Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Tuesday 16 November 2010

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - NUMBER OF MEMBERS

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I certainly will not be long. I have listened to the debate with interest and I would say right from the outset that I will be supporting the motion that we have before us. I am not quite sure where that motion takes us to if it were to get up. It is a motion asking us to favour an increase so with the support of members here today I suspect that that probably gives yourself, the President, the mandate to take it further to the position, does it? Where does it take us?

Mr Parkinson - Just an expression of opinion tonight.

Mr DEAN - So we would then need to take it -

Mr Parkinson - You could change your mind tomorrow.

Mr DEAN - That is right. That is what I mean. It would mean that the bill would be brought back into this House obviously. It would start here and go down.

Madam PRESIDENT - I think the difference was the word 'mandate'. There is a difference between mandate and an opinion that could be progressed if necessary. 'Mandate' means people are tied. They are certainly not tied.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President, for that information. I was not here when there were 19 members so I cannot say whether or not it was better when there were 19 members here or it is better now. I am not in a position to say. I can only suspect that very clearly with more members we would have a better opportunity to do all of those things that we should do. The member for Murchison I think argued, give us more resources, give us more of the things we need to do the heaps of work out there in the electorate. Well, if you had 19 members your electorate would not be as big as it is now. Very clearly the electorates would be much smaller than they are now, I would think.

Ms Forrest - But the issues would still be the same. I said in my contribution that they would not be much smaller, that is the point.

Mr DEAN - Well, I would have thought that they would be smaller because you have to get another four electorates into the State and it is normally done on numbers of people, that is normally how it is done. I think currently we each have about 23 000 or 24 000 or 25 000 people in our electorates.

Ms Forrest - So many electors you have but you have 33 500 residents.

Madam PRESIDENT - Order. This is not a debate on a bill. This is a debate on a motion. Every member has their opportunity at the podium. You can pick your time when you get on your feet. You have had your turn. One at a time, thank you.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President. But going back to when there were 19 members, I do not know what the numbers were then in each electorate but I would have thought that back then in 1998 the population would have been about 470 000 or thereabouts. I guess it would have been and there is now 500 000 plus, so there is movement in the population in this State -

Ms Rattray - It's 507 000.

Mr DEAN - That is right. So the population is increasing; it changes all the time. So I think for me to get up here and to say it could not be better with 19 than it currently is, I just could not make that decision at all, and I would need to hear a lot more debate on it as well and just from hearing what is going on.

I am interested in the comment made by the member for Mersey about the black-and-white era. Back in 1998, I had a colour television, I had a colour camera and I had a colour everything else. I am not quite sure where he was living, whether he was living in Latrobe or somewhere else because they might not have had colour televisions there, I do not know.

Mr Harriss - But in 2010 you have coloured shirts.

Mr DEAN - That is right, I have too. Madam President, there is no doubt about it, we are at times stressed when it comes to setting up of committees and all of the committees that we are involved in, joint House committees, sessional committees now and select committees and I think at one stage last year, early in the year or it might have been the end of the year before, I think I was on about five or six select committees and then on top of that, all the other committees. So we do get put under a lot of stress and we, the independent members in this House - and this is why I believe 19 would be a much better position - are required to look at most issues. You cannot and you do not have the luxury of pushing issues aside and saying, another member of my party will pick that up et cetera, you look at most matters and therefore there is and you are under a lot of pressure.

Ms Forrest - That will happen whether there are 19 members or there are 15; you still have the same responsibilities.

Mr DEAN - What I am saying, no, I cannot quite -

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - government members do a lot of their perusal of legislation prior to coming to the Chamber.

Ms Forrest - As we do.

Mr DEAN - That is what we do.

