TCCI proposal to add more electorates throws a spanner in works

A seven-electorate model for the House of Assembly would make it harder for minor parties to have a voice and upset plans for democratic and courageous reform,

AT a casual glance, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry proposal to restore the numbers of the House of Assembly to 35 members by having seven electorates with five members does not look much different than the previous method of five electorates with seven members.

However, it is a potentially disruptive spanner that could jeopardise the Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s democratically prudent and politically courageous reform.

It is reminiscent of the tactic used to derail the 1999 republic referendum. Open a debate on how to implement a generally agreed aim and watch the infighting destroy the reform.

In this case, the plausibility for the TCCI suggestion (drawn from an idea advanced by former Labor politician Julian Amos) revolves around how to improve representation by redesigning electorates to make them smaller and so more “representative”.

In effect, the objective is to retain the 1998 goal of setting a quota level so high that it might eliminate small parties and independents from membership in the house.

This is tantamount to holding the restoration of parliamentary numbers hostage to a partisan favour. It was politically corrupt in 1998 and it would be so today.

Readers may recall the chill they felt when an embattled President Volodymyr

Zelensky was told he could get the weapons Congress approved for Ukraine but “I would like you to do us a favour, though.”

The fact is that even the TCCI’s logic for seven electorates is flawed on several levels.

Digital technology has made it easier to redraw electorate boundaries, but this does not mean it is simple as pushing a button. Community interest and compactness are important considerations that will involve significant community consultations to redrawing new electorates across the entire state.

Moreover, the state would bear the cost of redrawing these boundaries whenever a census requires changes due to population fluctuations. These are now done by the commonwealth because the electorate boundaries are the same for both state and federal elections.

Although the TCCI deprecate this connection, the political facts are that having state electorates in common with commonwealth electorates has long been an

asset for voters. They have two bites at the cherry as it were.

State and federal members mutually vie for providing constituency support. Tasmanians will be aware that their representatives at both levels attempt to exploit the ambiguity.

This can present accountability issues but the reinforcement of constituency interests having the same electorate boundaries has done far more good than harm – which is why it has persisted for more than a century.

As far as community interest is concerned, it cannot be forgotten that federally Tasmanian electorates are far more compact and half the size of mainland electorates.

The TCCI letter to the premier is not without merit, nonetheless.

To its credit, the TCCI strongly and cogently supports the restoration of numbers. Secondly, it makes valid points about cost savings and political advisers.

All the alleged cost savings for reducing the number of politicians in 1998 evaporated with the explosion of political minders and media advisers.

The Australasian Study of Parliament Group has looked at the issue of political or bureaucratic minders for ministers on several occasions. The democratic and economic advantages of providing bureaucratic advisers is clear.

Bureaucratic advisers come into their role already knowing how government works.

The corporate knowledge of their experience is preserved rather than being monetarised for careers in lobbying when they leave their role. Severance payments and paying out contracts are minimised.

As the TCCI letter acknowledges, the past quarter century has made it clear that the parliament cannot function properly at its present size. It is unworthy for anyone to seek “a favour though” to correct the error.

Dr Richard Herr is Academic Director of the Parliamentary Law, Practice and Procedure Course, Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania.