Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 exists for one reason and one reason only: the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon. The Australian Senate has an opportunity to stop the Prime Minister of Australia from starving the parliament of scrutiny, because that is exactly what he has done.

The Australian people don't often actually know what goes on in this place, so it's up to us, as senators on the non-government side, to make sure they are aware on a daily basis of what the Albanese government is doing to undermine democracy. When you undermine democracy, you undermine the very fundamentals that the Australian people live and breathe on a daily basis. What Mr Albanese doesn't understand is this: parliament isn't the Prime Minister's private office; it is the people's house. Those who are not on the government benches have an obligation to the Australian people to ensure that the actions of the government are properly scrutinised.

Let us be very, very clear: Mr Albanese has treated parliamentary staffing like a political weapon. All this bill does—it's a very simple bill, and that's why anybody on the non-government benches should be supporting it—is take that weapon out of the Prime Minister's hands. He's got to realise that cutting opposition staff doesn't save money. It's a great catchcry, though. What it does, though, is this: quite deliberately it buys less scrutiny of the government by the non-government parties on behalf of the Australian people. Quite frankly, those who are not in government need to ensure that the Australian people are served and are served well.

All we are doing with this bill is putting a minimum floor—that's it—under staffing so that the Prime Minister cannot starve the parliament of the resources that it needs to properly hold him, his ministers and his government to account. This has got nothing to do with entitlements at all. This is all about democracy, the undermining of democracy by the Albanese Labor government, and, more than that, this is about integrity. Strong governments not only withstand strong scrutiny; they welcome scrutiny, because they are so committed to the decision that they are making that they are prepared to have that decision scrutinised. Well, not this government.

Quite frankly, the Australian people need to understand what has happened to the Australian parliament since May 2022. This place has become a shop floor. Quite frankly, the non-government side is resembling the textile union. The textile union is bullied by the construction union, which is now the government. The way you silence democracy is to make it look all pretty on the outside so that the Australian people believe their parliament is functioning. Well, guess what, Australia? This government is undermining democracy. There is next to no scrutiny left in this place, let me assure you, courtesy of the Albanese government teaming up with the Greens to make as many changes as they can to ensure that scrutiny does not occur. This place, quite frankly, is now resembling the union movement.

You've got the big union—that is, the government—on one side, doing everything it can to silence the smaller union—that is, those on the non-government side. That is not healthy for democracy. But, my goodness, that is actually how the Australian parliament now functions. Why even bother calling us the Australian Senate? All we resemble now, going into the fourth year of a left-wing socialist government, is a shop floor. Any business out there that has dealt with a big union that seeks to bully, intimidate and silence knows exactly what I am talking about. This place is no longer the Australian Senate; this place is a shop floor. God help Australia when the big union, aka the Albanese government, is in control, silencing—and every day it gets a little bit worse—the smaller unions, which are now those of us on the non-government benches.

Labor will vote against the bill, don't worry about that, as will, unfortunately, the Australian Greens, but we'll get to them shortly. They've got a brand new party room, almost a million bucks worth, courtesy of the Australian people. They will do a deal. They will do a deal on anything. They will do a deal later today on an estimates schedule. They talk about transparency. They talk about more scrutiny of this government. They get offered something, and they backflip. You'll watch that today. Later on today, there will be a vote on adding a bit more scrutiny. We'll be supporting the very reasonable motion that Senator David Pocock is putting forward to ensure that the smaller union has an opportunity to scrutinise the bigger union on the shop floor. Let's watch the Australian Greens; let's see what they do. I can tell you right now that they won't be siding with us. They'll be siding with the big union in the Australian government.

Labor will vote against this bill. And why will they vote against this bill? Because they're voting to keep a system where the Prime Minister of the day decides who gets to scrutinise him and who doesn't. So the Australian people will ultimately be the ones who miss out. The way the current system works is that, under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the Prime Minister of the day holds the absolute discretion over who gets personal staff and who doesn't. Normally, the Prime Minister of the day, and even Labor prime ministers in time gone by, action on a convention to ensure that those on the non-government side—it doesn't matter if I like you or not; it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not—are adequately resourced so that they can properly scrutinise the decision of that government.

Let us be very, very clear about what has happened here. Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia—and I'm going to call him what he is, the head unionist—has abused that discretion. He has ripped up decades of convention, cutting opposition—it gets worse—and some crossbench capacity. If you're on the centre right—guess what?—you're actually targeted by the big union. If you're Senator Payman, God help you. You left the big union. You're actually worse off than the rest of us, because you're now a rat and they're out to get you.

