Research Brief Index

Research Brief no. 8 2006–07

'Save Country Seats': the NSW redistribution 2005-06

Scott Bennett
Politics and Public Administration Section
1 February 2007

Contents

Executive summary
Introduction
When are redistributions held?
Who conducts a redistribution?
Public input?
What are the aims of a redistribution?

Equality

Enrolment quota
Quota variation
Projected average enrolment

Other factors

Division names

The 2005–06 NSW redistribution

The proposed redistribution—principles
The proposed redistribution—in practice
The reaction in the West

Loss of a rural seat
Community of interest
Members of Parliament and their constituents
Loss of a Federation division

The campaign to save Gwydir
The final redistribution—west of the Divide

Gwydir, Parkes, Calare and Farrer
The ripple effect—Macquarie and Greenway

Looking back

A biased process?
Are the redistribution rules suitable for a geographically-large nation?
Can anything be done?

Quota variation
Coping with distance
Leeway for sparsely populated areas
Local voices

In conclusion—could public concerns have been lessened?

Listening to the public
Insufficient explanation of the case for change
Assertion is not proof
Better public relations

Appendix—Redistribution timetable
Endnotes

Executive summary

The 2005–06 redistribution of New South Wales House of Representatives divisions was controversial because of the loss of a rural division, but also because the Redistribution Committee decided to take a new approach to drawing boundaries. The Committee claimed that it was no longer relevant to see physical features as barriers to communication in electoral divisions where there were substantial transport and communications links, and based some decisions on that judgment.

Despite the fact that many rural residents had called for the abolition of one of the Sydney seats that had suffered a decline in population, the redistribution proposal:

• abolished the northern ‘Federation’ division of Gwydir
• massively expanded the north-western division of Parkes
• made the Bathurst-centred division of Calare much larger, and
• extended Macquarie so as to have it partly in the Blue Mountains and partly beyond them.

In western New South Wales the reaction was immediate and hostile, revealing a lack of public understanding of the redistribution process. Opponents criticised:

• the disappearance of a rural division rather than a Sydney division
• the loss of ‘community of interest’ in huge divisions
• the difficulty rural MPs would have in servicing their constituents, and
• the loss of a ‘Federation’ division.

Prior to issuing the final redistribution, two officially-convened public meetings gave the members of a ‘Save Gwydir’ campaign the chance to address redistribution officials. Despite optimism that rural concerns had been heeded, the final redistribution still annoyed many:

• ‘Gwydir’ as a division name was not saved
• Calare was greatly enlarged, extending to the Queensland border, and
• there was no joy for the opponents of the changes to Macquarie.

Possible alterations to the redistribution system are discussed in the paper, though the politics involved in electoral redistributions suggest that this part of the electoral process is unlikely to be altered. The paper also asks whether the redistribution officials should have engaged more with the public throughout the redistribution.

Introduction

There are always winners and losers in each redistribution of House of Representatives divisions. A redrawing of boundaries can turn marginal divisions into safe divisions, safe divisions into marginal divisions, or even turn a division that is held by one party into a division that is nominally part of an opposing party’s tally. Redistributions can also have a major impact upon the careers of the men and women who seek office in our national parliament. In 1993 Steve Dubois (ALP, St George) retired from politics when his New South Wales division disappeared as a consequence of a redistribution. In 2003 the South Australian and Victorian redistributions helped bring about the retirement of Speaker Neil Andrew (Lib, Wakefield) and the electoral defeat of Martyn Evans (ALP, Bonython) and Christian Zahra (ALP, McMillan).

The 2006 New South Wales redistribution will similarly be remembered by John Cobb MP (Nat, Parkes), whose reaction to the redistribution was to announce that he would leave the division he had won in 2001 to contest the greatly reshaped division of Calare.⁽¹⁾ A similar conundrum faces the independent MP for Calare. Should Peter Andren remain with Calare—which he first won in 1998—or should he contest Macquarie, a division which had gained over 40 per cent of Calare’s voters? These events are a reminder that, apart from the actual elections themselves, ‘no process focuses the minds of those interested in politics more than the re-drawing of electoral boundaries’.⁽²⁾

While redistributions are significant events for Members of Parliament, for candidates, and for the political parties, just occasionally they can be seen to matter for ordinary Australians as well—as in New South Wales in 2005–06. Since changes introduced in 1984, however, this part of the electoral process has been relatively free from controversy. It was therefore not to be expected that the recently-completed redistribution for New South Wales House of Representatives divisions would prove to be unusually controversial. The controversy revealed a lack of community understanding of the redistribution process. This paper describes the process, discusses the controversy and analyses the changes to the redistribution that were made as a result. It also poses the questions of whether the redistribution arrangements need altering, and whether the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) might have done more to conduct a dialogue with the public.

When are redistributions held?

The timing of redistributions is a matter of law, rather than the result of a government decision, as used to be the case.⁽³⁾ Formerly, all states were usually redistributed at the same time. Since legislative changes in 1984, redistributions are now held for individual states and territories when they fall due, with three ways in which a redistribution of a state’s or territory’s divisions can be triggered:

(I) If there has been a shift in population altering a state’s or territory’s House of Representatives seat entitlement, a redistribution must be conducted. Since 1984 there have been 16 redistributions caused in this way: 1989 (Vic, WA), 1992 (NSW, Qld, SA), 1994 (Vic, Qld, ACT), 1997 (Qld, ACT), 2000 (WA, NT), 2003 (Qld, SA), 2005–06 (NSW, Qld). In 2005–06 redistributions were brought about by the New South Wales entitlement dropping from 50 to 49 seats, and Queensland’s entitlement rising from 28 to 29 seats. Many observers described this as Queensland gaining a seat at the expense of New South Wales,⁽⁴⁾ but this was not the case, for the House of Representatives does not have a fixed number of seats. The Constitution provides that the number of House seats must be ‘as nearly as practicable’ twice the number of the 72 state senators, but there is no fixed number of total seats. Since 1984, numbers in the House have varied: 148 (1984–93), 147 (1993–96), 148 (1996–2001), 150 (since 2001). If New South Wales’s population numbers had been stronger, that state could have retained its 50 seats while Queensland gained its extra seat, thus raising House numbers to 151 (Table 1).

Table 1: State and Territory entitlements 1984–2006

Source: Australian Electoral Commission

* The current number of Northern Territory divisions was the result of special legislation.

(ii) A redistribution must take place when the number of electors in more than one third of a state’s divisions varies from the average state enrolment by more than 10 per cent in three consecutive months. No redistribution has yet occurred because of this.

(iii) If, during a period of seven years, neither provision (i) nor provision (ii) has forced a redistribution in a particular state or territory, a redistribution must be conducted in that state or territory. Since 1984 there have been eight redistributions under this provision: 1992 (Tas, ACT), 1997 (WA), 1999 (NSW, SA, Tas), 2002–03 (Vic), 2004 (ACT).

Who conducts a redistribution?

Part IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 deals with the redistribution of House of Representatives divisions. Much of the process is the responsibility of a Redistribution Committee, which must be created for the state or territory whose divisions are being redistributed. The Act specifies the membership of this committee, and the legislation dictates the way in which the Redistribution Committee must operate, and the factors that it must consider in each redistribution. Despite assertions that the 2006 New South Wales redistribution had been performed by ‘the faceless Electoral Commission’,⁽⁵⁾ holders of specified statutory positions are appointed to redistribution committees:

• for a state redistribution the Redistribution Committee must consist of the Australian Electoral Commissioner, the Australian Electoral Officer for the state concerned, the state Surveyor-General and the state Auditor-General
• for an Australian Capital Territory redistribution the Redistribution Committee must consist of the Australian Electoral Commissioner, the Senior Divisional Returning Officer for the ACT, the Commonwealth Surveyor-General and a senior Australian Public Service officer nominated by the Governor-General, and
• for a Northern Territory redistribution the Redistribution Committee must consist of the Australian Electoral Commissioner, the Australian Electoral Officer for the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Surveyor-General and the Northern Territory Auditor-General.

During the proceedings an ‘augmented’ Electoral Commission is established, by adding to the Redistribution Committee the two members of the three-member AEC who did not serve on the Redistribution Committee. This body takes over the redistribution after the Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution is published for public comment.

Public input?

Commonwealth electoral redistributions are designed to give the public several opportunities to have its views heard. The first opportunity occurs once the redistribution process has formally begun, when the Australian Electoral Commissioner invites the public to submit suggestions. Thirty days are allowed for responses to be made to this general invitation, after which fourteen more days are allowed for public comments on the lodged suggestions. Once suggestions and comments have been received from the public, the Redistribution Committee considers these, and develops a set of boundary proposals.

