Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Providing Certainty and Improving Integrity) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Waters acknowledged concerns about staffing discretion but opposed the bill, arguing it entrenched major party power and did not reflect the will of voters. Waters noted that the Greens received a significant share of the vote but were allocated disproportionately low staffing levels under the proposed model. Waters moved a second reading amendment calling for the development of a fair, independent staffing model that addresses staff wellbeing and reflects diverse representation. Waters also raised issues regarding workplace sexual harassment and the need for structural change to ensure safety for parliamentary staff.

Hanson argued that the Prime Minister had abused his discretion by cutting staff for senators who opposed the government, creating a conflict of interest and undermining democracy. Hanson detailed specific instances where One Nation and other critical crossbenchers received fewer staff than those supportive of Labor, despite representing larger electorates. Hanson claimed the Prime Minister breached administrative law principles by failing to consult or provide reasons for the cuts. Hanson stated that One Nation would take the matter to the Fair Work Commission and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, supporting the bill to ensure fair resource allocation.

Payman stated that she had been stripped of all personal staff since joining the crossbench, which she described as political retribution for standing on principle. Payman argued that this targeted action weakened her ability to represent Western Australians and scrutinise legislation effectively. Payman cited historical warnings about the potential for the staffing act to be weaponised by authoritarian leaders. Payman characterised the Prime Minister's actions as bullying and an abuse of executive power that undermined the Senate's role as a house of review.

Babet supported the bill, arguing that the Prime Minister was using staffing allocations as a loyalty program to control the narrative and silence opposition. Babet claimed that the lack of baseline guidelines allowed the executive to act arbitrarily, reducing scrutiny and increasing secrecy. Babet stated that the bill established a minimum staffing level to ensure fairness and integrity in parliamentary operations. Babet urged colleagues to support the legislation to prevent the silencing of dissent and protect democratic accountability.

Duniam expressed disappointment that the parliament was debating resources rather than policy, but supported the bill to restore fairness to staffing arrangements. Duniam highlighted that Senator Payman had been denied support unlike other independents, suggesting vindictiveness in the government's approach. Duniam criticised the Greens for avoiding staffing cuts while receiving a new party room, arguing this indicated a deal with the government to reduce scrutiny. Duniam invited the Greens to reconsider their position and propose substantive amendments to address the lack of transparency and fairness.