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

AECOM has prepared a report for the Office of Environment and Heritage that projects the total health cost of wood smoke to NSW between 2010 to 2030 to be $8bn (NPV).

The report, Economic Appraisal of Wood Smoke Control Measures, AECOM June 2011, was released publically in response to a GIPA Request from Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann.

Download the AECOM the report here.

The report provides a cost benefit analysis that looks at various options and in different combinations to reduce the projected health cost to NSW of wood smoke.

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann said:

“The NSW Government now knows the heavy price tag of doing nothing on wood smoke pollution.”

“The $8 billion figure isn’t surprising when you consider that even in Sydney, more particle pollution is caused by wood smoke during winter than any other source.”

“Taking action now will literally shave millions off the NSW health budget for years into the future.”

“The government now has a range of options to address the problem that are costed and ready to go. At the very least we need a freeze on new installations until new tougher standards are in place.”

“The government should be examining all the options from the AECOM report and fast tracking new measures to reduce the enormous health costs to the community of this pollution,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Cate with former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Marshall Perron

This article was originally published at OpenForum.com.au here.  

At a recent forum I hosted at NSW Parliament, an unprecedented line up of high profile Australians threw their support behind voluntary euthanasia law reform and the rights of the terminally ill.  

Speakers included the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Marshall Perron, former NSW Direction of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdrey, media personalities Richard Ackland, Mike Bowers and Jane Caro as well as the head of the national alliance of Dying with Dignity organisations, Neil Francis.  

This stellar line up is unsurprising, especially when you consider that public support for voluntary euthanasia legislation is at around 85 percent. Why then, you ask, has there been no reform in this area? It is difficult to think of other illegal things with such high levels of approval.  

Unfortunately, many of our politicians are seriously out of touch on this issue. Part of the answer lies in the misinformation that is spread by opponents of dying with dignity legislation, and the moralising of those who are unsure.  

Horror stories about voluntary euthanasia legislation in other jurisdictions are revealed as either straight out fabrications, or gross exaggeration. And schemes in Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and elsewhere have proven extremely successful. In the end, most opposition boils down to differing personal beliefs about right and wrong, not objective evidence.  

The Greens’ Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill would allow terminally ill patients, of sound mind and whose pain and suffering has become unbearable, to voluntarily request and receive assistance from a doctor to end their own lives.  

The bill is all about personal choice. Huge advancements in palliative care have meant that at the end of life most can be comfortable. But unfortunately, around five percent of terminally ill patients suffer excruciating pain that cannot be alleviated. Surely these people should be provided the choice to die with dignity and end their suffering if that is their wish.  

It’s no secret that voluntary euthanasia is already in practice. With the help of sympathetic families and doctors, patients regularly hasten death in order to reduce suffering, putting those they care about and medical professionals at danger of prosecution. It is far better to regulate with stringent safeguards than to leave this practice open to abuse.  

Ultimately, voluntary euthanasia is about empowering the terminally ill to make decisions about their end of life. These are personal decisions: personal choices at an intensely difficult and sacred time. That personal choice should not be impinged upon by those with differing religious and ethical beliefs.  

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.

CATE FAEHRMANN [6.49 p.m.]: Today I address the House on the ever-expanding dental health needs of the people of New South Wales that have been habitually neglected by both State and Federal governments. As of May 2010, there were more than 120,000 people on public dental waiting lists in New South Wales. Over 25,000 of these were children. Sydney west has the second highest waiting list overall and the highest number of children awaiting treatment. This is unacceptable. Oral health is one of the areas of greatest health inequity in New South Wales. People from the lowest socioeconomic groups have fewer teeth, are more likely to have teeth missing, and have poorer oral health outcomes than other groups. In rural and regional areas, people are more likely to have tooth decay and more likely to have no natural teeth, and have less frequent check-ups and fewer preventative treatments compared with urban residents. Aboriginal people suffer significantly higher levels of gum disease and tooth decay, and have greater numbers of missing teeth than the general population.

The majority of oral disease and tooth loss is preventable. A major barrier to addressing dental needs is the provision of preventative or timely dental services. It is abhorrent that the Government fails to provide services that will prevent deterioration in long-term dental health. Surveys conducted between 1994 and 2008 show that just one in two adults made a dental visit in the 12 months before each survey and that in 2008 more than 34 per cent of adults reported that they had avoided or delayed dental care due to cost. Current public sector dental health services are only able to provide episodic service in crisis situations. The public service does not have the capacity to provide follow-up or early intervention and prevention care, which is essential to stop patients’ dental health deteriorating to the point where they require much more painful and expensive crisis care. Between 1989-90 and 2004-05, the rate of hospitalisation for the removal or restoration of teeth in persons aged over 15 years increased by 58.1 per cent and hospitalisation rates for the removal or restoration of teeth among children under the age of five years increased by 68.8 per cent. Hospitalisation rates for the removal or restoration of teeth among children aged five to 14 years increased by 122.9 per cent over the same period.

