You can’t blame Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for wanting to cut the number of crossbench advisers from four to one for independents. Four advisers is a recent thing apparently, up from two when Craig Kelly went to the crossbench and threatened the Morrison government with non-support.
But now there’s an army of like-minded independents who can coordinate. Between them, the teals and David Pocock would have 28 staffers under the system the prime minister wants to abolish, with One Nation and the Jacqui Lambie Network with eight each. The Greens have also taken a cut with their staff numbers frozen, even though their partyroom has grown from nine to 16.
With nearly 30 staffers headed by a slew of doctors, lawyers and CEOs, the teals could create whole flying squads to investigate every policy proposal Labor makes, propose concrete alternatives, and bust open the predators’ banquet that Labor-friendly lobbyists are licking their lips over. The Libs can’t say anything for a while without the riposte “You had nine years to do it”, but the teals are cleanskins and can come at Labor from every angle.
The cut in staff is clearly designed to stop all that in its tracks.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for the teals to make a show of unity, with or without the Greens. Labor is betting, in part, on the fact that a teals-led stoush on parliamentary matters will look like a bit of a tantrum and inwardly focused. It will to some, but the teals have an educated electorate that follows the news — Monique Ryan’s crew would occupy Victoria’s Government House if that’s what it took to get the ABC radio 7.45am news bulletin back — and they will recognise a shifty Labor move.
To date, however, it has come out as individual independent objections, and that isn’t nearly as effective as a collective show of force (though it may be, behind the scenes). It still gives the appearance of petitioning a monolithic power, rather than contesting it from strength and positioning one’s group as the de facto opposition.
It lends legitimacy to Labor’s stern-but-fair pose. Yet an issue like this, on democratic procedure, is tailor made for a broad front because it requires no one to surrender or compromise. It should be a unified teal-plus-Pocock opposition to such a measure, then a looser joint restatement with the Greens, and then a yet looser one with Lambie and Tammy Tyrrell, then that young man in a fancy collar and pocket kerchief who’s going to be in the UAP for the next six months, and maybe skip One Nation.
Perhaps there’s a plan in place and they’re working as a team while still appearing publicly as individuals. That still strikes me as a mistake if it’s the case, especially on an issue like this. Now is the time, with the right in disarray, to manifest the unity of progressivism as much as possible.
There may be some fear that this will eventually call out a more unified right. But that sort of response will emerge anyway, if it can emerge at all, in response to the general atmosphere of the era (or a working-class populism with different priorities to progressivism will emerge, which would be welcome).
Yeah, it’s a tough one to do. With Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong now touring the world and restoring Australia’s reputation as a place that is part of the international dialogue, many progressive people would not want to see that interrupted or mozzed. And four may well be a little too many (MPs have other electoral staffers as well). But the old allocation of a single staffer is too little, a relic of an earlier age, when independents were an anomaly, when social media did not exist, and when they did not hold such crucial positions in the Senate.
The Greens and independents can force a floor vote on this matter in the Senate, but of course they would have to have the opposition on side. They’d get them, but do they want them? What sort of look is it to be out of the gate dragging the detritus of an earlier era back into the game?
But even that is not without its advantage. The teals would show the blue-rinse, true-blue Liberal diehards in their electorates that they’re not simply Labor stooges. Might actually be good for votes.
In any case, it’s a matter about functioning democracy, an issue prior to issues, so it must be fought. How the independents do it will determine whether it looks like a try for a win, or merely a whinge.
There are some bad apples in parliament too, including one funded by Clive Palmer.
How many tax payer funded spin doctors should he be granted?
What contribution do you figure they will make to public policy?
Contrast this outcome to increasing parliamentary library funding, where work is overseen by library guidelines.
From the average punter’s POV, i am guessing that most (me included) wouldn’t have the faintest what the optimum number of advisers is.
If Labor think one is fair, then they should just explain their case, to dispel the notion that we’re going straight back into the bs style of politicking from which we’ve only just emerged.
Albanese and co. should assign a fair and reasonable number of advisers so we can get on with a decent parliament that works the way it should. If it’s one, two or three, just do it, and let’s get on with it.
This is a good opportunity to show that the ALP will govern in a spirit of fair play, with the overarching focus being the well-being of the voters.
It would not bode well if they start playing silly b*ggers already.
We need to hear details of the increased funding to the parliamentary library before the independents wail ‘we wuz robbed’.
If it’s a substantial boost they may just have to wear the staff restrictions. During Gillard’s term as PM a significant amount of legislation was passed at a time when independents had only one senior advisor.
If Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie managed to participate in the legislative process so competently and productively in the intense atmosphere of Gillard’s minority government, with only one advisor, then the present lot should be able to do it without four. When you look at some of the twits who’ve had a collection of advisers – people like Hanson, Roberts, Kelly – you wonder what on earth those advisers were doing in the way of ‘research’, and how well they were chosen in the first place.
A compromise may be the most desirable result in this case, but I’m not sure Albo will be in the mood for that so early in his prime ministership.
Evidently, the Teals/Independents have 4 office staff and now one advisor. Thats 5 staffers. Before, they had 8! Four of the 8 were advisors. Now they have two advisors – if they count themselves as advisors, which they should do. I am not too sorry for them! One person needed 8 helpers! Were they helpless or just liked lots of coffee breaks?
Exactly my point 5 instead of 8 is hardly doing it tough! No one has said this count of yours is a misunderstanding. And even more so when these poeple are freshly elected, will be on tghe learning curve, and must have stood on a particular issue which they must surely have researched throroughly already? Or are they just opportunists who thought the salary would be nice? I don’t think so.
Oh, dear, as well as being PM poor Albo has to be chief divie upper! Let’s get this issue off the PMs plate and in front of a pan impartial umpire who can assess workloads and determine options so a decision can be made. That the PM is wasting energy on this is wrong. Furthermore, all the commentary from some of the Teals on “we have to be across everything” doesn’t stack up to me. You have to be across what matters to your electors and not all electors are the same. So, like everyone with a job, priorities matter. Work them out. Sometimes you may just end up abstaining, but not on issues relevant to your campaign or your electorate. Stop trying to be all things to everyone. You can’t. Priorities, focus, work smart.
Whose priorities are we talking about? The member for x has some electors who think ‘Meh” on a particular issue while others accord it a great deal of importance. Does the member just tell them – sorry, computer says no?
Yr kidding aren’t you? It came from the top. Albo wouldve grabbed the issue as part of political strategy. Its not some tedious thing in his intray
So if four is too many and one is too few, what’s the perfect number? Two? Three?
And is the role a fixed one that applies to all members, or is it simply a funding/headcount allocation that each member can use as they see fit?
A few more details would be appreciated, please, for those of us ignorant of the inner workings of day-to-day political operations.
The right number of advisors depends on how big a family an independent MP has. If you have a large family then you need more than one advisor. Uncle Jack and sister-in-law Sharon were promised those jobs before the election.
Yes I would like to see the stats of how many advisers are related to, or friends of, the parliamentarian. I think it would be interesting.
Albo is cutting the waste from the previous government-as promised.