Page 5464 - Week 14 - Thursday, 30 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
NDARC, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, said there are five good reasons to test pill testing. It has been shown to change the black market. It also shows that the ingredients of tested pills started to correspond to the expected components over time. This suggests that pill testing might be able to change the black market in positive ways.
Third, pill testing changes behaviour. Research from Australia shows that 50 per cent of those who had their drugs tested said the results affected their consumption choices. Two-thirds said they would not consume the drug and would warn friends in cases of negative results. Visits to pill testing booths create an important opportunity, providing support and information over and above the testing itself. They enable drug services to contact a population that is otherwise difficult to reach, because these people are not experiencing acute drug problems. Indeed, the intervention has been used to establish contact and as the basis for follow-up work with members of not yet problematic but nevertheless high-risk groups of recreational drug users.
Finally, pill testing means that we can capture long-term data about the actual substances present in the drug scene and it creates the potential for an early warning system beyond immediate users. This is becoming all the more important as new psychoactive substances that may be used as adulterants are appearing more frequently. They note, of course, that this is not a panacea.
I note the evidence from legal experts. Madam Assistant Speaker, perhaps more than anyone in this place you will know that there is a difference of opinion in the legal community. What the opposition were not privy to—and I will follow up on whether there was a briefing request; as the lead minister on this issue, I do not believe there was, but we certainly can provide one if they would like—is that we received a proposal in, as I recall it, March or April this year. What I said at the time, contrary to Mr Hanson’s claims in here, was that the government would consider the proposal; we would take a considered approach. We established a working group across government and we sought advice from experts in the community about the particular proposal that was put to us.
Mr Hanson in his speech gave no evidence whatsoever that he actually understood the trial that was going to operate here, the actual practicalities of how it was going to operate. He would not have made some of the statements that he made if he had.
That working group included the Justice and Community Safety Directorate, ACT Policing, ACT Health and Access Canberra. We spent a number of months evaluating this proposal. So, far from changing my mind at the last minute, I did what I think a responsible minister would do: take a proposal, consider it and then make a good, evidence-based decision. The evidence was overwhelming.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video