Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library RESEARCH BRIEF Information analysis and advice for the Parliament 1 February 2007, no. 8, 2006–07, ISSN 1832-2883 'Save Country Seats': the NSW redistribution 2005–06 The recently-completed redistribution for the NSW House of Representatives seats was unusually controversial. There was concern in rural areas over the loss of a country seat— which was also a ‘Federation’ seat—and dismay over the apparent pushing–aside of the ‘community of interest’ principle by the Redistribution Committee. The controversy revealed a lack of community understanding of the redistribution process and an apparent reluctance by the Australian Electoral Commission to engage fully with the public. This paper discusses the controversy, analyses the changes to the redistribution that were made as a result the controversy, and poses the question of whether the redistribution arrangements need alteration. Scott Bennett Politics and Public Administration Section Contents Executive summary ................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................ 2 When are redistributions held? ........................................... 2 Who conducts a redistribution?........................................... 3 Public input? ........................................................ 4 What are the aims of a redistribution? ...................................... 5 Equality ......................................................... 5 Enrolment quota ................................................. 5 Quota variation.................................................. 5 Projected average enrolment ........................................ 6 Other factors...................................................... 9 Division names................................................. 10 The 2005–06 NSW redistribution ........................................ 10 www.aph.gov.au/library The proposed redistribution—principles ................................. 10 The proposed redistribution—in practice ................................ 12 The reaction in the West ............................................ 17 Loss of a rural seat .............................................. 17 Community of interest............................................ 17 Members of Parliament and their constituents........................... 18 Loss of a Federation division ....................................... 19 The campaign to save Gwydir ........................................ 19 The final redistribution—west of the Divide .............................. 21 Gwydir, Parkes, Calare and Farrer ................................... 21 The ripple effect—Macquarie and Greenway ........................... 25 Looking back ...................................................... 26 A biased process? ............................................... 26 Are the redistribution rules suitable for a geographically-large nation? ......... 26 Can anything be done? ........................................... 27 Quota variation............................................... 28 Coping with distance .......................................... 28 Leeway for sparsely populated areas ............................... 28 Local voices................................................. 29 In conclusion—could public concerns have been lessened? ..................... 29 Listening to the public............................................ 29 Insufficient explanation of the case for change .......................... 30 Assertion is not proof ............................................ 30 Better public relations ............................................ 30 Appendix—Redistribution timetable...................................... 32 Endnotes.......................................................... 33 'Save Country Seats': the NSW redistribution 2005–06 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. 1 'Save Country Seats': the NSW redistribution 2005–06 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 2 'Save Country Seats': the NSW redistribution 2005–06 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