Wednesday, 4 October 2023

Motions

Decriminalisation of public drunkenness

Debate resumed on motion of Georgie Crozier:

That this house:

(1) expresses its concern that the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 will increase risk to members of Victoria Police, people in a vulnerable state and the community, noting that:

(a) the Victoria Police training video to leave an intoxicated female in a public area places the female at risk;

(b) there is a health crisis in Victoria and these laws will increase pressure on regional hospitals and remove staff from struggling emergency rooms;

(c) Victoria is the only state that has introduced laws to decriminalise public drunkenness that has not given police increased move-on laws or powers of arrest to ensure community safety is the priority;

(2) calls on the government to postpone the commencement of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 until:

(a) move-on laws are introduced to ensure police have the powers to put community safety first;

(b) the government establishes at least three trial sites that operate for a 24-month period and a report on this trial is tabled in Parliament; and

(c) the Victoria Police training video is withdrawn and reissued with due consideration to the issues listed above and no police officer is trained to leave a vulnerable person in a potentially more dangerous or vulnerable position.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:37): The Greens will not be supporting this motion. We have known for decades that the offence of public drunkenness is an outdated and an obsolete offence, that it is predominantly targeted at vulnerable people in our society, notably First Nations people, and that it has been used as a racist tool to lock up Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for behaviour that would be ignored or dismissed, or on Cup Day even celebrated, in other communities.

It serves us well to remember that there were decades of expert advice and community advocacy that finally resulted in Victoria proudly and belatedly catching up and removing this offence from our statute books. In 1989 the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended the repeal of public drunkenness. In 1991 the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody also recommended that the offence of public drunkenness should be abolished in the states that still kept it as an offence, Victoria included. Decriminalising public drunkenness was again recommended in 2001 by the parliamentary Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, in 2006 by the Ombudsman and in 2016 by IBAC. The offence was finally repealed in this place in 2021, and that repeal will come into operation this year.

Despite all the evidence and all the recommendations, it took 30 years to bring these reforms to Parliament. In that time hundreds of First Nations people have died preventable deaths in custody – at least 512 across this country, including many here in Victoria. It is a deep shame that it took 30 years and more deaths in order to act on the repeal of public drunkenness. The fact that this offence was finally abolished was achieved in large part due to the work of many Aboriginal organisations and campaigners, including Belinda Stevens, Apryl Watson, Warren Stevens, Kimberly Watson and of course the family of Tanya Day.

We the Greens welcome the long overdue decriminalisation of public drunkenness. It is an issue we have championed in this place for many years, and at the same time we do ask the government to continue to keep reforming our criminal justice system. We need more community mental health workers and drug and alcohol counsellors instead of police, and more sobering-up facilities instead of prison cells, so that addiction is treated as a health issue, not as a crime. And we certainly need more public housing so that everyone has a safe place to exit institutional facilities into and we stop reinforcing the cycle of incarceration. We will not be supporting the motion today.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:40): I am very pleased to speak to this motion. It is an important motion about public drunkenness laws, but it is an important motion knowing deep community concern about the implementation of these laws. So I will support this motion to call on the government to postpone the date of the changes in the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. Victoria is woefully unprepared to abolish the crime of public drunkenness. These are not my words; they are the words of the police, doctors and community groups. We cannot just abolish this crime without due consideration and without making sure the appropriate laws and facilities are in place and that they are actually effective.

The intention behind this bill is to treat public drunkenness as a medical matter rather than a criminal one. The idea is to divert those that are drunk in public to outreach services such as sobering-up centres. However, this goes to the heart of the problem. The government is only ramping up one sobering-up centre. Not only that, but as I have spoken about previously, it is located on a residential street in my electorate, only metres from the bedrooms of children and adjacent to an English second-language school, much to the dismay of local residents, who feel like they are not being listened to. I was very pleased to join a great turnout at a rally of local residents. I was very pleased to see some local councillors there, like Cr Jolly and Cr Riley and others, who joined with the community around Collingwood that are quite concerned about the sobering-up centre there. We do not really know much about the trial of the sobering-up centre, but as I understand it the trial backed onto St Vincent’s on Gertrude Street and was in a health precinct. A health precinct would make much more sense than a residential street in this matter. But we are seeing sort of a creeping drop ever since the government lost the seat of Richmond into blasting through centres like this and the injecting room, making them permanent on residential streets. And it is not just the fact they put it there. There was absolutely no consultation on this location from the government. There seemed to be no tender – again, zero transparency on this – and it was instantly awarded to the folks at Cohealth.

Georgie Crozier: Surprise, surprise.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Surprise, surprise. They will be the likely winning bidders for the CBD injecting room, which many of their staff are publicly advocating for without declaring a conflict of interest – like on 3AW last week, when one of their doctors called in and was forced to prompt that they actually work for Cohealth and have a direct interest in the CBD injecting room going ahead. But we see this over and again. They instantly got the contract and said they would undertake consultations, which just basically included a letter from Cohealth to residents surrounding the sobering-up centre. That is no way to treat the people of Collingwood. It is no way to treat locals, many of whom have lived there for a very long time, who rightly have concerns.

We need to partner with local communities on centres like this. If you do want them to succeed, they do require a level of community buy-in, and that has not been sufficient by any measure. You cannot say you are going to undertake consultations with the community after you have announced it without tender and announced the location, and your consultation needs to actually be a little bit more than a letter in the mailbox. Again, that is no way to treat residents of my electorate, and I was very pleased to join a rally of local residents to make known my opposition to this centre being placed in a residential street.

There is a sobering-up centre in the inner city, or there will be. How this represents a diversion pathway for the people of Shepparton, Echuca, Ballarat, Geelong, Bendigo, Mornington Peninsula and Frankston I do not know. The Rural Doctors Association of Victoria president Dr Dan Wilson has said:

[We] compel the Victorian government to strongly reconsider its decision to advantage metropolitan communities over regional and rural Victorians.

We know with the Commonwealth Games, for example, that that was seen too – they made the promise that the games would benefit regional communities, but we know that because of blowouts on infrastructure projects in the inner city the costs got a bit too much. We know that because of the incompetence of the people on the other side regional Victoria was betrayed. Regional Victoria was betrayed with the Geelong fast rail promise. Growth areas were betrayed with the cancellation of the Western Rail Plan, all because this government cannot manage money. They cannot even consult with local communities and experts. Police Association Victoria secretary Wayne Gatt has echoed these concerns, saying:

This is not a Melbourne reform, it’s a Victorian one … Where will regional cities take their people?

