Assuming this parliament runs its full term, there are likely to be redistributions in every state except South Australia before the next election, as well as the Northern Territory. A Western Australian redistribution is currently in its early stages, resulting from the rule requiring that states and territories be redistributed at least every seven years. Tasmania and the Northern Territory will follow for the same reason later this year; Victoria is also due in January 2010 (UPDATE: Or possibly not – see David Walsh in comments). It is also very likely that population changes will result in New South Wales losing another seat to Queensland when the determination is made in February 2009. The following table shows the states’ entitlements at the last determination in November 2005, entitlements based on ABS population figures from June 2007, and a projection to February 2009 based on growth rates in the 2006/07 financial year. Note that the constitution prevents Tasmania from falling below five seats, and that a dubious law passed in 2004 allows the Northern Territory to retain its second seat even if its entitlement falls a little below 1.5.
| 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | ||||||||
| (m) | seats | (m) | seats | (m) | seats | |||||
| NSW | 6.765 | 49.38 | 6.889 | 48.51 | 7.041 | 48.23 | ||||
| VIC | 5.013 | 36.59 | 5.205 | 36.65 | 5.362 | 36.73 | ||||
| QLD | 3.946 | 28.8 | 4.182 | 29.45 | 4.368 | 29.92 | ||||
| WA | 2.004 | 14.63 | 2.106 | 14.83 | 2.204 | 15.1 | ||||
| SA | 1.540 | 11.24 | 1.584 | 11.15 | 1.616 | 11.07 | ||||
| TAS | 0.485 | 3.54 | 0.493 | 3.47 | 0.500 | 3.42 | ||||
| ACT | 0.326 | 2.38 | 0.340 | 2.39 | 0.352 | 2.41 | ||||
| NT | 0.206 | 1.5 | 0.215 | 1.51 | 0.224 | 1.53 | ||||
In the meantime we have a redistribution in train for Western Australia’s existing 15 seats, which despite the state’s rapid growth will not need to increase before the next election. Population volatility has led to substantial variations in enrolment across the electorates, with growth trends confounding the projections used to conduct the last redistribution in 2000. The following table shows actual enrolment at that time; the projections then arrived at for May 2004, three-and-a-half years hence; actual enrolment figures from the October 2004 election; and enrolment as of last month.
| 2000 | 2004 projected |
2004 actual |
2007 | |
| Brand (Labor 5.6%) | 74,528 | 88,665 | 84,223 | 93,011 |
| Canning (Liberal 5.6%) | 72,045 | 86,896 | 84,388 | 95,439 |
| Cowan (Liberal 1.7%) | 77,235 | 88,638 | 85,393 | 94,233 |
| Curtin (Liberal 13.6%) | 83,424 | 85,898 | 84,216 | 86,447 |
| Forrest (Liberal 5.8%) | 79,009 | 90,070 | 87,145 | 94,504 |
| Fremantle (Labor 9.1%) | 78,079 | 86,479 | 83,698 | 89,558 |
| Hasluck (Labor 1.3%) | 78,596 | 86,772 | 80,554 | 82,779 |
| Kalgoorlie (Liberal 2.6%) | 82,701 | 89,775 | 81,987 | 81,148 |
| Moore (Liberal 9.2%) | 72,538 | 84,988 | 75,923 | 77,541 |
| O’Connor (Liberal 16.6%) | 82,894 | 86,790 | 82,841 | 85,032 |
| Pearce (Liberal 9.1%) | 73,868 | 87,148 | 84,574 | 95,474 |
| Perth (Labor 8.8%) | 81,391 | 87,859 | 84,178 | 88,859 |
| Stirling (Liberal 1.3%) | 86,076 | 88,758 | 86,965 | 91,751 |
| Swan (Liberal 0.1%) | 78,145 | 84,956 | 79,549 | 82,511 |
| Tangney (Liberal 8.7%) | 83,529 | 87,310 | 83,108 | 84,591 |
| MEAN | 78,937 | 87,400 | 83,249 | 88,192 |
It is particularly notable that Moore, heretofore the quintessential growth corridor electorate, has fallen well short of the AEC’s projections at the time of the 2000 redistribution. Enrolment in the electorate took seven years to grow 6.9 per cent, against a projected 17.2 per cent in three-and-a-half years. This is a similar rate of growth to other Perth suburban seats, which came in between 1 per cent and 10 per cent. The real action has been in semi-rural Canning (32.5 per cent), Pearce (29.2 per cent) and Brand (24.8 per cent), along with outer metropolitan Cowan (22.0 per cent). Growth in the state’s south-west has boosted enrolment in safe Liberal Forrest by 19.6 per cent, but further afield O’Connor and Kalgoorlie have remained stagnant.
