September 3, 2025 • 10 mins
The federal government is reportedly considering major electoral reform: fixed terms, four year terms and a significant increase in the number of seats in the House of Representatives.
Michael Thompson and Adam Lang look at how it would work, whether it's even possible, and what it would mean for Australian democracy.
Fear & Greed Q+A: Join Michael Thompson & Sean Aylmer and the team as they answer questions on business, investing, economics, politics and more. If you have your own question, get in touch via our website, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook!
Find out more: https://fearandgreed.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to Fear and Greed Q and A, where we
ask an answer questions about business, investing, economics, politics and more.
I'm Michael Thompson and good morning Adam Lane.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hello Michael, Adam.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Today's question falls squarely into the politics bracket. It's a
good one. The federal government is reportedly going to look
at four year terms right and increasing the number of
seats in Parliament as well. So today the real question
is why does this matter, will it actually happen and
(00:36):
is it good for Australian democracies. These are small questions
that we are going to answer in the next seven
minutes or so. Okay, I'll give a bit of context
first as to why we're discussing this. Nine newspapers are
reporting that these changes are being considered by the government. Basically,
after every election, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
(00:58):
reviews the electoral system. It's basically almost a health check,
makes sure everything's still going okay, and if you need
to make any changes, that's when you do it. Special
Minister of State Don Farrell, because that is his portfolio,
he is able to decide the issues that the Committee
will look at, and on this particular occasion. According to
these reports, the issues that he has put forward are
(01:20):
changing from our three year terms that don't have a
fixed end date a fixed election dates, so they can
range kind of from two and a half years to
three and a bit years, and it's somewhere in between.
That's when the election is going to be held to
either be fixed terms or potentially be extended to be
fixed four year terms. The other big issue is increasing
(01:41):
the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the
lower house. The government has a huge mandate here. Really
it was a landslide victory for Anthony Albanezi and for
the Labor Party. This is reform. Are you happy just
to see these issues actually being discussed.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah, I think they're so worthy. I don't like the
flexibility and the date, so let's start there, and I
think it thereby becomes politicized when the timing can be
determined by the government of the day and everybody, including
the business community, is left uncertain and hanging on that decision.
So I think avoiding that by appointing a certain date
(02:22):
is a good thing for predictability and knowing when it's
coming and being able to plan your business your holiday
is everything. Around that.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, and I think they can actually fix the date
if it was just to be three years with a
fixed date, they can do that just with legislation that
doesn't require a referendum. If the government does move to
four year terms, that would require a referendum, and there
are reasons why you would do it. There are a
lot of reasons. Basically, consistency is one. Because every state
(02:54):
in Australia, with the exception I think of Tasmania, is
on four year terms. Everyone used to be three year terms.
That's why we have three year terms. That at federation
all of the individual states all had three year terms,
and so that it's decided, you know what, we'll make
it kind of three years federally as well. Everyone else
has now moved to four years. The federal system is
(03:14):
still based on three years. So it does make sense.
But there's also a benefit for governing because you spend
less time in campaign mode, right, and more time actually
governing the country.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Yeah. I think that's just as critical is to have
an extended term because the three year term is proven
to be so short term in its thinking about what
you do when you do it and gearing that around
the electoral cycle. So I think it actually dictates how
we end up spending and investing and then the politicians
that we vote for.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Yeah, the big challenge there is the fact that a
referendum is needed to actually get this through. And look,
Australia doesn't have a great track record in passing referendum.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
We don't like a lot of change.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
The funny thing is that in terms of four year terms,
politicians have been calling for this for years unilaterally.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Yeah, everyone seems to agree.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Yep, Yeah, we had John Howard was in favor of it,
Kim Beasley, Bob Hawke, Peter Dutton supported this is in
the lead up to the last election. Anthony Alberanezi has
spoken in the past about the fact that this is
what we should be doing. It is it makes sense
for business, for government, for the.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
People, and yet we still don't have it.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
The only person who has taken it to a referendum
is Bob Hawk and he did this in the in
the eighties and got smashed. He did it was like
the second lowest no vote in history was for that,
wasn't it. Yeah, Yeah, it was. It was horrendous and
so you'd want to make sure that this actually was
something that was going to get through, because the last
(04:48):
thing the country needs is the expense and the oxygen
kind of being consumed into another referendum campaign that is
going to be defeated in the end.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah, there was so much for form was accomplished at
that time too, and not necessarily to be going back
into that, but just to relay what happens. You know,
we had the floating of the currency, we had superannuation,
We had so many really important changes through that time,
but this was apparently a step too far for the
(05:21):
audience of the day, that being the electric and.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
There's an impact. The other argument is that there's an
impact on the Senate as well, because the Senate has
six year terms and every time you have a federal election,
it is typically a half Senate election where half the
senators are elected and then going for a new six
year term. Simple solution, just make it eight year terms, right,
and then all of a sudden you can kind of
keep everything going. So these are not insurmountable challenges, but
(05:46):
it is good to see this being discussed, and I
think you made the most important point early is that
it would provide certainty for everyone, and in particular for
a podcast like this. It would provide certainty for business.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, and look, to me, that's the most critical ingredient.
