Submission by Tony Trimingham OAM – Founder and CEO of
Family Drug Support
In responding to the document – “Australia’s National Drug Strategy – Beyond 2009- Consultation Paper’ my initial response is one of disappointment at the potentially lost opportunity to make positive changes in Australia’s drug strategy and policy.
The opportunity to review and change the National Drug Strategy only occurs every 5 years.It is therefore important to take into account the ever changing nature of drug use to ensure the strategy is both relevant and effective. There is also a need for all of us to critically examine the strategy and its outcomes at this time.
I agree that Australia has made significant contributions to the success of reducing harms and damage from drugs – both legal and illegal. Australiahas an international reputation for far reaching and innovative drug strategies, particularly those formulated during the 1980s. However, of late, I believe our international reputation has fallen behind some – particularly European countries; we are seen as ‘standing still’ in regard to reducing drug related harm.
This document strikes me as being particularly bureaucratic in its tone. It takes a position of ‘steady as we go’ and it ignores inclusive elements that have been so successful in other areas of social policy, for examplehuman rights , HIV and AIDS, suicide and mental health. Each of these issues has incorporated partnerships between government agencies andNGOs, and has successfully included the affected communities and their families.
Some statements in the document are debatable orcompletely erroneous, and as a result require correction or at the least clarification, viz:-
- ‘From its early beginnings Australia drug strategy has had strong bipartisan support’.
Whilst there have been times of close co-operation between political parties on some key innovations – e.g.the implementation and continued support for needle and syringe programs - there is also no question that at both Federal and State government levels there have been contradictory views, resulting in diverse policy decisions across the jurisdictions. There have been cases where official policyhas been contradicted. The most obvious example being the ‘The Winnable War on Drugs’ 2007 where the Parliamentary Committee report stated that “the war on drugs is winnable as long as the focus moves away from harm minimization.”This view was supported at the time by the former Prime Minister John Howard who said in Parliament “we will never adopt a harm minimization policy.”
- The implication that law enforcement efforts have been largely responsible for the reduction in the use of drugs in Australia; note especially the statement ‘Law enforcement efforts throughout the 1990’s contributed to a significant decrease in the availability of heroin’. The reality is that heroin use hit an all time high in the 1990’s – price dropped, purity increased andavailability increased. Deaths at this time reached a level of over 1000 per annum[1],as I know only too well from personal experience.
Whilst there have been significant reductions in heroin use since 2000 we still have many more people dying than in the 1980’s.[2]
- The suggestion that Australia’s international contribution and cooperation in the law enforcement arena have been another key factor in the reduction in harm in Australia and regions ignores the contributions made by treatment services andfamily support services.
Australian harm reduction experts continue contributing on the world stage, in regard to HIV and hepatitis efforts. All of the above. I believe, have made more impact than just control efforts. Indeed the co-operation in control in some cases has directly led to Australians facing very harsh sentences for drug offences including death penalties.
4. The statement that Australia has a balanced approach between supply, demand and harm reduction is not true. There is clearly much more expenditure on supply reduction even though evidence exists that demand and harm reduction provide more cost effective outcomes[3][4].
5. The most significant emphasis on the document is that it continues to state that drug issues are still viewed as a crime and justice problem and ignores the fact that most people around the world who work at the coal face agree that it is primarily a health and social issue. It is pointless investing millions in research and then ignoring the evidence!
Not withstanding the above comments there are elements of the policy and the document that I am in agreement with:
a)Legal drugs do the most damage and are the greatest cost to the community. Management of alcohol should be encouraged and expanded.
b)Diversionary approaches have been highly successful and should be expanded.
c)The approach to tobacco should be continued – indeed this provides a very successful model for the control and regulation of other drugs.
d)We should continue to invest in research to provide an evidence base BUT our expenditure on drug research is massive and it is not clear that outcomes from the research are effectively followed through.
e)Cross sectional partnerships should be encouraged and supported – but there is need for better resourcing to ensure successful partnerships.
f)Indigenous Australians need a special focus to reduce drug and alcohol related harms, and community based approaches are essential.
g)We support capacity building as outlined in the document. It is not currently the case that recruitment, retention, employment conditions, funding trends, contractional arrangement, quality assurance, supervision, mentoring, training etc are successfully supported at government levels. Indeed reporting and compliance are onerous for funded NGOs.
h)We strongly support a social inclusion policy –but this needs to be real and effective.
The other major concern for our organisation in this document is the lack of acknowledgement of the impact of drugs on families and the importance of including families in the discussion regarding drug policy. We, and other organisations have proved the effectiveness of family support in positive and successful outcomes. This is supported by research[5].
It may be that the working group preparing this document was over represented with law enforcement and government officers and lacks input from drug users, families, treatment services and NGO’s generally. However, this could be rectified by taking on board the following:
SUGGESTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
- A reduction in the number of strategies.
The need for specific drug strategies, as well as the National Strategy is notarticulated or proven. Surely a separate National Cannabis Strategy is both expensive and unnecessary and funding would be saved by incorporating many of these strategies into the National Strategy.
Change the emphasis from supply and control to prevention and health promotion.
- Make the three pillars a truly balanced approach with a commitment for funding to reflect this balanced approach
- Avoid law enforcement co-operation with regions that employ the death penalty and have guidelines for co-operations that protect Australians from unjust punishment.
- Apply more consistency and co-operation across all jurisdictions by having agreements that require true bi-partisan support. If necessary Federal Government take over responsibility for National policy and implementation.
- Engage consumers, families, treatment and other appropriate NGO’s fully in the formation and ongoing review of drug policy.
- Review and reform the current adversarial and competitive funding process for NGO’s with an emphasis on sustainability and a move away from limited fixed term funding.
- Review current research allocations to ensure that.engagement between researchers and coal face services occurs and that evidence is acted on.
- Ensure that innovation in response to all drugs is encouraged even if not necessarily publically and politically popular.
- Put in place a public education campaign on the meaning and intent of our National Strategy in order to dispel current myths and misinformation. A campaign on the explanation and logic of harm minimization would greatly inform the Australian public.
- Enforce (or at least encourage) a set of media standards to promote the positive reporting and comment on drug issues.
[1] Degenhardt, L., Roxburgh, A. Black, E. & Dunn, M. (2006). Accidental drug-induced
deaths due opioids in Australia, 2004. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.
[2]Ibid.
[3] Beatty, S. & Allsop, B. (2009) Reducing Drug-related HarmWhat the Evidence Tells Us. Melbourne: IP Communications.
[4]McSweeney,T., Turnbull, J. & Hough,M.(2008). Tackling drug markets and distribution networks in the UK. A review of the recent literature. UK Drug Policy Commission
[5]Copello, A., Templeton, L., & Powell, J. (2009). Adult family members and carers of dependent drug users:prevalence, social cost, resource savings and treatmentresponses. UK Drug Policy Commission.