The Redistribution Committee then:

• publishes its proposal
• exhibits maps of proposed divisions
• announces the names of the proposed divisions (which may be an additional division or a new division formed from two existing divisions), and
• explains the reasons for its proposals.

Once the draft proposals have been published, the public again has a chance to be heard, with 28 days allowed for the submission of objections to the proposals. These are published and a 14-day period is allowed for the receipt of written comments on any of the objections. The augmented Electoral Commission has 60 days to consider public objections to the draft redistribution, after which it makes a final proposal—on which there may or may not be hearings.

Eventually a final determination is issued by the augmented Electoral Commission, which ends the process. The final report is tabled in the Parliament for information purposes only, for no appeal is possible to a final determination⁽⁶⁾ (for a summary of this process, see Appendix).

What are the aims of a redistribution?

Equality

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is written to ensure that division sizes do not vary too greatly—as used to occur from time to time when redistributions could be delayed by government. The requirements of the legislation are ‘expressed in an hierarchical order’ that binds redistribution committees and commissions.⁽⁷⁾ Of premier importance is the requirement that the Redistribution Committee and the augmented Electoral Commission must ‘as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure’ that the numbers in each division shall fall within the ‘average divisional enrolment’ range of the relevant state or territory.⁽⁸⁾ It is relevant to the New South Wales redistribution being discussed here to note that neither the Committee nor the Commission has any leeway to downgrade this provision.

Three parts of the redistribution process are designed to achieve equality of division size.

Enrolment quota

Early in the process the Australian Electoral Commissioner determines the ‘enrolment quota’ for the state or territory being redistributed. In the 2005–06 New South Wales example, this figure was established by dividing the number of elector enrolments for the state (4 308 595) by the number of divisions to which the state was entitled (49), giving a rounded figure of 87 931. This was the enrolment quota for the state in the redistribution.

Quota variation

The constant shift in division populations due to enrolments, internal and external migration, naturalisation and death, means that it is impossible to have each division in a state or territory exactly the same size. The law allows for a ‘quota variation’, which specifies the permissible variation in division size. The quota variation for Australia’s national elections is currently 10 per cent. This means that at the time of a redistribution in a state or territory, the number of electors in each division may vary by no more than 10 per cent above or below the enrolment quota.

Projected average enrolment

In addition, a calculation is made of the ‘projected average enrolment’ for the state or territory being redistributed. This is the estimated average division enrolment in the state or territory three and a half years from the date of the redistribution. This figure may vary by no more than 3.5 per cent above or below the enrolment quota. By making allowance for excessive growth or contraction in particular areas, it is hoped that a state’s or a territory’s divisions will remain within allowable bounds for a seven-year period after a redistribution.⁽⁹⁾

The results of the projected average enrolment calculations for the 2006 redistributions are discussed below (see Table 4).

It is important to emphasise that although the overriding aim of a redistribution is ‘to ensure that all electors are equally represented in the House of Representatives’,⁽¹⁰⁾ this is only really achievable among divisions in a particular state or territory, because the Constitution (s. 24) makes it virtually impossible to achieve equality of divisions across the nation. There are various factors that make this so:

• The provision that all ‘original States’ must have five members means that Tasmania gains more representation than warranted by its population.
• The constitutional barrier to drawing divisional boundaries across state lines does not allow a precise equality of the divisions in the mainland states.
• The territories currently have two divisions each, yet their population sizes are very different, being an average of 112 950 in the ACT, and 56 283 in the Northern Territory (at 31 January 2006).⁽¹¹⁾
• A state that has just lost a division will often have higher average divisional enrolments than other states.
• A state that has just gained a division will tend to have lower average divisional enrolments than other states.
• The 10 per cent variation that is allowable within a state or territory means that ‘equal’ divisions within a state or territory can appear to be anything but equal, for the 10 per cent provision means 10 per cent above and 10 per cent below the enrolment quota for the state or territory (or a 20 percentage point spread). The outcome of the 2005–06 New South Wales example was that after the redistribution, the biggest division was Wentworth (95 467 electors, or 8.57 per cent over the enrolment quota) and the smallest was Sydney (80 082 electors, or 8.93 per cent below the enrolment quota).

Table 2 gives the average size of divisions at the 2004 election, showing the variation in average enrolments for the states and territories at that time:

Table 2: House of Representatives divisions, average number of electors, 2004 election

Source: Australian Electoral Commission

For some rural residents the disappointing aspect of this system, which operates in a large land mass where rural population numbers are steadily declining, is that it inevitably creates a great disparity in divisional areas. The requirement for divisions to be within 10 per cent of the enrolment quota means that some divisions occupy a large proportion of their state’s or territory’s land mass. The largest three divisions occupy over 90 per cent, but even the Victorian division of Mallee occupies nearly one-third of that state (Table 3):

Table 3: Areas of largest state and territory divisions, 2004 election

Source: Australian Electoral Commission

Clearly, if a state loses a division, it is likely that the area of that state’s largest division may well increase in size. Such was the prediction made by the Member for Parkes, John Cobb, after the announcement of the 2005–06 New South Wales redistribution, when he anticipated that one division—he believed it would be his own—would be expanded to touch the state’s borders with Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland:

… whatever happens [in the redistribution] Parkes will become considerably bigger—I expect it to run from Queensland, as it does now, down to the Victorian border.⁽¹²⁾ (see Map 1).

Other factors

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 states (s. 66 (3) (b)) that once this equality requirement is taken care of, the Redistribution Committee ‘shall give due consideration, in relation to each Electoral Division’ to:

• any community of interests within the proposed division, including economic, social and regional interests
• the means of communication and travel within the proposed division, and
• the physical features and area of the proposed division.

In addition, the boundaries of existing divisions in the state or territory may be taken into account, though this consideration is subordinate to those already mentioned.⁽¹³⁾

These secondary factors are designed to create divisions that are as socially homogenous as is possible to achieve. In practice, though, the requirement to have divisions as equal as possible will always outweigh the community of interest, communication and geographical considerations.⁽¹⁴⁾ An inevitable difficulty relates to the vagueness of a concept such as ‘community of interest’. The Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has conceded that it is ‘an elusive criterion’ and that wherever lines are drawn some local residents will believe that ‘community of interest’ factors have been ignored:

… inherent in having any numerical constraint is that they will always be qualitative decisions just frustrated by the chosen figure.⁽¹⁵⁾

As discussed below, the 2005–06 New South Wales redistribution is a spectacular illustration of this.

There is another important restriction placed upon those conducting a redistribution of a state’s divisions. The Constitution (s. 29) dictates that a division ‘shall not be formed out of parts of different States’. This means that a Redistribution Committee has some lines drawn for it even before it begins work—the state or territory borders. This can create artificial barriers between areas that have a great deal in common, such as in the case of Moama, currently in the New South Wales division of Farrer, which is only two kilometres from Echuca, currently in the Victorian division of Murray. Without the border, these would be very likely to be in the same division.

All of this means that redistributions must give priority to equality of elector numbers, with the other factors able to be used if possible. As shall be seen in the 2005–06 New South Wales example, this is not widely understood, therefore causing more opposition to redistribution proposals than may be warranted. In the New South Wales case, many critics claimed erroneously that the redistribution officials were required to put a primary emphasis on community of interest. Charles Sturt University academic, Troy Whitford’s description of the Redistribution Committee’s failure to do so as ‘an extreme example of city-centric planning’, was just one example.⁽¹⁶⁾

Division names

A Redistribution Committee must also consider names, for divisions are sometimes re-named, new divisions are created, and re-naming might be required when a state or territory loses a seat. In 1986 a parliamentary committee drew up guidelines for the naming of Commonwealth divisions that have been used since. Where possible, divisions should be named after people ‘who have rendered outstanding service to their country’. In addition, every effort should be made to retain the names of the divisions used in the first national elections—what have become known as the ‘Federation divisions’. At the time of the 2005– 06 New South Wales redistribution, 39 of the 63 division names used in the 1901 election were still in use—including Parkes and Gwydir.⁽¹⁷⁾

The 2005–06 NSW redistribution⁽¹⁸⁾

After it had been established that a redistribution of New South Wales divisions was required due to New South Wales losing a seat, the AEC announced the commencement of the process in the Commonwealth Gazette.⁽¹⁹⁾ In accordance with s. 60 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the AEC appointed the state’s Redistribution Committee made up of the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Ian Campbell, the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales, David Farrell, the Surveyor-General of New South Wales, Warwick Watkins, and the Auditor-General of New South Wales, Bob Sandt.

