Chapter 6Conclusions and recommendations
6.1This chapter provides the committee’s views and recommendations on topics raised during this inquiry, including:
the illicit drug market in Australia;
policy and governance challenges;
supply reduction strategies; and
harm minimisation strategies, including decriminalisation, and their interaction with law enforcement.
6.2At the outset the committee thanks all submitters and witnesses for their assistance to the committee and acknowledges the daily contributions many of them make to improving the lives of those affected by substance abuse and addiction.
6.3There are no easy answers to the challenges posed by illicit drugs. The devastating impacts of substance abuse and addiction were well known to the committee at the outset of this inquiry. However, this inquiry reinforced the sheer scale of drug supply and use in Australia, as well as the challenges to address the harm to individuals, families and the broader community.
6.4The committee notes that there have been many Commonwealth and state and territory inquiries on how to address the harm from illicit drugs or drug law reform. This inquiry does not seek to replicate that work. The focus of the terms of reference for the inquiry was on the challenges and opportunities available to law enforcement in addressing Australia’s illicit drug problem.
6.5While the focus on law enforcement is the committee’s primary area of concern, the committee acknowledges that addressing drug harm is multifaceted and includes stakeholders across multiple sectors.
Illicit drugs in Australia—high supply and demand
6.6The vast majority of illicit drugs in Australia originate offshore and are imported. Australia is—and unfortunately will continue to be—a highly attractive market for transnational serious and organised crime (TSOC) organisations which are importing illicit drugs on an industrial scale due to the exceptional profitability of the drug market. The evidence shows the trend for overall illicit drug use is on an upward trajectory following a dip during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Australians are willing to pay some of the highest prices globally.
Involvement of organised crime
6.7The committee recognises that the harms caused by TSOC involvement in the Australian illicit drug trade are significant and extend far beyond the individual users. Specifically, the illicit drug trade contributes to a myriad of crimes including—but not limited to—money laundering, possession of illegal firearms, violence, intimidation and murder. In outlining the 'vile web' of crime that TSOC organisations construct and exploit to manufacture and sell illicit drugs, the committee was reminded that 'there's no fair-trade cocaine'. In2020-21, TSOC cost Australia up to $60.1 billion of which $16.5 billion was specific to illicit drug activity.
Monitoring programs
6.8Australia is fortunate to have robust and comprehensive monitoring programs to provide clarity on the scale of the illicit drug market, including valuable products such as the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, the Illicit Drug Data Report and the National Drug Strategy Household Survey as well as others mentioned in chapter 2. These products together form a comprehensive picture of the scale of illicit drug use in Australia. They provide not only a snapshot at a point in time but, as the use of particular drugs can vary over time, valuable information on trends over the long term.
6.9In summary, although cannabis is the most consumed illicit drug, methamphetamine far exceeds the consumption of the other three major illicit drugs: heroin, cocaine and MDMA/ecstasy. The committee heard that methamphetamine is associated with the highest harm to the community by some margin and this can be seen in the figures contained in chapter 2.
6.10The data on illicit drug consumption reinforces the challenge faced by law enforcement. The committee acknowledges the importance of these data sources in assisting law enforcement to gain a greater understanding of the threat environment and inform priorities.
Policy and governance challenges
6.11While the committee has a law enforcement focus, illicit drugs is a multifaceted issue requiring consultation and coordination at all levels of government. The Commonwealth as well as states and territories all have a role to play. Coordination and information sharing across governments and law enforcement agencies are crucial to addressing this issue.
Ensuring strategic direction
6.12The key policy document guiding the response to illicit drugs is the National Drug Strategy 2017–2026 (the Strategy). The committee identified a number of issues in relation to the governance arrangements, efficacy and review of the strategy which directly affect the capacity of law enforcement, but also the capacity of all stakeholders, to address the challenges of illicit drugs in Australia.
6.13The Strategy described cooperation between the law enforcement and health sectors as ‘a key success of the previous National Drug Strategy’. It clearly envisaged that its implementation would be underpinned by a framework that brought together the law enforcement and health branches of government from the Commonwealth, states and territories through the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum and the National Drug Strategy Committee.