They cut the staff of those they don't like. Obviously, they like the Australian Greens, and they do deals with them. The big union plus the Australian Greens equals the number in this place, and that will shortly get us onto an almost $1 million, brand-spanking-new, beautiful party room for the Australian Greens. Ironically, the poor journalist who took the photo has been locked out of this place for a week. They talk big on transparency. God help any journo, though, that goes in and tries to actually take a photo to show the evidence of the dirty deal that's been done between the Greens and the big union, the Albanese government, in relation to staffing, because they'll complain, and then you'll be banned from this place. Again, when you want to talk about the undermining of democracy, that is the undermining of democracy at its very best.

Mr Albanese has ripped up decades of convention, as I said, cutting opposition and some crossbench capacity, and as a result has deliberately weakened the parliament's ability to hold the left-wing, socialist Albanese government to account. This legislation doesn't just fix it for Mr Albanese; it fixes it for any government of any persuasion going forward. It's very simple. It restores balance, transparency and integrity to a system that the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, has treated like a private fiefdom.

Let us 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, as he has done, can reward his left-wing friends. He can punish his critics and even reduce an allocation to zero, as he has done, and there is no check or balance on that power. This isn't hypothetical. This is what occurred in 2022 and has again occurred in 2025. That, quite frankly, is not good enough.

This is a Prime Minister who, every day, when he stands up, talks a big game on openness and transparency, because that's exactly what you do when you're the big union. You present a facade to the world and you hope none of them come to the shop floor, the Australian Senate, to see what's actually going on—the silencing of democracy. He talks a big game on openness, but, when it comes to staffing, he shuts the books.

As I said, where are the Albanese government's little friends, their partners in crime, the Australian Greens? When this bill does come to a vote—it may not come to a vote today—let's see where they sit. When Senator Fatima Payman sought scrutiny of the Prime Minister's staffing decisions, the Australian Greens would not back her push for accountability. Worse, while others copped the cuts and delays, the Greens, as I said, have benefited from a newly constructed party room in Parliament House, reportedly costing around $886,000. Let's round it up to the nearest million.

What is worse is that they got angry when a photo was published of it. I thought we liked to talk about transparency in this place, because that's what happens every time the Greens stand up and every time the big union, Mr Albanese, stands up. Yet a journalist takes a photo, purely to show the Australian public—'There's a million bucks of your money well spent, or not, on the Australian Greens' new party room.' What happens to the journalist? He's banned from this place for a week. If you want to silence democracy, that is exactly how the big union does it when this place is treated like a shop floor.

That should tell the Australian public everything they need to know about the Australian Greens—special deals for themselves; silence on scrutiny for everyone else. The Greens were happy to find a budget for their new party room but not the courage—you can't put a price on courage—to actually back transparency. There are special deals for you, and you silence everyone else. When it came time to choose scrutiny or perks, what did the Australian Greens choose? Well, it's there for all to see—the photo was taken. They chose the furniture. Guess what? This bill will draw a line under that behaviour. All it does is place a floor of what staffing for non-government parliamentarians can fall to whilst at the same time—and this is important—preserving the government's overall control of staffing numbers and the Prime Minister's discretion above those minimums.

What this says to the Australian people is this: 'You win!' This is because it ensures that those who are not on the government benches and who are not part of the Australian Greens have the staffing and the resources required to properly scrutinise the government's decisions. Why does this matter? Because it's about a healthy democracy. That is what we are talking about now. This is a direct attack on democracy. My God, look at other countries in the world where they silence the opposition! That's where we're heading in Australia.

I don't call this the Australian Senate anymore, I call this a 'Shop floor'. This government behaves like the big union—aka, the construction union—and we on this side are the textile union, constantly crying out for a voice. Guess what, Australia? You're the textile union and you ain't got no voice under this Prime Minister! Seriously.

This shouldn't be a partisan question. It's a democratic one. And if you respect democracy, if you respect that people died for us for the freedoms that we have today so that we could be the great democratic nation that we are, I would have thought—ensuring that democracy is preserved and the basic accountabilities of a government are enforced—this would be an easy decision for you. 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're afraid of the questions, fix your policy. Don't rig, as you have done, the staffing outcome. Support the bill, strengthen the parliament, support democracy and restore accountability. I hope that all of you, senators, have a look at the bill and understand that if you're backing democracy and the Australian people you'll support this bill. (Time expired)

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a point of order?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a question. This is completely right off topic of what this debate is about: staffing allocations—not to do with Brittany Higgins.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We always allow a fair degree of latitude in discussion of bills in the second reading stage. Senator Waters, you have the call.

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

We are talking about staff; thank you for that ruling. On behalf of the Greens, I thank Brittany Higgins and all survivors for their courage. The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on direct relevance. I understand your earlier ruling in relation to some latitude in these debates, but I really would urge you to bring Senator Waters back to the subject matter of this bill.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said earlier, we've always allowed a fair degree of latitude in second reading debates. Senator Waters has the call.