The proposed redistribution—principles

Although post-1984 redistributions have focused on the legal requirement to have each state’s division numbers as equal as possible, factors such as community of interest or physical features have undoubtedly played an important part. The principle of ‘community of interest’, linked with geographical features, has often influenced the thinking of redistribution committees. For example, the Western Australian division of Swan has always been to the south-east of the Swan River, while in Tasmania the division of Denison has always edged the western shore of the River Derwent. In New South Wales, the Great Dividing Range, the Hawkesbury River, Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River, and Botany Bay and the Georges River have, in the words of the 2006 Redistribution Committee, been seen as ‘barriers’ to the idea of community of interest.⁽²⁰⁾ Therefore, these have been seen as the logical place to draw division boundaries. The redistribution in place for the 2001 and 2004 elections, for example, had the divisions of Kingsford Smith, Barton and Banks edging, but north of, Botany Bay and the Georges River, while Cook and Hughes were placed to the south of the bay and the river. No division crossed the water. The western boundary of the division of Macquarie ran along the Blue Mountains, west of such towns as Blackheath, Medlow Bath, Mount Victoria, Bell and Mount Wilson.

In 2006, however, the Redistribution Committee chose to reconsider the ‘natural barriers’ question, to see if there were some means whereby it could be overcome, or, at the very least, its impact lessened.⁽²¹⁾ In doing so, it was thought that the ‘problem’ of a declining population west of the Great Dividing Range might be reduced. The Redistribution Committee noted the importance of various changes in Australian society, the impact of which suggested that there might be a way of by-passing the ‘natural barriers’ issue. They pointed out, inter alia, that:

• the ‘barrier’ aspect of many of these geographic features had ‘been significantly reduced’ by improved transport and modern communications technology
• the expansion of residential areas had resulted in ‘the linking of geography across bridges’—as on the different sides of bridges in Bateman Bay, Grafton, Kempsey and Nowra
• local government areas could legitimately be used as ‘indicators of community of interest’
• unity between communities could be achieved through communication and social networks such as health services, welfare support, air and land transport routes, and newspaper circulation areas
• communication and transport infrastructures, shopping catchments, and health, sporting and other social networks could unite communities, ‘often overcoming geographic barriers, including mountain ranges, waterways and distance’, and
• modern technology such as the Internet and the ‘ever increasing’ mobile telephone coverage, ‘have also assisted in changing the way in which contemporary society travels, communicate and interacts.⁽²²⁾

In summary, the Committee expressed its belief that modern methods of communication and travel ‘continue to unite communities on either side of the urban/rural divide’.⁽²³⁾ It seemed to follow, therefore, that the old approach to ‘barriers’ might be discarded.

The problem, though, is that this change did not appear as plausible to the critics of this redistribution as it did to the Redistribution Committee. The major criticism was that the Redistribution Committee’s published argument was too briefly, and not very clearly, stated. It relied more on assertion than the realities on the ground. For example, to state that modern communication improvements made irrelevant the claim that the Blue Mountains acts as a barrier to the ease of travel in that part of New South Wales, is to ignore the fact that it still takes considerable time to move around the region

The western New South Wales rural community will never be privy to the detailed discussions that took place on the Redistribution Committee, but it is entitled to wonder if the controversy that greeted the Committee’s proposed redistribution might have been a consequence of its decisions being conditioned by such views. The Committee pinpointed three regions of the state which had what the Committee believed were strong links between the rural, coastal and metropolitan areas.⁽²⁴⁾ The areas were the Hunter, the Blue Mountains and the Southern Highlands, a key feature of which was that they had been long considered as major transport corridors through the state. They noted that the Southern Highlands had been used by redistribution committees as a ‘connective corridor’ between rural areas and greater Sydney. In an effort to deal with static and declining rural enrolments, the Committee decided to use the Hunter and the Blue Mountains corridors to link similarly related areas on the east and west of the Great Dividing Range. The Committee believed that if this were done, it would help address ‘the continued population drift’:

Whilst redistribution committees have been reluctant to utilise these alternatives in the past, the committee was convinced that their use as key transport corridors coupled with their existing and emerging social and communications linkages made them very suitable for use in the modern day.⁽²⁵⁾

In short, as well as the required Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 criteria, the Committee kept the following standard principles in mind when developing its electoral boundary proposals:

• the movement of western electors towards major cities
• the need to uphold and restore divisional communities of interests, and
• the need to ensure that means of communication and travel were considered.

Unusually, however, the Committee also believed it should take into account:

• the ‘diminishing historical constraints imposed by geographical regions’, and
• the growing importance of ‘improving communications and transport’.⁽²⁶⁾

The proposed redistribution—in practice

The first step for the Redistribution Committee was to establish the size of New South Wales divisions. Accordingly, the enrolment quota was established at 87 931 electors. Therefore, at the time of the redistribution, the quota variation of 10 per cent above or below the enrolment quota meant that the permissible maximum division size was 96 724 electors, and the permissible minimum was 79 138 electors.

The extent to which the full range of the enrolment quota could be used was limited by the projected average enrolments. For New South Wales the projected average enrolment was 93 508 electors. Projected division enrolments three and a half years after the redistribution should not vary from this by more or less than 3.5 per cent—a permissible maximum of 96 780 electors and a permissible minimum of 90 236 electors. By comparison, the Queensland figures were a projected average of 89 587 electors, with a permissible maximum of 92 722 electors, and a permissible minimum of 86 452 electors, as shown in Table 4:

Table 4 New South Wales and Queensland Enrolment Quotas 2006

Source: Australian Electoral Commission

As is always the case when a state’s division entitlement has fallen, the key decision was to establish which region was to lose a division, and which division it should be (Map 1). For the Redistribution Committee, the answer seemed to be obvious. Despite the fact that a number of observers, including the Liberal, National and Labor parties, spoke of deleting a seat from the Sydney area,⁽²⁷⁾ the Committee focused on the state’s north-west. The neighbouring divisions of Parkes and Gwydir had the lowest projected enrolment in the state, combined with the greatest variations from the state average. The Committee came to the view that there were insufficient electors, at the time of the redistribution or in the future, to justify the retention of both. Effectively, therefore, the divisions were amalgamated (Map 2). Abolition of a division means that a Redistribution Committee cannot avoid having to move a great many of the state’s electors into other divisions. Across New South Wales the Redistribution Committee moved 695 000 electors—16 per cent of total enrolment—to different divisions.⁽²⁸⁾ Parkes was to increase in area to a massive 376 206 sq km, an increase of 40 per cent, though it was 78 072 sq km less than the combined area of Parkes and Gwydir. One important consequence of the reshaping of Parkes, however, was a perceived need to run the western portion of Farrer north along the South Australian border to encompass Broken Hill.

This decision forced the Committee to reshape other Western rural divisions. A consequence of its re-thinking of ‘barrier’ principles was that it believed it was possible to link areas on the western side of the Great Dividing Range with important population centres towards the east, running along the Hunter, Blue Mountains and Hume corridors. The Committee believed this would enable it:

… to lessen the impact of some of New South Wales’ most significant geographical and physical features on the drawing of electoral boundaries … the committee was able to lessen the impact of some of New South Wales’ most significant geographical and physical features on the drawing of electoral boundaries ... As a result of this strategy, the committee was able to maintain the number of divisions with major rural composition, despite a declining enrolment share.⁽²⁹⁾

The divisions of Macquarie and Calare illustrated the impact of this altered approach.

Macquarie had included part of the Blue Mountains region, one of the areas which might enable the Committee to establish divisions which would link ‘the coastal hinterland and the west’. In addition, it was noted that Macquarie was in a part of New South Wales which included seven divisions whose projected enrolment showed growth above the state average. There was, therefore, an obvious need to redraw the boundaries in all of these divisions, but the adjustments that needed to be made in any one division caused a flow-on effect to the others. Following the principles referred to earlier, it was believed that was appropriate for Macquarie to be pushed westward, beyond the Blue Mountains, to include Lithgow, Oberon and Bathurst. To compensate, the Hawkesbury area was to be shifted into Greenway to the east. Other parts of Macquarie were to be placed in the division of Lindsay (Map 2).⁽³⁰⁾ Although this meant that there would be a ‘significant’ transfer of voters from the division of Calare to Macquarie, the Committee was satisfied that this was in accord with the new policy the Committee wished to implement:

The committee considered that these regions shared communities of interest amongst each other and with the Blue Mountains centred on domestic and international tourism, national parks, wilderness and weekend recreational activities. The committee observed that major road and rail transport routes linked these communities.⁽³¹⁾

The Committee noted that these proposals were not unprecedented, for Bathurst, Lithgow and Oberon had all been located in Macquarie prior to 1976, and Oberon was there ‘as recently as 1991’.⁽³²⁾

The removal of Bathurst, Oberon and Lithgow from its boundaries meant that a large number of electors needed to be moved into Calare. The effective merging of Gwydir and Parkes meant that over 82,000 electors needed to be transferred to other divisions. The committee described Forbes, Parkes and Grenfell, all currently in the division of Parkes, as part of a central western region that included Molong, Canowindra and Cowra, all currently in the division of Calare. In addition, a community of interest was said to exist between Wellington and Mudgee (both in Gwydir) and Orange (in Calare). Pointing to ‘strong communication and transport links’ within the region, which included road and rail links, the Committee decided to move all of these towns into Calare (Map 2).⁽³³⁾

The new Calare thus would retain only 55.7 per cent of its original electors, with 22.8 per cent coming from Gwydir and 21.6 per cent from Parkes. The new Parkes was to retain 47.5 per cent of its electors, and Macquarie would keep 50.5 per cent. A comparison of Maps 1 and 2 shows the geographical extent of the proposed changes, which caused discontent in the four divisions. By comparison, although the southern division of Farrer was pushed into part of Parkes, that division retained 81.5 per cent of its electors, and was thus to experience far less disruption to its numbers—with much less local concern.

