The results of the most recent federal election tell us more about the state of our democracy than any government consultation paper ever could. With just 35 per cent of the primary vote, the Labor party secured 63 per cent of the seats in the House of Representatives. Almost two-thirds of Australians voted against Labor, yet it dominates the parliament. Together, Labor and the Coalition attracted just 66 per cent of the primary vote but control 91 per cent of the lower house seats. This is what passes for an Australian democracy.

How do such things happen? Because of rules designed by the major political parties to protect themselves including through compulsory voting, compulsory preferential voting and public funding. Competition is great they insist – for everyone but themselves.

Rather than take these figures as a warning, Canberra has again drawn the wrong lesson. Instead of asking why the major parties are shedding support, the political class has devised a solution: entrenching their dominance further.

Senator Don Farrell, architect of the most recent reforms, has been admirably frank: ‘The Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.’ In other words, a duopoly by design. Reforms he steered through last year made it harder for independents and smaller parties to compete – they still managed 34 per cent of the primary vote yet only secured nine per cent of lower house seats. Now Farrell is back with a new agenda: expanding parliament and locking in fixed four-year terms.

Fixed four-year terms have long been a Labor dream, dating back to Whitlam. The idea has been sold as a cure for instability, but experience suggests otherwise. In New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, fixed terms have not delivered better government – only longer-lived bad ones. Mediocrity is not improved by endurance.

The 1988 referendum demonstrated that Australians were rightly sceptical of giving underperforming governments an extra year to underperform. Stability is too often a euphemism for politicians who cannot be removed when they should be.

Enlarging the House of Representatives is equally indefensible. On the surface, it looks like housekeeping – more MPs for a growing population. But Section 24 of the constitution requires that the number of representatives be ‘as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators’. That means every expansion of the lower house must be mirrored in the Senate. Here the arithmetic veers into farce.

Because of this nexus clause, every two MPs requires a new senator, and because states must have an even and equal numbers of senators, plus the likely additional senators for ACT and the Northern Territory, a minimum increase would be at least 16 new senators and 32 MPs – a total of 48 more politicians. Yes. That is what Australia needs right now. Forty-eight more politicians.

And the comedy does not end there. Tasmania, with a population of 0.5 million, already enjoys 12 senators – the same as New South Wales, home to 8.6 million. This reform would only multiply the grotesque disproportionality mocking equal representation.

We are told that adding more MPs will strengthen representation and lead to better governance. In truth, it amounts to little more than a political job-creation scheme. While ordinary Australians are urged to lift productivity, make do with less, and tighten their belts amid inflation and sluggish growth, the political class chooses the opposite path –expanding its own ranks, extending its tenure, and driving up costs.

In 1984, Senators Robert Ray and Graham Richardson drove through a similar so-called ‘reform’ that added 35 extra politicians. It was sold as a practical response to population growth, but in reality, it entrenched the major parties, inflated costs, and stifled competition. The result was more politicians, not better government. Lobbyists gained more hands to shake and palms to press, while voters saw little return. Farrell’s proposal risks repeating that same mistake.

Supporters of expansion argue that MPs are overworked, struggling with electorates that now average 177,000 people. Poor things.

With generous salaries, travel perks, allowances and taxpayer-funded staff, they ask us to believe they are overburdened.

The truth is that much of their workload stems not from constituent neglect, but from government bloat. As more Australians rely on Canberra for income, housing, childcare, pension tweaks, welfare adjustments and immigration favours, MPs become magnets for casework. Adding more MPs to process more dependency is no solution but an admission that government has grown too intrusive. Parkinson’s Law applies here too: government expands to occupy the number of politicians available.

The costs are also not incidental. Each federal politician drains more than $2 million a year once staff, superannuation, travel, and perks are accounted. Even a minimum expansion of 32 MPs and 16 senators would add $100 million increasing annually. This is money taken today through taxes or tomorrow through debt. And for what? More backbenchers to clap on cue, more staffers drafting talking points, more sinecures. It would buy less accountability, not more.

It could be claimed that more MPs means more diversity of voices and healthier democracy. But history says otherwise. The 1984 expansion did not open parliament to new perspectives – it narrowed it. Parliament grew larger in number but smaller in stature, a chamber where mediocrity had more space to hide. Adding seats will not guarantee better representation. It will only guarantee more politicians.

The real danger is distraction. These proposals divert attention from the reforms Australia actually needs. But if electoral reform is on the table, let’s start with optional preferential voting to empower voters, citizen-initiated referenda to bypass political bottlenecks, recall elections to remove failing governments, term limits to prevent careerism, and non-compulsory voting to ensure that parties do not disregard their constituents. These would revitalise Australia’s democracy, give voters genuine choice and restore accountability. But they are precisely the reforms the two-party duopoly fears most.

Australia has long confused more government with better government. Now we are told that the next innovation is not better policy, but more politicians. That somehow progress requires multiplying the very class that has already alienated so many voters.

Australians deserve better. We deserve a parliament that works harder, not one that grows fatter. We deserve leaders prepared to do more with less, as so many of us must. We deserve a democracy where votes translate into fair representation, where barriers to entry are not raised at the whim of incumbents, and where accountability means more than a press conference slogan.

Farrell’s proposal is not reform or progress. It is a self-interested grab for power, cloaked in the language of necessity. If this is what passes for democratic reform, it is no wonder that tax increases are what pass for economic reform.