Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

‘Labor members support the aim of helping those who use to become drug free.’ That is a statement that supports making sure that people do have an opportunity of living a drug-free life, and that should be the aim of every agency and every professional. What we have failed to hear from the Australian Labor Party, particularly the deputy chairman, is that that is their personal goal—that everybody should have the object of becoming drug free at one stage or another in their lives. That should be the goal. That is a life set free. That is a life that is saved permanently. That is the only way; it is the only philosophy that should guide drug programs.

I was part of the committee that presented the Road to recovery report in August 2003. Four years later we have a similar report, The winnable war on drugs. One of the main features in the 2003 report was to have a recovery program for every addict. I believe cannabis was outed for the first time in that report as being a serious problem and an addictive product, particularly the products that are grown under hydroponic circumstances. Cannabis was outed as a serious problem. Also in that 2003 report, there was support given for successful programs and not necessarily the loudest claimants. So the recommendation was that governments look at successful programs, ones that are producing results, rather than funding the loudest claimants.

It was indicated in that earlier report that families are intimately involved in recovery programs and in the management of addicts, and in many instances the responsibilities they accept are absolutely enormous. The report in 2003 indicated that there were inadequate detoxification opportunities and that harm minimisation should be replaced with a focus on harm prevention and treatment of dependent people. A far-sighted proposal was that there should be roadside testing for drug affected drivers.

In this current report being debated by the House, it is appropriate four years later to revisit the same scene. In many areas there had been some growth and improvement; in others, not a lot. The growth in the use of methamphetamines in particular and its impact on families and young people was something that was of great concern to the committee. Methadone remains the main treatment, and the naltrexone trial recommended by that previous committee has only just been commenced. That is a disappointment because, despite the wonderful results of dedicated researcher Dr George O’Neil, little attention has been paid to the processes and funding of that program to determine what is the very best. In the committee’s examination of and visits to the Perth naltrexone centre, I know that I for one was absolutely amazed and delighted with the results. They were not always permanent results, but they were results which could be measured and held and then, over a period of time, people could be set free from drugs.

There are still not enough detoxification opportunities around Australia. It was amazing to us that the National Drug Strategy set by premiers and the Commonwealth cannot be questioned by the body advising the Prime Minister. The advisory body is to give advice to the government; they should not be bound by any particular thing but should be able to give free and frank advice outside the normal approach.

I think that the committee was really taken by the words of Professor Gary Hulse, a professor at the University of Western Australia. Professor Hulse, in reviewing the work that has been done on drugs, mentioned harm minimisation in his comments. He said:

Harm minimisation should be, if anything, a stepping stone to stabilise someone to move them towards abstinence. Getting people out of the narcotic network should be the final objective. I am yet to meet a heroin dependent person who says, ‘I love being where I am. I love doing these things. I love ripping off people. I love having to do tricks for men down the road.’ They love heroin. It is an issue of breaking that nexus. Harm minimisation is very fine. Harm minimisation for those people who relapse is a necessary component, but it should be focused at then trying to shift them along that process back to where they are not using.

That is a fine objective. The committee was particularly taken by the results obtained in Sweden and endorsed strongly by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which Sweden has held up as a most remarkable landmark for their impact on reducing drug use amongst teenagers—from something over 20 per cent down to six per cent. Australia has a figure approaching 30 per cent of use by teenagers, of all drugs. That is one of the highest in the world. We can take a lesson from Sweden. Despite the detractors, they are getting great results. There is wide consensus in Sweden about the overall goal of drug policy. A drug-free society is what they want, and its objectives are to reduce the recruitment of young people to drug use, to enable drug users to stop their drug abuse and to reduce the availability of illicit drugs. That is the goal of Sweden and they are having marvellous success saving lives and giving young people new opportunities.

One of the recommendations of this committee was that naltrexone implants should be made available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and that the success of that program should be monitored. In looking at families in particular, there were many areas where grandparents and kin were taking responsibilities far beyond what was reasonable. It appears that the family authorities in the states have an attitude that children, no matter what damage appears to be done to them, should remain with their mothers and their fathers. A more balanced approach is needed. There is far too much damage being done to children. Speaker after speaker and submission after submission from workers and from foster parents indicated that a more permanent arrangement is far more suitable for children.

Children are growing up in circumstances where they really do not understand the treatment being meted out to them by their parents. In fact, the most recent figures show that of the five-year-old children concerned, more than 50 per cent have had four to five placements with foster parents. So it is a constant movement from one parent to another parent hoping that they will find a solution. Children should not be with parents when they are undergoing treatment. The default proposal put forward in this report is a way of illustrating that, when all else fails, adoption should be considered. Adoption is never considered. Grandparents or kin adoption—to a sister, a brother or grandparents—is a solution that must be to the forefront and is one of the recommendations of this committee. Detoxification and rehabilitation are used and more is needed.

So this report is a worthy addition to known information. It builds on the previous report. It refines some areas. It dwells on families and the role of families. It also dwells on the new drugs that are on the market and the dreadful impact that those drugs are having on the lives of some of our young people. I commend the report. I thank those who participated, despite the differences.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context