. The response back was:

Both fixed site and mobile drug checking services will be required to seek accreditation under the appropriate National Quality Framework for Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services standards or other relevant scheme.

I note that requirements for the supervision of pathology laboratories – so this is really a laboratory that is analysing what are in these pills – are for category S, specialised. That is used for:

a laboratory in which a limited range of tests is performed on a particular patient population

or

a laboratory in which a limited range of tests (services) is performed, that are of a specialised nature and are performed under the supervision of a person having special qualifications or skills in the field of those services.

Why is this therefore not coming under that category S, given that these drugs are being analysed through that laboratory process?

Ingrid STITT: Maybe I can answer it in this way, Ms Crozier. Both the fixed site and the mobile drug-checking services will be required, as you have noted, to seek accreditation under the National Quality Framework for Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services or any other relevant scheme. So this could include standards relating to testing laboratories, such as the ones that are issued by the National Association of Testing Authorities, or NATA. They are the national accreditation body for Australia for laboratories, inspection bodies and reference material providers, so that is certainly the expectation.

Georgie CROZIER: That is right. That is my understanding, that it needs to be accredited under NATA. But given the requirements for the supervision of pathology laboratories under the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, which was there to make recommendations to Australian states and territories around standards and ensuring that uniform standards of practice are adhered to, in its notification it says:

Failure to meet these minimum Standards may pose a risk to public health and patient safety.

I think that is the concern we have: there is accreditation but the standards are not being adhered to properly. Can you give some reassurance as to why these laboratories are not being held to the same standards as other pathology laboratories?

Ingrid STITT: I think the answer, Ms Crozier, is there are currently no national standards for drug-checking services per se but there are standards for laboratories. We have certainly been clear – and we have provided this to the opposition – that we will be ensuring that the mobile drug-checking services do seek accreditation through that national framework.

Georgie CROZIER: I will just make the point that I think that has opened up. I want to go to – I will get to that actually when I move my amendment, because it goes to the point of the liabilities.

In the response to a question around why there are limitations of what information a general drug-checking worker can provide versus a special drug-checking worker, you said that there were two sets of categories of workers authorised to carry out drug-checking activities. What is a general drug-checking worker? What qualifications do they have compared to a special drug-checking worker?

Ingrid STITT: Sure. A general drug-checking worker is providing harm reduction information and education. A special drug-checking worker is in the normal course of events somebody who is a chemist who is analysing the drug samples. I do believe that question was clarified in writing to the opposition last sitting week, Ms Crozier, but if there are further details you are after, let me know.

Georgie CROZIER: No, I was really wanting to understand the details of their experience. You have said a special drug-checking worker is a chemist and you have said that they will perform the drug-checking activities that involve handling substances. Does that include them also destroying the substances? Who does that?

Ingrid STITT: The special drug-checking worker is the worker responsible for the destruction of drugs.

Georgie CROZIER: Just on the chemist, could I get some clarification. Does that mean they are a pharmacist? Or are they a scientist? Do they work in a lab somewhere mixing motions and potions?

Ingrid STITT: The special drug-checking workers are those that will be performing the drug-checking activity itself, and that involves handling substances. It includes receiving, possessing and supplying a substance and providing a drug-checking service in relation to that substance, including analysing the substance and providing information about its composition. In practice these workers are likely to be analytical chemists. That would be their qualification.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay, that makes it a bit clearer. Thank you very much for that. I just want to go to the point around children using this service. We asked:

Will drug testing be provided to people under 18 years of age? How will this be managed and enforced?

The response was:

The drug-checking service will operate with client anonymity and confidentiality, so clients will not be asked to prove confirmation of identity or age.

So my question to you is: how will children be protected?

Ingrid STITT: This is highly consistent with other drug-checking services in other jurisdictions. The service will operate with client anonymity, which is important, and confidentiality, so clients will not be asked to prove their identity or age. We would expect that all drug-checking staff will be required to have a current working with children check, but clearly the service will be available without age limit, and it will be anonymous and confidential.

Georgie CROZIER: The questions around protection of children really go to if you have got children taking these pills or drugs, you are doing your best to try and protect them. What sorts of checks are in place by the drug checkers to check that they are not on a drug treatment order, that they do not have some other indicator where they are at high risk and that you are doing everything you can to prevent that child from consuming something that could be highly detrimental to their heath and wellbeing?

Ingrid STITT: I appreciate where you are coming from with these questions. Obviously it can be confronting for some people the fact that under-age children – those under 18 – do take drugs. Young people who are accessing the service could well be under the age of 18. But it is still important to provide them with that harm minimisation and drug-checking service. Other factors that you have mentioned – for example, if they were subject to a court order or the like, those matters are matters for Victoria Police, not for the drug-checking service. But what I would say is that the harm reduction advice that will be given is tailored to that individual, and it is an opportunity for a trained worker to provide that advice and information that otherwise that person – or that child in the case of your example – would not have access to if they were not fronting up at a drug-checking service, whether that is a mobile or fixed site.

Georgie CROZIER: What consultation have you had with police around this issue, particularly around children? You just said it is up to them to monitor what is going on, so what consultation did you have with police in drafting this bill?

Ingrid STITT: My department has been working incredibly closely with VicPol about this legislation and the operational issues if this bill passes the Parliament – the operationalising of these reforms – and that has been very constructive. We will continue to work very closely with them as we roll out these services.

Georgie CROZIER: Can you tell the house where the sites that you propose to have will be for the vending machines?

