Expansion of House of Assembly Bill

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, the Expansion of House of Assembly Bill 2022 is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that have come before us in this place.  It is also legislation nearly 25 years in the making.  Although there are no current members of parliament who were also members at the time of the 1998 cut to MP numbers, there may be some who followed the public controversy at that time – some more closely, perhaps, than others.  I certainly was one of them.  For some, the mention of the Ogilvie Report and the Morling inquiry will immediately resonate.  For others, this is getting into the realms of ancient history and hence I will indulge in a quick overview to set us up for discussion on this bill.

Prior to 1958, the House of Assembly consisted of 30 seats, as we have heard.  The problematic nature of a Chamber with even numbers became apparent following the 1955 state election, which saw 15 Labor MPs and 15 Liberal MPs returned.  In May 1958, the Assembly passed the Labor government’s bill – under the premier, Robert Cosgrove – to increase the Assembly from 30 to 35 members on the model of seven member MPs from five electorates.  This was passed by the Legislative Council in December of that year, seeing the first Assembly elections for 35 MPs held in May 1959.

The public record shows that since the early 1980s, the two major parties have flirted with the idea of reducing the number of MPs elected to the Tasmanian Parliament.  Coincidentally, it was in the early 1980s that we saw the emerging trend of Green or progressive Independents.  We saw Dr Bob Brown and minor party Independents like Norm Sanders from the Australian Democrats securing representation in our lower House here.  However, the Liberal Party’s preferred model for the entire parliament was for 44 MPs, which could not be reconciled with the Labor Party’s preferred model of 40 MPs.

In attempts to find a circuit breaker and seek justification for reducing MP numbers, two key independent inquiries were established.

The first inquiry resulted in the 1984 Ogilvie Report.  In 1983 the Advisory Committee on the Proposed Reduction in the Number of Members Elected to Both Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament, otherwise known as the Ogilvie Report, was established by the Liberal premier, Robin Gray.

In 1984, the Ogilvie Report recommended the following:

• No. 3 recommendation – retention of the existing number of members of the House of Assembly is desirable to minimise the risk of deadlocks and balance of power situations occurring, and to maximise the effectiveness of the Hare-Clark electoral system so that a majority of voters is likely to represented by a majority of members in the House of Assembly; and

• No. 4 recommendation – the present size of the House of Assembly is appropriate when considered in the light of the history of the Tasmanian Parliament, the growth in governmental functions and activities and the growth in Tasmania’s population since the inception of responsible government in 1856. 

Mr President, on 1 November 1984, then premier Robin Gray delivered a ministerial statement in response to the Ogilvie Report declaring that, due to its recommendation to not reduce the number of MPs, his government would no longer pursue that policy. 

Ten years later in 1994, the Board of Inquiry into the Size and Constitution of the Tasmanian Parliament, the Morling inquiry, was established by the Liberal premier, Ray Groom.  The Morling report also advised against the reduction in MP numbers and, amongst others, recommended the following:

(1) A House of Assembly with fewer than 35 members would have difficulty in discharging adequately its functions as the House of Government.  We do not think the reduction in the numbers of members of the Assembly should be made at the risk of impairing its ability to discharge those functions 

and also:

(2) We recommend that members of the Assembly should continue to be elected from the existing five electorates, each returning seven members.

As we see here, we are building a picture of our actions being taken now being in line with evidence presented through expert processes of the past.  However, despite both those independent inquiries at that time, each of which held extensive rounds of public consultations and being unequivocal in their advice against cutting MP numbers, the notion continued to be pushed.  Following the 1996 state election, which returned the Rundle minority government, calls to cut the numbers returned to the parliamentary agenda.

It is worth noting that part of this push to reduce MP numbers included the option of abolishing the Legislative Council and a move to a unicameral system.  This was consistent with the Morling inquiry which, although being explicit about the preferred option being no cut to numbers, did state that if reducing MPs remained an imperative, the best way to provide a functioning parliament was to move to a unicameral model.

This did not sit well with the members of the upper House at the time, which saw fit to pass a motion in October 1997 supporting a model of 25 MPs in the Assembly and no fewer than 15 MLCs, which was the Labor model at that time.  It is also worth noting it took two attempts in 1998 to pass legislation to cut the number of MPs.  On 21 May 1998, the Labor opposition brought on for debate their bill to cut numbers and establish five electorates with five MPs as a model for the Assembly.

