19 June 2024
PDF Version [543KB]
Dr Nathan Church
Politics and Public Administration Section
Except for issues of safety,
wellbeing and administrative frameworks,[1]
the role and conditions of Members of Parliament Staff[2]
(also known as MoPS staff, or ‘staffers’) often fly under the radar. And while
electorate employee structures are somewhat transparent—being allocated through
ministerial determination[3]—personal
staff are allocated solely at the Prime Minister’s discretion.[4]
This power was pulled into focus at the start
of the current parliament with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision to
reduce crossbench MPs’ personal staff.[5]
However, these specific reductions contrast to the large overall longer term
increase in personal staff; up almost 20% in the last decade, and over 57%
since the Rudd government commenced in 2007[6]
having campaigned on a 30% cut in ministerial staffing levels.[7]
This report analyses the rise in number and classification of personal staff, reviews
the historical context leading to these developments, and identifies relevant
international comparisons.
Sourcing the data
Since the mid-2000s, the Department of
Finance has regularly tabled personal staff data at Senate Estimates hearings for
the Finance and Public Administration portfolio.[8]
This dataset comprises the number and classification level of personal staff
allocated to the Government, Opposition, minor parties and Independents, former
prime ministers and other party leaders, and the Presiding Officers.
From 2007–8 to 2012–13 the Department of Finance also published
the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 Annual Report. In addition to
the above dataset, this document included further analysis of personal staff by
gender, full- or part-time employment and location by state/territory.[9]
This additional data stopped being available from 2014 onwards when the Department
of Finance ceased publishing this report.[10]
An increase
in number … but not in all cases
As of 1 May 2024, there were 693 personal staff allocated to
parliamentarians.[11]
A 2009 independent Review of Government Staffing contended that ‘there
is no “right number” of ministerial staff.’ Instead, it determined that ‘it is
a matter of judgement’, based on weighing up issues of cost, efficiency,
accountability and the ongoing high demand for support and advice.[12]
Notwithstanding these considerations, since the large decrease in personal
staff in late 2007 allocations across all employment categories have increased
significantly:
Prime Minister’s Office: from 41 to 61 (up 48.8%)
Ministers:[13]
from 292 to 431 (up 47.6%)
Total Government:[14]
332 to 495.6 (up 49.3%)
Leader of the Opposition: 28 to 36 (up 28.6%)
Shadow Ministers:[15]
24 to 54 (up 125%)
Total Opposition:[16]
74 to 110 (up 48.6%)
Total personal staff allocations to minor
parties/Independents and former Prime Ministers/senior party leaders are
inherently fluid, being based on the applicable number of recipients. However,
the Prime Minister determines the allocation per recipient and notably these crossbench
and former leader allocations have not risen in the same way as other
categories.
Before 2010 all crossbenchers were allocated 1 assistant
adviser. When the crossbench gained the balance of power in the House of
Representatives following that year’s election, they were able to leverage this
into acquiring two further staff (an assistant adviser and executive
assistant).[17]
The additional staffing lasted until the change of government in late 2013 when
the allocation reverted to 1 assistant adviser.
Crossbenchers were first allocated a more senior ‘adviser’
(alongside two assistant advisers) in late 2016 after the double dissolution
election. The allocation was raised to 2 advisers in late 2019, to provide a
total of 4 personal staff (in addition to electorate staff). Crossbenchers’
current allocation of personal staff incorporates:
Senators: 1 adviser and 1 assistant adviser
MPs with an electorate under 5000km:2 1 adviser
MPs with an electorate over 5000km:2 2 advisers
The personal staff allocations for former
Prime Ministers who have left parliament has remained constant. Each has been
allocated 3 staff: an adviser, an assistant adviser and an executive assistant.
However, when former Prime Ministers have remained in parliament their personal
staff allocations have varied markedly, from 1 (assistant adviser) to 3 (senior
adviser, adviser and assistant adviser).
An increase in classification
The most recent data also identifies that more than half the
Government and Opposition personal staff allocations are classified as senior
staff.[18]
This is a marked transition from a decade prior when only a quarter of these same
positions were senior staff.[19]
During this period government senior adviser positions have increased from 60
to 232 (up 287%) and the Opposition senior advisers from 15 to 55 (up 267%).
