Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I share the concerns of the crossbench and the opposition about staffing levels and the way resources are shared and acknowledge that this has become increasingly problematic as the make-up of our parliament changes.

The Greens received a national vote of 12 per cent at the federal election, which equates to just over 35 per cent of the government's vote, but the government has arbitrarily decided that our staffing should be pegged at three per cent of theirs. Interesting maths. It's completely inappropriate that minor party and Independent parliament staffing is entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Under the current arrangements, the government of the day can disempower minor parties and Independents and use staffing allocations punitively against members of parliament whom they disagree with. The model proposed by the coalition, however, is more of the same, which entrenches the power of the major parties.

Several years ago, we made the important decision to create an independent tribunal on parliamentarians' pay. It is long overdue that we depoliticise staffing resources too. Personal staff contracting is a consistently challenging process to navigate and one that has a significant toll on staff wellbeing. We took steps to deal with the impacts of the stressful nature of the work parliamentary staff do, through the Jenkins review and the implementation of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. A staffing formula that gives certainty and structure to staff would be an important reform.

I know that when politicians start talking about themselves people tune out. They don't want to hear about parliamentarian staffing levels when there are so many big issues before this parliament and facing ordinary people in their daily lives. It's important that we get on with those real issues. Yes, in order to do so, we need to make sure that parliamentarians have the staff to enable that work, but we have a number of concerns with this bill that were previously conveyed to the Liberals but have not been addressed in the final version they have introduced.

Mainly, it entrenches the power of the major parties. It entrenches a large number of resources for the opposition, regardless of how many votes or members they have. It provides a significant number of resources for Independents, bringing their total staffing up to eight each, with no regard to whether they're in balance of power or not and the significant workload that that entails. It actually provides significant new incentives for MPs to leave parties and become Independents, and, ironically, it places further barries on the Nationals' ability to split from the coalition. This bill does not reflect an appropriate use of parliamentary resources because it's not a staffing model that respects the will of the voters. It fails to reflect and reinforce the choices of those voters, particularly the millions of people who voted Greens.

I note that those who introduced this bill have claimed that there are winners and losers in the Prime Minister's allocations in 2025, but as far as I can see there have been cuts all round. In 2022, the Green party room grew by 60 per cent, and that's why, in 2022, we asked for a party room that we could fit in. That's now been delivered, but it's somewhat bizarre that the coalition thinks that's a recent thing; we've been waiting for 3½ years for that party room—by the by. In 2022, our party room grew by 60 per cent but we saw zero increase in personal staff. After this most recent federal election, the Greens party room returned to its former size, but we still had staffing cuts.

I share the frustrations of those who put this bill forward, and, with no rhyme or reason for the staffing levels, it is a difficult experience for parliamentarians and primarily for staff. But the coalition's failure to do the work required to develop a model that reflects the purpose of this place and respects the trust that voters have placed in their elected representatives means that we can't support the bill in its current form.

I move the second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to work with all elected groups and individuals in the Parliament to develop a fair and independent staffing model for allocating personal staff that reflects the diversity of representation, as elected by the Australian people, and addresses staff wellbeing and sustainability of workload."

I want to address another matter regarding staff in this building that made the news again yesterday. Brittany Higgins was raped in this building, in her workplace. She experienced the worst of political life, but she made a selfless choice to tell her story. She fought to drag her story into the sunlight and forced everyone in this place to face the truth—that this workplace is not safe, that men in this workplace feel entitled to make women unsafe and that bosses fail to hold them accountable. There are people who will go to sleep knowing that they did not do everything in their power to protect Brittany or help her tell her story, and those people's consciences are up to them—