Research Paper no. 26 2008-09
Note: this paper has been udated on 3 August 2009
The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act
1984 framework and employment issues
Dr Nicholas Horne
Politics and Public Administration Section
Contents
Executive Summary
This research paper provides comprehensive information on the
Members of Parliament
(Staff) Act 1984 (Cth) (MoPS Act) employment framework
including recent developments, staff figures, and staffing
trends.
The paper also updates and expands a previous Parliamentary
Library publication on employment issues associated with the MoPS
Act. The following employment issues are considered:
- the adequacy of the MoPS Act framework and
institutional arrangements
- base salary value
- employment security, and
- ministerial staff management and professional development.
A future paper will consider accountability
issues associated with the MoPS Act.
|
|
ALP
|
Australian Labor Party
|
|
ANAO
|
Australian National Audit Office
|
|
APS
|
Australian Public Service
|
|
AWAs
|
Australian Workplace Agreements
|
|
DLOs
|
Departmental Liaison Officers
|
|
DoFA
|
Department of Finance and Administration
|
|
DoFD
|
Department of Finance and Deregulation
|
|
ESA
|
Electorate Staff Allowance
|
|
MoPS Act
|
Members of
Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth)
|
|
MoPS staff
|
Staff employed by office-holders, senators and members
under the Members of
Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth)
|
|
MSA
|
Ministerial Staff Allowance
|
|
DPMC
|
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
|
|
PSA
|
Parliamentary Staff Allowance
|
|
SES
|
Senior Executive Service
|
|
SFPARC
|
Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Committee
|
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ian Holland,
Chris Lawley, Cathy Madden, Deirdre McKeown, Anne Tiernan, and Guy
Woods for their assistance in preparing this paper.
Introduction
This research paper provides comprehensive
information on the Members
of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth) (MoPS Act) employment
framework, including recent developments, staff figures, and
staffing trends.
The paper also updates and expands a previous
Parliamentary Library publication on employment issues associated
with the MoPS Act, [1]
and complements a 2002 Research Note on the
background to the Act. [2]
The arrangements applying to Australian Public
Service (APS) employees working temporarily as staff under the MoPS
Act are not considered in this paper. A future paper will consider
accountability issues associated with the Act.
The MoPS Act regulates the employment of staff
(MoPS staff) by senators and members of the House of
Representatives. [3]
The Act is divided into five Parts:
- Part I—short title, commencement,
and interpretation information
- Part II—regulates the employment of consultants
by ministers
- Part III—regulates the employment of
staff by office-holders
- Part IV—regulates the employment of
staff by senators and members more generally, and
- Part VI—prescribes annual report
requirements pertaining to the employment of ministerial
consultants; enables office-holders, senators and members to
authorise others to exercise their powers under the Act; and
provides for the making of regulations. [4]
‘Office-holder’ is defined in
section 3 of the MoPS Act to mean ministers, the Leader and Deputy
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the leaders and deputy leaders of other recognised
political parties, and former Prime Ministers. [5] Staff of
office-holders employed under Part III and staff of senators and
members more generally employed under Part IV are commonly
categorised as personal staff and electorate staff respectively.
[6] As the
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has noted, however, an
exception to this categorisation is the employment of electorate
staff by office-holders under Part III of the Act:
In general, Senators and Members employ their
electorate staff under Part IV… The exceptions are the
electorate staff of Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the
Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader and Deputy
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and the Leader and Deputy
Leader of the Australian Democrats. Those staff are employed under
Part III of the Act. [7]
The ranks of the personal staff include
ministerial staff, which are the personal staff employed by
ministers and parliamentary secretaries. While individual
office-holders, senators and members are the employers of their
staff under Parts III and IV of the Act, [8] the Act
gives a wide discretion to the Prime Minister to determine the
employment arrangements for MoPS staff. Subsections 13(2) and 20(2)
of the Act provide that the power of office-holders, senators and
members to employ staff:
… is not exercisable otherwise than in
accordance with arrangements approved by the Prime Minister, and
the exercise of that power is subject to such conditions as are
determined by the Prime Minister. [9]
Under the Rudd Government a staffing committee
of three, called the Government Staffing Committee, considers
government staffing matters such as classifications (particularly
regarding more senior staff) and makes recommendations to the Prime
Minister. [10]
Previous governments have had similar committees.
The Prime Minister also has the ability to
vary the terms and conditions of MoPS staff employed under Parts
III and IV, excepting certain terms and conditions relating to
superannuation determined by the employing office-holder, senator
or member and the terms and conditions prescribed by the Act
relating to termination of employment. [11]
While there are individual variations,
currently a typical cabinet minister’s personal staff will
comprise a senior adviser/chief of staff, a senior media adviser,
three to five advisers, two assistant advisers, an executive
assistant/office manager, and a secretary/administrative assistant.
A junior (i.e. non-cabinet) minister’s personal staff will
consist of a senior adviser/chief of staff, a media adviser, an
adviser, an assistant adviser, an executive assistant/office
manager, and a secretary/administrative assistant. A parliamentary
secretary’s personal staff will consist of an assistant
adviser and an executive assistant/office manager. All ministers
and parliamentary secretaries will also have either four or five
electorate staff in their offices (see further below). The various
personal staff classifications as at 1 February 2009 are set
out at Appendix A.
In addition to staff employed under the MoPS
Act, there will be staff working in the offices of office-holders,
senators and members who do not come under the MoPS Act framework.
Examples include interns, volunteers, and the Departmental Liaison
Officers (DLOs), who are APS officers employed by departments and
who are located in ministers’ offices in order to assist
communication between ministers and departments.
