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

I was saying last week in debating this excellent piece of legislation presented by the Leader of the Opposition that, clearly, what we have here is an arrangement between the Australian Greens and the government, which is harmful to the rest of the participants in debate in this chamber. Crossbench senators and opposition senators have been penalised by a vindictive approach being taken by this government—the reduction of resources available to members of this place to do their jobs properly and hold this government to account. I described it as a 'buy now, pay later' arrangement between the Australian Greens and the government, where they get that beautiful, sumptuously appointed party room down the other end of the building there with beautiful, comfortable, leather seats and large, special-species-timbered desks to sit at and make their big decisions, all in return for supporting these dodgy deals with the government.

It is a disappointing approach to democracy. You would expect more from the Greens, who, typically, are defenders of everyone's rights to do their jobs. But the leader of the Greens has moved a second reading amendment to this piece of legislation which, I will point out, is very similar to a motion that has been put into this place by Senator Payman. Given the leader of the Greens proposed this second reading amendment, I will be very interested to see how the Greens vote on Senator Payman's motion when it comes up for decision in this place. I would expect, given they are proposing such a thing, that they will support that motion, because that would be the right thing to do, because they have gone and put something like this on record. Let's see how that goes. This is an excellent bill and I commend it.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators' offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators.

Here's how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers.

Secondly, let's move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one!

Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none!

Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser's duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.

When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to 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 the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation's top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister's government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister's agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament.

The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland's gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania's. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten's state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania's. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania.

This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation's rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government's communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid?

Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister's staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister's actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers' interest.

Let's next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; 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 number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators.

Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator's office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! 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 their staff, while others 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.

Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator.

The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded:

Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices.

This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue.

The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators' staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports 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 promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes.

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? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I'm not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year's experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn't he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear?

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people's actions, not their words. What's important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not.

This new bill's co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion.

We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy.

One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue's resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won't report this issue, so, if you're concerned about the Prime Minister's abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025. I do so to restore equity and fairness to the allocation of staffing resources for all senators and members regardless of political affiliation. This bill amends the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to place statutory minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians and to remove the power of the executive to reduce these. This bill provides that opposition parties will be entitled to at least 110 personal, non-ministerial staff in recognition of their role in holding the government to account. With the Albanese government riding roughshod over parliamentary staff allocations, and so many other matters, this accountability is more vital than ever.

To help the opposition manage parliamentary business and perform its most primary function—holding the government to account—this bill provides that a non-government party with eight or more parliamentarians must be allocated at least 25 personal staff or five per cent of the government's total allocation, whichever is greater.

Holding governments and their ministers to account is intrinsic to our Westminster system of government. This bill will help the opposition and other parties in this house do just that. Accountability is essential to enhancing the quality of our governments and maximising transparency for the benefit of the Australian people. Whatever views we may have of the various minority parties in this parliament, this bill respects the place that they have at the table. Accordingly, it guarantees that independent parliamentarians and those of minor parties with fewer than eight sitting members must receive at least three personal staff, including one classified a senior adviser. With this Prime Minister behaving autocratically, with a tin ear to the interests of parties other than his own and the Australian Greens, this bill clarifies that the sitting Prime Minister cannot reduce these minimum entitlements through the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 but may increase them.

The allocation of sufficient staffing resources is essential to the proper functioning of every senator's and member's office. Staff play an indispensable role for parliamentarians when it comes to research, policy analysis and advice, office management, media monitoring, stakeholder engagement, community liaison and a whole host of other functions. By guaranteeing minimum staffing resources for all members of parliament, this bill ensures that our elected representatives work at their optimal capacity, not so much for themselves but in the interests of the people they're elected to serve and represent.

This bill is sorely needed as the Prime Minister has used parliamentary staffing as a political weapon to weaken the standing of his opponents. The Prime Minister's actions to cut the legs from the staffing resources of his political opponents is partisan, petty and puffed up. It is unbecoming of a leader that aspires to be a statesman. One of the measures of true statesmanship is the ability to rise above partisan interests to serve the interests of all, whether they support you or not. The Prime Minister has clearly failed this test by his recent actions to cut the staffing resources of opposition and minor parties bar the Australian Greens. Most ominously, the Prime Minister's recent staffing cuts represent an unhealthy development for our democracy. Our parliament must be a domain for teams of all colours to compete on a level playing field, and yet the Prime Minister's actions are likewise breaching the rules of fairness, by reducing the staffing resources of opposing parties. Quite simply, this is putting the PM's Labor Party and Greens bedfellows at an unfair advantage. It's also setting a dangerous precedent for future governments. If a future government wishes to undercut its political opponents, it can go straight to the Albanese playbook and make staff cuts to the members and senators of parties they simply dislike. At some point those in government will be on the other side. Treat others as you would be treated. This is not how parliamentary democracy should function.

Australia is so much better than this. That is why we need this bill. It restores essential balance to our parliamentary democracy and guarantees fairness by ensuring that parliamentarians of all parties, or none, can have the resources they need to do their job. Importantly, this bill provides a check on the hubris of a Prime Minister by ensuring that neither Mr Albanese nor his successors can ever again escape scrutiny or evade accountability by reducing non-government staffing below a democratic floor. We've seen it so much in these past two sitting weeks: government hiding behind numbers. The aged-care numbers show 200,000 older Australians not being able to get the care that they need. The Albanese government promised to bring transparency to government. What else have we seen this week? New laws on freedom of information—the truth tax—that ask Australians, journalists, academics, members of parliament and senators to pay for the information that they are entitled to. It is an absolute disgrace. Rather than face scrutiny, Labor wants to bury it. We firmly believe that transparency is not a burden; it is a duty of this parliament and everyone who serves within it, and accountability is too. That is why this bill is so important, and I commend it to the Senate.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.