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

The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary staffers in this building had experienced some form of sexual harassment, as had many female parliamentarians. This is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace, whether that's in Parliament House or anywhere else. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, more than 40 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men have experienced workplace sexual harassment, and one in five women and one in 16 men have experienced sexual violence.

Sexual assault is underreported, and convictions are very rare. We know that an alarming number of people still disbelieve or victim-blame survivors of sexual violence. Partially because of this, almost nine in 10 incidents of sexual assault nationally are not reported to police, and those who do decide to take their perpetrators to court describe the process as horrific and retraumatising. We've seen high-profile cases like Brittany's, Saxon Mullins's, Grace Tame's and countless others play out repeatedly with intense media coverage, and we know the devastating impact that those proceedings can cause all victims-survivors. Women watching the media coverage of those cases are left feeling like they can't come forward, that their experiences may be weaponised or that the contents of their personal text messages might be splashed across the front pages. I salute the strength of anyone who seeks justice through the courts for sexual violence, as it's often re-traumatising and horrific for all survivors of gendered violence.

When Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame appeared at the Press Club in 2022, they asked for three things from parliament: to take abuse in all its forms seriously, to invest in prevention education and for structural change. Those are things that women have been demanding for years, yet progress remains painstakingly slow, and, in some cases, it feels like we're going backwards. It should go without saying that everyone deserves to be free from harassment, bullying and sexual assault. It's a tragedy that it takes the sacrifices and the public re-traumatisation of brave women to wake many people up. This is still unfinished business for staff safety in this building, and the Greens will continue to champion it.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians were told this prime minister and his government—straight from his own lips—would be honest, open, fair and accountable. Well, for the last three years, we've seen anything but this in the way he's treated people and this parliament. We are a democracy, yet he treats us as a socialist union controlled government. The one time he gave Australians a real say about any issue was the Voice to Parliament, and they rejected and humiliated him. They showed him he was completely and utterly wrong, and he's never forgiven the Australian people for that. That's why his government is now more secretive than ever. They're doing everything they can to avoid scrutiny and accountability, hiding their true plans and motives.

The Prime Minister has sole discretion to choose how many advisers One Nation and other crossbench senators are allocated. So what did the Prime Minister do? He radically cut the staffing of those senators who do not support the Labor Party. Which party opposes the radical, unworkable policies of Labor more than any other? Of course—One Nation. When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take an opposing political view, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents in seeking to take political advantage and cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of their electorate and to provide an effective opposition, which is a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. Before continuing, here's some background.

Each member of parliament is allocated electorate officers to serve constituents. These are the same in number for all senators. Crossbench senators have, until recently, been allocated two parliamentary advisers who are designated personal advisers. Their duty is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, be the first point of contact with community groups and deputise for senators in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. You may wonder why we need the extra staff. It's because we must do the same work as the major parties with far fewer resources for scrutinising legislation, liaising with effective stakeholders and getting the input of the Australian people, let alone trying to get our legislation drafted to put on the floor of parliament, which is another issue.

On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified me he would not allocate any additional staff to One Nation's two new senators, giving me the responsibility of allocating the same staff resources across twice as many senators. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under section 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, MOPS. I now present his allocation of senators across the crossbench. Some crossbench senators, including Senator Roberts, were not allocated any personal staff. Senator Payman, who left the Labor Party in disgust, has had no personal staff allocated to her. Senator Lambie, though, who often supports Labor, has been granted three personal staff to assist her in the relatively small state of Tasmania. She's not the only senator. Remember, they've also got 12 senators, including Senator Lambie.

The state I represent, Queensland, has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. One Nation secured Senate seats in New South Wales, which has more than 8.2 million people, and Western Australia, which has more than three million people—but no personal staff. Remember, Tasmania, with half a million people, has three extra personal staff. Yet we don't get anything for Western Australia or New South Wales; these offices were allocated no staff at all. Significantly, Senators Lidia Thorpe, David Pocock and Tammy Tyrrell are often supportive of Labor and the Greens and have retained their allocations of two each—surprise, surprise! One Nation senators, who often hold Labor accountable—very often, I should say—are cut to an average of one each. Senator Ralph Babet, who holds Labor accountable, was slashed to one. The pattern is clear. Crossbench senators who support Labor were unaffected. Those who hold Labor accountable were halved, gutted.

This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and bias. He breached important provisions of administrative law, as defined in common law through decisions in courts including the High Court. These breaches include that he gave no reason for his decision, he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator and he did not act in good faith. Further, he did not act with a proper purpose. He had not considered relevant matters. He had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its existing number of senators from two to four with no increase in personal staff allocated. He did not act based on supporting evidence. He had not provided affected persons with procedural fairness, including personal staff and senators. Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before his decision to reduce staff.