Ms Thorp - But in terms of discussion -

Madam PRESIDENT - Order, ladies, please. Through the Chair for a start.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, cost has been referred to, the cost of setting and moving this Chamber from 15 to 19 members has been referred to by a number of people and certainly there would be quite a large cost, I would think, that would be necessary to set it up and then those costs would be recurrent, we know that. But in my view cost alone should not determine whether or not this House moves from 15 to 19 members. That is just a factor in the whole thing but it should not be determined on that. You either need 19 or you do not and to simply say, because there is a cost to it, we cannot have it, to me, with the greatest respect to those members, is a nonsense and I say that unequivocally and very clearly. If you need the numbers, if it is going to make it a better House, then that is what we should go for, very clearly and very simply - not saying it is going to cost an extra $500 000 or $1 million or what have you. If there is going to be a better service -

Ms Thorp - Obviously you have never had to deal with a budget.

Mr DEAN - I have and you might not remember but I was the mayor of a council and that council, admittedly, only had a budget of $110 million or something but I had to be involved in the balancing of that budget. I had to ensure that it was disbursed effectively and that the council were in the black and not in the red and so I have had and in the police service as a commander of police, I had quite a large budget with 600-odd people I was responsible for there and quite a large budget as well. So I have managed and have had control of a budget and I would take you on when you make that statement. It was probably not as large as a State budget, I accept that.

Ms Thorp - Still, $500 000 is a lot of money.

Mr DEAN - Of course it is a lot of money but what I am saying is, if you going to get a much better service, if you are going to serve the public much better and if you are going to get the committees and things that you are probably not able to get up now because you do not have the right numbers and so on and you are going to get a good return for the public, the people, then I think there is value in that and that, I think, is what you have to weigh up at the end of the day. But I am saying that money should not be the determining factor in whether or not you are going to increase the numbers to 19.

I think the position of this House should be similar to the lower House, where they looked at what they are providing and their ability to provide what they are required to. Very clearly they have problems and are determined they need to increase to 35. I do not have a problem with that. There have been lots of issues there that have already been gone into and I do not intend to go into that any more, but very clearly they need to increase their numbers and certainly I will be supporting it in this House when it comes through this House.

The point I wanted to make and the member moving the motion did refer to it, Madam President, is that currently there are 15 members of this House. You can have very critical legislation coming through this House; you can make very credible and very important decisions that have an impact on this State. In fact seven or eight members, whatever a quorum is, could make that decision - eight members only would have the ability to make that decision currently. Is that a reasonable position to have? I do not know whether it is or not. Those eight members would have the ability to turn down a matter coming up to it from the lower House with just a quorum sitting of eight and so five members could make that decision.

Mr Parkinson - Half plus one.

Mr DEAN - Yes, so that would be five. If the quorum is eight -

Mr Parkinson - No, of the 15.

Mr DEAN - But if the quorum is eight -

Ms Thorp - And everyone else is out having a snooze.

Mr DEAN - You are right, and did not come in for the vote that is what I am saying. In effect you could have five members making a very important decision. Is that reasonable?

Ms Forrest - Through you, Madam President - how would the people out there, whether it is 19 or 15 members, feel if that situation occurred and then a division was called on a piece of legislation or a motion and only five turned up?

Mr DEAN - I am saying that it could happen. The member shakes her head but what I am saying is that it could happen.

Mr Finch - If you didn't have quality people in here, though.

Mr DEAN - I just want to read a quote that the member for Launceston has already quoted, from the Ogilvie Report:

'In our view to concentrate these powers and functions in fewer than the present 19 Members would be inappropriate. With 15 Members the powers of the Council could be exercised on the vote of merely eight Members. With a quorum of nine the number might be even smaller.'

I think that is a very apt quote to make in the situation. I simply raise the issue.

Madam President, about 12 months ago I moved a motion in local council to decrease the number in local government from 12 members back to nine members on the position of the fact that 12 members were really, in my opinion, not servicing the Launceston City Council any better than the nine were. There are some members who work very hard and there are other members who do not work so hard and the position I took was that nine members working full time and paid an equivalent salary would service local government in a much better way than 12 part-time members. That was my position but that was knocked back and members were then putting up that there should be a lot more members in the council, that there should 14, 15 or 20 members. It was an interesting debate.

Mr Finch - You're not going to suggest we do nine here, are you?

Mr DEAN - No, I am not. I just raised the issue so it has been talked about in other areas as well.

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - the honourable member could never ever be accused of populist policy positions.