Although the bill was defeated, Liberal backbencher Bob Cheek MP controversially crossed the floor and voted with Labor.  Barely two months later following an unpopular budget, predicated upon the sale of Hydro, on Monday 13 July 1998, Liberal premier Tony Rundle announced parliament will be recalled for a special sitting on Wednesday 22 July 1998 to reduce the size of Tasmania’s parliament.  This would be done by first taking the highly unusual step of rescinding the previous 25 May vote, defeating Labor’s model, and to enable the Assembly’s Standing Orders of the House to re-debate the same bill with the five-by-five model.

The second time around, within the space of two months, the initially defeated bill passed the Assembly on 22 July 1998.  The following day on the 23 July, the bill passed the Legislative Council, which saw its numbers reduced from 19 MLCs to the current 15.  Then, on 29 August that same year, the first general election returning 25 MPs to the Assembly was held.  The shocking thing that leaps out from this chronology, noting there is more than one shocking aspect to this history, what it leaves out is that from Tony Rundle’s announcement on 13 July 1998 that the Liberals were going to change their opposition to the 25 MP model and the recall of parliament to specially vote for it, and to that vote on 22 July, the intervening period to expand was a whole nine days, ten days to include the upper House passing the bill unamended.

Ten days in which to entrench what has now been almost 25 years of, to some argument, a dysfunctional parliament, with eroded representation in the lower House.  However, throughout those ten days, urgent voices were raised urging caution.  There was a packed Hobart Town Hall meeting opposing the cuts.  Many notable political commentators from around the nation raised concerns, including the Proportional Representation Society.

On 20 July 1998, an open letter to members of the House of Assembly and Legislative Council, calling for the cuts to be abandoned was published, signed by noted Tasmanian political scientists, Dr Rick Snell, Dr Kate Crowley, Dr Ralph Chapman, Dr Dallas Hanson, Professor David Hogan, Associate Professor Richard Herr, Associate Professor Peter Hay, Dr Bruce Davis, Associate Professor John Todd, and Professor W.A. Townsley.  Yet, as history tells us, those calls were ignored, along with the findings of the previous two independent inquiries.

Recent history also continued reiterating those findings of the reports a 35-member Assembly is the minimum required.  Due to time constraints, I will not go into a great detail of the post-1998 media reports inquiry supporting the restoration of the Assembly numbers, but for completion of the time line, I will cite each chronologically.  In 2009, we had the Joint Selection Committee on Ethical Conduct Final Report, ‘Public Office is Public Trust’ (No. 24), which raised the need to revisit restoring MP numbers.

In September 2010, the three party leaders signed the agreement on parliamentary reform, which included restoring Assembly numbers to 35 along the five electorates by seven MPs model.  On 8 March 2011, the review of the proposal to restore the House of Assembly to 35 by independent appointee Emeritus Professor Peter J. Boyce AO was tabled and recommended the restoration of the Assembly to 35, by five electorates, each returning seven MPs.  

In 2020, the House of Assembly Select Committee, established in 2019, on House of Assembly Restoration Bill, releases its final report which unanimously recommended the restoration of the Assembly to 35, on 5 electorates, each returning seven MPs model.

The latest source of expertise-based information is with the Tasmanian Electoral Commission’s advice to the Premier in relation to revising Tasmania’s electoral boundaries from five to seven divisions, released on 9 August 2022, although the TEC report focused upon the logistical considerations, more so than matters of policy.  This bill before us, though, is consistent with the TEC findings in that document.

It is also worth noting that Tasmanians and we, here in parliament, have had considerably more than 10 days in which to consider and absorb the Premier’s proposed changes to the Assembly, since his initial announcement on 25 May 2022, to return to the 35 Assembly MPs.  Then this subsequent confirmation of 9 August 2022, to return to the former model of seven MPs from five electorates.  This is a very welcome contrast to the time frame of 24 years ago.

That is the backdrop of the bill before us and while the consultation process and time frame may be an improvement of the process that occurred in 1998, we have to ask, how does this bill measure up?

At the outset, the bill’s title, the Expansion, is a bit of a misnomer.  This bill expands, or restores, the House of Assembly, to its pre-1998 cut in numbers and it also seeks to expand the allowable number of Cabinet members.  The bill does not alter the current composition of the Legislative Council, which is not returning to the pre-1998 number of 19 MLCs.