Ingrid STITT: I am not in a position to give locations at this point in time, Ms Crozier, but I can say that we will be rolling out the naloxone vending machines both in regional and metropolitan parts of the state. We need to do the consultation and the work to identify where the areas of most need are. If the legislation passes the Parliament, we anticipate that we will be rolling out these additional vending machines by mid next year.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, given the legislation provides an exemption from any requirement to obtain a planning permit to develop a drug-checking site, what, if any, community consultation, notice period or information will be provided to nearby businesses and residents in relation to the drug-checking service? We asked this, and you said that local engagement activities will be developed in consultation with a service provider once identified. Does that apply to the vending machines as well?

Ingrid STITT: In relation to the naloxone vending machines, there will be consultation that my department will undertake. As you would expect, that will include with the existing AOD services and peak bodies across the state, but we are intent on making sure that they are located in the areas of highest need when it comes to drug use and current drug harm.

Georgie CROZIER: You have highlighted to the opposition that you consulted with a range of experts and resources to develop the policy settings for the drug-checking implementation trial. Have you provided a list of who those stakeholders are, or could you provide a list of stakeholders to the house?

Ingrid STITT: The policy development was undertaken in the normal way through expert advice via my department and the usual cabinet processes for endorsing and approving policy and legislative development. We have been very mindful because of the fast-moving nature of these challenges in the illicit drug market that there has been a need to make sure that we are taking expert advice on how to have the best model out there for trial.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay, so it is a work in progress, by the sounds – a moving feast.

Ingrid STITT: No, it is not. The other thing I would add is that you have access to my diary disclosures too, Ms Crozier, in terms of the organisations that I meet with regularly to seek advice and to talk through these issues with in the AOD policy area. Of course the department, as you would appreciate, are charged with providing all ministers with appropriate advice around policy formulation.

Georgie CROZIER: You mentioned the stakeholders that you have met, and we also met with some of these stakeholders. The ADF have raised concerns around 70 per cent of their funding being cut, they told me last week. They also mentioned the early warning signals – the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia signals that you mentioned in the summing-up. Could I just ask: in relation to the Hardmission Festival, when the overdose occurred it took six days for that alert system to go out. Why did it take so long, and why is there not a more immediate alert system when these substances are causing hospitalisations and overdoses at these festivals? Why is it taking six days to get the information out to the community?

Ingrid STITT: There are different circumstances on every occasion. In relation to Hardmission, obviously that was a terrible situation where we had a number of young people who ended up in the emergency department and some in ICU. The underlying factor and contributing factor in all those cases was actually heat and not necessarily the substance that they were taking. As I said earlier in relation to a different question – I think it might have been from Ms Payne – this drug-checking service will actually significantly bolster our ability to get very timely information. At the moment our systems rely on something having already gone wrong and people either being in the emergency department or having already used the drugs because their drug paraphernalia has been collected from different parts of the state. With the increasing volatility of the illicit drug market and the fact that we have had nitazenes detected in Victoria, of course, as you would expect, I have been talking closely with my department about how we can use this opportunity and this drug-checking service to bolster our early warning system, and I have obviously looked at what other jurisdictions are doing in this regard, so I believe that this will actually enhance significantly what we are able to do in terms of both the speed that we are getting alerts out and the depth of the information that is available to us.

Georgie CROZIER: So, Minister, if a substance is detected in these pills – they are all dangerous; everyone acknowledges that – why doesn’t an alert go out immediately? At what point will an alert go out? Six days is too long. That is a very dangerous period if, as we know, some of these substances are circulating in the community. At what point will the government act to then alert the community that one of these shocking, dangerous substances is circulating?

Ingrid STITT: As I have already said, the drug-checking services will have a strong focus on rapid communication between those drug services and the Department of Health so they can bolster our existing surveillance systems. Once the service providers have been appointed through that procurement process, the Department of Health will work closely with them to make sure that we are getting that timely information in terms of the drug-checking data, and that will enhance the speed with which we are able to put out drug alerts. I believe all the architecture is already there, but drug checking in and of itself will significantly enhance our surveillance and alert system.

Georgie CROZIER: I am sorry to labour this point, but I think it is an important one, Minister. I am just trying to understand. In the bushfire season Telstra puts out alerts to areas to say that the community is at risk or to evacuate. Those messages go out through our telecommunications channels. Why on earth would you not use that mechanism to get alerts out to the broader community if these bad drugs are circulating? I am not sure from what you are saying that it is going to be immediate. It still seems to me that there are going to be a number of steps along the way and it potentially is days before an alert goes out. Could you clarify that for me?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, I think we are in furious agreement about ideally wanting to get alerts out quickly – rapid alerts – when we detect a dangerous substance in the illicit drug market circulating in Victoria. Let us agree that that is something that we want to improve upon. But sometimes – it will depend on the circumstances – the coroner might be involved so we are waiting for the coroner to provide advice on a particular incident or a particular investigation. We want to get to the point where the drug-checking services that we are rolling out significantly enhance our drug alert system, but we have to be careful to balance that with not having drug alert fatigue. I think the experience in Canberra has been very much that you have got to restrict your serious and urgent alerts to those circumstances that warrant it. You do not want to be putting out alerts for everything, because there will be fatigue in the community and it might not be taken as seriously. But to the nub of your question, this is going to enhance our surveillance capacity and our alert system. The reforms that we are delivering through this bill will improve our alert system.

Georgie CROZIER: One last point on this point and then I will move on. You said at the Hardmission Festival dehydration and heat were major contributors to those young people ending up in emergency departments; we understand that those contributing factors caused their medical conditions to be as serious as they were. Why would you therefore not put out an alert if there was a festival on a day and the temperature was going to be above 33 degrees or whatever that Hardmission was – whatever it is – to people to say, ‘This is a serious situation. If you consume these illicit drugs at the same time as it is hot, you could die.’ Why don’t put that alert out to these young people so that at least they have got some information? I know that you are saying fatigue on messaging, but surely if you have got a messaging service there, that is what it should be used for. Will it be used in those instances?

