Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the ) 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 .

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 . 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, 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