It seems like this question has fallen on deaf ears. Heather Chigwada, an alcohol and drug clinician at Project Sunrise, said that she was worried because she was not aware of any services being put in place to help the Sudanese, South Sudanese or First Nations communities, which is a fair enough point that none of the members on the other side will answer. Even the Salvation Army boss Major Brendan Nottle said Victorians should be highly alert to the fact that there may not be enough wraparound services within and outside metropolitan Melbourne. He said:

If the government thinks just by putting certain measures in place we’ll resolve the issue, I think they’d be mistaken … Once you dig, the more needs start to emerge.

Another issue raised by Wayne Gatt and Paul Healey, the branch secretary of the Health and Community Services Union, is that the government is ignoring these individuals that will refuse to be taken to a sobering-up centre. They said:

… the government doesn’t have an answer for the third group of people who just refuse the help: they’re going to either punch an ambo, smash a window, or get picked up by police for doing other …

crimes. The government needs to take a serious look at these laws. They come into effect on Melbourne Cup Day of all days, when there are going to be incidents. You have so many of the representatives on the other side – basically all of them – bragging about their union movement links, but when you have got the police union raising serious concerns and police officers raising serious concerns I think the duty of the government would be to listen to those concerns very seriously, because they are the people on our front line. I think it is incumbent upon the government to explain to this chamber and the Victorian people why they are rushing through these laws without consideration and why they are not taking a sober approach to public policy and consulting some more.

I am not saying get rid of these laws; all I am saying is there needs to be due consideration of a delay of these laws. I think that is what mature members of this chamber should do. We should go out and listen to the community. I certainly have, and I hope the government does.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:50): I rise to commend the reforms delivered by the Andrews, now Allan, government on the public drunkenness laws and penalties and the strides the Allan Labor government is making, and in doing so I speak to the motion moved by my colleague opposite Ms Crozier.

This motion asks the house to express its concern that the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 will increase the risk to members of Victoria Police, people in a vulnerable state and the community. What an absurd comment. While those opposite had Victoria Police campaigning against them under Jeff Kennett in 1999, we have continually backed our police. We have delivered record funding to Victoria Police. Our police force know that we support them each day to do their jobs. Victoria Police has been closely consulted throughout the development of these important reforms because we know that listening to the community is the way to achieve the best reforms. We know the success of the reforms relies on the engagement of all stakeholders, and VicPol are a critical part of this. The Victorian community can be assured that our police force will remain able to respond to public intoxication in a decriminalised environment.

I commend the work of the Minister for Police in the other place, my friend Minister Carbines, and the Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton for their partnership and commitment to getting this done. I also commend the Minister for Health in the other place, Minister Thomas, for her work in this evidence-based, health-led reform, because people who are intoxicated in public need our support not our punishment. The 2023–24 budget is providing $84.30 million for a health-based response to public intoxication, and this includes $78.7 million to deliver a dedicated, public intoxication service response, an important reform. It will ensure that the right supports are in place when the legislation comes into effect in November.

This government has delivered many criminal reforms, many of which have been delivered with the understanding that it is often more appropriate for emergency service workers to act in a health-based direction. This government has listened to experts and acted on advice that will result in a more nuanced and effective role for our law enforcement, ensuring safety for our greater community. In 2021 the Andrews Labor government successfully passed the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021, which sought to decriminalise public drunkenness in the state of Victoria. This was in recognition of the ongoing harm the laws were causing to vulnerable communities, including our First Nations communities.

Public drunkenness reforms were one of the key recommendations that came out of the coronial inquest into the tragic death of Yorta Yorta, Wemba Wemba and Barapa Barapa woman Aunty Tanya Day. Day’s death was another tragic reminder of the recommendations of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Both the coronial inquest and the royal commission called for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. Acting on these recommendations and other expert advice, the then Andrews Labor government sought to construct a more health-orientated response to public drunkenness.

I also want to thank Ambulance Victoria for being an important partner in this through the development of a new model as we continue to work closely with them towards a health-led response. In the existing trials we are seeing positive evidence of a diversion into sobering and outreach services which would otherwise have used ambulance services. In recognition that this would lead to safer results for both the public and the intoxicated individual, we must continue.

These reforms do not simply decriminalise public drunkenness but also seek to introduce several service models to support the creation of a safer Victoria. The new health-led model is designed to see results that promote the safety of intoxicated individuals and those around them. Whilst our police here in Victoria are here to protect us and promote safety and are required to undergo training to respond to health issues, including intoxication, the creation of these specialised teams can offer services specific to those suffering from intoxication in public. To assist in the implementation of these reforms $88.3 million has been pledged to be spent over a three-year period. This allocation of funds is to ensure that the service is supported in its early stages to build an effective and long-lasting addition to the face of Victoria’s public service.

The rollout of the model will prioritise service delivery for the Aboriginal community in recognition of how public intoxication laws have historically disproportionately affected First Victorians and continue to in some cases. This government will be and has always been committed to acknowledging that Aboriginal Victorians face unique challenges and injustices, and it is further committed to doing everything in its powers to right those wrongs. Whilst public intoxication is not limited to one group of people, Aboriginal Victorians are undeniably affected by the current ramifications of public intoxication. At this stage intoxication laws are not leading to the results that we want – a safer Victoria for everyone.

Included services are as follows: an outreach program that will respond to intoxicated individuals needing assistance. Primarily these outreach programs will assist in areas that might not otherwise have access to those services provided. Outreach programs will exist as an on-demand response to referrals. Depending on the needs of the intoxicated person, the outreach programs will be authorised to offer immediate assistance and organise private transportation for individuals or, if the situation calls for it, transport individuals to a place in which they can safely recover from the effects of alcohol.

Additionally, at peak times in metropolitan Melbourne outreach programs will be authorised to identify and respond to cases of dangerous intoxication. They will have the same powers as during non-peak hours, including providing immediate assistance and transport. These outreach teams will ensure that we have a dedicated team ready and equipped to address cases of intoxicated people that potentially present harm to themselves and others. It also moves the handling of intoxicated individuals to a dedicated health-orientated team. This is not because we believe the police are ill equipped; it is simply an acknowledgement of the nature of intoxicated individuals and their general need for more dedicated assistance. These policies exist to encourage the safest and best outcomes for all Victorians.

The service model will also introduce sobering centres in metro Melbourne. These will act as important safe areas for intoxicated individuals where they can be monitored by healthcare professionals until they are fit to leave. These facilities will hold up to 20 beds for the general population, and a further six will be reserved for Aboriginal people. This is again recognition that our Aboriginal communities are disproportionately affected by these changes. We are ensuring that at every step of the way we as a government can assist in harm minimisation for Aboriginal Victorians. This is a just and correct course of action.

