Latest news with #NationalParty-led
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown urges Government to reconsider bed night levy to reboot city's struggling economy
Bridges urged the National Party-led Government to consider serious policy or fiscal stimulus across New Zealand, especially in major cities, to help 'get things going'. The bleak state of Auckland's economy was underscored by a Herald story this month showing a 6.6% drop in card spending in the central city between April and May 2024 and the same period in 2025. The picture was even starker on Karangahape Rd, where spending plunged by 22.5%. It had been the worst winter ever, said Helen McIntryre, who has owned a gift and furniture shop on K Rd for 34 years. Brown backed Bridges' call for the Government to take stronger action to support the economy during these challenging times, noting Auckland's 6.1% unemployment rate had implications for the rest of the country. He said introducing a bed night levy would deliver immediate stimulus by boosting tourism and attracting major events to Auckland. 'There's no reason the Government couldn't make a bed night levy an urgent priority and have it in place by next year,' Brown said. 'The sector supports it and so do most Aucklanders.' Brown has been calling on the Government to approve a bed night levy for some time, but Tourism Minister Louise Upston has ruled it out, saying there would be no new taxes. Today, Upston acknowledged Bridges' comments and noted the ongoing interest in a bed tax. However, she reiterated that 'a tax is not something I'm pursuing this term'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Tourism Minister Louise Upston are not keen on a bed night levy at this stage. Photo / Dean Purcell 'The most pressing challenge for New Zealand tourism is that we simply don't have enough visitors, and I'm focused on growing those numbers. 'This Government is firmly committed to growing the economy, including Auckland's, and tourism remains a key part of that strategy,' the minister said. So far this term, the Government has hiked the international tourism levy for visitors to New Zealand by nearly 200% from $35 to $100, and announced international tourists would be charged $20 to $40 at four popular destinations – the Tongariro Crossing, Cathedral Cove, Milford Sound and Aoraki Mt Cook. Asked about Bridges' call for a stimulus package on RNZ on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said progress would 'come through to the big cities eventually'. 'I know it's difficult – particularly in our big cities... we've got to keep doing everything we can, but open to more things and discussing more things, but I think at this stage it's keep doing what we are doing,' he said. Herald business editor-at-large Liam Dann backed Bridges' call for a stimulus package in a weekend column, arguing that Auckland's economy is 'broken' and urgently needed Government attention. Karangahape Rd shop owner Helen McIntyre says this winter has been the worst in 32 years. Photo / Jason Dorday Dann suggested the Government could allocate funding to revive three 'dead' buildings in the midtown area – St James Theatre, the vacant Smith & Caughey's building, and the Sky World indoor entertainment complex. He argued restoring these sites would breathe life back into the city and keep skilled workers employed while the broader economy recovers. Hospitality New Zealand chief executive Steve Armitage said Auckland had faced significant challenges in recent years, particularly across the hospitality, accommodation, tourism and events sectors. He supported the introduction of sustainable funding through a levy as soon as possible to create a dedicated and reliable revenue stream to promote tourism, attract major events and conferences, and stimulate spending across hotels, restaurants, retail and entertainment venues. However, rather than adopting an Auckland-only approach, Armitage said Hospitality NZ favoured a nationwide system applied fairly and consistently. A national framework would better support tourism-related activity, including the attraction and delivery of major and business events. