Pubdate: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 Source: Daily Telegraph (Australia) Copyright: News Limited 2000 Contact: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ Author: Piers Akerman, PANDERING TO THE WRONG CAUSE Users of a range of fairly common and freely available pharmaceuticals are sternly admonished not to drive or operate heavy machinery. What then seems to be the problem about warning parents who habitually use illicit drugs that they will not be permitted to take charge of children, especially as those parents are likely to be even more greatly impaired by the potency of the drugs they take? That acquiescent attitude toward illegal drug use seems to be at the heart of the approach to the drug culture embraced by the handwringers in the NSW department and in particular, the Department of Community Services and its well-meaning director-general Carmel Niland. Until the State Government recognises that drug abuse is an inherent evil, its officers will continue to pussyfoot around the issue and play with such nonsense notions as harm minimisation, and the Fairfax press, an agile accomplice in this farce, will continue to write about "bad" heroin as opposed supposedly to some form of "good" heroin that other junkies may shoot up safely. Ms Niland has asked that I "walk a mile in the shoes" of one of her child protection workers to experience at first-hand the thankless job she says they perform, but I don't believe merely "walking" the walk would address the profound cultural problems that exist within DOCS. While it is true that my experience with Ms Niland's staff is limited, I do know the anguish experienced by a close colleague whose errant adolescent daughter was effectively enticed into a "wimin's" shelter by conspiratorial DOCS workers who then refused to tell the distraught parents where the child was being hidden. And I am well aware of the awful statistics released by the Child Death Review Team which found that 80 children of drug-dependent parents died, 70 of those children being "known to DOCS". Ms Niland adopts some sophistry to claim that only six of the 70 youngsters died as a result of child abuse -- six too many. The remaining 64, she wrote in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, "died from factors like natural causes, fires, car accidents and drownings". "No one," she wrote, "can blame DOCS for these deaths." Oh no? Just keep reading. I blame DOCS and Premier Bob Carr and Special Minister of State John Della Bosca and everyone else who continues to pander to the junkie culture for not only the deaths but also for the totally screwed-up lives of each and every child who is not removed by the State from the so-called care of a drug-affected parent and placed in a drug-free environment! Or, in keeping children with their drug-addled parents are Ms Niland and the Carr Government tacitly telling the community that being doped to the gills is no big deal? If such parents (like the drug-affected father photographed by this newspaper clinging for support to his toddler's pusher in Oxford St last Wednesday) are to be permitted to lamentably remain risibly responsible for their kids, why not let them operate heavy equipment? Drive buses and trains? Direct the traffic? Given the state of the railways and the ludicrous excuses made for their decrepit state, perhaps those in charge are already on dope. Who could tell? The suggestion by Major Brian Watters, the sanest voice on drug issues in NSW, a drug-free status be a requirement for employment in the public sector has been attacked by all the usual voices who claim there might he civil rights issues at stake. A particularly strong blend of drugs would be required to reach that conclusion. As the nominal employers of public servants, taxpayers SHOULD be demanding drug tests for civil servants, and particularly those such departments as health, Attorney-General's, police and DOCS, where this State's loopy drug policies are formulated. According to research from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), one of the great nanny-state enterprises, drug-using employees use more health and insurance benefits, are more frequently absent, are less reliable, are more at risk from accidents and are less productive. Why don't taxpayers demand the State Government, as the ultimate paymaster for the public service, reduce all of the above traits by instituting a drug-free regimen? Start there, and who knows, the community's concerns about the use of illegal drugs may even be reflected by the Government. - --- MAP posted-by: Allan Wilkinson