Similar programs have been introduced in other states and territories, all with high rates of success in preventing potentially harmful situations from occurring. This aspect of reform will forever change Melbourne for the better, ensuring that Melburnians can have a good time and go and support their local night-life without having concerns about their safety and wellbeing.

This service will also provide those suffering from alcohol and substance abuse issues with referrals to programs and services if requested. Additionally, the service includes an opt-in follow-up if it is wanted or needed. This is included in all services, as the Allan Labor government acknowledges that alcohol and substance abuse episodes rarely occur in a vacuum and that anyone suffering from these issues deserves to seek out treatment if they wish to. Unfortunately, seeking help is not always a straightforward process. Stigma and inaccessibility can prevent individuals accessing the essential supportive services they need to overcome a substance or alcohol abuse problem that they wish to address. Because of this, government programs that can reach these people should do all that they can to direct them to those services that they need.

Additionally, this rollout will include the creation of a centralised service for consultation for both those needing support for being intoxicated in public and staff providing service. This centralised service will be able to manage intake, referral and dispatch services, determining the person’s needs and then dispatching the appropriate service provider. It will also be a centralised service for advice and information on outreach and sobering services. It will also act as a consultation service for staff on information about alcohol and other drugs to ensure staff are able to respond accordingly.

The first sobering station has been confirmed already in Collingwood, situated close to the city in an area that sees a high rate of public drunkenness and arrests. The centre is also close to public transport and St Vincent’s Hospital. All of this will ensure that the Allan Labor government will create a safer Victoria with a service that can offer appropriate assistance to somebody intoxicated in public.

I want to wrap up by quoting the coroner’s findings from the death of Ms Day:

Ms Day’s death was clearly preventable had she not been arrested and taken into custody.

And further:

… there was no justification for the offence of public drunkenness to remain … some 30 years after the RCIADIC had recommended its abolition.

It is time we changed the law. We have, and we are proud of it.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:00): I too rise to speak on this motion brought forward by Ms Crozier. I do share some of the concerns in this motion about the implementation of the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. At the time I had concerns about how this might be implemented, and I am sad to see that some of my concerns are coming true. However, I did support the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. Being drunk is like a pre-crime – it is not an actual crime; you are not harming anyone except for yourself – so we did not object to that. However, I cannot support this motion, because it calls on the government to give police move-on laws. I think that these are extremely dangerous, may have many, many unintended consequences and could be easily misused by police. They are a gross infringement on the right to freedom of movement, and therefore I cannot support this motion.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (16:01): I rise today to speak on motion 191 raised by Ms Crozier that this house express its concern about the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021. I thank you, Ms Crozier, for actually raising this motion, because it is very important, for this motion is about public safety and saving lives over a group of individuals complaining about punishment and sobering up at a police station. Let us look at this in perspective. What is this punitive punishment all about? It is 4 hours when you are drunk. They take you for 4 hours to a police station until you sober up, then you are charged and bailed to go to court, which you do not need to turn up to, and that is it. It is 4 hours at a police station so you can sober up and go home. That is what the punishment is all about. It is for your welfare, your safety and the public safety around it.

This motion raised by Ms Crozier is very important in relation to the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. The decriminalisation of public drunkenness is of great concern in relation to the people who actually put this act together having very little knowledge in relation to understanding what intoxication is about. This level of intoxication is not just when you have a few drinks and you are unable to speak or unable to walk. It is when it comes to the stage for those very few who have consumed so much alcohol that they are unable to look after themselves, they are unable to respond and they could be in a situation where they need assistance, they need monitoring, in case they vomit, suffocate and die. That is what the police do when they take these people who are intoxicated to the police station so they can sober up, at the same time monitoring and making sure that these people are under full observation so that they do not harm themselves and they are able to sober up in a safe place.

What this motion also expresses and addresses is the increasing pressure on hospitals and emergency staff. Even when the police had the power to arrest and take intoxicated people to the station – even in that situation – hospitals were overrun with people who were too intoxicated. What is also very important in relation to this motion is (1)(c):

Victoria is the only state that has introduced laws to decriminalise public drunkenness that has not given police increased move-on laws or powers of arrest to ensure community safety is the priority …

In relation to taking away the power for police to move people on, to ensure that a person has the ability to control themselves and know what they are doing, it is very important – when the police come across, in relation to people who are intoxicated, a situation where they are unable to physically go about their own daily duties or daily activities – that there is this power that police have to accompany those people back to the station, where they can monitor these people in such a state.

Now, those on the opposite side have mentioned that the police were willing to work with the government in relation to decriminalisation. Yes, but the police at the time did not realise. As Shane Patton, the chief commissioner, said:

We made representations to government about some additional powers. We didn’t get any and so we’re putting our training in place to do that.

Basically you have taken away the police power. They did not realise at the time that in relation to when you say ‘decriminalisation’ it takes every power away from the police to do what they are sworn to do, which is to serve and protect the community. What the police have taken an oath to do is to serve and protect every Victorian, even those that are intoxicated. Wayne Gatt from the Police Association Victoria said the force needed supplementary powers to ensure intoxicated people who were a threat to themselves or others could be moved on or taken care of. So both the police association and the Chief Commissioner of Police have recognised now that the Summary Offences Amendment Act is not going to assist in relation to the decriminalisation of public drunkenness.

What we also say on this act in relation to drunkenness is people do not realise it applies not only to those who have consumed alcohol but also to those who have taken other substances and who may appear to be intoxicated. So when they are in that state and they refuse police assistance, police under this new act have no power whatsoever to assist those who are in need. Whether they are intoxicated by alcohol or affected by other sorts of substances, police now have no power to assist those in need.

What people do not realise in this chamber is overdoses do not happen in an instant. It takes time for the drug to actually get into your system and slowly slow down your metabolism, slow down your heart rate. That is when overdose occurs. So when a person has taken drugs – whatever the substance could be – and the police observe unusual behaviour, they usually approach these people and ask to assist them in such a way, but when that person has the ability to say, ‘No, I refuse your assistance’, what this act says is police have no power to actually assist those people in those circumstances, and this will leave those in those situations in a very bad state which will eventually possibly lead to a circumstance where lives can be lost.

So it is very important people understand this act does not affect those affected by alcohol alone; they might be affected by other substances as well. So those who actually support safe injection et cetera must look at this very carefully, because this act itself will take away police powers to do all sorts of things, like assisting the public, whether they are affected by alcohol or affected by drugs and so on. When we say ‘decriminalisation of public drunkenness’ it does not always apply to those affected by alcohol, so I suggest that we look very closely regarding this amendment. It is important to look at this act very closely in relation to how we need to address this.

The opposite side have mentioned that we are now going to assist with taking these people to a sobering-up centre. That is fantastic, but you have got to understand one sobering-up centre will not assist all those people in an unstable state. I will just give you some examples. Over 2016 to 2019 Victoria alone – from crime stats – recorded that 8000 cases of drunkenness are found each year; 8000 each year are recorded. One centre surely cannot assist all those people affected by drugs or by alcohol in one night, so what happens to all those people? Where do they get transported to – to overrun hospitals? Where else would it be? What happens to them when they get transported or are going to get transported? I can tell you now, before this hits, even on one weekend some stations where police can accompany and look after those who are drunk are full and have to turn them away to hospitals. That is when the hospitals are full. When all the police are unable to accompany and monitor all these people, where are they going to go? Certainly not one sobering-up centre. How big is this sobering-up centre? Are they able to accompany and look after hundreds or thousands of people per fortnight or per weekend? I dare say they will be unable to assist at such call-outs. Now, just be mindful, call-outs for Ambulance Victoria were more than 20,000 alone for the alcohol-affected during the 2021–22 financial year, so that is an average of 385 people per week. We average that, but mainly people get drunk over the weekend. I do support this motion, and I hope people take it more seriously.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:11): I find it a bit rich really that the Liberals are using this motion to suggest that people in a vulnerable state will be at increased risk if the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 comes into effect. In fact this government recognises the disproportionate and distressing influence of Victoria’s current laws on public drunkenness, especially on the Aboriginal community. Notably, Victoria remains one of only two states still criminalising public drunkenness, and the opposition today seeks to delay this implementation even further. The Aboriginal community have been advocating for decriminalisation and a transition to a fairer system since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The findings of the commission were tragically reinforced by the inquest into the death of Tanya Day, which occurred in 2017, and not only is this time line of Tanya Day’s death a tragic story in itself, it is also a very sad example of generational trauma and the same archaic system existing for far too long. Ms Day’s uncle the late Mr Harrison Day had his death examined by the royal commission. Mr Day died in custody in 1982 from an epileptic fit in an Echuca police cell after he was arrested for an unpaid $10 fine for public drunkenness.

Fortunately the Allan government is resolutely moving towards decriminalising public drunkenness, opting instead for a health-centred approach. This is to ensure care and support for publicly intoxicated individuals and our communities, which is contrary to the long history of our judiciary system, where some of our most privileged members of society locked up many of our most underprivileged members of society. In many cases this is tantamount to criminalising despair. We know for some people alcohol is used to deal with trauma and stress as self-medication and that those in poverty and disadvantage, who do not lead lives of privilege, are more likely to be drunk in public and locked up for that.

As a sexual assault counsellor I encountered many clients who used alcohol, gambling and drugs as forms of self-medication. When I refer to self-medication, many of my clients described their use of alcohol, drugs and sometimes gambling as a tool to block out memories, numb the pain and escape from the horror in their heads. This is not the case for every person found drunk in public. But it is the case for a proportion of this population, and when other vulnerabilities are present they are more likely to end up incarcerated as a result. Many survivors of sexual assault experience intrusive thoughts about their abuser, the incident and how it has impacted them and their families. Intrusive thoughts are where memories of something unpleasant resurface and sometimes invade their consciousness constantly. We often colloquially refer to this as ruminating. Intrusive thoughts and ruminating are often a barrier to sleep, which triggers a cycle of insomnia and its subsequent health-related impacts.

It is in this context that many people who have experienced trauma of any type use self-medication as a way to cope. Alcohol is the most readily available and legal drug that achieves this end. Our society has been criminalising this coping phenomenon for hundreds of years. Now that we have a better understanding of the health impacts of alcohol abuse and the role of self-medication, it is the right thing to do. There is no logic to the arguments put forward from those opposite that these laws, by decriminalising public drunkenness, decriminalise offensive behaviours or intimidating behaviours or aggressive behaviours or stalking. In fact it is a good thing that these behaviours are uncoupled from public drunkenness so that they could be focused on for the appalling behaviours they are and drunkenness not used as an excuse.

The Allan government is envisioning a safe environment for those publicly intoxicated with culturally sensitive care, minimal judicial interference and protection for the community and emergency personnel. This approach aims to reduce rates of incarceration and prevent custodial deaths. The data tells us that the criminalisation of public drunkenness discriminates against certain cohorts of people and in particular Aboriginal people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people experiencing homelessness, people with substance abuse issues and people experiencing mental illness or distress. The new model will work to improve outcomes for these people. Repealing these offences is just the first step. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and other reviews since have stressed the importance of alternative non-custodial systems, laws and services for people who are intoxicated in public. That is why the 2023–24 budget provided $84.306 million for health-based responses to public intoxication. This funding included $78.796 million to deliver the dedicated public intoxication service response to ensure that the right supports are in place when this legislation comes into effect in November.

I note here that whilst it will no longer be an offence to be drunk in public it will remain an offence to, as I said before, harass, stalk, intimidate or otherwise engage in offensive and aggressive behaviour. The dedicated public intoxication service response is for individuals who are under the influence but are not a threat to themselves or others and not involved in any illegal activities, and this is because the existing response driven by the criminal justice system just does not align with present societal values. It is inappropriate for the police force to be asked to provide a health service in their lock-up on a Saturday evening. Again I emphasise that this framework gives prominence to assistance for the Aboriginal population, recognising the undue burden that public intoxication regulations and police encounters have placed upon them. Its intent is to actively decrease the number of Aboriginal deaths while in detention, reflecting persistent advocacy from the Aboriginal community who know these laws have had harmful and profound consequences on their lives. I must say it is an outrageous shame to our society and to our judicial system that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people are locked up in our system, whether on remand or in prison. This is one important step towards redressing that inequality. Aboriginal people are 3 per cent or thereabouts of this community’s population, but they are well and truly over-represented in the judicial system.

The government has comprehensively engaged with first responders and health professionals, and their insights have been instrumental in shaping the framework that we have put forward today. From now until November 2023 our government remains committed to collaborating with all pertinent parties to guarantee that the health model is both safe and aligns with community requirements. This major reform has been decades in the making, and it is progressing with consultation, feedback and as a result of passionate advocacy from some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I do not believe it should be delayed; it should certainly come into effect on 7 November. I find the arguments raised against this implementation in this motion facile and a distraction.

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:21): I am pleased to rise in support of this important motion that calls on the government to postpone the commencement of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 until move-on laws are introduced to ensure police have the powers to put community safety first; the government establishes at least three trial sites that operate for a 24-month period; and the Victoria Police training video that we have discussed in this debate is withdrawn and reissued with due consideration of the issues listed in the motion and no police officer is trained to leave a vulnerable person in a potentially more dangerous or vulnerable position.