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown and Hospitality NZ want a bed night levy to attract more events, such as Kinky Boots at the Civic Theatre. Photo / Jason Oxenham Localised models risk creating unnecessary complexity and inconsistency, Armitage said. The mayor said that when Auckland did well, the country did well, saying NZ's underlying problem was a low-productivity economy that wasn't exporting enough to the world. His goal was for Auckland to lead the country on a path to prosperity, saying his 2025 manifesto identified key opportunities for growth in technology, housing and tourism. Recently, Brown launched the Auckland Innovation & Technology Alliance to attract investment and strengthen the city's position as a competitive hub for tech and innovation. He's also working with Housing Minister Chris Bishop to make use of land for faster and smarter growth. Employers and Manufacturers Association head of advocacy Alan McDonald told RNZ there were some signs of recovery led by the primary sector and in the regions, but in Auckland, which was more about manufacturing and services, hospitality, tourism and education were all down. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
05-08-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Public Service Association Endorses Government's War Agenda
New Zealand's largest trade union, the Public Service Association (PSA), is fervently supporting moves to roughly double the military budget in preparation for war. Under the guise of seeking to protect jobs in the NZ Defence Force (NZDF), the union has denounced the National Party-led government, from the right, for not maintaining a strong enough military to join the coming US-led war against China. The NZDF confirmed on July 21 that it intends to cut 255 civilian jobs. They include roles in the army, air force, strategy, financial, health and safety, defence college, joint defence services, joint support group, chief of staff office and veterans affairs. It brings a total of one in ten positions axed in the last year, including 'voluntary' redundancies. A further 45 may also be cut. At the same time, a major escalation of military front-line capability, equipment and weaponry is under way. With the support of the opposition Labour Party, the government plans to nearly double defence spending from just over 1 percent to 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a $NZ9 billion increase, in line with demands of the US Trump administration and NATO powers. Defence Minister Judith Collins last week told graduating army recruits to prepare for the real possibility of combat 'as the world faces its most complex and volatile global environment in decades.' Nearly 700 NZDF troops this month joined the massive Talisman Sabre exercise in Australia, a multi-national dress rehearsal for war against China. A NZDF spokesperson told Stuff they were 'reprioritising' the workforce to focus on 'maintaining combat readiness' and 'delivering core military activities.' It is establishing 276 new civilian roles while disestablishing 281 currently filled with a further 250 vacant positions not replaced. The PSA criticised the cuts from the standpoint of promoting the government's vast military buildup. The union's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons condemned the cuts as 'incredibly shortsighted' and 'not how you build a modern, combat-ready defence force at a time of rising security risks.' Fitzsimmons added that civilian defence workers were needed to support new investment in military equipment and technology and warned the cuts would force 'those in uniform to pick up the work of the civilian workers. That is not what they signed up to do and won't help NZDF improve retention.' Fitzsimons commented: 'This is all about saving money, not strengthening security. It doesn't make any sense when tensions are rising across the Asia Pacific area and in Europe… It was only a few months ago that a warship from China was in the Tasman Sea.' In February a 'live fire' exercise by three Chinese warships in nearby international waters was seized upon by the New Zealand and Australian governments, along with the corporate media, to stoke hysteria about an escalating 'threat' posed by Beijing and to justify the military spend-up. The US and its allies routinely carry out naval drills in waters close to the Chinese mainland. The pro-war position advanced by Fitzsimons is thoroughly anti-working class. It expresses the reactionary nationalist outlook of the labour and trade union bureaucracies at home and abroad that are closely integrated with the capitalist state. In May, Spain's General Union of Workers (UGT) and Workers' Commissions (CCOO), the two largest trade union federations, threw their full support behind the European Union's plans for mass rearmament, aligning themselves with the European establishment's preparations for war against Russia. In the US, the leader of the United Auto Workers Union, Shawn Fain, a rabid Trump supporter, has cited the collaborationist labour mobilisation of the American economy during World War II as the model for today's trade