Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak to this report and to welcome the fact that what we are seeing now is some consideration given to the realities of illicit drug use in Australia. It is a report that really considers the fact that what we are doing when it comes to illicit drugs isn't effective and we need to start considering alternative approaches. We certainly welcome that. We know that the war on drugs isn't a war on drugs; it is a war on people. Those are not just the words of the Australian Greens; in fact, many experts in this area, many drug and alcohol clinicians, many academics and now many law enforcement officers are of the same view.

Ken Lay, for example, a former commissioner in the Victorian police force, made a very strong statement when he was charged with leading the National Ice Taskforce. He said:

We can't arrest our way out of this problem.

He is absolutely right. Ken Lay is not the only law enforcement officer of that view. Mick Palmer, a former AFP commissioner, also strongly believes that, despite the fact that he was responsible for taking a tough-on-drugs approach to illicit drug use, in fact in many areas it was counterproductive. He is now a strong advocate for harm minimisation and, indeed, for the removal of criminal penalties associated with illicit drug use.

The National Drug Strategy, which was very overdue, it must be said, when it was finally released, is referenced in the committee report. It's a crucial step in starting to address some of the issues associated with the use of ice.

I understand that the committee are now planning a further trip to Portugal. It is largely because most of the experts in this area told the committee that the harm of ice and other illicit drugs might be reduced if we took a more evidence-based approach, such as the approach that has been adopted in Portugal. Portugal had a big problem with the use of heroin in the late nineties. They had many people overdosing from heroin. They tried to get tough on drugs—they had a very strong law-and-order approach to the use of illicit drugs—and the problem got worse. They sought the advice of experts: drug and alcohol doctors, people in the social services space, academics, judges and others. The result there was that this expert committee told them, 'We don't think criminal penalties are the answer here. It drives the problem underground. It doesn't stop drug use. It diverts resources away from treatment to the prosecution of a war that can't be won.' So, since 2001, Portugal has treated drug use in a way that most countries who understand this problem do—that is, that it must be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one. But it wasn't just that; there were a number of other strategies put in place at the same time.

The removal of criminal penalties associated with personal drug use—and, let's remember, there were still strong criminal penalties for individuals who trafficked commercial quantities of drugs—was also coupled with a huge expansion in drug treatment, harm reduction services and other support services, such as housing, employment pathways and so on. The result is very clear. It's reduced the burden on the criminal justice system. It's reduced drug related deaths. They have seen a significant decline in problematic drug use, particularly intravenous drug use.

I visited Portugal in 2015. I spoke to many experts in this field—I spoke, in fact, to the architect of the policy in Portugal—and I was privileged to see up close the success of the approach that Portugal took when it came to illicit drug policy. I really encourage the committee to go there with an open mind and to start to change the conversation that we're having in this country about how we deal with a very, very difficult problem.

I don't come at this from the perspective that illicit drugs are harmless. I worked as a drug and alcohol doctor. I treated people every day who came to serious harm as a result of drugs, both legal and illegal—from alcohol to cannabis, heroin, prescription opiates, ice and other novel, new and emerging synthetic drugs. But what I did see was that what we were doing wasn't helping in many areas. In fact, there is a desperate shortage of treatment places for people because so much of our effort is directed at prosecuting individuals rather than helping them. Even this week, in the parliament, I moved a very simple motion on International Overdose Awareness Day calling for basic harm reduction strategies to be put in place, like many of those in the government's own National Drug Strategy. Disappointingly, both Labor and the Liberals banded together to vote against it, really saying to the community that they don't care about the evidence and they don't care about the lives that are needlessly lost thanks to our current policies, which divert money away from where we need it. I thought it was a great shame. Here was an opportunity to start supporting the things that we know work.

Just last week, I joined my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert in hearings to examine the government's proposal to drug-test recipients of income support. Here we were, with a committee, taking evidence from a range of witnesses—experts in their field, right across the board, who are there at the coalface seeing people with these problems. Yet we have members of the government ignoring the advice of experts, with one of them saying that drug-testing is a positive initiative. Then, at the same time, we've got a committee going to Portugal. Which one is it? Let's start recognising that, if we are going to follow the evidence, it's time to follow the evidence and put partisan ideology aside.

We Greens are very proud to be a party in the parliament that's taken on this issue for a number of years. We have done it despite the fact that we have been attacked by some elements of the media and, indeed, by some people on the conservative side of politics. We do it because it is so critical that we put ideology and politics aside and start pursuing the evidence. Australia had an incredibly proud track record of progressive drug policy that reduced harm, which in fact led the world. It must be said that, during the Hawke era, we saw the then health minister convene a group of experts to look at how to respond to the issue of HIV and hepatitis C transmission among injecting drug users. They proposed needle and syringe exchanges at a time when policies like that were unheard of. Good on them, because as a result of that Australia took strong and decisive action to reduce the transmission of blood-borne viruses among injecting drug users, while other countries around the world saw rates of those illnesses skyrocket amongst that community.

We also had proposals for medically supervised injecting centres. Indeed, we had the Kings Cross centre established, with great results. It is a great shame, though, that in Victoria, where a proposal for a medically supervised injecting centre has been on the cards in Richmond for many years now, we saw the Labor government just today refuse to accept a positive proposal for a trial for 18 months of a medically supervised injecting facility. We were on the verge of a medically supervised trial of heroin in 1999, supported by all state governments. Indeed, it was supported by the then Labor opposition and supported by the Liberal health minister. It was John Howard who prevented that trial from going ahead.

So, Australia has a strong and proud track record of governments taking action, of being prepared to lead the world when it comes to evidence based approaches, even though they may be controversial at the time. Let's renew that push. Let's get back on track. Let's recognise that what we are doing isn't working, that our war on drugs is a war on people and that we have to make the threshold decision to treat this as a health issue, not a criminal one. If we do that, we will save lives. We will make sure that we can invest in those areas that work. Let me say as Leader of the Australian Greens: I will do everything I can to make sure Australia takes that approach. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.