The Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) was introduced into the Australian drug policy community in 1997 by the Howard conservative government as part of its “Tough on Drugs” policy initiative. Support in 1997 by the states and territories through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) for a trial of prescribed heroin prompted the prime minister to attempt to directly control drug policy by changing national drug-policy-making processes. It has been suggested that the ANCD was introduced to short-circuit the power of the states and territories to structure national drug strategy, signaling a shift from consensus decision making through a policy community approach to centralized executive decision making through the prime minister's office. Interviews with key policy makers during 1999–2000 and findings from recent evaluations point to a climate of distrust, over-bureaucratization, slow decision making, and overt paranoia about the presence of new players in the drug policy arena, resulting not from inadequacies in governance but as a resistant response from policy makers to the introduction of the ANCD. This shift in the model of decision making may lead to an obsolete national drug strategy (NDS) and undermine a unified approach to national drug policy.
Australian Institute of Criminology (1992). Comparative analysis of illicit drug strategy. Prepared for the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy by the Australian Institute of Criminology. National Campaign Against Drug Abuse: Monograph Series Monograph 18. Canberra: National Campaign Against Drug Abuse.
2.
BammerG.DouglasR.M. (1996) “The ACT heroin trial proposal: An overview.”Medical Journal of Australia164: 690–692.
3.
BerridgeV.ThomB. (1996) “Research and policy: What determines the relationship?”Policy Studies17(1): 23–34.
4.
BerridgeV. (1999) “Histories of harm reduction: Illicit drugs, tobacco, and nicotine.”Substance Use & Misuse34(1): 35–47.
5.
BerridgeV. (2000). “The impact of qualitative research on policy making: Setting the scene.” In: FountainJ. (ed.), Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research, pp. 41–48. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
6.
BrownV.A.MandersonD.O'CallaghanM.ThompsonR. (1986). Our Daily Fix: Drugs in Australia. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
7.
CohenJ. (1997). “Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.” In BohmanJ.RehgW. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 67–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
ConsidineM. (2002) “The end of the line: Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships and joined up services.”Governance15(1): 21–40.
9.
ContandriopoulosD. (2004) “A sociological perspective on public participation in health care.”Social Science & Medicine58(2): 321–330.
10.
CourtwrightD.T. (2004) “Drug wars: Policy hots and historical cools.”Bulletin of the History of Medicine78(2): 440–450.
11.
CrosbieD. (2000). “The national drug strategy: A safe set of words.” In: StokesG.ChalkP.GillenK. (eds.), Drugs and Democracy: In Search of New Directions, pp. 139–148. Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press.
12.
DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (eds.) (2000). The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
FerlieE.AshburnerL.FitzgeraldL.PettigrewA. (1996). The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
FitzgeraldJ.L.SewardsT. (2002). The Australian Approach: Australian Drug Policy Practice and Achievements. Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.
15.
GoldfinchS.t'HartP. (2003) “Leadership and institutional reform: Engineering macroeconomic policy change in Australia.”Governance16(2): 235–270.
16.
GowingL.ProudfootH.Henry-EdwardsS.TeessonM. (2001). Evidence supporting treatment: The effectiveness of interventions for illicit drug use. ANCD report no. 3. Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs. (http://www.ancd.org.au/publications/index.htm).
17.
HurleyC.BaumF.Van EykH. (2001) “Designing better health care in the south: A case study of unsuccessful transformational change in public sector health service reform.”Australian Journal of Public Administration63(2): 31–41.
18.
JordanG.MahoneyW.A. (1997) “Accounting for subgovernments: Explaining the persistence of policy communities.”Administration & Society29(5): 557–583.
19.
JordanA.G.RichardsonJ.J. (1983) “Policy communities: The British and European policy style.”Policy Studies Journal11(4): 603–615.
20.
JordanA.G.RichardsonJ.J. (1987). “British Politics and the Policy Process: An Arena Approach.”London: Allen and Unwin.
21.
LevineH.G. (1993). “Temperance Cultures: Alcohol as a Problem in Nordic and English-Speaking Cultures.” In: LaderM.EdwardsG.DrummonD.C. (eds.), The Nature of Alcohol and Drug Related Problems, pp. 16–36. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
LewisJ.M.ConsidineM. (1999). Medicine, economics and agenda-setting. Social Science & Medicine48(3): 393–405.
23.
MaloutasT.MaloutaM.P. (2004) “The glass menagerie of urban governance and social cohesion: Concepts and stakes/concepts as stakes.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28(2): 449–465.
24.
MooreM. (2002). “Mystery and misconceptions; Ministerial councils.”Canberra Times (Australia), Final Edition, February 5, Section A, p 4.
25.
MunroG. (2004). “An addiction agency's collaboration with the drinks industry: Moo Joose as a case study.”Addiction (on-line advance publication, 20 July).
26.
O'SullivanD.DownB. (2001) “Policy decision making models in practice: A case study of the Western Australian ‘sentencing acts’.”Policy Studies Journal29(1): 56–65.
27.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs (2003). Road to Recovery: A Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
RankinJ.G. (2003) “Australia's response to substance-related problems in the last 40 years.”Drug & Alcohol Review22: 255–262.
30.
RohlT. (2000). “Evaluating the national drug strategy.” In: Drugs and Democracy: In Search of New Directions, StokesG.ChalkP.GillenK., (eds.), Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press.
31.
Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1979). Report of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
32.
SabatierP.A.Jenkins-SmithH. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
33.
SabatierP.A. (1998) “The advocacy coalition framework—revisions and relevance for Europe.”Journal of European Public Policy5(1): 98–130.
34.
SingleE.RohlT. (1997). The National Drug Strategy: Mapping the Future. A report commissioned by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. Canberra: Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy.
35.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36.
Successworks (2003). Evaluation of the National Drug Strategic Framework. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing.
