Drug Free Australia takes the issues of illicit drugs and families very seriously. We work with families every day who suffer the ongoing devastation caused by substance abuse – and see many children caught up in the spiral of intergenerational drug using adults. There is no ‘magic bullet’, nor a ‘one size fits all’ solution. However, we contend that time is well overdue to put into place the best approaches that not only help those who are suffering, but most importantly, that prevent the uptake of illicit drugs in the first place.

DFA’s response to Bronwyn Bishop’s bi-partisan parliamentary report The winnable war on drugs, is one of overall support – not because of the simplistic reasons purported by some that we take the ‘moral high ground’, but because the Inquiry successfully completed what the previous report the ‘Road to recovery’ was not able to achieve.

That is, it was set up because the Road to recovery report lacked: clear direction for illicit drug policy and more specific information was needed on the damage inflicted on families by these drugs.

Interestingly, even with the Bishop Inquiry’s narrower scope, both reports (conducted by a wide bi-partisan cross section of two parliaments, over a seven year period) have a high level of commonality in their recommendations. Of even greater interest is the fact that they reach consensus that the National Drug Strategy’s focus on harm minimisation be replaced by a focus on harm prevention and treatment of drug users.

Of more importance is the need to address the main criticisms that are surfacing about the Bishop report, such as:

• The claim that alcohol harms were not addressed
• The concern over a child protection recommendation, related to adoption

On the issue of the exclusion of alcohol harms, this is quite easily explained. The terms of reference of the Bronwyn Bishop ‘Inquiry into the Impacts of Illicit Drugs on Families’ were much narrower than its predecessor. Implicit in its title, the Inquiry’s aim was to address the harms of illicit drugs on families. This was presumably to ensure that the focus stayed on illicit drugs – an area that was lacking in the Road to Recovery report. Thankfully we already have an enormous amount of new research that addresses alcohol harms and families. For example one of many, is the citing of ABS statistics on binge drinking and families, in the recent, highly-promoted publication by the ANCD – ‘Drug Use and the Family’.

On the matter of child protection and adoption, there seems to have been a great deal of distortion. Firstly, our understanding of it is that it would only be one option available, in extreme cases, to child protection workers – a last resort to alleviate the trauma caused to tiny children under the age of five years, rather than constantly placing them in disjointed foster care arrangements. Drug Free Australia agrees that there is no simple solution to these extremely complex family issues. That is exactly why this recommendation should not to be singled out, but taken in context with others, such as Recommendation 4 which gives urgent priority to funding:

• ‘residential treatment services that provide for children to live in with their mothers during treatment’
• ‘non-residential treatment services to cater for the needs of parents with dependent children.

Of course, there is a need to work with state authorities and people ‘on the ground’ as to how this would be best rolled out. However, the report should at least be acknowledged for providing the beginning of a shift in philosophy to ensure that the rights of the child to a safe and secure environment are paramount.

Secondly, the approach to child protection should be read in the context of Recommendation 1. In summary this supports the need for a longitudinal study of babies of drug-using mothers to look at the impact of maternal illicit drug use, including:

• The implication for the future life of a baby born addicted to methadone and/or other illicit drugs
• Birth outcomes, such as prematurity, birth weight and neonatal distress
• Physical, mental and social developmental milestones
• Family functioning, and family characteristics
• Later interactions with the child protection system
• Propensity to drug use in adolescent and adult life

An Inquiry about such a sensitive and complex issue as illicit drugs was NEVER going to be easy. However, Committee members overcame many difficulties and managed to hear from families who previously did not have a voice – those very brave souls who took up the opportunity to share their worst nightmare with a bi-partisan group that was prepared to accept their testimony as evidence – evidence equally as valid (and more up-to-date) than some of the academic exercises that emerge from our so called ‘corridors of power’.

This report has begun the process of Australians being empowered to ask some important questions:

Why should we call illicit drugs ‘recreational?’. They are far from that, as most families now suffering their impact will testify.

What is wrong with giving funding to organisation that achieve drug free outcomes? If this was done, it would, at least be ensuring a more even playing field in State public health systems.

Why not put prevention first? I would challenge anyone working in public health in Australia to give one other example of where harm prevention is not the first principle to be addressed. The heart foundation acknowledges that we need to manage heart disease, but on its website prominently displays a a ‘helpline’ ‘For more information on preventing heart disease call 1300 362 787’. The Cancel Council of Australia offers in its website’s FAQ section ‘Answers to questions about cancer prevention, detection and treatment’.

Certainly, in any public health system minimising harm is important, but prevention is, and always should be, predominant. This is not ‘rocket science’ it is common sense, for both humane and economic reasons. However, for some unknown reason, in the matter of illicit drug use the principle of preventing the uptake seems to create widespread concern – and all too often, opposition. This was addressed by a wide cross section of the Australian and international community at Drug Free Australia’s conference earlier this year. People can judge for themselves as papers are freely available for perusal at www.drugfree.org.au