Ingrid STITT: It will be on a case-by-case basis subject to the advice that we get from the public health team. I need to make the point that on issues around heat and dehydration and things of that nature, that is already information that is provided across our music festivals in particular through our harm reduction programs, including DanceWize, but it will form a key part of the harm reduction conversation that anybody who is using one of our drug-checking services will hear. Particularly when you consider that the mobile drug-checking services are going to be operating at the height of summer, it is an absolute requirement that harm reduction information is shared. There is also the safe festivals framework, which we will be working closely with all the music festival operators on enhancing. There are already requirements for festival operators to have in mind heating and cooling, drinking water and things of that nature. But we think that the work that we will be doing with them on the safe festivals framework will actually take that a lot further in terms of the harm reduction measures that they will need to take if they are going to operate safely in the community.

Georgie CROZIER: One of the questions the ADF wanted to have asked when I was speaking with them is around this issue. You are talking about those people that attend the dance festival, so you know that population that will be using the services and what characteristics they might have, understanding that they are a captive audience, if you like. But their question is: what can be done for other people not accessing this service but still at high risk?

Ingrid STITT: We intend to implement our fixed site by mid next year. That will obviously be a service that can be accessed by anybody. I have already mentioned a number of the drug education programs that the government support, and there will be a continued effort to make sure that we are disseminating harm reduction information as widely as we possibly can obviously not just in a music festival context but across the community.

Georgie CROZIER: In your media release you do actually acknowledge that the fixed site is to be established and opened by mid-2025, which you just confirmed, in inner Melbourne, close to night-life and public transport. Has a site been identified as yet?

Ingrid STITT: No, Ms Crozier. It will obviously be subject to the procurement process that is out in the market now, where we have called for tenders for operating both the fixed site and the mobile sites, so that work of finding a suitable location for the fixed site has not concluded yet.

Georgie CROZIER: This question goes to partly the amendments we will move, but just because I am asking the questions in clause 1: it is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that pill testing had to be cancelled at some point in the ACT because they could not get any insurance. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: I am not aware of them having to pause their service, but let me just check.

Ms Crozier, we are not aware of a situation where CanTEST or one of the music festivals was not able to get insurance, but obviously one of the key considerations for the government in bringing legislation, as opposed to some other jurisdictions who have not legislated, was to provide that certainty for festival operators and operators of drug-checking services that they are not liable, criminally or civilly. Ultimately insurance is a matter for the operator and the insurance company, but that framework will we think make it a lot easier for festivals when it comes to things like insurance.

Georgie CROZIER: That is my point, Minister. Waiving those legal liabilities means they do not need insurance. Is that not irresponsible?

Ingrid STITT: Well, our intention is to give certainty for operators. It does not mean that they will not continue to need insurance. There are a range of purposes for insurance for any organisation, so I am not sure that I would agree with the direct kind of thread that you are drawing there.

Georgie CROZIER: It goes to the point of our amendment – and I will get to that – that those people that are dealing with people that are getting their pills and potions and goodness knows what tested do need to inform those people that there are no liabilities. I had one more question, and I have just lost it. No, I will end it there I think.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, are the substances you are proposing to test illegal?

Ingrid STITT: This is a drug-checking service that will be checking drugs and a range of different substances, some of which are illegal.

Bev McARTHUR: So why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for testing illegal substances of people who use illegal substances?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, I appreciate that we are probably coming from very different perspectives when it comes to these matters. Essentially this is about saving lives in a circumstance where we have seen far too many – one is one too many – Victorians lose their lives through drug overdose. So we take the very strong view that this is about not only harm reduction and education but about saving lives, and in that context we want to give people as much information as we can so that they can make an informed decision. If you accept the premise that people are taking drugs anyway – and I think all the statistics and the evidence show us that they are; one in five Australians have indicated, in research, that they have taken drugs at least once in their lifetime – this is about reducing harm, and we want to do that in a way that is non-judgemental and evidence based.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, that is fine if you want to allow people to take illicit substances, but why isn’t the user of the illicit substances paying for the testing, perhaps by way of the facilitators at the festivals building it into the ticket prices? After all, the ticket prices are pretty expensive, so maybe they could afford to pay extra for the drug testing that is going to take place at these facilities.

Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for somebody who wants to use an illicit substance and, quite rightly, would like to have it tested? Why isn’t the user paying for the testing, either by way of a ticket price or directly to the provider that tests the pills?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, we have been pretty clear in all of our public statements about this reform that we believe that it is an investment in the health and safety of Victorians. You need to consider that there is a very high cost to the taxpayer associated with people having to be taken by ambulance to the ICU when they overdose, so this is about making sure that we are investing before people are in harm’s way so that we can give them the ability to receive all of the information they might need to make an informed decision. The government has been very clear about our determination to not put our head in the sand about this but to support the trial of a model to see what model works most effectively. The efficacy is not on trial, because we know that these services save lives in other jurisdictions where they already operate.

Bev McARTHUR: Aren’t you effectively justifying the use of an illegal substance but having the taxpayer pick up the bill for the use of it?