Under the MoPS Act the Prime Minister has the
power to make various determinations relating to the employment of
staff and the terms and conditions of employment. [12] In recent
years the Special Minister of State has made a range of
determinations for and on behalf of the Prime Minister under the
MoPS Act in relation to MoPS staffing arrangements; in 2003 the
Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee
(SFPARC) noted that ‘most of the powers [under the MoPS Act]
are delegated to the Special Minister of State (other than for the
staff of ministers and parliamentary secretaries)’. [13] In the
past determinations have generally not been publicly available; in
2003 the Department of Finance and Administration (DoFA) informed
the SFPARC that ‘It is not usual practice to make copies of
Determinations publicly available because they relate to terms and
conditions of employment’. [14] Some
information regarding MoPS staffing and remuneration, however, has
periodically been made publicly available through the Senate
Estimates process, including one recent significant determination
made by Prime Minister Rudd. In addition, as of December 2008 the
Determinations made over 2007–2008, together with a range of
other information, have been made publicly available in the new
MoPS Act 2007–08 Annual Report (see further below).
Up to a certain level (media adviser
(non-Cabinet minister)/adviser), the terms and conditions of
employment for MoPS staff (including electorate staff) are set out
in a Collective Agreement that is due to expire in 2009. [15] Under the
Howard Government after December 1998, senior personal staff above
the media adviser (non-Cabinet minister)/adviser level were
employed according to terms and conditions set out in Australian
Workplace Agreements (AWAs), the details of which were not publicly
available. [16]
Under the Rudd Government AWAs are no longer offered
for senior personal MoPS staff. Instead, a Determination made by
the Prime Minister in December 2007 sets out the terms and
conditions for senior staff employed under Part III of the Act.
[17] The
Determination, which is intended to be an interim arrangement,
[18] covers a
range of matters including salary ranges, leave, allowances, and
severance benefits. In January 2009 it was reported that the
government was considering the development of a
‘longer–term employment framework for senior staff
which will incorporate remuneration and other terms and conditions
of employment’. [19]
The remuneration of MoPS staff has three
components: base salary, extra duties allowance, and other
applicable allowances and entitlements such as study assistance and
travel and relocation allowances. Up to the level of media adviser
(non-Cabinet minister)/adviser (including electorate staff),
salaries are determined by the current Collective Agreement. For
senior personal staff, individual salaries are set either by the
employing office-holder (for non-government staff) or by the Prime
Minister (for government staff) within the salary ranges specified
by the Prime Minister’s Determination. [20] Current
salary ranges for MoPS staff are reproduced at Appendices B and
C.
As the ANAO noted in 2003, it is also possible
for staff to be paid at rates outside specified salary ranges by
means of ‘personal classifications’:
Individual staff members may, with the approval
of the Prime Minister, be assigned a personal classification that
is higher or lower than the substantive classification of the
position they hold and, accordingly, be paid at a rate applicable
to another classification. Personal classifications are not
additional positions. They are assigned to recognise the particular
skills and responsibilities of individual staff. [21]
The ANAO
further noted that in March 2003 the availability of personal
classifications was extended to ‘non-Government office
holders’ by the Howard Government. [22] As at 17
February 2009, nine government staff, four Opposition staff, and
one non-government staff member were assigned personal
classifications. [23]
There are three categories of the extra duties
allowance for MoPS staff: an electorate staff allowance (ESA) for
electorate staff; a parliamentary staff allowance (PSA) for
personal staff up to the media adviser/adviser level; and a
ministerial staff allowance (MSA) for senior personal staff paid
‘in recognition of the long and irregular hours required in
addition to the ordinary hours of duty and other special features
of employment’. [24]
ESA is payable at the discretion of the employing
office-holder, senator or member and varies according to employee
classification. The current maximum total ESA allocation per
employing parliamentarian is $39 313 ($45 865 for those with a
second electorate office). [25] The
current PSA for the media adviser/adviser classification is
$18 678 per annum and the current MSA is $17 719 per annum.
[26] In
addition, personal staff at the highest
classifications—principal advisers, chiefs of staff and
senior advisers—are entitled to the use of a private-plated
vehicle or cash-in-lieu to the value of $18 540 per annum.
[27]
In 2003 the SFPARC, chaired by Senator Michael
Forshaw, conducted an inquiry into staff employed under the MoPS
Act. [28] The
Committee inquired into a range of matters including ‘the
adequacy and appropriateness of the framework for employment and
management of staff’ under the Act, the ‘remuneration
and conditions of employment of MoPS staff’, appropriate
amendments to the MoPS Act, and ‘suitable means by which the
accountability of MoPS staff could be enhanced’. [29] In its
October 2003 report a majority of the Committee made a total of 21
recommendations relating to the MoPS Act employment framework
including:
- the restructuring of the MoPS
Act in order to ‘define the different categories of MOPS
employment’ [30]
- the preparation of a
comprehensive annual report on MoPS staffing
- the introduction of a code of conduct for
ministerial staff, and
- the eventual introduction of a code of
conduct for non-ministerial staff . [31]
While there has been no formal government
response to the SFPARC’s report to date, [32] the Rudd
Government has implemented some of the measures recommended by the
SFPARC including introducing a code of conduct for ministerial
staff and MoPS Act annual reporting (see further below). [33] In 2003
also, the ANAO conducted a performance audit of the administration
of MoPS staff by DoFA. The Audit Office made a number of
recommendations to improve the administration of MoPS staff.
[34]
In August 2007 the Australian Labor Party
(ALP) announced its intention to reduce ministerial staff numbers
by 30 per cent in order to equate with 1996 staffing levels (the
effect of this reduction on staff numbers is detailed below).
