Staffing for parliamentarians - who should control their numbers and classification?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices.

To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles.

It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates.

This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years.

In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves.

Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act).

It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control.

Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away.

Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022.

That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion.

Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account.

It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election.