In summary, the Redistribution Committee was satisfied with its attempt to re-think the ‘community of interest’ aspect of the redistribution process:

Society today is much more mobile and communicates widely at will. Many people regularly commute greater distances with relative ease—for business, for services and for relaxation.

Thus with modern travel, transport and communications increasingly linking historically separate and isolated communities, the committee clearly recognised that the State’s traditional geographic barriers were less formidable than in past redistributions.

The committee used three linking regions to create its proposed divisions—the Hume corridor, the Hunter and the Blue Mountains. This ‘linking’ approach enabled more proposed divisions to retain their significant rural composition.⁽³⁴⁾

This argument underpinning the redistribution proposal that was announced on 30 June 2006, was soon lost in the public response to the redistribution, with a key question being: did the Redistribution Committee need to make such sweeping changes to rural divisions?

Across the state reactions to the redistribution were mixed. For Louise Markus MP, there was pleasure that she would now be representing the Hawkesbury region that had been added to her division of Greenway. Her pleasure was no doubt helped by the fact that this would probably make her seat easier to retain at the next election.⁽³⁵⁾ In the Hunter area, there was dismay in Port Stephens that Raymond Terrace was to be moved from Paterson to Newcastle, with claims that Raymond Terrace had ‘very little affinity’ with the city.⁽³⁶⁾ In Parramatta, the local Member, Julie Owens, claimed that a new border to the division dissected Parramatta Stadium: ‘So I only represent the [Parramatta] Eels when they’re up one end’.⁽³⁷⁾ Beyond the Great Dividing Range, however, there was probably one of the most vitriolic public reactions to a state’s redistribution since the creation of the AEC in 1984.

The reaction in the West

Loss of a rural seat

The Redistribution Committee’s proposal to abolish a rural division was not well received by country people, being described by a Gunnedah resident as ‘un-Australian and undemocratic’.⁽³⁸⁾ Both the Liberals and Nationals had proposed the abolition of the Sydney division of Blaxland, while Peter Andren had suggested redrawing the boundaries of the divisions within the greater metropolitan area of Sydney to maintain the existing seven divisions west of the Great Dividing Range.⁽³⁹⁾ The abolition of one of the ‘look-alike’ Sydney divisions⁽⁴⁰⁾ had a plausibility, due to the fact that Blaxland, Cook, Fowler, Lindsay, Reid and Watson had among the lowest divisional populations by the time of the redistribution. However, the Redistribution Committee’s decision to ignore such proposals, was based on its view that a continuing decline in the population west of the Great Dividing Range would make it impossible for the Committee to keep rural seats within the projected average enrolment requirement of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Throughout the controversy, opponents continually asked why all Sydney divisions were retained if the numbers in many were low.⁽⁴¹⁾ Clearly there was no understanding—or acceptance—of the impact of the projected average enrolment requirement. If a Sydney division had been removed, the Redistribution Committee believed that the population decline in the West was sufficiently rapid for it to be highly likely that this requirement could not have been met. This was not fully argued or explained, however.

In such a setting, community unhappiness was never likely to be mollified. The Redistribution Committee’s proposal was a reminder of how ‘people who’ve never visited our region or understood our needs’ simply failed to understand what was best for country people.⁽⁴²⁾ References were made to ‘Sydney-centric’ thinking, to the ‘faceless’ AEC, and to the fact that country people were again

… witnessing the results of what happens when bureaucrats are allowed to make decisions from a lofty Sydney office.⁽⁴³⁾

Community of interest

Despite the fact that equality of divisions must take priority in the redistribution process, much of the rural criticism focused on the ‘failure’ of the Redistribution Committee to pay proper heed to community of interests provision referred to in s. 66 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The Member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, criticised the Committee for largely ignoring what he described as ‘the requirement’ for there to be a ‘commonality of interest’.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Critics pointed out that Parkes would now be larger than Germany. The Hay Shire Council Mayor, Michael Rutledge, regretted the removal of Hay from the division of Riverina:

Our belief was then, and remains now, that there was a strong and logical community of interest amongst the Riverina communities based on their ties with the Murrumbidgee River.⁽⁴⁵⁾

It was acknowledged that there were bigger divisions in Australia, such as Grey in South Australia, but people claimed that these had a major population centre concentrated in one part of the division. In the division of Parkes, by contrast, communities were scattered from one end of the division to the other—John Anderson spoke of ‘the extraordinary diversity across the division’.⁽⁴⁶⁾ To John Cobb it seemed nonsensical that the redrawn division of Farrer should contain both Albury and Broken Hill:

There is supposed to be some form of continuity of geographics and lifestyle, but I certainly can’t see it [in the proposed redistribution].⁽⁴⁷⁾

There was also concern that Broken Hill’s connection with the Unincorporated Far West and Menindee had been broken. The MP for Riverina, Kay Hull, believed the Murrumbidgee Local Government Area should not to have been moved to Farrer, for:

… there was a strong and logical community of interest amongst the Riverina communities based on their ties with the Murrumbidgee River.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Overall, the Redistribution Committee’s decision to alter its approach to issues of ‘community of interest’ and ‘means of communication and travel’, received strong criticism. Few critics seemed to understand what a writer in the Molong Express had appreciated, when noting that ‘Physical boundaries are now no barrier to “community of interest” considerations’.⁽⁴⁹⁾ It could be argued that such a radical change needed much more explanation to be given to the local community.

AEC spokesperson, Brien Hallett, responded to such criticism by noting that the Redistribution Committee could only interpret the law as it stood. According to Hallett, geography and community interests ‘would be considered in the final wash-up’, but ‘population distribution was the main determining factor’ in a redistribution.⁽⁵⁰⁾ The Mayor of Gwydir Shire Council, Mark Coulton, was prepared to concede that the decision to abolish Gwydir was based on declining population figures, but observed, with some feeling, that ‘it is an emotional issue for us’.⁽⁵¹⁾

Members of Parliament and their constituents

One thing was clear to the rural critics: the ‘city-centric bureaucrats’ had no real idea of how hard it was for rural MPs to look after their constituents, whether it be the endless driving in a division like Parkes, or the way in which country people used MPs’ services. As John Anderson put it:

I have no problem with the independent process or the rules of redistribution. I just think there is insufficient understanding of the ties that bind rural communities together. In Gunnedah, Moree, in Bourke, in Scone, democracy is more than just voting every three years—it’s regular contact with the local MP’s office about everything from roads to industries to phones to water to health services. Not only does the MP have to know the local issues and leaders of every small community but also be familiar with the physical landscape from soils to bridges to water courses.⁽⁵²⁾

Such servicing would clearly be more difficult in the reshaped Parkes division, which would be nearly half the area of the state, and five-and-a-half times the size of Tasmania.⁽⁵³⁾ In the altered Farrer division, a Tumbarumba woman noted that currently her local member, Sussan Ley, was little more than an hour away in Albury, but the new member, Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro), would be more than four hours away in Queanbeyan.⁽⁵⁴⁾ One critic also spoke of the driving required by local MPs in huge divisions as an occupational health and safety issue. He reminded people of the 1988 death in a car smash of Joan Hicks, wife of Noel Hicks, Member for Riverina-Darling. The couple were on their way to a local community event, when Ms Hicks lost control of the car: ‘We’ve lost one, we don’t want to lose another’.⁽⁵⁵⁾

Loss of a Federation division

As mentioned earlier in this paper, redistribution committees are required to make every effort to retain the names of Federation divisions. In the New South Wales controversy, this was pointed to as a reason to fight the proposed abolition of Gwydir, its passing being described as the loss of a piece of Australian history.⁽⁵⁶⁾ Unfortunately for the seat’s supporters, however, the Redistribution Committee’s determination to remove a rural division meant that Gwydir and Parkes were probably the most vulnerable—and both were Federation divisions. The case for retaining ‘Gwydir’ was probably not helped by the fact that the same guidelines direct that locality or place names should ‘generally be avoided’.⁽⁵⁷⁾ As the naming guidelines also state that where possible, divisions should be named after people, ‘who have rendered outstanding service to their country’, the name of Sir Henry Parkes, ‘the Father of Federation’, was likely to be favoured over that of a region.