He or his office ordered the employment of Senator Roberts's staff to be terminated before they were made aware. It's the only senator's office in which that occurred. Senator Roberts was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a deadline late on a Friday night. Senator Roberts worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check his emails. The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need, nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to staffing, and some had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media—the respect that is not shown in this place!

The decision flies in the face of the recent review by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands. This raises serious workplace health and safety issues. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service's review concluded that staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electoral work demands placed on staff in some offices. It was stressful to some of the staff—because I've had to deal with it. It's just absolutely disgusting, the way in which it was done. Like I said, it was done through the media. That's how they found out. Also, what's their future? Where are their jobs? The way this has been handled is absolutely disgusting.

In essence, this meant personal staff were overworked. That translates further to workplace health and safety issues. Clearly, the way in which this prime minister actioned core staff to be brutalised shows he doesn't care about workers, especially not One Nation workers. He rants and raves about how he cares about the Australian workers and everything like that. That's a load of garbage, as far as I'm concerned. It has been shown in his actions and his behaviour in this matter.

The Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts. He refused to meet me. I had a meeting with him. This affected Senator Roberts's office. He is the one whose staff had to go. Senator Roberts and I went around. I said: 'No, you have a right to meet with the Prime Minister, Senator Roberts. You will come with me.' So we went around to the Prime Minister's office. The chief of staff came out and said: 'No, he's not meeting with Senator Roberts. He's only got a meeting with you.' I said: 'This affects Senator Roberts. He should have a right to be there in the meeting.' He said, 'I'll go and see what happens.' He came out, and guess what he said: 'Senator Roberts can come in. You can't.'

I'm the leader of the party. I've been given the authority to disburse staff to where I believe they should go. I'm not a parliamentary party. I am an individual senator heading a political party. We are not a recognised parliamentary party, but he's telling me I have to authorise where the staff have to go. Therefore I was also denied the right to go into the office. He couldn't face two of us. He couldn't face me. He didn't want to face me; only Senator Roberts. This Prime Minister is weak, and he couldn't face the two of us to put his case across for why he did what he did. The chief of staff refused to meet with both of us.

In his meeting with the Prime Minister, Senator Roberts raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister on staff allocation; the Prime Minister's actions breaching recognised process expected under administrative law provisions; and his partisan decision imposing needless stress on staff, who were already working hard in the taxpayers' interest. The Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative decisions, including the decision to reduce support for senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister didn't follow any of these principles.

If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament, democracy and accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on claims of transparency, the Prime Minister has abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. He has shown that he is incapable of fairness. Our staff have been treated unfairly. This stinks of corruption. That's why we have notified the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and it's why we will be taking this matter to the Fair Work Commission.

The Prime Minister's politically motivated decision will lead to a lack of accountability and, without that, he will be prone to overstepping and bringing himself down. He will be more able to hide behind reduced opposition and scrutiny. That hurts Australia and undermines democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over the democratic process. I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets?

Under the new bill, the government retains over 520 staff while it also retains access to thousands of departmental staff. This bill provides a fairer allocation to the government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench Independents. This bill is well-considered, well-written and fair. Its co-sponsors include the Liberals, Senator Payman, Senator Babet and One Nation, indicating broad support. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It only nominates minimum standards. The Prime Minister can allocate more.

We're all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and destroy our democracy. The bill will ensure that support for senators and Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own personal agenda ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding coalition prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing they both saw merit in fairness and democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from democracy. He buries democracy. He prevents democracy. One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue in a united way.

Look, I have my differences with a couple of the other crossbench senators here, but the fact is we've been treated unfairly. I believe that Senator Payman has been treated unfairly too. She has not been given any personal staffing allocation at all. That clearly shows that he never got over the fact that she walked away and turned her back on the Labor Party, and with good reason. That is not fair in this place. This is where the allocation of staff should be fair right across the board for everyone here. We were actually allocated the staff because crossbench senators don't have the huge machine behind us.

As I said, the Labor Party has 520 staff, plus all the departments. You have all that staffing available to you, then you have consultants and you get others in to help you. We don't have that. We have to deal with the legislation, which can change on a daily basis. We have to be across the legislation and what we have to vote on in this chamber—and you've cut our staff. It is disgusting what this Prime Minister has done. I will keep following up.

