DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Submission to the Joint Standing Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Submission to the Joint Standing Committee Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. Dr Francis Markham Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry. I write as a Research Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, the Australian National University, with interests in both Indigenous policy and particular expertise in Indigenous population geography. I wish to make four points in support of the Bill. Arbitrariness It is undesirable that the electoral geography of a jurisdiction to change frequently. But in small jurisdictions like the Northern Territory,1 there is a high likelihood of dramatic changes in the number of members of the House of Representatives, fluctuating between 1 and 2 relatively frequently. The relative smallness of the jurisdiction makes the chances of doubling or halving the number of representatives quite high, something that is implausible in larger jurisdictions like New South Wales. This is aggravated by the Northern Territory’s economy and demography. The boom- bust nature of the Territory economy means that the Territory’s population grows rapidly during economic good times and then falls with equal speed during economic contractions. Indeed, if the Northern Territory’s population were just 4,086 persons (or 1.7%) more at 31 December 2019, its number of members in House would remain at 2. The current COVID-19 crisis underscores this arbitrariness. If significant infrastructure spending takes place in the Northern Territory, such as the gas pipeline reportedly proposed by the National COVID Co-ordination Commission, then its population is likely to rise again. Furthermore, the population estimates used by the Electoral Commissioner to apportion seats in the House of Representatives date to 31 December 2019, before the pandemic hit Australia. Given the restrictions on international and inter-state travel and the urging of the Prime Minister that international residents of Australia ‘go home’, it is unclear how the population of Australia has changed in the last six months. It would appear arbitrary if the number of divisions in the Northern Territory were to repeatedly be doubled and halved on the basis of temporary population fluctuations. 1 Throughout this submission, when I refer to the Northern Territory I will do so as a shorthand to refer to the combined jurisdictions of the Northern Territory, Christmas Island and the Cocos Keeling Islands which are combined for the purposes of apportionment. 1 Fairness While the apportionment announced by the Electoral Commission following the formulae in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 appears to be fair, arguably it is not. The question of the number of seats apportioned to the Northern Territory is ultimately a question of rounding: should Northern Territory’s 1.43 quotas2 be rounded up to two representatives or down to one representative? It may appear that it is mathematically fair that the Northern Territory be apportioned just a single member of the House of Representatives, rounding the 1.43 quotas down to 1.0 representative. This apparent mathematical fairness is an illusion. The new division of the Northern Territory, combining the current divisions of Solomon and Lingiari, will have a single member representing a population of 247,280. The remaining 2,5285,583 persons in Australia will live in divisions with an average population of 169,702 persons. Therefore, the new division of the Northern Territory will have 77,578 more people than the average. On the other hand, if the Northern Territory were to keep two electoral divisions, they would each have a population of around 123,640 persons. This is just 46,062 less than the average division’s population.3 Put simply, retaining two members of the House of Representatives would see residents over-represented by 46,000 persons, but having a single member would see them under-represented by 78,000 persons. I would argue that if apportionment is to be determined on the basis of fairness, then it is fairer that the residents of the Northern Territory have a population per electoral division that is as close to possible as the national average. Using the current population estimates, this rule would require that the Northern Territory be apportioned two members of the House of Representatives, not one. Indeed, I believe that the Bill should be amended to apply this principle to the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives in territories beyond any legislated floor. Specifically, I believe that the Bill should include a provision to apportion members to territories above the floor of two in such a way as to minimise the differences in the number of people per representatives across Australian states and territories. Indigenous representation in Parliament Indigenous voters currently have significant electoral power in current division of Lingiari.4 At present, the Division of Lingiari is the electoral division in Australia with the greatest proportion of Indigenous residents. According to my calculations based 2 Or 1.48 quotas once the adjustment of two times the standard error of the undercount is made. 3 This confusing result is well understood by political scientists who have studied apportionment systems exhaustively. 