On Wednesday 2 April 2025 during Question Time, I asked the Premier about the rise of deadly synthetic opioids and whether he stood by his decision to defund pill testing which is critical for preventing over-dose deaths. You can read my question and his response below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings ("Hansard") here.
Mr BERKMAN: My question is to the Premier. Just last week the Department of Health circulated a clinical alert that warned about the risks of newly detected nitazenes—a strong, deadly new opioid. I table a copy of that alert.
Tabled paper: Document, dated March 2025, titled ‘Queensland Health: ‘Queensland Drug Warning—Clinical Alert’.
With this knowledge, does the Premier stand by the government’s decision to close the state’s only fixed-location drug-checking facility, which is crucial in screening for these novel dangerous drugs and preventing future deaths from nitazene overdose?
Mr CRISAFULLI: I thank the member for the question. It is the first question I have received today from anyone opposite. I thank the member for taking the time. Opposition members interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: All right! We will have silence.
Mr CRISAFULLI: I say to the honourable member: our views on this differ entirely, but I respect very much your right and your belief in asking the question. You asked about whether or not I believe the presence of that drug in water testing shows that we should be allowing testing to occur.
[please note I referred to a recent clinical alert which would have originated form a nitazene hospitalisation or death, not waste water testing]
I take the opposite view: it strengthens my resolve not to allow drugs to be used. I know about the danger of that drug. I have seen images from the streets of Philadelphia about that drug. When I see that and when I see what it does to young people who use it for the first time— there are people who have tried that drug and never left the street corner of Philadelphia. I read a story about a young man and it moved me. He was on his way to work. His partner had separated from him that morning. He chose to stop on that street corner and he never left—he never left.
Whilst I genuinely believe that the member has the right intentions in asking the question—and I do believe that—we could not be more miles apart on our views. I think the moment you send the signal—
Mr BAILEY: It’s based on evidence.
Mr CRISAFULLI: I am sorry—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Government members interjected.
Mr CRISAFULLI: I am sorry, Mr Speaker: there was a member who was warned who was interjecting, and I take the interjection.
Government members: Miller!
Mr SPEAKER: If he did, I missed it. Premier, you have the call. I will be watching who is doing the interjecting.
Mr CRISAFULLI: I take the interjection from the member for Miller. I say to the honourable member—
Mr Power interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: You are warned, member for Logan.
Mr CRISAFULLI: I say to the honourable member: what testing does is send a message that there is a component of drugs that is safe to do, and there is not. Today, by the interjections, those opposite prove that they are on a unity ticket with the Greens on this matter. The difference with the Greens is that they are ready to nail their colours to the mast. We are a long way away from them, but I respect the member for Maiwar for that. As for those opposite, I do not because they walk both sides of the street. They pretend like they are pro law enforcement and then they walk across the road and say, ‘It’s okay to do drugs.’ They pretend like they are tough on crime but then—
(Time expired)