[35] A
reduction of staff in this vein is not a new concept; in May 1996
the Howard Government, for example, employed 17.5 per cent fewer
personal staff than had been employed by the Keating Government a
year earlier in April 1995. [36]
Since the ALP took office and implemented the
reduction, a number of media reports have commented on the
pressure, workload and long working hours experienced by the new
ministerial staff cohort, particularly in the Prime
Minister’s office. [37]
Concern has also been expressed in the media about
the potential for the staff reduction to have adverse effects on
policy and decision-making. [38] In March
2008 the National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector
Union was reported as suggesting that the 30 per cent reduction was
‘short-sighted’ and that, if it is not re-examined, the
government ‘will have a steady stream of people falling
over’. [39]
In July 2008 it was reported that staff
turnover in ministerial offices was very high and that a review of
ministerial staffing arrangements and levels was underway within
the government. [40]
In August 2008 there was speculation that the
government was planning to increase ministerial staff numbers, but
in the same month the government stated that it had no plans to
alter the current ministerial staffing arrangements. [41] Notably,
in December 2008 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(DPMC) engaged a consultant to review ‘matters relating to
the allocation of staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff)
Act’. [42]
It is unclear whether this review, which was
scheduled to be completed in late February 2009, will also consider
the 30 per cent reduction, although media comment has suggested
that this is so. [43]
Also in December 2008 Department of Finance
and Deregulation (DoFD) figures indicated that between December
2007 and October 2008 24 per cent of personal staff (at various
levels) engaged by ministers had ceased employment, with a
cessation rate of 41 per cent in the Prime Minister’s office.
[44] The DoFD
stated that these figures:
… include employees who were engaged on
an ongoing, non-ongoing or temporary transfer basis to enable a
smooth transition to government, as well as employees who were
promoted/transferred from or to electorate officer positions. The
figures do not include employees who were promoted/transferred from
non-government personal to government personal staff positions
following the election. [45]
In 2003 the SFPARC observed that, while the
‘greatest turnover’ of MoPS staff will be at elections,
the cessation rate ‘At other times … is also
relatively high’. [46]
It remains to be seen whether the Rudd
Government’s reduction in the number of ministerial staff is
maintained in the longer term, particularly in light of the DPMC
review. Any imperative for the government to increase ministerial
staff numbers would face a competing imperative to observe the
pre-election commitment and maintain the reduction.
After the 2007 federal election it was
reported in the media that the Rudd Government would introduce a
code of conduct for ministerial staff; this was confirmed by the
government during Senate Estimates hearings in February 2008.
[47] The code
was subsequently released on 26 June 2008 and took effect on 1 July
2008. [48] The
code of conduct will be considered further in the future paper on
MoPS Act accountability issues.
In October 2008 the government announced the
introduction of annual reporting ‘on Ministerial and
Parliamentary staffing’. [49] The
government stated that the annual reports will ‘provide an
overview of the numbers of Ministerial staff and the costs of their
employment’ and will ‘enhance the transparency of
employment arrangements for all MOP(S) Act employees’.
[50] The first
Annual Report, covering the 2007–08 financial year, was
released in December 2008 and contains a range of information
including:
- MoPS staff home bases, staff numbers,
salary ranges, allowances ranges, and personal classifications
- payroll, travel and support costs
- information on professional development,
training, occupational health and safety, fraud prevention and
control, and unfair dismissal
- the code of conduct for ministerial staff,
and
- Determinations made under the MoPS Act
over the period 2007–08.
The MoPS Act annual reports will be convenient
as consolidated information sources and beneficial from a
transparency standpoint.
The Prime Minister determines the government
personal staff complement and also the personal staff complement of
any minor parties/independents. [51] For the
Opposition, a convention has been in place for some years whereby
the Opposition personal staff complement is set at 21 per cent of
that of the government. [52]
Information regarding personal staff
complements has periodically been made publicly available by DoFA
(more recently DoFD) for a number of years during Senate Estimates
rounds. [53] The
SFPARC noted in 2003 that ‘information about the numbers,
remuneration and so on of staff is only forthcoming if questions
are asked in parliament or through a parliamentary
committee’. [54]
This has now changed with the introduction MoPS Act
annual reporting, which will make tracing such information easier,
at least on an annual basis.
While MoPS staffing arrangements can be fluid,
the information made available has provided periodic
‘snapshots’ of personal staff figures and
classifications. Based on this information, the following table
shows:
- MoPS personal staff figures for the government, Opposition,
Australian Democrats, Australian Greens, other minor parties and
independents at the same or nearest point over the period
2003–09 (1 February 2003 and 2009 and 1 May each year for
2004–08) and
- government personal staff figures at the
nearest point over the period 2000–02 (1 March 2000, 20
February 2001, and 1 May 2002).
Table 1. Personal staff figures
2000–2009
|
|
Government
|
Opposition
|
Aust.
Democrats / Aust. Greens
|
Other
minor parties / independents
|
TOTAL
|
|
1 Feb 2009
|
352
|
77.34
|
11 (Greens)
|
5
|
445.34
|
|
1 May
2008
|
345
|
76
|
5 (Democrats)
5 (Greens)
|
3
|
434
|
|
1 May
2007
|
474.3
|
101
|
5 (Democrats)
5 (Greens)
|
4
|
589.3
|
|
1 May
2006
|
449.6
|
87
|
5 (Democrats)
5 (Greens)
|
4
|
550.6
|
|
1 May
2005
|
407.6
|
86
|
15 (Democrats)
2 (Greens)
|
7
|
517.6
|
|
1 May
2004
|
391.6
|
83
|
15 (Democrats)
3 (Greens)
|
7
|
499.6
|
|
1 Feb
2003
|
369.6
|
77
|
15 (Democrats)
3 (Greens)
|
7
|
471.6
|
|
1 May
2002
|
365.6
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
|
20 Feb
2001
|
354.4
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
|
1 Mar
2000
|
344.9
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
Sources: see Appendix D.
