By Tony Iltis
HOBART — The state Liberal government is set to introduce legislation following the August budget to hold a referendum on changing Tasmania's parliamentary system.
The government has cited the perception that Tasmania is over-governed, having 11.42 politicians per 100,000 people — over twice the ratio of WA and five times that of NSW. It says there is also a perception arising from the gay law reform debate that the Legislative Council is out of touch with community attitudes.
In fact, the government's changes would make it harder for minor parties to win seats. At present, while legislative councillors are elected once every six years from gerrymandered single-member electorates, the 35-member House of Assembly is elected from five electorates using the Hare-Clarke system, in which each electorate elects seven members by proportional representation.
Proportional representation makes it easier for smaller parties to win seats in relation to their support from voters.
One proposal, from the Tasmanian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, has been well publicised in the media. The TCCI has proposed a single 40-member house, with 25 members elected from the five Hare-Clarke electorates and 15 returned from single-member electorates.
Reducing the number of members in each Hare-Clarke electorate from seven to five would increase the proportion of the vote that a party needs to gain representation, and the 15 single-member electorates would normally be won by the major parties. The TCCI says its proposal "is designed to increase the likelihood of majority government".
ALP spokesperson Philip Hoysted told Green Left Weekly that the ALP also favours a single 40-member house, with 25 members elected from the five Hare-Clarke electorates, but the remaining 15 elected by proportional representation from the whole state.
This plan would make the parliament more representative by halving the proportion of the vote needed for a party to be represented. However, under the ALP proposal, the 15 members returned from the statewide electorate would not be allowed to vote on no confidence motions or budget bills. Hoysted justified this on the grounds of "stability".
According to spokesperson Rod West, the Tasmanian Greens are "supporters of bicameralism". West told Green Leftthat while the Greens would like to see an upper house with reduced powers and elected by the Hare-Clarke system, they would support the current system against proposals for a single chamber parliament.
"Getting rid of elected representatives is getting rid of democracy", he said.
In response to the claim that Tasmania has too many politicians, West pointed out that the size of parliament has remained the same for 50 years while the population has doubled. He said that an upper house, a house of review, was a necessary check on the power of the lower house.
Democratic Socialist spokesperson Sarah Stephen disputed that an upper house was the best check on the power of parliamentarians, saying that the right of voters to recall their representatives would be better. "Politicians should be accountable to the people who elected them, not to other politicians", she said.
Stephen said that Democratic Socialists believe that the parliamentary system is anti-democratic, because it reduces ordinary people's participation in government to passively choosing from a narrow list of unaccountable representatives every few years.
Furthermore, the excessive wages and privileges that politicians receive ensure that their interests will become the same as those of the corporate rich.
A truly democratic system, Stephen said, would be one in which local or workplace-based assemblies elected recallable delegates to higher tiers of government. These delegates would not merely be legislators, but would be elected to carry out administrative tasks, and would be paid no more than the average wage.
Stephen pointed out, however, that while the parliamentary system has major limitations, parliaments can be more or less democratic. A system of proportional representation with the whole state voting as a single electorate, (i.e. a system where a party with 5% of the votes gets 5% of parliamentary seats), would be the most representative.