Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I present the committee’s report on its inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in Australia, together with evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—I believe the committee has sought to present a balanced report. Inevitably, in a report of this nature on the Australian Crime Commission, the focus is on the national law enforcement environment, its agencies, strategies and legislative initiatives, and much of the report concerns supply reduction. In that regard there are a number of important recommendations—for example, an emphasis on supporting Project STOP, in recommendation 12; that there be a standard data dictionary and consistency in collection of analysis of data between the Commonwealth and the states, in recommendations 3 and 15; and that there be a nationally coordinated response to new and emerging telecommunications strategies used by organised criminal networks.

The report also addresses the focus of the National Drug Strategy, the overarching strategy under which we need to evaluate our responses to the problem of drugs in our community. That strategy is not aimed at the unachievable goal of eradication of illicit drugs. That point is made at paragraph 3.4 of our report. The National Drug Strategy 2004-09, endorsed by the government, is set out in detail at paragraph 3.6 of our report. In short, there are three elements: firstly, supply reduction strategies; secondly, demand reduction strategies; and, thirdly, harm minimisation strategies. This report draws attention to the imbalance between the funding and resources going into supply reduction strategies—that is, the law enforcement side—opposed to those going to demand reduction and harm minimisation. In that regard, the report makes a number of specific recommendations. For example, recommendation 5 states:

… that public education and demand reduction … be factual, informative and appropriately targeted … seeking input from young people …

Recommendation 6 suggests:

… harm-reduction strategies … receive more attention and resources.

If you can conceptualise the National Drug Strategy a three-legged stool, with each leg supporting an overarching objective of minimising the harm from drugs in our community, then presently the balance does not reflect what would be the most effective response.

This morning I had the opportunity to go to the launch of CADETLiFe, a program which is addressing problems within the cadets. One of the focuses was youth suicide, which has been a blight not just in this country but also in other countries. Those presenting stressed the importance of organisations committing to programs to build resilience and connectedness contrasted with expulsion and exclusion. Of course, there is a place for expulsion, exclusion and punishment for those involved in serious and organised crime; I do not back away from that. But it is ridiculous and impossible to deal with the over 30 per cent of Australians—our children, people we know, some parliamentarians and people in all walks of life—who have used illicit drugs for personal reasons and do not conceptualise themselves as criminals. Indeed, our law enforcement system would grind to a halt were we ever to operate in that way.

We have seen a firestorm of controversy over drug use in the AFL recently. All I wish to say in that regard is that the danger of making scapegoats and isolating people as if they are particular targets for exclusion from our society has to be resisted. Young people are risk-takers. What we need to do is to build those capacities of resilience and connectedness. I hope that those who may have come into some difficulty with managing their use of illicit drugs are assisted to get their lives back on track. But it is not just in the AFL; in every walk of life now, young people are involved. In the military, and even in our agencies that require top secret positive vetting, we have stopped insisting on excluding people with prior drug use. Don Stewart, the former and first chair of the National Crime Authority, has pointed out that we need to focus on a medical approach, which enables people to be rehabilitated into the community, and that zero tolerance has been a dramatic failure. The balance has been wrong, and I hope that the committee’s report will be a positive contribution to a more balanced approach to this debate. (Time expired)

See this speech in context