Conversely, the more junior executive and administrative assistant positions
for the government have dropped from 78 to 20 (down 74%) and the Opposition
from 18 to 4 (down 78%). As a potential reason for this rise in staff
classification, Maria Maley has noted the significant growth in coordination
roles among staffers, which likely aligns with higher job classifications.[20]
Additionally, technology advancements may also have automated or shifted
requirements away from lower-level positions.
Prior to 1984, personal staff were employed
under the Public Service Act 1922’s temporary employment provisions, as
directed by the Special Minister of State.[21]
However the MoPS Act 1984 changed the framework, as subsection 4(1)
specifically stated that ‘[T]he Prime Minister may, in writing, determine that,
having regard to the parliamentary duties of a parliamentarian, the
parliamentarian may employ personal staff under subsection 11(3)’.[22]
In the parliamentary debates regarding this legislation, Liberal Senator
Michael Townley was the only speaker to criticise this aspect, stating:
If the Prime Minister or one of his Ministers has the right
to determine the number of staff and their wages, as I have said, this
situation is open to patronage. Although it might be good for the Prime
Minister to be able to have that kind of power it is not good for the
Government or the governing of this country. I am sure that the public outside
this building would recognise only too well just how easy it would be to use
the patronage that is implied in this Bill.[23]
In commending the MoPS Bill to the Senate,
Attorney-General Gareth Evans noted that ‘the numbers and levels of these staff will continue to be decided by the
Government on the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal’.[24] However, any such recommendations have
largely remained private, with the only published instance occurring in 1978
(when the Tribunal recommended Shadow Ministers receive an additional personal
staff).[25] Other sources advising the Prime Minster on personal staff
allocations have included the 2009 Henderson Review[26] and the Government Staffing Committee (including
its various preceding iterations). However, the latter primarily focuses on
senior ministerial staffing positions.[27]
Almost 40 years after the original Act came into effect, the
2022 MoPS Act review highlighted criticism of the Prime Minister’s sole
discretion to allocate personal staff.[28]
In response, the review recommended that an Office of Parliamentarian Staffing
and Culture (implemented as the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service [PWSS])
should ‘undertake a review … [to] recommend principles to be considered by the
Prime Minister in determining staffing allocations’.[29]
This review commenced in January 2024 and is scheduled to report by October
2024.[30]
The historical perspective
The Whitlam government is generally regarded as the first to
formalise a personal staff framework,[31]
with Whitlam declaring in late 1973 that:
[W]ith the present need to develop and maintain new policy
initiatives involving people outside the Department and the authorities
associated with it, we have found a need to provide Ministers with greater help
on the policy side. I have no hesitation in saying that the help Ministers have
obtained from their offices has relieved Departments of involvement in party
political matters and has given Ministers support as they have forged ahead in
their own particular fields.[32]
However, within days of Whitlam’s dismissal in 1975, the
Fraser government sought to curtail the growth in personal staff appointments. In
promoting an emphasis on fiscal restraint, the new government aimed to reduce ministerial
staffers by over 30%, from 242 to 166.[33]
Similar sporadic calls for restraint have followed throughout the ensuing
decades,[34]
with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese most recently stating:
We have a trillion dollars of debt. We need to make sure
there’s equity in terms of the way that staff are allocated, but that also we
don’t see government expenditure continue to climb at a time when we’ve had
cutbacks in permanent public service. We don’t have enough people to deal with
visas being distributed, but there aren’t enough people in Centrelink. The only
area of the public service that grew was political staff and that is not an
appropriate use of government resources.[35]
Academics such as Anne Tiernan and Maria Maley have published
extensively on the broader history and evolution of personal staff in Australia.[36]
Their research includes exploration of the role of personal staff within
Australia’s system of responsible government, alongside the public service. Specifically,
Tiernan notes the uniquely partisan value personal staffers provide, especially
in the complex realm of contemporary politics. Accordingly, this ‘personal
insurance in the face of political problems’ appears a likely motivator in the growth
in staffer numbers.[37]
Some international comparisons
United Kingdom
UK Parliamentarians were first allocated a formal staffing
allowance in 1969, through the Office Costs Allowance.[38]
Since then, the closest UK equivalent to personal staff are special advisers,
which are defined as ‘temporary civil servants employed by the Government to
help ministers on political matters which it would be inappropriate for
permanent civil servants to become involved’.[39]
The Prime Minister must approve all special adviser appointments and unlike Cabinet
ministers (who are capped at employing a maximum of 2 special advisers) has no
limit on their allocation.[40]
Since 2010 the Cabinet Office has published annual data on
the number of special advisers, in addition to their names, pay bands and the
total employment cost.[41]
During this period the number of special advisers has increased 67%, from 69 to
117. Of these 117, the Prime Minister has 41 special advisers (35%). Staffing
for non-government parties is more difficult to quantify, as this comes from
‘short money’ budget allocations.[42]
However, the UK parliament annually publishes data on Financial Assistance to
Opposition Parties, which includes short money for staffing.[43]
Through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,
all parliamentarians are allocated a staffing budget which currently provides
for 5 full-time staff, in addition to any allocated special advisers.[44]
Canada
In Canada, ministerial staff are defined as ‘advisers and
assistants who are not departmental public servants, who share the political commitment
[of Ministers], and who can complement the professional, expert and
non-partisan advice and support of the Public Service’.[45]
The Prime Minister allocates a budget for each Minister to employ staff at
their discretion, under the Public Service Employment Act.[46]
The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics
Commissioner regularly publishes the total number of ministerial staff in its
Quarterly Statistical Reports and Annual Reports.[47]
This data indicates that from 2011 to 2023 the number of ministerial advisers
has risen 62% from 511 to 829. Although this recent total seems comparatively
larger than in Australia or the UK, it sits within the context of Canada’s much
larger 77-member ministry.
