Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I assure listeners I have not had a chance to speak to the member for Murchison about this bill, but we have similar views in some of these areas.

I have not had many of my constituents come up to me and say, 'Oh, good, Michael, 10 more politicians, your workload is going to be so much easier now, isn't it', because that is not how it is being viewed in my electorate. I want to make certain that people understand I will not support this bill and there needs to more robust and considered dialogue and we have an opportunity here to do something that could be very good for the next 80 years, not only the next four or five.

For those listening at home, they need to understand, as members of parliament, of this place, we get a bill, it is 10-pages long and it says the Expansion of House of Assembly Bill 2022. We get three-and-a-half pages of a second reading speech from the Leader and a half page fact sheet and two-and-a-half pages of clause notes for this.

We do have reference to a 2020 committee inquiry report tripartisan from the lower House. In the fact sheet, and these are some of the things people may not know and I will not go through all of it, but it is not that long, the bill will amend the Constitution Act 1934 and the Electoral Act 2004 from 25 to 35 seats, each of the electorates from five to seven. As the member for Murchison said, increase the numbers of the ministers of the Crown from nine to 11, or where a secretary/cabinet has been appointed, no more than 10. The quorum of the House of Assembly by substituting 10 members for 14. Subject to being passed in the parliament, the amendments will take effect following the next expiration or dissolution of the House of Assembly.

The facts that were not included, and the member for Murchison highlighted them very clearly, what will this cost each year? Funnily enough, I can remember a 190-page bill that was passed in this place not that long ago, and one of the prime questions asked of that bill was how much it was going to cost us each year. In fact, the opponents of that act, of that bill, were saying it was far too much, it was two-and-a-half million dollars or something a year.

Here we have a bill in front of us and we do not know how much it is going to cost. Let us say, six-and-a-half million dollars. By the time it comes around I am thinking about $9 million a year, ballpark.

Ms Forrest - That is without considering the cost to the shared services, so it is going to be more.

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. Another fact, and this is not intended to be against any member of this place, because every member in place does their job well, but the fact we have four Liberal Government members here and four Labor members, what it means is because Labor and Liberal supported this downstairs, this bill will pass, no matter what we say in this place as Independent members, because the Government and the non-government members will pass this bill. Therefore, that puts into question about the independence of this place. We do not, in this place, have the numbers to effect any change in this bill. When I said this morning, in briefing, it does not matter what evidence we provide, this will pass. Even though we do not know how much it is going to cost and all the issues the member for Murchison raised and other members will raise, this will pass, because the people in this place have been directed by their colleagues downstairs on how to vote. There is not going to be any change

Mr Willie - It is called collective decision-making.

Mr GAFFNEY - That is fine, but the reality is, no matter what we present to you as an individual, you cannot change your point of view because it is a party position. That is the reality. I am not saying here that people do not do a good job, I am saying, that is the reality and people in our land should know it does not matter what we as Independents come up with, this will pass.

However, it does raise an interesting conundrum. If the independence of the Legislative Council is compromised, it could be suggested we are not fulfilling our function and therefore perhaps we should do away with it. The Queensland Parliament consists of the King and the Legislative Assembly, and in accordance with their Constitution, the King is represented by the Governor, and the Queensland Parliament is unicameral, meaning it only has one parliamentary Chamber - the Legislative Assembly, the upper Chamber. The Legislative Council was abolished in 1922. There are currently 93 members of the Legislative Assembly who each serve for a fixed four-year term. Thus, in Tasmania, currently operating as a bicameral parliament, if we combined the Council and the House of Assembly, it could be a 40-member unicameral parliament. Plenty of ministers, plenty of back benches to do the work.

In Queensland now, that will allow 40 members, and what processes do they follow in Queensland as that parliament seems to be effective? Today, in Queensland, they involve a wide range of duties including examination of legislation, regulations, the scrutiny of government expenditure, the oversight of a range on independent bodies, the operations of parliamentary procedures and an investigation of any issue unto which the parliament may require a detailed inquiry. The parliamentary committees, as investigative bodies, are able to summon and examine witnesses, canvas public opinion, subpoena documents and papers, evaluate the evidence gathered and compile a report for the parliament, usually with a range of recommendations.

Members here, in this place, will be well aware of those processes, but many people in the public do not understand what happens other than sitting in this place.

Until September 1995, in Queensland, there were three types of parliamentary committees: standing, select and statutory.

Standing committees appointed for the life of the parliament, either by standing orders, sessional orders or resolutions of the House were the time-honoured committees which mainly dealt with parliamentary operations, including the Printing Committee, the Privileges Committee and the Standing Orders Committee.

Select committees can still be constituted and are usually appointed to investigate a particular matter and cease to exist after their final report to parliament, for example, the Select Committee into Ambulance Services. Other select committees like we have in this place, the Travel Safe Committee, which inquired, reported, made recommendations on all aspects of Queensland road safety, were reconstituted for the life of each parliament. Ongoing parliamentary work because they have 93 people.

A more recent phenomenon involves statutory committees. These are parliamentary committees established by and operating under their own legislation, but still comprising parliamentary members.

In 1988 and 1989, following a considerable period of pressure, the Ahern National Party Government instituted a Public Accounts Committee and a Public Works Committee. Two further committees were also established as a result of recommendation from the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police and public sector corruption. The Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, now known as The Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee and the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review. Further committees were created by legislation in 1995.

