There’s been a lot of talk about expanding the size of Australia’s federal parliament in the last few years. Some of us have been talking about this for a lot longer, but it has seemed feasible since Labor took power in 2022.
Expanding the parliament is well overdue, with over four decades passing since the last increase in 1984. An expanded parliament would bring the parliament closer to the people, reducing the number of people represented by each MP, and creating more space for diversity within the parliament. I explained my thoughts more fully in this 2023 blog post. You can also read a number of blog posts gathered at this tag.
There was some reporting yesterday about Don Farrell specifically asking the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ inquiry into the recent election to consider the question of expanding the parliament, along with the possibility of fixed four-year terms.
So for today’s post, I wanted to look at what would happen if the Parliament were expanded, and what would need to happen if the Parliament was to make a change to its numbers.
Just as a refresher, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is determined by the numbers of seats in the Senate. A population quota is set by dividing the population of the six states by twice the number of senators representing those states. That quota is then applied to the population of each state and territory to determine their seat entitlement after each election. A referendum was held in 1967 to break this “nexus”, and allow the House to grow without growing the Senate, but it was defeated.
The Parliament can simply change legislation to increase the number of senators per state, and this would cause the number of seats in the House to grow. The Senate entitlement was increased from six to ten prior to the 1949 election, and again from ten to twelve prior to the 1984 election.
Thirty-five years passed between the first and second increase. If the Parliament were to be expanded in 2028, it would have been forty-four years.
As Australia’s population has grown over time, the average number of residents and voters in each electorate has increased. Expansions of parliament won’t completely undo that trend, but they can unwind it somewhat. The 1984 expansion made the average seat population lower than in 1972.
These are the two most modest, but also most likely, options: giving each state fourteen senators (an increase of 12), or sixteen senators (an increase of 24).
If we were to expand the Parliament by 12 Senate seats, this would reduce the average population back to 2016 levels. Expand the parliament by 24 seats, and we’d be reverting the average back to 2007 levels.
So how would these changes apply to each state? It seems likely that no there will be no change to state entitlements prior to the next election, if there is no Senate increase. So the twelve-senator model is the same as the status quo.
The five biggest states all benefit under both scenarios in roughly the same proportions.
Tasmania, as an original state, is entitled to five seats despite only having enough population for three seats. Either of these expansion scenarios would bring Tasmania’s population up to four seats. A 14-senator model would solidify the current House numbers for the two largest territories, but a 16-senator model would see the ACT gain a fourth seat.
So if the government is serious about expanding the Parliament, what would need to happen next?
If there is a change in the number of seats in the House, that will have knock-on effects in changing each state’s entitlement. The entitlement is typically determined one year after the first sitting of the House. Assuming no change in the size of the Parliament, that will be determined for the next election in July 2026. Right now, it seems unlikely that this will trigger any redistributions.
But if the Parliament is expanded, it will trigger redistributions for the five largest states, and possibly the ACT. Tasmania is already undergoing a redistribution anyway, so redistributions would be conducted in every jurisdiction except the NT.
This would be the biggest burden on the AEC’s mapmakers since 1984.
During the last redistribution, I did some research into how long past redistributions have taken, and I found that the last round of redistributions did take quite a long time. For this post, I’ve also looked back at the 1984 redistribution cycle, to see how long things took back then.
The start of the redistribution process in 1984 started roughly around the same time as it does nowadays, but it all happened much quicker. The whole process was finished less than 600 days after the previous election, despite the need to pass fresh legislation rebuilding the redistribution process.
In contrast, it now usually takes around 750 days to finalise redistributions. The last redistribution cycle took close to 900 days to finish.
I there has been an increasing burden on the Commission to conduct the redistribution process.
In 1984, across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, there were 574 submissions across three rounds of public submissions. In those three states in 2023-24, there were 1987 submissions across four rounds of public submissions.
I don’t think the clock can be unwound, and I don’t think it’s possible to redraw electoral boundaries with the speed that was possible back in 1984. So if we are going to expand the parliament, the mapmakers will need time to get the job done.
There is reason to think that the scale of the job in front of the mapmakers during the last parliamentary term led them to being more conservative in redrawing the map – a topic I’ll return to in another post.
Creating another 25-50 seats will be a very significant change in how federal elections work, and the process can’t be rushed, and the public is entitled to have their say properly.
The JSCEM inquiry after the 2022 election recommended a further inquiry to consider whether the Parliament should be expanded. That inquiry didn’t happen in the last parliament, and the issue has been left unresolved.