And we seem to do some things that keep getting
in the way and this is one of them. And
why not just clear that path? It seems to have
so much support, it seems to have so much logic
behind it. What is stopping us?
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Well, how do you feel about it, Michael?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
I think it makes perfect sense. I like the consistency
with other states, But I like this idea of not
having to having a government get back into campaign mode
at the two and a quarter year mark. Just if
it was suddenly three and a half years of actual
governing and getting things done rather than just suddenly moving
(06:39):
straight back into campaign mode and trying to put the
government back into caretaker mode and nothing actually happen. It
makes sense, right.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
It does. Now another question would it actually help the
liberals because they probably need a bit of time to
rebuild it extended to actually be in there interested the moment.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
The downside is that if you get stuck with a
bad government, it is it is a long time, and
it is a fixed term and you are there for
the full four years. But also you get what.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
You vote for as always vote wisely.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Now, the other big issue here was expanding the number
of electorates and increasing interesting. Yeah, this is an interesting
one because the last time it happened in a meaningful
way was again in the eighties under Bob Hawk, when
it went from it was it one hundred and twenty.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Five to one hundred and forty eight.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, and in the end there's been kind of minor
increases to one fifty. It went up to one fifty
one at one point back to one fifty. As basically
redistributions within electorates and just population movement makes perfect sense.
The reason why this is back on the agenda or
on the agenda now after what forty odd years, is
because the population has grown so much and continues to absolutely.
(07:54):
When that last change was made in nineteen eighty four,
the average population represented by each member of the Lower
House was one hundred and five thousand people. Right now
it is more than one hundred and seventy five thousand.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
How on, that's busy like for every politician, Yeah, how
do your service an electric that big?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Because that goes back that's the challenge, right, goes back
to the job of a politician. It is not just
to be in Canberra and to be speaking in Parliament
House and to be voting on legislation. It is to
be representing the community and to be hearing the concerns
of your community and speaking with them.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Right absolutely, I mean even down to potholes in the streets,
garbage collection, local amenities, parks. There's so much that needs
attending to. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Yeah, And the only con I think that I can
find to this is it would be more expensive all
of a sudden you you add on another twenty seats,
or you don't.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Need a new House of Parliament do we that? I mean,
we've got one big enough already that could probably fit.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
That does always look like there is plenty of space,
right And whenever they have like a joint sitting and
everyone in there, they managed to fit the whole Senate
in there on occasions, So why not do it?
Speaker 2 (09:06):
What about the UK Parliament there's like six hundred and
fifty members and when they're all in in that ancient building,
breeding in there.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, look, I think if it was up to us,
would we pass both of these measures in here today?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Adams? Okay, so locking down the timing, yes, making four
year terms happen. Yes, expanding the number I think Yeah,
I think so there's a logic to that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Yeah, especially if it means that there is greater representation
for people. Because when at the time of federation, the
population was so small that there was fifty thousand people
per Lower House MP, and now we're up to one
hundred and seventy seven thousand, it is time to rethink that.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah. Look, and thematically too, I think we're progressively in
an international world, right, So, yes, we have local council,
state government, federal government, but so many of our interests
I think are moving to be national and that's probably
appropriate forum to have a lot of these debates.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah. I don't want to be cocky, but I think
we could pretty much run the country from this studio, Adam,
I feel like we've answered some of the biggest.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Questions benevolent dictatorship by fear and greed.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
I'm up for it.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Thank you very much, Adam. Thank you, Michael, And now
if you've got something that you'd like to know, then
please send through your question on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, or
at fearangreed dot com. Today you I'm Michael Thompson, and
this is fear and greed q and a
Welcome to Fear and Greed Q and A, where we
ask an answer questions about business, investing, economics, politics and more.