Ingrid STITT: I reject the premise in your question. This is an important drug harm reduction initiative. It is about saving lives. It is about reducing harm. It is not green-lighting the taking of drugs. Mrs McArthur, people are taking drugs already. I know that might come as a terrible shock, but people are already taking drugs. People are overdosing on drugs when they do not know what the substance is that they are taking. This is about turning that situation around and providing them with a health-led response.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I take it that these drugs are not cheap, and I take it that going to a festival is also not cheap. I have heard of figures of something like $500 a ticket. If people can afford these sorts of figures to go to a festival, then buy this illicit substance and everything else that goes with going to these festivals, why can’t they pay for their own testing of the drugs to ensure their own safety?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered that question.

Georgie CROZIER: I have one last question, Minister, I forgot to ask. Part 3 of the bill is talking about the use of automatic machines in the treatment of opioid overdoses. Clause 14(2), in relation to new subsection (1B), talks about:

The poisons that are specified for the purposes of subsection (1A) are–

(a) Schedule 2 poisons; and

(b) naloxone; and

(c) other Schedule 3 poisons.

I have just got a couple of questions. Why have you included schedule 2 poisons and schedule 3 poisons for these vending machines and not just naloxone? And what are you intending to have in those vending machines that are schedule 2 poisons and schedule 3 poisons?

Ingrid STITT: Let me just clarify that, Ms Crozier.

Ms Crozier, this is about, if you like, futureproofing the legislation, so let us say in the event that a different brand entered the market that was similar to naloxone and had the same opioid reversal ability, then we would be able to incorporate that into our armoury.

Richard WELCH: I have got a couple of questions around audit trail. We have established that we are not seeking ID and confirmation of age, but in a number of other circumstances we do refer to visible age as a catalyst for action – you cannot buy cigarettes if you do not look 21 and things like that. If a child is visibly under-age – say a 14-year-old comes in – is it still the intention that that would not be a catalyst for checking or refusing service?

Ingrid STITT: As I have indicated, there is no age restriction on accessing the drug-checking service, but what I will say in a general sense is that the harm reduction workers will be adept at looking at each individual situation and giving advice based on the individual and their circumstances.

Richard WELCH: Over the year there are a number of festivals that are under-age – either entirely underage or under-age orientated. Will these services be provided at under-age events?

Ingrid STITT: We will be announcing which festivals will have a mobile testing facility as part of this 18-month trial but not until we have concluded the procurement processes. Whilst I appreciate your question, it is not something I can answer right now, but I think you can safely assume that it will be fairly mainstream festivals that are involved in the trial process.

Richard WELCH: I will have to come back to that. But will these festivals be allowed to include in their promotional material the fact that they are offering pill testing?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

Richard WELCH: In terms of the anonymity of the tests themselves, in the event of an adverse reaction at the festival, the presumption is there will not be any audit trail that ties the adverse reaction to the individual. If that is the case, how do you measure the success or otherwise of the program?

Ingrid STITT: Through de-identified data. Obviously the confidentiality of anybody accessing the service is important, but that does not mean to say that there will not be operational guidelines that are struck with the service providers to make sure that that data is de-identified and available.

Richard WELCH: No, I do not quite understand that. If you do not know who has had the testing and who has received the tested drugs back, how can you draw any inference as to the person having the reaction?

Ingrid STITT: They have managed to do so in other jurisdictions where these services are already up and running, and that is work that will be undertaken closely between my department and whoever the successful service provider is to make sure that all of those operational issues and the guidelines associated are in place.

Richard WELCH: I find that answer nonsensical. You are not taking ID, so you are not confirming the identity of the person requesting the test. You are not confirming the identity of the person who receives the drugs back, so how can you therefore say that if this person has an adverse reaction they are in any way tied to the test itself?

Ingrid STITT: Do you mean once the person has left the service? You are not making sense either, if you think I am not making sense.

Richard WELCH: I will elaborate a little bit to paint the scenario. Perhaps a festivalgoer who intends to take the drug at the festival would go to the service at the festival, have the drug tested at the festival, receive it back at the festival and take it at the festival. Where is the audit trail that connects an adverse reaction at the festival with a test from the festival?

Ingrid STITT: There is a process that will be undertaken when somebody seeks to have their drugs analysed. Then the results will be talked through with the person, including advising them as to whether the substance was what they thought it was, and there will be a conversation about what components were found in the drug. If after hearing all that information and taking all that advice about ways to reduce harm they decide that they are still going to take that drug and they have an adverse reaction, we have first responders at every festival. We have first aid at every festival. I am not sure that you are understanding the purpose of the drug-checking service. It is not about then tracing somebody once they have left the service, because they have already been given the harm reduction spiel and they have already been given the analysis of their drug. If they go ahead and choose to take it anyway and they have an adverse reaction, then other emergency services kick in.

Richard WELCH: They may have been given the advice, but we know that the –

Ingrid STITT: Maybe I can help you with an additional –

Richard WELCH: No, let me ask my question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Welch has the call. Let him ask his question.

Richard WELCH: We well know that drug testing does not necessarily address the unique physical attributes of the individual or other elements. The question is actually directed towards the efficacy of the program itself and the ability to review and understand: is it doing good or harm? If you do not have an audit trail that connects cause and effect – and there may be other causes that you do not know – there is no way to draw a direct evidential inference from the event, so how will you establish the efficacy of the program if you do not have an audit trail?

Ingrid STITT: We are not trialling the efficacy of drug checking. The evidence is already in on drug checking being a successful and important harm reduction measure. We are trialling the model.

Richard WELCH: In terms of the pill testing itself, will the process be a sample of an individual pill? If there are perhaps five or six pills in the container, will it be a partial test of an individual pill or a whole test of an individual pill?

