a day ago
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.
