Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission entitled Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) in Australia. This report is very timely. I have only recently joined the committee and so was not able to participate in the hearings, but as the report was in draft form, I looked back through the transcripts and submissions. It is obviously an important topic. How best we deal with the social and personal harm, and indeed the economic harm, caused by illicit drug use in Australia is a vexed question which many of us wrestle with. This report makes a valuable contribution. I emphasise it is a unanimous report by 10 members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives from across a range of political parties and personal views relating to illicit drugs. That is why the report as a whole may not reflect each individual person’s view in a precise form but the fact that such a diverse range of people could come up with a unanimous report that makes some important recommendations gives it extra weight.

The recommendation around pill testing to which Senator Ian Macdonald drew attention, recommendation 7, is important. As the chair of the committee, Senator Ian Macdonald, indicated, a number of members of the committee are not yet convinced that such programs would work, given some of the hurdles in the way, but the recommendation that was adopted is that we should monitor any work in this area and assess the evidence. Frankly, I think that is the best approach. I have a view that pill testing offers some good potential but the evidence provided to the report throws up some potential risks as well. We cannot just naturally assume that this is a perfect approach, that this will work; that everybody who is against it is just a fuddy-duddy or a moralist. We have to accept that it does have potential problems built into it. The only way to find out is to monitor how it works, if it is implemented. Certainly there are feasibility studies around this in Victoria. It is very important that the committee adopt a unanimous recommendation that the progress of that study be monitored and the outcomes independently evaluated. We should all take on face value whatever evidence comes out of an activity like that and other ones.

While I do not condone illicit drug use, it is necessary for all of us to accept that the use of such substances is widespread in our society. There are many reasons why people engage in that behaviour. A lot of them are quite understandable and based on the fact that we are human beings and human beings seek out experiences like that. I endorse harm minimisation as a key guiding principle for drug policy. I very much welcome the recommendation in this report that harm reduction strategies and programs receive more attention and resources as part of the National Drug Strategy. Sometimes the slogan of harm minimisation is put up in opposition to law enforcement. I do not think they necessarily have to be seen as parallel opposites. It is a matter of different areas of emphasis, I believe.

One of the valuable aspects of the process of this inquiry, as Senator Ian Macdonald mentioned, was that it did have some input from people in the community who are in the scene, who are drug users, past drug users or know people who are drug users, who were able to give straight information to the committee. I note a very valuable recommendation made in the report—that future public education and demand reduction campaigns seek further input from young people and take account of user experiences. There is no point in a bunch of people like us, who, by and large, do not have a lot of contact with that part of our society, coming up with lots of ideas about what is going to work for people who are users or past users, or are involved or know people involved in that area. We need to hear from people themselves, and they need to be able to be confident in providing that information without thinking that they will get a moral lecture or, indeed, put themselves at some sort of legal risk. Unless we listen to the people who are actually using these substances, we are not going to have a terribly good idea of how to make them more aware of some of the risks and also make ourselves more aware of what types of campaigns may work.

The fact that Senator Ian Macdonald participated in a session on Triple J was particularly valuable. Frankly, I believe we need to be looking at doing more of that sort of thing. Accurate and credible information is an essential aspect of harm minimisation. Overblown scare campaigns, big moralising lectures and major headlines creating moral panic are not going to work. I suspect that, in many cases, they will create a bigger problem. We need to have accurate and credible information and treat this as a health issue, not just a law enforcement issue or some sort of moral issue. People across society make all sorts of personal judgements about what legal drugs they use and do not use. I think we could do with a lot more accurate information about the potential risks of those as well.

Accurate information is essential not only to the appropriate targeting of efforts, but also it raises public confidence. I believe that policies and practices based on emphasising harm minimisation will reduce drug related harm both to individuals and to the wider community. Whilst recognising that in most respects ultimate harm minimisation is the avoidance of illicit drugs, an understanding of the risks associated with drug use allows people to make informed choices while taking into account the genuine risks associated with drug use, which do vary from circumstance to circumstance, from person to person and from substance to substance.

A lack of information or distorted information hinders people’s ability to take responsibility for their choices or to engage in safer practices. That also includes providing accurate information about the harmfulness of substances. Just as I think it is counterproductive to run huge scare campaigns to the effect that going anywhere within 100 miles of a certain substance will lead to certain death, I also think it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous to say that certain substances are completely safe. Anything that creates a false impression that using certain substances is safe is potentially just as dangerous and just as risky as going to the alternative extreme. In order for messages to be credible with drug users and potential drug users, with younger people, and, frankly, with older people who use a range of synthetic drugs, it is essential that risks are acknowledged accurately. Plenty of people engage in risk-taking behaviour that falls within the legal part of the drug use spectrum or, indeed, other activities as well. That includes taking into account the variation in risk associated with different substances.

Misinformation is always the enemy. Not all information is good information. Whether it is exaggeration or understatement of the potentials of drug use, it undermines attempts to educate the community about drug related risks. I believe that the quite sizeable usage of amphetamines and other synthetic drug use in Australia—and Senator Macdonald outlined just how large the usage is—is not going to be curbed just by having some sort of zero tolerance approach or a prohibitionist approach. Successfully altering behaviours and reducing the negative impact on drug users and society as a whole can best be achieved through a genuine harm minimisation approach that ensures the availability of accurate and unbiased information, coupled with strategies that increase the prospect that illicit drug use that does occur is as safe as possible.

Just a week or so ago, we saw reports of the tragic death of a young person who took some sort of drug. I am not even sure if the actual composition of that substance has been determined yet. I am sure some people will use that situation to again call for pill testing so that people who are going to take drugs actually know what it is they are putting into their system. Whilst there is some attractiveness to that proposition—and I still am attracted to it—I would point out that evidence given to the inquiry outlined some potential hurdles. It is not perhaps as straightforward a proposition as it might seem. But I do believe that we need to explore all options further. I think we owe it to our society and to people in the community. We need to do so on the basis of the evidence and look at it as open-mindedly as possible. I think this report does that. As I said, it is a unanimous one, and I join with Senator Macdonald in urging the government to take those recommendations seriously and to respond promptly. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.