It will thus be necessary for the redistribution to cut upwards of 10,000 voters from Canning, Pearce, Brand, Cowan and Forrest, paring back existing over-enrolment and accounting for projected growth over the next three-and-a-half years. Significant expansion will be required not only for ever-declining Kalgoorlie and O’Connor, but also for Moore to correct for its over-estimated growth prospects last time. In the metropolitan area, Curtin, Swan and Tangney will need to take in new areas, but little adjustment will be necessary for Perth, Stirling and Fremantle (which is not to say that these electorates will not be redrawn due to knock-on effects).
While it never pays to second-guess redistributions, it’s tempting to draw a scenario in which Kalgoorlie absorbs all or part of Geraldton from O’Connor, which can easily be compensated by taking some of the territory that Pearce and Forrest need to lose. The need for cuts to adjoining Forrest, Canning and Brand will tempt the commissioners to make most of this required transfer from Forrest, resulting in knock-on transfers to the other two. The required growth in Moore can be accommodated either at the expense of Pearce to the north or Cowan to the east, both of which will need to be cut.
I am already fed up with the next Leader of the Opposition. Malcolm Turnbullying, or already was, decrying the (our) Government for not doing well enough.
On interest rates. Costello failed to stare down the banks, despite his thuggish behaviour, well described by public commentators, as in the instance of Saul Eslake.
Particularly noted by me was Costello’s ‘attitude’ on the 7.30 Report, prior to the Reserve, or any bank, making their own decision, however shaded, a mafioso approach which Wayne Swan seems unwilling to embrace.
On whaling. What did the previous government bother to do? Answer, nothing. Alternatively, condone.
On waiting lists for elective surgery, the Opposition has the gall to criticise the supposed inadequacy of Kev’s, I guess, start up funding.
That is for starters.
Yes giving Geraldton to Kalgoorlie seems the logical thing to do. But as that would probably give it more people than is acceptable i would assume that somewhere like the booths around Esperance or Merredin should be given to o’connor as to keep Kalgoorlie marginal. The current o’connor is an abomination (Which reminds me of the saying Pets are like their owners). In my view the compensation should come from the booths in Forrest around Manjimup and up to Bridgetown and the Northcliffe and walpole booths. This area from Forrest plus Esperance would rationalise all three electorates and make O’Connor a more Southern W.A based seat. To a lesser extent it would improve Kalgoorlie. (extending across the pacific, Indian and Southern oceans from Newman to Esperance was always abit to much really.)
Maybe the part of Pearce near Narrogin and Williams could be added could be added from Pearce to O’cconor but I think perhaps stratton and swan view or Eenbrook and henleybrook should be added to Cowan or Hasluck to compensate them for any losses to Moore swan and Perth. Then some of the northern parts of Canning and brand should be given to Tangney, Fremantle and Hasluck to be passed on as needed. As for Curtin well i would hope it is given some of the liberal booths from Stirling (fingers crossed) and maybe that north shore part of Fremantle.
I am interested to hear other peoples ideas 🙂
If a redistribution gets underway in Victoria in early 2010, the commission would have a difficult time completing it prior to an election in the second half of 2010. It seems to me that if the redistribution can be postponed, it will be.
A redistribution can’t begin within 12 months of the expiration of parliament. The new parliament will sit for the first time on 12 February 2008. So I assume its expiry is 12 February 2011.
The next redistribution in Victoria falls due on 29 January 2010. But the process can start up to 30 days after that date. Does that give them some leeway to postpone?
Note that the upcoming redistribution in Tasmania, originally set for March 2007, can’t commence until March 2008. Because, according to this research note: “redistributions scheduled within 12 months of the expiration of a House of Representatives are deferred until 30 days after the first meeting of the new House.”