6.14It is concerning that this framework was disbanded following the dissolution of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and appears not to have been replaced under the National Cabinet structure. The committee acknowledges the existence of a variety of other structures, including the Health Ministers' Meeting, the Police Ministers Council and the Council of Attorneys‑General. The committee also notes that there are instances where these bodies work together on adjacent issues, such as the joint Police and Health Ministers meeting to discuss vaping and e-cigarettes. However, the committee is concerned that there is no standing governance structure to bring together health and law enforcement representatives to specifically discuss issues of drugs on a regular and ongoing basis. The absence of this body presents obstacles to applying the Strategy, which was designed with such a body in mind.
6.15The committee recommends that the Australian Government re-establish a governance structure under the National Cabinet architecture, bringing together representatives with responsibility for law enforcement and health across the Commonwealth, states and territories, to oversee the implementation of the National Drug Strategy.
6.16In addition to the need to facilitate cooperation between law enforcement and health agencies, the committee heard about inconsistencies between state, territory and Commonwealth criminal laws relating to illegal drugs.Australia’s federal structure means that some differences are inevitable. However, with further changes as a result of decriminalisation in some jurisdictions, the committee is concerned that jurisdictional differences could be exploited by organised crime. The committee heard that the issue of jurisdictional differences is not being considered as part of a formal review but is on the list of policy areas to work through with states and territories.However, it seems to the committee that an appropriate governance structure could facilitate increased coordination and enable information sharing. Further, it could provide a forum through which jurisdictional differences could be worked through to minimise the risk of exploitation by organised crime.
Limited evaluation and evidence
6.17The Department of Health and Aged Care provided evidence to the committee that the mid-cycle review of the Strategy, scheduled for 2021, did not take place and no comprehensive evaluations of the Strategy are planned. In fact, the department, as the lead agency with responsibility for implementation of the Strategy, advised that the focus had instead turned to the next strategy to follow in 2027.
6.18It is the committee's view that there is very limited value in drafting a new strategy when there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of the existing strategy. While the committee acknowledges that some elements of the Strategy have been evaluated, these were specific only to certain action plans and not the Strategy as a whole. Without understanding the areas of success or potential areas of improvement of the existing nine-year strategy, it follows that it would be particularly difficult to develop a new strategy that would be fit for purpose.
6.19The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the National Drug Strategy 2017–2026 as a matter of priority to measure the successes and shortfalls of the existing Strategy and inform the development of the next National Drug Strategy.
Funding
6.20The disparity between funding for demand and harm reduction strategies compared to supply reduction was pointed out to the committee. The committee heard that supply reduction receives around 66 per cent of funding compared to 32 per cent for treatment and prevention activities and 2 per cent for harm reduction activities.
6.21It is not the position of the committee that funding for law enforcement’s supply reduction work should be reduced. It is important that law enforcement remains resourced and equipped to address the evolving challenges posed by TSOC syndicates involved in the supply of illicit drugs. Rather, the committee is concerned that there is insufficient funding for harm and demand reduction activities. The efficacy of supply reduction is contingent on effective harm and demand reduction activities. The committee considers that the evaluation of the Strategy outlined above would provide an opportunity to review resourcing for the three pillars. However, the committee emphasises that additional funding for demand and harm reduction strategies should not come at the expense of the efforts of law enforcement and border protection to disrupt the supply and distribution of illicit drugs by TSOC groups.
6.22The funding for treatment activities is particularly important in light of moves towards decriminalisation and this is discussed further below.
6.23The committee recommends that the evaluation of the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 (recommendation 2 above), include a review by the Australian Government, in consultation with state and territory governments, of the current resourcing for the three pillars of the Strategy. Should the differences still be substantial, consideration should be given to increasing funding for demand and harm reduction measures. Any additional allocation in funding should not come at the expense of funding for law enforcement’s supply reduction efforts.
Supply reduction
6.24The AFP’s law enforcement efforts with respect to illicit drugs centre on supply reduction measures through disruption of TSOC syndicates and targeting large‑scale illicit drug importation. The committee acknowledges that the actions of law enforcement officers and their partners alone will not sufficiently address the challenges presented by the illicit drug market or the harms caused. In the pursuit of an effective harm minimisation approach, it is important to recognise that supply reduction efforts must occur alongside demand and harm reduction efforts.