If the government wants to move on this issue, they need to do it early in the term. The time is right, now.
If the government is interested in both an expansion of parliament and having 4 year fixed terms, then surely the answer is tackle the latter first. That is, put a referendum for 4 year fixed terms starting from the 49th parliament (if they can get bipartisan support then would be simplest to hold the referendum on the ordinary election day). Then pass an expansion of parliament, giving the AEC an extra year to do the redistributions.
Four year fixed terms will run afoul of the consequences for the operation of the Senate – the election of Senators for 8 year terms will be subject to vociferous opposition
I don’t think whether you represent 160k or 180k per electorate is a big deal in parliamentary workload – save, for geographic / demographic reasons you maybe look after a lot of migration or aged care issues. The reality is that the majority don’t know what a Federal Member does and just a few care and even fewer bother to directly correspond.
Where the numbers become a real issue is in elections and the resources associated with winning a seat.
Whilst there are some in the party structure that reflect an individual policy view and others have a personal vote factor, giving some diversity of opinion, the fact that they belong to a party and subscribe to an agreed platform of policy means even constituents that are party members have limited influence over their political representatives.
The punters see a quasi presidential contest and vote accordingly. A few will consider the person, but, generally preselected by state administrators, they just go along for the ride.
The sad reality is that lobbyists set the agenda or manipulate it to their client’s advantage. Putting more members on a partisan basis wouldn’t broaden the ministerial factional talent pool or advance constituency interests.
@Chris, the problem with your logic is that expansion of the parliament is a simple matter of passing legislation whereas 4-year terms probably is an unwinnable referendum. Doug is right, it’s the Senate terms that will kill it. Some people will reject 8-year Senate terms, others will reject making every election a DD.
I wholeheartedly agree with J Knight.
However, if we did go down the route of increasing the number of seats we’d really have to break the Nexus first. Otherwise any gradual increase in electorates would be stymied by the need to increase the size of Senate in large jumps. Each additional Senate increase would trigger at least 24 new Members (thresholds for Tasmania and the Territories might jump over the cut-off point).
There is a minor practical consideration as well – the House of Reps can currently hold up to 172 Members with a maximum capacity of 240. Theoretically the Senate could hold another 14, taking it to 90. Once you get past that you’re doing some fairly major building modifications. The other issue is the amount of office space available in Parliament. There are some workarounds, like shrinking some oversized offices, but there’s not a lot of wiggle room.
Agreeing with Ben – 8 year Senate terms would kill any referendum, even if EVERY Party supported it. And there would probably be significant internal opposition as well from those who think they could do a better job and don’t want to wait that long.
There’s also the risk of Senators jumping ship as soon as they’re elected, confident that they have (probably) eight years of guaranteed employment.
Selling a massive spending proposal on remodeling Parliament House would also be a referendum killer.
parliament expansion is inevitable and they can do that without a referendum. or even expanding the parliament in terms of numbers.
It’s a no brainer the parliament needs to be enlarged. Ideally to 200 HoR members and 100 senators, but, I wasn’t aware the parliament could only house 240 politicians. I wouldn’t be opposed to the senate being fully up at every election, as the Victorian upper house does. I’m not so fussed about fixed terms, and most governments are elected to multiple terms anyway.
I would rather have for all senators just be subjected to one term rather than two terms but of course that would require a referendum.
@john “they can do that without a referendum” – yeah, nahh.
S.7, S.24, S.27 of the Constitution just for starters. Plus S.128 just in case anyone has any bright ideas about loopholes.
@Pencil The HOR can hold up to 240 members, plus another 90 Senators. So that’s 330 pollies. The role of the Senate, as a house of review, was intended to be a brake on radical change in the House of Reps. That’s under S.13 Rotation Of Senators, which was previously amended in 1906 to make it more likely for the election of Senators and members to be held at the same time.
Having thought about there is a way to make the changes. You’d still have to have a referendum to amend the Constitution, but would you could do is amend the nexus provision and not remove it.
If you proposed the change of S.24 from “the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators” to “the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, three times the number of the senators” then you could take the number of Members to around 225 without changing the number of Senators.
And of course once the ACT population passes Tasmania’s there’s a good argument for increasing the number of ACT Senators.
I’ve had a favourable view of fixed terms, but thought four years is a little too long. But I had thought that that’s not a dealbreaker. But… with the point about eight-year Senate terms… yeah that certainly is a dealbreaker for me. Is it possible that that could be amended too, in the same referendum?