Our staff that have lost their jobs are going to take this to the Fair Work Commission. I will follow through with the national crime commission. According to the national crime commission, the way this has been handled is wrong. This is not the Prime Minister that we deserve.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament will be known as 'the mean parliament' because of the Prime Minister's mean and tricky actions to reduce the staffing allocation to non-government senators. Under the Labor Party, some staffers are more equal than others. Under Prime Minister Albanese, Labor staffers are more equal than coalition staffers. Indeed, under Labor, Labor members of parliament and senators are more equal than coalition members of parliament and senators.

Australians should expect that our parliament operates in a democratic and transparent fashion. It is an unfortunate and shameful reality, however, that Labor's prime minister is anything but transparent. Remember that this is the least transparent and accountable government since that of Paul Keating.

This Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 only exists because of the Prime Minister's wilful and deliberate attempts to continue to avoid transparency and scrutiny, the supposed hallmarks of his government. You may recall that the Prime Minister promised to lead the most transparent and accountable government ever—another broken promise, because he leads the least government that Australia has known for decades. On two occasions now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has broken decades of convention and personally abused his discretionary powers by cutting staffing allocations from the opposition and the crossbench. By making these decisions, Mr Albanese has directly and deliberately reduced the Australian parliament's ability to hold him and his government accountable.

The prime minister of the day should not personally hold arbitrary powers allowing them to strip opposition staffing allocations. It flies in the face of democratic principles and serves only to shield the government from legitimate political and policy scrutiny. This bill makes simple changes to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, commonly known as the MOP(S) Act, to create clear guidelines on staffing allocations for the opposition and crossbench. It sets up a fair, balanced and transparent system in the place of discretionary powers given over to the Prime Minister that are open to abuse. That is the current case under Mr Albanese.

Currently, there are no minimum staffing levels for non-government parliamentarians. The system is opaque, confusing, and, up until this point, relied on convention and the goodwill of a prime minister who had the stomach to weather legitimate scrutiny in parliament. But this prime minister, because of his mean and tricky actions, has shown that he has a glass jaw when it comes to legitimate questioning concerning the operations of this Labor government.

This bill fixes these issues and, in doing so, provides clarity and scrutiny for parliamentarians and staff for all sides of politics.

The Greens Senator, Senator Waters, said earlier in her contribution:

… we have a number of concerns with this bill, which were previously conveyed to the Liberals but have not been addressed in the final version they have introduced.

I can advise the Senate that the reason the coalition stopped working with the Greens on this bill is because the Greens—quel surprise, here—did a deal with Labor in the first fortnight of this parliament to vote down Senator Payman's inquiry, despite previously indicating support. Senator Waters also said that the bill provides a significant amount of resources for independents, bringing their staffing up to eight each. Well, that also is incorrect. The table within this bill sets the minimum at three for independents or at a number higher than that which can be determined by the Prime Minister. Perhaps, if the Greens hadn't sold out their principles and the values which they like to lecture us about, they might have read the bill properly, supported this bill and held this government to account.

We know from the government's own review into the MOP(S) Act that the current system is an issue. The review describes limited transparency about staffing decisions, perceptions of unfairness or political influence and real work health and safety concerns driven by sustained workload pressures. Prime Minister Albanese's decision to cut staffing allocations has only made things worse for staff already dealing with substantial workloads, and this goes to my point that some staff are more equal than other staff. Under this Labor Prime Minister, Labor staff are more equal than non-government staff. Indeed, it appears that the Prime Minister who proclaims to talk about standing up for the workers will only stand up for those workers who work for Labor parliamentarians and that those staff who do not work for Labor parliamentarians are second-class staffers.

On this issue, I'd also draw the chamber's attention to the independent review into resourcing of parliamentarian officers that was released earlier this month. I quote:

Offices where the parliamentarian had shadow portfolio responsibilities or other roles related to the Senate or House of Representatives and had not been allocated a personal staff member, struggled to meet the demands of the portfolio or parliamentary work in addition to electorate work.

It's there in black and white. Under-resourced officers struggle to meet the demands of their responsibilities. So who directly benefits from this? It's the government. This is why the government have made the decision. It is a clear political decision by the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor government to limit the ability of non-government parliamentarians to hold the executive to account.

The report also highlights the significant workloads being placed upon staff in general and the flow-on negative effects on wellbeing. Labor has talked a big game when it comes to improving workplace conditions in Parliament House, but they're not delivering. It's clear that Prime Minister Albanese does not care about the additional pressures he is putting on non-government staff. It is time the Prime Minister took his own advice and acted to create a healthier work environment for all staff and all parliamentarians in this parliament, which is a workplace. This bill simply guarantees opposition and crossbench parliamentarians a set number of staff. It does not restrict the Prime Minister from allocating more staff. It merely stops him from allocating less than a fair minimum.