By contrast, it’s interesting that the process has already kicked off for Western Australia. It would seem that because WA’s redistribution was never actually postposed that it needn’t wait until the next House is seated. So an anomaly has arisen whereby WA’s redistribution has started earlier than Tasmania’s because it was due later.
One more thing – the Northern Territory. There might be a redistribution there this year, but there won’t be any changes to the boundaries.
If NSW does lose a seat to Qld, any guesses on where the NSW seat will be taken from? City or country?
The options of how the reduistribution is cut up by seat in WA are huge.
Each option involves favoring one party over another.
Where there are internal AEC value judgment disagreements as to which options to decide , only a few do make the crucial decisions and how they make them depite their political leanings is significant
Re NSW, since last year’s redistribution abolished a country seat (nominally Gwydir, though actually Parkes), one would imagine that the next one would take out a city seat. Lowe, Blaxland and Banks are obvious possibilities. This would have the knock-on effect of drawing outer suburban seats like Greenway and Macarthur, which were pushed further out last time, back in again.
I think Geraldton to Kalgoorlie too, making O’Connor more of a Southern WA seat.
O’Connor to take surplus from Forrest and Canning and Brand to lose their northern sections to the Southern Metropolitan seats.
Pearce and the Northern half of the city is the trickier part. There are a few options, but none stands out as better than another to me.
Re NSW, I expect the seat to come from the middle ring of Sydney south of the harbour. Parramatta would be the best seat to go IMO, but would probably stay because it’s a federation seat. They struggled last time to keep the suburb of Parramatta actually in the seat – just get rid of it.
It will probably end up being Reid, Blaxland, Watson or Lowe.
New seat in Qld should be North of Brisbane round the sunshine coast IMO.
Having said all that, it’s all a bit of a lottery really.
Will any adjustment be required in Tassie?
#5, #7
So under this scenario, if a safe ALP seat from Sydney is abolished, the knock-on effect would make Macarthur and Greenway more ALP-friendly?
I agree Parramatta should go. Although Parramatta is a Federation seat, so was Gwydir.
If NSW is to lose a metropolitan seat there are a myriad of possibilities
– Lowe, Reid, Blaxland, Banks have already been mentioned and all are plausible
– Watson could also be added to that list
– Bennelong could also be under pressure as the safe lib north shore seats need to move west to maintain enrolment.
– A north shore seat is not implausible but on further consideration south of the harbour more likely.
The AEC may actually take the opportunity to abolish several and create a new seat called McMahon – as the late Billy is the only deceased PM without a seat – even Frank Forde get a guernsey! for 6 days work.
In NSW especially it is always fascinating the ALP submission as factional placement is only marginally behind political advantage in their order of thinking.
David Walsh’s point regarding the timing of the next Victorian redistribution is most interesting. One by product of a delay is that there will be an enormous discrepancy in Victorian seat sizes by 2010.
AS long as it is not macathur tat is abolished in N.S.W. More young people plus the reversing of the electoral laws make stupid farmers position very bad. plus he will be punished for this (big news around champbell town and camden).
http://campbelltown.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/farmers-new-barn/1160781.html
He deserves to be punished. I had 30 dollars on labor to win macathur. He angers me almost as much as Fran baily who also stole my money 🙁
ROn @ 5, i am worried about some of the people at the aec. Hopefully their new masters will make them affraid for their jobs. After the mess they have made of W.A. That Labor increased its vote but had a net loss of seats is unforgivable. 2.14 percent swing and to have 4 out of 15 seats with 46.7 percent of the vote is very sus. Sooner Nick Minchins mate Andy Becker is purged the better.
I would hope they abolish Reid. Use to help trim some of those margins of the libs seats. Though i think in the case of Macathur and Hughes it is not needed. As soon as that twit vale goes Hughes will be returned to its rightful place.
I’m with Scotty on O’Connor. The idea of an electorate like Kalgoorlie taking in Esperance in the south to everything else in WA north of Geraldton is already a bit of a stretch (needs must I suppose) but a seat taking in Albany up to Geraldton seems ridiculous and unnecessary.
I haven’t considered the numbers but it seems to me that it would make much more sense for a rationalisation of the country WA seats so that Forrest contracts into the SW , Pierce and O’Connor be divided to comprise one predominantly Great Southern/Southern Wheatbelt seat (maybe including Esperance – sorry Esperanians – I know you have some connections to Kalgoorlie but its not an easy job to make the numbers work) and one predominantly Northern Wheatbelt/into the Mid-West seat. That would leave Kalgoorlie to cover everything else up to the Kimberley.
