believe it or not, there would be a case for more federal politicians

Should we have more federal politicians? One can anticipate the knee-jerk response from many sceptical voters.

But Special Minister of State Don Farrell believes there’s a case, and has the parliamentary joint standing committee on electoral matters examining the arguments.

Farrell, a right-wing factional heavyweight who has a low profile publicly but holds a lot of power within Labor, drove the political funding reforms legislated last term. They begin operating ahead of the 2028 election. Despite doubts Farrell would land a deal to pass those changes, he managed, very late, to get the Liberals on board.

Whether the enlarged parliament has a chance of flying could depend in part, but not entirely, on the attitude of the opposition – would it go along with the plan or threaten to turn it into a major issue?

The Liberals so far have not stated a position. Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck, deputy chair of the committee, says, “It’s up to the government to make a case. I’m not sure the Australian people are hanging out for more politicians.”

Farrell likes to work with the major parties, so would hope to get the opposition on board. If he could not, the Greens could be crucial: the government now only has to get their support in the Senate to pass contested legislation. The Greens’ spokeswoman on democracy, Steph Hodgins-May, says, “We don’t have a position currently”, but adds, “if something will make our democracy fairer we would consider legislation favourably”.

Farrell has also asked the committee to look at longer and fixed parliamentary terms.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese would love to bring in an extended term. He told the British Labour Party conference at the weekend that in the United Kingdom, where there are five-year terms, they had “the most valuable resource for any Labor government. The asset every progressive leader in every positive and ambitious government wishes they had more of: time.

"To give you some sense of that, in Australia, my colleagues and I were re-elected less than five months ago. And yet our next election is due before yours,” he said.

But a longer term would require a referendum, and while overseas Albanese again flagged that after the failed Voice referendum, he is not interested in running another.

While longer terms in theory give more time and stability for serious policy work without an election looming, in practice the advantages might be overstated.

The current example of the UK Starmer government, where the prime minister is under intense pressure early in the term and despite a large majority, shows instability can arise at any point. Also, we live in the era of the “permanent campaign” that might be hard to break even with longer terms.

Making the present three-year term fixed to a certain date, rather than flexible as now, would need only legislation, so that could be an option for a package for change. All the states, except Tasmania, have now moved to fixed terms. (All states have four-year terms.)

Enlarging the parliament would also only need legislation. This would be a big deal politically but it has been done twice before, in the 1940s and the 1980s – both times by Labor governments.

The case for change is built primarily on population increase. The last report of the electoral matters committee, after the 2022 election, said:

Australians’ representation in the House of Representatives has fallen significantly in the last few decades, with no significant change in the number of representatives over a period in which the number of enrolled voters has almost doubled.

On average, a House member represents more than 120,000 enrolled voters; in 1984 (after the parliament was increased) the number was more than 66,000. A key part of a politician’s work, especially that of a lower House member, is tending to constituents’ needs and problems. As the population grows, so does the workload.

Farrell maintains it strengthens democracy if voters feel they can get to their local member.

Those advocating expansion also argue it would bring the parliament more in line with other democracies, increase the talent pool from which to choose frontbenchers, and improve accountability.

The complication with a bigger parliament is that, constitutionally, the ratio between the houses has to remain the same – The House of Representatives must be as nearly as possible just double the size of the Senate. Breaking the House-Senate nexus would need a referendum. A 1967 effort failed.

The expansion most likely to be contemplated would add between 28 and 32 to the 150-member lower house. That would be based on two extra senators per state and either one or two extra for each of the two territories.

If the parliament were to be increased, the expansion would not take effect until the 2031 election.

While an expansion would enable better servicing of constituents, the eyes of party hard heads would be on calculations of potential winners and losers.

Former Liberal Attorney-General George Brandis, writing in the Nine media this week, argues Labor would gain from a larger House (because the population growth would be greatest in the cities where the Liberals are weak), while the Greens would be advantaged by a bigger Senate.

“Although any increase in the number of politicians would be hugely unpopular, Albanese may well calculate that the electoral advantage to Labor would be worth the short-term political pain which, were he to legislate in the second half of next year, would largely have died down by 2028,” Brandis wrote.

Electoral analyst Ben Raue has strongly contested Brandis’ analysis of the outcomes of an increase in the parliament’s size.

Bob McMullan, a former senator and cabinet minister as well as a former Labor national secretary, supports an increase of senators to 14 per state.

In his judgement, such a change “should make it easier for the Greens, One Nation and Jacqui Lambie to maintain their seats, although it will not necessarily enhance their chances of increasing their Senate numbers,” he wrote this week on the Pearls and Irritations site.

In a deep dive into the electoral data, McMullan concludes it shows that “if the teals make the right decisions and commit some resources, it is possible, even likely, that they could win several Senate seats” in an expanded parliament.

Given the smaller quotas that would be required to win a seat in a bigger Senate a change would in general give improved prospects for independents and micro parties.

As with his reform of electoral donations and spending, Farrell’s push for more parliamentarians will face substantial political obstacles. Whether he can negotiate a way around them, and whether the prime minister is willing to spend some political capital on advancing an unpopular cause, are the big questions.