Ingrid STITT: The process involves taking a very small sample, or a scraping, if you like, of either a pill or a powder or, in the example of a liquid, a very small amount that liquid, and that is what is tested and analysed. It is also important to note that people are not able to bring amounts of drugs into the drug-checking services that would fall foul of any limits on personal possession.

Richard WELCH: Just for clarity, it would be a sample of one test? If there is a batch of drugs, there has to be then a –

Ingrid STITT: No-one is coming with a batch, right?

Richard WELCH: Well, someone might come in with multiple pills.

Ingrid STITT: Well, that is not going to happen.

Richard WELCH: Why not?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, can you wait till you hear the call.

Richard WELCH: Then I will just rephrase the question: why wouldn’t people come in with more than one pill?

Ingrid STITT: People will only be able to have samples tested that do not exceed the amount of drugs that would constitute dealing.

Richard WELCH: Is that more than one pill?

Ingrid STITT: It varies depending on the drug. It is less than a trafficable quantity.

Georgie CROZIER: If I could just follow up from Mr Welch’s question, because I actually think it is quite important. I think what Mr Welch was asking about was if an individual takes multiple pills into a testing site to get tested. You have just indicated that would not happen because it is seen to be dealing. But then you just said – I am trying to remember what you just said. It was a bit vague. I think what we are trying to say is: what constitutes a dealer? Is it one or two pills? How much liquid, if it is in a liquid form? What constitutes being a dealer where that is ruled out from being tested, and what do those workers then do? Do they refer that person to police if they turn up?

Ingrid STITT: I am regretting the use of the term ‘dealer’ because what this is about is trafficable quantity. That obviously varies depending on the way the drug is formulated – if it is a powder or a pill or so on. This is a confidential and anonymous service. It is not the role of the drug-checking service to liaise with police about these matters.

Richard WELCH: Again, I think there is a really big grey area there between someone who is innocently testing a single pill and a drug trafficker who is using it to legitimise their supply. The other question really comes to – I do not think it is at all reasonable to suggest someone is simply bringing a single pill. Anyone knows in these circumstances people bring pills to share with their friends and things like that; it is a very normal, common instance. I would come back to the point: if they are doing a representative scrape of a single pill, is it then the working assumption of the program that all pills in that batch will be safe?

Ingrid STITT: You are putting a hypothetical scenario to me. If a person presents to the drug-checking service with a quantity of drugs – in your example, pills – that is below the trafficable quantity under the law, then yes, they could have all of those pills tested if they request that.

Richard WELCH: How will the drug tester know that it is under a quantifiable level if they have not tested the drugs yet?

Ingrid STITT: It comes down to the advice that the drug-checking service and the workers would provide somebody. If people ask, ‘Does that mean all my batch is good to go?’, they will be told no if they have not been tested.

Richard WELCH: But they will not be entitled to have the entire batch checked then.

Ingrid STITT: It depends on the quantity. They could be.

Richard WELCH: Will an individual submitting drugs to be tested be allowed to do so on behalf of a third party, let us say a friend?

Ingrid STITT: The service would be at all times providing harm reduction information about the drugs that are being tested, but it is anonymous. Staff will ask whether the person is planning to use the drug themselves as part of the conversation and the induction process, if you like, of using the service, so that will be one of the standard questions.

Richard WELCH: If they indicated it is for shared use, what would be the procedure?

Ingrid STITT: There are standard harm reduction sets of advice that could be given in those circumstances, and they would be advised that there might be unknown risk factors associated with somebody else taking that drug.

Richard WELCH: Will the service be available to people who are visibly intoxicated?

Ingrid STITT: The service will be available to anybody. As we have talked about extensively, those harm reduction workers are highly trained and are able to provide advice to individuals based on their own circumstances.

Richard WELCH: Can I clarify: will they give the service to people who are visibly intoxicated?

Ingrid STITT: Again, you are asking me to be precise around hypothetical examples. It is about the harm reduction advice that that individual would be given, so it is not possible to be definitive, because each conversation is unique in and of itself.

Richard WELCH: The purpose of giving the information is so that the person can make an informed choice. How does someone give an informed choice if they are intoxicated?

Ingrid STITT: Obviously the harm reduction information that the workers provide people using the service includes the dangers of mixing alcohol and other drugs, the risks associated with heat and a whole range of issues that harm reduction workers could provide advice about.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but heat does not impair reasoning in the same way as alcohol and other drugs. The concept of informed choice is that you are not impaired in making that choice or indeed receiving that information, so if someone is incapable of receiving the information, will they be availed of the service?

Ingrid STITT: We are getting into very operational matters. Once the service providers are confirmed, the operational guidelines will be worked through between my department and the service providers. But part of the process is people being able to freely give their consent to use the service, so obviously there needs to be that consent. There is a capacity to give to consent attached to that. Do you understand?

Richard WELCH: No, I do not, because in any other circumstance, being drunk means you cannot give consent. So is it written consent? Verbal consent? How can you give consent if you are drunk?

Ingrid STITT: I guess what I would say in respect to all of your very detailed questions about what-ifs is that what is happening now is there is no checking of a drug that somebody who is either intoxicated or not intoxicated might intend to take, so this is an opportunity for –

Richard Welch interjected.

Ingrid STITT: I will answer this way, and you will just have to be patient, because these are matters that will be confirmed once the service providers are appointed and the operational guidelines are settled. It has been operating very successfully in other jurisdictions. All of these issues have been able to be managed successfully, and we see no reason why that would not be the case in Victoria.

Richard WELCH: Last one. Given that there is clearly significant scope for operational problems – whether or not you have legislated your way out of legal liability, there is certainly moral liability and other problematic areas – if you are giving us the assurance that these will be ironed out in procedures, can you anticipate that there might be a problem you cannot iron out and therefore you cannot proceed with the trial?

