A comment on the characteristics of recent debate about the Restoration of the Size of the Tasmanian House of Assembly
1. One of the most extraordinary assertions in this debate is the assertion by some politicians, (and others), that the Tasmanian people do not want more politicians – an assertion which assumes ‘politicians’ form a defined class that is different from the rest of us. In fact, of course they (the ‘politicians’) are not a separate class: very far from it, they come from us, are chosen (party affiliations notwithstanding) and elected by us to represent and administer us, the Tasmanian people in the best interests of the state of Tasmania. The degrading chant, ‘we don’t want more politicians’ means that essentially we don’t want more of us, in the form of a restored 35 seat House of Assembly, to represent us at a time when it is all too clear that we do need more of us to assist in rescuing Tasmania from its precarious economic plight.
This refrain, most extraordinarily echoed by some politicians, that we don’t want more politicians, is of course also degrading to an honorable tradition of public service achieved and exemplified by a number of MHAs on all sides of politics; it is also potentially, a demolition of the central purpose and practice of democracy itself. We must at all costs avoid this.
2. It is acknowledged that Tasmania is, presently in a precarious economic state. Whilst much of this may stem from external or even global factors, it has nevertheless occurred under the rule of truncated House of Assembly, cut by 29% in 1998, some 14 years ago. Insofar as the outcome of that era can constitute a test of the experiment of a diminished 25 member House of Assembly, it has clearly failed. Not least among the factors contributing to the difficulties has been the stress of multi – ministerial portfolios, a drastically curtailed back bench and constituency service, and a ham-strung Parliamentary Committee system which has to draw on the services of the Upper House to survive at all. This was also clearly outlined in the recent Boyce report on the matter and needs to be rectified now.
What we need is a program for effective economic reform to be progressed by a restored House of Assembly infused with talent and energy reaching beyond the narrow circle enforced by the present 25 seat model; a new Assembly indeed which might well include critics of all parties.
3. The most recent economic obstacle to this important reform has been the current cost crisis in the health system. Yet it must be recognised that this occurred under the 25-seat system and is continuing under it. The 3 million dollars which the Boyce report suggests might be incurred by restoring the House of Assembly cannot occur for a further two years, i.e. after the next election so that the passage of a restoration Bill, which we see as a vital commitment which should be made now, will not cause any immediate cost. Moreover, such costs which will be ultimately incurred (3 million per annum) if symbolically emotive, clearly will not significantly effect the health cost crisis, as is evidenced by the dire situation presently prevailing without such an outlay.
4. Yet though the future cost of restoration in the present situation may be a distraction there are never the less serious questions here. Where are the 3 million dollars ultimately to come from? Even more seriously, where are the many many more million dollars going to come from which are necessary to effectively restore our fractured health system?
This brings us to a different but vital constitutional point: the obvious necessity for a federation of the health system. By this we mean not a federal take over of the Tasmanian health system but the assumption of the administration, all health matters for all states by the Federal Government to ensure a decent national health system. This was of course the situation with Defence at the foundation of the Federation (neither Tasmania nor any other state being able to convincingly finance its own separate defence). Now with the revolution in health technology, health costs, longevity and health expectations, Health like Defence formerly, has become an enormously expensive administrative responsibility which can in our view only be fairly and effectively discharged by a Federal administration, in the spirit of the aims of the original Federation. Only in this way can a decent, fair, health system for all Australians whatever their state or location be achieved. This would have to be achieved by a referendum with a revision of the Australian Constitution clause 51, section 23A, relating to Health.
5. This is a matter that should be pursued in a fruitful bi-partisan manner at the highest levels. Such a process however should not defer the speedy enactment of legislation to restore the House of Assembly to 35 seats, a measure which is necessary to restore full administrative competence to the Tasmanian Parliament and which is in the best interests of democracy in Tasmania.
