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.