Should staffing matters be under such unfettered prime ministerial control?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Tasmanian Liberals face challenge implementing policies with new crossbench
Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff says his minority government remains "committed to working across the parliament", as it plans to make inroads on budget repair, a new state-owned insurance agency, and allowing pets in rentals early in the new term. The state's net debt, which is projected to reach $13 billion by 2027-28, was one of the key reasons the state went to the polls. The budget outlook was a key policy platform for Labor and most members of the crossbench. "It'll be a lot of work," Mr Rockliff said on Wednesday. Within the first week, the government intends to consult with Treasury and government agencies, ahead of the November budget. Mr Rockliff said using the original 2025 budget as a baseline, the party would "work across the political divide" to bring it into shape. Independent MP Peter George said the party needed to show transparency and accountability. "The big problem is going to be whether the Liberal government is prepared to share the information that's necessary for making decisions, and whether it's also prepared to take the responsibility for the state of the budget that we've got now," he said. "I don't have a lot of faith in this Liberal administration. "It takes a long, long time to build trust, confidence and faith, and it can be very easily destroyed. "We need to do this very slowly." Within the first 100 days, the government wants to introduce legislation to advance state-owned insurance agency, TasInsure, planning to have it set up in 2026. The plan was slammed by the opposition, prominent economist Saul Eslake, and the Insurance Council of Australia during the campaign, but heralded as game-changing by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Also a priority is amending the Residential Tenancy Act, to give tenants more secure right to keep pets in rentals — a promise the Liberals took to the 2024 election. Labor campaigned this time around with TassieDoc, pledging to deliver five fully bulk-billed clinics across the state. The Liberals quickly matched it, but did not follow on when Labor bumped the number up to 10. Now, the government plans to run an expression of interest for four new bulk-billed clinics within the first 100 days, "based on evidence of need". The Liberals have also promised to release updated costings on the leasing arrangement for Spirit of Tasmania IV, which was docked in Scotland from late 2024 and is due to reach Tasmanian waters this week. Without a majority in parliament, the Liberals have made a number of policy concessions to win over crossbenchers, including phasing out greyhound racing, abandoning a plan to release more native forest for logging and, most recently, a pause on salmon farming expansions while an independent review of the industry takes place. And the Liberals will need to continue appeasing the crossbench if they want to stay in power for a full four years. "There's no time for hubris. There's no need or want for hubris," Mr Rockliff said. But they remain at an impasse when it comes to Hobart's proposed Macquarie Point stadium. Independent MP Kristie Johnston said she did not expect the premier to abandon the project, but "the reality is we are in a power-sharing parliament now". The Project of State Significance (PoSS) process for assessing the project continued throughout the election campaign, and the premier said regardless of whether the PoSS or enabling legislation came before the parliament, everyone in the chamber would have their vote. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers member Carlo di Falco, one of the most conservative crossbenchers, told ABC Mornings he planned to push back on the concessions made that he did not agree with, such as the greyhound racing ban. He said he was "blindsided" by the move. "I'm not going to give Jeremy a free ride, and I've got a better chance of getting a better outcome for my constituents being inside the tent rather than outside, so every time Jeremy gets comfortable in his sleeping bag, I'm going to be kicking it," he said. On Wednesday, Minister for Business, Industry and Resources Felix Ellis announced a $20 million bridging loan to Liberty Bell Bay owner GFG Alliance to ensure the "bright future" of hundreds of Tasmanians. "It will provide a shipment of ore so that workers on site can get on with what they do best and produce manganese through the smelter," he said. Australian Workers Union president Robert Flanagan welcomed the support, but remained disappointed by the salmon review. "What we want to see is a government that supports job opportunities in Tasmania, and we think that [with] the crossbench the government has to work with [it] will be very difficult to achieve that outcome," he said.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
For Victoria, Allan's bounce back is anything but healthy
