Executive summary
There are no easy answers to the challenges posed by illicit drugs. Australia is 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.
Australian consumers are willing to pay some of the highest prices globally for illicit drugs, and data sources such as the National Wastewater Drug Analysis Program, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey and the Illicit Drug Data Report reveal that consumption within Australia continues to grow, returning to pre-COVID-19 levels.
The harms caused by TSOC involvement in the Australian illicit drug trade are significant and extend far beyond individual users to a myriad of crimes and harm to the community. In 2020-21, TSOC cost Australia up to $60.1 billion of which $16.5 billion was specific to illicit drug activity. Chapter 2 provides the context for the inquiry and outlines the current trends in seizures, supply and consumption of illicit drugs.
As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, in undertaking this inquiry, the committee aimed to focus on the challenges and opportunities that illicit drugs create for Australia’s law enforcement agencies. While the committee understands that this is a multi-faceted issue requiring an integrated response from multiple sectors, this report pays particular attention to the role of police and its partner agencies in dealing with illicit drugs. Broader issues are considered with reference to their impact on law enforcement.
Australia’s law enforcement agencies are at the front line of taking action across the spectrum of the illicit drugs business model. Using international partners, in 2022-23, 66 tonnes of illicit drugs were seized by overseas police with assistance from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), which equates to $10.9 billion in harm avoided. Domestically, in 2022‑23, the AFP seized 30 tonnes of illicit drugs and precursors domestically, resulting in $11.8 billion in avoided harm.
However, law enforcement cannot meet the challenge of illicit drugs alone, and Australia’s national drug policy recognises this. The leading policy document for addressing illicit drugs in Australia is the National Drug Strategy 2017–2026 (theStrategy). The Strategy’s guiding principle is harm minimisation, which is supported by three pillars: supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction. The Strategy envisages a multi-faceted response, bringing together both the law enforcement and health sectors. However, the committee has found that issues have arisen in the Strategy’s implementation.
The governance structures that existed at the current Strategy’s commencement brought together Ministers and officials from both fields under the umbrella of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). When COAG was replaced by National Cabinet, these integrated structures were not re-established. Further, the review and evaluation approach set out by the Strategy has not been fulfilled. Consequently, some describe the current policy approach as lacking coherence and siloed.
The committee is of the view that a clear governance structure should be re‑established under the National Cabinet architecture, and that a comprehensive evaluation of the existing Strategy take place before the creation of the next Strategy. As part of this evaluation, the committee suggests that a re‑evaluation of the funding under the pillars takes place to ensure that demand and harm reduction strategies are appropriately funded. However, this should not come at the expense of resourcing law enforcement’s supply reduction efforts. Chapter 3 details the current policy settings and the areas for improvement raised with the committee.
Law enforcement agencies have key responsibilities in relation to supply reduction measures which the committee acknowledges must occur alongside demand and harm reduction efforts. Supply reduction is covered in Chapter 4. Law enforcement draws upon partnerships with other agencies to seek to disrupt supply and distribution networks both within Australia and offshore. Aside from the scale of the supply, there are a number of challenges that make this task more difficult, including: the use of anonymising technologies and the dark web for communication; ever evolving concealment methods; the importation for criminal purposes of precursor chemicals which also have legitimate industrial uses; and the threat posed by trusted insiders along the illicit drug supply chain. The ongoing, 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 detection and disruption pre, at and post border.
Chapter 5 covers demand and harm minimisation strategies. While recognising there is a spectrum of harm associated with drug use, the committee emphasises that all illicit drug use attracts risk and can result in devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities.
Strategies under the demand and harm reduction pillars target the behaviours and factors leading to, and the risks arising from, drug use. The regulation and policing of drug consumption is largely a matter for the states and territories, and demand and harm reduction strategies have been introduced to varying degrees around the country. A number of specific strategies were discussed, including decriminalisation of personal use, as well as the establishment of drug checking and safe injecting facilities. The focus of the committee, however, has been on outlining the challenges for law enforcement arising from the various policy settings.
The committee reviewed the evidence in jurisdictions overseas which have decriminalised the use and possession of some or all drugs. The committee sees merit in the Australian Institute of Criminology, or a similar body, undertaking research to understand the impacts of decriminalisation in overseas and Australian jurisdictions on individuals, communities and law enforcement over time to ensure policy settings in the Australian context are evidence based.
What was clear to the committee was 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.
The use of medicinal cannabis has been legalised around Australia. In this context, and in discussions about decriminalisation, important questions have been raised for law enforcement as currently there is no roadside impairment test for cannabis. In Tasmania driving with any detectable amount of THC (the major psychoactive compound in cannabis) 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. Issues arising from the lack of impairment testing will likely increase as states and territories take steps towards decriminalisation of the personal use of cannabis. While there is some work on this underway in states and territories, the committee has recommended that the Australian Government support research to develop an effective roadside cannabis impairment test to be used by law enforcement.
In addition to the areas highlighted in this executive summary, this report considers other issues and contains eight recommendations. The committee thanks all those who contributed to this inquiry. This inquiry was greatly enhanced by the expertise and personal experiences so generously shared with the committee. The committee trusts the evidence received and recommendations will provide an opportunity to improve the overall response to reducing the harms of illicit drugs.