On Tuesday, 28 July 2026 I attended the Health and Ambulance Services component of the Health, Environment and Innovation Committee estimates hearings.
I asked the Acting Mental Health Commissioner whether recent legislation banning drug checking is inconsistent with the Department's Alcohol and Other Drugs Plan.
You can read our full exchange below or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings here.
Mr BERKMAN: Acting Mental Health Commissioner, you would be well aware that in the last year the Queensland government has passed laws that ban drug checking or pill testing and narrow the diversion program for minor drug offences. Based on the work that the commission has done, does this contradict the priorities in the government’s five-year Alcohol and Other Drugs Plan such as priority 3 for expanded diversion?
Dr ROWAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: it is a policy question that is being put to the Mental Health Commissioner. I ask you to consider that matter and whether the question needs to be rephrased.
Mr SPEAKER: That is a fair point of order. Member for Maiwar, you either rephrase the question or you address it to the minister.
Mr BERKMAN: Might I just respond to the point of order? The question was: does the legislative change made by the government contradict the priorities in the five-year plan? I would suggest that there is no element of that question that is a policy question. It is a question of fact: is there a contradiction between the two?
Mr SPEAKER: I still think that is policy, member for Maiwar. You can address it to the minister, if you so wish.
Mr BERKMAN: I will rephrase the question. I am mindful of time. Acting Commissioner, based on the work of the commission, is a policing or a punitive response the most effective response to drug misuse and harm amongst young people, or are there alternatives that this government is not currently pursuing that could be more effective?
Dr ROWAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: under standing order 112, the question as framed is seeking an opinion in relation to the Mental Health Commissioner.
Mr BERKMAN: If I might respond, Speaker—
Dr ROWAN: I submit to you, Mr Speaker, the question either needs to be rephrased without the opinion being sought under standing order 112 or, alternatively, ruled out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: It is a fair point, member for Maiwar.
Mr BERKMAN: Again, I am simply seeking the views of the commissioner. It was framed based on the work of the commission. I submit that I am not seeking an opinion. I am seeking the commissioner’s reflections again on government policy and how it is being approached.
Mr MOLHOEK: Point of order, Mr Speaker: it is my understanding we are here to consider budget matters, not policy matters.
Mr SPEAKER: I am still of the opinion it was seeking an opinion on a policy matter.
[my question was ruled out of order]