The Problem Isn’t Hare-Clark

The Problem Isn’t Hare-Clark — It’s the Major Parties’ Refusal to Adapt

In his recent piece criticising Tasmania’s Hare-Clark electoral system, Brian Austen (The Mercury, 4 August 2025) offers a familiar diagnosis: that our current political deadlocks and divisions are proof that proportional representation creates instability.

But what if the problem isn’t Hare-Clark at all — but the refusal of our major parties to operate within the power-sharing culture the system requires?

Austen presents the stadium standoff as emblematic of Hare-Clark’s supposed flaws: a fragmented parliament unable to produce a coherent governing majority, locked in a stalemate over an unpopular billion-dollar stadium proposal. But this framing ignores a deeper truth — that the dysfunction isn’t caused by the system, but by those refusing to accept the legitimacy of negotiation, compromise, and multi-party collaboration.

Proportional representation, including Tasmania’s version through Hare-Clark, is not designed to guarantee single-party dominance. It’s designed to reflect voter diversity, and to ensure that governing power more closely matches public support. On that score, Hare-Clark performs exceptionally well. The issue is that many of those elected under it — particularly in the major parties — continue to behave as though they are entitled to majority rule, regardless of what the public delivers.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s government is a case in point. After losing confidence in 2024, it returned to voters early and was sent back a virtually unchanged result. Again in 2025, the Liberals hold just 14 of 35 seats — four short of a majority — but are now governing as if they have a mandate, without even testing the floor of parliament. They are signing major agreements in caretaker mode, launching attack ads against independents and minor parties, and refusing to engage seriously with the possibility of a negotiated or shared government.

This is not a failure of the electoral system. This is a refusal to govern in the spirit of the system we have.

Austen laments that no stable alliances are possible when parties ‘cannot join together under any circumstances.’ But that, too, is a political choice. In European countries with proportional systems, coalition-building is a normal and expected part of post-election governance. Parties with differences form agreements, trade policy concessions, and produce stability through negotiation — not dominance. The dysfunction arises not from proportionality, but from actors unwilling to adapt to it.

The deeper irony is that Austen’s own example — the stadium — reveals the real danger: that majority governments, or governments that pretend to be, can push through massive public expenditure projects despite widespread opposition. Under Hare-Clark, the proposal is now being held up precisely because no one has unchecked power. That isn’t instability — that’s democracy doing its job.

It’s also worth challenging the nostalgia for ‘strong majority government’ that runs through Austen’s piece.

Some of Tasmania’s most controversial and damaging decisions — from failed forestry deals to environmental degradation — were made by majority governments under little scrutiny. By contrast, minority or coalition governments have at times delivered some of the state’s most durable reforms, including environmental protections and governance transparency.

What Tasmania really needs isn’t a new system. It needs a new political mindset. Our electoral system has moved on from the old majoritarian logic, but many political actors — and commentators — have not.

We don’t need a presidential model, and we certainly don’t need to abandon Hare-Clark.

What we need are leaders willing to embrace the system we have: one that requires collaboration, compromise, and respect for the full spectrum of voter voices.

If the system seems unstable, it’s only because those elected under it refuse to stabilise it — not by force of numbers, but through cooperation.

Until that changes, blaming Hare-Clark is like blaming the mirror for the reflection.

Christine Bayley is a Tasmanian community advocate and spokesperson with People Before Major Parties – Tasmania and Save Rosny Parks. She is dedicated to empowering locals and raising community voices. 

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

New initiatives on the way include:

• a weekly podcast covering current affairs
• a revamped website
• a monthly cartoon competition
• a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
• a weekly roundup of key stories