The campaign to save Gwydir

Within a few days the Redistribution Committee’s proposal being announced, John Anderson called on the Redistribution Committee to look at the ‘damage to rural democracy’ it had wrought, and asking it to ‘find a fairer way through’ the redistribution process. He urged the Electoral Commission to visit Gwydir to hear community concerns at first hand.⁽⁵⁸⁾ On 6 July Anderson was part of a public meeting in Gunnedah called by the Nationals to start a ‘cross-party campaign’ to have the redistribution altered, most particularly by the reinstatement of Gwydir. Anderson was joined in his protest by his predecessor as member for Gwydir (1969– 89), Ralph Hunt, who encouraged people in the affected region to stand up and protest. He warned that:

If you sit and take it, then it makes it easy for the Australian Electoral Commission to say afterwards, ‘well, nobody said anything’.⁽⁵⁹⁾

By 12 July 2006 a petition against the redistribution had been launched, and the ‘Save Gwydir Campaign’, was under way. People were involved in different ways: signing the petition that could be found at many outlets, including local council chambers, attending council protest meetings such as an extraordinary meeting of the Gunnedah Shire Council, writing letters, and submitting objections to the Redistribution Committee. As a local newspaper put it, ‘protest we must’.⁽⁶⁰⁾

Eventually, 1989 objections were received by the Redistribution Committee, over 1700 more than at the previous redistribution for the state, causing Peter Andren to claim that there was now ‘a compelling argument’ for the Electoral Commission ‘to sit down and start [the redistribution] again’.⁽⁶¹⁾ The Nationals’ State Chairman, Patrick Maher, observed that the objections had crossed political lines, and that

The strength of the opposition, particularly in relation to the abolition of the Gwydir division, clearly indicates the maps must be redrawn.⁽⁶²⁾

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile commended the local campaign, noting the activity by ‘many hundreds’ of community groups including the Anglican Church, the Country Women’s Association and the Murray-Darling Association. Vaile also claimed that the Redistribution Committee had erred in removing the rural division because it ignored the principle of one vote one value.⁽⁶³⁾

In response to community concerns, it was announced by the chair of the augmented Electoral Commission that a public inquiry would be held to consider ‘any submissions that people or organisations may wish to make concerning the objections made’. The inquiry would be held in Sydney on 24 August, and Narrabri on the following day. John Anderson saw this as ‘a victory’, due to earlier such occasions having been held only in capital cities.⁽⁶⁴⁾ By contrast, Nationals Senator Sandy Macdonald was reportedly ‘outraged’ at there being just the single meeting in rural areas. He suggested that if the augmented Electoral Commission was really keen to hear the concerns of rural and regional Australians, it would set up a stand at AgQuip, one of Australia’s largest primary industry field days, held at Gunnedah. This event has annual attendances said to approach 100 000, and was being held in the same week as the Narrabri hearing:

I urge the AEC to travel to Gunnedah during AgQuip to get a feel of what country New South Wales is all about and allow rural and regional residents voice their concerns then.⁽⁶⁵⁾

Twenty-one people spoke at the Sydney meeting, with a further 38 addressing the Commission in Narrabri. Public views of the process were mixed. Peter Andren expressed his frustration at what he saw as ‘an ineffective process’, though Gunnedah Mayor Gae Swain was certain that ‘the message will get through’.⁽⁶⁶⁾

The final redistribution—west of the Divide

Gwydir, Parkes, Calare and Farrer

Despite suggestions that the final redistribution would be announced in November 2006, it was in fact made public by the augmented Electoral Commission on 13 September 2006, less than three weeks after the Narrabri meeting (Map 3).⁽⁶⁷⁾ The Commission noted a large number of objections had been received, though it observed that a ‘substantial’ portion of the objections ‘were in the same or a similar form’, presumably implying that the extent of opposition was not as great as the number of objections suggested. Despite this caveat, the Commission stated that the objections and arguments presented at the Sydney and Narrabri meetings had been ‘carefully considered … together with all the objections and comments’.⁽⁶⁸⁾

The augmented Electoral Commission acknowledged that a state’s loss of a division was likely to produce controversy over which division should be abolished, stating that this was ‘the central problem’ faced in this particular redistribution. It certainly produced the majority of objections. However, the Commission believed that the objections gave ‘no convincing challenge’ to the Redistribution Committee’s logic:

… the north-west region has suffered a decline in enrolment share relative to many other parts of the State, which must profoundly affect the drawing of divisional boundaries.  Given this relative decline in enrolment share (to which increases in some country divisions on the coast of New South Wales are not relevant, much less of an answer), the augmented Commission concluded that the abolition of the division of Gwydir, as proposed by the Committee, was the best solution.

Unfortunately, the qualitative factors that might have been relevant, such as the means of communication within the division, would not, in the augmented Commission’s view, enable the retention of Gwydir, ‘without enmeshing the process of redistribution in more serious difficulties affecting a number of other divisions’.⁽⁶⁹⁾ The nature of these ‘difficulties’ was not specified, so it is impossible to assess their merit. Many of the objections had claimed that the decline in population was due to the drought and that recovery in the enrolment numbers ‘would come with the rain’, though it was acknowledged that this ‘would not occur overnight’. The Commission noted, however, that it was not legislatively possible for it to make any allowance for such a possibility:

The Act requires the augmented Commission to focus on the projection date, and at that date the picture suggested by the statistics is not one of an arrest to the present relative decline. It is not open to the augmented Commission, bound as it is by the statutory criterion in respect of projected enrolments, to retain all the existing divisions in the west of the State, unless by boundary adjustments which would themselves involve as many problems for the representation of country people as were raised in the objections.

The conclusion was that the retention of all divisions west of the Dividing Range was ‘simply not an available option’.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Gwydir was abolished, to the dismay of the historically-inclined, though it is clear that it could have been retained, albeit with revised boundaries. The report of the augmented Electoral Commission is too brief to be certain, but it seems that no attempt was made to save the name used since the first national election in 1901. An alternative was available, however. Supporters of the new ‘Parkes’ noted that it was virtually the old ‘Gwydir’—certainly it contained the Gwydir River. It can be argued that this division could have been named ‘Gwydir’, while ‘Parkes’—which was not a name specific to any location as Sir Henry Parkes had no connection with this part of the state—could have been used to name the re-shaped ‘Calare’. ‘Calare’ is an indigenous word for the Lachlan River, which is hardly a significant feature of this greatly-expanded division. The name has been used since 1906, but the loss of this would not have been as significant as the loss of the name of a ‘Federation’ division. The antagonism earned by the redistribution officials over this issue would surely have been reduced if ‘Gwydir’ had been retained.

On the other hand, the augmented Electoral Commission did acknowledge the worth of another objection—that the abolition of Gwydir and consequential swelling of Parkes had produced a division that would be unmanageable for an MP. This was partly a matter of the huge area of the division, but it was also affected by the scattering of towns and small settlements. The probable reduction in contact between MP and constituents had been argued at the Narrabri meeting ‘with passion and eloquence’, with the result that the augmented Commission was persuaded that:

… there were good reasons, relating to physical features and area, communities of interest and means of communication and travel, to reduce the area of the proposed Parkes, if that was possible.

In addition, the augmented Commission decided that it should seek to reflect the communities of interest that were claimed to link the Unincorporated Far West and Menindee with Broken Hill. Controversially, this was achieved by running the boundary of Farrer through to the Queensland border. As so often happens in redistributions, this decision produced a need to make a balancing adjustment elsewhere. This was done by meeting a community of interest objection concerning the Murrumbidgee Local Government Area, by moving it from Farrer back into Riverina. The outcome of all of this was a great reduction in the area of the proposed Parkes; on the other hand, Calare and Farrer were now much larger. The alteration in some divisions was indeed spectacular a shown in Table 5:

Table 5: Area of selected post-redistribution divisions (sq kms)

Source: Australian Electoral Commission

Not surprisingly, this rearrangement of several divisions produced more pleasure—and more pain. To the ‘Save Gwydir’ supporters, there was disappointment in the loss of the name, but satisfaction that the new shape of Parkes was very similar to the old Gwydir:

So, the AEC and its bureaucrats did listen!  The result is that the name ‘Gwydir’ is still gone that the new seat of Parkes presents a much fairer boundary arrangement and may have been the case … To all those who contributed to the campaign: well done!  You have won an honourable victory for our region’s future.