4 For an account of this, see Sanders W. (2019). Electoral administration and Aboriginal voting power in the Northern Territory: Reality and potential viewed from the 2019 Federal election, Working Paper 132/2019, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. https://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57 2 on the Indigenous Estimated Residential Population5 at June 30, 2016, Lingiari had 46.8% Indigenous residents, significantly more than Durack (21.5%), Parkes (19.6%), Leichhardt (19.2%) or Kennedy (16.1%). If the divisions of Lingiari and Solomon are combined, then Indigenous electoral power in the Northern Territory will be diluted. A new division of the Northern Territory would have had an Indigenous population of 30.1% in June 2016. Indigenous electoral power is important because although Indigenous citizens have a unique status and interests in this country,6 they have no special form of parliamentary representation. At present, there are two Aboriginal Senators, one Aboriginal Senator Elect, and two Aboriginal members of the House of Representatives. However, these Senators are elected to represent their states and these members of the House are elected to represent their constituents. Only in the division of Lingiari do Indigenous citizens have an elected parliamentarian dedicated to representing Indigenous interests. This will be lost if the divisions of Lingiari and Solomon are merged. Put simply, having Indigenous faces in Parliament is not the same as having representatives who are accountable at the ballot box to substantially Indigenous constituents. I believe that this view is consistent with that of the current government, which has repeatedly insisted that Indigenous interests are best represented directly in the House of Representatives and the Senate rather than through the establishment of a constitutionally-enshrined First Nations’ Voice to Parliament. Consistency with Constitutional principles On a final brief note, I would point out that establishing a floor for the number of members of the House of Representatives for the mainland territories is consistent with Constitutional principles. Specifically, the six original States of the Commonwealth were each guaranteed at least five members of the House of Representatives by the drafters of the Constitution. The proposal in the Bill simply extends this principle to the Northern Territory. If the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory had of existed at the time of Federation, it is likely that the drafters of the Constitution would have included such a guarantee of representation for these mainland territories. 5 The use of the Estimated Residential Population rather than Census count is important in these calculations, as it adjusts for the undercount of Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) people in the Census. 6 As evidenced by the Native Title Act, to give but one example. 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australian Labor Party NT Branch 15 Pages
    Objection 4 Australian Labor Party NT Branch 15 pages Northern Territory secretariat Phone 02 6271 4672 Email [email protected] Proposed Redistribution of the Northern Territory into Electoral Divisions Submission on the Report of the Redistribution Committee for the Northern Territory Australian Labor Party NT Branch 7 October 2016 1 Contents 1. About this submission Page 3 2. Statutory Considerations Page 4 Numerical Requirements Enrolment in the Northern Territory Under-enrolments Rate of growth Population 3. Communities of Interest Page 9 Introduction Effective Representation Alignment of Boundaries for Federal Electorates with Norther Territory Legislative Assembly Electorates 4. Conclusion Page 12 5. Appendix 1 2 About this submission This submission is provided to the Redistribution Committee for the Northern Territory by the Australian Labor Party NT. The submission supports retaining both names of the electoral divisions in the Northern Territory. The submission provides comments on the proposal to alter the boundaries of both the electoral divisions in the Northern Territory for consideration by the augmented Electoral Commission to modify or adjust the boundaries through the objection and comments on objections process (and inquiry process, if required). This submission has been prepared mindful of the statutory requirement priorities to be considered and recommends no change or minimal change to the current boundaries of both electorates. The minimal change be, the inclusion of the entire local government area of the Litchfield Council in the electorate of Lingiari as proposed in the draft changes to the boundaries with the areas of Palmerston North and Palmerston South to remain in the electorate of Solomon.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrangements for the Postal Survey