This may appear a minor point of semantics; however, previous reports and inquiries have specifically used language of ‘restore the Assembly’, to accurately reflect the scope of their respective recommendations, and to recognise that the Council is part of the parliament, but outside the scope of their investigations and findings.

We, in the Legislative Council, have not been offered an explanation as to why this specific accuracy of recommendations leading up to this point has suddenly been abandoned, despite being part of this parliament, and the part that is not expanding.  It is a point of interest.  I will leave it at that, in terms of making a comment.

Clause 4 of the bill, section 8A amended (Limit on number of Ministers of the Crown),  as mentioned previously, seeks to amend the Constitution Act 1934 to expand the allowable number of ministers.  This goes beyond returning to the pre-1998 numbers of Cabinet ministers.  That pre-1998, 35 MP Assembly may do with 10 ministers, yet this bill seeks to increase the number to 11 ministers.  Ten with the Cabinet Secretary.

We have heard this is to better futureproof future governments and even in the instance of a future majority government, which would require 18 seats at least, a front bench of 11 ministers is still ministerial heavy when compared with the remaining backbench of seven that would allow.  We have to acknowledge this is an improvement on current and recent situations.

I look at clause 5 of the bill, section 8I inserted.  It is also not something that was in place in 1998 and nor was it included in the exposure draft of the bill released for public consultation.  However, it is a welcome addition, as it seeks to provide the formalisation of the requirement of any ministerial and/or Cabinet appointment, to be formerly published in the Government Gazette.  My experience is that such gazettals are established practice in Tasmania; however, it is worthwhile formalising that requirement, unlike recent experiences in the federal parliament which potentially prompted the inclusion of this clause in this bill.  This is a good transparency and accountability measure and it is to be commended.

While most of the bill appears as was expected, given the nature of the Premier’s announcements and the subsequent release of the TEC advice, some concerns have been raised regarding the amendments to the Electoral Act 2004, under Part 3 of the bill.  These concerns specifically focus on the need for specified measures to address the risk of increased informal votes, due to the legislated requirement, commencing from the next general state election, for voters to number a minimum of one to seven on the ballot papers.

As many of us here would recall, we had a similar debate regarding the proposal to introduce vote-saving measures and mandating the new compulsory voting requirements in the recent local government elections.

However, for state elections, none of the submissions received on the draft exposure bill proposed specific vote-saving measures as was introduced for the local council elections.  Instead, Dr Kevin Bonham, did emphasise his support for the current bill is conditional, on the following: 

(1) At the time of the bill’s introduction, the Government commit to resourcing the TEC to conduct a major, multi-media voter education campaign, aimed at not only ensuring voters are aware of the need to number seven boxes, but also at combatting the three commonest forms of unintended informal voting:  omission and repetition of numbers; multiple first preferences; and use of ticks and crosses.

(2) At the time of the bill’s introduction the TEC be asked to prepare a report identifying any and all savings provisions that can adopted to reduce the number of votes disallowed as informal without severely compromising the operation of the voting system or the accuracy of the ballot paper instructions, with a view to legislating any provisions thus identified by the end of 2023.

Personally, I think ongoing and concerted public education campaigns on how to cast an informed and formal vote is always an investment in the health and robustness of our active democracy, no matter the official rate of informal voting actually occurring.  While, to some degree, I share Dr Bonham’s concerns regarding the rate of informal voting in our elections, I believe there may be a broader range of reasons rather than just voters’ capacity to number one to seven.

The recent TEC 2019 to 2021 Report on Parliamentary Elections details its informal ballot paper survey, on page 31 of that report, which provides a breakdown of unintentional informality trends.  It reveals the following:  the category with the largest number of invalidating errors is due to voters marking their ballot paper with ticks or crosses instead of numbers.  This error is not due to voters losing track of voting either one-to-five or one-to-seven, but it reflects the fundamental lack of understanding on how to vote in state elections.  The next highest category recorded repetitions or omissions between the numbers two-to-five, and this is a relevant category to these specific concerns regarding the one-to-seven potentially increasing the risk of informal votes.  The third highest category of informal votes was due to voters repeating the number (1) two or more times.  This error also reflects a fundamental lack of understanding on how to vote in state elections.

We need to be clear on all contributing factors to the rate of informal votes, particularly unintended informal votes.  This data already collated by the TEC points to the need for increased research and investment in pre-election voter education, as very admirably called for by Dr Bonham.  I am particularly interested in a further breakdown detailing the voting experience of first-time voters, either because it is their first time voting since they turned 18 years old or that they are new to Tasmania.  For example, how, when and where do they get their information regarding how to vote in our Hare-Clark system?  There would be a range of other factors which may also be at play here such as literacy or disengagement.

