Stop short-changing Tasmanians
Leaders showed statesmanship in agreeing to restore the House, and we need that more than ever, writes Peter Chapman
One of the number one rules of politics is when someone proposes changes to the way our electoral system operates, those changes are almost always in that person’s own self interest, writes Brad Stansfield (Talking Point, November 9).
He then criticises those who would “push to increase the parliament to 35” without addressing the real issue, which is that those who argue for a parliament of 35 are not arguing for an increase to 35 members, but for a restoration of the House of Assembly to 35 members.
That was the parliament Tasmania had from 1960 to 1998, when the state enjoyed both tolerable ministerial administration and a House of Assembly able to address the concerns of the Tasmanian public, before “change proposers”, to quote Brad Stansfield, reduced it!
In 1960 a parliamentary select committee successfully recommended increasing the membership of the House of Assembly to 35 seats, arguing “the population of the state has nearly doubled and the functions of the government have increased enormously”. The population was 350,000.
In 1984 the size of the House was reviewed by an advisory committee on the proposed reduction of the numbers of members to both houses of the Tasmanian parliament, commissioned by the Liberal government of then-premier Robin Gray.
It reported, “it would not be in the best interests in the state of Tasmania for a reduction of the numbers of members of parliament to be included among measures to be taken to economise in the cost of Government to the state”.
The committee further reported “that regular contact between a member of parliament and his or her constituents is of prime importance … any significant reduction in the present number of members in the Tasmanian parliament could have an adverse effect on the nature and quality of public influence on members of parliament”.
These were wise words and were heeded by the “change proposers”, of the day, and the House of Assembly continued usefully with its 35 seats.
The wise words were ignored in 1998 when, in the name of “reform” and pursuit of policy, the House was arbitrarily reduced by the vote of the major parties to 25 seats, a 29 per cent decrease at a time when the mantra of the major parties was growth.
The result has been as foretold by the 1984 committee: a drastic reduction in the contact between MPs and constituents: the population has risen from 350,000 to 510,000, but the House of Assembly reduced by 29 per cent: a further consequence was the burdening of ministers with multiple portfolios because of the inevitable shrinkage of the numbers able to hold them.
These consequences have diminished the capacity of the House and the confidence of the public in both the institution and its members.
This is because the motives of the “proposers of change” were all too clear: the elimination of inconvenient minority parties.
As former minister David Llewellyn reported in 2011 there had been a “conspiring … between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to reduce the size of parliament on the basis that it would take more percentage from minor parties to actually win a seat … And I think that was wrong”. This was also noted by distinguished historian Henry Reynolds who wrote in 2012 that “carrying the populist banner of reducing the number of politicians the two parties [Liberal and Labor] conspired to reduce the House of Assembly from 35 to 25 members this had the effect of significantly raising the barrier to any aspiring third party candidate”.
The reduction of parliament has therefore been an affront to the democratic spirit, and indeed to the
memory of Andrew Inglis Clark, in whose honour ironically the former electorate of Denison has been renamed.
In 1887, Clark wrote “power wielded by a majority may be used as oppressively as if it were exercised by a despot or an oligarchy” and recommended “a system of electing representatives which will ensure the presence in the legislature of representatives of all opinions”.
This is the essence of our Hare-Clark system, and the attenuation of it has damaged our political morale.
In 2010, the leaders of the three major parties, including the present premier, showed some statesmanship in formally agreeing to restore the membership of the House of Assembly.
Regrettably the agreement collapsed. It is time for the same statesmanship to be shown, and the House of Assembly restored to a membership of 35 seats.