This is a State responsibility. New South Wales has the lowest public dental funding per capita of any State or Territory. The New South Wales Government will spend just $23.45 per capita on public dental services in 2010-11. There has been no real increase in the New South Wales oral health budget for a number of years. In 2010-11 the budget was $169.4 million, an increase of $5.9 million from the previous year due to Commonwealth Closing the Gap funding. While the Federal Government dithers about introducing a comprehensive dental health scheme and effectively cuts current dental funding the State Government must take action to address the dental needs of the people of South Wales. In the last budget the Federal Government announced that it would be ending funding for the Medicare Chronic Dental Disease Scheme on 31 December 2011 and redirecting funds to a Commonwealth Dental Health Program to be implemented in 2012-2013. Not only does this mean that the Federal Government will be leaving a hole in funding for dental services between 1 January 2012 and 1 July 2012, but also the funds that have been allocated for this program are significantly less than under the Medicare Chronic Dental Disease Scheme.

In 2009-10 over 2.3 million dental services were provided to patients in New South Wales under the Chronic Dental Disease Scheme. According to the 2011 budget papers, proposed funding to New South Wales for a “National Partnership on Commonwealth Dental Health Program” will provide $93 million over three years. In comparison, over the first nine months of the current financial year a total of approximately $276 million has been paid for the treatment of patients under the Chronic Dental Disease Scheme. In essence, this will be a funding shortfall of between $240 million and $279 million. As a result of this reduction in funding it is inevitable there will be increasing pressure on public dental services provided by the New South Wales Government, which will increase waiting lists and mean that even more people in this State will miss out on the dental care they need. The New South Wales Government must implement a short-term solution to mitigate the impact on public dental services until an agreement on Commonwealth reform is reached in 2012-13.

The NSW Legislative Council has passed a motion moved by Greens MP and dental health spokesperson Cate Faehrmann, calling on the government to increase dental health spending and to address inequities in the delivery of services.

“Having bad oral health is linked with other serious diseases, ability to find employment, general well-being and mental health,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“Tooth decay is one of Australia’s most costly diseases, ahead of coronary disease, hypertension and diabetes. It has wide ranging and significant impacts in the community, and hits those from the lowest socioeconomic groups, as well as regional areas, the hardest.

“The Australian Greens have a comprehensive plan for a national ‘denticare’  scheme, but the NSW Government shouldn’t be shirking on its responsibilities in this area. NSW has the lowest public dental funding per capita of any state or territory,” said Ms Faehrmann.

The full text of the motion, passed by the NSW Legislative Council, is copied below.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

42. Ms Faehrmann to move—

1. That this House notes that:

(a) oral health is one of the areas of greatest health inequity in New South Wales,

(b) people from the lowest socioeconomic groups have fewer teeth, are more likely to have

all of their teeth missing, and have poorer oral health outcomes than other groups,

(c) in rural and regional areas people are more likely to have tooth decay, more likely to

have no natural teeth, have less frequent check-ups and have fewer preventative

treatments compared to urban residents,

(d) Aboriginal people have significantly higher levels of gum disease, tooth decay and

greater numbers of missing teeth than the general population,

(e) poor oral health is linked to poor physical and mental health,

(f) tooth loss is associated with impaired eating, poor nutrition and weight loss, anaemia and

gastrointestinal conditions, and diet-related ill health,

 (g) periodontal disease and poor oral hygiene is associated with aspiration pneumonia, a

leading cause of mortality in older Australians, and increased risk of heart disease and

stroke,

(h) oral infection in adults, such as viruses, bacteria and yeasts, is associated with diabetes,

hardening and narrowing of the arteries, heart and cerebrovascular disease, preterm or

low birth weight babies, osteoporosis, pulmonary diseases and disorders, respiratory

illness, and renal disease,

(i) oral infection in children is associated with otitis media, that is, middle ear infection,

delayed growth and development, and can lead to future orthodontic needs,

(j) the effect of dental disease or tooth loss on physical appearance can lead to a loss of self

esteem, restrictions on social and community participation, and impede a person’s ability

to gain employment, further entrenching the cycle of disadvantage and social exclusion,

(k) the majority of oral disease and tooth loss is preventable,

(l) dental caries, or tooth decay, is the most prevalent health problem in Australia,

(m) periodontal disease, or gum disease, is the fifth most common health problem in

Australia,

(n) section B9 of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Health and

Hospitals Network Agreement asserts that the states will have continuing policy and

funding responsibility for existing public dental services,

(o) New South Wales has the lowest public dental funding per capita of any state or territory,

(p) as of September 2010, there are over 118,000 people on public dental waiting lists in

New South Wales, and over 26,000 of these are children,

(q) systemic barriers to accessing dental services are the main cause of continuing inequities

in oral health for low income and disadvantaged people in New South Wales, and

(r) good oral health is fundamental to overall health and wellbeing.

2. That this House:

(a) congratulates the NSW Oral Health Alliance for their work advocating for improved

public dental services in New South Wales, and

(b) commits to taking steps necessary to reduce oral health inequities in New South Wales.

3. That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) recognise its funding responsibility for public dental services,

(b) increase funding for public dental services in New South Wales,

(c) take appropriate steps to enhance public dental infrastructure, and

(d) commit to actions that address oral health inequities within the community.

(Notice given 5 May 2011)