Opinion: Albanese's unprecedented act of political ruthlessness

Daily Mail​

2 days ago

Few Australians would be upset about the PM cutting the number of political staffers paid for by taxpayers. But what if he only did it to the Opposition - and not his own team? Would that feel like he's just seeking an advantage for his party? Because that's exactly what Albo has done. He's cut the number of shadow ministerial advisers the Coalition gets by 20 per cent without instituting a similar cut to the number of staffers in his own ministerial ranks.
It's a blatant attempt to diminish the Coalition so that it's a less competitive opposition. It's also an unprecedented act of political ruthlessness. The number of staff allocated to the federal Opposition has long been a routine exercise, done with bipartisan acceptance and little controversy. For the better part of three decades, Oppositions (Coalition and Labor alike) have been given 21 per cent of the staffing allowance made available to the PM and his ministers.
The rules began when Labor knew it was heading towards a massive defeat in 1996. So it put in place a policy to guarantee that an opposition, irrespective of how it performed, was guaranteed a set number of political advisers for its shadow ministry relative to what the government had. John Howard honoured the rule, despite his massive majority matching Albo's thumping majority today. Every other PM until now also honoured the convention, irrespective of the size of their victory.
So what Albo has delivered on staff resourcing is a significant and targeted cut to the Opposition's capacity to do its job. And make no mistake, this isn't just a bureaucratic adjustment: It is a choice designed to weaken parliamentary accountability, thereby undermining the very principles that underpin democratic governance. Albo has unilaterally cut 20 roles from the Coalition's total, including 16 senior adviser positions. These are key roles for an opposition. They help build a substantive alternative policy agenda.
It's retribution dressed up as reform. I've long held the view that the rise in political staffing positions across the parliament (government, opposition, crossbench) is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. But cuts to this wastage shouldn't deliberately disadvantage parliamentary opponents. It's hard to take seriously the government's excuses for making the change.
Labor won't disclose its own staffing numbers, which it would have done were they proportionally curtailed to match the cuts to the Coalition. It's even possible that Labor's staff has increased , widening the gap between the government and opposition. So much for transparency. Labor's other suggestion, that this is simply about proportional representation in Parliament (courtesy of the reduction in Coalition MPs and Senators at the election), misses the point entirely.
The size of the Shadow Cabinet (23 senior members, plus seven outer shadow ministers) hasn't changed. Their responsibilities haven't shrunk, only their resources have. The staffing allocation provided for the last 30 years is for opposition frontbenchers, and the size of that team doesn't change when election results deliver larger or smaller backbench teams. Ministers have entire departments to support their work. Opposition spokespeople, by contrast, rely almost entirely on a handful of advisers at best. Take those advisers away, and you don't just hamstring the individuals, you dilute the Parliament's ability to interrogate, contest and improve public policy.
You don't have to be a partisan to see how corrosive this all is. Excessive centralisation of power within the executive not only marginalises the public service, it erodes parliamentary scrutiny as well. Cutting Opposition staff disproportionately to the allocation the government gets is a decision that may look tactical, but carries serious institutional consequences. It's also a poor reflection on a government that claimed it would do politics differently. Labor promised to restore decency to the political process. Instead, it has used its large majority to gut the Opposition's capacity, and worse still it tried to do so under the radar, knowing full well that staffing allocations don't command much attention outside the Canberra bubble.
It's the kind of cynical move that feeds public mistrust in politics. This decision also runs counter to well-established democratic principles. Political theorists from John Stuart Mill to Bernard Crick have long stressed the indispensable role of a strong Opposition in a functioning democracy. As Crick put it: 'democracy is not simply majority rule, but rule that permits opposition'. That principle is weakened when the capacity to hold government accountable is structurally undermined by the government itself. The Westminster tradition thrives not merely on government competence, but on adversarial scrutiny. You can't have that if one side is starved of resources while the other operates with the full weight of the public service, ministerial staff, and political machinery behind it.
This is especially true in modern policymaking, where legislation is more complex, timeframes are tighter and ministerial spin is more carefully managed than ever before. Throw in the decline of the Fourth Estate in a challenging media environment and concern with Albo's one-sided resourcing only grows. The PM may think he has scored a tactical win. But in the long run, this kind of decision corrodes the checks and balances that prevent majority rule from becoming majoritarianism. Albanese should reverse course, not because it's convenient for the Opposition, but because it's essential for Australian democracy.