The figures above are as provided by DoFA/DoFD
and are based on the groupings used by the Department. The figures
include the personal staff of, as applicable:
- ministers and parliamentary
secretaries
- the Cabinet Policy Unit
- the Government Members’ Secretariat
(Coalition)
- the Caucus Committee Support and Training
Unit (ALP)
- ‘pool
positions’
- government whips
- government taskforces
- government consultants
- former government office-holders
- the President of the Senate and the Deputy
President of the Senate (2006 onwards)
- the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Deputy Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the Second Deputy Speaker of the House of
Representatives (2009)
- the Leader and Deputy Leader of
the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Senate
- the Leader and Deputy Leader of
the Nationals in the House and the Leader of the Nationals in the
Senate
- Opposition shadow ministers
- Opposition whips
- former Opposition office-holders
- former leader personal positions, and
- minor parties and independents.
The figures may include vacant positions and
span the full range of personal staff classifications from
principal adviser down to secretary/administrative assistant and
whips clerk. [55]
The figures do not include:
- DLOs and
- the personal staff of former Prime
Ministers. [56]
One problem with measuring personal staff
figures is the ability to arrive at different measurements
depending on the staff categories and classifications included in,
or excluded from, the data. As the SFPARC observed in 2003,
‘Just how many MOPS staff provide the government with advice
depends on how they are counted’. [57] The
Committee also noted that the different ways of calculating staff
figures ‘mean that figures are regularly quoted that seem
mutually incompatible’. [58] The MoPS
Act annual reports may serve to establish a standard measure of
personal staff figures over time.
The ministerial staff complement—that
is, personal staff employed by ministers and parliamentary
secretaries—over the same period covered in Table 1 is as
follows:
Table 2. Ministerial staff figures
2000–2009
|
|
Ministerial staff
|
Government personal staff
|
Ministerial staff as percentage of
government personal staff
|
|
1 Feb
2009
|
320
|
352
|
90.9
|
|
1 May
2008
|
318
|
345
|
92.2
|
|
1 May
2007
|
428.3
|
474.3
|
90.3
|
|
1 May
2006
|
406.5
|
449.6
|
90.4
|
|
1 May
2005
|
379.5
|
407.6
|
93.1
|
|
1 May
2004
|
364.5
|
391.6
|
93.1
|
|
1 Feb
2003
|
345.1
|
369.6
|
93.4
|
|
1 May 2002
|
343.1
|
365.6
|
93.8
|
|
20 Feb 2001
|
331.4
|
354.4
|
93.5
|
|
1 Mar 2000
|
322.9
|
344.9
|
93.6
|
Sources: as for Table 1
(Appendix D). [59]
Again, figures are as provided by DoFA/DoFD
(except for the percentages) and may include vacant positions.
As with personal staff figures, it is possible
when calculating ministerial staff figures to arrive at different
measurements depending on the staff categories and classifications
included in or excluded from the data. For example, totals
different to those above would be yielded by excluding the staff of
parliamentary secretaries or by excluding personal staff
classifications below adviser level in order to focus on staff
fulfilling an advisory role. [60]
Senators and members are allocated a set
number of full-time electorate staff positions. In 2003 the SFPARC
noted that:
Until 1985 there were two electorate staff for
each Member and Senator. This was then increased to three. This
meant the total numbers of electorate staff rose from 414 to around
680. Members serving large electorates are permitted a fourth
electorate officer to staff a second electorate office. [61]
In January 2007 senators and members were
allocated an additional electorate staff position making a total of
four full-time staff positions for each senator and member.
[62] Members
in certain geographically large electorates are also provided with
a second electorate office and a further electorate staff position.
[63] The
maximum aggregate number of full-time electorate staff employable
by senators and members under the MoPS Act currently, therefore, is
924. As at 30 June 2008 there were 961 ongoing electorate staff,
198 non-ongoing electorate staff, and 58 casual electorate
staff—a grand total of 1 217 electorate staff. [64] Of these,
excluding casual staff, 793 electorate staff were full-time and 366
staff were part-time. [65]
As at June 2008, the maximum possible number
of MoPS staff positions, as allocated by the Prime Minister under
the MoPS Act, was 1 374. [66]
This comprised maximum allocations of 924 full-time
electorate staff and 450 personal staff. [67] As at 30
June 2008 the actual totals for all MoPS staff employed under
the Act, including ongoing, non-ongoing, and casual staff, were 1
217 electorate staff and 441 personal staff—a grand total of
1 658 staff. [68]
In the 2007–08 MoPS Act Annual Report DoFD
stated that ‘At any given time the actual number of MOP(S)
Act employees may differ from the number of staffing allocations
if, for example, not all positions are filled or one position is
filled by two or more part-time employees’. [69]
Of note also are the costs of MoPS staff. MoPS
staff salaries and associated costs over the 2007–08
financial year totalled $148.21 million, while staff travel and
other administrative costs amounted to $25.35 million—an
overall total cost of $173.56 million. [70]
Table 1 above reveals a 37.5 per cent growth in government
personal staff figures over the 2000–07 period and a 31 per
cent growth in Opposition personal staff figures from 2003 to 2007.
The drop in both over 2008–09 is due to the Rudd
Government’s policy of a 30 per cent reduction in ministerial
staff (in actuality a reduction of 25.7 per cent in 2008 and 25.3
per cent in 2009) and the associated effect on Opposition staff.