In addition, all parliamentarians are allocated a ‘Member’s
Office Budget’ which (among other expenses) is used for employee salaries.[48]
As this budget (and associated allowances) varies based on the constituency
represented, in 2023–24 budget allocations ranged from the base $411,300 to
$512,820.[49]
As the parliamentarians have discretion as to how they use their budget for
employees, there is no straightforward way to assess total numbers employed.
However, for context, the maximum annual salary per employee permitted is
$109,500.[50]
Conclusion
As comparisons with the UK and Canada show, the role of
personal staff appears entrenched within the Westminster parliamentary system. However,
the evolution of these parliaments, including the current unprecedented
crossbench size in Australia, makes it likely that personal staff allocations
will continue to generate debate. Given the strong public interest in
government accountability, the PWSS’s upcoming review into personal staff
provides an additional avenue for public oversight and transparency into this largely
unexamined area.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.
[1]. Australian
Human Rights Commission, Set
the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary
Workplaces, 30 November 2021; Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (PM&C), Review
of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth), 7 October 2022.
[2]. Employed
through the Members
of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.
[3]. All
parliamentarians can employ 5 electorate employees to staff their electorate
offices (EOs), and those with two or three EOs can employ an additional one or
two employees, respectively. These staff provide parliamentary duties support
and constituent engagement but cannot be employed for ‘party political
purposes’. See Determination
2023/09 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. Additional
electorate offices are determined based on the geographic size of an
electorate, see Department of Finance, ‘Office
types and office resources’, website, accessed 11 June 2024.
[4]. PM&C, Review
of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth), op cit., 33.
[5]. Sophie Scamps, ‘Albanese’s
crossbench staffing cuts about politics, not fairness’, The Sydney
Morning Herald, 27 June 2022.
[6]. Data based on
Parliamentary Library analysis of relevant documents tabled Department of
Finance at Finance and Public Administration Portfolio Senate Estimates.
[7]. Lindsay Tanner,
‘National
Press Club Address’, media release, 8 August 2007.
[8]. Parliament of
Australia, ‘Finance
and Public Administration: Senate Estimates’, website, accessed 11 June
2024. Requires navigating to the Finance Portfolio ‘tabled papers’ for each
Estimates session.
[9]. Department of
Finance and Deregulation, Members
of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 Annual Report.
[10]. Senate Finance
and Public Administration Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Finance
Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2019–20, 22 October 2019, Question
F029.
[11]. Department of
Finance, Personal
Employee Positions, tabled at the Finance and Public Administration
Portfolio Senate Estimates, 29 May 2024.
[12]. Alan Henderson,
Review
of Government Staffing, tabled by the Department of Finance and
Deregulation to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee,
Estimates, 28 May 2009, 9.
[13]. Does not include
Assistant Ministers/Parliamentary Secretaries.
[14]. Includes personal
staff allocations to Government Whips, Support Units and Special Envoys.
[15]. Does not
include Shadow Assistant Ministers.
[16]. Includes personal
staff allocations to Opposition Whips. Does not include crossbench personal
staff.