International disruption
6.25As most illicit drugs are imported, the committee is impressed by the comprehensive efforts underway to disrupt the illicit drug market into Australia. Through international partnerships, law enforcement works to disrupt drug importations offshore to prevent the drugs reaching Australia. The AFP’s 2022-23 annual report indicates that 66 tonnes of illicit drugs were seized by overseas police with AFP assistance, and this equates to $10.9 billion in harm avoided as a result of these international drug disruptions.
Domestic disruption
6.26The AFP also works closely with domestic partners including through taskforces which bring together members from a number of agencies to address drugs or drug-related crime.In 2022-23, 30tonnes of illicit drugs and precursors were seized at the border or domestically, resulting in $11.8 billion in harm avoided. The committee commends the innovative and varied activities undertaken by law enforcement and their partners including Australian Border Force (ABF) as they deal with the constant and increasingly sophisticated concealment methods used by organised criminal syndicates in their attempts to import illicit drugs.
6.27However, despite the ongoing efforts, the committee heard from the Australian Border Force that 'even on a good day we're only stopping about 20to25percent of [illicit drug imports]'. Nevertheless, there are regular AFP and ABF media reports on record illicit drug seizures. While some witnesses questioned the impact these seizures have on the market overall, the committee agrees with the AFP that without their efforts with their partners internationally and domestically, the situation and harm would be magnified. In addition, the ACIC presented evidence to show that there is a measurable impact on the drug market following large seizures.
Challenges
6.28In addition to changing transportation models, trafficking routes, and concealment methods, the widespread use of anonymising technologies and the dark web make communications technology a major factor challenging the ability of law enforcement to disrupt supply operations.
6.29The committee also notes the challenges of precursors, many of which also have legitimate industrial uses. The committee heard that regulation does have a significant impact on the production capabilities of TSOC groups. The committee supports the work underway by the Precursor Working Group which includes representatives from the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to work towards national consistency of controls and options to enhance controls.
6.30A significant concern is the use of trusted insiders in the illicit drug supply chain which are used to facilitate the importation of illicit drugs.This can include maritime supply chain employees, shipping crew, dockworkers, and employees at freight forwarding companies who may be approached by TSOC groups and offered financial incentives to facilitate drug importation. Noting the power of these trusted insiders, the committee supports the measures and operations being undertaken to address this threat.
6.31The determined, constant and multipronged effort by TSOC syndicates highlights the need for financial and non-financial investment in personnel and technology as well as international and domestic partnerships to improve the ability of Australian authorities to achieve a greater level of detection and disruption pre, at and post border.
Addressing financial benefits
6.32It is shocking to think that TSOC syndicates factor in losses of entire shipments as part of their business model as they can make tens of millions of dollars in profit from one successful shipment.The sheer scale of profitability ensures the constant efforts of TSOC syndicates.
Unexplained wealth
6.33The significant profits available through illicit drug trafficking make money laundering a key enabler which can take a variety of forms. Targeting unexplained wealth is a tactic used by law enforcement to intervene in actions taken by mid to high level management of TSOC syndicates. The unexplained wealth regime also enables law enforcement to target the individuals who are benefitting from the proceeds of crime and not just those perpetrating crimes at a lower level in the TSOC hierarchy.
6.34The National Cooperative Scheme on Unexplained Wealth, which came into force in 2018, is intended to improve law enforcement’s capability to restrain assets through multi-jurisdictional cooperation. However, it would appear that issues have arisen with the implementation of the scheme which are reflected in the lack of participation by all jurisdictions. The committee notes that in October2023, the Attorney-General announced an independent review of the scheme as required under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce
6.35The committee applauds the success of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce (CACT), a multiagency taskforce to trace, restrain and ultimately confiscate criminal assets. In 2019, the AFP Commissioner set a five-year target of $600 million for assets restrained. As at 30 June 2023, the CACT had restrained in excess of $940 million in assets.