When a Prime Minister cuts staffing from his political opponents, what is the true cost? The true cost is a fair and free democracy. The true cost is the ability of the parliament to hold the executive to account. A healthy democracy requires a strong parliament that is adequately resourced to review, scrutinise and, where possible, improve government legislation, which is what we saw in previous parliaments, where the opposition and the government, regardless of their colours, often came together to ensure that the legislation that passed through this place was the best that it could be. Australians deserve better than an opaque staffing system controlled by a mean and tricky Prime Minister.

If Labor vote against this bill, they will be supporting secrecy, not transparency, and they will be directly contributing to poorer workplace conditions for staff. The same can be said for the Greens; if the Greens vote against this bill, they are voting for a poorer workplace for staff in this building. Australians deserve better. The hardworking staff—all staff—in this building deserve better. This is not a question of partisan politics. It is a question of this government's commitment to democracy. It is a question of making sure that all staff are treated equally. It is a question of ensuring that all parliamentarians, regardless of their political colour, are treated equally. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I had bumped into the Prime Minister today, I would only have one question for him: 'Prime Minister, what happened to our working relationship? You used to welcome me warmly. You were friendly in public, always with a smile, talking about me to young people in your speeches. But that changed the moment I stood on principle, and today I find myself co-signing a coalition bill not because I have changed sides but because I have stayed true to my duty.' For the past year, the Prime Minister has used the levers of power to punish dissent. Some might call it coercive control. I call it political retribution.

I didn't cross the floor on a whim; I crossed it on a matter of principle—and in support of Labor policy, no less. It is the very same principle the government have now come to support 14 months later. It was never personal, but the response has been. Since that moment, I have been excluded from key processes and stripped of the resources every senator needs to do their job. I have been treated more harshly than those sitting on the opposite side of the chamber. When I was a schoolgirl, I had my hijab ripped from my head by bullies. That didn't shake me then, and bullying won't shake me now.

I thank the coalition for introducing the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025 to amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. I also thank Senator Hanson for acknowledging my situation. When that act was first debated more than 40 years ago, a Liberal senator from Tasmania, Senator Michael Townley, warned that the act would one day be weaponised by an authoritarian prime minister to reward loyalty and punish dissent. He said:

I do not believe that is at all a good thing. It is open to patronage and should not really be contemplated by the Government.

Senator Townley saw what we're now living.

I have had no advisers since I joined the crossbench in July last year, a deliberate and targeted decision by our prime minister. No other crossbencher has been treated that way. This is the action of a vindictive prime minister who has disadvantaged Western Australians by weakening my ability to represent them. I am the only Western Australian to be able to put the people over any party. I am the only independent senator able to actually stand up for the interests of the great state that I represent. But the Prime Minister is stopping me from doing my job effectively. I have faced down online trolls, Islamophobes, racists and neo-Nazis, but I will not be bullied in my workplace.

If the Prime Minister were here in this chamber, I would ask him, 'Is this leadership, or is this a page torn from the Trump playbook?' because what we are witnessing is an abuse of executive power. Denying senators the means to scrutinise legislation isn't just unfair; he is in breach of the spirit of our Constitution, undermining the very purpose of the Senate as a house of review. Does he understand how this looks—petty, authoritarian, a political bully trying to coerce and control. I am a young Australian Muslim woman of colour. I've been bullied out of Afghanistan. I will not be bullied by this man.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember when the Prime Minister came to power he said something along the lines of, 'It's going to be a kinder, gentler type of politics.' Rubbish! What was this man talking about? That's not the case at all. That's not what happened. I'm pleased to support and co-sponsor the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I thank Senator Cash for her efforts in drafting this bill.

Do you know what Prime Minister Albanese has been doing? He's been treating parliamentary staffing like it's his own personal loyalty program. That's what he's done. If you agree with him—and many of you in this place know I struggle to agree with most of what he says—you get a gold tier membership. If you don't, then enjoy doing your job with one staff member or no staff members. Maybe you can just do your job with a prayer instead!

It's not about budgets; we know that. It's not about efficiency. So what's it about? It's about control. It's definitely not about fairness. It's about the Prime Minister trying to control the narrative. It's about the Prime Minister trying to hamstring the people that speak against his far-left socialist agenda. The Prime Minister has figured out that if he can't win the argument he'll just simply make sure that no-one else has the resources to argue back against him. It's clever, I'll give him that, but is it democratic? Absolutely not.

Since the Prime Minister has been returned to power he's gutted opposition staff and slashed crossbench support. No warning, no consultation, nothing—just the stroke of his pen, and, boom, less scrutiny and more secrecy. Apparently that's what new politics looks like. Under this current set-up that we have right now, there's no baseline and there are no guidelines. What transparency, Prime Minister? Staffing levels are entirely at his whim. Even the government's own review in 2022 called it out—limited transparency, unfairness, dangerous workload.