unions. There is mass opposition to war, witnessed in the ongoing protests against the genocide in Gaza. In every country, however, including in New Zealand, the union bureaucracy has refused to take any action to stop the supply of weapons and other materials for Israel's war machine. All the imperialist powers are involved the rapidly escalating wars that are engulfing the globe. New Zealand is no exception. A minor imperialist power in the Pacific and a US ally, it is part of the US-led Five Eyes spying network; NZ troops are in Britain training Ukrainian conscripts to fight Russia; and NZ forces are involved in repeated provocative military exercises aimed against China. The trade union apparatus supports the war drive of its 'own' national bourgeoisie because it represents the interests of a privileged layer of the upper middle class, whose wealth is bound up with enhancing the position of NZ imperialism. Unmentioned by Fitzsimons and other union leaders is the fact that the massive armaments upgrades can only be carried out at the expense of the social conditions and basic rights of the entire working class. The PSA is an accomplice in the deepening attacks on jobs and conditions among public sector workers. Prior to the 2023 election the union openly supported Labour's own plan to slash public service budgets by up to 4 percent as 'a prudent move to tighten the belt'—as PSA leader Duane Leo put it in a Radio NZ interview. Fitzsimons was a Labour candidate in that election. In the past 18 months, NZ's far-right government has launched a scorched earth policy against all the social services on which the working class depends. Over 10,000 public sector jobs have been eliminated with no serious resistance from the PSA, which has over 95,000 members, or any of the unions. With unemployment increasing from 3.6 percent in 2023 to 5.1 percent this month and forecast to continue rising, the government is increasingly despised. The right-wing nationalist NZ First and libertarian ACT Parties—which are part of the National-led coalition government—are leading the assault on the working class, despite gaining only 6.08 percent and 8.6 percent respectively of the popular vote in 2023. A broad-based mobilisation against job losses in the public and private sectors would win widespread support in the working class. The government's 2024 budget was handed down amid nationwide protests. In the capital, Wellington, a crowd of 7,000 descended onto parliament grounds while protests coincided with a two-day strike over pay by 2,500 junior doctors. Since then, the unions have dissipated the opposition, with the Council of Trade Unions boasting a purported new 'policy vision' that will be unveiled for the 2026 elections. The corporatist unions have enforced the thousands of job cuts. The PSA's strategy has been to take a handful of legal cases in the Employment Relations Authority, including against the Ministry of Education (MoE) and Health NZ, over the way in which the cuts have been managed. Instead of challenging mass layoffs, the union insists that they are carried out according to provisions in employment agreements which require 'consultation' with the unions. PSA spokesman Leo declared the MoE had rushed through its restructure without complying with the collective agreement, which requires the MoE and PSA to first 'try to agree to the outcomes of cost-cutting exercises and present that view to the management of the MoE.' The fight against austerity cannot be separated from the struggle against war. The demand must be raised for the vast resources being wasted on the military to be redirected to solve the crisis in public education and healthcare, and to put an end to poverty and homelessness. But to carry forward a real fight against war and austerity, workers and young people must recognise who their enemies are. They face a political struggle against not only the National Party-led government, but also the opposition Labour Party and its allies—the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, the various pseudo-left organisations—and the union bureaucracy. The PSA's open support for escalating war preparations against China underscores the urgent need for workers to build new organisations that they themselves control. Rank-and-file committees should be established in every workplace, independent of the union apparatus, to mobilise the working class against militarism and war, and to defend jobs, working conditions and vital public services. This fight must be informed by a socialist political perspective, aimed at putting an end to the capitalist system, which is plunging the world into war.
Scoop
17-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Social Crisis Deepening In New Zealand
Amid a sharp downturn gripping the New Zealand economy and escalating attacks by the far-right National Party-led government on the jobs and living standards of the working class, a bitter social crisis is unfolding. Growing discontent was highlighted last week with Statistics NZ revealing that a net 30,000 citizens quit New Zealand last year to move to Australia, the largest single year exodus since 2012. Tens of thousands more departed for other countries. In April and May 2025, more people left permanently than entered. The economy has fallen back into recessionary territory over the last three months. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was a meagre 0.8 percent in the March 2025 quarter on the back of a contraction of 1.1 percent over the full year. MacroBusiness in June described New Zealand as an 'economic basket case.' The Purchasing Managers Index (PMI), a key measure of forthcoming business activity, now ranks among the worst in the developed world. The working class is bearing the brunt of the downturn with a sharp drop in per capita national income. One statistician, posting on X under the handle MusicalChairs, noted that 'we are having a second winter of misery in the labour market. The year-on-year trend is basically stuck at 100 job losses per day. It's grim out there.' In the first quarter of 2025, unemployment hit 5.1 percent, up from 3.4 percent in 2023, with the number of people in full-time jobs falling by 45,000 in the three months. Jobseeker Support claims for unemployed 18–24-year-olds have increased by 41 percent over two years. The latest IMF World Economic Outlook predicts NZ will have the highest rate of joblessness of all Asia-Pacific countries until 2027, surpassing COVID-19 pandemic peaks. The percentage of people unemployed for between 6 months to 1year was 12.4 percent in 2023. It is now 23.9 percent, nearly double. Underemployment has risen by 26 percent in two years. Over a fifth of people working part-time, about 127,000, are struggling to find more work, despite looking for as long as five years in some cases. Wages have taken a sharp hit. According to the Labour Cost Index 48 percent of workers got a pay rise below inflation (i.e. less than 2 percent) last year. Annual increases in weekly earnings to June were a meagre $22 for workers in the lowest quartile, $42 in the median quartile and $69 in the upper quartile. The government is deliberately driving down wages for the lowest paid. The minimum wage increased in April by just 35 cents per hour to $23.50, a 1.5 percent increase, while inflation is presently running at 2.5 percent. In a brutal move, Finance Minister Nicola Willis expunged a requirement that government contractors pay at least the 'Living Wage,' currently $28.95 per hour, for low-paid cleaning, catering and security guard services. Living costs are soaring. A study by the Australian Edith Cowan University last year compared prices of a basket of supermarket staples across four countries including NZ, Australia, Ireland and the UK. New Zealand had by far the most expensive groceries, ranging from $A342 to $A409, while Australia's were second at between $A324 and $A332. Bills for rates, insurance, energy and transport have all skyrocketed. Household savings dropped by $392 million to negative $1.6 billion in the March 2025 quarter, as household spending increased more than disposable incomes. In a sign of growing desperation, record numbers of workers are making early withdrawals from their KiwiSaver retirement savings. In May, a monthly high of 9,420 people made withdrawals totaling $234,192,710 because of financial hardship, according to Inland Revenue. Housing is an acute issue. A recent television episode of 'The Hui,' a Māori-orientated journalism program, detailed an explosion of homelessness, not only in traditional working-class areas such as Rotorua and South Auckland, but in the more affluent suburbs of Auckland's North Shore. Matarora Smith, who runs a breakfast program for about 60 homeless people in south Auckland, bluntly told 'The Hui,' 'One of the street whānau (family) have passed away in South Auckland—froze to death.' Jan Rutledge, of De Paul House, which provides support services in north Auckland, had seen a noticeable increase in homelessness. 