I speak against the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Kings Cross and Railways Drug Detection) Bill 2012. My colleague Mr David Shoebridge dealt with this bill in detail and I support his very good words. I shall comment generally on the worrying indication of the Government’s less-than-solid commitment to harm minimisation. It is extremely disappointing that with this bill the Government takes the proven-to-be-ineffective law and order approach to illicit drugs in our community even further. Any drug law enforcement is best targeted at the big fish—the large-scale dealers and importers—who make big bucks out of the misery of addicts, some of whom use the Kings Cross injecting centre and the rail system, about which many members have spoken today. The bill does the exact opposite to supporting an evidence-based health policy.

This bill is more about appeasing opposition from extreme influences in our current Parliament to the injecting centre, which has been hugely successful in saving lives and improving community amenity than about cleaning up the Cross or fighting the phoney war on drugs. In April I asked the police Minister whether any cost-benefit analysis had been conducted of the Government’s law enforcement measures regarding illegal drugs. My question was in response to the release of the Australia21 report on illegal drugs, co-sponsored by former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Palmer and several leading experts in the field, which found that the war on drugs is “killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen”. The police Minister pretty much mocked the report. I read an extract from his response about the cost-benefit analysis, which I received in May:

The New South Wales Police Force will not relax its fight against illicit drug crime. The New South Wales Police Force is using a range of law enforcement measures to target criminals who profit from the illegal drug trade, the manufacturers of dangerous drugs concocted in backyard laboratories and the major importers and dealers bringing in illegal drugs from overseas.

Does this bill demonstrate this attitude? No, it does not. The Minister, in his response, went on to claim that the police are delivering results on illegal drugs. The Minister spoke about various big drug hauls, such as Strike Force Zambesi, which seized over 10,000 cannabis plants, and many other drug hauls. We hear about these raids from time to time. We know these highly publicised raids are nothing other than attempts to appease the public, to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, and say to them that when it comes to the war on drugs the police are doing something and they are winning. But we know that these raids are nothing but a drop in the ocean of the amount of illicit substances that are bought, sold and used in New South Wales every day.
<12>
What are the costs of these enforcement measures? What are the benefits when those drugs that are about to hit the streets are then very quickly replaced? What are the costs and benefits of the so-called war on drugs, including the expansion of the sniffer dog program that the House is debating today, compared to spending that same amount of money running extensive harm minimisation programs? Members of the community are always hearing about “record hauls” and of drug confiscations but where is the reduction in the long-term supply of drugs on the streets? There might be a short-term drop in the supply of some drugs after police confiscation but the demand is soon met by those who literally make a killing out of the Government’s most dismal failure—its failed and phoney war on drugs.

All members are aware of the widespread nature of illegal drug use. Earlier in this debate Mr David Shoebridge commented on the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and the impact that that has on the streets of Kings Cross. It is well known that legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription medications have enormous ramifications and the health costs to society are great. An unimaginable amount of money is made from the sale of illegal drugs and people will go to any lengths to make that money. It is painfully clear that no cost-benefit analysis of responses to illegal drugs has been done in this State. If one has been done this Government and previous governments clearly have ignored any findings, as the results of such a cost-benefit analysis would be damning. A United States study in the early 1990s found that the return on investment of one American dollar to curb the cocaine epidemic was as follows: coca plant eradication 15¢; United States Customs and Police 52¢; and $7.46 for the treatment of cocaine users. The return on harm minimisation measures was about 14 times more effective than the return for law and order measures. The study also found that the United States Government allocated 93 per cent of resources to drug law enforcement and 7 per cent to drug treatment and that resources similar to that were allocated in Australia.

It is surprising that this Government does not want to know the cost-benefit analysis figures for New South Wales. What would be the benefit to society of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on drug law enforcement? The only visible outcome would be if the Government said, “Gee, are we not doing a great job?” That statement belies the fact the drugs are still rife in society. Every few weeks the Government wheels out its tough law enforcement measures and says, “Look at what we are doing to address this problem.” This bill will make it easier to lock up drug users and addicts but it will do nothing to reduce drug supply or the harm that is caused to those who use drugs. Sniffer dogs are about targeting small time and vulnerable users. This Government wants to be seen as addressing the problem but it does not have the courage to do so. Sniffer dogs are an immensely expensive failure in addressing the harm that is caused by illegal drugs. Sniffer dogs are a substitute to the Government taking action that will make a difference to people’s lives. The Australia21 report states:

Large amounts of public funds are allocated to a failed law and order approach to drug use. These resources would be better directed to managing drug use as a health and social issue as we do with nicotine and alcohol.