The trend for ministerial staff is similar to that for government
personal staff, with Table 2 above revealing a 32.6 per cent growth
in figures over 2000–07 followed by a significant drop in
2008. Ministerial staff as a percentage of government personal
staff has stayed within the narrow range of between 90.3 and 93.8
per cent over the 2000–09 period.
Aggregate minor party and independent personal
staff figures were virtually static from 2003 to 2005 before
falling by 41.6 per cent in 2005–06 due to a sharp
contraction in the Australian Democrats’ staffing complement.
From 2006 to 2008 aggregate minor party and independent personal
staff figures held fairly steady, followed by a slight increase
(despite the departure of the Democrats) into 2009 due to an
expansion of the staffing numbers of the Australian Greens and
other minor parties/independents. Growth in electorate staff
figures has been widely spaced and episodic, with significant
increases in 1985 and again in 2007 due to increases in staff
allocations for senators and members. [71]
Research has suggested that, overall, the
numbers of MoPS staff rose considerably over the two decades to
2003. In 2003 the DPMC informed the SFPARC that, from 1983 to 2003,
government personal staff figures rose by 79.5 per cent, Opposition
personal staff figures rose by 84 per cent, and electorate staff
figures rose by 72 per cent. [72] It has
also been suggested that ministerial staff figures have grown over
the past 20–30 years. In 2003 the SFPARC stated that
‘The data shows a steady growth in ministerial
staffing’ over the 1983–2003 period, [73] and
Holland has suggested that, excepting the years 1996–97,
ministerial staff figures maintained an upwards trend over the
1976–2001 period. [74]
More recently, Tiernan has stated that, again
excepting 1996–97, ‘the total number of ministerial
staff has risen consistently’ from 1983 to 2006. [75]
The main issues relating to employment under
the MoPS Act are the adequacy of the MoPS Act framework and
institutional arrangements; base salary value; employment security;
and staff management and professional development.
The adequacy of the current MoPS Act
employment framework has come under some scrutiny in recent years,
mainly in relation to ministerial staff. In 2003 the SFPARC
observed that ministerial staff are different from other MoPS staff
due to ‘their attachment to the executive arm’, and
concluded that ‘a clear distinction should be drawn between
ministerial staff and other MOPS staff … the distinctive
role of ministerial staff should be reflected in a reorganisation
of the MOPS Act’. [76]
The Committee accordingly recommended that the MoPS
Act should be restructured so as to:
… define the different categories of
MOPS employment, in such a way as to distinguish between government
staff (particularly ministerial staff), non-government
office-holder staff, and electorate staff. [77]
Tiernan and Weller have gone further,
suggesting that ‘the ministerial staffing system requires its
own regulatory framework’ due to the particular roles and
responsibilities of ministerial staff, and for accountability
reasons, rather than a framework ‘enmeshed within a broader
set of arrangements for Electorate Office and other staff’.
[78] Tiernan
and Weller also suggest that the administration of ministerial
staff is ‘fragmented and ambiguous’ and could be better
managed by a single agency under a single minister appointed for
the purpose. [79]
Tiernan has also suggested that the
‘institutional framework is inadequate for a political
institution of the ministerial staffing system’s size and
complexity’, [80]
and that the MoPS Act has not provided a
‘robust operating framework for the ministerial staffing
institution’ or ‘management structures or systemic
guidance’ for MoPS staff. [81] It has
also been argued, however, that there is a longstanding trend
against including comprehensive employee management provisions in
other Commonwealth legislation, and that ‘Ministers should
have at least equal flexibility about the management of their
staff’. [82]
One other matter that can be raised in
relation to the MoPS Act framework is the appropriateness of the
wide discretion that the Act confers upon the Prime Minister with
regard to MoPS staff employment arrangements and conditions,
including for electorate staff and the staff of non-government
party leaders. It may be more appropriate for further employment
terms and conditions to be enshrined in the MoPS Act, particularly
with regard to senior personal staff not covered by collective
agreements. A related measure would be to amend the Act so as to
further limit the ability of the Prime Minister to vary employment
terms and conditions. Another possibility would be to involve the
Parliament in MoPS staff determinations, for example by way of
committee consideration.
As noted above, the Opposition personal staff
complement is set at 21 per cent of that of the government. The
disadvantage of this approach is that a fixed staff complement may
restrict the ability of employing senators, members and
office-holders to structure their staffing profiles with more of an
emphasis on classification. Perhaps a more functional approach
would be to set the ratio in terms of the total MoPS staff salary
cost, thereby providing greater flexibility in deciding staffing
arrangements.
In its 2003 report the SFPARC considered the
institutional arrangements for the provision of MoPS staff
information to the Parliament and noted that:
Parliament’s only access to information
about staffing establishment levels and staff classifications is
through the Senate Legislation Committee hearings … the
Australian Parliament has less of a role in the staffing
arrangements of its members than is the case in many jurisdictions.
[83]
The Committee concluded that there should be
greater reporting of MoPS staffing arrangements, and recommended
the institution of an annual report containing a range of
information including instruments issued under the MoPS Act,
numerical and salary data, salary and non-salary costs of MoPS
employment, and existing information required under section 31 of
the Act. [84] As
noted above, the Rudd Government has recently acted in this area
with the introduction of MoPS Act annual reporting.
Some caution must be exercised when
interpreting MoPS staff remuneration data. It is difficult to
meaningfully interpret the data across the classifications over
time due to the presence of a number of significant variables.
