Albanese once criticised rivals for abusing this power. Just look at him now

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

When Anthony Albanese came to power in 2022, he slashed the number of well-paid advisers allocated to the crossbenchers in parliament.

Privately, the PM argued that the generous allocation of staff to crossbench MPs had become corrupted and was unnecessary. Balance-of-power MPs had gained one adviser and two assistant advisers under Malcolm Turnbull, and then a second adviser-level staff member under Scott Morrison.

At the time, the votes of crossbench senators (in particular) were often needed to pass laws.

Unfortunately, the system has been corrupted again under Albanese. The prime minister is now doing what he once railed against Turnbull and Morrison for doing. And it’s all within the rules.

Rather than cleaning it up, he too is gaming the system. The number of advisers allowed for crossbench MPs makes no sense, unless it is understood through the lens of political patronage.

The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (widely known as the MOPS Act) hands the prime minister of the day near unfettered power to decide how many adviser-level staff other MPs have, and how much they are paid. Albanese has made full use of this power.

The unfairness of the system came into sharp relief this week when my colleague, Nick Newling, revealed that former crossbencher-turned-Labor-senator Tammy Tyrrell has been allowed to keep the two additional advisers she was allocated after entering parliament. This is not to argue that those two advisers should be sacked, but an absurd situation now exists wherein Tyrrell has the same number of additional, and well-paid, staff as 13 more senior Labor colleagues who hold either assistant ministries or special envoy roles. Tyrrell’s backbench colleagues have no additional staff, which has ruffled feathers internally.

Why does it matter how many staff an MP has, and how much they are paid? Because staff are an MP’s most valuable resource. The more an MP has, the more inquiries from constituents can be handled and the better that elected representative can contribute to committee work and debates in parliament. Come election time, the more staff you have, the more doors that can be knocked on.

It’s one of the spoils of incumbency. This capacity to employ people as advisers or senior advisers means being able to pay more for better talent. Independents and minor parties, meanwhile, do not have the resources of government departments and ministerial offices.

Each additional adviser – typically better paid than the five electorate staff every MP has – costs taxpayers money. For non-government MPs, adviser-level staff are paid from $77,000 to $160,000 for someone at the top of the pay band. Assistant advisers are paid a bit less, senior advisers and chiefs of staff a bit more. The top earners (there are only a handful) are on $317,000 a year.

The biggest loser from the PM’s weaponisation of the MOPS provisions is, undoubtedly, the now-independent senator Fatima Payman, who ratted on Labor and is paying the price for it. She has no personal advisers. Not one. Even United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet, arguably the least impactful crossbencher of the past two decades, has one adviser.

The next biggest loser is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, which has just four advisers despite holding six seats. For months, Hanson has been asking the prime minister for more staff to reflect her party’s growing representation in the parliament, but the requests have fallen on deaf ears.

The contrast between Hanson and the Greens, Labor’s natural allies in the Senate, is stark. The Greens have 11 senators and one MP – and 17 extra staff, including six well-paid advisers and senior advisers.

Other crossbench senators such as Jacqui Lambie, David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe have two additional advisers, while in the lower house, regional MPs including Bob Katter, Rebekha Sharkie, Helen Haines and Andrew Gee have two extra staff, reflecting the size of their electorates, as do most of the teal MPs. Dai Le, Nicolette Boele and Barnaby Joyce have just one.

Unsurprisingly, those who have benefited most have complained the least.

In June 1984, Bob Hawke’s government created the MOPS Act to set out rules governing how many advisers MPs could have. When the bill made its way to the Senate, just one senator – the independent-minded Tasmanian Liberal Michael Townley – raised concerns about the powers the bill gave the prime minister. “It just needs a letter from the prime minister to say what the situation of my staff members or of somebody else’s staff members will be. I do not believe that is at all a good thing. It is open to patronage and should not really be contemplated by the government. It is better done by the Remuneration Tribunal.”

Townley’s warning was prescient. The independent tribunal, which sets MPs’ pay and conditions, should indeed set the pay, conditions and allocation of their staff.

We live in an era of diabolical loss of trust in institutions. Australians are fed up with political games. One Nation, the teals and other crossbenchers are all riding that wave of distrust, to the detriment of the major parties, and there is little sign the situation is about to be turned around. Australians understand instinctively when the system is being gamed, and when people are being treated unfairly.

The fact that Payman and Hanson have formed an unholy alliance to highlight this unfairness demonstrates just how far the prime minister has gone in warping the system.

Just because Albanese can make the lives of his political opponents harder, it doesn’t mean he should when it comes to staffing allocations.

And remember, constituents seeking help from their MPs are collateral damage in this.

An independent review by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service this year found staffing levels were inadequate, even though Albanese had granted all MPs one extra electorate officer a couple of years ago.

It’s time for the law to change. Clean up the MOPS, prime minister.

James Massola is chief political commentator.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.