Thursday, 22 February 2024

Decriminalisation of public drunkenness

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:20): (435) My question is for the Minister for Mental Health. It has now been some time since we passed the repeal of public drunkenness laws, and they have now come into effect. Will the minister advise the house of any plans by the government to address the critical gap in the public intoxication reform agenda when a person who is intoxicated in public commits a further offence, such as a violent offence, and must go to a police watch house, none of which will include a health response?

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:20): I thank Mr Bourman for his question and his interest in these important reforms. As the house will recall, these reforms were in direct response to the disproportionate impact that public drunkenness laws had on particularly Aboriginal Victorians, and that is why we were so keen to make sure that we rolled out a health-led response across the state.

Pleasingly, the vast majority of people that our public intoxication services are coming into contact with just need a little bit of support to reconnect with family and to get home safely, and that is predominantly being managed by our outreach teams in both metropolitan and regional Victoria. For a number of people, a smaller cohort who are not in a position to be able to go to a place of safety, there are the sobering-up centres available in Collingwood and in St Kilda for Aboriginal people. They have been operating very well. There are a couple of those already stood up in regional Victoria, and over the coming months other places of safety will be stood up right across the regional footprint of the services that we have funded to deliver this important work.

In relation to any other offence that might be committed, Mr Bourman, it was never the intention of these reforms to override that, and in those circumstances police and emergency services will do their job in accordance with their role. I am not sure if Mr Bourman wanted to provide specific examples that he may have to my office. I am very happy to follow up with him. But it was never the intention of these reforms to override the legitimate role that police have in ensuring that community safety is paramount.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:23): I thank the minister for her answer, but I think she missed the point – the point being that there are circumstances of events that would end up with a person in police custody that is drunk, and there is no help for them.

In 2021 the Police Association Victoria, the Victorian Ambulance Union and the Health and Community Services Union released a widely circulated position paper outlining their members’ grave concerns that a health response has not been implemented in all 24-hour police stations with custodial settings and expressed their fears that this gap in the repeal will lead to deaths in custody. Can the minister explain why, like with the proposed changes in the WorkCover modernisation bill, this government appears to be unwilling to listen to the advice and the concerns of the unions and their members?

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:24): I am not sure that I would agree with the premise of Mr Bourman’s supplementary question. There was extensive consultation with stakeholders before these reforms and indeed the legislation were introduced to the Parliament. Of course a health-led harm reduction approach has always been at the centre of these reforms. Mr Bourman refers to issues that have been raised well ahead of these reforms being finalised and rolled out. Again, if there are specific examples that he is concerned about, I am more than happy to take those details and follow them up.