The public may want it, the experts may highly recommend it, and there is certainly a crying need for it - but the politicians in government are the ones who have to make the change, and with the bogey man of the Greens having grown in the polls I reckon both Lib and Lab will be furious about giving the slightest advantage to someone they see as their common enemy.

And there’s the problem salamander, I reckon they will be too, but who cares whether they are furious or not, it is our parliament, not theirs.

#1 On the other hand it is more likely that a workable number of members of one party will allow the formation of a minority government and a backbench for that party, filling the role of the future replacements in training and to keep contact with voters, giving reality checks to Cabinet [aka the government].

The so called brake on supposed Green excess [creating a sustaniable society] exists in the Upper House for those who think we have not yet matured enough to end this colonial anachronism.

Whilst the Green vote may fluctuate as the old party’s transmogrify in an attempt to retain relevance as the ideas of modernity and unsustainable exploitation of the biosphere continue to lead to the decline of the quality and quantity of life it is unlikely to disappear given the conditions for their existence are inherent in the neo-liberal interpretation of capitalism.

To talk about reform of the Tasmanian parliament without the consideration for simultaneous elections for both The House of Assembly and the Legislative Council is to ignore one of the main reasons for the current instability in Government. If we had an Upper House that was based on the same multi-representative electorates as the lower house, that would give The Greens and independents a place in Parliament and the same input into policy as they will have now. Without the aspiration for government.

The Greens, we know, support a return to 35 MHAs.

Will Hodgman has said he wants an independent inquiry held into the question of the size of the Tasmanian parliament. His key point has been that such decisions should be made by experts rather than politicians, who have vested interests.

But it doesn’t hurt the case that Michael Hodgman and other Liberals have publicly said they support a return to 35 MHAs.

Now you would not have to try hard to find a panel of political experts in Tasmania who would recommend returning the House to 35 Members.

In fact, it would be harder to find a panel who would recommend retaining the status quo.

So, in a roundabout way, the Liberals will support a return to the 35 and they know the Greens will back them. The Upper House is most unlikely to block such a move.

And what about Labor?

I believe, but could be very much mistaken, that Bartlett has said he wants the people of Tasmania to decide.

That would be clever politically because it allows Labor to position itself as not actively supporting more politicians; even if saying that the public should decide would be inconsistent with Labor’s involvement in cutting Parliament in the first place.

The greatest obstacle to returning the House of Assembly to 35 MHAs would seem to be public opinion or, more accurately, fears of a voter backlash.

We can see then why Hodgman is being careful by distancing himself from the decision-making, but if Labor opposes the move outright and/or if the media drum up public opposition, then we can expect him to drop it like a hot potato.

On the plus side, the media seems to be in support of more MHAs and thinking Labor players (I’m sure there are some) have surely realised that one of their greatest difficulties in government was their lack of depth.

My conclusion then is that provided we have a Liberal minority, as the media is predicting, we are more likely than not to see a return to 35 MHAs.

The best way to achieve the impossible would be to abolish the colonial anchronism reducing numbers on the payroll by 5 and allowing a return to 35.

But is 35 enough. Since 35 members was introduced the population has increased and looks set to continue. 45 would seem a more appropriate number for these times.

Another saving would be Council amalgamations.

The problem is getting these litlle empires of uppper hpuse seats and local govewrnment sinecures to recommend their own demise. Therin lies the problem.