Talking Point: We need all MPs on deck for this job

It’s time to look to the past and bring back a full parliament, with more minds to make more decisions, writes Peter Chapman.

• Rider dead after quad bike flipped, crushed face
• Stranded family rejected from mercy fight home
• ‘Nothing could be done’ for woman who died alone
• Heavy delays as lockdown ‘ring of steel’ descends

THE head of Tasmania’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Michael Bailey, wrote: “The government should also commit to increasing the size of parliament back to 35, to improve our democracy and increase our talent pool which governments can draw from” (“Rebuild the state,” Talking Point, June 30). A recent parliamentary inquiry consisting of Labor, Green and Liberal unanimously supported the restoration of parliament.

Michael Bailey noted: “Premier Peter Gutwein and his government have done a fantastic job in controlling the virus”.

They have, and they are to be strongly commended. Yet the challenge of restoring our democracy and the parliamentary talent pool, so necessary for the effective full restoration of Tasmania, remains.

Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein during Parliament. Picture Chris Kidd

An additional challenge is servicing the extensive constituency concerns and needs of Tasmanian citizens.

At present, members of the government in this reduced parliament have multiple portfolio responsibilities.

Our hard-worked Premier, apart from the premiership, has to discharge four other portfolios; the Deputy Premier, apart from his senior office, four other portfolios; the Health Minister, three other portfolios; the Housing Minister, four other portfolios; the Leader of the House, four other portfolios; the Primary Industries Minister, three other portfolios. No minister discharges fewer than two portfolios. Only two members of government are without portfolios or senior responsibilities, and similar loads must apply to the shadow ministries of the Opposition. Such loads must severely limit attention to the constituencies.

Now is the time to restore the representation in the House of Assembly to 35 seats (which they had 1960-1998, after which they suffered a reduction in representation to a mere 25 seats). Thus, in this critical period of recovery, ministerial responsibilities can be effectively discharged, while constituency concerns of so many Tasmanians at this difficult time can be reasonably addressed.

Parliament House, Hobart.

The House of Assembly Select Committee considering the restoration of the House to 35 seats determined 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” (Final Report on the House of Assembly Restoration Bill). Leaders of the major parties (Labor, Liberal and Green) have from time to time committed to the restoration of the House. All three formally, if temporarily, agreed to do so in September 2010, and the present Labor Leader, Rebecca White, argued in 2017 “the Tasmanian Parliament would function better with more members”.

This fluctuating commitment now has to be addressed, so Tasmania has an effective, representative parliament to carry it through from the present crisis.

It may be that an early election, to restore the historic coping capacity of parliament, should be considered.

This would reinforce their ability to fulfil their responsibilities and strengthen the confidence of Tasmania in the capacity of its government.

Peter Chapman is president of the Tasmanian Constitutional Society.