This just seems like a more logical division that the current O’Connor.
Reid will not be abolished – at least in name. It’s named after a former PM.
Macarthur should be a walkover, but I’m not sure Hughes will fall back into the Labor fold so easily. A lot of demographic changes, lot of small business owners… Hughes is becoming more like Cook (without the xenophobia).
Nice article, Scotty. Sounds like someone is a little defensive… I know people who live in Macarthur, and they were mightily pissed off when Farmer complained about how ungrateful voters were. I doubt he’ll run next time.
A logical set of changes would see Kalgoorlie pick up Geraldton, but only the town itself, leaving O’Connor waaaay under quota. I’d then expect O’Connor to take the southern half of Forrest (Margaret River, Augusta, Bridgetown, Manjimup, Pemberton, Walpole etc), and much of the wheatbelt areas of Pearce (Northam etc). Pearce then is almost exclusively urban and urban fringe.
I am not sure why but I have assumed that boundaries are determined in part based on the common interests of inhabitants. If this is so, O’Connor has included most of the WA wheat growing areas, except for the central wheatbelt in the East and around Northam. Geraldton is gaining a greater mining population base so may have commonality with the Kalgoorlie electorate. Some miners now live in Geraldton but note, mines are inland and no one lives at minesites any more, they all fly in/fly out.
To Scotty (11): Andy Becker’s been retired at least two years, but you’re right – the Libs have friends in the right places.
Scotty (11)
You can’t compare directly the state swing and seats won to allege “bias”.
In Victoria, Labor got a swing of just over five percent but gained Corangamite (margin 5.5%) and very nearly McEwen (over 6%). Only Deakin had a margin within the uniform state swing. Does this show outrageous bias against the Liberals in Victoria? Of course not: swings are never uniform, and there will always be odd outcomes due to special circumstances (like Wentworth).
In WA, Labor lost a very strong sitting member in Cowan, and in Swan the Liberals were coming off a terrible campaign from 2004. If you assume this deflated the real Lib vote a couple of percent in each case, then it’s not surprising they won both seats, even against the swing.
MDConnell @ 17 I assure you I am not one of those ignorant people who believe in uniform swings. But you look at the electorates that are severely overpopulated like Holt Lalor and Gorton, Isaacs, Calwell Where practically every booth was won by labor with over 55 percent of the vote and say wow what a “COINCIDENCE”. The only real liberal seat over 100,000 would either have to lose liberal votes to the north or less logically make Casey very marginal.
Yes I know swings are ever uniform in every seat. I also know Edwards the war hero was very popular. However given I would expect the AEC to be able to understand the complexity of every area with data both before Edwards was the member and how those booths corresponded in the past 4 or 5 state elections. I also think you misunderstood my view about correspondence between seats and percentage of votes. I don’t believe it is possible to get votes and seats to match each other exact ally. However i think someone has made a mistake when you increase your vote (in 13 out of 15) but loose seats. I was just pointing out how that political appointments went to the top of the AEC. It is not always simply bias but the people may not be the best qualified however if the High court is anything to go by sometimes people cannot help themselves.
McEwen is very personal to me as i had money on its as it was an almost undoubtable gain given its demographics, past and state trends. And Labor did win it despite the long overdue redistribution that would will probably remove the northern more liberal parts to its northern neighbours. it has over 100,000 voters. She was also top and got the donkey vote. The electoral laws prevented young people and people who are forced to move house. Despite all this she lost despite dirty tactics. And after that to have the nerve to challenge and have so many liberal scrutineers descend knowing they only had to make sure a small amount of most likely genuine votes were discredited made me want to vomit. That had nothing to do with state swing in comparison with individual electorates.
Tim W @ You are right i might have been exaggerating a little, but with the addition of Liverpool in the last distribution and the difference in state electorates (such as Heathcote 8.8 and Menai 2.7, even after the 2007 very unpopular election). This implies the vote is still soft. But you are right there will be no return to the glory days of 6% plus margins that are long dead.
Um yeah i wa referring to only Vicotria when i talked about Lalor ect.
