Premier’s health and revised workload is clear Evidence we need more MPs

Peter Chapman says it is imperative the House of Assembly is restored to 35 seats

IN response to your observation (Mercury, September 6) that the “talent pool in state parliament is too small and narrow, Tasmania needs more elected members to represent the state. The workload on cabinet continues to grow but the responsibility is being foisted on too few.

The ministerial loads of work enforced by the arbitrary reduction of the House of Assembly from 35 to 25 seats is both enormous and now a matter for public concern.

There is also another, democratic, aspect: the reduction of parliamentary capacity for constituency representation: Clearly with eight members of the government burdened with excessive multi-portfolio responsibilities, and another occupied with the onerous duties of the Speakership, there is very little capacity left for servicing the vital democratic duties inherent in our parliamentary representative system.

As a review of the issue of the size of parliament as long ago as 1984 declared: “A smaller number of members of parliament [which then included 35 House of Assembly members] would reduce the opportunity for this varied and useful interaction between the public and its representatives. We believe that 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” (Report of the Advisory Committee on the proposed Reduction of the number of Members elected to both Houses of the Tasmanian parliament, 1984, pp 21-22).

With the reduction of the House of Assembly to 25 seats in 1998, it is all too clear this “adverse effect” has now

occurred, while the reciprocal stress on Ministers is a matter of public concern and comment.

We note again that, on February 25, 2020, the House of Assembly of Assembly Select Committee expressly convened to consider the restoration of the House of Assembly to 35 seats unanimously determined, that restoration of the full membership of the House was essential, declaring, that “the cost to democracy and good governance of not having an effective parliament to undertake its functions on behalf of the Tasmanian people, is significantly greater than the monetary cost of restoring the House of Assembly”(clause 2.19,

Findings And Recommendations, Final Report of House of Assembly, Select Committee on the House of Assembly Restoration Bill, p. 9).

Action on this matter is now urgent as recently evidenced, by the necessity of the Premier having to discard two of his ministerial responsibilities because of the excessive burden of work.

We say again the swift restoration of the House of Assembly is essential for the progress of Tasmania as well as the continuing satisfactory management of the stresses of the Covid crisis.

Peter Chapman is the president of the Tasmanian Constitutional Society.