[17]. Independent and
minor party senators continued to be allocated one assistant adviser and one
executive assistant.
[18]. This
incorporates Government Principal Advisers, Chiefs-of-Staff, Senior Advisers
and Senior Media Advisers; also Opposition Chiefs-of-Staff, Senior Advisers and
Senior Media Advisers.
[19]. Department of
Finance, Government
Personal Positions as at 1 February 2014.
[20]. Maria Maley, Patters of
institutional development: political staff structures in Australia, International
Conference on Public Policy, Milan, 1–4 July 2015, 13.
[21]. Gareth Evans, ‘Members
of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984: procedural text’, Senate, Debates,
5 June 1984, 2512.
[22]. Members of
Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.
[23]. Michael
Townley, ‘Members
of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984: second reading’, Senate, Debates,
13 June 1984, 2967–8.
[24]. Gareth Evans, ‘Members
of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984: procedural text’, 2512.
[25]. Renumeration Tribunal, 1978
Review (Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service, 1978), 80.
[26]. Alan Henderson,
Review
of Government Staffing, 29.
[27]. Finance and
Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senate
Estimates, 14 February 2023, 44.
[28]. PM&C, Review
of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth), 48, 53.
[29]. Recommendation
3, PM&C, Review
of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth), 13.
[30]. Parliamentary
Workplace Support Staff, Terms
of reference—Independent Review of Resourcing in Parliamentarian Offices,
website, accessed 11 June 2024.
[31]. Anne-Maree
Tiernan, Ministerial
staff under the Howard government: problem, solution or black hole? (PhD
Thesis, Griffith University, 2005), 44.
[32]. Gough Whitlam, ‘Australian
Public Administration under a Labor Government: the Sir Garran Memorial
Oration’, media release, 12 November 1973.
[33]. Reg Withers, ‘Press
statement’, media release, 23 December 1975.
[34]. See Charles
Blunt, ‘Government
guilty of using taxpayers money to try and “buy” an election win’, media
release, 8 October 1989; David Connolly, ‘Government
maintains staff monopoly’, media release, 2 June 1993; Peter Andren, ‘Cost
of our Parliament “Astounding”’, media release, 9 March 1999.
[35]. Anthony
Albanese, ‘Television
interview: Sky News Sunday Agenda’, media release, 24 July 2022.
[36]. For example, see
Anne Tiernan, Power without responsibility: Ministerial staffers in
Australian Governments from Whitlam to Howard, (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2007);
and Maria Maley, ‘Too many or too few? The increase in federal ministerial
advisers 1972–1999’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59.4
(2000), 48–53.
[37]. Anne Tiernan, ‘Yes,
the culture in Parliament House is appalling. But there are systemic problems
that also need urgent reform’, The Mandarin, 24 February 2021.
[38]. Rebecca McKee, MPs’
staff, the unsung heroes: an examination of who they are and what they do,
(London: The Constitution Unit, University College, October 2023), 20.
[39]. Lucinda Maer
and Ray McCaffrey, Special
advisers, Briefing Paper 3813, (London: House of Commons Library, 5
March 2018), 4.
[40]. UK Cabinet
Office, Ministerial
Code, December 2022, 8.
[41]. UK Cabinet
Office, Special
adviser data releases: numbers and costs, website, accessed 11 June 2024.
[42]. Richard Kelly, Short
Money, Research briefing, (London: House of Commons Library, 8 June
2023).
[43]. UK Parliament, Financial
Assistance to Opposition Parties, website, accessed 11 June 2024.
[44]. Independent
Parliamentary Standards Authority, The
scheme of MPs’ staffing and business costs 2023–24 (revised July
2023), 19 July 2023, 48–50.
[45]. Alex Smith, Ministerial
staff: issues of accountability and ethics, Background Paper 2006—02-E,
(Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 17 May 2012), 1.
[46]. Public Service
Employment Act, subsection 128(1); Alex Smith, Ministerial Staff,
2.
[47]. Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Quarterly
Statistical Reports, website, accessed 11 June 2024; Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Annual
Reports, website, accessed 11 June 2024.
[48]. House of
Commons (Canada), Members’
Allowances and Services, updated 24 July 2023, Chapter 4, 3.
[49]. House of
Commons (Canada), Members’
Allowances and Services, updated 1 April 2023, Chapter 4, 15–28.
[50]. House of
Commons (Canada), Members’
Allowances and Services, updated 1 January 2024, Chapter 4, 13.