A little bird who claims to be in the know tells me that Pat Farmer is highly unlike;y to complete this term let alone contest another election.
Yeah wont do the honerable thing and face the wrath of the electorate for his sins. Sounds about right. Only one thing i dont understand. Why is he shadow minister for sport and youth then?
Sorry Scotty I don’t quite get the point about
“I would expect the AEC to be able to understand the complexity of every area with data both before Edwards was the member and how those booths corresponded in the past 4 or 5 state elections”
Are you suggesting the AEC should have factored in Edwards’ popularity when drawing the boundaries of Cowan? It’s my understanding that the AEC is not allowed to take any real or imagined political outcomes into consideration in redistributions. I know they do that in SA but not federally.
I stick to my initial point: if you assume that due to special circumstances in Cowan and Swan, the “true” margin in both seats was 2-3% to the Liberal party, then the results this election are pretty consistent with the state swing. From your interesting interpretation of the McEwen result, it seems you’re a Labor guy, so perhaps your perception of Cowan and Swan is coloured by political prejudice…..
No. i had 5 dollars for the ALp to win Mcewen (ie it cost me 20). Which i stated in my first comment on this subject.
The point is if you do not take politics into consideration to make sure it is at least relatively balanced politically. Because if you don’t you increase the likeleyhood “Alot” of people winning with less votes. Like in 1990 like in 1998 and half of the Menzie era governments. As the party with the most seats forms government it should be taken as a consideration as an afterthought after initial plans are made. By no means is it the only or the most important consideration but important non the less for public confidence in the system.
Infact what i was eluding to was that people may consider gerrymandering them. it also makes pork barelling more likely which is not very democratic. I dont unconditionally support any party. They are both flawed. But i certaintly do not vote for anyone who undermines the political process no matter their political persausion.
The point is at the very least they stuffed the last W.A redistribution up. Take Moore for example. You could forgive someone who only saw the number of voters for thinking it was from Tasmania or from the Northern territory. I also before gave the example of Andy Becker. He was not given teh job for his qualifications now was he?
“it also makes pork barelling more likely which is not very democratic.”…
What, not very democratic… giving the people what they want?
As the Right Honorable Jim Hacker might have said… Humphrey, I have been listening to the people, and now I am giving them what they want, and in marginal… Oops, I mean areas of special economic interest too.
tim w @ 13
clearly youve never met anyone from hughes, out there xenophobia never goes out of fashion
Fun and games drawing boundaries for the future. But it does seam to be out of kilt and not just on the distribution/ratio of the states but within each state.
Best redistribution would be to review the whole state federation thing and adopting a multiple member electorate with possible a single house – But that is asking for rain when we are in a never ending drought.
You also need to look at who in the AEC is due to retire. Tim Glanville in Victoria has passed on. I guess we can expect further changes in the top end of the AEC.
Its time to review not just the boundaries but also the structure within each Electoral commission the cost of duplication in resources is considerable and millions of dollars and improved efficiency is there waiting. Overall there is more staff supporting the Electoral Commissions then there is electorate staff servicing the politicians. (Ministerial and Parliament staff excluded)
I am of the view that the various electoral comisisions need to be reformed with the role of conducting elections needs to separated from policy development and review. Their should be independent statutory authority responsible for the conduct of elections with each state commission maintaining a audit review policy development role as opposed to service provider.
A similar separation within the national office could also be considered.
The upshot of making O’Connor “more of a south-west seat” surely spells danger for the Liberals. The Nationals got uncomfortably close on November 24 and presumably Tuckey will not re-contest (he’ll be 74 in 2011). I would have thought that this is the Nationals’ best chance of winning a seat in WA since 1972. Comments from those of you in the West?
To Scotty (23): Before Andy Becker’s appointment as Australian Electoral Commissioner he was the South Australian Electoral Commissioner. That gave him better qualifications than most AEC chiefs. Yes, he got the Commonwealth job per Nick Minchin but a Labor Government appointed him in SA.
I have plenty of criticisms of the AEC, but Scotty’s are just ridiculous. If Western Australia had been redistribited before this election his arguements might be valid, but it was done seven years ago. The boundaries produced gave fair outcomes at the 2001 and 2004 election (as far as single member electorates can). The fact that the seats and votes were out of kilter seven years later is hardly their fault.
