Today’s blog post is inspired by a strange opinion piece in the Nine papers yesterday by former federal Liberal Attorney-General George Brandis.
Brandis’ piece (in addition to incorrectly stating that the last increase in the size of parliament was in 1987) makes two main claims about political advantages for Labor and the Greens in the expansion of parliament:
- “Because most population growth is in city electorates,” an expansion of the House of Representatives “would be a significant advantage to Labor”, and;
- that “the Greens would be the big winners from an increase in the size of the Senate.”
Neither of these claims is remotely true. Any increase in the urban share of seats in parliament will happen whether or not the parliament is increased, and the Greens are uniquely placed to not benefit from an expansion in parliament – at least until each state elects at least nine senators.
First, let’s tackle the claim for the House of Representatives. It is true that, over time, we have seen an increasing proportion of seats in urban areas and thus a smaller share in rural areas. As long as there has not been a substantial number of seats in total, this has required rural seats to take in larger areas.
But an expansion of parliament wouldn’t just give new seats to those fast-growing areas – they would go everywhere.
If the Parliament was expanded to about 200 seats (which would involve each state electing 16 senators), then New South Wales would gain 16 extra seats on top of their existing 46. Three existing seats would get turned into four. This applies all over the state. For example, the seats of Richmond, Page and Cowper would be redrawn to be four seats. The vast western seats of Farrer, Riverina and Parkes could also be redrawn to create one extra seat. Yes, nine of the new seats would be added in the Sydney region currently covered by 26 seats, but the relative proportions would be the same.
I see no reason why this should provide any partisan benefit. If anything, it may harm the existing government since they would hold many notional seats without incumbent MPs to defend them (although the large scale of their 2025 victory might reduce this problem).
As for the Senate, it is even easier to disprove.
Andrew Conway has provided a helpful website which allows users to recount Senate results dating back to 2013, using real Senate ballot data. For our purposes today, it’s most useful as a way to re-run election results with a change in the number of senators elected.
I have performed this analysis back to 2016 – the first election using the current Senate electoral system. For 2016, I have used the special count which elected six senators per state – a legislated requirement at double dissolutions to provide information to the Senate as to who should receive a longer Senate term.
I have then compared those 6-senator results to the outcomes if seven, eight or nine senators were elected. Bear in mind that a nine-senator election would be an enormous increase to the size of parliament, and Brandis is mostly addressing seven- or eight-senator expansions.
I have then calculated the changes at a national level at each election. Territory senators are not included – that’s a separate conversation.
In his op-ed, Brandis said that
Reducing the quota by increasing the size of the Senate would virtually guarantee the Greens one seat in each state at every half-Senate election, give them a realistic chance – after preferences – of a second seat in their stronger states and make it probable they would win three per state at a double dissolution.
(He also mentions that the Greens would have eleven seats without the defection of Lidia Thorpe but doesn’t mention the defection of Dorinda Cox – it’s not a well-researched article.)
Benefits of a larger parliament are shared around, but the Greens are actually in a uniquely poor position in this regard.
The majority of new seats go to the major parties, with One Nation also doing relatively well.
The Greens comfortably win all of their Senate seats now, but are a long way away from winning a second seat in any state. An expanded parliament would have increased their numbers in 2016, but at the last three elections the Greens wouldn’t have gained a single seat. They would only start winning extra seats if the parliament expanded to nine senators per state – but at that point, they would be winning 1-2 out of 18 new senators. Their gains are dwarfed by Labor and the Coalition, and even by One Nation.
The main beneficiaries are either the major parties, who win enough votes to win multiple seats, or parties that fall short of winning a single seat under the status quo. This is primarily One Nation, but also Legalise Cannabis would have won one of eight seats in Queensland in 2022.
How would these changes shift the overall balance of the Senate? They wouldn’t do much. Usually the left-right split of these seats is close to even.
The benefits of an expanded parliament may be predominantly on the side of one party or another in a particular election, but over time they won’t have a particular bias one way or the other. But a more diverse and representative parliament that is closer to the people would benefit us all.
They got elected on the back of LNP preferences, a critical missing ingredient for success in the lower house, which, may I remind you, is the key to forming government.
Your second point is absurd, even by your standards.
6% of a senate vote is not the same as 42% of a lower house seat. You don’t get to scale it up like a pizza slice and declare it equivalent. This is like saying “I ate 1/16th of a large pizza. That’s basically 100% of a small pizza. Therefore I ate a whole pizza.”
6% is 6%
It’s not 42%
It’s not a house seat.