'We had a family come to us with two kids, mum and dad. They were staying in Glenfield Mall's car park,' she said, opposite the local Work and Income office. Rutledge said: 'Now that we've got no-cause evictions, a landlord can just come in and say, 'that's it.' We're seeing quite a lot of that.' Head of the Lifewise charity, Haehaetu Barrett, told 'The Hui' that homelessness is a 'national crisis.' The government has drastically reduced the number of families in emergency housing even as the demand for public rentals escalates. The public housing agency Kāinga Ora rejected 1,569 families' applications for emergency accommodation in the first three months of 2025 alone. As of May, 19,089 people were waiting for a Kāinga Ora state home. Almost half were Māori. On average, people were on the waitlist for 233 days. Barrett denied recent allegations by Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell and Police Minister Mark Mitchell that rough sleeping was a 'lifestyle choice' among homeless people who they alleged spent what little money they had on drugs. Barrett noted that the closing of emergency motel accommodation, which began under the previous Labour government, is forcing more families out of secure shelter. The last of the motels in Rotorua will be shut down by the end of the year, which Barrett said was 'way too quick.' She declared; 'They move them, but to where? And what support is in place?' Government promises to tackle the housing supply have come to nothing. In Wellington, Kāinga Ora is selling off two pieces of real estate it had pledged to turn into 280 homes. The agency has just 42 new units in the pipeline for the capital city, while the social housing register there exceeds 640 families. Kāinga Ora announced that it will halt over 200 housing developments nationwide and sell a fifth of the vacant land it owns, to ensure its housing projects 'make commercial sense.' In February, Housing Minister Chris Bishop unveiled a 'turnaround plan' for the embattled agency. It included selling off valuable state properties in wealthy areas, purportedly to fund homes in working class suburbs. The scheme excludes state tenants from living in 'desirable' suburbs while opening the door to privatisation. According to the March 2025 Quarterly Economic Monitor from Infometrics, general rental affordability is worsening as tenants spend more of their household income on rent. Average rent as a percentage of household income is running at 22.1 percent, up from 21.9 percent a year ago and well above the average 10-year low of 20.2 percent. Homeowners continue to suffer from high interest rates on their mortgages. On July 9 the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) 'paused' its 11-month rate-cutting programme and held the official cash rate (OCR) unchanged at 3.25 percent, down from 5.5 percent last August, declaring it needed 'more clarity' on inflation, the economy, and US trade policy. The cost-of-living crisis confronting the working class is underpinned by a sharp escalation in social inequality. The country's Rich List revealed last month that 119 individuals and families, including 18 billionaires, control a record $NZ102.1 billion, up from $95.55 billion in 2024 and equivalent to more than 40 percent of annual GDP. Their wealth derives almost entirely from parasitic activities such as financial investment and property speculation. There is also a vast class divide among Māori. While ordinary Māori, who make up 18 percent of the population, remain among the most oppressed sections of the working class, tribal capitalist businesses are flourishing. In March, a report by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Te Puni Kōkiri showed the 'Māori economy' grew from $17 billion in 2018 to $32 billion in 2023. The powerful Tainui tribe, which settled land grievances with the government in 1995 for $170 million, now boasts a balance sheet of $1.9 billion.
The Advertiser
29-06-2025
- Politics
- 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
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘The Trumpian model': Richard Roxburgh takes on Australia's most provocative politician
Working on the documentary Joh: The Last King of Queensland was, director and co-writer Kriv Stenders says, 'like going back in a time machine, reliving my childhood and my early adult life'. Trawling through reams and reams of archival footage – news clips, interviews, amateur films of political protests in Brisbane during Joh Bjelke-Petersen's near-20-year reign as premier, 'I was finding footage of Brisbane in the '60s and '70s and into the '80s, stuff I vividly remember. I wouldn't call it therapeutic, but it was a strange feeling going back in time and reliving that part of my life.' Stenders and I were students together at the University of Queensland in the mid-1980s, a time when the cronyism and corruption and coercion of Bjelke-Petersen's National Party-led government seemed immovable. The police force was an instrument of his rule, used to intimidate anyone who didn't fit Bjelke-Petersen's narrow view of what an 'an ordinary, decent citizen' might look like (homosexuals, people of colour, creative types and the Left in general were all fair game). Laws and political boundaries were rewritten to further his dominance and agenda, democracy and civil liberties trampled under jackbooted foot. On the upside, the Queensland economy boomed, driven by coal mining and clear felling of native forest and migration north from other states (the abolition of death duties was a major drawcard). Loading And there were enough who bought into the myth of the maverick peanut farmer from Kingaroy, who left school at 14, as some kind of political and economic savant that a campaign to have him installed as the Coalition's man in Canberra – 'Joh for PM' – had serious traction for long enough to cruel John Howard's tilt in 1987 and hand the Lodge back to Bob Hawke. Does any of this sound familiar, even if you know nothing about Bjelke-Petersen? Stenders thinks it should. 