I do agree with a couple of the points that were made by the member opposite just now. Certainly it is an outrageous shame – to use the language of the previous speaker – that we see such appalling outcomes for Indigenous people in our justice system. That outrage and shame exists because of the concerted policies of this Labor government. Over the period of today we have listened to numerous speeches from those opposite in which much merriment has been made about the fact that on this side of the house we have been in government for, what is it now, four of the last 24 years. And yet those opposite wish to give us lectures about the appalling mistreatment of Indigenous people in our justice system that they have had carriage of for, what is it, 20 of the last 24 years.

There is a reason for several of the shocking outcomes that Ms Ermacora discussed. First and foremost, those opposite remove one in 10 Indigenous babies. It is the worst rate in the country. It is a disgrace. It is something I have spoken about before. With respect, the previous speaker has more front than Myer to attack us on this side of the house for a lack of care regarding Indigenous peoples. Has she never read a report of the Aboriginal children’s commissioner that Minister Wooldridge established when she was the Minister for Community Services? If she ever had, she would have realised that the policies that this Labor government has pursued for a long period of time have led, quite inevitably, to huge numbers of Indigenous children being removed from their families – a rate more than 60 per cent higher than under the previous Liberal government. No-one opposite will contradict me: it is a fact. Yet on the side of the house we are subjected to lectures about our care for vulnerable Indigenous people from speakers like Ms Ermacora.

The reason I support this motion is not because I oppose the decriminalisation of public drunkenness but simply because the government has buggered it up. When I was the Shadow Attorney-General, I met with the head of the Police Association Victoria, and he bemoaned what he called policy by press release. This is another example of policy by press release. If the government wanted to do it properly, it would work with the police association and have the requisite backstop measures in place, and for mine that would be fine – I would support it. I am all for justice reform. If the government is serious about getting better outcomes for Indigenous people and vulnerable people more broadly, if they want to shut down the youth justice system tomorrow, I will support them. If they want to shut down residential care in the child protection system, I will support them. They have got my vote. I will not take lectures about a lack of care for Indigenous people when this government, as we have heard from members opposite again and again today, with much glee, has been in power for almost the entirety of this century. If there are problems, as there are grave problems when it comes to the treatment of Indigenous people in our justice system, it is on those opposite. It is time they started to own that.

As I said, I personally do not oppose the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, yet there need to be proper measures in place. The points that have been raised by my colleagues on this side of the house are worthy points. We cannot simply rip away the system that existed previously without any of the requisite backstop measures. The point that Ms Crozier has made regarding the impact on vulnerable people with reference to the Victoria Police training video is an entirely legitimate point. I have been listening to the debate carefully, and I am not aware that anybody opposite has answered that point. I personally would like far more thoroughgoing criminal justice reform measures to be emanating from the government, but as we go down this pathway, if indeed the government is interested in that in the least, we need to do things properly and to plan properly. The head of the police association was right: this was a case of policy by press release. This is an important policy. It has an impact on vulnerable children and vulnerable people – I agree with that entirely – and thus it is all the more necessary to plan carefully and to get it right as you roll it out. That is why I support the motion.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:27): I have a bit to say on this, and 10 minutes does not seem enough. I am going to begin by recalling with great affection speaking on this matter as the bill came before Parliament in the last term, but that great affection was wrapped up with enormous sadness for the loss that had to occur before we took the steps required to face this injustice that affected Aboriginal people and continues to to this day. I know first and foremost that this is a reform long, long in the making, which came about from enormous efforts of the Aboriginal community-controlled sector led first and foremost by the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and I pay tribute to them. Above all, the tributes must flow to the family of the late Aunty Tanya Day and with special acknowledgements to my former colleagues Aunty Jill Gallagher of VACCHO and Belinda Stevens.

I am very close to this cause – closer than anyone in this place – and I speak about it with a depth of knowledge that I believe others lack. You see, I was standing with Aunty Tanya’s daughter the day she ran out of the workplace because her mum was on that train – the last train ride she ever did have. It is an enormous, enormous cultural load that her family have taken to address this injustice in our state. As one of the last ones to do just about anything for it, I pay tribute to Belinda Stevens, her family and of course Aunty Jill. There is a heavy load. I think about their families and all that they have done, and I think about the urgency in which they want this matter addressed. I stand here proud not just to have a connection to this story but to now have a connection very much to the solution, because people who are simply intoxicated in public need support, not punishment. They need assistance, and implementing a public health model is the way to go about it. It ensures that people who are intoxicated in public can access the health care and the support that they need, and it is not something that came about recently.

The abolition of public intoxication was one of the key recommendations of the coronial inquest following the death of the late Aunty Tanya Day. I actually sat in that coronial inquest on a number of occasions in fact before entering this place. I joined with the family in the marches for justice and I also joined in their tears. You see, Aunty Tanya Day was a proud Yorta Yorta, Wemba Wemba and Barapa Barapa woman with connections to land that I too share, so I have, with everything that I am, very strong connections to this story, and I spoke about the abolition of these offences in my first year in Parliament. It was with great shame that I acknowledged that Victoria was one of the only two states that had yet to act on this key recommendation.

You see, Aboriginal Victorians are still disproportionately affected by this offence. You only need to know Aboriginal people that have social lives and that try to live like their fellow students and their fellow teammates in their footy clubs to know that it is not the same being out in our community as an Aboriginal person having a night on the town or celebrating a footy win. The outcomes are not the same. Let us not forget that the effect on First Nations people is simply not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the talks that happen to young Aboriginal boys about nights out on the town are about what to do when the police lock you up, and it hurts to even talk about it, because it is one of those little quiet community shames that we do not admit to, but the truth is that public intoxication in our community should be treated like a health issue and not like a crime. I read with great interest the final findings of the coroner when that report came through, and it said that Ms Day’s death was clearly preventable had she not been arrested and taken into custody. With great pain I watched that video as it was released in the media. The bravery that that family showed in releasing it into the public domain to help really drive the community conversations about public intoxication – I thank them for doing that.

It simply is 30 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and that royal commission had a recommendation for the abolition of the offence of public drunkenness. You see, I have spent a bit of time – and we all have – reflecting on royal commissions, but this one has a little bit too much left outstanding. You see, decriminalising public intoxication is an important milestone along a journey which acknowledges the failures of the past and the government’s commitment to a safer, better future. Whilst I transitioned from that life of community advocate to now being a member of Parliament, I will not quite forget the loss, the pain and the hurt of our community on the death of Aunty Tanya Day. So whilst there are calls for the delay and questions about not enough sites and how many people will go, the truth is we need this and we need it as soon as possible. So thank you to the community health providers and the community sector that have worked so closely to get this to where it is today.