Likewise the reason there are Labor seats in Victoria that are way over the average enrollment is that most of the growth has been in Labor seats. If reviews are only done every seven years this will create distortions towards the end of the period. The AEC does not decide when to do redistributions, that is set down in the electoral act (and is something that was passed by Labor, not one of the abominations Abetz put through). Scotty should be pushing for more frequent redistributions if he is concerned about these things.
I do think they should do redistributions should be done more often. With the sheer amount elections that have been won with less votes is reason enough.
Um even though it was a long time ago they are suppost to project the population as is shown in the article if you care to read it. They got the projection wrong in a big way. Thats all i am saying. I didnt say for example Moore was favouring one side due to this, just that they stuffed their projections up by a fair bit. its not 7000 or even 15,000 voters of its target its alot more (excuse the pun 😛 )
i take the motives of people politically appointed with a grain of salt. Seriously if you had two choices, one benifited the party you support and one benifited the other one, which one would you pick? What i basically was trying to say is i hope they do a better job this time. I never said they actaully did do anything wrong just it seems like a coincidence to me ie it seems abit convinient.(Grain of Salt) You see i am a very cynical person. And yes its hard to say these days because politicians have ruined that word for me.
Ballarat, Bendigo, Corio, Corangamite, and Deakin will swing back to towards the Libs next time. The voters in those seats have made their statement.
31- not necessarily.
I’ve just heard on the radio that a Liberal WA MP has died. Not the way we want to get our by-election fix alas. I know nothing about the man in question other than that he used to work for the ABC.
Nevertheless, my sympathies to his family. Ask not for whom the bell tolls…
[I’ve just heard on the radio that a Liberal WA MP has died. Not the way we want to get our by-election fix alas. I know nothing about the man in question other than that he used to work for the ABC.
Nevertheless, my sympathies to his family. Ask not for whom the bell tolls…]
Yep, died on the way to the WA Liberal Party meeting which enentually decided to elect Troy Buswell as leader.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=54867
justaminute @ 31 i would probably say corangamite will. But who knows exactally what a redistribution will mean. Possibly Chislom also. I doubt Corio. I wouldnt say Bendigo or Ballarat will be in the bag. I would also assume Bendigo will loose those liberal booths in its horn in any redistribution. Its also hard to gauge the absence of any Victorian in the inner sanctum of the party ie no Costello. Its also hasty to assume labor would have a net loss of seats in any subsequent election. They could for example win Dickson, Herbet, Bowman and/or Hinkler. They could also loose Corangamite and Deakin but gain McEwan an La Trobe. But in Labors first year and before any redistributions it is purley speculative.
Scotty @ 35:
I agree re: Signs to the Liberals. The main issue I have with the gerrymandering is that people think it is a fair system if the numbers are within a certain percentage point from each other. Fact is the State based Federation system will always create disparity based on numbers represented. Tasmania and WA will always have a disproportionate representation.
The other is the property based system. Where we cluster votes abased on the socio-economics and place of living. There is a huge difference in a 75% safe seat and a margin less then 1% seat. Most of the Labor vote is locked up i safe lower income areas.
A move to a multi-member electorate for the House of Reps (Electorates of 3 or 5 members would provide a more even balance. In the end it is the percentage of vote not the number of voters that really counts.
Senate Watch @ 36
True. I’m from Tasmania though lol. 5 would be too many. How many electorates do you think would be approperiate for your system?
Senate Watch @ 36
WA does not have disproportionate representation. The only way a state can have disproportionate representation is if it’s population falls below 4.5 quotas (as per Tasmania) where it retains it’s constitutional right to five seats. WA has a population of about 14.8 quotas, so has 15 seats, which will remain until WA’s population either slips below 14.5 quotas or (more likely) exceeds 15.5.
If you’re talking in the Senate, then that’s not a proportionally allocated house anyway, so it’s irrelevant.
William has a new post on the WA Libs.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/791
As seats are determined by population and not voters, it could be argued that NSW, Victoria and Qld are over represented and that SA and the ACT are under represented. NSW and Vic have higher numbers of non citizens i.e non votersand QLD has a younger age profile – more under 18 i.e non voters. With this argument, SA is under represented as it both a lower number of non citizens (because of fewer immigrants in the last 30 years) and an older age profile. Why the writers of our constitution wanted apportionment by population, I don’t know but it was the reason that indigenous australians were not counted by the census until 1967 because it was felt that SA (then incorporating the NT), Qld and WA would be overrepresented.
