Inside the post-election inquiry that could reshape Australia’s democracy

After each federal election, the Permanent Committee of Parliament’s election issues undertake the review of this election; In particular, how the Australian Election Commission performs Australia’s most logistics in performing the challenging peace -time exercise. The 2025 elections will be reported in the middle of next year.

At the beginning of this month, Private Foreign Minister Senator Don Farrell wrote to the committee with the relevant additional reference conditions regarding the execution of a maximum of 2025 elections. In addition to other things, he asked the committee to examine the composition of parliament as a whole, including the potential of parliament; the potential of parliament, the potential of fixed terms, and the number of selected federal representatives according to the growth of population and voters.

This did not get the attention he deserved because he was buried in other reference conditions and perhaps during the political recession after the election. It should be really great news that the government had initiated an investigation into the size of the parliament and the possibility of fixed and four -year periods.

The introduction of fixed or four -year periods requires a constitutional change; Following the defeat on the sound, the government probably does not have any other unsuccessful referendum appetite. However, an increase in the size of the parliament does not need a referendum, but only a change in the Commonwealth Election Law.

Farrell’s opposite number, Shadow Private Minister Senator James McGrath – like Farrell, one of the most cunning minds of Parliament – believes that the government knows what he is doing: silently to prepare the ground for a great increase in the size of the House of Representatives. Since most population growth is now in the city voters where the liberal party is now chronic – it is only nine of the 88 voters classified by AEC as a metropolis – this will be an important advantage for labor.

There is a complication. Part 24 of the Constitution requires that the number of members of the House of Representatives is “almost as much as possible and twice the number of senators”. Therefore, any increase in the House of Representatives requires a proportionate increase in the Senate. Since senators served for six years, half of the Senate was elected in each general elections, and the number of senators in each state must be divided into two. Currently, there are 12 (plus two for regions) per state, so there will be at least a number of senators for each state after any increase – a general increase up to 12 in the size of the Senate means that the smallest increase in the House of Representatives will be 24 seats.

So why does the government stop there? If he sees a political advantage in increasing the magnitude of the parliament to a significant extent and is willing to wear public reaction against more politicians who will inevitably follow – he probably thinks of a greater increase up to 48, which means 24 additional senators: extra four per state.