    The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee Arrangements for the postal survey February 2018 © Commonwealth of Australia 2017 ISBN 978-1-76010-712-3 Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Secretariat: Ms Ann Palmer (Secretary) Mr Tasman Larnach (Principal Research Officer) Ms Kathryn Cochrane (Senior Research Officer) Ms Sarah Terry (Research Officer) Ms Nicole Baxter (Administrative Officer) The Senate PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: 02 6277 3530 Fax: 02 6277 5809 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.aph.gov.au/senate_fpa This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. Printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. Membership of the Committee Members Senator Jenny McAllister (Chair) ALP, NSW Senator James Paterson (Deputy Chair) LP, VIC Senator David Fawcett (from 5.02.18) LP, SA Senator Kimberley Kitching ALP, VIC Senator Bridget McKenzie (to 5.02.18) NAT, VIC Senator Lee Rhiannon AG, NSW Senator Lisa Singh ALP, TAS Substitute Members Senator Louise Pratt (substitute for Senator Kitching on 17.08.17) ALP, WA Senator Janet Rice (substitute for Senator Rhiannon) AG, VIC Participating Members Senator Malarndirri McCarthy ALP, NT Table of Contents Membership of the Committee ........................................................................ iii Acronyms and abbreviations ...........................................................................vii
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020
    Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 By email: [email protected] 13 July 2020 To the Committee Secretary, Submission regarding the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 Jesuit Social Services welcomes the opportunity to write in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. Jesuit Social Services is a social change organisation. In the Northern Territory, we work with some of the most disadvantaged people and communities, through partnerships with local Aboriginal community- controlled organisations and communities and the delivery of youth justice programs in the Top End and Central Australia. This includes work in the metropolitan areas of Darwin and Palmerston, the urban centre of Alice Springs, the regional centres of Katherine and Tennant Creek, and the remote communities of Santa Teresa, Atitjere and Engawala in Central Australia, and Wadeye in the Top End. Our work in the Territory reinforces every day the size, diversity and unique demographics of this jurisdiction. It is extremely difficult to imagine how the Territory would be appropriately or fairly represented by a single MP. The young people and communities we work with are extremely diverse in terms of culture and language, reflecting the fact that almost one third of the population is Aboriginal, and with more than 100 Aboriginal languages spoken, it is one of the most linguistically diverse areas in the world. Moreover, the size of the Territory – Australia’s third largest jurisdiction, six times the size of Victoria and almost double the size of New South Wales, with 40 per cent of population living in remote and very remote areas (and 80 per cent of Aboriginal people living in remote and very remote areas), means that covering these distances to appropriately serve and represent communities would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, for a single MP.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Legislative Assembly Election (PDF, 3.7MB)
    The Hon K Purick MLA Speaker Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Parliament House Darwin NT 0800 Madam Speaker In accordance with Section 313 of the Electoral Act, I am pleased to provide a report on the conduct of the 2012 Northern Territory Legislative Assembly General Elections. The Electoral Act requires this report to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within three sittings days after its receipt. Additional copies have been provided for this purpose. Bill Shepheard Electoral Commissioner 24 April 2014 ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER’S FOREWORD The 2012 Legislative Assembly General Elections (LAGE) were the third general elections to be conducted under the NT Electoral Act 2004 (NTEA). The 2012 LAGE was also conducted under the substantially revised NTEA which had a significant impact on operational processes and planning arrangements. Set term elections were provided for in 2009, along with a one-day extension to the election timeframe. Further amendments with operational implications received assent in December 2011 and were in place for the August 2012 elections. A number of these changes were prescribed for both the local government and parliamentary electoral framework and, to some extent, brought the legislation into a more contemporary operating context and also aligned its features with those of other jurisdictions. The NTEC workload before the 2012 LAGE was particularly challenging. It was the second major electoral event conducted by the NTEC within the space of a few months. Local government general elections for five municipalities and ten shire councils were conducted on 24 March 2012, the first time their elections had all been held on the same day.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Indexes for Electoral Divisions (2000 Electoral Boundaries) ISSN 1440-2009
    Department of the INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Parliamentary Library Current Issues Brief No. 13 2000–01 Socioeconomic Indexes for Electoral Divisions (2000 Electoral Boundaries) ISSN 1440-2009 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2001 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 the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2001 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 13 2000–01 Socioeconomic Indexes for Electoral Divisions (2000 Electoral Boundaries) Gerard Newman and Andrew Kopras Statistics Group 3 April 2001 Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Judy Hutchinson and Jan Pearson for their assistance in the production of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Caretaker Election
