Democracy loses playing numbers game
THE Tasmania Constitutional Society is pleased by the resolution passed by the Liberal Party state conference to restore the size of Parliament.
The reduction of the size of Parliament in 1998 caused a de-democratisation of the state.
The House of Assembly was enlarged to 35 seats in 1959 on the recommendation of a parliamentary select committee “because the population of the state has nearly doubled and the functions of the government have increased enormously”.
It was arbitrarily reduced in 1998 by 10 seats (29 per cent) by the government of the day, so the House of Assembly now operates at 71 per cent of the capacity it enjoyed nearly 60 years ago when the population was some 350,000, in contrast to the present 510,000.
This places an alarming pressure on ministers, with multiple portfolio responsibilities, as well as diminishing capacity for constituency services and committee activity.
This is astonishing because the general political mantra, particularly of the present Government, is for progress, development and growth. However, in our political culture there seems to be a determined move backwards — to 1959!
We refer to the editorial, “The House had 35 members for decades until … the number was reduced to 25 in a bid to reduce the influence of the Greens. All parties have since agreed the move was a mistake” and “[Restoring numbers] would almost certainly lead to better outcomes” ( Mercury, September 24). We emphatically agree. Though the present Premier in opposition said “the Tasmanian Liberals are absolutely supportive of returning the number of members in the House of Assembly to 35”, and in 2010 signed an agreement with the other major parties to do so, he has since declined to pursue this reform.
And though the present Opposition Leader said: “I do think the Tasmanian Parliament would function better with more members, not just because of the [work] loading on portfolio holders but also the committee work that’s required — it gives you greater depth on your backbench and strengthens your talent pool” ( Australian, March 27, 2017), she has yet to make this a major issue.
Commentator Saul Eslake observed: “We need to reverse the 1988 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 effective parliamentary committee system” (Talking Point, Mercury, June 9).
Can it be that Tasmanian democracy is being retarded by an obsession with majority government? Many times this correspondent has heard (from the House of Assembly public gallery) items introduced with reference to the present “majority government”. The phrase may seem reassuring, but it militates against the essential Tasmanian democratic ethos.
As long ago as 1887 Andrew Inglis Clark warned “power wielded by a majority may be used as oppressively as if it were exercised by a despot or an oligarchy, and the doctrine of the natural and fundamental rights of the individual is as condemnatory of the oppression in the one case as in the other”.
As a solution Inglis Clark recommended “a system of electing representatives which will ensure the presence in the legislature of representatives of all opinions” (in his 1895 essay Why I am a Democrat). This was the essence of our Hare-Clark electoral system, which was severely damaged by the reduction of 1998.
The Legislative Council passed resolutions on governance on November 27 last year that included a call for an independent review of the membership of Parliament, which was supported by arguments for the restoration of critical mass to our Parliament. We note then deputy president of the Legislative Council Greg Hall’s comments that the size of Parliament does “affect the quality of decision-making and debate that occurs in the Tasmanian Parliament” (Letters, Mercury, February 7).
The Tasmanian Parliament has been the cradle of democracy in Australia. It has been significantly damaged by reduction and ought to be repaired so as to restore the substance and spirit of the Tasmanian democratic ethos, and restore vitality, capacity and morale to the Parliament. Peter Chapman is president of the Tasmanian Constitutional Society.