Australia’s New South Wales (NSW) government found “substantial support” for a public health model featuring illicit drug decriminalisation, but steered clear of making it an official recommendation in its latest Annual Drug Summit. The invitation-only forum did however produce 56 recommendations ranging from ending the use of sniffer dogs at festivals to supporting Aboriginal-led initiatives.
Lacking a mandate
The summit convened over 400 participants, including health experts, law enforcement officials, individuals with lived experience, and community stakeholders. It included two days of regional forums – Griffith on 1 November, and Lismore on 4 November – and two days in Sydney on 4 and 5 December. Discussions with gathered experts and civil society organisations revealed a strong consensus for the decriminalisation of minor drug possession, advocating for a transition away from criminal penalties towards a health-centred approach.
Despite this support, the final published report stops short of recommending decriminalisation, citing political constraints. On page 37, it acknowledges that “as long as our legal system
regards drug use and possession as a crime, stigma will be perpetuated”, seemingly making the case for decriminalisation. Later on on page 44, the report notes, “In comments made prior to the drug summit, the premier made it clear he did not believe the government had a mandate for decriminalisation and it was not on the government’s agenda.”
Recommending action
Advocacy groups have expressed disappointment over the government’s reluctance to pursue decriminalisation. Last year’s summit was condemned as a ‘talkfest’ in which much was said about the desire to improve health and justice outcomes, but little was achieved. Prof. Dan Howard, who led the 2020 Special Commission of Inquiry into methamphetamine, emphasised the government’s existing mandate for decriminalisation, stating that consensus among expert bodies and prior reports support this reform.
“I must be candid and say that it galls me that we are being asked to revisit so many of the same issues yet again when the work has already been done,” Howard told the NSW summit.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), representing over 30,000 specialists, has called for the decriminalisation of several illicit drugs. “We think it’s time we have a whole of society discussion about where we want to be in this area, and where we actually want to put our funds to prevent people from getting into those cycles of ill health and popping in and out of institutions and incarceration,” RACP President Dr Jennifer Martin told ABC.
Similarly, the Network of Alcohol and Other Drugs Agencies (NADA) has advocated for more significant reform. Bronwyn Hendry, CEO of Directions Health Services, emphasised the importance of progressive drug policies that prioritise health and harm reduction, including decriminalisation and access to drug-checking services.
“If we can reduce the shame and stigma experienced by those with problematic drug use, we can intervene earlier and prevent or reduce the harms experienced,” she told the summit.
Key recommendations
While decriminalisation was not among the formal recommendations, the report proposes several significant reforms:
- Cessation of drug detection dogs and strip searches at music festivals: The report advises ending the use of drug detection dogs and strip searches for suspected drug possession.
- Implementation of drug-checking services: An immediate pilot of drug-checking (pill testing) services at music festivals is recommended to provide attendees with information on substance content, aiming to reduce harm. Such a recommendation is needed as implementation of drug-checking is increasingly regionally, with some Australian states defunding these services while others maintain them.
- Medical defense for prescribed cannabis use: Legislative amendments to protect drivers who test positive for THC but are consuming legally prescribed cannabis, provided they are not impaired.
- Development of a 10-year drug harm reduction strategy: Aiming to embed harm reduction principles across all areas of government policy and establishing measurable goals for reducing overdose deaths.
- Increased funding for support services: Calls for enhanced and sustained funding for treatment, prevention, and early intervention services, particularly in regional and rural areas.
- Prioritization of aboriginal-led prevention and cultural safety efforts: Emphasising the importance of culturally appropriate services, the report recommends supporting Aboriginal-led initiatives and ensuring cultural safety in all programmes.
The NSW Government has acknowledged the report and its recommendations. After the publication, Health Minister Ryan Park said that the government will carefully consider the findings and respond in due course. He said that “not everyone agreed on everything, but we sought to have every voice listened to”.
One step forward
The report’s foreword acknowledges that:
“Drug policy reform is a difficult yet critical area of public policy. Developing a shared understanding of effective solutions is essential if we are going to reduce the harm caused by drugs to individuals and our community.”
Whether or not its recommendations will push the state towards that aim varies greatly depending on who you ask. Without decriminalisation, many feel that the report is tinkering around the edges where the fundamental objectives of the policies pursued are what need to change. While some of the summit’s recommendations are welcome steps in the right direction, they could very well be reformist reforms, seeking solutions within the existing options available within a prohibitionist system of drug control. The importance of seeking stronger and more evidence-based approaches to dealing with drug harms is only growing the growing threat of nitazenes, synthetic opioids which have arrived in Australia in the past six months.
When it comes to the real-world impact of NSW’s drug policy, the report itself isn’t shy about underscoring what is at stake, as well as the consequences of inaction: “Lives and livelihoods are lost when more can and must be done.”
