Take away Albo’s ‘problematic’ power to allocate MPs more staff

Two things can be true about Anthony Albanese’s decision to offer One Nation MP David Farley an additional staffer, a move Pauline Hanson described as “seeking to use taxpayer funds to exert undue political influence”.

Farley was the only lower house crossbencher without an advisor, so it’s accurate to say that granting him one would have put him on par with Nicolette Boele, Dai Le, Elizabeth Watson-Brown and Barnaby Joyce, who all have one (other house crossbenchers have two each; more on that later).

As Labor frontbencher Pat Conroy told Today this morning, it’s “not unusual” to allocate MPs with large electorates extra staff, and the division of Farrer in southwestern NSW is certainly big. But why now, and not when Farley was elected, back in May?

It’s also accurate to say that the move stinks to high heaven, as Hanson did in a blistering statement posted to social media on Thursday. It’s well known that Labor is courting Farley, who previously sought to run for the ALP, and whose relationship with One Nation has “broken down”, according to The Saturday Paper. Albanese has been meeting with Farley privately in recent weeks, Hanson alleged in her statement, while senior ministers had approached him to raise grant funding for the Murray-Darling Basin — discussions Farley did not initiate. 

It comes as One Nation’s pre-existing requests for additional staffing — reflecting its minor party status — go unanswered, as do those of Senator Fatima Payman, formerly of Labor, who believes she is being punished for defecting. Farley, it’s worth noting, rejected the PM’s offer, citing Hanson’s ongoing staffing dispute, but did not definitively rule out joining Labor when asked on News24 on Thursday night.

Never has Hanson’s “please explain” been more apt. Why has Farley been offered an advisor, now, while Payman’s and Hanson’s requests remain outstanding? If this is about the footprint of the electorate, why do some inner-city MPs have two advisors, when New England’s Barnaby Joyce only has one? Why are Payman and Tyron Whitten (One Nation’s WA senator) the only Senate crossbenchers without one, and why does Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie have three? And why do the Liberals and Greens have 1.5 advisors per representative, while One Nation only has 0.8?

One Nation may or may not be using their staffing allocation appropriately (as Guardian Australia reports, Hanson’s daughter is a senior advisor to One Nation’s NSW senator, despite living in Tasmania and spending much of her time campaigning on Tasmanian issues). But it doesn’t change the fact this is blatantly unfair, with little justification for some non-government MPs having more support than others.

The answer lies in the fact that the PM has the power to unilaterally determine federal staffing levels — a troubling system both major parties and the Greens seem content with, so long as it advantages them (all three voted against a recent motion for an inquiry into the power). 

As Centre for Public Integrity director Catherine Williams told Nine, the government “urgently” needs to “explain the rationale that has been used to determine current staffing allocations”. And no, “Farrer is a big electorate” won’t cut it, not when the numbers are all over the place.

As Payman argued this week, it’s hypocritical of a historically pro-worker party to expect some offices to do more with less. Albanese’s snide response on Thursday — “Payman has the same number of staff now as she had when she was elected as a Labor senator, indeed one more, because we granted an additional staffer to all senators” — ignored the fact she still has fewer than her crossbench colleagues.

Hanson and Payman, perhaps the country’s strangest political bedfellows, have been attempting to raise the staffing issue for months now, to little success. The PM has granted them an opening here, with a ham-fisted offer that suggests staffers can be handed out as political favours, and a petty refusal to offer similar consideration to his enemies.

This is far from the most egregious example of the Albanese government trying to disadvantage its political opponents. But it’s embarr***ingly transparent from Albanese, a man who is supposed to be known for his political nous. His instincts were way off with this offer, and he has granted Hanson another opportunity to rail against “grubby politics”, with an offer that does look, for all the world, like an attempt to pick off Farley.

There are many reasons to remove the PM’s ability to unilaterally allocate his opponent’s staffing levels, a system Williams calls “deeply and inherently problematic”. But if Labor needs another, it’s that Albanese’s inability to use it responsibly is now doing damage to the government itself.

With great power comes great responsibility. Albanese’s factional instincts show he can’t be trusted with this one, an anachronistic system of favours that those outside Labor aren’t going to stand for.