Trying to speculate on possible outcomes for Victorian seats in 2010 is a bit premature when it is considered that the next redistribution will make some serious changes to address the huge imbalance in enrolments.
The seats with the low enrolments are clustered together in the east and south east – Chisholm, Deakin and Hotham whilst the big enrolments form a ring around the west and north of Melbourne – Lalor, Calwell, Gorton and McEwen.
My call at this stage is that either Chisholm or Hotham would be abolished and a new seat created in the north western suburbs.
The only alternative to abolition would seem to have seats cross the Yarra – been done before in recent memory – Melbourne Ports into Docklands, Melbourne into Southbank, or Menzies into Ivanhoe or Eltham (why don’t they call it Diamond Valley?).
If Rio Tinto get their way the population of Kalgoorlie will decline even more with remote (i.e. Perth based) workers. Will save a lot on airfares as well, not to mention carbon footprints. Seems that all the pro AWA miners live in Perth if the election results in WA mean anything. Told you we could have won Kalgoorlie. A failure of imagination amongst other factors.
Biggest problem in Kalgoorlie was the candidate. Ideally needed a candidate from Kalgoorlie-Boulder or one of its satellite towns, preferably with popular local connections. Not someone from Newman.
Melbourne Ports, Lalor, Gorton, Holt, McEwen are oversized
Kooyong, Chisholm, Deakin, Hotham are unpopulated.
Blackburnpseph writes why not cross the Yarra.
This has been done several times in the past
Diamond Valley: Use to include areas around Ivanhoe and Bulleen
Melbourne Ports: Once ran from Port Melbourne/South Melbourne across the bay though Williamstown
Yarra: changed a few times covering Richmond and Hawthorn and at one point I believe had a small part of Toorak yet Jim Caines was never threatened
#40
Yep, the ACT is vastly underrepresented. The seat of Canberra has about the same no. of voters as the entire NT.
In NSW, the seat of Lyne is underpopulated. The ALP could ‘lean on’ the AEC to abolish Lyne, rather than one of its own seats in metro Sydney. I’m only being half-serious here – this particular re-distribution would cause all sorts of knock-on problems for the neighbouring seats, especially along the coast. Also, all sorts of urban development is going on inside Lyne, so it may catch up in terms of population.
TW
Going on current enrolment figures Lyne may appear to be underenrolled. However NSW has only just had a redistribution so this would reflect that this area is projected to grow quickly – and that area of the north coast is.
#46
I agree. The forecasts for Lyne are for rapid population growth. Having just visited the Hastings/ Port Macquarie LGA, I’m not surprised.
Yarra included Hawthorn up until its abolition I think. Will Melbourne ever be pushed across the Yarra into Southbank?
Based on Adam’s info, Yarra did include Hawthorn. Richmond was in Melbourne Ports from 1968 until 1984.
The City of Melbourne extends south of the Yarra and it could definitely be argued that South Bank has community of interest with the CBD. But Melbourne itself is overenrolled.
If somebody could tell me how I can insert a graph into this text box, I have formulated one which shows the relative deviation from the mean of Victorian seats over the last 4 years. I found it quite enlightening.
One way of having all of the City of Melbourne in the one seat would be to place the Brunswick booths into Wills.
I’m inclined to think Melbourne Ports should move back towards the city via Prahran and South Yarra while Caulfield move into a new Higgins or into a seat running though the remainder of the City of Glen Irea.
I also feel Hawthorn and Kew have more in common with Richmond, South Yarra and Malvern than Balwyn, ignoring the Local Government Boundary
I don’t expect this to happen but I feel Coburg and Brunswick if possible should be grouped with Essendon.
Other possible redistributions might see Dunkley pushed further south into Mt Martha, this would follow the patten of the past two previous redistribution’s, but would have the effect of making the seat nearly unwinnable for the ALP.
Once I put together a pretend seat which may be acceptable in terms of population I wonder who would win the seat.
All of Kew & Hawthorn (East of Burke Rd), All of the City of Yarra south of the Eastern Freeway, all of Stonnington plus Southbank and the Domain part of South Yarra