Major-party entrenchment
Senator Waters said the bill shared concerns about unfair staffing decisions but used a model that entrenched major-party power rather than creating an independent allocation system.
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
The bill would amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984The Commonwealth law that provides for the employment of staff for parliamentarians and office-holders. to create statutory minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians, rather than leaving those minimums entirely to executive discretion.
The bill was introduced by non-government senators to put minimum personal-staff allocations for the Opposition, larger non-government parties, smaller minority parties and independents into primary legislation. The explanatory memorandum and second-reading speeches say the sponsors were responding to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's staffing decisions in 2022 and later, which they argued reduced the capacity of opposition and crossbench parliamentarians to analyse legislation, prepare amendments, take part in committees and estimates, and scrutinise government. The bill was also framed as a transparency and integrity measure because it would stop a future Prime Minister reducing those minimum entitlements by determination.
The main criticism recorded in debate came from the Greens. Senator Waters agreed that Prime Ministerial discretion over parliamentary staffing was inappropriate, but said the Coalition bill entrenched major-party power and should instead be replaced by an independent staffing model developed with all elected groups and individuals.
Senators Michaelia Cash, Ralph Babet, Pauline Hanson and Fatima Payman introduced this bill. It was supported by Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Greens; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
2 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
9 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984The Commonwealth law that provides for the employment of staff for parliamentarians and office-holders. to create statutory minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians, rather than leaving those minimums entirely to executive discretion.
The Opposition would be entitled to at least 110 non-ministerial personal staffPersonal staff employed to support parliamentarians who are not ministers, separate from electorate office staff and ministerial staff., or 22 per cent of the total number of government staff, whichever was higher.
A non-government party with eight or more parliamentarians would be entitled to at least 25 non-ministerial personal staffPersonal staff employed to support parliamentarians who are not ministers, separate from electorate office staff and ministerial staff., or five per cent of the total number of government staff, whichever was higher.
An independent parliamentarian, or a parliamentarian in a minority party with fewer than eight parliamentarians, would be entitled to at least three non-ministerial personal staffPersonal staff employed to support parliamentarians who are not ministers, separate from electorate office staff and ministerial staff., including at least one Senior Adviser.
The Prime Minister could still make determinations that increased a non-government parliamentarian or group's staffing allocation, but any determination that reduced the bill's minimum entitlements would be void to that extent.
The bill would also limit office-holders from employing staff beyond their staffing allocation or Senior Adviser allocationThe number of positions within a staffing allocation that could be held at a Senior Adviser classification level., and would let the Leader of the Opposition or a qualifying minority-party leader decide how a group allocation was shared inside that group.
The explanatory memorandum says the bill responds to staffing cuts made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in 2022 and later, which the sponsors argued weakened Parliament's practical capacity to scrutinise government.
The Senate agreed to a Greens second-reading amendmentA parliamentary amendment to the motion about whether a bill should be read a second time. It can add a statement or criticism without changing the bill text itself. calling for the government to work with all elected groups and individuals on a fair and independent personal-staff allocation model that reflected representation and addressed staff wellbeing and workload.
The amended second-reading motion was agreed, but the bill itself did not pass the Senate. The third-reading vote was defeated 29 votes to 32, and the APH bill page records the bill as not proceeding.
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 those minima by later determination.Explanatory memorandum
all of the parliamentarians (taken together) who are members of the Opposition ... the highest of the following: (a) 110; (b) 22% of the total number of Government staff ...Introduced bill text
all of the parliamentarians (taken together) who are members of a minority party of 8 or more parliamentarians ... the highest of the following: (a) 25; (b) 5% of the total number of Government staff ...Introduced bill text
an independent parliamentarian ... (a) 3 ... (a) 1 ... a parliamentarian who is a member of a minority party of less than 8 parliamentarians ... (a) 3 ... (a) 1Introduced bill text
the determination must not reduce an entitlement that the parliamentarian or group of parliamentarians would otherwise have under subsection 12A(1) ... An instrument made under subsection (2) is void to the extent that it contravenes subsection (2A)Introduced bill text
An office-holder cannot exercise their power to employ a person ... if ... the total number of personal employees ... is equal to or exceeds the entity's staffing allocation ... The following individual is responsible for deciding how the staffing allocation and Senior Adviser allocation ... is to be sharedIntroduced bill text
The Bill is required because in 2022 and subsequently, Labor Prime Minister Albanese used executive determinations to cut personal staffing for some non-government parliamentarians ... these cuts materially weakened Parliament’s practical capacity to hold the Government to account.Explanatory memorandum
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 ... and addresses staff wellbeing and sustainability of workload.Australian Greens second-reading amendment, sheet 3422
Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. ... DIVISION:NOES 32 (3 majority) AYES 29 ... Question negatived.Senate Hansard, 3 September 2025
Legislative route
Non-government senators introduced the bill in the Senate.