Changes in classifications and the assigning of personal
classifications are unpredictable factors, and there may not be
parity between government and non-government classifications or
salary ranges. For example:
- government personal MoPS staff generally
earn more than their non-government counterparts, [85] and
- the government personal staff
classification of adviser is currently not present in the
Opposition personal staff establishment, and the top of the salary
range for the higher of the two equivalent Opposition
classifications does not match the top of the salary range for the
government adviser classification. [86]
Given these sorts of variables and
differences, MoPS staff remuneration data are more usefully
interpreted in relation to individual classifications, although
even here there are limitations such as gaps appearing in the data
where information has not been made publicly available.
Despite these limitations, available data do
suggest that the value of MoPS staff base salaries is an issue.
Taking the top of the salary range for two of the more
densely-populated government personal staff
classifications—the high-level senior adviser/senior adviser
(1) Cabinet classification and the mid-level adviser
classification—as samples, [87] it can be
seen that, in real terms over the 1990 to 2007 period,
advisers’ salaries have been uneven and senior
advisers’ salaries have decreased in value (Figure
1).
Figure 1. Advisers salaries and annualised average
weekly ordinary time wages 1990 –2007 (2007–08
prices(a))
Sources: see Appendix D.
Advisers’ salaries experienced a period
of modest and uneven growth over the 11 years from 1990 to 2001
before declining slightly into 2002 and then commencing more
regular increases from 2003 onwards. Senior advisers’
salaries rose slightly between 1990 and 1993 before declining in
value over the nine years from 1993 to 2002 and then commencing a
short period of growth from 2004 to 2006. In 2006, however, this
growth had still not made up for the long decline (the top of the
salary range at that point was still lower in real terms than the
top of the range in 1992), and salaries then declined in real terms
from 2006 to arrive, in December 2007, at a point below the
December 1990 level. When compared against average weekly earnings
growth of 30 per cent over 1990 to 2007, [88]
advisers’ salaries have been slightly off the pace, growing
in real terms by 28 per cent over the period, while senior
advisers’ salaries have declined by 3 per cent.
While it is true that salaries for MoPS staff
are supplemented by the extra duties allowances (ESA, PSA or MSA)
and other applicable allowances and entitlements, it is still of
note that base salary
values for two of the more densely-populated government personal
staff classifications have been uneven or have actually decreased
over time. This should also be viewed in the context of the high
level of responsibility that MoPS staff have along with low
employment security (see below). In January 2009 it was reported
that the government was considering implementing a 5.6 per cent
salary increase for senior staff. [89]
Under the new framework introduced by the Rudd
Government the salary ranges for the higher classifications are
very broad. The range for the government senior adviser (1) Cabinet
classification, for example, commences at $85 500 and reaches $129
700 (a range of $44 200), and the range for the highest
government classification, principal adviser, commences at $132 800
and reaches $192 400 (a range of $59 600). [90] Salary
ranges for the higher classifications in the non-government MoPS
staff ranks are also of considerable breadth. MoPS Act salaries for
the higher classifications have long been flexible. Under the
Howard Government after December 1998, AWAs provided flexibility
regarding salaries and conditions for personal staff above the
adviser level. Prior to the introduction of AWAs, senior personal
staff were remunerated with reference to the APS Senior Executive
Service (SES) salary ranges with variations within the ranges.
[91]
MoPS staff have virtually no employment
security beyond the legal protections available to employees
generally. [92]
Under Parts III and IV of the MoPS Act, employing
senators, members and office-holders may terminate the employment
of their MoPS staff at any time. [93] In
addition, under Parts III and IV the employment of MoPS staff is
terminated if the employing senator or member ceases to be a
senator or member, if the employing officer-holder ceases to hold
the office, or if the employing senator, member or office-holder
dies. [94] As
the SFPARC noted in 2003:
… MOPS staff, consistent with the
situation of their employers, have little job security. A MOPS
employee loses their job automatically if their employer dies or
loses office, and can readily be terminated by the employing Member
or Senator. [95]
The current Collective Agreement for MoPS
staff up to the level of media adviser (non-Cabinet
minister)/adviser states that the ‘sole and exhaustive rights
and remedies of an Employee in relation to termination of
employment’ are those contained in the Workplace Relations Act 1996
(Cth), other Commonwealth laws, and at common law. [96] The
Agreement also states that termination of employment or a decision
to terminate employment ‘cannot be reviewed under the dispute
prevention and resolution procedures’ set out elsewhere in
the Agreement. [97]
Employment can be particularly insecure for
ministerial staff given the uncertainty of ministerial tenure and
the demands of the role. As Tiernan has observed, ‘The
employment framework for ministerial staff ties the fortunes of the
individual staffer to those of their minister … Their tenure
lasts as long as they are of value to their minister.’
[98] In
addition, commentators have identified a scapegoat or sacrificial
function for ministerial staff that can also abbreviate their
employment:
… some advisers have become the
“junk-yard attack dogs” of the political system: the
hard men and the hit men. They are politically dispensable,
convenient scapegoats who will take the bullet for their ministers
and protect them from political fallout. At different times,
staffers from the prime minister’s office and the deputy
prime minister’s office have resigned as a means of
preventing scandal from touching their masters. [99]
The ability of senators, members and
office-holders to easily dismiss MoPS staff, it can be argued, is
necessary to the political nature of MoPS staff employment and the
stakes involved, particularly in the ministerial context. If a
staff member does not have the full confidence of their employer
then they can be of little use to their employer. [100] In this
respect at least their situation seems little different to that of
departmental secretaries, as the 1999 Barratt case demonstrated.
