Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (16:17): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion, which is being debated today. This is something which I dare say I have a bit of credibility in speaking about— not on the drug-taking side of it but on the other side of the fence. One of the larger operations which I was involved with prior to my departure from the police service to join this chamber was at a large music festival. I was on the entrance gates, working in a large team of police officers, including police dogs, and searching thousands and thousands of cars coming through those gates. It was quite a labourintensive day. I recall it was very dusty and very hot—over 40 degrees—and very taxing on all those involved. There we all were, out in our full gear and garb, trying to detect drugs as best we could. I note also that the dogs we used—and I have got to defend the dogs. I know that Ms Patten did say that dogs do not work. I think that was in relation to the music festivals, but in their defence the drug dogs do work. I have had very close experiences with them detecting a number of drugs in my time of conducting warrants through houses and so forth. Yes, they also have detected drugs at music festivals, but the issue here is: is this the best thing we can be doing in detecting drugs and also in deterring young adults and adults from taking drugs? That is essentially what this motion is about. I note that Mr Gepp made reference to the drug dogs being a key component of the operational requirements, which I totally understand and totally respect, but the point of the motion here, I note, is that it is all about an evaluation of the use of drug detection dogs at music festivals to determine their effectiveness. Mr Limbrick has a habit of raising matters for debate in the chamber which seem largely understandable but sometimes leave me feeling slightly hesitant to support, I must say. But in this instance I am glad to say that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will be supporting Mr Limbrick’s motion, which acknowledges that the use of drug detection dogs and current drug policing operations which target drug users and low-level offenders could be done in a better space, which I agree with. While I am hesitant to support any motion which may seem to criticise the processes undertaken by our police services, there are obvious concerns about the way that police currently monitor and detect drugs which are coming into festivals. While pill testing may not be the answer, there is an obvious need for a more innovative police strategy, I believe, which treats drug trafficking as a criminal matter but drug use as a health matter. In my experience in searching vehicles with drug dogs, going through the musical festivals—like I said, with thousands and thousands of people and so forth—it was quite unsuccessful when I was doing it, I must say. I also note that although we stopped many, many cars coming through our entrance, there was also a side entrance which all the roadies, all the band members and all the staff were using, and intelligence seemed to suggest that there were quite possibly drugs that were going through that channel and which were going through undetected. So the whole process was, as I said, very labour intensive and possibly not the best use of police resources. I would also like to note that I do not entirely agree with the motion’s reference to punitive and intensive drug policing or operations and that our vote on this motion is not an indication of the party’s view on pill testing or alternative drug policing methods. The New South Wales coronial inquest into festival deaths, which was completed this year, has understandably welcomed a number of varied colourful responses from the community. Commentary surrounding drug use and potential legislative responses will always be a motive, but an objective and evidence-based mindset should be taken to any discussion of public health and safety. On that note I commend this motion to the house.