Introduced and read a first time
Debate opened on the bill's proposal to set minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians.
Senators debated staffing allocations for opposition, minor-party and independent parliamentarians.
The Senate agreed to a Greens second-reading amendmentA parliamentary amendment to the motion about whether a bill should be read a second time. It can add a statement or criticism without changing the bill text itself. calling for a fair and independent model for allocating personal staff.
Second reading debate :
The Senate agreed to the bill in principle, as amended by the Greens second-reading statement.
Second reading agreed to
The Senate defeated the third-reading motion, so the bill did not pass the Senate and did not proceed.
Third readingThe final vote on whether a bill passes a chamber. This bill was defeated at third reading in the Senate. negatived
Key criticism
The main criticism recorded in debate came from the Greens. Senator Waters agreed that Prime Ministerial discretion over parliamentary staffing was inappropriate, but said the Coalition bill entrenched major-party power and should instead be replaced by an independent staffing model developed with all elected groups and individuals.
The bill's sponsors and several supporting senators argued the opposite: that statutory minimums were needed urgently because Prime Ministerial discretion had already reduced opposition and crossbench scrutiny capacity.
Major-party entrenchment
Senator Waters said the bill shared concerns about unfair staffing decisions but used a model that entrenched major-party power rather than creating an independent allocation system.
Need for independent model
The Greens amendment called for the government to work with all elected groups and individuals on a fair and independent model that reflected representation and addressed workload and wellbeing.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Defeated 29 to 32. Support came from Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Moved by Larissa Waters (Australian Greens). Passed 40 to 23. Support came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
This changed the Senate's second-reading motion but did not amend the bill text.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Wendy Askew introduced the bill and incorporated the second-reading speech, arguing that the Prime Minister had too much discretion over non-government staffing and that the bill would restore transparency, minimum staffing levels and parliamentary scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗Pauline Hanson supported the bill, arguing that cuts to One Nation and other crossbench staffing weakened senators' ability to scrutinise legislation and represent voters.
Read in Hansard ↗Fatima Payman supported the bill and said she co-signed it because she believed the Prime Minister had used staffing powers to punish dissent after she left the Labor Party.
Read in Hansard ↗Malcolm Roberts supported the bill, saying it would restore fairness in crossbench staffing and protect parliamentary accountability after cuts to senators who often opposed Labor.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 support
“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”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jonathon Duniam on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jonathon Duniam supported the bill and said parliamentarians should have enough resources to do their jobs, including senators whose views differ from his own.
“While it wouldn't aid me to have my opponents better resourced, it is the right thing to do.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jonathon Duniam again supported the bill while criticising the Greens and government over staffing arrangements, and noted the Greens second-reading amendmentA parliamentary amendment to the motion about whether a bill should be read a second time. It can add a statement or criticism without changing the bill text itself. before the vote.
“This is an excellent bill and I commend it.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation fixes that. It restores balance, transparency and integrity to a system the Prime Minister has treated like his private fiefdom.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“The model proposed by the coalition, however, is more of the same, which entrenches the power of the major parties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“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”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“today I find myself co-signing a coalition bill not because I have changed sides but because I have stayed true to my duty.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill fixes that. It sets a minimum staffing level for non-government MPs, and we need it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced in the Senate
Non-government senators introduced the bill in the Senate.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading moved
Debate opened on the bill's proposal to set minimum staffing guarantees for non-government parliamentarians.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Senators debated staffing allocations for opposition, minor-party and independent parliamentarians.
Senate · Amendments considered
Independent staffing model added
The Senate agreed to a Greens second-reading amendmentA parliamentary amendment to the motion about whether a bill should be read a second time. It can add a statement or criticism without changing the bill text itself. calling for a fair and independent model for allocating personal staff.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The Senate agreed to the bill in principle, as amended by the Greens second-reading statement.
Senate · Third reading negatived
Third readingThe final vote on whether a bill passes a chamber. This bill was defeated at third reading in the Senate. defeated
The Senate defeated the third-reading motion, so the bill did not pass the Senate and did not proceed.