How the media framed the public debate on a second Melbourne injecting room

In April 2024, the Victorian Labor Party government decided not to introduce a second medically supervised injecting room (MSIR) in Melbourne’s CBD.

This policy reversal was contentious for a number of reasons. Two official government reports recommended it, including the official review of the existing injecting room in the City of Yarra in 2023, and later the report by the former police commissioner Ken Lay.

Additionally, there was detailed evidence presented by the Lay report on the rise of overdose deaths and ambulance attendances in the City of Melbourne (COM) that suggested a strong need for a second injecting room.

The number of heroin-related overdose deaths in the City of Melbourne increased from nine in 2021 to 24 in 2022, which was the highest rate of deaths in Victoria. COM also had the second-highest rate of ambulance attendances for heroin overdoses after Yarra.

As part of an ongoing study of media reporting of the MSIR policy debate in Victoria, we examined media reports of the policy backflip. Our general research question was:

“How did the Australian media respond to the Victorian government’s decision to reject a second MSIR?”

Using a combination of Factiva and Google, five publications reported on the MSIR policy decision – two Melbourne newspapers (The Age and Herald Sun) and three national publications (The Guardian online, The Australian, and ABC TV News). Twelve reports appeared on 24 April that we included in our sample. The largest number were in the Herald Sun (five) followed by The Age (three), The Australian (two), and one each in the other two outlets.

Based on the findings of our earlier study, we used the questions outlined below to draw out the perspectives and preferences of these publications concerning the second MSIR.

• What were the key sources of information used by the publications?
• Did they provide a voice for people who inject drugs (PWIDs) who were current or potential users of the injecting room?
• What were the key terms and arguments they used to frame their views of the proposed new site?
• What philosophical perspectives did they present?
• How did these philosophical perspectives inform their view of the strengths and limitations of the injecting room?

The newspapers used a diverse range of sources to inform their analysis. These sources could arguably be divided into eight groups: politicians, addiction experts, traders, the police, pro-MSIR advocacy groups, local residents in North Richmond, local residents from the City of Melbourne, and people who inject drugs.

Politicians across the political spectrum were cited 14 times. They included the Labor Party Premier Jacinta Allan, the Minister for Mental Health, representatives of the Australian Greens, and representatives of the opposition Liberal-National Party Coalition.

Addiction experts (17 in total) included service providers, addiction researchers, and government policy advisers such as Ken Lay.

Traders (nine in total) included representatives of peak industry groups, and local business owners.

There were also two citations from the Police Association, one from a pro-MSIR advocacy group in the City of Melbourne, one from a person who injects drugs, one from a local City of Melbourne resident, and four from anti-MSIR North Richmond residents.

The Age was the only publication to consult a person who injects drugs, basing most of one article on an interview with a person they termed a “reformed addict”.

The key terms and language varied considerably based on whether the views presented and sources cited were pro or anti-the decision to reject a second injecting room.

Opponents of a second injecting room emphasised the difficulty in identifying a location that balanced the needs of people who use drugs and the concerns of businesses and the broader community. They praised the decision for hearing the voices of local businesses and residents, recognising the potentially negative impact of a second MSIR on local businesses, residents and tourism, and enabling the restoration of business confidence in the City of Melbourne.

Some critics of the government argued that this was an example of a policy backflip, and policy on the run. Others expressed a preference for the government to allocate resources to support rehabilitation programs.

In contrast, advocates of a second injecting room highlighted evidence that they’re effective in preventing drug-related overdoses and deaths, reducing unsafe injections, providing accessible medical treatment from doctors and nurses to people who inject drugs, saving lives, and achieving better health and social outcomes.

They attacked the decision as “disappointing” and “gutless”, and reflecting a cowardly approach that ignored the likely deaths of people who use drugs, and the adverse impact of overdoses on local community and families.

They argued that people who inject drugs are also human beings, and that the decision protected profits and businesses at the expense of the preservation of lives, and reinforced the stigmatisation of heroin use. They insisted that the City of Melbourne required both a medical injecting room and other specialised treatment services.

Four of the five publications broadly presented a harm reduction perspective in favour of saving the lives of people who use drugs, and advancing the safety of local residents and traders. In contrast, the Herald Sun advocated a prohibitionist-type approach that advanced policing, rehabilitation and abstinence, without a specific emphasis on saving the lives of existing users.

Views on a second MSIR

The publications presented diverse perspectives for and against the rejection of the MSIR. ABC TV News, The Australian and The Age were all relatively balanced in citing almost an equal number of sources from both sides of the debate.

In contrast, The Guardian seemed to present a pro-second injecting room position. Of its nine sources, seven favoured a second injecting room, one was ambivalent, and only the Premier defended the government decision.

The Herald Sun took the opposite view. It cited only two sources who favoured a second injecting room, and 14 sources who supported the government’s decision.

The state government’s decision to reject a second injecting room in Victoria provoked a polarised public debate. Our interrogation of media reporting of that debate identified a number of sources that were used by media outlets, most prominently politicians, addiction experts, traders, and anti-MSIR local residents.

In contrast, only one person who injected drugs was consulted by the media.

Most of the media outlets favoured a harm reduction perspective, and presented a wide spectrum of views for and against the second MSIR. The Herald Sun was arguably an outlier in that it did not endorse harm reduction goals, and consulted a large majority of sources who actively opposed a second MSIR.

The media’s framing of the debate seemed to reinforce the government’s argument that it was not possible to identify a service delivery location and model for a second injecting room that reconciled the needs of people who inject drugs and the concerns of local residents and traders.

Yet, the failure of most of the media to consult people who inject drugs seemed to evade an examination of the likely consequences of that decision for future drug-related deaths and overdoses in the City of Melbourne.

Further research could usefully extend our study to later media reports beyond April 2024 by these same publications on the policy decision, and/or reports by other publications such as local community newspapers and the National Indigenous Times that explored more discrete consequences of the government decision.