I want to hear from the Government on whether the TEC will be specifically resourced to undertake a major multimedia voter education campaign to ensure voters are aware of the need to number seven boxes and also to combat the three identified most common forms of unintended informal voting: omission, repetition of numbers and multiple first preferences.

Ms Forrest – The Electoral Commission has a very good video about the Hare-Clark system on their website and it has been very effective in educating the people.

Ms WEBB – Hopefully, people have seen it.  It would be great to look into.

Ms Forrest – I have often shared it with people.

Ms WEBB – Absolutely.  That is why the suggestion of looking into how people are getting that information and whether those excellent resources are being utilised as best they can, is a good suggestion.

To finish that thought, I am also interested to know from the Government if that is to be a task given to the TEC for an education campaign or research into those matters; when that may be undertaken; and will it be done prior to the first election under a new model that we bring in, in this bill, should it pass?

There were also other key significant opportunities missed by the Government when bringing forward this bill and its electoral reforms.  I will touch on some of those.

Just as the restoration of the House of Assembly back to a viable 35 MPs is long overdue, as the Premier said, so is the provision of dedicated Tasmanian Aboriginal seats in this parliament.  The 2020 report of the House of Assembly Select Committee on the House of Assembly Restoration Bill presented 35 findings and two unanimous recommendations, remembering that that committee inquiry was a tripartite one.  This bill before us delivers on the first of those unanimous recommendations.  Yet, the second unanimous recommendation continues to be ignored, which called for, and I quote from that report:

That a Joint Parliamentary Inquiry be established in this term of Parliament to develop a preferred model that provides for dedicated seats for Tasmanian Aboriginal people in the Parliament.

While that preferred model may not have been identified and developed by this bill’s time frame, it is a shame that the recommended joint parliamentary inquiry was not at least concurrently established to ensure that important, and as equally overdue, work could at least have commenced and be in progress.  I recognise also that the Pathway to Truth-Telling and Treaty Report has also required consultative processes to be established.  However, I doubt a parliamentary inquiry exploring how best to provide for dedicated seats for our Tasmanian Aboriginal citizens would interfere with those other processes.  If anything, an inquiry on that may help inform those other processes.

Ms Forrest – Was there an inquiry proposed?  Is that what you are suggesting?

Ms WEBB – The recommendation from that.

Ms Forrest – Oh, the recommendation, but it was not moved in the parliament, was it?

Ms WEBB – No, while it was recommended by that previous inquiry, it was never taken up and taken forward.

Ms Forrest – That was a while ago, though?

Ms WEBB – It was 2019.  That is why I am speaking about it here as a missed opportunity, given we are progressing one of the two unanimous recommendations.  That was the second unanimous recommendation from that tripartite committee, which we have not taken the opportunity to progress in a meaningful fashion alongside this.  I ask the Leader whether she can provide an update on whether and how the Government intends to progress the long overdue matter of resolving dedicated seats for Tasmanian Aboriginal people in this parliament.

Another long overdue electoral reform which would add to the accountability and potentially the productivity of governments of the day, is the introduction of fixed four-year terms.  All other states, and the two territories, have already legislated fixed terms for government.  Tasmania is the outlier in that regard.  Arguments for fixed-year terms include greater certainty and accountability for the electorate.  Fixed terms have been shown elsewhere to reduce the impact of short-term political drama and provide for a more strategic approach to decision-making and delivery and fixed terms have been shown to support stable economic activity.  Evidence shows that businesses and consumers tend to hold off on investment during election periods and the faux election periods that precede them, when everyone is shadow-boxing about when the premier of the day is going to drive to Government House.

Further, fixed year terms would make for a fairer system in this state.  For example, it would provide a clear reminder to voters to update their electoral roll arrangements, if they had moved residence, and that was pointed out by an APH research paper from 2008.  For newer voters, there might be a rise in the proportion of young people placing their name on the roll for the first time due to the predictability of a fixed election cycle.  

Quoting The Age editorial from 13 September, 2007:

Such a change to the electoral arrangements would enable voters to enrol or update their details in good time and not be caught out by the calling of an election and thus disenfranchised by new laws that will close the electoral rolls on the day writs are issued.  It will take a brave leader to introduce such a bold electoral reform, but it will build public trust in a functioning, modern democracy.  

