17 August 2025

Parliament will resume on Tuesday, a month after the election, and we still don’t know who the government will be. And that’s too long for some people which is why there are calls to replace our Hare Clark electoral system with single-member electorates.

Politics is the art of negotiation and negotiations take time which isn’t a reason to change the system. Hare Clark has served Tasmania well since 1907 because it:

1. Is the most representative voting system
2. Won’t produce huge landslides which renders the Opposition virtually redundant
3. Ensures a wide variety of points of view are heard

Most representative. Andrew Inglis Clark, building on the work of Thomas Hare, designed a system that provides the most accurate reflection of how the electorate voted. Here’s how our Single Transferable Vote (STV) method of proportional representation in multi-member electorates compares to Western Australia and Queensland that use the full preferential system in single-member electorates. representation in multi-member electorates compares to Western Australia and Queensland that use the full preferential system in single-member electorates.

Tasmania.19 July 2025. 35 seats

Party	% of votes	% of seats	Seats
Liberal	39.9	40	14
Labor	25.9	28.6	10
Green	14.4	14.3	5
SFF	2.9	2.9	1

Western Australia. 8 March 2025. 59 seats

Party	% of votes	% of seats	Seats
Liberal	28.02	11.8	7
Labor	41.43	77.9	46
National	5.15	10	6

Queensland. 24 March 2012. 89 seats

Party	% of votes	% of seats	Seats
Liberal National	49.66	87.6	78
Labor	26.66	7.8	7
Katters Australia	11.53	2.2	2
Independents	3.16	2.2	2

The huge distortions render oppositions more-or-less redundant. In Western Australia and Queensland, the opposition had fewer members than there were cabinet members. Effectively holding governments to account is virtually impossible.

Wide variety of voices. The Hare Clark system is designed to give minorities a voice. No political party has a monopoly on good ideas and policies. And power-sharing parliaments are better able to hold the executive to account. During the no-confidence debate in the last parliament, Premier Jeremy Rockliff said a wide variety of points of view were represented “and that’s how it should be”.

The frustration voters feel isn’t because the system isn’t working; it’s because the politicians are not working at compromise. But the Liberals in recent days have shown a willingness to compromise: not going ahead with opening up 40,000 hectares of forests for logging, the closing of the greyhound racing industry by 2029 and a review of the salmon industry and having a moratorium on expansion until the review is completed.

It works elsewhere. Power-sharing parliaments have worked in the ACT which copied our voting system in 1995. There are numerous examples of power-sharing parliaments in other Australian jurisdictions working well. In Germany, one of the most prosperous countries, there has been only one majority government since 1949. 

Tasmanian electors did not give a majority to either major party in nine of the past 24 elections (that includes 19 July) since 1945.

The system doesn’t need to change but the political culture does. Politicians’ need to change their approach from a majoritarian perspective to power-sharing. And that doesn’t just apply in negotiations for government; it must prevail for the whole term if the government is to survive. For the sake of the state’s future, let’s hope that can happen.