Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This bill exists for one reason: because Anthony Albanese has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon.

Let us be clear:

And if Labor votes against this Bill, they're voting to keep a system where Anthony Albanese decides who gets to scrutinise him and who doesn't.

Under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MoPS Act), the Prime Minister of the day holds absolute discretion over who gets personal staff and who doesn't.

Mr Albanese has abused that discretion. He has ripped up decades of convention, cutting Opposition and some crossbench capacity, and weakened the Parliament's ability to hold his government to account.

This legislation fixes that. It restores balance, transparency and integrity to a system the Prime Minister has treated like his private fiefdom.

Let's be clear about the problem.

Right now, there are no minimum staffing levels for non-government parliamentarians.

There is no transparent basis for how resources are distributed. There's no review and no appeal. The Prime Minister can reward his left wing friends—as he has done—and punish his critics—even reduce an allocation to zero—and there is no check on that power.

And this isn't hypothetical.

Since the election, Mr Albanese has cut the Opposition's staffing allocation. This has been a deliberate decision that makes the Australian Parliament less capable of scrutinising the Government.

He's done it before, too. In June 2022, staffing for some crossbench MPs and Senators was slashed from four to one, without warning or consultation, and without any reduction in their responsibilities to their communities or to this Parliament.

The Government's own 2022 Review of the MoPS Act recognised the problem: "limited transparency" about staffing decisions, "perceptions of unfairness or political influence", and real work health and safety concerns driven by sustained workload pressures.

In plain English: the system is opaque, it looks political because it is political, and staff are under the pump.

The Prime Minister's answer? He gestures at boosting the Parliamentary Library—a great institution that we all value—while refusing to deal with the core issue: his personal power to dial up or dial down the Opposition and crossbench. That's not good enough.

A Government allergic to transparency

This Prime Minister talks a big game on openness, but when it comes to staffing, he shuts the books. There is no published baseline for allocations, no clear criteria, and no reasons provided when cuts are made.

The stock answers are "Prime Minister's discretion" and "not in the public interest to disclose".

That is not transparency—it is secrecy at its very best under the Albanese Labor Government—and that is dangerous for Australia's democracy.

Transparency is not a favour the Prime Minister does for those he likes; it is a duty owed to the Australian people.

Sunlight is a discipline on all of us—Government and non-government alike.

The only people who fear it are those who benefit from the dark and in this case, it is the Albanese Government.

The choice before the Senate is simple: keep a staffing system built on secrecy and whim, that has been abused by Anthony Albanese or back a law that makes the numbers visible and the rules fair.

If Mr Albanese believed in transparency, he would have done this himself.

Where are the Greens?

And where are the Albanese Government's socialist partners in crime—the Australian Greens in all this? Hiding.

When Senator Fatima Payman sought scrutiny of the Prime Minister's staffing decisions the Greens wouldn't back her push for accountability.

Worse, while others cop the cuts and delays, the Greens have benefited from a newly constructed party room in Parliament House reportedly costing around $886,000. And what is worse—they got angry when a photo was published of it.

That tells you everything about their priorities: special deals for themselves; silence on scrutiny for everyone else.

This bill draws a line under that behaviour.

It places a floor beneath which staffing for non-government parliamentarians cannot fall, while preserving the Government's overall control of total staffing numbers and the Prime Minister's discretion above those minimums.

It does three simple, sensible things:

1. It guarantees the Opposition at least 110 non-ministerial personal staff, or 22 per cent of the Government's total personal staff allocation, whichever is greater. That reflects the Opposition's vital role in holding the Government to account and ensures access to senior capability at comparable proportions to the Government's own structure.

2. It guarantees any non-government party with eight or more parliamentarians at least 25 personal staff, or 5 per cent of the Government's total personal staff allocation, whichever is greater. That avoids the perverse outcome where a party of nine could be better resourced than a party of ten.

3. It guarantees independents and minor parties with fewer than eight parliamentarians at least three personal staff—including one senior adviser—recognising that these members must engage across every portfolio, scrutinise complex legislation, serve on committees and consult widely.

For clarity, these thresholds apply only to non-ministerial personal staff.

The Government's personal staff allocation captures staff to the Prime Minister, Ministers and Assistant Ministers, and any personal staff employed in special offices such as the Cabinet Policy Unit, Office of Government Members' Staff and whole-of-government communications/coordination teams. Staff employed by Government Presiding Officers, Deputy Presiding Officers and Whips are excluded from the Government's personal staff allocation.

This bill doesn't tie the Government's hands on fiscal management.

It doesn't prevent the Prime Minister from allocating more, it simply prevents him from allocating less than a fair minimum. Party leaders still decide how to distribute their allocation internally. The Treasurer still manages the bottom line.

Accountability and responsibility can co-exist—they must.

Why does this matter?

Because a healthy democracy requires a strong Parliament.

When a Prime Minister cuts Opposition and some crossbench staff, he isn't saving money—he's buying himself less scrutiny.

He's making it harder for MPs and Senators to read a 400-page bill, consult their communities, and show up to Estimates with the facts.

He's trading accountability for convenience.

Australians deserve better than a "trust me" staffing system run on the Prime Minister's whims.

They deserve a level playing field where the Government is scrutinised properly and the Parliament can do its job. That is what this bill delivers: certainty, integrity and transparency.

If the Government votes against it, they'll be voting for secrecy, not scrutiny.

They'll be voting to keep a system that lets Anthony Albanese reward allies and punish critics. They'll be voting to keep Parliament weaker and the Prime Minister stronger.

This shouldn't be a partisan question—it's a democratic one.

Parliament is not Anthony Albanese's private office.

It belongs to the Australian people. If you are afraid of the questions, fix your policy. Don't fix the staffing to rig the outcome."

Support the bill. Strengthen the Parliament. Restore accountability.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.