The Reduction in the Size of the Tasmanian Parliament
Scott Bennett
Politics and Public Administration Group
14 September 1998
Background
On 23 July 1998 the Tasmanian Parliament passed legislation reducing
the size of the Parliament. When the process is completed the House of
Assembly will number 25 (-10), and the Legislative Council 15 (-4).
There have been three main arguments in justification of this change:
- claims that Tasmania is 'over-governed'
- problems of hung parliaments
- the economic future of the State
'Overgoverned'
A long-standing claim has been that Tasmanians have been over-governed.
Critics have usually focussed on the Parliament (Tasmania has 11.4 State
Members of Parliament per 100 000 of population compared with 2.3
for New South Wales)(1), but they have also criticised local government,
with its many small municipalities, as well as the claimed excessive number
of ministries.
At various times there have been official moves to consider this question.
There have been, for instance, various studies into the size of local
government, and recent local government amalgamations have reduced the
number of municipalities. By contrast, nothing had been achieved in respect
of Parliament or ministry.
In 1983 the Gray Liberal Government came to power with a policy of reducing
the size of the Parliament. It established an advisory committee (the
Ogilvie committee)(2) which reported against any reduction at that time
(1984), though it did recommend a reduction in the number of ministries.
In 1994 the Morling board of inquiry(3) claimed that a House of Assembly
smaller than 35 would have difficulty in performing its functions adequately.
If, however, a reduction in MPs was considered imperative, the inquiry
recommended a unitary parliament of 44 members, 28 elected by Hare-Clark
and the remainder by preferential voting.
Hung parliaments
Since 1909 Tasmania has used the Hare-Clark proportional representation
voting method. This, combined with the even support for the two major
parties, has had the effect of making it difficult for either major party
to secure a parliamentary majority. This was particularly marked when
there were six members per division (1909-56), but even since the change
to seven members (1959) when the election of uneven numbers per division
might have made it easier to form majority governments, this has produced
a very different pattern from other States. Between 1909 and 1996, only
15 of 28 governments (54%) were actually majority governments.
A quota for election in a seven-member division is 12.5 per cent, a figure
that four or five Greens achieved in the last three elections. In five-member
divisions the required vote is 16.7 per cent, a significantly higher hurdle
for minor parties and independents. Two of the past three governments
have been minority governments relying on the support of the Greens-ALP
1989-92 and Liberal 1996-8. These governments were frustrated by their
inability to gain majority status and resented their dependence upon the
Greens. This difficulty with Hare-Clark has been criticised for many years.
In 1979, for example, Liberal Party policy was to replace it with preferential
voting, but to date there has been no serious effort to do so.
The Tasmanian economy
Tasmania has always had economic problems associated with its small population
and its position as an island. As the Australian economy has been swept
up by the forces of globalisation, these problems have been exacerbated,
so their opponents claim, by the Green preference for environmentally
sustainable development. For many Tasmanian critics, minority governments
had become a resented symbol of Tasmanian economic lethargy.
The Nixon report
In July 1997 a Commonwealth-State inquiry into the Tasmanian economy,
headed by Peter Nixon, handed down its report.(4) According to its analysis
the 'parlous' state of the Tasmanian economy was due to a large degree
to the 'unique system of governance'. This severely constrained 'the ability
of government to plan effectively for the future'. Nixon focussed on the
Hare-Clark system and minority governments, the uncertainty of passing
legislation through the independent-controlled Legislative Council, and
the 'overgovernance' caused by the 'excessive number' of local government
units.
Nixon presented various alternative models of governance, the most extreme
of which involved the abolition of the Legislative Council, the reduction
of the number of ministers and the stripping back of local government
to just four municipalities. A more moderate plan involved slimming the
Parliament to 40, with five-member Assembly divisions. This was a model
that had been suggested by the Liberal Party as early as 1982.
The politics of the change
Essentially, the major parties have been united in their desire to reduce
the size of the Parliament. Their approaches have been different, however,
due largely to the different political positions in which they were placed.
