Has Tasmania’s Legislative Council outvoted its usefulness?

Left-wing voting bloc threatens role of Upper House, writes Ivan Dean

I TAKE issue with some observations made by my colleague, Ruth Forrest, the Member for Murchison in the Legislative Council, last week (Talking Point, March 19).

She sought to assert that there is no anti-Liberal, therefore anti-government, voting bloc in Tasmania’s Upper House. It is quite clear there is. In fact, the “Left wing” forms a majority of eight in the 15-member chamber.

I don’t disagree with Ms Forrest on the historical background of the council or its function as the house of review in our bicameral system.

What I argue is that it is no longer a true house of review.

The majority voting bloc of eight MPs, four Labor and four independents who consistently vote the Labor way, now serve to obstruct the elected government.

In my terms, these eight have become the de facto government: they decide the fate of bills despite the government in the Lower House having a clear mandate to have their policies enacted.

Respected psephologist Kevin Bonham recently noted: “Although there is a degree of independence in all Legislative Council voting, the council continues to have a fairly clearly defined ‘Left wing’ consisting of the four Labor Party MLCs and independents Mike Gaffney, Ruth Forrest, Kerry Finch and Rob Valentine.”

Dr Bonham said that as a result “the Hodgman Government is struggling to get anything remotely controversial through”.

The evidence is clear when one considers the voting pattern of the council where the major issues brought forward — forestry, mandatory penalties, antidiscrimination, education, water and sewerage legislation (most matters campaigned on by the Liberal Government) — have all been defeated.

The same four independents including, in some cases, other independents, voted with the Labor members to defeat these bills. Some of these members have even been offered and been talked about as ministers in a Labor government.

Contrast this with the period of recent Labor governments. During 16 years of Labor governments and a Labor/Green government, the Legislative Council defeated just three bills, and one of those concerned an issue where the state had no jurisdiction.

However, in the four years of the Liberal Government, the council knocked back eight major bills, yet at the time the Liberal Party enjoyed 51.2 per cent public support and Labor 27.3 per cent.

Ms Forrest argued there had been no social licence for some of these measures and that’s why they were thrown out. If you have gained the support of the majority of Tasmanians, more than 50 per cent of the people, doesn’t that equate to a social licence?

At the recent election, the Hodgman Government secured 50.26 per cent of the vote and the ALP 32.63 per cent.

The Premier campaigned heavily on the introduction of major specific legislative change during its next term and did not seek a general mandate to pursue change.

Does it not have a mandate to enact this legislation?

Has it not gained the social licence citizens expect of their government? I think it does. But back to the basic function of this house.

It is a house of review and not a house of activism or a brick wall, as someone recently put it.

Its role is to review and improve, where necessary,

legislation, to find and avert unintended consequences and to ensure governments are providing good governance and listening to the people who elected them.

Its role is not one of opposition to the House of Assembly; that is, fundamentally challenging a government and doing everything it can to remove it from power.

The council’s job is to guard against hasty and ill-formed legislation.

Having said that, there are occasions where it has been necessary to bring forward legislation at short notice.

This happens with all governments.

Each piece of legislation, irrespective of its genesis, requires the council to make a fair and proper assessment of it and not judge it on the colour of the Government.

Queensland, ACT, NT and New Zealand parliaments have functioned as unicameral jurisdictions for a long period, successfully. In each case the lower house was increased in numbers. Legislation coming before these legislatures is scrutinised closely by a committee and a report provided to the parliament.

The Tasmanian Upper House rarely uses a committee process and relies on briefings and individual work by members.

The question raised here is, would it not be in Tasmania’s best interests to move down this path, that is, become a unicameral parliament?

My critics assert that I have been naive and disrespectful of voters in suggesting they have not been able to make informed and considered decisions when voting for Upper House MPs. That is simply not true. What I am saying is voters would not necessarily consider the status of the sitting members when casting a vote because that status is not widely understood.

The Legislative Council is a house of review or second opinion if you like.

To properly and effectively carry out its intended functions, it should predominantly be made up of independent members who are not ideologically opposed or connected to any party. That is not to say there is no position for party members in the house.

The Government was elected to govern the state of Tasmania. Members of the Upper House have not been elected to govern.

They cannot see themselves as the de facto government.