Following every federal election, parliament’s joint standing committee on electoral matters undertakes a review of that election; in particular, how the Australian Electoral Commission performed in delivering the most logistically challenging peacetime exercise Australia undertakes. Its report on the 2025 election is due in the middle of next year.
The Special Minister of State, Senator Don Farrell, this month wrote to the committee with additional terms of reference which were, at most, tangentially relevant to the conduct of the 2025 election. Among other things, he asked the committee to examine the “composition of the Parliament as a whole, including; the length of the parliamentary term; the potential for fixed terms; and the number of elected federal representatives relative to the growth in population and the electorate”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during question time this month.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Since this was buried among other terms of reference, and perhaps because it was done during the post-election political lull, it did not receive the attention it deserved. The fact that the government has initiated an inquiry into the size of the parliament, and the possibility of fixed and four-year terms, should have been very big news indeed.
Introducing fixed or four-year terms would require a constitutional amendment; following its defeat on the Voice, the government probably doesn’t have the appetite to risk another failed referendum. But an increase to the size of the parliament doesn’t need a referendum, simply an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Farrell’s opposite number, Senator James McGrath – like Farrell, one of the shrewdest minds in the parliament – believes he knows what the government is up to: quietly laying the groundwork for a big increase to the size of the House of Representatives. Because most population growth is in city electorates, where the Liberal Party is now chronically weak – it holds only nine of the 88 electorates the AEC classifies as metropolitan – this would be a significant advantage to Labor.
The last time the number of House of Representative MPs was increased significantly was in 1984.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
There is one complication. Section 24 of the Constitution requires that the number of members of the House of Representatives “shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators”. Any increase of the House of Representatives therefore requires a proportionate increase to the Senate. Because senators serve for six-year terms, with half the Senate elected at each general election, the number of senators from each state needs to be divisible by two. At the moment, there are 12 per state (plus two each for the territories), so the smallest number of senators for each state after any increase would be 14 – an overall increase in the size of the Senate by 12. That would mean that the smallest feasible increase to the House of Representatives would be 24 seats.
But why would the government stop there? If it sees political advantage in significantly increasing the size of the parliament – and is willing to wear the public backlash against more politicians that would inevitably follow – it would probably consider a larger increase, most likely by 48, which would mean 24 additional senators: an extra four per state.
What sounds like a constitutional complication is, in fact, a political opportunity for Labor. Although the government does not control the Senate, it does command a majority with the Greens. They would have every reason to support such a change. Just as Labor would be advantaged by an increase in the size of the House of Representatives, the Greens would be the big winners from an increase in the size of the Senate.
