Cloaked in a sales pitch of saving money, the result is a House of Parliament struggling to cope with the workloads associated with a much bigger population, more complex social issues, and a lack of backbenchers to work the committees and pressure their front bench to perform.

Many academics and former politicians have bemoaned the lack of vibrancy, the diminished debate and the lack of scrutiny of legislation by the committees.  

Currently we have three backbenchers who between them sit on the nine committees. 

This lacks capacity for difference in ideology or new styles of thought and is stifling meeting times.

Tasmania is suffering from the smaller parliament and the onerous workloads of Ministers, one of whom has six portfolios.

It is humanly impossible to represent your community at functions, meetings with constituents and then do the required reading to be fully across your portfolio without the help of the unelected and well paid bureaucracy - who have become the true influencers of public policy.  

Portfolios of the size, complexity, importance and which literally affect the lives of Tasmanians, such as health, should have one dedicated Minister. 

It is a huge and complex portfolio.

Yet, we expect our Health Minister to be the Leader of the House for Government Business, Minister of Police, Fire and Emergency Management and Minister for Science and Technology.  

When you understand the complexities of modern politics and the almost instant media reporting the result is little more than crisis avoidance comments.  

Ministers on top of their portfolios should be able to address the questions in depth if they had the time.

Andrew Inglis Clark, wrote in 1897 that in a “genuine democracy” there should be “the presence in the Legislature of representatives of all opinions”.  

A larger parliament would allow for the voices of the people to be better heard, and will see a greater variety of skills and diversity of opinion.  

In 2010, the restoration of Parliament to 35 seats was enthusiastically supported by the Liberals, Labor and the Greens in genuine tri-partisan spirit. 

However, the issue remains unresolved.

Long-time champion of Parliamentary restoration, Peter Chapman, President of the Tasmanian Constitutional Society wrote: “The House of Assembly is in fact functioning at only 71 per cent of the capacity it enjoyed as long ago as 1960 when the membership was established at 35 seats because the population of the state has nearly doubled and the functions of the government have increased enormously.”  

He also compared the outcome “to fielding a cricket team with only eight players: they cannot score enough”.

Wayne Crawford wrote: “The failure of political leadership to honour a tripartite promise to reverse the ill-conceived decision to slash the size of Parliament has short-changed Tasmanian democratically and administratively.”

Esteemed commentator Saul Eslake noted: “We need to reverse the 1998 decision to reduce the size of Parliament, so that the gene pool from which cabinet and shadow cabinets are formed can be deeper and wider, and we can also develop a more effectively parliament committee system”.

Business lobby groups have also championed a restoration.  

It will take political courage to restore the Parliament.  

It is the current politicians, with their knowledge of the problem and the responsibility for governance, who have the capacity to restore the size of the Parliament.

Will they now do this in time for the next election? 

The parliament has 10 empty seats, just waiting.