More Tasmanian politicians, but will it change parliament?

Member numbers in the state's upper house have fluctuated between 25 and 35 since our bicameral system of government first met on December 2nd, 1856.

In 1998, the Labor Party returned to majority rule, under the premiership of the legendary Jim Bacon, and introduced a Bill entitled the Parliamentary Reform Act to reduce the 35 members across five electorates to 25.

In its wisdom, Labor, with the support of the Liberals, reduced the size of parliament to mitigate the influence of the Tasmanian Greens.

The impact was significant with the Greens Parliamentary Party declining from four members to one, Peg Putt, who after the 2002 state election was the only Tasmanian Green left sitting on the cross benches.

It would not be until 2006 that the Tasmanian Greens held multiple seats again (four).

The reduction to 25 seats, for pure political purposes, was extremely successful.

It strengthened the voting of the major parties and reduced the influence of the minorities.

The move was long heralded as anti-democratic due to the perverse nature of the reform, to rid the parliament of opposing voices, but it is just as easily argued that no matter the number of politicians, you still need to convince the voters of your merit.

The Parliament of Tasmania was originally Hobart's Customs House with waters of the River Derwent / timtumili minanya lapping close to the front doors, making it a perfect location for federal government infrastructure of this type.

A Customs House was a place for government bureaucrats to conduct deals on behalf of the state and commonwealth close to trading ships.

As technology improved, Custom Houses were repurposed across the world.

In Tasmania, a permanent site for Customs House was built between 1899 and 1903, designed by James Barnet, which is currently occupied by the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

John Lee Archer was the government's civil engineer and colonial architect for 11 years.

He was appointed Secretary of State of the Colonies in 1826, arriving in Hobart town in 1827.

He designed the original Customs House now occupying both chambers of the Tasmanian Parliament.

The old arrangement of parliament house, which was renovated in 1980s, included bucket style chairs much like the Princess Theatre.

Although appropriate at the time for long periods of sitting, the chamber's demonstrable knowledge of the importance of ergonomics was not what it is today, yet it remained formidable both in design and power.

To paint a picture of parliament in the 1980s, it was a time when smoking was permitted in the chamber and tobacco companies would send boxes of cigarettes to members who could 'enjoy' a mid-question time 'dart'.

For those with experience or interest in the parliamentary process, the first thing you look for on a new sitting of the state parliament is where members sit.

And it's not just the independents or those new to parliament, it is the positions that the two major political parties, Labor and Liberal, occupy and where new and returning members sit in relation to each other.

Much like a sports changeroom, where the veterans and the elite have their traditions and routines and numbers and lockers, seats in the House of Assembly can be contested with hushed conversations and negotiations commonplace.

For new members, sitting behind the despatch boxes is considered prime because the evening news will highlight your perceived importance.

The House of Assembly was renovated and refurbished in 2008-2009 to provide a far more modern interpretation of comfort for members.

The objective of architects was to restore the key components of the 1940s design, returning the chamber to its former glory.

The chamber now consists of 35 seats, high backed green leather chairs, which can be adjusted and are extremely comfortable.

The same cannot be said for the Lower House of Tasmania's parliament, the Legislative Council, where preserving history, albeit with refurbished couches, won the day ahead of appropriate ergonomic comforts.

During a quick webcast glimpse of proceedings early last week, the House of Assembly, as designed, looked extremely full.

The chamber is already an intimidating place, and I was left wondering whether this is more of less so with 10 additional members.

And while the intention of the 1998 reform was to reduce the influence of the minor parties, the same cannot be said for the House of Assembly Restoration Bill 2021, which was aimed at increasing the depth to the talent pool and decreasing the need for individual ministers to hold multiple portfolios.

It's too early to suggest if the restoration of the House of Assembly will make any meaningful improvement to the rigours of decision-making.

However, on the face of it, with the increase of the Tasmanian Greens, the Jacqui Lambie Network, and Independents, it appears that the wish to reduce the burden on ministers has failed.