This reform is long-overdue.

That was from The Age in Victoria when they were contemplating such a thing in that state.  Since then, Victoria has introduced fixed four-year terms and it is long overdue that Tasmania had a similar debate and looked to progress this in this state.  It is a shame that it was not done alongside consideration of the matters in this bill.

Credit must go to the Premier, Jeremy Rockliff, for finally taking the plunge to break the decades-long paralysis that gripped both Labor and Liberal parties on this matter.  It has been a refreshing example of decisive leadership.

Mr Duigan – Hear, hear.

Ms WEBB – Never let it be said.  I am glad you are listening, Mr Duigan, member for Windermere.  A position was announced along with a course of action outlined, a commitment to release an exposure draft bill for public consultation and an estimated time frame by which the community could see the bill tabled in the parliament.  However, a lingering doubt remains in my mind, not a doubt about whether restoring the Assembly numbers is the right thing to do – absolutely, I believe it is – but a doubt about whether the lesson has been learnt.

It is all very well for the Labor and Liberal parties, the business lobby and others who lobbied in 1998 to cut MP numbers, to now admit to some form of buyer’s remorse.  I am sure some of those former advocates for MP cuts are genuine when they now express concern about the erosion of democratic representation and the entrenchment of dysfunction in our parliament.

Ms Forrest – Are they falling on their swords?

Ms WEBB – Well, no, that is what I am getting to.  However, it is not being cynical to state up-front that, in many cases, the changed tune now being sung from former advocates of a smaller Assembly is influenced by the fact that the changes they sought did not deliver the benefits they expected would flow to fuel their respective interest.

As former Labor minister, David Llewellyn, said on ABC radio on 13 May 2011:

…. and I could admit now, I guess, as being part of the government back in 1998 or 1997 in conspiring – I suppose that’s not the best of words but I think that’s what it was – 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.  I’ll admit it was wrong and I think we really should do something about that.

Another commentator describes in a 2015 Mercury Talking Point Opinion Piece, the Labor and Liberal parties sought to remake the parliament in their own image.  Yet, as history tells us, this was not achieved.  The Greens have retained continual representation in the Assembly since the 1998 cut and at the last 2021 state election, the electorate of Clark also returned an unaligned Independent, additional to the Greens, Labor and Liberal representatives.  Nor did the shrunken Assembly provide the promised stable majority government.

As political commentators and experts warned in 1998, the shrunken Assembly exposed the state to more frequent minority governments and indeed, 2010 to 2014 was such a government.  Nor was majority automatically stable, whether due to scandals resulting in government and ministerial resignations, plummeting public confidence and as we have experienced more recently, the spluttering stop-start due to proroguing of parliament should a government member retire from parliament while it is in session presenting a continual litany of disruption across these intervening decades.

The ongoing instability and lack of confidence, despite majority governments being in place, resulted in the TCCI acknowledging in 2016 that good governance was the crucial ingredient, rather than whether the state has a majority or minority government.

Clearly, Madam Deputy President, they were not going to stop campaigning for the former, but this was a huge admission the 1998 cuts had been counterproductive from one of the loudest voices calling for those cuts at the time.  The point being, as mentioned earlier, there was a substantial, considered and rigorous research and evidence base provided to the decision-makers of 1998 warning them of the problems posed by the cuts and the magnitude of the ramifications for democracy, good governance and the parliament’s capacity to fulfil its functions.

This was acknowledged by the Premier during his second reading speech which the Leader has reiterated in this Chamber.  The information was there, the advice was there – nobody involved at the time can say they were not warned of the serious and deep ramifications of their decision to reduce the numbers, especially in the Assembly.  Yet self-interest at the time won out.

It could be said, there is a considerable element of self-interest driving this belated and long-overdue move to restore Assembly numbers.  Just as the 1998 cut to numbers was driven by what was perceived to be in the best interests of the major political parties at the time, it also appears this long-overdue move to undo that costly mistake is also driven, in no small degree, by the perception it is now in the best interests of those same major parties to do so.

As the Premier indicated in his second reading speech, the additional amendments to the Constitution Act 1934 contained in this bill to expand the current allowable members of Cabinet is needed to futureproof the government of the day.  It is probably a sensible and healthy recognition and provision, absolutely.  Recognising that as such does not negate, also recognising that the move to restore numbers is now perceived by the major parties to better the chances of those who achieve power to remain in power.

