The Australian Electoral Commission has announced its determination of states’ House of Representatives seat entitlements, confirming that New South Wales is to lose one of its 48 seats and Western Australia will gain a sixteenth seat. This is the third time New South Wales has lost a seat since the 2007 election, and Western Australia’s third gain since the enlargement of parliament in 1984. Needless to say, redistributions will be required, which will complicate any notion of an early election before they are finalised. This is because “mini-redistributions” would be needed to ensure that WA was granted the seat to which it is entitled. To cop Antony Green’s description of this ugly and so far never used procedure: “The AEC would divide the two neighbouring seats with the highest combined enrolment into three seats. In a state set to lose a member, the two electorates with the lowest enrolment would be amalgamated into a single seat.”
Ben Raue at The Tally Room earlier did posts on how the two redistributions might play out, which you can see here for New South Wales and here for Western Australia. In the former case, the simplest option would be to excise a seat from an under-quota stretch extending from the Central Coast to Ballina, the most likely candidate being one of the Hunter region seats. However, Antony Green offers that you “might see a more radical re-design which abolishes both Hunter and Riverina and creates a new upper hunter/mid-west seat”. For Western Australia, what seems to me the logical strategy would be to divide the ungainly eastern suburbs electorate of Hasluck to create one seat oriented around Midland and another around oriented around Gosnells (and I might further suggest naming the former seat Swan, and renaming the seat currently bearing that name).
No doubt though there is a lot I have failed to consider. So here is a thread for discussion of the matter.
Does the AEC have any “fairness” test whereby the percentage of votes should translate roughly into a corresponding percentage of seats? For example WA HOR 2PP in 2013 was 58:42 LNP:ALP yet ALP only garnered 20% of seats (3/15). Does this factor into the redistribution?
The two seats with the lowest enrollment aren’t necessarily adjoining though? Likewise the two seats with the highest enrollment.
#1: No.
#2: The two neighbouring seats with the lowest/highest enrolment.
Surely Gwydir was abolished before the 2007 election.
The “mini redistribution” would merge Page & Cowper on current numbers, though Page & Richmond and Farrer & Riverina are not far behind. In WA, Pearce and Canning have by far the largest enrolments.
I tend to think it was abolished at the 2007 election.
5
At the dissolution of the old parliament to be precise.
The problem that a numbers approach assumes is that it ignores the character of the regions and becomes a pure numbers exercise [ or pretty darn close to it] at the expense of regional identities.
I only realized the extent of this problem when I came to live in this electorate 20 years ago and realized that it consists of at least half dozen, possibly more if you want to be a splitter rather than a lumper, distinctly different sub areas with major character differences as regards nature of employment, religion, historical culture, demographic density, age and gender differences, and flowing from the above and other factors political opinions and loyalties.
Yet all are subsumed into one electorate.
Even in my Local Government region the same diversity applies with several sub regions that have little in common with the rest of the council area and where each cannot be adequately represented by a ward system based on lines on a map drawn initially many decades ago.
I dunno the answer to the problem but I suspect it has something to with getting rid of electorates as such, having some sort of Senate/Leg Council multi-rep/proportionate voting system and good luck with that.
Just a passing rant or whimsical muse.
^ Fair enough.
WA’s growth has been quite rapid. From 15.2 at the last determination to 16.2 now. A 17th seat looks probable at the next determination.
NSW 47.85 to 47.38
Vic static at 36.8
Qld 29.9 to 29.7 – must be the first time in a long time its share has fallen
SA 10.86 to 10.63 – more likely than not will lose a seat next time
Tas 3.35 to 3.25
ACT 2.38 to 2.44 – shame it didn’t get the extra seat, has twice the enrolment of NT
NT 1.53 to 1.56
Taking on board Ben Raue’s comments that the Hunter and North Coast have the greatest concentration of sub quota seats – it makes for interesting speculation which seat could be abolished. It does seem logical that one of the seats in the centre – Paterson, Hunter or Charlton – should be the one that goes. What may be the driver may be some desire to have a single seat concentrated on Maitland – currently split across three seats – Hunter, Paterson and Newcastle. The current boundaries across the whole region are interesting in that the ‘community of interest’ test has been ignored again and again with even quite small places being split between two electorates.
Fredex @ 7
Just out of interest – what electorate are you in?