6.36The committee commends the AFP and its law enforcement partners for their critical work disrupting illicit drug supply chains. The committee urges the Australian Government to work with the AFP and the ABF to ensure that they are properly resourced and equipped to meet emerging challenges and continue their important work. While there are areas of possible improvement, the committee is supportive of current efforts underway to address these challenges, including the Precursor Working Group, the operations to find trusted insiders, the independent review of the National Cooperative Scheme on Unexplained Wealth and the endeavours of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce.
Harm minimisation
6.37The committee recognises that there is a spectrum of harm associated with drug use which varies depending on consumption habits, frequency of use and types of substances consumed. However, it should be emphasised that all illicit drug use attracts risk and can result in devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities.
6.38As noted above, the committee recognises that supply reduction efforts must occur alongside demand and harm reduction efforts, some of which involve law enforcement. This is a greater issue than law enforcement, or any other sector, can address alone.
6.39The committee heard about the critical role that law enforcement has in achieving public health goals and to this end there is a strong desire from the public health community to improve engagement with police and interact more as partners.
6.40A significant amount of evidence presented to the committee discussed various harm minimisation strategies. Before turning to these areas, the committee notes that these areas fall largely under the remit of state and territory governments.
Decriminalisation
6.41The committee notes that the issue of decriminalisation is complex but is ultimately a legislative and policy matter for governments. The committee’s focus therefore is on the challenges for law enforcement of the various policy settings and areas needing attention to contribute to the outcomes sought.
6.42Evidence argued that personal use of illicit drugs should be addressed by a policy response which links the consumers with health support. The committee acknowledges that a solely punitive approach to illicit drug use can cause harms which are disproportionately experienced by people experiencing poverty, homelessness, mental ill-health and trauma, and have particular impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
6.43The committee notes concerns that a focus by law enforcement on drug possession is leading to high numbers of people coming into contact with the criminal justice system. This may result in a range of adverse consequences for these individuals, including a criminal record which may make it difficult to obtain employment and housing. This focus can also have impacts on police and the criminal justice system, taking up limited time and resources.
6.44The committee notes that the clear focus of the AFP is supply reduction through TSOC investigations and disruptions. In addition, police in the community were clear that in the absence of other factors, a first interaction between police and an individual caught with illicit drugs in their possession is not likely to result in jail. For cannabis, a person would likely receive a caution and referral to an awareness education program. Where a harder drug is involved, there would be a charging process but that could result in a warning, a diversionary program or mandatory education. The Department of Health and Aged Care told the committee that all jurisdictions have some form of de facto decriminalisation through diversionary schemes for small amounts of drug possession and that law enforcement and courts may choose to respond to drug possession without pursuing criminal penalties. Further, the experience of law enforcement suggests that possession offences often arise in the context of other criminal offending.
6.45These perspectives demonstrate that there are diverging views on how drug possession is treated by law enforcement and the judicial system. Unfortunately, it appears that the available data does not contain enough detail to provide a more comprehensive picture. In order to better understand the nature and extent of drug-related offending, and whether current enforcement practices are having a disproportionate effect, the committee supports the ACIC’s suggestion that further research is needed to clarify what proportion of arrests for possession have occurred concurrently with other charges. This research could also identify what types of sanctions the individuals have received.
6.46The committee recommends that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission undertake research to clarify what proportion of people arrested for possession of illicit drugs are concurrently charged with another criminal offence and would not have come to law enforcement attention but for the concurrent (non-drug related) offence.
6.47Evidence pointed to jurisdictions overseas which have decriminalised the use and possession of some or all drugs. Witnesses often pointed to Portugal as a successful model. It is important to note that prior to decriminalisation, significant investment was made by that government to ensure health services had the necessary resources. The Portuguese National Coordinator emphasised that decriminalisation is not a silver bullet and having treatment services available is the most important part of the model. Reports are now suggesting that the investment in the health response has been reduced due to budget pressures which has resulted in the National Coordinator now stating that ‘what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone’. Overdose rates have reportedly reached 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023.
6.48Similarly, the committee notes that Oregon decriminalised small amounts of illicit drugs in 2020, however, it is now moving towards re-criminalising certain drug possession charges.