I'm Michael Thompson and good morning Adam Lane.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hello Michael, Adam.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Today's question falls squarely into the politics bracket. It's a
good one. The federal government is reportedly going to look
at four year terms right and increasing the number of
seats in Parliament as well. So today the real question
is why does this matter, will it actually happen and
(00:36):
is it good for Australian democracies. These are small questions
that we are going to answer in the next seven
minutes or so. Okay, I'll give a bit of context
first as to why we're discussing this. Nine newspapers are
reporting that these changes are being considered by the government. Basically,
after every election, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
(00:58):
reviews the electoral system. It's basically almost a health check,
makes sure everything's still going okay, and if you need
to make any changes, that's when you do it. Special
Minister of State Don Farrell, because that is his portfolio,
he is able to decide the issues that the Committee
will look at, and on this particular occasion. According to
these reports, the issues that he has put forward are
(01:20):
changing from our three year terms that don't have a
fixed end date a fixed election dates, so they can
range kind of from two and a half years to
three and a bit years, and it's somewhere in between.
That's when the election is going to be held to
either be fixed terms or potentially be extended to be
fixed four year terms. The other big issue is increasing
(01:41):
the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the
lower house. The government has a huge mandate here. Really
it was a landslide victory for Anthony Albanezi and for
the Labor Party. This is reform. Are you happy just
to see these issues actually being discussed.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah, I think they're so worthy. I don't like the
flexibility and the date, so let's start there, and I
think it thereby becomes politicized when the timing can be
determined by the government of the day and everybody, including
the business community, is left uncertain and hanging on that decision.
So I think avoiding that by appointing a certain date
(02:22):
is a good thing for predictability and knowing when it's
coming and being able to plan your business your holiday
is everything. Around that.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, and I think they can actually fix the date
if it was just to be three years with a
fixed date, they can do that just with legislation that
doesn't require a referendum. If the government does move to
four year terms, that would require a referendum, and there
are reasons why you would do it. There are a
lot of reasons. Basically, consistency is one. Because every state
(02:54):
in Australia, with the exception I think of Tasmania, is
on four year terms. Everyone used to be three year terms.
That's why we have three year terms. That at federation
all of the individual states all had three year terms,
and so that it's decided, you know what, we'll make
it kind of three years federally as well. Everyone else
has now moved to four years. The federal system is
(03:14):
still based on three years. So it does make sense.
But there's also a benefit for governing because you spend
less time in campaign mode, right, and more time actually
governing the country.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Yeah. I think that's just as critical is to have
an extended term because the three year term is proven
to be so short term in its thinking about what
you do when you do it and gearing that around
the electoral cycle. So I think it actually dictates how
we end up spending and investing and then the politicians
that we vote for.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Yeah, the big challenge there is the fact that a
referendum is needed to actually get this through. And look,
Australia doesn't have a great track record in passing referendum.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
We don't like a lot of change.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
The funny thing is that in terms of four year terms,
politicians have been calling for this for years unilaterally.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Yeah, everyone seems to agree.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Yep, Yeah, we had John Howard was in favor of it,
Kim Beasley, Bob Hawke, Peter Dutton supported this is in
the lead up to the last election. Anthony Alberanezi has
spoken in the past about the fact that this is
what we should be doing. It is it makes sense
for business, for government, for the.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
People, and yet we still don't have it.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
The only person who has taken it to a referendum
is Bob Hawk and he did this in the in
the eighties and got smashed. He did it was like
the second lowest no vote in history was for that,
wasn't it. Yeah, Yeah, it was. It was horrendous and
so you'd want to make sure that this actually was
something that was going to get through, because the last
(04:48):
thing the country needs is the expense and the oxygen
kind of being consumed into another referendum campaign that is
going to be defeated in the end.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah, there was so much for form was accomplished at
that time too, and not necessarily to be going back
into that, but just to relay what happens. You know,
we had the floating of the currency, we had superannuation,
We had so many really important changes through that time,
but this was apparently a step too far for the
(05:21):
audience of the day, that being the electric and.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
There's an impact. The other argument is that there's an
impact on the Senate as well, because the Senate has
six year terms and every time you have a federal election,
it is typically a half Senate election where half the
senators are elected and then going for a new six
year term. Simple solution, just make it eight year terms, right,
and then all of a sudden you can kind of
keep everything going. So these are not insurmountable challenges, but
(05:46):
it is good to see this being discussed, and I
think you made the most important point early is that
it would provide certainty for everyone, and in particular for
a podcast like this. It would provide certainty for business.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, and look, to me, that's the most critical ingredient.