Abolishing a coastal seat would probably result in an electoral boundary going through the centre of Newcastle. I expect they’d much prefer to keep the division of Newcastle centered on Newcastle.
Hunter really is the best choice. Unite Maitland within Paterson, move Cessnock to Charlton, the rest shifts into the outer west. Depending on the numbers.
[WA’s growth has been quite rapid. From 15.2 at the last determination to 16.2 now. A 17th seat looks probable at the next determination.]
Actually, WA’s growth, both economically and in terms of population, has rather hit a wall with the end of the mining boom.
8
The public service cuts will have hurt the ACT. In the first term of the Howard Government they cost the ACT its 3rd seat. Maybe next time there will be enough people in the ACT to allow a 3rd seat.
And the worst statistic of the lot – “Tas 3.35 to 3.25”.
Yet the Tasmanians still get 5 MHRs (and 12 senators FFS). Yeah, I know the Constitution says they have to have a minimum of 5 MHRs. But their trend is downward, and is likely to keep on going downward. At some point ACT will get a higher actual entitlment than Tas, but will still be bloody lucky to get 3 seats.
[Actually, WA’s growth, both economically and in terms of population, has rather hit a wall with the end of the mining boom.]
We could easily regress, if Iron Ore and Oil/LNG prices stay low enough to ensure zero construction in either sector we will be in for a very rocky time as we enter ‘operations’ mode.
Was in various Adelaide city electorates for yonks and have been in Grey for many years and in the last 2 decades Barker.
Grey would illustrate my theme of regional/cultural etc diversity as well as Barker, maybe even better, but I’ll just give a quick run down of the latter here.
We have the Riverland [Renmark, Berri etc] which has virtually nothing in common with the SE of SA [Mt Gambier etc] which is land and people of a country far away so that for the northerners the River Murray is a major issue whereas quite possibly most people in the SE may never have seen it and their priorities are completely different.
I would suspect most, or at least a large chunk, of Riverland people have never spent more than a few days in the SE and vice versa except maybe to drive through.
In between and around the edges we have 3 separate wheat sheep type regions which have some commonalities but rainfall variations and what ensues from that cuts across that ruthlessly.
Then we edge onto the Mt Lofty ranges [eastern Hills] area – nob country, Downer and Briggs.
And north of the river …desert,
The southern Murray is quite distinctly different from the north altho’ the fact that a lot of the media comes from the north many people think its one area just cos of the river and the Advertiser wouldn’t have a clue. But tourism and recreation is the dominant industry in the south and is essentially antithetical to irrigation except nobody tells people that.
I suspect many electorates have the same diversity which is not given adequate representation by the drawing of single member electorates and which forces pollies to be all things to all people. I suspect you would have to live in an area for some time to get the differences and their impacts.
I dunno what to do about the problem, recognition would seem to be a good start.
Oh and I’ve just been informed we are offline [the joys of country living] so this response may be delayed.
I don’t think having a diverse electorate is a bad thing, to be honest. I find it hard to believe the residents of Mt. Gambier have more in common with, say, the eastern Adelaide Hills than they do with Berri.
You’re always going to have huge rural electorates when you have a population as urbanised as South Australia’s. If you split country SA into 3 regional seats and gave them all portions of the Adelaide metropolitan area to make up the population difference, you’d get near enough to no rural representation at all. Although how much the idiots that the SA Liberals keep putting up in Barker and Mayo actually give a toss about their electorate’s issues remains a debate, I don’t recall them ever doing much about the health of the Murray other than whinging in the Advertiser and demanding more water for their citrus plantations.
“Unite Maitland within Paterson” yeah thanks. Bob is one the best of Libs left standing IMHO and I think he’s not a bad guy. Assuming neither is going nowhere I would prefer Joel, so please aec leave hunter alone. My in-laws live essentially across the road (ie new England highway) from us and are in Paterson, which I find strange. We recently moved from Eden-Monaro so I guess the positive is either Bob or Joel is a universe in front of the bloody useless stooge Peter Hendy
As a Federation seat, it is highly likely that the name Hunter will survive but largely take over the territory of Paterson. The other alternative would be to abolish Charlton and Hunter resume its pre 1984 boundaries.
One issue with abolishing a Lower Hunter seat is that the Upper Hunter will need to be attached to somewhere else on the other side of the Great Divide – whether it be in a region centred on Tamworth, Gunnedah or Mudgee.