Mr DEAN - You are right, I am not. You are absolutely right, no-one could ever make that statement and be supported in making that statement because I never take a populist position and I am never likely to. I will take the position that I believe is the proper position and the fair position in all of the circumstances.

The smaller we are makes us vulnerable because we do know that at one stage there were moves in the other place to subsume us into the lower House, to amalgamate us into that House. I think as a smaller unit perhaps that would be easier to do. You only need to get the right mix in this House with 15 -

Mr Finch - Vote us out of existence.

Mr DEAN - Get a party taking control and one or two Greens as well. We could become vulnerable people. I doubt if I will ever be here when that happens but you could be.

Ms Forrest - We could live for that day.

Mrs Taylor - We will just have a Bex and a good lie down.

Mr DEAN - I have mentioned the smaller electorates. Richard Herr was referred to by the member for Launceston previously and I admire Mr Herr, like most of us do around this Chamber. He is a very learned man and certainly understands the Parliament set-up very well. He was clear and unequivocal in the statement that he made during the briefing to us that the numbers should be increased. I can see there is quite a difference of opinion here but he made it very clear - he said it ought to be 19 members. He was unequivocal in that statement. He said that would service the public much better than the current 15 members. I am not quite sure why he makes that statement - whether or not he believes that the current 15 members are not servicing it to the length that they should do or whether there is other work they could be picking up. I suspect that that is what he means. There are probably other things they could well be doing if they had the numbers available to them. That is probably what he is saying and/or there might be other reasons for him making that statement, but I certainly take on board what he said.

Mr Finch - Through you, Madam President - you might remember that when we had that raft of select committees the member for Nelson was on six at least, probably as many as eight committees at one time.

Ms Thorp - I was on eight.

Mr DEAN - It was interesting that the Treasurer made the comment that we are light years ahead of the period that we were in when we had 19 in the Chamber back in 1998; we are light years ahead of that and he was saying quality over quantity et cetera.

One would expect us to be light years ahead, I would have thought. We are talking about a period of about 13 to 14 years ago. In that time we have progressed significantly in technology and many other areas as well, so one would expect us to be ahead of what was happening in 1998. I would be appalled to think that we were no better off than we were in 1998 here today in the way we debate, in the research ability we have, the better ability we have of getting information.

Ms Thorp - Capacity to stay awake.

Mr DEAN - Well I was not here. I did not witness anybody stating that but perhaps that does happen occasionally after a person has had a long day and I can understand that happening. At times I have felt like having a snooze as well after a long day in this Chamber. It is not that easy at times. Very clearly one would expect us to have moved on ahead in light years so I do not think that is mind boggling at all.

I think it was the member for Elwick mentioned about going to the public on this issue. Well with the greatest of respect to the public, and there has been an opportunity to go to the public, as the member for Pembroke has said, unless you have a very good understanding of everything that the Parliament is about, unless you have an intimate knowledge of the work that is carried out by personnel, you really are not in a position to make an informed decision.

If you had asked me, say, 15 years ago what I thought about the numbers in Parliament, there is a fair bet I would have said to you 'Statewise we are over-governed and we do not need that many. They are probably a lazy lot of so and sos, let us get rid of half of them'.

That is probably the sort of statement I would have made because I did not have a full appreciation of exactly of what is required. That is what would happen out there now today. Very clearly we are over-governed in local government, and ridiculously so. It is high time we did something about that - I know that is a debate for another day, Madam President.

So going to the general public, I do not think, at the end of the day, gives you a strong position on which to move on in a situation like this unless those people are properly informed, in the circumstances, to make that decision.

That is all I really wanted to say. I think that the position put forward by the member for Launceston is a recognition, very clearly, that he has worked with the two models for a long period of time. He understands the position - there are other members in this Chamber who have worked with the member for Nelson as well - and they have an absolutely full appreciation of what is necessary and what is required. I am prepared to take onboard what those members are saying. The other members have only been here since there has been a Chamber of 15, like I have, and I think it is very difficult to have an absolutely informed position and decision in light of the situation. So I will be taking on board what those members have said, Madam President, and at this stage I will certainly be supporting the motion.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.