I have seen the models that have been proposed around outreach workers working with our existing first responders to assess the health and safety risks of the supported person to make sure they are transported to a place of safety, and in many instances this will be a private residence. However, for those that require a lower acuity response and do not have a safe place to go – do you know what – a sobering service will be made available. Just as it happens in other states, it will happen here in our state, but the difference is we will have dedicated public intoxication responses for Aboriginal Victorians delivered across metropolitan Melbourne and regional locations. It will be a culturally appropriate response, led in its design, so much so, by the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. And the one for the rest of the community will be led by the outstanding community health service Cohealth. I thank them for the work that they have done in stepping up to be there for our most vulnerable community members.

To those that are waiting, it is almost here. To the family of Tanya Day, it is almost here. We know that it has taken a little while longer than we all wanted, but it is almost here, and a delay is just not what the community needs right now. So thank you to community health. Thank you in advance to the workers that will be there for our community in times of need and crisis. I know that with it being based in Collingwood, proudly in the Northern Metropolitan Region, it will be a place that I keep a dear and passionate eye on, as well as the other Aboriginal centres right around the state. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion today.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:37): I rise to support Ms Crozier’s motion about public drunkenness, and one can only say this is definitely policy on the run, really and truly. This is drunk and disorderly in a public place taking on a whole new parameter. It is only any good if you are inside the tram tracks and you need to be relocated to a drunken facility where you might be looked after. What happens to my friends in Portland if they are drunk? How do they get transported to Collingwood?

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: I think that is the location, isn’t it, Mr Mulholland? Collingwood. Portland to Collingwood would be probably about a 4- or 5-hour trip. They could have sobered up by the time they get to Collingwood, you would hope. But anyway, this is ridiculous. This is about as sensible as closing down coal-fired power stations and saying we have got to have renewables and zero emissions by anytime soon with nothing in place to give us power, and we are all paying the price for that. Well, we will all be paying the price for this stupid kneejerk reaction to a situation that is serious.

Clearly the police are not in favour of this, and why should they be? I cannot imagine the ambulance officers are in favour of this, because they might be picking up the pieces as well. Please do not even suggest to our public hospital system that they have got to pick up the pieces. In my regional hospitals and even in the small hospitals that have emergency care, there is no way they can cope with drunken people being landed on their doorstep because there is nowhere else for them to go. Do we leave them just lying in the streets or actually going out and causing more damage in the community? There is nothing in place to solve this problem, but look out, we are going to remove drunkenness as an offence. What a stupid idea.

This motion:

calls on the government to postpone the commencement of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 until:

(a) move-on laws are introduced to ensure police have the powers to put community safety first …

Isn’t that what we should be looking at, community safety first?

(b) the government establishes at least three trial sites that operate for a 24-month period and a report on this trial is tabled in Parliament …

Well, of course that is what we should be doing. We should be testing the system first before we jump down the path of removing the offence. We have got the minister for – what are you the minister for, Enver, police or corrections? – something over there. It is obvious you do not want any more people in your system. Haven’t you got vacant places? Dr Bach, aren’t there –

Matthew Bach: Stacks at Cherry Creek.

Bev McARTHUR: Stacks at Cherry Creek. Can we relocate people to Cherry Creek? What are we doing over there, Minister? There is space over there; we could relocate people. We are in a terrible situation here. We are going to remove an offence without putting anything in place to solve the problem. We all feel terribly sorry for those that are caught up in the minister’s judicial incarceration system, but we have got to have a better system in place before we go down this thought bubble path.

I just cannot imagine what is going to happen out in rural areas. You want to get rid of all the single-officer police stations – you are going to scrap them in my electorate – so there are going to be no police and there are going to be drunks around everywhere, yet they are going to have to be brought to Collingwood if necessary. Have you got enough police vehicles to do this, Minister? I am sure you have not. Have you got enough officers? There are 800 vacancies, aren’t there, Mr Mulholland, in the police – or 800 gone off the list?

Evan Mulholland: There’s a lot.

Bev McARTHUR: There are an awful lot. We have not got police. I guess they are going to have less to do now. They just leave the drunks lying around. Is that what is happening? This is a really ridiculous situation. You need to rethink it.

Evan Mulholland: They’re scarred from having to pull kids off playgrounds.

Bev McARTHUR: Oh, my goodness me. Yes, that is what you did. You were pulling children off playgrounds and picking up elderly women sitting on park benches during COVID. You are good at that, but now we are going to do this.

Why wouldn’t you think about it first and make sure you get the system right? It does seem like you have just jumped down the throat of a very bad idea, and you are clearly going to make it worse. How are you going to protect the community and protect the vulnerable people that are intoxicated? I guess there are some of us that might have been intoxicated from time to time – we can appreciate this – but we do need to make sure that everybody is cared for properly and not just leave them to languish in a drunken state somewhere and perhaps going on to cause further damage. I do not want to imagine what other crimes might ensue if we just leave drunken people around and do not look after them properly. You cannot look after them unless they are very close to Collingwood. This government is all about being inside the tram tracks; they never get outside the tram tracks. Here we have got drunken behaviour being only accommodated not only inside the tram tracks but in this very inner little urban area to appease the Greens. Really, that is what it is all about, isn’t it? They are the ones that you need to appease because you keep losing seats to them and you need to make sure you are greener and more left than them to pick all this up.

We certainly think you should have another look at this. We try and help you; we are here to help. We are always here to help make sure you get these things right. We want to make sure that everybody in Victoria is looked after properly, the community is safe and the police have a proper job to do. Their job is to protect the community first. You have not even got the police on board with this. What sort of nonsense is this when you embark on a policy and you do not even get the law enforcement officers ready to go? This seems ridiculous. I just think we need to really be very careful about this. And as for this police training video – we are told it would leave an intoxicated female in a public area, placing females at risk – do you not support women, you people over there? I cannot understand this. You must be against women, because this is not fair on the female population. It really is not. I do not mean the male population, I mean the female population; we need to look after them.

As Ms Crozier says in the motion, there is a health crisis in Victoria and these laws will increase pressure on regional hospitals and move staff from struggling emergency rooms. Have you ever tried to get into an emergency room in a public hospital? I doubt you lot ever have. It is almost impossible. You wait for hours and hours and hours. Even trying to get into an emergency department in a private hospital in Melbourne, you wait for hours. So if you are going to end up with a whole lot of intoxicated individuals dumped in the emergency departments of public hospitals, we are going to have even more strife. We are going to have to have PSOs in hospitals to make sure that the patients needing urgent care are well looked after while we deal with the intoxicated individuals that have nowhere else to go except a public hospital. Really, the government needs to stop doing stuff by press release. Just think the thing through carefully. When you want to make a policy, just do not jump to conclusions and the best headline you think you can get. What was that, Mr Mulholland?