The Field Labor Government had collapsed in 1992 when Green support was
withdrawn, and Labor maintained that it would never again take office
if it was to be dependent upon such uncertain support. Labor supported
the continued use of Hare-Clark, but sought five-member divisions with
their higher quota instead of seven-member. From the freedom of Opposition
it argued for the reduction of the Parliament to 40, believing the creation
of a House of Assembly of 25 would be the means of ridding the lower house
of any Green presence.
Liberal Premier Rundle was constrained by his dependence on the Greens.
In 1997 he proposed a referendum on the reduction of MPs, but expressed
his determination to include the question of a unicameral parliament.
After several weeks' debate he dropped the plan because of Legislative
Council opposition. He then pushed for a parliament of 44 with four seven-member
Assembly divisions, an arrangement that would best suit his Green allies,
because of the retention of 12.5 per cent quotas for these divisions.
After the emergence of opposition in his own party, Rundle finally changed
his mind by shifting his support to the 25+15 model. On 13 July 1998 he
announced the date of the August election for a reduced Assembly, the
legislation for which would soon be passed. The Greens responded by calling
for a referendum, but as this was a constitutional amendment that did
not require a referendum, the alteration was duly made by the Parliament.(5)
The House of Assembly thus numbered 25 at the 29 August election.
The Legislative Council is elected over a six year cycle which will require
transitional arrangements being made. Once these have been put in place,
the re-formed Tasmanian Parliament will be smaller than at any time since
1856:
|
Size of Parliament
|
| |
1856
|
1901
|
1959
|
c2000
|
|
HA
|
30
|
38
|
35
|
25
|
|
LC
|
15
|
18
|
19
|
15
|
|
Total
|
45
|
56
|
54
|
40
|
Consequences
In future Tasmanian elections the performance of Green and independent
candidates will depend very much on the ability of particular candidates
to get a vote reasonably close to a quota. A first preference vote of
about ten per cent would give such candidates a fair chance of winning
a seat. Below that figure, they will struggle.
In 1998 only Peg Putt (TG, Denison) managed 10.5% and was elected, with
the four other leading Greens averaging only 6.9%.The lowest votes by
successful major party candidates were 5.0% by Judy Jackson (ALP, Denison)
and 5.8% by Bill Bonde (LIB, Braddon), but both were helped by their leaders'
large, over-quota totals. Minor parties and independents do not have such
assistance.
An analysis of the 1998 results indicates that seven-member divisions
would probably have produced another 'hung' parliament. The Greens would
probably have had at least 3 MHAs and even the Tasmania First party might
have won a seat in Lyons:
|
Tasmanian Election 1998
|
|
|
Actual
(5-member)
|
Estimate
(7-member)
|
|
ALP
|
14
|
15-17
|
|
LIB
|
10
|
14-15
|
|
TG
|
1
|
3-5
|
|
TF
|
0
|
0-1
|
The fact that a Green won a seat in 1998 shows that the alteration to
the Tasmanian Parliament will not, of itself, guarantee the election of
a majority government. Such an outcome would be much more likely were
the voting method to be changed to preferential voting. In single-member
divisions, if a candidate receives over 50 per cent of first preferences,
that candidate is declared elected. This makes the task for minor parties
and independents very much harder than when proportional representation
is used. If the Morling committee's view that Tasmania requires a House
of Assembly of at least 35 members for government to be conducted effectively
is correct, then it is possible that the wrong constitutional change has
been made in the island State.
- The Nixon Report. Tasmania into the 21st Century, Hobart: Government
Printer, 1997.
- Report of the Advisory Committee on the Proposed Reduction in the
Number of Members elected to both Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament,
Hobart: Parliament of Tasmania, 1984.
- Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Size and Constitution of the
Tasmanian Parliament, Hobart: Parliament of Tasmania, 1994.
- The Nixon Report.
- Parliamentary Reform Act 1998 (Tas.).
|