Doesn’t the AEC try to make the redistribution flow throughout the state like that of VEC did in Victoria lately? It sounds like losing a seat in NSW just causes the boundaries around the lost seat to shift but doesn’t affect much of anything else. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Also strange to see the David Walsh’s numbers.
[NSW 47.85 to 47.38
Vic static at 36.8
Qld 29.9 to 29.7 – must be the first time in a long time its share has fallen
SA 10.86 to 10.63 – more likely than not will lose a seat next time
Tas 3.35 to 3.25
ACT 2.38 to 2.44 – shame it didn’t get the extra seat, has twice the enrolment of NT
NT 1.53 to 1.56]
I would think there would be a slight increase in Victoria from the recent news of interstate migration.
I don’t think the redistribution committee should hesitate to ditch the name Hunter. The same guidelines that say federation names ought to be retained also say that geographic ones shouldn’t. Kalgoorlie was ditched not so long ago.
Even if you argue Hunter is named for the man and not the region, I’d counter that the man has been fairly honoured with enough things named after him.
Paterson was a significant Australian, I imagine there would be some protest if the name was discarded. (Though admittedly, Paterson has been dropped before).
And as for Charlton, I think there’s much merit in using federal divisions to honour significant federal politicians.
[I find it hard to believe the residents of Mt. Gambier have more in common with, say, the eastern Adelaide Hills than they do with Berri.]
They don’t, that’s my point.
[ … the idiots SA Liberals keep putting up in Barker and Mayo actually give a toss about their electorate’s issues remains a debate, I don’t recall them ever doing much about the health of the Murray other than whinging in the Advertiser and demanding more water for their citrus plantations.]
Absolutely agree.
acfe 14 – not to mention 12 Senators.
And yet Tasmania has so many problems despite (or maybe becasue of?) their “over”representation.
Raaraa,
It’s an all of state redistribution. But it is particularly noticeable that many of the northern NSW seats are well under quota, so they are likely to bear the brunt of the lost seat. If Hunter is abolished, the majority of it will probably be collectively absorbed by the 10 divisions running from Richmond to Robertson, and only a minority collectively absorbed by 37 divisions in the rest of the state.
Also bear in mind that those entitlement figures are relative. Victoria’s population has increased over the past three years, but at the same rate as the country as a whole.
@3,
Oh ok, so you’re saying considered as a pair. Fair enough.
If the ACT were to get an extra seat, the size of Parliament would increase to 151.
[15
WeWantPaul
Actually, WA’s growth, both economically and in terms of population, has rather hit a wall with the end of the mining boom.
We could easily regress, if Iron Ore and Oil/LNG prices stay low enough to ensure zero construction in either sector we will be in for a very rocky time as we enter ‘operations’ mode.]
WA’s population growth rate has been up to 3%pa (usually a bit less) since about 1960. The long term prospects for the WA economy remain highly propitious.
We have a highly skilled, globally-networked, outward-looking population, a strong disposition towards self-reliance, and a culture that promotes and values innovation.
We also look to the North and the West – to East and South Asia, the Middle East and Africa – where most of the world’s population is located and where most of its economic and social development in the coming century will be located.
Even though the investment boom is receding, we still also have very high GDP/capita (over AUD100,000 in 2013), so we have an income base that will enable us to take advantage of new opportunities in the information economy as well as our traditional advantages in resources and energy.
We are currently building the largest radio telescope in the world – the square kilometre array – which will mean WA will become host to the largest concentration of computing power and knowledge on earth.
We are really only just getting into our stride in this State.
William:
[(and I might further suggest naming the former seat Swan, and renaming the seat currently bearing that name). ]
There’s three seats in WA named (maybe indirectly) after rivers. Moore hasn’t been anywhere near the Moore River for a long time, and Canning will probably get pushed out of Perth to be more of a Peel / upper south west seat (how close the boundary with Forrest gets to Bunbury could depend on how much the AEC want to stuff around with O’Connor, which can pretty much be left alone population-wise). It’d be a better one to rename than Swan (which will still have that river on two sides).
Pearce is gonna get shredded along with Hasluck. I wonder if they can come up with a seat that makes more sense than Midland, Clarkson, hills and wheatbelt all smashed together.