Evan Mulholland: No tender.

Bev McARTHUR: No tender. There is no accountability in this either, Mr Mulholland. Is that right? There is no accountability, no transparency, no proper thought process and no testing of the policy whatsoever. It is a disgrace, and I really think you should have another little think and support the motion.

Lee TARLAMIS: I move, by leave:

That debate on this motion be extended by up to 25 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:47): I am pleased to speak in this debate on Ms Crozier’s motion on public intoxication reform, and I want to begin just by reflecting and contrasting the two prior contributions that we have had in the chamber. The first was from Ms Watt, who gave us a very thoughtful, experienced and heartfelt contribution not only about the exceptionally tragic circumstances that surrounded the death of Tanya Day in police custody, which was the subject of coronial recommendations, that specific case and Ms Watt’s involvement with both Ms Day’s family and also with the broader Aboriginal community and service system, but on the impact and implications of these policy reforms on the Aboriginal community as a whole and the disproportionate effect that the offence of public drunkenness has had on Aboriginal Victorians and why it is such an important piece of law reform that this government has taken to remove it from the statute book.

I contrast that with the quite extraordinary contribution we just witnessed from Mrs McArthur, who seemed to think that finally implementing the recommendations of a royal commission that were handed down in April 1991 is somehow policy on the run and that an issue which has been the subject of recommendations from a royal commission sitting before not just this government and the government before that but the government before that waiting to be implemented and, quite frankly, shamefully ignored on too many occasions by governments of all political persuasions – to address some of the issues that were raised by Dr Bach – is policy on the run. It is an issue which a royal commission for years in the making, a royal commission that started in 1987, made a recommendation on in 1991, and on 1 November 2023 Victoria will finally be implementing its recommendation. That is the last thing that can be described as policy on the run. It is absolutely a vital, long-overdue piece of law reform, because what this law reform tells us at its fundamental core is that people who are simply intoxicated in public need support and not punishment. What they need and what we are doing by the decriminalisation of public intoxication and changing our response from a criminal model, a punishment model, to a public health model is to make sure that those who need support can get it and that those who are vulnerable and do not need to be locked up are not. That is the fundamental reason why this is such an important piece of legislation.

It is true and it is undeniable – and we have been told since April 1991 again and again and again, most recently by the Victorian coroner in the coronial inquest into the death of Tanya Day – that this offence needs to go from our statute books because it disproportionately affects First Nations people, that the Aboriginal community is disproportionately affected by the offence of public drunkenness being on our statute books. This is what the coroner said, and this is a direct quote:

Ms Day’s death was clearly preventable had she not been arrested and taken into custody.

And:

… there was no justification for the offence of public drunkenness to remain … some 30 years after the RCIADIC had recommended its abolition.

What we can see there is the latest in a long line of inquiries that have told us that the right response to public drunkenness, the right response to public intoxication, is not one where incarceration is the first response but one where a health response is the way we need to go, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is not on the run; ‘long overdue’ is how we would describe this reform.

What we cannot have is more people put in the circumstances that Tanya Day and others before her have been in. I do not think any of us can have on our conscience, knowing what we know, that we have supported a law to remain on the statute books that allows this to continue. We know the law needs to change, and we are changing it. We know the service response needs to change, and we are investing in the changes that need to be made to enable that to occur. That is why the last budget provided over $84 million for a health-based response to public intoxication, including funding for service responses to ensure that mechanisms are put in place in an outreach setting – that it is not just the first centre that has opened in Collingwood, as those opposite would like to suggest, but that the best response is a community-based public outreach model that is able to respond as required in the community so that when people are intoxicated and clearly need support, it connects them to that very support.

Far from the caricature of the circumstances that we hear repeatedly from those opposite, the actual substance of what is being done here by people who care and are working on the ground in the communities across our state, not just in one part of it, enables the sort of response that these individuals need. That is not to be taken to a jail cell; that is to be taken to a support service or provided with the appropriate sorts of supports in another safe place. It could be a private residence; it could be some other facility. What we have got under the response that this model is providing is clearly that people who may have complex needs will get provided with a sophisticated service response that is not just the one that we have seen feature in the past that has led to such tragic consequences.

We obviously do have the first sobering-up centre, which is the 20-bed facility in Collingwood, a dedicated space to help people who are intoxicated recover. It follows on from trials of similar types of services in similar locations, which saw no reports of localised complaints or reports of disruption. We think that an appropriate health-led model will be the most appropriate response to get people from where they are in public to a safe space and also to connect them with the sorts of workers that they might need. But it is not just the immediate response that matters here, it is actually the follow-up services, whether they be services from alcohol and other drug workers or services connecting our First Nations people with their Aboriginal community controlled health services provider and with culturally appropriate services, that might assist people in their recovery instead of further punishing them in our system. There will be trained staff and outreach services providing a holistic response that gets to what is required, not the sort of blunt response that has been provided and shown to fail on so many occasions.

We cannot forget why we are here. That is because people die. Tanya Day was the latest in this long line of people, largely Aboriginal people, who have died in custody as a result of being put behind bars for public drunkenness. We cannot let it continue. We cannot delay any more.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:57): I also rise to speak on this reckless, irresponsible, typical motion today. I would like to acknowledge the other speakers we have had from this side, including Mr Berger, Ms Ermacora and of course Ms Watt, and that very powerful speech by Mr Batchelor. I note that in 1991 I actually was not born yet, so for us to be acting on this now I would say is timely, but perhaps the words – as you said, Mr Batchelor – are ‘well overdue’. This is not a rushed thing. This is very, very overdue.

There is probably not much that I can say that goes to the issue as well as others already have, but we are here debating this motion today. There are many other things that we could be debating. I understand that the Maroondah Hospital motion has been delayed for another day. I am sure we will all look forward to that. We wish Mr McGowan full health and a quick recovery. But this is a very serious matter. This is life and death, and it has been death for far too many Victorians. Far too often that has been Indigenous, Aboriginal Victorians, who have suffered disproportionately as a result of the existing laws that we have.

The existing laws in Victoria have made being drunk in a public place a criminal offence. I would challenge any of my colleagues in this chamber to reflect back perhaps on their 20s, or perhaps not so long ago, to a time when they themselves may have been worse for wear in public. I wonder if any of them when that happened ever really thought ‘I’m actually in danger of being sent into a cell’ because they were out on Flinders Street or at St Kilda Beach and having a few drinks or out at the country races – wherever it might be. I do not think any of us have had the experience of thinking ‘I’m a bit worse for wear here. I’m in genuine danger.’