6.49These examples and others confirm that any form of decriminalisation needs to be accompanied by sustained investment in health and education resources. The committee agrees with this evidence. If a jurisdiction decides to pursue decriminalisation, additional resources for the health and education responses are essential.When looking at the current division of funding between the three pillars, the committee is concerned about a progression towards decriminalisation without substantial increases to healthcare and treatment service providers.
6.50In addition, there needs to be consultation, collaboration and cooperation with law enforcement to ensure legislative clarity for police. The recent decriminalisation in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) of the possession of small amounts of drugs will provide a useful case study in the Australian environment. While the committee expects the ACT Government will institute comprehensive monitoring and review mechanisms, the committee is also of the view that an appropriate agency such as the Australian Institute of Criminology should be tasked with analysing the impact of decriminalisation in overseas and Australian jurisdictions to inform policy approaches. The purpose of this work would be to understand the impact of decriminalisation on individuals, communities and law enforcement, recording observations over time.
6.51The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission research to understand the impacts of decriminalisation in Australian and international jurisdictions where reforms have been implemented. Such research should, where possible, evaluate the longitudinal impacts on individuals, communities and law enforcement agencies to provide an evidence base to inform future policy decisions.
6.52As noted above, it is a matter for states and territories to determine the legal and policy approaches in their jurisdictions. However, the evidence to the committee is clear that decriminalisation cannot occur alone and must be supported by a robust and sustained health and education response otherwise it risks an even greater burden being imposed on law enforcement.
Impairment testing
6.53Decriminalisation presents a particular challenge for law enforcement as currently there is no roadside impairment test for cannabis. The current test simply confirms the presence of THC rather than the impairment effect on the driver, which means individuals are banned from driving possibly long after they become unimpaired. This limitation of the testing system can affect individuals in jurisdictions where medicinal cannabis is permitted.
6.54In Tasmania, driving with any detectable amount of THC in your system is an offence unless the product was obtained and administered lawfully. However, it may still be an offence if the person’s driving is impaired. The committee acknowledges there is some work underway in Victoria where medicinal cannabis users will participate in a trial which will include work with clinicians to develop a tool for prescribers to determine when it is safe and unsafe to drive. There is also work underway in Western Australia with a working group considering amendments to enable a defence for people using medicinal cannabis, as prescribed, to drive while unimpaired.
6.55While welcome, the committee acknowledges these are limited solutions requiring greater attention. Issues arising from a lack of impairment testing will likely increase as states and territories take steps towards decriminalisation. The committee is of the view that cannabis impairment testing is an emerging opportunity for Australia to lead in its commitment to public safety.To this end the government should support research to develop a comprehensive roadside impairment test for cannabis.This would assist not only medicinal and cannabis users in jurisdictions where it is legal, but also assist law enforcement to more effectively carry out their duty to keep the community safe.
6.56The committee recommends that the Australian Government support research to develop an effective roadside cannabis impairment test to be used by law enforcement, including the current work being undertaken in Victoria.
Other harm minimisation measures
6.57The committee acknowledges the views of inquiry participants on the various specific measures that could be undertaken to further minimise harm to people who use illicit drugs. For most of these measures, the committee recognises that it is for the states and territories to determine what types of facilities or policies it is willing to invest in or facilitate within their jurisdictions. However, as a general observation, the committee sees merit in inter-jurisdictional conversations, through a re-established governance framework as set out in recommendation 1, to share knowledge obtained as more jurisdictions gain experience with these measures.
Drug checking facilities
6.58The committee visited the drug checking facilities in Canberra, CanTEST, to see the operation of the centre and speak with the staff. The committee acknowledges that the array of drugs and drug users mean a range of solutions are required, and the committee supports the role this service can play in identifying emerging trends and new drugs not previously seen in Australia. CanTEST also provides information, counselling and advice to users based on test results. The committee supports the work being undertaken to help people make better choices that reduce overall drug use and the harm associated with illicit drugs.