    26. The Results and the Pendulum Malcolm Mackerras The two most interesting features of the 2010 election were that it was close and it was an early election. Since early elections are two-a-penny in our system, I shall deal with the closeness of the election first. The early nature of the election does, however, deserve consideration because it was early on two counts. These are considered below. Of our 43 general elections so far, this was the only one both to be close and to be an early election. Table 26.1 Months of General Elections for the Australian House of Representatives, 1901–2010 Month Number Years March 5 1901,1983, 1990, 1993, 1996 April 2 1910, 1951 May 4 1913, 1917, 1954, 1974 July 1 1987 August 2 1943, 2010 September 4 1914, 1934, 1940, 1946 October 6 1929, 1937, 1969, 1980, 1998, 2004 November 7 1925, 1928, 1958, 1963, 1966, 2001, 2007 December 12 1903, 1906, 1919, 1922, 1931, 1949, 1955, 1961, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1984 Total 43 The Close Election In the immediate aftermath of polling day, several commentators described this as the closest election in Australian federal history. While I can see why people would say that, I describe it differently. As far as I am concerned, there have been 43 general elections for our House of Representatives of which four can reasonably be described as having been close. They are the House of Representatives plus half-Senate elections held on 31 May 1913, 21 September 1940, 9 December 1961 and 21 August 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Speaker’S Statement
    DEBATES – Tuesday 9 May 2017 CONTENTS SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 1623 Yellow Ribbon National Road Safety Week .......................................................................................... 1623 JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION) BILL ..... 1623 (Serial 12) .............................................................................................................................................. 1623 LIMITATION AMENDMENT (CHILD ABUSE) BILL .............................................................................. 1628 (Serial 16) ............................................................................................................................................. 1628 VISITORS ................................................................................................................................................. 1643 Essington School ................................................................................................................................... 1643 PETITION .................................................................................................................................................. 1643 Petition No 11 – Moratorium on Unconventional Oil and Gas Mining in the NT Division of Lingiari for Seven Years .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Five: Increasing the Size of Parliament
    Chapter 5: Increasing the Size of Parliament This is an appropriate place to show the five sections of the Constitution that are the basis of my case. They begin with section 7 which this book mentions more often than any other, especially the words “directly chosen by the people of the State”. Notice the similarity of the Senate words to those in section 24 requiring that the House of Representatives “shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth”. The origin of those words is easy to explain. Our Founding Fathers wanted to copy the US Constitution and the American Founding Fathers provided in their ARTICLE ONE, section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States. .” It was the intention of the American Founding Fathers that their House of Representatives be the ONLY genuinely democratic part of their Constitution. The reason why our Founding Fathers added the word “directly” to the American “chosen” was to ensure that BOTH senators and lower house members be elected in a candidate-based electoral system. That has continued from federation right through to the present day for members of the House of Representatives. That it has not been so for senators is what this book is mainly about. 1 There is a Part VI of the Constitution with four sections. The one below is the second of the four. The idea that the size of the Parliament should be increased is unpopular among voters but is now quite popular among commentators.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of NT Electoral Boundaries (2008)