[101] It is
rare for MoPS staff to successfully claim unfair treatment given
the straightforwardness of the dismissal provisions in the MoPS
Act. [102]
In the event of a MoPS staffer losing his/her
employment, certain severance benefits are payable. For MoPS staff
coming under the current Collective Agreement, severance benefits
are payable for loss of employment under Parts III and IV of the
MoPS Act other than through resignation and are determined on the
basis of length of continuous service. [103]
Exclusions apply, for example to public service employees,
non-ongoing or casual staff, and staff re-employed under the MoPS
Act without a break. [104]
The minimum severance benefit is two weeks’
pay (salary plus parliamentary or ministerial allowance) for up to
one year of continuous service, and the maximum benefit is 12
weeks’ pay for seven or more years of continuous service with
an additional two weeks’ pay for every completed year of
service in excess of six years up to a maximum of 48 weeks’
additional pay. [105]
There is also provision in the Collective Agreement
for severance benefit entitlements to be increased by 30 per cent
if termination of employment occurs due to an employing
office-holder losing office and if certain taxation requirements
are met. [106]
The same scheme applies for senior staff with some
variation to the exclusions. [107]
A comparison of the severance benefit scheme
in the MoPS staff Collective Agreement with the
severance/redundancy benefit schemes in a range of
APS/parliamentary agency agreements suggests that the severance
benefits for MoPS staff are not unusually generous. The agency
agreements typically provide for a severance benefit of two
weeks’ remuneration (salary plus applicable allowances) for
each completed year of continuous service, with a minimum benefit
of four weeks’ salary and a maximum benefit of 48
weeks’ salary. [108]
Pro-rata amounts for service since the last competed
year are also payable. The number of weeks of salary benefit
payable to MoPS staff per completed service period is greater than
that payable to APS/parliamentary agency staff up to the six-year
service mark; after this point the two scales align. This, along
with the potential 30 per cent benefit increase for certain MoPS
staff, can be placed against certain beneficial aspects of the
APS/parliamentary agency severance schemes that are lacking in the
MoPS staff severance scheme. The agency severance schemes operate
within a context of greater job security than the MoPS staff scheme
and apply to voluntary redundancy rather than involuntary
termination of employment. Unlike the MoPS staff scheme also,
provision is made in the agency agreements for a range of service
experience (e.g. service with the Australian Defence Force) to be
counted as service in the calculation of severance benefits.
Concern has been expressed by commentators
regarding the levels of ministerial staff management and
professional development. Walter , for example, has stated
that:
Given staff numbers, and the many competing
demands on ministers, appropriate management is often
lacking—a great deal is left to depend on staff agreements
that are said to require staff ‘to act with skill, discretion
and integrity’. [109]
Tiernan and Weller have suggested that
‘a lack of induction, professional development and
performance management systems’ are among the ‘Key
weaknesses’ of the ministerial staffing system. [110] Tiernan
has also indicated that surveys of ministerial staff have revealed
formal induction programs for ministerial staff to be
‘rudimentary or absent in most ministerial offices’ and
that:
Staff may have no handover with the person they
are replacing; there is simply no time for induction and perhaps no
recognition of its importance. New staff just have to learn as they
go. My respondents have identified a serious lack of training and
other professional development opportunities as an important
weakness of the current system. … In contrast to the highly
developed systems of performance management that characterise the
APS, my respondents report there is no comparable framework for
ministerial staff. Staff receive no structured feedback about their
performance, and have very limited access to performance planning
and appraisal—the usual frameworks within [sic] discussions about
professional development needs and opportunities can be canvassed.
[111]
In 2003 the SFPARC stated that both it and the
‘children overboard’ inquiry had ‘received
evidence that the management structure for ministerial staff has
weaknesses that should be rectified’, [112] and
that:
A systematic structure of management
responsibility should exist within ministerial offices. …
there must be genuine performance management processes,
particularly for senior staff and office managers who can be
expected to have responsibility for key information flows and for
implementing codes of conduct. [113]
The SFPARC also stated that ‘there
appears to be no training provided specifically for ministerial
advisers’, and that ‘the absence of senior staff
training, or communication protocols, may affect staff’s
confidence in dealing with ministers offices’. [114] The
Committee went on to express the view that:
… the training of MOPS staff is vital.
It seems clear that this training needs to be radically boosted at
the ‘top end’. Training should be increased for senior
staff, and there should be an increased emphasis on high-level
skills and professional development. [115]
In accordance with these observations the
SFPARC made a number of recommendations concerning management and
professional development including:
- that ‘responsibility for ensuring proper record keeping
in ministers’ offices should be allocated to a senior staff
member, and that record keeping should be identified in that staff
member’s duties and relevant performance review
procedures’
- that the government should ‘develop
and implement a new management framework for ministerial
staff’
- that all departments should ‘provide
written guidance to staff regarding interactions with
minister’s offices, and that all senior staff receive
adequate training in this area’, [116]
and
- that ‘the level and intensity of
training for ministerial staff be increased, and be given a
significantly higher priority by ministers’ along with the
introduction of a ‘mandatory induction training process for
staff commencing in ministers’ offices, which focuses on
political ethics, relationships with the APS, and record keeping
responsibilities’. [117]
As noted above, there has been no formal
government response to the SFPARC report to date. Other measures
have also been suggested such as the involvement of the Public
Service Commissioner (in the capacity of Parliamentary Service
Commissioner) in the provision of professional development for
ministerial staff, and a ‘non-partisan forum’ for
ministerial staff to discuss staffing matters. [118]
Apart from providing for study assistance and
associated leave, the 2007 Determination introduced by the Rudd
Government for senior personal staff makes no specific provision
for professional development or induction. For MoPS staff at the
media adviser (non-Cabinet minister)/adviser level and below, the
current Collective Agreement makes provision for staff induction,
professional development opportunities, and studies assistance.