And we seem to do some things that keep getting
in the way and this is one of them. And
why not just clear that path? It seems to have
so much support, it seems to have so much logic
behind it. What is stopping us?
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Well, how do you feel about it, Michael?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
I think it makes perfect sense. I like the consistency
with other states, But I like this idea of not
having to having a government get back into campaign mode
at the two and a quarter year mark. Just if
it was suddenly three and a half years of actual
governing and getting things done rather than just suddenly moving
(06:39):
straight back into campaign mode and trying to put the
government back into caretaker mode and nothing actually happen. It
makes sense, right.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
It does. Now another question would it actually help the
liberals because they probably need a bit of time to
rebuild it extended to actually be in there interested the moment.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
The downside is that if you get stuck with a
bad government, it is it is a long time, and
it is a fixed term and you are there for
the full four years. But also you get what.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
You vote for as always vote wisely.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Now, the other big issue here was expanding the number
of electorates and increasing interesting. Yeah, this is an interesting
one because the last time it happened in a meaningful
way was again in the eighties under Bob Hawk, when
it went from it was it one hundred and twenty.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Five to one hundred and forty eight.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, and in the end there's been kind of minor
increases to one fifty. It went up to one fifty
one at one point back to one fifty. As basically
redistributions within electorates and just population movement makes perfect sense.
The reason why this is back on the agenda or
on the agenda now after what forty odd years, is
because the population has grown so much and continues to absolutely.
(07:54):
When that last change was made in nineteen eighty four,
the average population represented by each member of the Lower
House was one hundred and five thousand people. Right now
it is more than one hundred and seventy five thousand.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
How on, that's busy like for every politician, Yeah, how
do your service an electric that big?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Because that goes back that's the challenge, right, goes back
to the job of a politician. It is not just
to be in Canberra and to be speaking in Parliament
House and to be voting on legislation. It is to
be representing the community and to be hearing the concerns
of your community and speaking with them.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Right absolutely, I mean even down to potholes in the streets,
garbage collection, local amenities, parks. There's so much that needs
attending to. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Yeah, And the only con I think that I can
find to this is it would be more expensive all
of a sudden you you add on another twenty seats,
or you don't.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Need a new House of Parliament do we that? I mean,
we've got one big enough already that could probably fit.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
That does always look like there is plenty of space,
right And whenever they have like a joint sitting and
everyone in there, they managed to fit the whole Senate
in there on occasions, So why not do it?
Speaker 2 (09:06):
What about the UK Parliament there's like six hundred and
fifty members and when they're all in in that ancient building,
breeding in there.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, look, I think if it was up to us,
would we pass both of these measures in here today?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Adams? Okay, so locking down the timing, yes, making four
year terms happen. Yes, expanding the number I think Yeah,
I think so there's a logic to that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Yeah, especially if it means that there is greater representation
for people. Because when at the time of federation, the
population was so small that there was fifty thousand people
per Lower House MP, and now we're up to one
hundred and seventy seven thousand, it is time to rethink that.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah. Look, and thematically too, I think we're progressively in
an international world, right, So, yes, we have local council,
state government, federal government, but so many of our interests
I think are moving to be national and that's probably
appropriate forum to have a lot of these debates.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah. I don't want to be cocky, but I think
we could pretty much run the country from this studio, Adam,
I feel like we've answered some of the biggest.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Questions benevolent dictatorship by fear and greed.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
I'm up for it.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Thank you very much, Adam. Thank you, Michael, And now
if you've got something that you'd like to know, then
please send through your question on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, or
at fearangreed dot com. Today you I'm Michael Thompson, and
this is fear and greed q and a
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.