    LINGIARI & SOLOMON LINGIARI & SOLOMON Latitude 10° S Latitude 10° S 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Kilometres 0 50 100 200 Kilometres Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are part of the Division of Lingiari ARAFURA SEA CHRISTMAS ISLAND COCOS (KEELING) Croker Island Cape North Keeling Wessel 105°40' Island ISLANDS Minjilang 024 kilometres Cape Don Cape Cockburn Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 11°50' 11°50' 024 GURIG NATIONAL 105°35' Pularumpi PARK Wessel North East kilometres Milikapiti Islands Point 96°50' Rocky Point Goulburn Map of the Commonwealth Electoral Divisions of 10°25' 10°25' Settlement BATHURST ISLAND Islands 96°50' 96°55' MELVILLE ISLAND Warruwi Smith Point Horsburgh Island North West Point Brathwaite Point 12°05' 12°05' Moantu Nguilu Direction Van Diemen Gulf Cape Island Kilimiraka Stewart Jackson Point McPherson Point Waterfall LINGIARI & Martin Point Maningrida Galiwinku Cape Hotham Beagle Gulf Milingimbi Home Gunn Point Namaidpa District Island Point Stuart Maragulidban District GunyanGunyangara Nhulunbuy SOLOMONMurrumujuk Wright Point Gunbatgari District White Star Landing Yirrkala Jacks Point Oenpelli Ramingining Yarawoi District iver Deans Point Swim Creek Blyth 10°30' 10°30' DARWIN Woolner R Cape Arnhem Howard Adelaide East Rogers Bay River Springs SOLOMON Egeria Melaleuca River Bamboo Point Ja Ja Gapuwiyak Point Middle Point South Keeling (see enlargement) SOURCES Jones Point John D Point Belyuenuen Humpty Doo Alligator Point Stuart River Bees Creek Middle Point Mary This map has been compiled by Sinclair
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Final
    The University of Notre Dame Australia ResearchOnline@ND Theses 2019 Christmas Island: A question of self-determination Kelvin Matthews Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. This dissertation/thesis is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chapter 7: Part One – Future Direction The future of Christmas Island should be in the hands of the people. The fundamental premise of this study has been to identify and discuss the underlying governance problem on Christmas Island where the community is denied their democratic right to vote in a political system that applies delegated legislation from WA through an arrangement between the commonwealth and the state government. As noted in the Introduction of the study, the purpose of the research has been to explore and investigate the different options for the governance of the Territory of Christmas Island. In doing so, the study sought to draw a link between theories on democratic representation, responsible government and self-determination, and the current governance arrangements on the island. Ultimately, some form of meaningful consultation with Christmas Islanders and potentially a referendum on the island may be required to realise any proposed change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
    Corporate Services Binyolkga Centre 2nd Floor, 28-30 Knuckey St Darwin NT 0800 GPO Box 2125 Darwin NT 0801 (08)8942 5400 [email protected] www.ddhs.org.au 9 July 2020 The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Review into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 About Danila Dilba Danila Dilba is Darwin’s only Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service and provides services to most of the Indigenous population in the region – 70% of the population visits a clinic in any one year. Danila Dilba is a membership based organisation and is governed by an Aboriginal board selected by our members. Danila Dilba provides both comprehensive Primary Health Care and community services. Danila Dilba currently employs approximately 180 staff and has eight general practice clinics across the greater Darwin region. Comprehensive primary health care encompasses the range of health care offered by general practice but extends beyond that to provide: • Primary health care services for people of all ages • Access to specialist and allied health professionals, through collaborative service models • Primary prevention through health promotion to help people get more control over their health • Care coordination for clients with complex health needs • Support for self management and secondary prevention for people living with chronic conditions • Social and emotional wellbeing services • Drug, alcohol and tobacco services • Outreach services to clients • Support services for young people including young people in juvenile detention and for those with diabetes. • Family support and antenatal care through the Australian Nurse Family Partnership Program and Midwife collaborative model of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Christmas Island: a Question of Self-Determination
    The University of Notre Dame Australia ResearchOnline@ND Theses 2019 Christmas Island: A question of self-determination Kelvin Matthews The University of Notre Dame Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. Publication Details Matthews, K. (2019). Christmas Island: A question of self-determination (Doctor of Philosophy (College of Arts and Science)). University of Notre Dame Australia. https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/247 This dissertation/thesis is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Christmas Island A question of self-determination A thesis submitted in the fulfilment of a Doctor of Philosophy School of Arts and Sciences Fremantle Campus February 2019 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP I declare that this Research Project is my own and contains work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. Kelvin Matthews February 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must express my special thanks and appreciation to my beloved wife, Neung for her continued support and encouragement during the long and arduous process of completing my thesis. Without this encouragement and support I would have faltered on many occasions. I acknowledge funding from the Australian Government under the Research Training Program (RTP) Scheme towards this study.
    [Show full text]