6.59CanTEST is also a good example of health services and law enforcement working together to achieve the objective of harm minimisation. Comments from the Police Federation of Australia indicated that despite initial concerns, police have recognised the positive impact of the work being undertaken. Should other states and territories decide to open drug checking facilities, the committee would urge them to follow the practice of CanTEST to publicly and widely share the information obtained.
Safe injecting facilities
6.60Safe injecting facilities can also mitigate the harms of illicit drugs. The committee was pleased to hear about the many ways that safe injecting facilities support users, beyond providing a safe and hygienic space for using drugs. The committee was particularly moved by the evidence provided by MrKevinStreet, who told the committee about his experience at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross, Sydney, which ultimately led to him seeking and obtaining treatment for his addiction. MrStreet was also able to access other services with support from the MSIC staff.
6.61The committee was struck by what appeared to be varied responses to the presence of the two safe injecting facilities currently in operation. While evidence to the committee indicates that the MSIC in Sydney was received relatively well, there appears to have been greater community resistance to the Medically Supervised Injecting Room in Melbourne. This contrast demonstrates the importance of comprehensive consultation with the local community and police at the establishment stage. The Sydney MSIC shows that these rooms can be established, positively received and benefit the community.
6.62In relation to both drug checking and safe injecting facilities, the committee is of the view that there is a strong need for regular cross-jurisdictional conversations to share experiences and learnings as discussed above.
Drug detection dogs
6.63The use of drug detection dogs at music festivals was raised with the committee. Witnesses highlighted the potential for individuals to ingest all the drugs they are carrying to avoid detection. Studies were also cited questioning the efficacy of drug detection dogs.
6.64The committee accepts the evidence provided by the Police Association of NSW that detection dogs are a tool used to implement the policy settings determined by government. However, the committee encourages law enforcement to continue to evaluate the use of detection dogs to ensure that this strategy remains suitable for achieving their designated purpose of reducing drug use.
Evidence-based messaging
6.65The committee was told about the importance of evidence-based messaging as an effective harm reduction mechanism. It was pointed out that stigma remains one of the most significant barriers for drug users to seek assistance.
6.66The AFP’s ‘Faces of Meth’ campaign was drawn to the committee’s attention as likely to increase stigma and barriers to accessing care. The committee was pleased to hear that the AFP is conscious of the implications of stigmatising media messaging and is looking to take different approaches.
6.67The committee is of the view that future campaigns by law enforcement should be evidence-based and subject to evaluation so that law enforcement can be confident in the suitability and effectiveness.
6.68The committee recommends that future drug awareness campaigns run by the Australian Federal Police be evidence-based and subject to evaluation.
Contributing to national information sharing networks
6.69It appears that the opportunity for law enforcement to engage and participate in national information sharing networks may not be fully utilised.Specifically, the committee heard evidence that outside South Australia, law enforcement has limited engagement with the Prompt Response Network administered by the National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs.
6.70Law enforcement operates on the front line of the response to illicit drugs and has unique and timely insights. Through seizures, law enforcement has access to information on types and composition of drugs at risk of entering the supply chain. The timely release of police data could assist services and communities to prepare for an influx of high-risk substances. The committee acknowledges that there will be situations where sharing information may not be possible, however, an improved information flow in both directions from law enforcement to health officials would assist with responding in a timely way to emerging trends and issues of concern.
6.71There is an opportunity for law enforcement to engage with the Prompt Response Network perhaps through community liaison officers. The committee notes that South Australia has the South Australian Drug Early Warning System and the South Australian Police are one of the stakeholders. This system also feeds into the Prompt Response Network.
6.72The committee encourages law enforcement agencies to consider how they can contribute to sharing information with health officials to effectively collaborate to identify emerging trends and potential areas of concern.
Conclusion
6.73With changes underway in some jurisdictions regarding decriminalisation, the committee believes it has been timely to look at the current policy settings to ensure the job of law enforcement is not inadvertently made more difficult.
6.74Law enforcement must be supported to continue to meet the many challenges it faces in taking action across the spectrum of the illicit drug business model to prevent harm to the Australian community and contribute to harm minimisation.
6.75The committee trusts the evidence received and its recommendations will provide an opportunity to improve the overall response to reducing the harms of illicit drugs.
Senator Helen Polley
Chair