Ingrid STITT: Well, I do not accept the premise of the question in the first place, because you contend that there will be operational problems with this model –

Richard Welch interjected.

Ingrid STITT: This is committee stage. You asked a question, and I am answering it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through the Chair, please. This is not a conversation across the chamber, this is the committee stage of the bill.

Ingrid STITT: I do not accept the premise of your question. I am very confident in our model, and I am very confident that once the procurement process is finalised, these operational issues will be settled in accordance with the guidelines.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, I have just got a few questions, and the initial ones speak to the intention of the bill. With respect to the rollout of the trial, what types of machines do we anticipate will be used for drug checking at both the mobile and fixed-site locations?

Ingrid STITT: As I was saying earlier in answer to a question from I think Ms Crozier, these are matters that are being appropriately finalised through that procurement process that I have mentioned numerous times. I am obviously very well aware of the various technologies that are available for these important services. I want to be clear that the technology that will be used for these services will be in line with international best practice standards, and the specific technology used at a particular service will be finalised in consultation with those that we ultimately appoint to provide the service.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to the fixed-site location, you have indicated that the site location itself is not yet finalised, but with respect to the current state of affairs of trying to isolate that location, what is the rationale that is being used to find a suitable location for that fixed site?

Ingrid STITT: You are correct. We have not finalised the location, but the criteria that we have spoken of previously is that – I feel a bit kind of old saying this – it needs to be near night-life and public transport.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Is there an estimated radius from the Melbourne CBD that would be included in the categories you have just described?

Ingrid STITT: We have simply indicated the inner city, so no, we have not been more specific than that.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to the mobile checking events, you have indicated during committee stage that it is five this summer and five next summer. As you know, often festivals and particularly outdoor events during the summer festival season can be subject to cancellation, and there are a range of reasons why that could occur. In the instance that one of the scheduled events for this summer were to be cancelled, for example, would that allocated spot be reallocated to the following summer? Is there flexibility on the five and five? Could you go into a bit more detail about that?

Ingrid STITT: We will get to 10 in total, so if we were to have a cancellation of a festival, we would make up for that in a different way.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to the festivals themselves – we are using the word ‘festival’ quite loosely in this discussion – could you perhaps go into a bit more detail about what would qualify as an event for the mobile checking service? For example, there are raves, dance parties and a range of events over the summer. What would be categorised as potential for a mobile drug-checking event?

Ingrid STITT: I am not really in a position to get specific, partly because we are out in the market now through the procurement process. We would obviously be working closely with the festival sector, and we want to make sure that there is a good spread. I cannot really be more specific than that until the procurement process is finalised.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: You may have just answered this one, but with respect to the spread that you have mentioned, do you anticipate both regional and metropolitan events will be covered?

Ingrid STITT: Given that we are testing the model out, I am very keen to make sure that there is that mix.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to naloxone, will drug-checking workers be able to administer naloxone?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, they will, and obviously naloxone is available through a number of different AOD services. Yes is the answer.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just moving onto the surveillance data and the alerts that we were speaking about earlier, is the department or is the government considering a means of communicating drug alerts to the community aside from Department of Health drug alerts and peer organisation social media posts?

Ingrid STITT: Yes. None of that is finalised at this point in time, but I think that we recognise that we need to be nimble in terms of how we get these alerts out to people that might not necessarily be tapped into more conventional forms of information.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: International drug-checking services have websites or apps like KnowDrugs or saferparty.ch to communicate findings to people who use drugs, but as far as I am aware, in the other Australian jurisdictions of Queensland and the ACT there is no such approach currently being implemented. I would say it is quite essential and needs funding. Are these sorts of approaches being considered by the government at this stage?

Ingrid STITT: Through the broader work we are doing on the AOD strategy and the additional expert ministerial advisory committee that we are in the process of appointing, which was all part of that statewide drug action plan that we announced earlier in the year, we have also just recently appointed a chief addiction medicine officer within the department, which is another important expert voice, if you like, to give advice to the government about how we can enhance our processes. I am aware that there are some pretty good ways that the ACT drug-checking service disseminates their alerts and information, but there is a whole suite of work going on, as you are aware, to strengthen the AOD system across the state, including the drug alert system.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to the fixed site, is there a current indication of what you would expect for the operating hours of that site?

Ingrid STITT: That will be subject to the procurement process and, once those services are appointed, the operating model.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I am jumping around a bit here, but back to alerts and surveillance. You indicated earlier in one of your responses that current surveillance data draws in part from emergency services data sharing. But if you could go into a bit more detail there, do those current alerts pick up data from sources like spikes in ambulance attendances, community-based signals, police seizures of substances, for example? Could you go into a bit more detail?

Ingrid STITT: I just have to find the right bit of paper, but basically there are two processes currently that form part of our surveillance system. One is the collection of emergency department presentation information and drug information from our emergency hospital system, and the second is the collection of used drug paraphernalia at various festivals and events. We combine that information so that we can be alerted to any dangerous substances that might be circulating. Obviously the problem with the current system is that it is once something has already gone wrong in the context of the hospital data that we collect, but in terms of the drug paraphernalia that is collected, the person has already taken the drugs. This is why at some length I was talking to Ms Crozier about the boost that drug checking in real time will give to our surveillance capacity.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Victoria Police – do they specifically provide you with information that would then inform the current alert system, and could you detail a bit further what that could be?

Ingrid STITT: No, we do not receive information from VicPol.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Why is that?

Ingrid STITT: There has just not been that exchange of information between law enforcement and the health team. Just let me clarify, though, because there might be some exceptions to that.