'The reason I wanted to do this film was the elephant in the room, which is the relevance of the story now, the prescience of it,' he says. 'The playbook that Joh played from is very much the same one Netanyahu is using, that Trump's using, that various populist leaders around the world are drawing from. So it just felt like a really timely documentary, and the right time to go back and look at Joh's legacy and work out what's changed and what hasn't.' One of the most shocking things about the Bjelke-Petersen era – for those of us who experienced it firsthand, at any rate – is how little the rest of the country knew about what was going on, at least until Chris Masters ' The Moonlight State report for Four Corners and the subsequent Fitzgerald Inquiry into corruption blew the lid off it all. Richard Roxburgh grew up at the same time, in rural NSW, but had little sense of the man he would go on to play in Stenders' film. 'I was a long way away from it, so I guess we were shielded from it,' he says. Of course, he did come to understand the craziness of that time. But for many others, it has faded, or simply never been spoken of – and given the current state of the world, that's far from ideal. 'You'll speak to a 30-year-old who has never heard of Joh Bjelke-Peterson, and so I think this is really important, because there is so much of the Trumpian model, a kind of pre-echo of many of the conditions that we're seeing now – the ever-revolving door of crackdowns and their growth over time, the way one quietly leads to another, which quietly leads to another,' says Roxburgh. 'And you end up in a state where anybody who felt slightly different either had to be prepared to have their heads staved in with batons, or to just get on the highway and head out of there.' Roxburgh has become something of a go-to man for portrayals of men from recent Australian history. Loading 'I've got a theory that he's going to play every famous Australian before he dies,' jokes Stenders, who recently directed him in The Correspondent, his film about journalist Peter Greste, who spent more than a year in an Egyptian prison. He's played Bob Hawke (twice), crooked copper Roger Rogerson (also twice), Ronald Ryan, the last man hanged in Australia, composer Percy Grainger, Bali bombing investigator Graham Ashton and more. Is there anyone left for you to do? 'I've done it,' he says, unequivocally. 'That's it now.' You don't fancy playing Tony Abbott, perhaps? 'You know, I wouldn't mind having a crack,' he admits, despite his better judgment. 'I can feel my mum rolling in her grave at the idea that I played Joe Bjelke-Petersen, but I think she would really respond to the documentary.' His Bjelke-Petersen is not a full-on immersion in character. It's more an impression. He roams the stage of an empty theatre, dressed in an ill-fitting beige suit, ruminating on his life and times and – to his mind – unjust downfall in that halting, stuttering, circumlocutory way of his. He gets the voice spot on. Loading 'It's all based around the idea of Joh's final hours in office, where he actually barricaded himself in like Hitler in his bunker,' explains Stenders. The monologues were written by novelist Matthew Condon, using a mix of Hansard transcripts, television interviews, and news reports. 'They're not verbatim,' says Stenders. 'They're a fusion of a number of sources.' There are interviews, too, many with critics of Bjelke-Petersen, who died in 2005 aged 94, and the deeply entrenched corruption that flourished under his reign (though he faced court, he was not convicted, after his trial ended in a hung jury). But there are also those who speak in his defence – former Brisbane Lord Mayor Sally-Anne Atkinson, Nationals leader David Littleproud, independent MP Bob Katter – and who all insist, to paraphrase Bjelke-Petersen, 'there's nothing to see here' when it comes to those pesky claims of wrongdoing. Though there's balance, Stenders feels the film is 'pretty unequivocal' in terms of being a cautionary tale. 'Joh did some pretty provocative and divisive things that are undeniable,' he says. 'He was complicit in a corrupt government, I think that's undeniable. But at the same time, I didn't want to paint him – as I think a lot of people did back then, and I did myself – as a fool, as a clown, as an idiot. Joh used that country bumpkin thing very much as a mask, as a facade. And he hid behind that, he used it to his advantage.' People like Bjelke-Petersen may not have much by way of schooling, says Stenders, 'but these guys are actually super smart. They've got a ferocious kind of intelligence and a rat cunning and a strategic mind. And I realised that Joh wasn't the clown I thought he was, that he was actually a very skillful, albeit deceitful, leader. 'The film is trying to unpack and look at his legacy, look at the way he operated, look at the way he constructed himself as a politician. To change power, you first need to understand it.'
