‘Demonstrate leadership': Labor under pressure to respond to drug summit
The Minns government is being urged to move faster on overhauling drug policy in NSW, with MPs from across the political spectrum backing cannabis law reform and peak welfare groups calling for Labor to implement recommendations from the NSW 2024 Drug Summit.
After last week's budget failed to include funding aimed at addressing the 56 recommendations from the summit, a coalition of peak services including NCOSS and the Wayside Chapel have urged Labor to 'demonstrate leadership' and push ahead with drug reform.
'The families and communities impacted by this issue across NSW have waited too long for change,' the joint statement, which was also signed by Uniting, the Salvation Army, Wesley Mission and the St Vincent de Paul Society read.
'We see the ongoing impact that stigma has on people who use drugs and experience drug dependency and the difficulty in accessing support.'
It has been almost three months since the co-chairs of the drug summit, Carmel Tebbutt and John Brogden, handed the government its final report including 56 recommendations, among them calls for Labor to 'significantly increase' funding for drug and alcohol services.
Loading
While the summit stopped short of recommending decriminalisation, it called for changes ranging from the introduction of a medical defence for driving while using medically prescribed cannabis, to cutting penalties for minor drug possession.
The government has yet to respond to the summit's recommendations, but in a statement, Health Minister Ryan Park said it would do so 'in the next six months as requested by the co-chairs'. Park said the government had moved to introduce a pill testing trial in the interim, and that it had announced a $235 million package for drug and alcohol services before the summit.
'The funding is focused on meeting the unique needs of priority population groups including Aboriginal people, pregnant women, people with mental health conditions, young people and people involved in the criminal justice system,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Should staffing matters be under such unfettered prime ministerial control?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Demonstrate leadership': Labor under pressure to respond to drug summit
The Minns government is being urged to move faster on overhauling drug policy in NSW, with MPs from across the political spectrum backing cannabis law reform and peak welfare groups calling for Labor to implement recommendations from the NSW 2024 Drug Summit. After last week's budget failed to include funding aimed at addressing the 56 recommendations from the summit, a coalition of peak services including NCOSS and the Wayside Chapel have urged Labor to 'demonstrate leadership' and push ahead with drug reform. 'The families and communities impacted by this issue across NSW have waited too long for change,' the joint statement, which was also signed by Uniting, the Salvation Army, Wesley Mission and the St Vincent de Paul Society read. 'We see the ongoing impact that stigma has on people who use drugs and experience drug dependency and the difficulty in accessing support.' It has been almost three months since the co-chairs of the drug summit, Carmel Tebbutt and John Brogden, handed the government its final report including 56 recommendations, among them calls for Labor to 'significantly increase' funding for drug and alcohol services. Loading While the summit stopped short of recommending decriminalisation, it called for changes ranging from the introduction of a medical defence for driving while using medically prescribed cannabis, to cutting penalties for minor drug possession. The government has yet to respond to the summit's recommendations, but in a statement, Health Minister Ryan Park said it would do so 'in the next six months as requested by the co-chairs'. Park said the government had moved to introduce a pill testing trial in the interim, and that it had announced a $235 million package for drug and alcohol services before the summit. 'The funding is focused on meeting the unique needs of priority population groups including Aboriginal people, pregnant women, people with mental health conditions, young people and people involved in the criminal justice system,' he said.
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Security expert brands Anthony Albanese's handling of US strikes on Iran 'disturbing' following revelation Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of attack
Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge has argued Anthony Albanese's response to United States strikes on Iran was made "even more disturbing" by revelations the Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of the attacks. Mr Albanese came under intense scrutiny over his and the government's reaction to news the US had bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities. The government initially put out a statement attributed only to a spokesperson which failed to explicitly support the attacks before the Prime Minister later held a press conference to give direct backing. Critics of Labor and Mr Albanese claimed the response showed the government was out of step with the Trump Administration and had been caught flat-footed by the US. However, on Sunday Sky News Australia revealed the Prime Minister did have advanced knowledge the US planned to attack Iran's nuclear sites, although not the exact timing on when the strikes would occur. According to Mr Shoebridge, the revelation is likely to prompt further questions about Mr Albanese's handling of the issue. "I think it's good that our government knew about this beforehand, but the fact that the government knew before it happened, that the US was going to bomb Iran, makes the Prime Minister's performance even more disturbing," he told Sky News. "Let's remember, the strikes happened on a Sunday. Almost every other world leader reacted that day. It wasn't until Monday that we got a stilted press conference from the Prime Minister and he still sounded clueless and flat-footed. "That made sense when we thought the whole thing had come as a surprise to him, but knowing he had pre-warning makes his performance quite bizarre." Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor last week claimed Mr Albanese had expressed "anti-US alliance' sentiments by failing to quickly back in the strikes and it is possible that criticism will be renewed following the revelation Labor had advanced warning. The back and forth over the government's response comes as the relationship between Australia and the US continues to experience increasing scrutiny after the re-election of President Donald Trump. Critics of the government have highlighted past comments from senior Labor figures about the US President to suggest there is a disconnect between the leadership of both countries. Australia has also come under pressure over its approach to defence spending, with Trump Administration officials pushing for Labor to lift its outlay. Mr Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles have both stuck by existing plans to increase spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP, despite pressure to reach 3.5 per cent from US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. "We have increased our defence investment,' the Prime Minister said on Friday. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.'
