Dr NELSON (1:14 PM) —The drug debate is rarely a sane pursuit and I would not describe the discussion we are having here as really a debate. In fact, it is a facile, superficial and politically charged discussion about one of the most complex issues that faces humankind. Shortly before his death in 1968, Robert Kennedy reminded us of the words of the Greek dramatist, Aeschylus, who said: `In our sleep pain that cannot forget falls, drop by drop, upon the heart and in our despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of god.'

Wisdom was not a word that sprang to mind when I read the motion that is on the Notice Paper. The motion and the way in which it is worded misunderstands the nature of the drug problem and what might reasonably be done about it. How do we measure success or failure? Do we measure it in terms of the number of people that are using drugs and the number of people who die from the use and misuse of drugs? And there are the disease rates. For example, if we look at the contraction of hepatitis C in the state of New South Wales, we might reasonably say we are starting to turn the corner. Do we look at the prevalence of drug use, as the member for Fowler intimated? Do we look at the types of drugs that are being used or at the age and socioeconomic profiles of those who are using them and perhaps are dying from their use?

The motion suggests that in some way the Prime Minister and the government have failed after two years of the Tough on Drugs strategy and policy. That misunderstands two things. The first is that this is a bit like foreign aid. We are going to spend nearly $1.6 billion on foreign aid, but poverty will continue and people will continue to die. We do not say that we have failed and therefore we should abandon the program.

The second point that ought to be made in relation to that is that Tough on Drugs was announced late in 1997 and the first tranche of money started to flow early last year. The second tranche, of course, is embedded in the 1999-2000 budget. The figures which I presume that the member for Fowler was referring to are based on the national household drugs strategy survey which was conducted late in 1998 under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. If I wanted to politicise this debate, I would suggest that those figures actually reflect a decade or perhaps even 20 years of the drug policy which preceded the conduct of the survey.

If we really want to have a look at what the government is actually doing, we will see that the government has announced a $500 million package over four years which is titled Tough on Drugs. That might not be everybody's preferred title but, to put that into context, when I was President of the Australian Medical Association I had the most enormously difficult job of trying to convince the then Labor government to put on cigarette packets the health warnings that we now see. By the way, cigarettes are killing 54 Australians a day and illicit drugs are currently killing one every 10 hours, not that that in any way excuses it or diminishes the importance of the issue.

Under Tough on Drugs we have a number of strategies. One is more police, more sniffer dogs and strategic task forces and those things that have police working with international policing agencies. But we also have prevention, education and community based initiatives. For the first time individual communi ties actually have resources that they can access to put together antidrug strategies that they think are appropriate to their area: detoxification and rehabilitation programs and research. Also, of course, under Tough on Drugs we are continuing methadone maintenance and needle exchange programs, not things with which all members of the House feel uncomfortable.

Tough on Drugs can mean lots of things to lots of people, depending on where they are coming from. As the CEO of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, David Crosby, who is no flag waver for the government, remarked after the last round of funding:

I find it quite moving to look through the list of programs that are to receive funding under this initiative, programs for Aboriginal people, young people, people who suffer mental illness and women with children. Many of these people currently don't have access to appropriate drug treatment programs. Now at least they will have a chance to change.

The real debate we ought to be having is: what is it that is breeding a sense of despondent disillusionment amongst young people in the present and a sense of forlorn hopelessness in terms of the future? If we are going to have a debate about drug use, we have to go, despite our economic indices of which we are so proud, to what is driving an unprecedented level of drug use in our community. I say to the member for Fowler: if you are really concerned about drug use, fight that $100 million hotel complex in Liverpool. (Time expired)