Farewell Gwydir, welcome Parkes.⁽⁷¹⁾

There was irony in the fact that Peter Andren, who had argued strongly for the retention of all western New South Wales divisions,⁽⁷²⁾ found his Calare division, formerly relatively compact at 21 621 sq km, blown out to be over 10 times that size. Andren had earlier criticised the proposed redistribution’s treatment of Parkes by describing it as a ‘what’s left’ division: ‘It makes no community of interest sense and will be impossible to represent adequately’.⁽⁷³⁾ In concerning itself with the ‘Save Gwydir’ push, and the problems of community of interest in the gigantic Parkes, the augmented Electoral Commission seemed to have overlooked similar problems in Calare, which now lacked any obvious community of interest. Parkes Shire Mayor Robert Wilson wondered how an elected representative from the re-drawn Calare could deliver ‘effective, balanced and equitable representation’ to the far-flung communities.⁽⁷⁴⁾ A similar concern was expressed by John Cobb in relation to the re-drawn Farrer:

I thought the original proposal was pathetic when it included Albury in the same electorate as Broken Hill.

But to include Cameron’s Corner on the Queensland border in the same electorate as Albury a few kilometres from the South Coast of NSW has to be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard.

I wait with baited breath to hear from the Commissioners what possible community of interest the Channel country has with Albury.⁽⁷⁵⁾

The enduring riddle must be to explain how, after handling the reshaping of Parkes so badly, the redistribution officials performed no better in relation to Calare.⁽⁷⁶⁾

The ripple effect—Macquarie and Greenway

As was the case in the Gwydir controversy, objections to the proposal to push Macquarie past the Blue Mountains barrier focussed on ‘community of interest’ considerations. One objection criticised on the ‘jamming’ of Lithgow, Oberon and Bathurst into a Blue Mountains seat, with the associated difficulties of communication and travel.⁽⁷⁷⁾ The critics claimed that there was no way around the fact that the Blue Mountains—part of the ‘Sandstone Curtain’—was a barrier to the community of interest principle. University of New England lecturer, Bryan Pape, asserted that the Range was the ‘most distinctive geographic factor’ in the state, ‘with the emphasis on “divide”’.⁽⁷⁸⁾ There also was dismay that the five historic ‘Macquarie towns’—Richmond, Windsor, Pitt Town, Wilberforce and Castlereagh—were all being moved east into Greenway. Kerry Bartlett predicted that this would give a ‘hollow ring’ to celebrations in 2010 to mark the 200th anniversary of Governor Lachlan Macquarie’s arrival in New South Wales. He claimed that these Hawkesbury towns were ‘part of the Mountains’.⁽⁷⁹⁾

The augmented Electoral Commission was not impressed by either argument. With regard to the issue of the Blue Mountains being a barrier, it was noted that Bathurst had once been in Macquarie, and that ‘modern transport and communications’ were making the Blue-Mountains-as-a-barrier argument ‘more and more obsolete’.⁽⁸⁰⁾ On the ‘Macquarie towns’ issue the Commission was blunt:

… whenever the imperative of projected enrolment numbers requires a redrawing of electoral boundaries, it is likely some longstanding associations within a particular division will have to be severed. Especially in a growing country such as Australia, a demographic picture will always be apt to be dynamic rather than static.⁽⁸¹⁾

It followed, therefore, that the objections to the proposed changes to Macquarie were not acceded to, and the Committee’s proposal was affirmed almost in toto. The ripple effect of this was to make Macquarie and Greenway far bigger in area than previously (Maps 2, 3) with Louise Markus’ task in retaining Greenway likely to be much easier than Kerry Bartlett’s task in Macquarie.

Looking back

A biased process?

Although a redistribution’s ‘potential or real political implications are not considered in any way’ by those responsible for it⁽⁸²⁾—many rural New South Wales people expressed doubt about the honesty and openness of the redistribution process:

• the Nationals’ New South Wales chair spoke of the ‘questionability’ of the statistics used in the process⁽⁸³⁾
• John Anderson wondered if his pending resignation from Parliament made the abolition of Gwydir ‘easier’ to achieve⁽⁸⁴⁾
• a New South Wales MP claimed that the redistribution had been ‘carefully crafted to avoid the loss of any Liberal or Labor seats in Sydney’⁽⁸⁵⁾
• a critic of the alteration of the Sydney division of Parramatta claimed that this occurred because the AEC ‘just happens to be another federal department controlled by the Howard Government’⁽⁸⁶⁾
• elections commentator Malcolm Mackerras alleged that the AEC retained the name ‘Parkes’ rather than ‘Gwydir’, to please Peter Andren⁽⁸⁷⁾
• John Cobb MP accused the AEC of ‘ignoring what is fair for what is easy’,⁽⁸⁸⁾ and
• Cobb also claimed that the Redistribution Committee ‘chose … to disable the country voice’.⁽⁸⁹⁾

Perhaps the augmented Electoral Commission needed to concern itself more with correcting such misconceptions? Although these views were all aired in the public arena, and the accusations were serious, the AEC appeared to do little to respond to these concerns directly. Clearly there was a role for the augmented Electoral Commission to concern itself more with correcting these misconceptions.

Are the redistribution rules suitable for a geographically-large nation?

How should divisions be drawn in a nation as large in area, and as sparsely populated, as Australia? The 2006 controversy over New South Wales rural seats shows that the relationship between MP and community is uppermost in the minds of many rural residents. Why, they ask, should rural divisions as large as Kalgoorlie (WA, 2 295 354 sq km), Grey (SA, 904 881 sq km) or Maranoa (Qld, 779 329 sq km) have the same number of electors as Perth (WA, 74 sq km) Hindmarsh (SA, 73 sq km) or Brisbane (Qld, 77 sq km)—let alone Wentworth (NSW) which is just 26 sq km in area? Clearly, MPs representing such large divisions cannot hope to meet with constituents as quickly and as easily as can an MP for a city division. As the Mayor of Parkes put it:

If you can walk around a whole electorate in an hour in Sydney and it takes you three weeks to drive around an electorate in the country, that’s not fair and equal representation ... Some of the country will never see their representative.⁽⁹⁰⁾

Some rural critics suggest that Australia’s redistribution arrangements weaken the nation’s claims to be a true democracy. John Cobb is one who has put this view when criticising the draft redistribution in New South Wales:

If we are serious about having a system of truly representative democracy in Australia, then we should look to equally valid alternatives to this draft redistribution.

As a nation, we cannot afford to have country people lose heart in the democratic institutions they have always valued so highly and needed so much.

Australia is a big brown land, with a lightly populated heart. We all know that.

But that heart beats strongly and deserves to be heard in the corridors of power in our Parliaments.

However, Cobb goes on to say that:

Where the principle of one vote one value can be applied while maintaining our rural seats, then we should do so.⁽⁹¹⁾

The problem here is that although the term ‘one-vote-one-value’ is one which is associated with democratic elections, its practical application acts to reduce the number of rural divisions because of demographic change. The decline in non-city divisions in Commonwealth and state elections has been the direct result of the locking-in of the principle of one-vote-one-value, reinforced by the declining number of Australians living outside the major cities. A crucial aspect of this issue is the politics associated with redistributions. To make divisions equal in numbers helps the ALP and the Liberals; to allow significant differences in division numbers aids the Nationals. In writing of New South Wales Legislative Assembly divisions, Paul Davey of the Nationals has referred to the possibility of arguing for smaller populations for geographically large divisions, but has noted, realistically, that this would produce ‘a hue and cry about gerrymander’.⁽⁹²⁾

Can anything be done?

Although s. 24 of the Constitution is unlikely to be amended in respect of the number of members to be chosen by each state, the way that divisions are distributed within each state is a legislative matter, and is therefore open to alteration. Might there be some way in which the concerns of rural residents could be met to a greater degree than is the case now? Should there be, in the words of a rural newspaper, ‘a total revamp of electoral laws and boundary planning’?⁽⁹³⁾

Australian history gives different examples of how this problem—though many Australians would deny that it is a problem—has been tackled.