[119] The
Agreement specifies that development opportunities include ‘a
professional development programme, sponsored by the Minister and
arranged by the Department, which provides focussed and tailored
training designed to enhance Employees’ skills and
knowledge’. [120]
The 2007–08 MoPS Act Annual Report indicates
that training, including induction, was undertaken by 88 MoPS staff
over the 2007–08 period under the professional development
programme, and that a range of additional training was also
available. [121]
Past research has suggested that ministerial
staff can find it difficult to access development opportunities
provided under the Collective Agreement framework due to
workload—a feature of employment in ministers’ offices
that presumably still applies. [122]
Certainly, some formal provision for induction and professional
development for senior staff would be desirable.
The MoPS Act employment framework is now in
its 25th year of operation, and the introduction of new
measures by the Rudd Government—the 30 per cent ministerial
staff reduction, the code of conduct, and MoPS Act annual
reporting—made 2008 an eventful year for MoPS staffing
matters.
MoPS staffing will continue to be of interest
to the Parliament, commentators and the media, particularly in the
context of the Rudd Government’s changes. One issue which has
had considerable media coverage, the workload of ministerial staff,
will warrant continued monitoring.
A number of employment issues associated with
the MoPS Act would merit attention from the government. Base salary
value, aspects of the MoPS Act framework and institutional
arrangements, and professional development for ministerial staff
all warrant further examination with a view to improving current
arrangements.
Source: Department
of Finance and Deregulation, Answer to question on notice:
Additional Estimates Hearing—February 2008, Senate
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, Canberra,
2008, pp. 11–14,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/add_0708/finance/F71.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009. See also Department of Finance and
Deregulation, Members of
Parliament (Staff) Act 1984: Annual Report 2007–08, op.
cit., pp. 71–74.
Source: Commonwealth Members of Parliament
Staff Collective Agreement 2006–2009, pp. 41–43,
http://www.workplaceauthority.gov.au/docs/CAs/CAEN061326923.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Deregulation, Government Personal Positions as at 1
February 2009, Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public
Administration, Canberra, 2009, pp. 1–9,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/add_0809/finance/tabled_documents/
government_personal_positions_as_at_1_february_2009.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of Finance and
Deregulation, Government
Personal Positions as at 1 May 2008, Senate Standing Committee
on Finance and Public Administration, Canberra, 2008, pp.
1–6,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0809/finance/tabled_documents/
Government_Personal_Positions_28-05-09.pdf, accessed on 2 April
2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Government Personal Positions as at 1
May 2007, Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public
Administration, Canberra, 2007, pp. 1–4,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0708/
finance/dofa_gov_positions_td.pdf, accessed on 2 April
2009.
Department of Finance and Administration,
Government Personal
Employees as at 1 May 2006, Senate Finance and Public
Administration Legislation Committee, Canberra, 2006, pp.
1–4,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0607/finance/fpa2.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Government Personal Staff as at 1 May
2005, Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation
Committee, Canberra, 2005, pp. 1–5,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0506/finance/fin_td_1.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Government Personal Staff as at 1 May
2004, Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation
Committee, Canberra, 2004, pp. 1–5,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0405/finance/tab-doc1-260504.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Government Personal Staff as at 1
February 2003, Senate Finance and Public Administration
Legislation Committee, Canberra, 2003, pp. 1–5,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/add_0203/finance/f-air5.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Answers to questions on notice:
Budget Estimates 2002–2003—29 & 30 May 2002,
Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee,
Canberra, 2002, pp. 23–25,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/reports/2002/bud_0203/dofa/dofa_d.doc,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Answers to questions on notice:
Additional Budget Estimates 2000–2001, 19–23 February
2001, Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation
Committee, Canberra, 2001, pp. 1–5,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/reports/2001/answers1/dofa/qon_b.doc,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of Finance and Administration,
‘Answers to questions on notice’ in Senate Finance and
Public Administration Legislation Committee, Examination of Additional Estimates
1999–2000: Additional Information Received, vol. 2,
Canberra, June 2000, pp. 454–56.
Department of
Finance and Deregulation, Answer to question on notice:
Additional Estimates Hearing—February 2008, Senate
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, Canberra,
2008, p. 11,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/add_0708/finance/F71.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Commonwealth Members of Parliament
Staff Collective Agreement 2006–2009, p. 41,
http://www.workplaceauthority.gov.au/docs/CAs/CAEN061326923.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of
Finance and Administration, Answers to questions on notice:
Supplementary Budget Estimates Hearing—October 2006,
Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee,
Canberra, 2006, pp. 1–2,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/sup_0607/finance/f24_attach.pdf,
accessed on 2 April 2009.
Department of Finance and Administration,
Staffing, Senate
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Canberra,
2002, vol. 1, pp. 37–38.
Senator Nick Minchin, Special Minister of
State, ‘Questions on Notice: Government Member
Secretariat’, Senate, Debates, 22 June 1998, p.
3711.
Senator Bob McMullan, Minister for the Arts
and Administrative Services, ‘Answers to Questions: Members
of Parliament: Staff’, Senate, Debates, 25 May 1993, p.
1280.
Senator John Button, Minister Representing the
Prime Minister, ‘Answers to Questions: Prime Minister and
Cabinet: Employment Contracts’, Senate, Debates, 17 September 1992, p.
1107.
Senator Nick Bolkus, Minister for
Administrative Services, ‘Answers to Questions: Hawke
Government: Staff’, Senate, Debates, 15 May 1991, p.
3453.
Senator Nick Bolkus, Minister for Administrative Services,
‘Answers to Questions: Senators and Ministers: Staff’,
Senate, Debates, 21
December 1990, pp. 6398–99.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only
available to members of Parliament.