Relacionadas con la regulación

During the term of the NDS 04/09 a number of other relevant strategies were released, including the Tasmanian Drug Strategy 2005-2009 (TDS). This Strategy was

developed by the Inter Agency Working Group on Drugs, a body comprising senior officials from Police, Justice, Health, Education and Premier and Cabinet

Departments, as well as representation of the non-government sector by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council of Tasmania (ATDC) and the ANCD. The TDS claimed to be underpinned by the concept of harm minimisation and recognised the ‘importance and value of meaningful partnerships between government, non-

government and local government agencies’ (IAWGD 2005:4). People who use illicit drugs were not included in this partnership. The principles that guided the TDS included ‘partnerships and collaborative effort’, however, again no mention is made of partnerships with people who use illicit drugs in this section. The failure to

recognise that drug users had any role in developing effective responses to drug related harms is indicative of a culture in Tasmanian Government circles which had consistently denied this group a role in policy development and service delivery planning. Tasmania remains the only State not to have a government funded peer- based user organisation and this lack a lack leadership by the Tasmanian Government poses a significant barrier to the establishment of a viable consumer organisation in the State. This is discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

Also released in 2005 were the 5thNational HIV/AIDS Strategy 2005-2008 and the 2nd National Hepatitis C Strategy 2005-2008. As has been discussed previously, the HIV/AIDS sector had a long history of involving people who use illicit drugs in meaningful partnerships, and the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users’ League (AIVL) was recognised in the HIV/AIDS Strategy as having played a major role in the success of Australia’s response the HIV/AIDS. The Strategy identified as a priority the need to continue to work to strengthen partnerships between governments and community-based organisations, including AIVL, and recognised the importance of involving them in decision making and policy formulation (DOHA 2005b:12).

Similarly, the Hepatitis C Strategy also recognised the role of people who inject drugs as critical to the success of partnerships, once again giving a commitment to

consultation and joint decision making by all members of the partnership (DOHA 2005a:11).

5.13 “The Winnable War on Drugs”

In 2007 the Howard Government established a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of illicit drug use headed by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, chaired by conservative Member Bronwyn Bishop. Mendes (2008) argues the establishment of this Committee was largely motivated by the failure to shift government policy away from harm minimisation towards

abstinence-based approaches. The blame for this was attributed by the Committee to a group of peak bodies, researchers and non-government service providers who

supported the continuation or expansion of harm reduction approaches (Mendes 2008). The Committee objected to their emphasis on ‘expert knowledge’ and ‘evidence-based policy’ while excluding ‘ordinary people’s experiences and opinions’ (HOR 2007:93). In launching a scathing attack on supporters of harm minimisation the Committee claimed that ‘drug policy in Australia was thereby captured by influential drug industry elites’ (HOR 2007:93). As one of the ‘elites’ whose views the Committee attacked subsequently noted

Whilst some committee members sought to distance themselves from the way in which the chairperson treated many expert witnesses, their objections were rather meek. Any reading of the transcripts and the subsequent report clearly illustrates that this was a committee led by someone with a predetermined set of outcomes underpinned by a moralistic and evidence-free base (Stronach 2007).

It is statements such as these that again demonstrate that drug policy is far from a rational, value-neutral process but one that is subjected to moral and ideological influences and political contestation and calculations.

The Committee’s report, titled The Winnable War on Drugs, highlighted a number of conservative ideological views on a range of harm minimisation strategies that they opposed. This also served to create further confusion as to what exactly official Australian drug policy was. This was helped by the fact the Committee report was

able to quote from a speech made in Parliament by the Prime Minister on his opposition to harm minimisation

This government will never give up in the fight against drugs. We will never adopt a harm minimisation strategy; we will always maintain a

zero tolerance approach (John Howard, House of Representatives

Debates, 16 August 2007 cited in HOR 2007:1).

This again highlights the shift in discourse that had taken place in drug policy under the Howard administration and the political rhetoric that managed to muddy the waters as to what the official Government approach actually was.

A number of recommendations made by the Committee also demonstrate a shift towards a less tolerant view of people who use drugs and a shift towards a more ‘authoritarian liberalism’ (Dean 2002; Hindess 2001) approach in this area of social policy. These recommendations included: that the Government ‘continue its

allocation of significant resources to policing activity as a highly effective prevention method’ (HOR 2007:xxi); that adoption be the default option for children where a child protection notification involved illicit drug use by parents (HOR 2007:xxii); that Government

replaces the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a focus on harm prevention and treatment that has the aim of achieving permanent drug-free status for individuals with the goal of enabling drug users to be drug free, and only provide funding to treatment and support organisations which have a clearly stated aim to achieve permanent drug-free status for their clients or participants

(HOR 2007:xxiii);

that Government reviews needle exchange programs to assess if they are ‘successful in directing drug users to appropriate treatment which enables them to be drug free individuals’ (HOR 2007:xxiv); and that

Government provide funding only to organisations that adhere to the policy not to use language that glamorises or promotes the use of drugs, such as the terms ‘recreational’ and ‘party’ to describe drugs or drug use in public statements, correspondence and reports and that have implemented this policy to documents available electronically via their website. The Commonwealth Government also withdraw funding from

organisations that promote legalisation of all or any illicit drugs (HOR

2007:xxv).

These are just some of the recommendations in the report that demonstrate a rise in the zero tolerance discourse of drugs that have served to undermine the role of people who use illicit drugs in partnerships.

5.15 Conclusion – Analysing Policy Using a Governmentality Approach