It’s just 6%
yes but their are 6 seats. so 6% is 42% of a seat. in im wondering how the they got elected off lnp preferences when the lnp only polled 2.11 quotas in wa and 2.06 quotas in nsw? in a senate race 6% is 300,000 votes. they need only beat the lnp into the 2cp in any of those seats to win the seat against labor. thats the same argument that the greens for years have been only getting elected off labor preferences. the same critical ingredient they were missing in winning any lower house seat. but in 2010 that became a reality in melbourne. and then every year until 2025. in 2022 they won griffith, ryan and brisbane because of labor preferences against the lnp. just becase they are polling not enough now doesnt mean they wont one day all its gonna take is a bad election in a conservative seat for the lnp where voting labor is just as good as gouging your eyeys out.
I kind of wish I had gouged my eyes out at the beginning of the day. Ah well.
Comparing One Nation to Trump … gawd. There is absolutely no indication that ON will survive post Pauline. There is no cohesive ‘ideology’ and there is no obvious successor and until they elected three senators in May – no ‘depth’ either – that is not saying there is depth now. And if all are sitting as ON senators by the 2028 election that would be some achievement. It is possible if not likely that a right wing populist will arise to fill the post ON void but it is not clear who it is – possibly Jacinta Price, possibly Moira Deeming. On the other hand, circumstances might force the right wing populist wave to come crashing down.
John
You neglect to mention that the WA Nats – their vote would have ended up with ON as the Libs would have been eliminated.
redsitributed the combine liberal national vote was 2.11 quotas
check the results it was 2.11 combined
if KAP can thrive without Bob katter ONP can survie without hanson.
RE-Pauline Hanson
I am not an ONP voter nor do i fit the demographic that votes for ONP. However, i think i need to be honest that she does appeal to a certain demographic whether i like it or not. Pauline Hanson was very much an accidental politician. She was preselected for the safest Labor seat in QLD at the time and it had a 15% Margin and was not on the Libs Bingo Card which is probably why Libs did not bother to Vet her before preselecting her. The Swing in Oxley was the biggest in the nation. In his book, Lazarus Rising, John Howard said that the fact that Hanson was disendorsed meant the swing may have been bigger as some Labor voters who were disatisified with Labor could vote for her an indepednent knowing they will not be electing a Liberal MP. If Pauline Hanson had not won Oxley we will not be talking abour her on this thread and she would have been forgotton by September of 1996. Jessica Whelan was disendorsed in 2019 in Lyons (more winnable seat) for making anti-Muslim remarks but she has been since forgotton as she was not elected. In terms of ideology i would say Nationalism is not something that is easy to defeat but it requires the right circumstances to succeed. Finally, do i think ONP can survive without Hanson, probably not in the short term but long term a simmilar party maybe under a different name could well arise and the next Pauline Hanson may be someone who is currently not involved in politics. The next Pauline may well be someone who owns a Charcoal Chicken shop in Caboolture so will become an accidental politicians.
John
My mistake – I misremembered. Yes combined was 2.11
@nimlqn her daughter may take up the rains the same way Robbie katter has for KAP. Having the Hanson name will help. I spoke to the Onp volunteer organiser and if you look at the people who take their flyers there is no real demographic. 20 years ago they would be lucky if people didn’t spit on the or call them racist now people are openly taking their flyers and voting for them. As an LNP supporter I put a 1 next to ONP. And my family does the same. At the end of the day it filters down to the libs where I live. Onp gets the $ libs get the vote.
@ John
When i say demographic. ONP generally does well with self-employed and small buiness owners. Interestingly, in Victoria ONP did better in 2025 than in 1998 which was their peak federally. I hear they are making inroads into Southern/Eastern Europeans. I think ONP may get Ralph Babet’s seat in 2028. I was surpised ONP did not run in Tasmania at recent state election but maybe it was too soon for them to get organised.
A quota is not equivalent to 100% of the vote in a single-member election, it’s equivalent to 50% + 1.
So 6% is not like 42%, it’s more like 21%. Which is a pretty low vote to get elected on.
One Nation did well in 2025 but the main reason they won Senate seats is because the Coalition vote collapsed but it’s a really high bar for the left to win four seats.
Ben raue that’s about what nick fldametto was elected on in hinchinbrook
Who’s the independent winning in 2025 with 9 seats?
Rennick.
