Do a better job with the same MPs

No need for a bigger parliament, but we could rejig ministries, says Doug Chipman

MUCH has been said about restoring the size of the House of Assembly from 25 members to 35, the latest “We need all MPs on deck for this job” (Peter Chapman, Talking Point, July 9). However, the case for an increase simply does not pass the pub test.

The capacity of any parliament to hold government to account depends on the relative strength of government vis-avis opposition.

Where the government has a strong majority, it can influence the agenda of the House and the way business is conducted to manage scrutiny. Where government and opposition numbers are finely balanced, scrutiny of government business by the opposition is usually more intense.

Small can work. While we can of course point to many differences between Tasmania and the ACT, I am genuinely impressed with the ACT Legislative Assembly. With no Upper House and only 25 members, the Labor/Greens Government has a majority of just one. The House is responsible for both state and local government issues.

Family and friends of mine living in Canberra, of all political persuasions, attest to being able to access their political representatives easily, to the good functioning of the House and to the Government delivering on its election platform. The Chief Minister is the Treasurer, and all eight ministers each have four or five portfolios.

Large is no guarantor of success. Some of us remember chaos at times in the Tasmanian Lower House late last century when it still had 35 members. We have all seen the British House of Commons in total disarray during Brexit machinations, and our own federal parliament has been dysfunctional at times in recent years when government did not have a clear majority. It is the makeup of the House that determines its functioning, not size.

Having more ministers would simply increase the existing stovepipe nature of

MAJOR PARTIES ALREADY STRUGGLE TO FIND FIVE HIGH-QUALITY CANDIDATES FOR EACH ELECTORATE

government and invariably lead to more liaison officers, more bureaucrats, more red tape and even more time wasted in decision making.

Currently Tasmania has nine ministers and nine departments and most are served by more than one department and most department heads report to more than one minister.

A lot of unnecessary time and effort is already required by ministers and departmental heads dealing with issues across portfolio boundaries.

A significant improvement could be achieved by directly aligning the nine ministers exclusively to the nine departments.

Finally, I am concerned that having seven members in each electorate will reduce the quality of our representation.

Major parties already struggle to find five highquality candidates for each electorate, and we have seen at times through countbacks following midterm resignations or retirements the most unlikely people elected to the House.

It is incredible to suggest that for one electorate, seven elected members are required to represent the people at the state level when only one is necessary at federal level.

I cannot see how the very expensive decision to restore the Legislative Assembly to 35 members can possibly enhance the quality of representation, improve parliament’s capacity to hold government to account or reduce the workload on ministers. Indeed, an expansion of the House may have the opposite effect.

Doug Chipman is a former state president of the Liberal Party and is the Mayor of Clarence. His views here are personal.