11 September 2025

The co-creator of Tasmania’s electoral system, Andrew Inglis Clark, wanted parliament to be the state’s most important debating chamber. And so parliament should represent the broadest possible range of opinions. For Clark, elections were not just to elect an executive. 

That’s why calls by former Labor staffer Jody Fassina (The Mercury Talking Point, 9 September) and the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Michael Bailey (The Weekend Australian 6 September) call to scrap Hare Clark should be rejected. Fassina says “Hare Clark has served its purpose, but it is now a handbrake on strong and effective government” – majority government.

When voters don’t give a party a majority, there are demands to change the system. But that would undermine Hare Clark’s intent and integrity. The arrogance of the majority-government-or-nothing brigade rejects what voters want.

Majority governments have created the record $13 billion worth of debt, the ferry fiasco, a broken health system and more.

Voters have said twice in as many years they do not want a majority government. For Clark, elections were about people voting for candidates to represent them who would then determine the executive.

Despite what the major parties say, past collaborative governments have worked well. Highly respected former Mercury political editor Wayne Crawford has written the Liberal-Centre party government of 1969–72 “delivered more reforms in three years than consecutive Labor administrations had done in 35 years”.

The much-derided government of 1989–92 ended the disastrous economic trajectory of high debt created by another Liberal majority government, increased public service efficiency by cutting the number of departments, among other achievements.

Liberal premier Tony Rundle has said his government of 1996–98 – that worked collaboratively with the Greens – was “the most dynamic period of government in recent political history”. And the much-criticised government of 2010–13 introduced Right to Information laws and improved anti-discrimination laws.

These collaborative parliaments were not a “handbrake” but an accelerator of reform.

Because voters don’t give either major party a majority is not a reason to abolish the fairest and most representative electoral system in the world.