Quota variation

Until it was altered by the Whitlam Government, the quota variation for Commonwealth elections was formerly set at 20 per cent, an arrangement that helped slow down the disappearance of rural seats; the current figure for Western Australian Legislative Assembly divisions is 15 per cent.⁽⁹⁴⁾ Such an arrangement does not solve the problem of how to service a huge electorate—a problem that is acknowledged in the entitlements given to rural MPs—but it can help reduce the geographical size of the very largest, and possibly help retain some rural seats for longer.

Coping with distance

After failing to persuade its Liberal colleagues in the Fraser Government to restore a 20 per cent quota variation, in 1977 the National Country Party was able to achieve agreement on an unusual provision for drawing of divisional boundaries. The arrangement was that no division that was 5000 sq km or more should have a larger enrolment than any division that was smaller than 5000 sq km. At a minimum, this ensured that geographically–large rural divisions would all have fewer electors than would urban divisions. Those responsible for conducting redistributions were forbidden from allocating lower enrolments to divisions that were likely to have a rapid growth in population. This arrangement was removed from the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by the Hawke Government.⁽⁹⁵⁾

Leeway for sparsely populated areas

Another arrangement is to lower the number of voters in divisions that are located in sparsely populated areas. Since 1992, Queensland electoral law has required that 84 of that state’s 89 Legislative Assembly divisions shall be equal in number of electors, with a 10 per cent quota variation. However, the five largest divisions have fewer electors due to a ‘weightage’ formula set out in the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). This formula provides that, for an electoral district with an area of 100 000 sq km or more, a figure equal to two per cent of the total area of the electorate is added to the actual number of electors enrolled in that district. Consequently, an electoral district of, say, 250 000 sq. km would have 5000 (that is, two per cent of 250,000 km) ‘notional’ electors added to its actual number of electors. This adjusted enrolment figure must then comply with the 10 per cent variation rule. At the time of the 2006 Queensland Legislative Assembly election, 84 divisions averaged 26 733 electors, while the five geographically-largest divisions averaged 19 146 electors.

A similar arrangement will be in place at the time of the next Western Australian election, though this will hardly soften the blow of the new one-vote-one-value arrangements, which will produce an extra eight metropolitan Legislative Assembly divisions, while stripping away six rural and mining area divisions.⁽⁹⁶⁾

Local voices

Bias can be deliberate, but it can also be brought about by unconscious attitudes held by an individual. One suggestion made during the 2006 New South Wales controversy suggested a way of lessening this in the redistribution process. In talking of the need for redistribution commissioners to see the impact of their decisions, Country Week Expo convenor, Peter Bailey, spoke of having a commissioner appointed from a rural area, ‘to ensure we got a voice at the table when the State is divided up for electoral purposes’.⁽⁹⁷⁾ Such a change could be made by the legislative alteration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

………………..

It is clear that there are changes that might reduce the resentment of rural people against the redistribution process. Realistically, though, the politics associated with such changes make any significant change highly unlikely. As the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has put it, bluntly:

… while the Committee has sympathy for the problems faced by rural MPs and their constituents, it does not see a return to malapportionment is the right way to proceed.

Short of a gross disregard of the principle of ‘one vote, one value’, the disparity in the geographical size of electorates will remain a fact of life in Australia.⁽⁹⁸⁾

In conclusion—could public concerns have been lessened?

Redistributions are rarely occasions that excite many Australians. The 2005–06 New South Wales redistribution was remarkable for the high degree of community concern that it engendered, and it is relevant to ask if this could or should have been avoided. An analysis of several aspects of the work of the Redistribution Committee and the augmented Electoral Commission suggests that it could.

Listening to the public

More effort could have been made by the Electoral Committee and the augmented Electoral Commission to be seen to be listening to the public concerns. At the Sydney meeting on 24 August, one MP was concerned that the members of the augmented Electoral Commission seemed unwilling to engage with the public, yet such a meeting could surely have been used to explain to critics their often inaccurate understanding of the redistribution process. Another MP criticised the fact that there were only two such public meetings. The focus of the augmented Electoral Commission was clearly on Gwydir, but the level of opposition in other parts of the state suggest that meetings should have been scheduled in each of the divisions of Calare, Farrer, Macquarie and Parkes—and possibly Riverina. The failure to do so probably left many people perplexed about the process.

Insufficient explanation of the case for change

The point has been made earlier that some of the Committee or Commission decisions were not argued clearly or persuasively. Much of the case for what was a very significant change to the concept of ‘community of interests’ or ‘means of communication and travel’ was presented as assertion rather than analysis. The case was also briefer than it perhaps should have been.

Assertion is not proof

Section 72 (12)(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requires the augmented Electoral Commission to include in its final public announcement its view as to whether, in its opinion, its proposal is ‘substantially different’ from the proposal put forward by the Redistribution Committee. In the 2005–06 New South Wales redistribution, according to the augmented Electoral Commission, when all the changes were considered, the Commission was ‘of the opinion that its proposal is not [italics in original] significantly different from the Committee’s proposal’. While this is accurate in relation to most New South Wales divisions, many people in the divisions of Calare, Farrer and Parkes would be surprised at the disingenuousness of the claim.

Better public relations

In the Commonwealth redistribution process there are several points where the redistribution bodies have the opportunity to connect with Australian citizens. The New South Wales example discussed here indicates how such bodies have shown a tendency to make such connection in a cursory fashion—or not at all. An obvious example came at the end of the New South Wales process. After announcing that the final determination would be made on 22 November 2006, that determination was in fact made public on 13 September 2006. In doing so, the augmented Electoral Commission chose not to exercise the option of holding another public inquiry as is allowed for in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (see Appendix). This mirrored the behaviour of the augmented Electoral Commission in the 2002–03 Victorian redistribution, when quite controversial and not-at-all-obvious changes to the divisions of McMillan and Gippsland were confirmed barely five weeks after the public hearing on the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. These changes played an important part in the defeat of the Member for McMillan, and the fall of 19 per cent in the first preference tally of the Member for Gippsland. At the very least, a public hearing enables disgruntled citizens (and MPs as well) to express their views about a redistribution. More importantly, perhaps, it gives the augmented Electoral Commission the chance to explain its plan and to set straight public misunderstandings that seem part and parcel of this rather esoteric exercise.

………………..

Prime Minister Howard has expressed his belief that the ‘certainty and stability’ of our legal and political systems are ‘huge advantages that we too often take for granted’.⁽⁹⁹⁾ It can be argued that although the 2005–06 redistribution of the New South Wales House of Representatives divisions seemed to confirm the ‘certainty and stability’ of the system, at the same time it revealed a widespread public ignorance of the process. This seems to have had the effect of shaking some citizens’ faith in the electoral arrangements.

