While since 1984 that Act has provided the legal basis for the employment of these ministerial staff, it has got nothing to do with their proliferation or greater power.

Aided and abetted by modern "media", the trade of competitive contemporary politics has become, it would seem, more sensitive to what gains the greatest political advantage rather than what might be in the broader public interest. That is, political parties appear to be more likely to follow public opinion than to lead it. As considerations of political advantage are primarily the business of ministers' offices, so the number and power of their staff has increased at the expense of more disinterested advice from the public service.

The need for a review of the MOPS Act has been more realistically suggested by allegations of sexual assault made by Brittany Higgins and a number of serious incidents in ministers' offices. Among other things, these raise questions about the soundness of appointment procedures for ministerial staff and other aspects of their personnel management.

So a number of overlapping reviews were set up - the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to look at parliamentary "workplace culture" including "current legislation" and a Liberal backbencher to consider problems in the treatment of women in Parliament. An officer of the Prime Minister's Department was asked to make suggestions about complaints procedures for parliamentary staff; this report is now with the government.

Meanwhile in the shadowy world of in-house inquiries conducted by parties with vested interests in their findings, the Prime Minister's chief of staff has reported on allegations that the Prime Minister's office indulged in bad-mouthing the partner of Ms Higgins. He says he is "not in a position to make a finding that the alleged activity took place", a limited conclusion that would have been more convincing if it had come from an independent investigator. There has been a baffling delay in the provision of a report from the Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department about who in the PM's office knew of the Higgins allegations and when.

The MOPS Act empowers ministers to employ staff in accordance with arrangements approved by the Prime Minister who also determines their pay and conditions. Staff can be dismissed by the employing minister. They can also lose their jobs if the employing minister ceases to hold the portfolio in which the staffer was engaged although in these cases employment can be continued with the Prime Minister's approval. Administrative support for the operation of this legislation is provided by the Department of Finance.

The MOPS fundamentals remain sound and sensible. Ministers should have considerable freedom in the selection and tenure of their staff. At the same time, given that these staff are hired on the basis of the idiosyncratic needs, including political needs, of individual ministers, it would be unreasonable for other ministers or other Commonwealth employing authorities to adopt staff who lose their positions for whatever reasons.

That is not to say that the MOPS Act could not be augmented beneficially.

Several learned and respected commentators have said that a code of ministerial conduct could be included in the Act. There's nothing wrong with that but of itself it may not be a great boon as the power of codes of conduct is limited if they're not supported by procedures for the selection, discipline and tenure of staff.

Following a recent meeting with the Prime Minister, it's been reported that Ms Higgins would like to see an independent parliamentary resources authority, greater fetters on ministerial powers to hire and fire staff and more transparency in the system. How could these worthy objectives be given legal form?

First, section 13(2) of the MOPS Act empowering Prime Ministers to determine arrangements for the employment of ministerial staff could be expanded to require the arrangements to provide for:

Further, Prime Ministers could be required to table the details of these arrangements and any amendments to them and provide an annual report to Parliament on their operation. This would "put the wood" on prime ministers to ensure better, more transparent means for effectively staffing ministers' offices and bolster confidence in the working of a system that in recent times has been notable for its opacity.

Second, section 16(5) of the Act could be expanded to give the Prime Minister a power to overturn ministers decisions to dismiss staffers in any circumstances and not just those now specified in sections 16(1) and (2) of that Act. This could put a brake on cavalier decisions by ministers, provide time for the consideration of any grievances and disciplinary action short of dismissal, and allow better opportunities for staff no longer required in one minister's office to be redeployed to another's if that's feasible.

Third, whether there should be an independent parliamentary staffing/resources authority would depend on the kind of functions envisaged for such a beast. If it were only to be responsible for the administrative support tasks now provided by the Department of Finance, there would be no reason for a separate body. If, however, an alternative place was desired for assessing and advising on the appointment and termination of ministerial staff and providing assistance with discipline and staff grievances, as a matter of machinery of government principle those functions should be undertaken by an independent authority and not the Department of Finance or any other ministerial department. Indeed, such an independent authority could do all things necessary to support Prime Ministers and ministers in meeting their responsibilities under the MOPS Act, including the administrative functions now performed by the Department of Finance. Of course, such a body would be advisory only with decisions about appointment, tenure, discipline and grievance remaining with prime ministers and ministers.

But a consideration of the place of ministerial staff should go beyond improving personnel management arrangements.

The Morrison government now employs 460 such staff, about eight times the number of the Whitlam government in 1975. This is apparently exceptional compared to the United Kingdom and other like countries. When the government has the support of 170000 officials and another 50000 or so labour hire/contractors, it is not easy to understand why ministers need another 460 in their personal offices. If that can't be explained, then a hard look should be taken with a view to reductions in numbers commensurate with any "explanation gap".

Finally, as Morrison apparently now sees the public service as more instrumental with policy being sorted out by ministers primarily through their offices, it is important that a good proportion of ministerial staff have experience and abilities in public policy analysis and advising. The present inscrutability of the system makes it hard to tell whether this is so or not. If it's not, the Prime Minister should adjust selection and training for staff to see that any deficits in skills and abilities are corrected. That would do ministers a favour and possibly help to promote better relations between them and their departments.

Recent events, including Ms Higgins's serious allegations, the Auditor-General's findings about the involvement of ministers' offices in the rorting of community grants schemes and more generalised comment about the "work environment" in Parliament House, must have damaged public confidence. That should be patched up although it would be wise to keep hopes on a short leash given the government's devotion to "flexibility" and its reticence about accountability in the interest of vainly attempting to protect ministers' reputations.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: