11th of September 2024, 12:34pm
Legislative Council of Victoria, Melbourne.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):
My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Accidental drug overdose deaths claim close to 2000 lives each year in Australia, with opioids the most commonly involved. With potent novel synthetic opioids like nitazenes reaching our shores, that number will increase exponentially.
Naloxone is a life-saving medication that can rapidly reverse the effects of opioid overdose. Queensland has become the latest state to train and equip its police officers to administer naloxone.
The move follows a similar statewide trial in Western Australia, which saw naloxone added to the Western Australian police force toolkit. We hope to see Victorian police similarly equipped with this life-saving treatment in due course.
However, as emergency workers are increasingly being called out to drug overdoses, I ask the minister: will the government consider equipping all frontline emergency workers with naloxone?
Jaclyn SYMES (Minister for Emergency Services):
I thank Mr Ettershank for his question. Look, it is a really important issue, and obviously you would be well aware of the work that Minister Stitt is doing in this space, with significant announcements this week and including legislation that will facilitate naloxone being available in vending machines for community use and the like. Your specific question is about frontline emergency workers.
You have reflected on other jurisdictions and Victoria Police, but in relation to my role as Minister for Emergency Services, frontline workers would be confined to firefighters. FRV’s 85 current stations are emergency EMR units – emergency medical response units. There are so many acronyms in ES. So they are already trained to deliver first aid and CPR and respond to instances where they may hear that somebody is unconscious and the like.
They are not currently permitted to administer any form of medication, and that extends to EpiPens et cetera. The restrictions or the protocols that inform FRV firefighters’ ability to conduct activities under EMR are a matter for AV, and there is an advisory committee that looks at these issues. The issue you raised is an important issue, it is a contemporary issue, and I know that there are these types of conversations going on, but it is AV that sets those protocols.
It would be a matter for the Minister for Ambulance Services to directly respond to the specifics of your question, but I hope that my explanation of how it all fits in gives you some guidance in relation to how it works and some comfort in the fact that, given the government’s commitment to addressing drug-related harm, these are matters that many people are having conversations about. It is not directly within the remit of the Minister for Emergency Services, although in my role I would welcome conversations along the lines that you have presented.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):
I thank the minister for her response. My supplementary question may be better addressed to a different minister, but I will be guided by the Attorney on this one. Under Victoria’s good Samaritan legislation, naloxone can be legally administered by a bystander to treat a potentially fatal overdose.
However, there are inconsistencies in the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority’s indemnity advice to harm-reduction organisations as to whether the administration of this overdose-reversal drug is part of their core business.
Organisations are advised that non-clinical workers administering naloxone may not be covered by professional indemnity in the event of an adverse outcome unless they have called 000 first and spoken to an emergency services operator. Now, this is often not viable. With novel synthetic opioids even a 30-second delay can lead to death or permanent injury.
So I ask: what is the government doing or what can the government do to ensure that non-clinical harm-reduction workers are indemnified when administering naloxone?
The PRESIDENT:
Before I call the minister, you may be right, Mr Ettershank, that your question could be better directed to a different minister, but I will let the minister respond and maybe offer information outside the standing orders.
Jaclyn SYMES (Minister for Emergency Services):
I appreciate that, President. That is where I was going to go. I think for your first question, although it did not necessarily fit within the remit of the Minister for Emergency Services, hopefully I gave you enough of an answer to acquit that even though it would have been for the Minister for Ambulance Services.
In relation to your supplementary, that is, in my view – and I think the President agrees – more appropriately directed to Minister Stitt. Given I answered your first one, I cannot refer it to her, so outside the standing orders I am pretty sure Minister Stitt would be happy to have a chat to you.
[ENDS]