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: I do not think any of us have felt that. I do not think you have, Mrs McArthur. I certainly have not felt that, but many Indigenous Victorians do feel that, and it is a discriminatory and disproportionate law. Whether that was the intention of the original drafting or not, it is the fact of it, and we have to face the reality of the situation. That is what those laws did, and that is why we are changing them.

People who are intoxicated and at risk and in a vulnerable place out in public need our support, not punishment. This government, the Andrews–Allan government, in 2019 acknowledged that this reform was, as I say, long, long overdue and committed to decriminalising public intoxication and replacing the current criminal justice response with a health-led approach.

Until this government introduced legislation to abolish these offences in 2020, in the term of the previous Parliament, Victoria was one of only two states that had yet to act on this crucial recommendation, with Aboriginal Victorians still disproportionately affected. In December last year a health-led model was confirmed to be the Victorian government’s approach to tackling this issue. This year’s state budget, the 2023–24 budget, allocates $88.3 million over three years for the statewide rollout of the health-based response to public intoxication, including dedicated services for Aboriginal Victorians.

Much has been made of Collingwood. It is disappointing to hear that word, just from the trauma of the weekend for those of us who do not barrack for that particular football team. But Collingwood is one part of the solution; it is not the entire solution that we are proposing. There is a statewide approach. Those opposite may choose to ignore that. I normally love the debate about the tram tracks; I really do, especially as my electorate does not have any of them. Collingwood is a really important initiative, but it is not the only one. There are many, many others that are a part of this as well.

Bev McArthur: Where are they? Name them.

Michael GALEA: Read the budget papers, Mrs McArthur; $88.3 million –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Michael GALEA: Here we go. This is your own motion, and now you are going off on all sorts of other tangents.

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: The Commonwealth Games now, is it? We had a building discussion in the climate change motion earlier today, and now we have Commonwealth Games in public drunkenness. Goodness me. What are you going to bring up next? Perhaps not Maroondah Hospital today as we were hoping and expecting.

Georgie Crozier: I was dying to bring it up.

Michael GALEA: I was dying to speak on it. I was the first speaker on our side, so you and I are both upset. I am sure Nick is very happy, though, Ms Crozier. But we are talking about a very serious matter here.

The Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 that we passed yesterday in this chamber also picked up some of the recommendations following the Tanya Day inquest. It was very good to receive support from across the chamber for those measures. Abolishing the offence of public drunkenness was another key recommendation of that inquest. That law that played an undeniable role in the death in custody of a Yorta Yorta, Wemba Wemba and Barapa Barapa woman, Aunty Tanya Day. The Allan Labor government is committed to decriminalising public intoxication and implementing a public health model to ensure that those intoxicated in public can access the health care and the support that they need.

The coroner’s findings state:

Ms Day’s death was … preventable had she not been arrested and taken into custody.

And:

… there was no justification for the offence of public drunkenness to remain in the Summary Offences Act 1966 some 30 years after the RCIADIC had recommended its abolition.

As Mr Batchelor said, that is now 32 years ago. Her death was a tragedy and a systematic failure that needs to be addressed. We must abolish this offence, as has been legislated, prioritising a health-focused response.

Ms Watt talked in very moving detail about that last day that Ms Tanya Day had, that last train trip that she did not know would be her last train trip. I will not talk through that again, because I do not think I can give it the same justice Ms Watt did, but it is a fact that we saw the discrimination in this law have a most awful, awful consequence on that day back in 2017. Ms Day’s uncle, as others have also said in this chamber, Mr Harrison Day, had also died in custody in 1982 from an epileptic fit in an Echuca police cell after being arrested for a $10 unpaid fine for public drunkenness. Separated by 35 years, these two deaths in the same family, in such similar circumstances, are absolute tragedies that should have been avoided. We cannot have another person die in custody over something that should not even be considered criminal. This is what we have heard loudly and clearly from the Aboriginal community in this state. It is right, and it is right that we fix it. This evidence implores us to act and decriminalise public intoxication. In doing so we acknowledge the past failures of all governments in this state and acknowledge the progress towards future better health outcomes for all Victorians, including – not excluding – our First Nations communities.

As I said, there was significant funding in this year’s state budget for a robust, health-led response to public intoxication, including –

Bev McArthur: Well, put it in place first.

Michael GALEA: It’s in this year’s budget, Mrs McArthur – more than $78 million to deliver the dedicated public intoxication service response to ensure that the right supports are in place when this legislation comes into effect in November and many other things that I would love to talk through. However, my time is limited, so I will reiterate that this is a very significant, overdue and thoroughly practical, thoroughly appropriate change in our legislation come 1 November. It is disappointing to see this motion being put and framed in the way it has been today, and for the reasons I have described, I do not support this motion and do not commend it to the house.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (17:07): I will make my contribution quick. Public drunkenness is one of those things that, when I first joined the police force all those years ago, was explained to me as being created as an offence because they had no other way of getting people to safety. Now, that was a long time ago, and for sure the time has come to fix that. But my problem with the whole thing, and I think I am re-covering what I was saying at the time, is there is no safety net there. There is one place in Collingwood at the moment – there will be more, I know that – but when it is 3 am and you are driving down the road and you have got the drunken guy walking home from the pub and he is wandering all over the place, there is nowhere to take them at the moment unless you are close to Collingwood. They will just have to be left. I think that is the problem with where this is going. It is not a problem that we are getting rid of drunkenness as an offence. For many reasons that have been outlined, it is definitely time for it to go, but I think just doing it before we have something else is going to create more problems than anticipated. I will leave it at that.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:08): Mr Bourman, who has experience in this area as a former policeman, understands exactly what police officers have to deal with all the time. I have just got off the phone from a GP in country Victoria who was telling me about the services that have been cut in the area where he works. He was saying that ambulances now have to be called to take patients an hour away to a hospital in Horsham, Wangaratta or Bendigo because this doctor, under this government, is unable to operate, and the urgent care centre has been shut down. When you have got doctors who need ambulances to transport patients and when you have got such strain on our health services and the government is saying that public drunkenness now becomes a health issue and police do not have any powers to assist, we are just going to exacerbate the issue in health.

That is why it is an idiotic proposal, what this government has done – putting a sobering-up centre in Collingwood, for God’s sake, when this issue is right across the state. I think that is why this motion is important – so that people understand exactly those concerns. Of the very people who are going to be directly affected, Police Association Victoria, the alcohol and drug sector and the ambulance union have spoken out about it. They are speaking out about this policy direction by the government, and there are various members that have talked about various issues. It is not taking away from those issues, but this policy is not going to address the problem, it is just going to create more of a problem. I urge your members to support my motion.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (14): Matthew Bach, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, 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, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.