How about Tonkin for a new name? He’s pretty much the only dead premier in the recent past to not have a seat named after him – there’s already a Brand (and an O’Connor, for what it’s worth), Vic has dibs on Hawke thanks to his nephew, and Court’s out until the younger one dies.
28
There is not a single seat in Victoria named after a premier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Australian_federal_divisions_of_Victoria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_of_Victoria
If Hunter or Paterson is abolished in favour of a single Maitland electorate, then the result will likely be a net Labor seat, but fairly marginal. The northern parts of Paterson would probably join Lyne while areas around Raymond Terrace may possibly join Newcastle. Port Stephens would likely be retained within the new seat although it could possibly join Lyne as well. Whether Cessnock and Kurri Kurri, both strong Labor towns, join Charlton or the new seat is a matter of debate, although they have much more in common with Maitland than the Newcastle suburbs that comprise Charlton. Singleton, Muswellbrook, Scone and their rural surrounds are likely to join one of the neighbouring rural seats although it’s possible Singleton will be retained within the new seat. Just my speculation.
Farrer is the seat in NSW currently furthest below quota. Getting Farrer to quota in the redistribution will require some major adjustments in Western NSW. It may also remove the ridiculousness of Albury and Broken Hill being in the same seat.
Do they name Federal seats after state premiers? No I’m not doubting BoP, just a general question.
[Do they name Federal seats after state premiers? No I’m not doubting BoP, just a general question.]
Dawson, Ryan, Parkes, Robertson, Cowper and Brand come instantly to mind. Dawson and Ryan have been around since 1948. Parkes is a special case anyway. Robertson and Cowper have been around since Federation so Brand (dating from 1984) is the only recent one that comes to mind.
As most PMs have come from NSW or Victoria, these states use up the PM seat names when the need for new seat names comes up.
Jimmy@39 come what may I want a quality representative from what ever happens (if anything) in Hunter. We had Mike Kelly until last year, the brilliant member for Eden Monaro, but the area now boasts useless federal and state representatives. If Hunter, or whatever my electorate ends up as, is ALP so be it. But I don’t care what party (or not) our representative is provided a quality representative results. I could live with either Fitzgibbon or Baldwin as things stand but we might end up with an anchor as did eden-monaro in the invisible Hendy
WA’s seat names are a mixture of state and federal politicians, other notable people and geography. Here’s the list:
Brand: longest-serving premier
Canning: surveyor
Cowan: first female MP
Curtin: PM
Durack: pastoralist family
Forrest: first premier
Fremantle: geographical
Hasluck: governor-general
Moore: first advocate-general (attorney-general)
O’Connor: designer of the Kalgoorlie pipeline and Freo harbour
Pearce: longest-serving senator
Perth: geographical
Stirling: first colonial governor, founder of Swan River colony
Swan: geographical
Tangney: first female senator
5 state / colonial govt, 4 federal govt, 3 other notable people, 3 geographical.
(West Aussies in the thread: how many of those would you have to google? It’s an interesting general knowledge thing, like knowing who all the people on banknotes are. I didn’t know Canning, Pearce, Moore or Tangney.)
given the pop growth in the central coast and hunter are these quotas correct ,seems very odd that nsw has lost a seat 3 times in a row
[“Unite Maitland within Paterson” yeah thanks. Bob is one the best of Libs left standing IMHO and I think he’s not a bad guy.]
Well as this is my electorate and I’ve personally dealt with Bob, I find him a useless chair warmer whose main asset is a bunch of rich donors. As they say, your mileage may vary 🙂
I also happen to think the seat boundaries here are particularly silly, especially around Maitland.
36
The other mainland states have been growing faster.
Melbourne and several Victorian regional cities are growing.
SEQ is growing strongly (hence Qld getting the extra seats the last few times).
WA is growing with the mining boom.
SA must be growing faster for some reason.
Sydney is growing slower than Melbourne and is Wollongong not growing much?
SA isn’t necessarily growing faster, the fact that it’s a smaller state means it’s harder to for the quotas to change. Relative to Australia’s population, SA needs to lose 1/11 = 9% of its population to lose a seat; NSW only needs to lose 1/48 = 2%.
A similar thing in reverse applies for the states gaining seats: Qld needs and extra 1/30 = 3.3% for an extra seat, while WA needs 1/15 = 6.7%. That’s why Qld has gained an extra seat at most recent elections, while WA has only gained three since 1990.