I am advised that there is no formal mechanism, but that does not mean to say that there is not some informal sharing of information. What is very important in this regard is to never compromise an active investigation that might be underway or on foot. Does that make sense?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to clarify, a formal mechanism that you are talking about – why does that not currently exist?

Ingrid STITT: We will take that on notice, and I will see whether there is any further clarification. It is obviously not within my portfolio responsibilities, but let us see what we can get during the committee stage or beyond. Also, we might be able to do further work on this in respect to the AOD strategy and the strengthening of the current alert system.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, just following on from Mr Puglielli’s question, I asked a question of you about ‘Did you engage with the police?’ and you said ‘Yes, they were actively engaged in that,’ so I think that was an excellent question. Why wouldn’t you have an agreement in place – it is not looking at investigations; I understand the sensitivities around some of those policing activities – for if there was a very volatile or dangerous drug that the police were aware of? Why would that not be communicated straight across to the department so that alert system could come out? Would that be something that the government could look at as a priority with this trial?

Ingrid STITT: I am certainly open to that, Ms Crozier. I know that VicPol will not be, in all circumstances, able to be aware of what has caused the adverse reaction in an individual. I know that there is communication, for example, across a number of our different emergency responders, including Ambulance Victoria. It is something I am happy to take on board with not necessarily the work of the drug-checking service but the work directly associated with the opportunities that we have now to strengthen our surveillance and alert system.

Georgie CROZIER: Because it is really about that; it is really about informing the community. If you know when a festival is going to be held and the police are aware that there is circulation within the community of dangerous drugs that have caused concern elsewhere – I mean, as you said, coroners and whatever might be involved – that agreement between the police and the department so that the alerts can go out prior to any of these festivals going on would surely be a priority. Given that undertaking that you said, I think that would be worthwhile for the government to look at.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, I am happy to do further work on that, Ms Crozier, but we absolutely have been working closely with VicPol on this legislation and on this reform, and of course there are always things we can do to improve processes across a range of different agencies, particularly when we are dealing with an increasingly volatile drug market.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just one more point of questioning from me at this stage, on your consultation with Victoria Police regarding this trial. Currently with respect to music festivals in Victoria we do see the continued use of sniffer dogs as an approach of some kind from Victoria Police in dealing with the presence of illicit substances, and we hear from community members of instances where people feel compelled to ingest all of their drugs at once for fear of being caught out by police, and that poses significant health risks to those involved. In conjunction with this trial being delivered did Victoria Police give you any indication of whether sniffer dogs would continue to be used at the events where drug checking is present?

Ingrid STITT: That is an operational matter for VicPol. The Department of Health will continue to work closely with VicPol as we work towards operationalising the services to ensure fair and feasible arrangements that really get that balance right between community safety and, crucially, not deterring people from using the drug-checking services.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I absolutely agree with you there on the importance of ensuring people have access to the service if it is being offered. That balance that you spoke about, in your view is it still possible in the delivery of this trial that we could see sniffer dogs being implemented at an event where this trial is in operation?

Ingrid STITT: As I said, that is an operational matter for VicPol. What I would say is that VicPol’s drug policy, their own internal drug policy, recognises that harm reduction is an important approach to take, and we have worked, as I said, very closely with them in the development of this legislation.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:32 pm.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, just to pick up where we left off, with respect to sniffer dogs, would you say a scenario where sniffer dogs are in use at an event where drug checking is present is a deterrent to engaging with the service?

Ingrid STITT: I would not seek to pass any comment or judgement on that. As I said earlier, that is an operational matter for VicPol. But in addition to that I would reiterate that we have worked incredibly closely with VicPol on the development of the legislation, and a key to the success of the initiative both here and in other jurisdictions has been where there is confidence that people can use the service freely.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just one more: with respect to the mobile drug-checking events, is it going to be possible under this trial for two of those events to happen simultaneously?

Ingrid STITT: That is not settled. Again, this is more a question of finalising the procurement arrangements and settling those festival sites, so I am not in a position to say at this time.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, there are anecdotal examples both in Victoria and overseas of police targeting clients of drug-checking services. What in this bill prevents police from targeting clients of drug-checking services, for instance by stationing themselves at entry and exit points?

Ingrid STITT: The bill reiterates that police still have the option not to charge a drug-checking client even if they are found to have an illicit substance on their person within the area of the service, so this is very similar to the way in which the legislation and the operational arrangements operate at the medically supervised injecting room in North Richmond.

Rachel PAYNE: In the event of a client of a drug-checking service being targeted by police when using the service, what protections will be available to them? For instance, could there be legal observers present at these services?

Ingrid STITT: I will just get some clarification on the second part of your question. But as I explained, there is that option and that discretion that police will have, and that is within the existing powers that they hold. We want clients to feel safe when they are accessing the service, but, as I said earlier, that needs to be balanced with the police being able to do their job. That is one of the reasons why the department has worked so closely with VicPol on the development of the bill and the reform and the practicalities around how it would operate. If I can give you some additional reassurance in terms of the police’s approach to drug harm reduction, their own policy states, and I am quoting here from the Victoria Police Drug Strategy 2020–25:

Victoria Police recognises that drug problems are first and foremost health issues. By taking a health-focused approach, police are empowered to respond to an individual’s circumstances, environment and life stage. This enables policing approaches that reduce harm and keep the community safe.

Just in respect to that second part of your question about whether, I think you said, legal observers could be present around the drug-checking services, I do not believe that that is currently contemplated in the model. But let me just check with the box.