The media continues to peddle nonsense about a potential expansion of Parliament. In this video, 7 news reporter Josh Martin claimed an expansion of Parliament would “cripple the Coalition” because “most of the new federal seats would be in metro areas”. The video title even claimed an expansion of Parliament “could wipe the Coalition off the electoral map”, which is completely false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDWilCcNv6g
Shadow Special Minister of State James McGrath said the plan to expand Parliament is “skulduggery” and did not “pass the pub test”. He said “let’s get better politicians and not more politicians like Albanese”, which is a bit rich considering the Coalition has struggled to preselect high-quality candidates, not to mention scandals surrounding many ministers (including the PM) in the former Morrison Govt and controversies surrounding multiple Liberal candidates in recent federal elections.
Most seats created as a result of an expansion of Parliament will be in metropolitan areas, due to larger population and faster population growth in metropolitan areas compared to regional and rural areas. Labor won 70 out of 88 metropolitan seats in the 2025 federal election, including 41 seats with margins greater than 10%. Considering Labor’s dominance in metropolitan areas as a result of its landslide 2025 election victory, if the Parliament is expanded now, most seats created as a result of an expansion of Parliament will be urban seats that are notionally held by Labor, many of which will have comfortable Labor margins and the Coalition will struggle to win even without a sitting Labor MP. This is why the Coalition think an expansion of Parliament will make it more difficult for them to win back government, therefore they have already voiced objections to the plan. I expect they will spare no effort to discredit the plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Coalition claims an expansion of Parliament is “a power grab by Labor” or that “Labor is using taxpayers’ money to entrench themselves in power”.
However, as I have said, those who claim that an expansion of Parliament will significantly benefit Labor ignore the fact that these notional Labor seats without sitting Labor MPs present great opportunities for independents and Greens, or even the Coalition, to run successful or at least competitive campaigns. They also ignore the fact that creating new seats will also affect existing seats, which could make existing seats less safe for Labor or safer for the Coalition. For example, an expansion of Parliament will make Berowra safer for the Liberal Party by removing strong Labor voting areas of Epping and North Epping from Berowra, and it will also make Hughes less safe for Labor by removing the strong Labor voting areas in the City of Campbelltown.
Agree Joseph, in fact the recent election result suggests Labor has reached a high-water mark and with so many open seats without sitting MPs to contest it could be like the 2008 WA election which gives the Liberal Party plenty of opportunities to make easy gains.
I saw that video on U Toob a couple of days ago as well. It is interesting yes I don’t think a single party would be wiped off the Earth. A healthy democracy has at least two functioning parties and Australia will continue to do so. That said, what it *will* do is force the Liberals to redefine itself. Having an expanded Parliament with additional urban seats would mean they would have to centre their offering to reflect the realities of those areas. Probably pushing outer and regional seats to the Nats. Not a bad thing but a reality nonetheless.
James McGrath’s reality centres around prepolls and only prepolls. There are memes and satirical videos about him on the subject.
Parliament may expand one day but probably not until after the 2028 elections. Probably not until we potentially have a change of leadership on Labor. If the Liberals can’t get something going for 2028 an expanded Parliament is the least of their concerns. It’s been 40 years+ since the last expansion but technology has reduced the strain somewhat on the constituencies.
It looks like an expansion won’t happen in the forseeable future because there’s no bipartisanship. I mentioned earlier that Labor gaining extra seats when there’s an expanded parliament is a half-truth.
Ironically, an expanded parliament might even benefit the Coalition more. Labor reached its high watermark in 2025 and will likely lose seats next election since it’s rare for a party to have so many seats for so long. Since there are more marginal Labor seats and seats on thin margins <2%, hypothetically if parliament expands this term, it'll likely see the creation of notional marginal Labor seats with no sitting members. There will be more of them than notional marginal Coalition, Greens or teal seats.
I agree with Yoh An – more open marginal Labor seats means more winnable seats for the Liberals.
There’s no real way to tell until an expansion happens. In regards to when I’d say with the next decade. There is discussion about it on the hill but no immediate plan. I’d say it will be talked about by the current parliament and possibly actioned on by the next. Any redistribution would happen within >12 months till the next election. Any such expansion would need to be decided by end of next year at minimum. So I’d say after the 2028 election and before the 2031 election would be ideal.
So the Nationals are not interested in making regional electorates easier to represent? They are not concerned about the increasing vastness of electorates like Maranoa?
And I’ve just got to say – call me elitist or arrogant, I don’t care – I tend to assume that anyone who speaks of “passing the pub test” is either uneducated or seeking to appeal to the uneducated. Many good ideas and valid theories (across all domains of knowledge) do not “pass the pub test” because the world is not as simple as a young child imagines it to be. Evidently, some adults have not grown up, or perhaps have grown up to view drunkenness as an ideal state in which to make decisions and evaluations.