COUNCIL TOOTHLESS IN WAR ON DRUGS

THE AUSTRALIAN National Council on Drugs has been in existence for
almost three years and the terms of its members are up for renewal
next month.

Just what has the council achieved in those three years?

It came about as the result of the veto by Prime Minister John Howard
of a proposed ACT heroin trial. In July 1997 the Ministerial Council
on Drugs (comprising all health and police ministers), had agreed to
the proposed trial of prescription heroin. Two weeks later, reacting
to criticism from the Daily Telegraph, Sydney, and talkback radio,
Howard vetoed the trial.

There was an outcry from professionals and families affected by
heroin. Polls later showed strong public support for a heroin trial.
Howard found himself caught in the crossfire.

To deflect the criticism he introduced his ''Tough on Drugs
Strategy'' in November 1997. The Australian National Council on Drugs
was established in March the following year.

''The new council will ensure that the expert voice of non-government
organisations and individuals working in the drug field reaches all
levels of government and influences policy,'' Howard said at the time.

He wanted the council, and its hand-picked chairman, the Salvation
Army's Major Brian Watters, to pursue a ''zero-tolerance'' approach.

''It is no secret that Major Watters adopts the view, as do many
others, including myself, that the policy of zero tolerance of drug
taking in this country is a wholly credible policy and a policy that
ought to be pursued more vigorously by government,'' Howard said in
Parliament on May 25, 1998.

Other members of the council represent a broader view and include
some of Australia's most experienced and respected people in the
field.

The PM gave very clear priorities to the council, including reducing
the number of drug deaths. In 1996 there had been 526 heroin-related
deaths in Australia. Eighty-five per cent of those involved people
who were not in treatment.

Major Watters had no doubt that the council had to perform
effectively. In his first chairman's report he said, ''. . . if the
ANCD does not produce tangible and measurable outcomes then it is
proper to question both its value and continuance.''

He continued, ''In short, we all want to see lives saved.''

The irony of these words should not be lost. Both men strongly and
ideologically oppose a heroin-prescription trial a measure
demonstrated in Switzerland to reduce overdose deaths and
drug-related crime.

The council has certainly allocated some much-needed money, but in
the most critical areas of overdose deaths and influencing government
policy, it has made no difference whatsoever.

The number of people who have used illicit drugs in the previous 12
months is increasing. Despite increased seizures, illicit drugs are
more easily available and cheaper. Drug-related crimes are
increasing. Overdose deaths have continued to rise from 526 in 1996
to 958 in 1999.

One can only conclude that the ''Tough on Drugs Strategy'' and the
council have had little or no impact.

Part of the reason is that the council has effectively been gagged on
some key issues. Margo Kingston reported in the Sydney Morning Herald
on February 25, 1999, ''It is understood Mr Perrin [Howard's
social-policy adviser] said it was pointless for the council to give
the Government advice that it should allow a heroin trial, and that
the Government did not want members to make statements supporting
one.''

In the same report Kingston quoted a council member, Professor
Hamilton, as saying the council would like to have input to what was
to be the Prime Minister's court-diversion proposal, to be put to the
Premiers' Conference. But she said that since Howard had set up the
council to advise him on drugs policy in March the previous year he
had not sought the advice of the council on any drugs issue.

Last year Howard's office reworked a household leaflet prepared by
the council to better reflect the Government's ideology. The council
persuaded the PM's office to withdraw some of its changes, but the
leaflet has still not been issued.

More recently, the council had the temerity to advise the Prime
Minister that he should place an additional levy on alcohol to be
used for treatment of alcohol-related problems. The rejection from
the PM was swift.

The Government does not accept evidence as a basis for drug policy.
In such an environment it is hard to see how the council can ever be
effective.

The Prime Minister has given an appearance of action and has set up a
policy advisory body that he can control and which will not trouble
him with vexing suggestions.

Even if the council does give him advice, he knows he can ignore it
with impunity.

With an election looming and a third term of office the coveted
prize, drugs and his inability to even dent the rising rate of
overdose deaths would be the last thing he would want raised as an
election issue. The question of whether he will change the
composition of the council or follow his chairman's suggestion and
''question both its value and continuance'' is almost rhetorical. He
will do whatever he considers necessary to put a lid on this issue.