By increasing the numbers in one House, they were then able to constitute a range of committees they were able to draw people into.

Since 2011, the Queensland parliament has adopted a system of portfolio committees. Most parliamentary committees are established permanently by legislation, usually the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001.

Ms Forrest - We did that in 2010.

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. The size and membership of a portfolio committee and the balance of members between Government and non-government members is based on a formula set out in the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. It does not matter which party is in power in the cameral system; it does mean there is a balance of ideas and points of view within each of the committees, depending on the political composition of the Legislative Assembly at the time. The chair of a portfolio committee is nominated by the Leader of the House.

The Parliament will occasionally establish additional temporary committees to inquire into specific select issues. These temporary committees are called select committees. The committees comprise representatives from all political parties, with the chairperson either the Speaker, or a Government member. The operations and recommendations of parliamentary committees should reflect a non-political approach; but this does not prevent members from disagreeing with a committee's findings, or even issuing a minority report.

As mentioned, in the Queensland Parliament and the financial process, the portfolio committees and the committee of the Legislative Assembly examine the Government's annual budget by scrutinising the proposed expenditures of each department, along with the parliamentary service, the Governor's office, statutory agencies and government-owned corporations, then report their findings to the Parliament.

The issue I have here, is that it could be argued that the unicameral system adopted by Queensland could be better placed than the current bicameral system we have in Tasmania and other larger states. There are other options that could also be considered - perhaps more like a council arrangement. Tasmania has a population of 570 000 people. Brisbane City Council has a population of 1.25 million people and they have 26 wards with 27 councillors. Tasmania, is 61 4000 square kilometres; East Pilbara is 380 000 square kilometres.

If my memory serves me right, when the original reduction to 25 went through, there was also a significant rise in salaries paid to the remaining MHAs to compensate for the work that they would have to do. So, if the Parliament is raised in the lower House of the MHAs to 35, should they take a significant pay cut to compensate for the lower workload? What is wrong with going to 30, instead of 35? The Speaker can step out to vote. What is wrong with looking for ministers outside the ruling party to take on the responsibility of the portfolio, based on ability and experience, not by party affiliation?

We are now seeing ministers - with all due respect - with very limited parliamentary experience being asked to fulfil roles they have not yet prepared for. That is not the fault of the individual, that is a flaw in how it is managed. I take you back to David Bartlett, who I consider as a friend. He was going to be a very good minister, and was going to be a very good premier but, because of what happened, he was rushed through that process too quickly. If you can remember that time, he was minister for Education. Before he could put thought into that, he was promoted to the premier's role, so therefore the Education portfolio did not have his full attention.

I asked my constituents, at the end of the day, should we have 10 more members of parliament, at a conservative cost of $9 million or $10 million a year, or put that $9 or $10 million a year to better use? Or, should we just expect our MPs to work smarter and harder? A minister needs to appreciate their own limitations. A smart minister is one who has smarter people surrounding them. Or should we just combine ministerial portfolios, so there are not so many? Or, perhaps, look at a system of handing over those responsibilities for MPs which may not be ministerial in nature. Some of those responsibilities with a line item do not have to be covered by a minister; they could be covered by a member of parliament who has the skills and the ability to see that through.

Or, are we saying that since 1998 Tasmania's Parliament has not been working effectively or correctly? I do not believe that to be the case. Now is the chance to have a more practical and objective discussion about what type of governance and parliamentary processes should we have in place for the next 80 years. What do we want our Government to look like? Is this the system that in 80 years time we are leaving to people, our future generations? Is this the best way forward?

Now we are changing it back to what it was. I am thinking, why was it changed back then? It must have been running so well, but they changed it back then because there were issues, and now the solution in the reformation is to take it back to what it was because our workload, apparently, is more.

I am also concerned that minority government is so frowned upon in Tasmania and Australia. It works exceptionally well in other developed and advanced countries. If I go back to when we had the hung parliament where we had 10, 5 and 10, we had better legislation coming through at that stage than we do now. We had better legislation, because it was compromised; it was amended; it was evaluated; until it came to us. Now, because the Government has the numbers downstairs - and it is not this Government, it could be any government that has the numbers - they do not have to work that hard. The legislation comes up here and we have to amend it. I can honestly say that when we had the hung parliament 10, 5 and 10 - we had better legislation and we had fewer amendments. I also liked the fact that a minority government is supported in a number of European countries and it does very well, because the diversity of our communities is expressed in its representation.

I understand the reason for going to 35 is so that we have a more diverse range of representation, and that is right. However, unfortunately, this opportunity for political reform by just arranging the deckchairs and going back to something that probably was not working that well before, does not seem to be very bright to me.

Ms Forrest - They had fewer ministries then.

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. So, on those thoughts, I hope some of my constituents who are listening will understand that I will not support this bill. I am not against reform; I am not against change. I do not think there is a reason to hasten this through; and I do not like the fact that we do not get a real say up here that is going to influence enough people so that they will change their mind.

Ms Forrest - Particularly, not consulted.

Mr GAFFNEY - Yes. Therefore, I will not be supporting this bill. I look forward to listening to the contributions of other members.