This is further highlighted when considering the 2010 tripartite agreement of parliamentary reform mentioned earlier signed on 2 September 2010 by then premier David Bartlett, the then Liberal opposition leader, Will Hodgman and then leader of the Greens, Nick McKim.  Yet on 16 February 2011 – months later – the Liberal opposition leader, Will Hodgman, suddenly withdrew his support, followed the next day by then premier Lara Giddings, despite the fact Labor presumably would still have had numbers with the Greens’ support.  Also despite the commissioned independent review established as part of delivering that tripartite agreement undertaken by Emeritus Professor Peter Boyce AO being still under way at the time.  This review was still tabled in parliament on 8 March 2011 and recommended the Assembly be restored to 35 and yet the agreement disintegrated.

The theory circulating at the time, as an attempt to explain the sudden abandonment of the tripartite, was neither major party expected the minority government at that time to go full term.  However, each of those two major parties thought it would be to their advantage in the next election that they expected to soon hold, to have to secure fewer seats to achieve government under a 25-seat model than potentially they would have to do under a restored assembly of 35.  Whether that theory was wholly or partially correct, suffice to say it again indicates how many previous attempts to restore a functioning parliament were evaluated through the lens of particular political party interests which then took precedence over other considerations.

Clearly the revolving doors experienced in both parties of government and to a lesser degree opposition, the slim majorities exacerbated by non-conformist speakers, at times, and a minimal backbench with which to replace those existing, has proven to be a motivating factor for the bill before us.

It is not a coincidence that the Premier, Mr Rockliff, moved to break the paralysis on this matter after the fifth government member since the 2021 state election stood down from the ministry or the parliament with two of those occasions seeing the government resort to proroguing the parliament twice within four months to protect its numbers on the Floor of the House; once when former premier, Mr Gutwein, resigned in April this year and again when former minister, Jacquie Petrusma resigned in July.

Clearly, more MPs in such situations would be in the interests of the government of the day.  In this case, self-interest wins out over former ideological positions which is where the small voice of concern now makes itself heard above the sighs of relief that restoration is imminent.

It is of note and concern those key self-interested voices that justified the debilitation of our parliament in 1998 to themselves and to others, despite all available advice, while now saying the move to restoration of the Assembly is long overdue largely remains silent on accepting responsibility for those actions which see us here debating the bill today.

This lack of public acceptance and acknowledgement of responsibility is worrying.  It also raises the question – to what extent has this lesson been learnt, particularly by those political parties, other organisations and sectors which drove the initial 1998 cut?

The only organisation I am aware of which has come out formerly and officially to say – you have it wrong – is the Mercury.

On the 29 June 2007 a Mercury editorial stated: 

Back in the 1990s this newspaper argued in favour of a smaller parliament and abolition of the Upper House.

It is prepared to acknowledge past mistakes.  Now the Upper House is all that stands between the Government and absolute power.

A year later on the 28 June 2008, the Mercury editorial reiterated: 

This newspaper supported a smaller parliament when the Labor and Liberal parties introduced the change in 1998, but now acknowledges that it was a mistake.

Also, individuals such as Greg Barnes have also publicly acknowledged their role in the 1998 mistake.  Mr Barnes is reported as saying that he: 

… regrets pushing for a reduction in the number of seats in Tasmania’s House of Assembly when he was working as a senior adviser to ex-Liberal premier, Ray Groom, more than 25 years ago.

Also, the former President of this Chamber, the honourable Sue Smith, who used the opportunity of her valedictory speech in this place on the 18 April 2013 to warn: 

The people of Tasmania should accept and acknowledge that the cuts in the House of Assembly have cost them.

…

My opinion at the time the number cut came was, if the House of Assembly think they can work with 25, why should we in the Legislative Council interfere, but that was wrong.  That did a disservice to the members there and it did a bigger disservice to the people of Tasmania because we had a wider brief than just if that is what they want to do, we should not interfere.

The public shows at least one media outlet and some individuals involved at the time had taken public responsibility for their lobbying or actions contributing to the fateful decision almost 25 years ago.

We have yet to see or hear similar formal statements acknowledging responsibility by those, particularly the parties involved, who were architects of the cuts at the time and they have resisted restoration until now.