This bill fixes that. It sets a minimum staffing level for non-government MPs, and we need it. It puts a floor under fairness and a ceiling on the Prime Minister's ego—and that's very important, because his ego is a big one. It ensures that parliament, not just the Prime Minister's office, has the people it needs to do the job that Australians sent us here to do. When you cut staff to the crossbenchers, what are you really doing? I'll keep saying it: you're silencing your opposition. Worse than that; you're silencing the Australian people. When the Prime Minister starts to buy silence, it's time we all start shouting.

Parliament does not belong to the Prime Minister; it belongs to the Australian people. The Australian people deserve a system built on integrity, not secrecy. That is why I support this bill and why I urge my colleagues in this place to do the same—although I don't think some in this place will because, possibly, they've been offered some sweeteners not to.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's rather disappointing, isn't it, that we have to have a debate of this nature in this parliament. I was reflecting on the contributions of colleagues. This place is about a better future for the Australian people. We all come here wanting to do good things, but, as has been highlighted by a number of speakers now, that becomes incredibly difficult when the resources you are normally afforded are taken away from you, making it harder to do just that. So here we are; instead of talking about a better education system, a better health system or a more robust transport system, we are talking about resources that should be made available to members of parliament to represent their constituents in this parliament.

To start with, I want to reflect on the contribution of Senator Payman. I can tell this chamber and anyone who might be listening that I suspect Senator Payman and I disagree on many things. You know what? That's great. That is democracy at work. There are things we have regularly voted on opposite sides of the chamber on. I say that's a wonderful thing. In this free, democratic country we can exercise our ability to do just that. Senator Payman points out that an independent senator has, unlike any other independent senator, been offered no additional support. I am flabbergasted at that. That is not based on any methodology. That is not based on any formula. That is not based on any open and transparent mechanism where senators are given a certain amount of support in order to do the work that they do.

I think there is a degree of vindictiveness here because of certain things that have transpired. I know Senator Cash reflected on that earlier on—that it was, perhaps, a bit of payback, given Senator Payman is no longer part of the Australian Labor Party. How is that good for democracy? They may not like it, but it is reality. As I said, Senator Payman has very, very different views to me on a range of issues, and has probably never voted with me—I don't know; I've never done a count. But she should not be denied the support due to her as an independent senator from Western Australia because of political evening of the ledger—comebacks, pointscoring and keeping someone down. While it wouldn't aid me to have my opponents better resourced, it is the right thing to do. To that end, I thank Senator Payman for her contribution.

The fact that we are having this debate around resourcing parliamentarians to do their job is a very, very disappointing turn of events. It is a fact that, in a massive break from convention, the government, in its vindictive way, has decided, 'Hey, opposition, you've just lost the election; we're going to take a further 20 staff away from you.' If that had been evenly applied across all nongovernment parties—including the government as well; they are talking about fiscal restraint and being good budget managers—I'd probably think, 'Okay, fair enough; that's unfortunate.' But it hasn't been applied that way. There was no formulaic approach to this. It was: 'Well, you're the opposition. I don't like what you've got to say, and therefore I'm going to take away a degree of support that you rely on to do your job. Oh, and independent senator X, or independent senator Y, we're going to treat you this way.'

There is one group in this chamber who have, bizarrely, avoided the scalpel that was applied to the rest of us, and that is the Australian Greens. As I understand it, I think they might have lost one staff member out of the contingent they went into the election with. They did lose members of their team, but that doesn't seem to matter. It applied to us, it applied to others, but not to the Greens.

Indeed, as we know, not only did they seemingly escape the scalpel when it came to staff in this place; they were rewarded. There was this obscene expenditure on a room in this building to keep them in comfort while they meet and talk about how they're going to agree to the government's agenda and prop up this government in the Senate. A million dollars of taxpayers' money was put into a room in this building—not into doctors in regional Australia, not into better roads in communities across Western Australia or Tasmania, even—but into a room for senators to sit in. We have seen images. Earlier on, in introducing and moving the second reading of this bill, Senator Cash referred to images that appeared in the newspaper relating to the sumptuous Greens party room with the beautiful big red leather chairs, lovely finishes and amazing special species timber cabinetry—something that, if they got their way, would never be killed in a forest and used in furniture making. Anyway, they're happy to take it as part of their million-dollar refurb.