Appendix—Redistribution timetable

Endnotes

1. ‘Cobb stands for Calare’, Forbes Advocate, 14 December 2006.
2. Antony Green, ‘Where do you draw the line? Prospects for the 1997 NSW Redistribution’, New South Wales Parliamentary Library, Background Paper 1997/1.
3. See Scott Bennett, ‘Drawing House of Representatives division boundaries’, Year Book Australia 2005, pp. 51–61.
4. See, for example, John Anderson, ‘Gwydir–One vote, less value’, Gilgandra Weekly, 11 July 2006; ‘Where to draw the line’, editorial, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July 2006.
5. John Longton, letter to Parramatta Sun, 26 July 2006.
6. The Gladstone Observer for 13 September 2006 spoke of the Queensland redistribution, as it applied to the new seat of Flynn, as being final ‘barring its acceptance by the federal government’. This was incorrect.
7. Australian Electoral Commission, Redistribution of New South Wales into 49 electoral divisions, Canberra, 2006, p. 6.
8. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, s. 66 (3) (a).
9. Australian Electoral Commission, Electoral Pocketbook, Canberra, 2002, p. 14.
10. Australian Electoral Commission, Electoral Pocket Book, Canberra, 1994, p. 20.
11. For the background to the current arrangements for the Northern Territory, see Scott Bennett and Gerard Newman, ‘A Fair Deal for Territory Voters?’, Research Note, no. 27, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2002–03.
12. Lynton Grace, ‘Drawing lines on the (voters) map’, Daily Liberal (Dubbo), 3 June 2006.
13. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, s. 66 (3) (b).
14. Bennett, op. cit., p. 57.
15. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Electoral Redistributions. Report on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the redistribution provisions of parts III and IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, Canberra, December 1995, p. 30.
16. Rebecca Bowman, ‘“Absolute joke”’, Central Western Daily, 14 September 2006.
17. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, The Operation during the 1984 General Election of the 1983/84 Amendments to Commonwealth Electoral Legislation. A Report from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, December 1986, Report No. 2, Parliamentary Paper No. 1/1987, pp. xv–xvi. South Australia’s and Tasmania’s first MPs were elected at-large, that is, each state served as a multimember division. Those elected in this way were known as Members for South Australia or Tasmania, respectively. The 1903 election saw South Australia with seven single-member divisions and Tasmania with five. Nine of the names chosen for the 1903 divisions have been retained, which means that 48 of the 75 original state divisional names remained in use in the 2004 election.
18. Stephen Barber and Paul Nelson, ‘Queensland and New South Wales proposed redistributions, 2006’, Research Note, no. 3, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2006–07.
19. Commonwealth of Australia, Gazette Special, No. S226, 2 December 2005.
20. Australian Electoral Commission, The 2006 Proposed Redistribution of New South Wales into 49 Electoral Divisions. Report of the Redistribution Committee, Canberra, 2006, p. 14.
21. The following comes from Proposed Redistribution of Queensland into 29 Electoral Divisions, Report of the Redistribution Committee, Canberra, 2006, pp. 14–15,
22. The 2006 Proposed Redistribution of New South Wales, op. cit., p. 14.
23. ibid, p. 15.
24. ibid, pp. 18–19.
25. ibid, p. 18.
26. ibid, p. 18.
27. The Liberal Party and the Nationals both proposed the abolition of Blaxland. The Labor Party proposed the abolition of Reid and Riverina, with the creation of a new division centred on Liverpool, ibid, p. 17.
28. Barber and Nelson, op. cit.
29. The 2006 Proposed Redistribution of New South Wales, op. cit., p. 19.
30. ibid,  p. 10.
31. ibid, p. 21.
32. ibid.
33. ibid, pp. 25–6.
34. ibid, p. 41.
35. Gail Knox, ‘Greenway consumes Hawkesbury’, Hawkesbury Gazette (Richmond), 20 September 2006.
36. ‘Baldwin to protest at seat switch’, Port Stephens Examiner, 6 July 2006.
37. Scott Howlett, ‘Don’t cut us in half’, Parramatta Advertiser, 19 July 2006.
38. ‘People power to reverse proposal’, Namoi Valley Independent, 20 July 2006.
39. The 2006 Proposed Redistribution of New South Wales, op. cit., p. 17.
40. ‘Country NSW will lose its voice, warns Cobb’, Lake News (Lake Cargelligo), 26 July 2006.
41. See, for example, Anderson, op. cit.
42. ‘Travel costs a concern in huge new Parkes division’, Champion Post (Parkes), 19 July 2006.
43. Dawn Fardell, MP for Dubbo, ‘Boundary proposals to take next step forward’, Wellington Times, 18 August 2006.
44. Lithgow Mercury, 21 September 2006.
45. ‘Definitely not happy’, Riverine Grazier, 4 July 2006.
46. Northern Daily Leader (Tamworth), 26 August 2006.
47. Grenfell Record & Bland Advertiser, 12 July 2006.
48. ‘Definitely not happy’, op. cit.
49. ‘Seat of Calare “cut in half” in Electorate Redistribution’, Molong Express, 6 July 2006.
50. Inner Western Suburbs Courier (Sydney), 18 July 2006.
51. ‘Call for “fair go” in planned boundary redistribution’, Narrabri Courier, 29 August 2006.
52. Anderson, op. cit.
53. ‘Push to hold on to Gwydir’, Warren Advocate, 12 July 2007.
54. ‘Boundary proposal to generate [sic]’, Tumbarumba Times, 12 July 2006.
55. Daniel MacDonald, ‘New electoral boundaries baffle Cobb’, Barrier Miner (Broken Hill),
    21 July 2006; see also Richard Blackburn, ‘MP’s wife killed on country road’, Daily Telegraph, 11 August 1988.
56. Aldan Cromarty, ‘Gwydir goes’, Northern Daily Leader (Tamworth), 1 July 2006.
57. Bennett, op. cit., p. 56.
58. Anderson, op. cit.; ‘Anderson urges Australian Electoral Commission to visit Gwydir, hear local concerns’, Warialda Standard, 12 July 2006.
59. J. J. Robinson, ‘Make protest heard, urges former Gwydir Member Ralph Hunt’, Narrabri Courier, 13 July 2006.
60. ‘Time to act’, Mudgee Guardian & Gulgong Advertiser, 24 July 2006.
61. ‘Boundary objections demand rethink—Peter Andren’, Molong Express, 3 August 2006.
62. ‘Gwydir “revolt”’, North West Magazine (Mudgee), 7 August 2006.
63. Mark Vaile (Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of The Nationals), media release, Parliament House, Canberra, 8 August 2006.
64. Natalie Holmes, ‘Plan to save Gwydir’, Wellington Times, 23 August 2006.
65. ‘Concern at lack of country hearings’, Narromine News & Trangie Advocate, 23 August 2006.
66. Lisa Gervais, ‘Hearing slammed’, Mudgee Guardian & Gulgong Advertiser, 25 August 2006; ‘Passionate pleas for merger’s axing’, Northern Daily Leader, 26 August 2006.
67. The following comes from Australian Electoral Commission, Redistribution of New South Wales into 49 electoral divisions, op. cit.
68. ibid, p. 5.
69. ibid, p. 8.
70. ibid, p. 8.
71. ‘Farewell Gwydir’, Narrabri Courier, 19 September 2006.
72. ‘Andren angry at country voters losing another seat’, Cowra Guardian, 7 July 2006.
73. Peter Andren, ‘Speak up on proposed changes’, Western Advocate (Bathurst), 27 July 2006.
74. ‘Ridiculous! Parkes no longer in Parkes, but in enlarged Calare’, Champion Post (Parkes),
    15 September 2006.
75. ‘Electorate “ridiculous”’, Forbes Advocate, 16 September 2006.
76. For a critical comment by a Victorian city observer, see Charles Richardson, ‘The bulk mail campaign to save Gwydir’, Crikey, 1 August 2006.
77. ‘Out of touch with community interests’, Lithgow Mercury, 27 July 2006.
78. ‘Meeting pleads, argues in battle to save Gwydir’, Narrabri Courier, 29 August 2006.
79. Gale Knox, ‘Borders make no sense’, Hawkesbury Gazette, 19 July 2006.
80. Australian Electoral Commission, Redistribution of New South Wales into 49 electoral divisions, op. cit., p. 11.
81. ibid, p. 10.
82. Australian Electoral Commission, ‘What criteria are used to draw the boundaries?’, http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/why/redistributions/faq.htm#6, accessed on 3 January 2007.
83. ‘Country communities speak up’, Quirindi Advocate, 30 August 2006.
84. Anderson, op. cit.
85. Dawn Fardell, MP for Dubbo, quoted in ‘Boundary changes not feasible: Dawn’, Champion Post (Parkes), 21 July 2006.
86. John Longton, op. cit.
87. ‘Bias charges fly over changes’, Daily Liberal (Dubbo), 31 October 2006. Elsewhere Mackerras claimed that the effective change of the name of Gwydir to Parkes was ‘politically motivated’, see Malcolm Mackerras, ‘Why Rudd will get The Lodge for Christmas’, Canberra Times,
    18 January 2007.
88. John Cobb MP, quoted in ‘Time to have your say’, Narromine News & Trangie Advocate,
    26 July 2006.
89. John Cobb MP, quoted in ‘Country NSW will lose its voice’, op. cit.
90. Robert Wilson, Mayor of Parkes, quoted Central Western Daily, 17 July 2006.
91. John Cobb MP, quoted in ‘Country NSW will lose its voice’, op. cit.
92. Paul Davey, The Nationals. The Progressive, Country and National Party in New South Wales 1919 to 2006, Federation Press, Sydney, 2006, p. 442.
93. ‘Improving the future of regionalism’, editorial Daily Advertiser, 19 October 2006.
94. Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (WA), s. 6.
95. C. A. Hughes, ‘The Case of the Arrested Pendulum’, in Howard R. Penniman (ed), The Australian National Elections of 1977, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and Australian National University Press, Washington and Canberra, 1979, pp. 307–8.
96. Western Australian Electoral Commission, Where will you be in 2009? Changes to Electoral boundaries in Western Australia. Explanation of electoral boundary legislation in Western Australia, http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/download/Boundaries2009August.pdf, accessed November 2006.
97. ‘People power reigns supreme’, Armidale Express, 7 July 2006.
98. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, op. cit., pp. 34, 33.
99. ‘Investing for Growth’, Address by The Prime Minister The Hon. J. W. Howard MP, National Press Club, Canberra, 8 December 1997.

Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 8 February, 2007 by the Parliamentary Library Web Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia

Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of Parliamentary Services, other than by senators and members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties.

This brief has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC