The size of parliament is often reduced to one factor - cost.
It's been easy to dismiss increasing the size of the House of Assembly in Tasmania due to the annual cost.
The cost should not be the only factor to determine whether or not the size of parliament should be restored.
Whether we like it or not, politicians play an integral role in our society. And while the occupation is often categorised alongside used car salesmen and even journalists, we need a strong talent pool for any government to prosper.
This pool of talent must include those in government and those in opposition.
There are portfolios within the Tasmanian Government that do not get the attention they deserve simply because of restriction with the number of members.
A great example of this is the Advanced Manufacturing and Defence Industries portfolio.
If Tasmania had a greater number of representatives, perhaps we would see this the main portfolio rather than where it currently sits with the Premier who is also the Minister for Tourism, Trade and Prevention of Family Violence.
Tasmania has not had a Youth Minister for many years and during the recent shake-up, the disability portfolio was controversially scrapped.
While many would look straight at the numbers when it comes to increasing parliament size, what can be forgotten is that investment can reap rewards.
But if we need to look at saving some dollars, perhaps the other topic that no party is willing to be the first to push strongly for is council amalgamations.
This is despite amalgamations having public support in exploring.
We should be looking closely at raising the numbers in the House of Assembly, but at the same time, we should seriously look at saving dollars and becoming more efficient by reducing the number of councils.
A Tasmanian governance revolution perhaps?
It's worth moving on but which party has the gall to move first?