I think there will be a long-term repayment plan—a buy-now pay-later arrangement between the Australian Greens and the Australian government—for taking this beautiful room that was updated through the parliamentary break since the last election. They came back here, all refreshed after this election result that we all experienced, and saw this beautiful gift from the honourable Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia. They've lapped it up. But, as I said, it is a buy-now pay-later arrangement where they take the room and, over the course of time, will be able to do things to pay down the debt they owe the Labor Party, like supporting various bills and agreeing to certain arrangements. And we'll see it again today, I expect. This is an issue of transparency, which we were promised four years ago was going to come to a new high—more transparency in this parliament for the Australian people; they deserve it. But when the Centre for Public Integrity tells us that this government is the most secretive in a very long time, if not ever, I am very alarmed at anyone who would get into bed with this mob and support their agenda, including their approach to Senate estimates.

There was a motion on the books yesterday to extend the estimates schedule by an extra week. To the people who are here in the gallery today and perhaps listening online, Senate estimates is an opportunity to go through the government's books and see how they're spending taxpayers' money on their behalf. There is a week set aside for estimates. Senator David Pocock, another Independent senator who no doubt has been dealt with in a vindictive way by having staff taken away from him, proposed an extra week of Senate estimates because we've missed out on a number of opportunities this year, given the election and other matters. But, between the Greens and the Labor Party, they don't want a bar of it. They do not want that extra week of Senate estimates; they do not want that extra week of scrutiny. They would prefer to hide away from prying eyes. They'd like to cover over whatever it is they're doing. We saw it again yesterday with the Housing Australia Future Fund, where they refused to tell us exactly how they spent $277 million of taxpayers' money.

That side of the chamber over there, between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, refuses to open the books and refuses to agree to extra sittings of the Senate for the purposes of Senate estimates. Again, it is not hard to see why they're being so cooperative with one another when you've got arrangements where nearly a million dollars of taxpayers' money is being sunk into the refurbishment of a room in this place and they're signing up to the government agenda. It is an alarming development when a crossbench party like the Greens props up the government's agenda in the way that it does. Again, the need for us to be able to do our job and hold a government to account is extremely important. A government is only as good as its opposition. That opposition includes the crossbench parties—the minor parties and the Independents—who need to be able to interrogate what a government brings into this chamber. By taking away extra eyes and minds to interrogate the work of the government, you are silencing dissent and preventing proper scrutiny. That is an alarming development in our democracy and is something that we need to ensure is overturned, hence this bill.

As I said, it is lamentable that we are here having this debate today, instead of private senators' time being used for something like improving educational standards, or reforming the EPBC Act, or something like that. No; instead we are trying to restore fairness to the arrangements that apply to the operations of this parliament when it comes to non-government parties. Earlier, I heard the Leader of the Australian Greens highlight her concerns with this bill. I would invite Senator Waters to perhaps move not just her second reading amendment but some substantive amendments to this bill to enable measures to be put in place to restore that fairness. A formulaic approach that prevents the Prime Minister from becoming vindictive in his approach to how he doles out staffing and other resources in this parliament is something the Greens could constructively do. They could actually play a constructive role here.

While I am on Senator Waters, I think it is important to reflect on a couple of points that were made. There were a couple of comments that alarmed me. We've seen some terrible events occur in this building in recent years, and I don't intend to reflect on or go over those issues. But I think some of the gendered remarks that were made by Senator Waters could have a very damaging effect for members of not only this parliament but staff. There are male victims of some of the horrendous things that have happened here and elsewhere, and we cannot forget them. When we talk about things in the terms that Senator Waters did, it does not do any justice for those who have been victims and are somehow maligned in the attacks on those who perpetrated wrong to people in our community.

Senator Waters needs to think about her language as she pursues these matters, because as someone who can identify with victim-survivors her language in this place is incredibly important. I understand that sometimes when making a point we need to be straight to the point and remove nuance from what we say, but when we reflect in the way I heard Senator Waters reflect earlier it can be an incredibly damaging experience for many in this place and beyond. So I would urge Senator Waters to exercise some caution in her language when she pursues these matters.

Back to the bill at hand. This is about democracy. This is about scrutiny. This is about ensuring that this parliament, which has a government with a massive majority in the other place, is held to account. No-one was given a blank cheque or a free pass at the last election. The mandate the government has to progress its agenda does not mean it should not be progressed without scrutiny or without the need to negotiate with the crossbench—or even the opposition, which has expressed on a number of occasions a high degree of willingness to contribute to the public debate and progress some of the legislation and make some very reasonable amendments.

When you take away those resources that we all depend on, when you've got complex legislation, which can go into the hundreds of pages when you include an explanatory memorandum and all of the other attached documents and appendices, it is incredibly important that we have people with us, on behalf of the people of Australia—the people we represent in this place—assisting in making sure we are getting it right.

I would invite the Greens to reconsider their position on this legislation. I heard Senator Waters outline a range of concerns she has with the legislation as it stands and I saw the second reading amendment but I would invite the Greens to perhaps consider substantive amendments—

Debate interrupted.