Thanks for your patience. Ms Payne, in the event a client of a drug-checking service is targeted by police when using the service, as I said, we have worked closely with VicPol to develop the reforms, and we will continue to work closely with them and the service provider once the service provider is known at the completion of the procurement process. VicPol and the service providers and any other supports or interventions to promote access to the service will be the subject of those operational guidelines that I spoke about earlier, and of course accessibility of the service will also be reviewed as part of the implementation trial evaluation and the ongoing monitoring of the reform.

Rachel PAYNE: This question may be subject to the procurement process, as you mentioned before, in relation to operational matters, but I felt I may as well ask it and have it on the record anyway. Some festivals are day-long whereas others are multiday. When people want to access drug-checking services, that will vary based on the fact that they are there for either a day festival or a multiday festival. For day-long events there is likely to be a high demand at the beginning of the day, creating a risk of delays, and we know that drug-checking delays can mean that drug checking may be denied. Will there be any contingencies to allow these services to open earlier to account for times of increased demand?

Ingrid STITT: Certainly it is something that will be considered in the context of whatever the event is or the mobile testing service and where they are. I know that even at the fixed site in Canberra, for example, they operate extended hours in the lead-up to big festivals. It is certainly something that will be, again, settled once the procurement processes are finalised, but obviously operating hours and how best to support potential clients is going to be a key consideration.

Rachel PAYNE: This is just my last question. It is in relation to clause 8, if that is any help, new section 20AAB(1):

that, at all times at which drug-checking services under the permit are being provided or offered, there is a drug-checking director on duty …

Obviously people do get sick and other things may happen that mean that that is not feasible at all times, so what contingencies will be in place to ensure this requirement does not cause drug-checking services to cease operating unnecessarily?

Ingrid STITT: I can confirm that there is nothing preventing a service having more than one director, and obviously there needs to be a director onsite when the service is operating, but there is flexibility there for the ability to recruit multiple numbers in that category of worker.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (19:41)

Georgie CROZIER: As I have highlighted in my substantive part of the debate, the Liberals and Nationals believe that information about the limitations of analysis are not well known or they need to be understood by the person that is getting their pills or substance tested and that this bill does not go to the extent of explaining to the people that those levels may not be detectable. We think that that should be included so that the information is very clear. That is why we are proposing to move this amendment. I move:

1. Clause 4, page 4, after line 8 insert –

“(ab) information about the limitations of analysis that has been carried out on a substance, including information about the possibility that poisons, controlled substances and drugs of dependence may be present in the substance but in levels that are not detectable; or”.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting the amendment in Ms Crozier’s name. The proposed insertion of paragraph (ab), we believe, is unnecessary, because the bill already authorises special and general drug-checking workers to provide advice on the limitations of the testing process. Informing clients of the limitations of drug checking is part of the harm reduction information, and harm reduction education encourages individuals to understand risk and rethink their choices, thereby promoting safer behaviour and saving lives. Even if some information about limitations of testing does not fall within the specific definition of harm reduction information, special drug-checking workers and general drug-checking workers are still able to provide this information.

The technology used at a drug-checking service, both mobile and fixed, will be capable of testing for small quantities of dangerous novel substances such as nitazenes. Further, any drug-checking service will use best practice technology and methods, and the specific technology used at a particular service will be finalised in consultation with the appointed service provider. To ensure that all necessary checks and balances and the appropriate limitations and safeguards are in place, there will be clear standards in relation to requirements for equipment used to analyse drugs and for the provision of specific and general harm reduction advice. This will be included in the drug-checking services program guidelines and compliance with this will be a condition of the drug-checking permit.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will also not be supporting the amendment for reasons consistent with those outlined by the minister.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (19:50)

Georgie CROZIER: I move:

2. Clause 8, page 13, line 7, omit “disposal.” and insert “disposal; and”.

3. Clause 8, page 13, after line 7 insert –

“(e) that the holder of the permit must ensure that a person who, in the course of providing drug-checking services under the permit, provides another person information described in paragraph (a), (ab) or (b) of the definition of harm reduction information also informs that other person of the effect of section 22CH(2).

Note

Section 22CH(2) provides that the holder of the permit, and each general drug-checking worker or special drug-checking worker, along with certain other persons, are not subject to any civil liability for acts and omissions that meet the criteria set out in that provision.”.

As I have highlighted, the opposition believe that in the interests of transparency this information should be provided – that information regarding civil liabilities of the drug-checking service and all drug-checking workers will be waived. It should be notified to those that are getting their pills or drugs tested at the service. That is why we believe this is an important amendment to have in the bill.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting Ms Crozier’s amendment. The proposed requirement to inform clients of the immunity is unnecessary, and this is best dealt with through operational protocols. The bill should not require drug-checking workers to give information which may amount to legal advice. And the question of whether the civil liability exemption applies in an individual case is a legal question about whether the criteria are met in particular circumstances. The drug-checking service provider will be expected to provide general information about the civil liability exemption, and this is standard practice for these types of services. For example, at both the ACT and the Queensland drug-checking services they require clients to sign a waiver. The Department of Health will work closely with the drug-checking service provider once they are appointed to develop the appropriate protocols for advising clients of immunity. This will be based on best practice and informed by the appropriate legal advice.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens also will not be supporting this amendment. Having been to the CanTEST facility in Canberra, when you talk to the staff and you hear about how their internal management protocols function, what the process looks like and the way the process works, it is quite redundant what is being put forward. I do not doubt it might be well intentioned, but we do not see the need for this amendment to be included in this bill.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also not be supporting this amendment. My understanding is that these services normally run through the signing of a waiver, which would make this redundant.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (19:56): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (19:57): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.