Why should acceptance or otherwise of responsibility matter so much?  Why am I raising this now?  Because acceptance of responsibility is the first indicator that a lesson has been learnt.  Importantly, a lesson learnt has a good chance of not being repeated and that is why this silence on accepting responsibility from key players is concerning.  To some extent, I find it unnerving.

If all of the evidence and expertise available in 1998 could be so wilfully ignored at times due to perceived best interests, we cannot presume something similar may not occur some time in the future when the composition of some future parliament is not to the liking of powerful vested interests of the major parties.

None of us has a crystal ball and I hope this lesson is learnt and any distant future reforms to Tasmania’s parliament are fully informed and fully involve the Tasmanian community at the time.

Earlier, I mentioned two potential missed opportunities for greater electoral reform, establishing the clear process for determining dedicated seats for Tasmanian Aboriginal people and also legislating fixed four-year terms.  In addition to those, there was another missed opportunity in the development of this bill to further strengthen our democracy, particularly against potential partisan ideologically driven changes where what may be in the party’s best interests is presented as being in the community’s best interests.

There was an opportunity for the consultation process here to also canvass further amendments to the Constitution Act 1934, requiring either a referendum on any future structural and/or composition changes to either House of this parliament or at least requiring a two-thirds majority vote in each Chamber on any bill seeking structural or composition changes to either House.  As members may be aware, section 41A of the Constitution Act 1934 currently requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly should that Chamber seek to amend section 23 of that act, which establishes maximum terms for that House.

There is a constitutional precedent for acquiring a higher threshold when it comes to fundamental alterations to some aspects of the House of Government.  Just as the Premier went beyond simply returning the Assembly to 35 MPs by putting out to consultation his proposal to expand the allowable numbers in Cabinet in an effort to futureproof future governments as part of this bill, there was an opportunity to also consult on requiring a two-thirds vote for future structural change and/or requiring a referendum on any such change in order to futureproof future parliaments.

Neither are a panacea in themselves necessarily, but they do raise the decision-making bar.  They would immediately signal that such a decision is not to be taken lightly and requires specific and focused engagement with the Tasmanian electorate.  

To conclude, as I noted in my opening statements, this is incredibly significant legislation, yet its passage through the parliament thus far has occurred almost without any murmur or public comment.

That may be because, in the minds of many, this has been inevitable, if a long time, coming, an example of the parliament finally catching up with an informed community sentiment.  The provisions to restore the House of Assembly to 35 MPs consisting of seven MPs from the current five electorates is consistent with the recommendations the 1984 report, the Advisory Committee on the Proposed Reduction in the Number of Members Elected to both Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament, known as the Ogilvie Report.  Similarly, the provisions of the bill are consistent with the recommendations of the Morling inquiry 10 years later.

It is consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 open letter, published by 10 of the state’s pre-eminent political scientists.  It is consistent with the 2010 commitment made by the three then-party leaders when they signed their agreement of parliamentary reform.  It is consistent with the recommendations made by the 2011 independent Review of the Proposal to Restore the House of Assembly to 35 Members by Emeritus Professor Boyce.  In regard to the composition of the Assembly, this bill is consistent with the 2020 House of Assembly Select Committee on the House of Assembly Restoration Bill, Final Report and in that regard, this bill delivers.

Hopefully it serves to raise the Cassandra-like curse from the extensive list of reports and commentary which doomed them to be disbelieved, it appears, when warning we could find ourselves in this position, having to resurrect the integrity capacity and effectiveness of the House of Government.  However, to reiterate, we still have unfinished business that is of equal importance, that being dedicated seats for Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and whether this bill was the appropriate vehicle for that reform or not, we must not lose sight of that imperative.  It was an opportunity to continue that conversation in the very least and make some progress down that pathway.

Lastly, there remains scope to futureproof the integrity of our parliament and democracy, just as the Government has moved to futureproof the Cabinet.  By requiring a referendum or a two-thirds majority vote for any future substantial structural and composition changes to either House of Parliament, we could take out ‘integrity insurance’, if you will, against any potential future ideological changes to the parliament, driven by self-interested power grabs.  

In the interim for most of the last 24 years, it has been widely recognised that the gutted Assembly resulted in a largely dysfunctional Chamber, which then impacted the capacity of the broader parliament to deliver on behalf of those who we are all elected to represent.  To be able to take this concrete step to begin to address this situation is very welcome indeed.  

I support this bill.

 

See Meg’s submission to the draft version of this bill.

See more of Meg’s speeches on legislation in Parliament.