Six months ago, you would never have believed it, as the behaviour in the Tasmanian lower house sank to very low levels indeed.

Coronavirus: All the latest updates on COVID-19 for Tasmania

But one of the great advantages to terrible circumstances is that it brings all people together - one can only watch in awe as Premier Peter Gutwein shoulders a level of responsibility and demonstrates the excellence of leadership only seen in times of global military conflict.

As the battle of COVID-19 rages on with the dreadful personal and economic effects and fought with a commendable unity of purpose, one wonders what other 'wicked' problems could be solved with a similar appreciation for the power of working together.

Not, of course, while the state fixes most of its energies towards slowing the invasion of COVID-19, but perhaps as we emerge from the current malaise.

Two topics that emerge from time to time, that could well be addressed through a bipartisan approach, are the size of the Tasmanian parliament and the vexed issue of local government reform.

Both major parties would privately agree that reform of local government is necessary and overdue.

How that reform is undertaken successfully is deeper than simply waiting for neighbouring councils to fall into marriages of convenience.

It is a very complicated area that can't simply be portrayed as 'fewer councils': it needs leadership and a joint approach to solve, recognising that members on both sides of the house have expertise and experience.

It also needs to recognise that the simple amalgamation of council boundaries perhaps isn't the right way forward, but a bipartisan view on the structure of local government that serves the community for decades to come, is. Similarly, the size of the lower house, the House of Assembly, is almost universally held as being too small.

All three parties agreed to increase the size back to 35 members in 2010 before the Liberals backed out of that in 2011 when the state was in difficult financial circumstances.

A thoroughly objective analysis of current risk would again show it to be too small - no corporation worth its salt would place so much on so few people, where we see ministers, however, individually capable, holding four or five different, and key, portfolios.

The crisis only serves to reinforce that observation.