The old gag about Melbourne's weather is that if you don't like it, just wait five minutes. The same might be said about the Allan government and opinion polls. The latest Resolve Political Monitor survey shows that in a reverse of Newton's law of gravity, the collapse of popular support for Victorian Labor at the end of last year is matched only by the startling recovery of the past six months. A primary vote of just 22 per cent is now 32 per cent and rising. A looming electoral cataclysm has been replaced by the likelihood of a fourth consecutive win. The volatility in voter sentiment is extraordinary but then, so is the situation in Victoria, where a Labor administration which, by any conventional measure or norm, has governed beyond its natural lifespan, yet remains the only viable choice before electors to run the state. This is not healthy. I recently interviewed Melbourne Law School associate professor William Partlett, a fellow at the Centre for Public Integrity. He sees Victorian Labor as an example of a cartel party, a concept the late Irish political scientist Peter Mair coined to describe how political parties co-opt the resources of the state to create electoral monopolies. In Victoria, it is seen in the blurring of boundaries between the Labor Party, the public service and an expanding public sector that embeds a not-so-virtuous cycle of self-sustaining incumbency. It is the passage of electoral funding laws, with the support of a gormless Liberal Party, that bake in an advantage for sitting MPs against challengers and established parties against new entrants. It is constraint of the state's anti-corruption agency with a jurisdiction so narrow it rarely holds public hearings and must be convinced of the commission of a crime before it launches an investigation.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Sydney has reached peak metro. Is it all downhill from here?
'We're limited by what we can afford,' Minns stressed this month. 'No one should be under any illusion that right now we're at full capacity when it comes to what's deliverable and what's buildable in NSW today.' Minns has also dashed any hopes of new stations for the under-construction Metro West having the same artistic flair that has given Sydney its first Instagrammable public transport project. A pedestrian tunnel linking Martin Place metro station with the existing station is called Mulu Giligu – meaning 'path of light' in the Gadigal language. Artist Callum Morton used 10,000 brightly coloured porcelain enamel tiles to create two soaring murals at both entrances to Gadigal station. A portrait of an Indigenous dancer named Roscoe is a feature of Waterloo station. The architecturally designed stations double as a tourist attraction and destination for art lovers. But Minns has foreshadowed that the new stations on Metro West – linking Parramatta to the CBD – will be 'form over function' with a focus on moving commuters from A to B. Minns' reticence to overpromise more metros or art-filled stations is understandable given the underground lines come with multibillion-dollar price tags. The government argues that something has to give, and schools, hospitals and roads cannot be sacrificed for public transport that services only Sydney. But it is a bitter pill to swallow for a city that cannot get enough of its new toy. Loading Similarly, the opposition has seized on Sydney's love affair with the metro which was, after all, a Coalition project. On the day Sydney was wishing the metro a happy birthday, Opposition Leader Mark Speakman was declaring that the Coalition had 'metro ambitions', creating its most notable point of difference with the government to date. How a Coalition would pay for an expanded metro network will be the biggest question the opposition must answer if it is to be believed that it can deliver more fast rail. Where those lines would run will be another obvious question. There are some clues on routes. A confidential review of Sydney's metro projects proposed completing an extension of the airport metro line from Bradfield to 'Bradfield South'. Cost? Nudging $2.5 billion. It also suggested a rail link from Leppington to Bradfield South. Add another $4.6 billion. Those lines could be followed by a northern extension of the airport metro line from St Marys to Schofields by 2037 ($9.6 billion) and on to Tallawong for a further $3.2 billion. Those additions alone will cost NSW a whopping $19.9 billion. The Coalition may not choose to pursue all those proposals, but regardless, it will face massive, if not insurmountable, financial challenges to pursue the metro dream. Ambition is not enough. What is clear is that the metro has changed Sydney. The squeeze in peak hour, when commuters are squashed in like sardines, is a measure of the metro's success. But it is also a source of frustration for some commuters who long for a little more personal space. The government could increase the frequency of the peak services to every three minutes, down from the current four, or it could add extra carriages. But those changes also come with considerable operating costs and this is a Labor government determined not to be a spendthrift. So where does this leave Sydney? We have a world-class fast, reliable rail system that has finally put the city on par with other global powerhouses. No wonder we love it.