I have an issue with 8 year senate terms not only too long but unelected senators could serve for a long time – at least two years more than happens now. 4 year terms for the Reps would be an improvement in public policy terms. The fixed term is less important as keeping the houses in synch largely leads to a de facto fixed term anyway. The problem with a 4 year senate term is what happens to DDs and their important role in our constitution – even if they are misused and we are unlikely to see joint sittings any time soon.
Redistributed, I guess DDs would no longer exist in the case where the Senate becomes tied to the House and uses fixed 4-year terms. An equivalent could be where both houses must be dissolved early if the governing party/PM loses confidence and an early election has to be called.
I would like to see a system where seats that become vacant (through death, resignation, etc.) In the first half of a senate term go for election at the next senate election – so any senators elected after the first 6 (or more) serve out a half term. Similar to what happened before 1977. It would act as a deterrent to senators and parties treating their seats as playthings.
The minimum number of seats should be such that Tasmania rounds up to 5 quotas. You could get absurd situations so there need to be brakes on that but it should be the starting point. IIRC that’s 18 senators per state (9 per half election) which is a good number – an odd number with quotas being 10% at normal elections
I mean the other revolution could be like the US Congress with mid terms… so if you do get a Trump Stamermate situation you can get some revenge earlier?
We do need to expand our Parliament now, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon unfortunately. We can dream though. How would we expand Parliament though?
If there is talk of increasing the size of the parliament, then there should be consideration for the vast electorates that are chronically under-represented.
The fact is that two Senators are insufficient to adequately represent the Northern Territory, which is the third largest federal division. And two MPs to cover all the NT plus a bunch of islands like Christmas is too big a job. There are chronic and serious world record level disadvantages in Lingiari and these are not being addressed properly with inadequate representation.
Add to that the fact that the NT has an undemocratic unicameral government which is rampantly increasing ugliness and climate changes which will ensure the population remains low and transient.
Trisha that’s because the NT is sparsely populated. And that’s the way it works in reality you have 4 MPs representing the NT
@np I think it will happen within 10 years at the very most. They can expand parliament merely by increasing the number of senators per state. The problem is it requires political will.
I think we need to keep 4 year terms and Expanding the size of parliment seperate and not conflate the issues. I think a referendum in the current political situation will be very hard and i think bipartisanship may not be enough as i think Greens Or One Nation could sink a referendum
I don’t think any referendum is gonna get up people have had enough for one generation. Any referendum that’s not some sort of urgent matter should be held in conjunction with an election. People would not be too fond of having to go to the polls mid term to extend the length of MPs “jobs”. Id say 4 year terms are at least 10 years off. Nook e wants another referendum quite yet and I don’t think labor are gonna waste it on that they would want a republic referendum first.
@Nimalan, there was a report from DemosAU stating in a poll that only 29% of Australians view the Constitution needed reform to reflect modernization while also 29% of Australians is opposed to any change of the Constitution (all or in most cases) , 23% only supports altering if it is considered ‘broken’ and 19% does not (or knows little) about Constitutional issues.
The Australian voter takes a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it view of the constitution’. From my experience voters take constitutional change seriously. In my extended family we had lots of discussions about the Voice referendum and I always recall my sister only actually voting on her 3rd visit to the polling booth in the Republic referendum as she could not decide. She voted No in the end as the current system is a known quantity. Despite the number of failures we should not be discouraged from seeking constitutional change as the constitution needs to evolve. The argument just needs to be put and argued rationally.
When the houses were out of synch in the 60s after Menzies called an early election on 1963, the Senate election acted like a mid term with the result by 1970 that the majors had a very low vote share for the era. The majors learned the lesson and there have been no separate elections since. The other issue is that it would cost a fortune. Though in the pursuit of democracy we should not penny pinch.
At least in this country we do not see our constitution as some sort of quasi religious document as the Americans see theirs. We respect our constitution but know it is not perfect.
@Redistributed, the thing is that there is very few if any ideas that can even be considered ‘broken’ by
overwhelmingly Australians that would require constitutional change. With Greens and One Nation in the mix now, only one of them needs to oppose which would significantly reduce the success of a Lib-Lab supported Referendum.
I wonder how would had 1967 Referendum for Aboriginal Rights perform (since this was the most successful referendum at 90%) if some rouge politicians opposes it which leads to a No Campaign to exist?