Unsurprisingly, the bill ignores this advice and advice from experts globally. This bill is another disgraceful piece of legislation from a Government that is hell-bent on ignoring evidence and science. This Government is hell-bent on appeasing extreme conservative interests at the expense of the community and common sense. The Greens oppose this bill.

NSW Greens MP and spokesperson on drugs and harm minimisation Cate Faehrmann has reiterated the Greens call for drug law reform including removing criminal sanctions for personal use,  backing prominent Australians and experts who have today declared the “war on drugs” a failure.

“Removing criminal sanctions for personal use has been Greens policy for over a decade. Our policy of harm minimisation is based on evidence instead of on hysteria and the scaremongering of politicians who have their heads in the sand about the extent of the harm caused by current drug policies,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“The Greens have taken a beating in the media for our science-based approach to harm caused by illegal drugs and alcohol, but the evidence is overwhelming: the war on drugs is a dismal failure and the best way to reduce the harm to our society is to redirect efforts from law enforcement to harm reduction and prevention.

“Nicholas Cowdery is spot on: removing criminal sanctions is a first step. We need to be investing much more in the harm reduction measures that are proven to work.

“The Greens support criminal penalties for dealers and the crime bosses who profit from people’s misery. However to throw the book at kids and the disadvantaged for personal use is not cost effective, increases related crime, harms young people, and risks corruption in law enforcement officials.

“People are suffering as a result of politicians’ refusal to accept the overwhelming evidence in favour of reform,” said Ms Faehrmann.

 

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

There are growing expectations that governments will respond harshly and swiftly to the latest allegations of human trafficking and sex slavery.

As lawmakers however, we need to ensure that pressure to address these injustices does not lead to us creating a more dangerous working environment for the vast majority of Australia’s sex workers who perform their work safely and legitimately.

Placing tough restrictions on, or criminalising, the industry is not the answer.

The model for sex industry regulation that is increasingly being recognised as world’s best practice for both the human rights and health outcomes for sex workers and their clients is decriminalisation. Both New South Wales and New Zealand’s sex industries are decriminalised.

The current NSW framework was the result of many drivers for change, not least of which was the Wood Royal Commission and the recognition that in a criminalised environment, brothel operators and sex workers had strong motivation to seek out the protection of organised crime and corrupt law enforcement.

Even more importantly, decriminalisation removed the fear of being reported to police and allowed sex workers better access to the kind of health and information services other workers take for granted.

NSW is now a respected world leader with outstanding health achievements such as a 99 per cent rate of condom use amongst sex workers and lower rates of sexually transmitted infections amongst sex workers than in comparable groups in the general community.[1]

These health outcomes are thanks to the work of organisations such as the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP).  SWOP run a variety of health promotion programs and provide outreach to sex workers. They also work with owners to encourage the acceptance and maintenance of safe sex practices, and other forms of workplace health and safety.

SWOP, Scarlet Alliance and other sex industry health experts are alarmed at new speculation the NSW Government will legislate for a ‘Brothel Licensing Authority’. [2] The evidence against licensing is overwhelming, and we need to slow down and carefully consider what outcomes we want to achieve and how to achieve them.

Licensing schemes create a two-tiered system of legal and illegal brothels, increase illegal sex work, drive workers underground and reduce access to health services and law enforcement. In many cases, licensing will make monitoring of brothels and support for sex workers more difficult, not less.

Currently, brothels are a legitimate commercial land use, and regulated by local government through environmental planning laws. This means organisations like SWOP and the police can easily gain access to most sex workers.

Consider the impact on community health and organised crime if NSW went the way of Queensland where 90% of the sex industry is unlicensed and therefore unregulated, illegal and driven underground.[3]

Globally, the UN is advocating decriminalisation to remove obstacles to effective HIV prevention.[4] In NSW the 2001 ‘Brothels Task Force’ said “… care must be taken to ensure that planning controls do not create barriers to the implementation of effective public health policies and services directed at sex workers in all facets of the sex industry.”

One recent study from 2010, a collaboration between sexual health experts at the Sydney Sexual Health Centre, the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre and others, assessed the impact of the law on the delivery of health promotion and found that brothel licensing results in the unlicensed sector being isolated from peer education and support.[5]

NSW must avoid a knee-jerk and poorly considered reaction to the appalling crime of sexual slavery, which exists globally regardless of licensing schemes.

Police efforts are better placed investigating and prosecuting sexual slavery and human trafficking, which are already serious crimes, than enforcing new laws which make new criminals. Sexual slavery is a crime – sex work is not.

Similarly, the government should be looking at ways to address the sometimes arbitrary and inconsistent implementation of existing sex industry guidelines across local government, rather than making criminals out of currently law abiding citizens.

The evidence shows that brothel licensing in NSW could have the opposite effect of what is intended. The bottom line is that a licensing scheme is likely to reduce community health, put sex workers in more danger of violence and fail to reduce human trafficking.

---

[1] Donovan, B., Harcourt, C., Egger, S., & Fairley, C. K. (2010). Improving the health of sex workers in NSW: maintaining success. NSW Public Health Bulletin, 21, 74–77.

[2] Sex Workers Outreach Project, Media Release http://www.swop.org.au/sites/default/files/Brothel_Licencing.pdf

[3] A Schloenhardt & Human Trafficking Working Group, Happy Birthday Brothels: Ten Years of Prostitution Regulation in Queensland, (2009).

[4] UNAIDS, Guidance Note on HIV and Sex Work, (2009).                                                                              
& UNAIDS, Report on the global AIDS epidemic 2010, Chapter 5, p137.

[5] C Harcourt, J O’Connor, S Egger, et. al., ‘The decriminalisation of prostitution is associated with better coverage of health promotion programs for sex workers’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol 35 (5), (2010).

Information reported in today’s Sydney Morning Herald about an explosion in “legal highs” relates to the global campaign for governments to recognise that the so-called “war on drugs” has failed and to use evidence-based policy to address the growing harm caused by dangerous drug use. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that backyard developers are using old research papers and patent applications to find slightly different molecular structures and new drugs that are then bought and sold on the Internet. Changing just one carbon of a chemical compound can mean a new drug is developed. Peter Vallely, a special investigator from the Australian Crime Commission, believes only the “very tip” of an explosion in new drugs has been recognised.

Meanwhile, on 2 June this year the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a groundbreaking report at a press conference and teleconference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City. The global commission’s call for action includes alternatives to incarceration and greater emphasis on public health approaches to drug use, but also decriminalisation and experiments in legal regulation. The commission is the most distinguished group of high-level leaders ever to call for far-reaching changes on drug policy. The group includes former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, former United States Secretary of State George P. Shultz, the Prime Minister of Greece, George Papandreou, many other former and current heads of state and other notable dignitaries, social justice advocates and entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson.

The executive director of the global advocacy organisation Avaaz, meaning “voice”, with its nine million members worldwide, has mounted a campaign in support of the global commission’s recommendations that will be given to the United Nations Secretary General. Last time I checked their petition it numbered 647,773 people. To quote the former President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is also the commission’s chair:

Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s global war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed. Let’s start treating drug addiction as a health issue, reducing drug demand through proven educational initiatives and legally regulating rather than criminalising cannabis.

The commission’s recommendations include: ending criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others; encouraging experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs, especially cannabis, to undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of citizens; ensuring that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada; and applying human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of the illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers.

Why do we need to change the way we manage drug use in our society? Because the way we are managing it clearly is not working. The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and communities around the world. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy reveals the increase in use between 1998 and 2008 for cannabis was 8.5 per cent, for opiates it was 34.5 per cent and for cocaine it was 27 per cent. Vast expenditures on criminalisation and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV-AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.

Given the ever-growing body of evidence demonstrating the lack of impact of current drug policies and strategies on the overall scale of illegal drug markets, and the growing awareness of the negative side effects of these strategies on health and social welfare, it could be seen as surprising that most policy makers continue to support the current war on drugs approach. In Western democracies with decades of experience in drug policy design and review most political rhetoric continues to focus on the need to maintain resolve, or to strengthen commitment, or to clamp down on some new drug or pattern of use or supply.

The Global Commission on Drugs believes that there needs to be reform in how we view drug users. Overwhelming evidence from Europe, Canada and Australia now demonstrates the human and social benefits both of treating drug addiction as a health rather than as a criminal justice problem and of reducing reliance on prohibitionist policies. Any progress made in finding better ways of dealing with drug problems has not been by additional prohibition measures but by harm minimisation. What some politicians refer to as “tough on drugs” is actually tough on the victims of drug use, tough on their families, and tough on law enforcement and health budgets. New South Wales should be heeding the informed and science-based approach being advocated by the global commission. We should not only maintain but develop new harm minimisation strategies. We should break the taboo on public debate and reform, scrap the supposedly hardline measures that simply do not work, and admit the phoney war on drugs cannot be won.