14
November 2017
PDF version [387KB]
Dr Damon
Muller
Politics and Public Administration
Section
The process of drawing and adjusting
electoral boundaries in Australia is called a ‘redistribution’, and at the
federal level is governed by Part IV of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 (CEA). Currently, five redistributions—for Tasmania,
Queensland, South Australia (SA), Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT)—are in progress (the Tasmanian redistribution should be completed on 14
November 2017). While this quick guide focuses on federal redistributions, it
is worth noting that redistributions also occur within the states and
territories for state-level electorates using separate processes.
The process of a federal redistribution is complex and
involves a number of steps. Some of the steps rely on objective information
that is produced outside the redistribution process, and some of the steps have
the capacity for taking into account the opinions of those who are affected by redistribution
decisions. Importantly, the process is undertaken independently of the
Government and the Parliament.
Redistribution decisions are often erroneously attributed to
the Government or the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). While the AEC is
involved in the redistribution process in an administrative capacity, the
decisions are made by a Redistribution Committee appointed for each
redistribution. The Committee consists of the Australian Electoral Officer for
the relevant state or territory (a statutory appointment), the Surveyor-General
of the state and the Auditor-General of the state (also typically statutory
officers).
Any objections to the proposals put forth by a Redistribution
Committee are considered by the augmented Electoral Commission, which is made
up of the Redistribution Committee and the two members of the Electoral
Commission other than the Electoral Commissioner.[1]
The augmented Electoral Commission makes the final determination of the redistribution,
and may elect to keep the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee,
or modify them.
As one
expert has noted, ‘Australia’s current redistribution process is widely
recognised as independent and fair’:
The [electoral] commissions’ structures keep them independent
of the parties and their authority to order maps into effect keeps them
independent of the parliament. Their process is transparent and accountable,
and redistributions are triggered frequently and automatically—in four
jurisdictions they take place after each election. Elector tolerances are
relatively tight and in several jurisdictions they apply when it counts—at the
time of subsequent elections. The criteria generate relatively meaningful
districts and the outcomes are regularly accepted by the parties and the
public.
Redistribution triggers
There are three
triggers for initiating a federal-level redistribution, set out in Section
59 of the CEA:
- where the representation entitlement of a state changes (see next
section)
- where the divisions of a state are malapportioned, or
- where a redistribution has not been held for seven years because
neither of the other two triggers have been met.
The operations of the triggers are based on either time or
population numbers, and are largely objective and transparent, being based on
published data.
The malapportionment trigger is invoked when the number of
electors in more than one third of the divisions in the state or territory
differs from the average enrolment by more than ten per cent for more than two
months (monthly
enrolment statistics are published by the AEC on its website). The
malapportionment trigger has been present in the CEA since 1984 and has
never been used.
The entitlement determination
Each state and territory is divided into electoral divisions
(or seats) for the House of Representatives. The total number of divisions
across the country is determined by population
and the Australian
Constitution, and is required to be as close as practical to twice the
number of senators (that is, twice 76). Currently there are 150 divisions for
the House of Representatives, although this will change (see further below).
The representation entitlement for all states and territories
is determined by applying the populations of the states and territories to a
particular formula. This determines how many representatives, and therefore electoral
divisions, each state and territory is entitled to.
Under section 46 of the CEA, the Electoral
Commissioner ascertains the populations of the states and territories from the
Australian Statistician the day after the anniversary of the first meeting of a
newly elected House of Representatives, provided that the ‘House of
Representatives has continued for a period of 12 months’. Section 48 of the Act
specifies the manner in which representation entitlements are calculated from
these population numbers.
As the current House of Representatives in the 45th
Parliament first met on 30 August 2016, on 31 August 2017 the Electoral
Commissioner took the latest
population numbers published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
and applied the entitlement determination formula.
The Electoral Commissioner’s determination,
published on 31 August 2017, found that due
to the patterns of population growth in the states and territories, Victoria
and the ACT would both gain one new seat each, and that SA would lose one seat.
This will bring the total number of divisions (and members) for the next (46th)
Parliament to 151. The actual redistributions of electoral boundaries for these
jurisdictions, however, have only recently commenced. Details of the number of
members for each state (and for the Parliament) at every election since 1901 are
in Appendix C.
Redistributions: the process
A redistribution follows
a set process that has several opportunities for public input. Sitting
members and/or their political parties, and other political parties, typically
take advantage of these opportunities to submit comments, but have no special
role in the process above any other interested person. As discussed below, the
process ignores political consequences when determining new electoral
boundaries.
In the report
of the most recent NSW redistribution, completed in October 2015, the
Committee summarised the requirements for drawing new electoral boundaries:
In summary, the primary criteria are to:
- endeavour
to ensure that the number of electors in the proposed electoral divisions are
within a range of 3.5 per cent below or above the projected enrolment
quota at the projection time, and
- ensure that
current enrolments are within 10 per cent below or above the current
enrolment quota.
The secondary criteria are community of interests, means of
communication and travel, and physical features and area. The augmented
Electoral Commission also considers the boundaries of existing electoral
divisions; however this criterion is subordinate to the others.
The requirements are set out in section 66 of the CEA.
The CEA states that the provision for preserving
existing boundaries is subordinate to the other matters. That is, the Redistribution
Committee is free to disregard the current electoral boundaries if doing so
better accommodates population change and reflects community of interests,
travel and communication or physical features. Notably, there is no provision
in the CEA for the consideration of political outcomes or electoral
fairness in federal redistributions (although South
Australian law does have such a provision for state-level redistributions).
Requirements for determining
boundaries
The primary requirement for a redistribution is that all of the
newly-drawn boundaries fulfil two enrolment quotas:
- the malapportionment provision, as per the redistribution
triggers, that no division must differ from the average enrolment per division
for the state by more than ten percent (calculated by taking the number
of enrolments in the state and dividing by the number of divisions) and
- the new boundaries are required to have projected enrolments that
differ by no more than 3.5 per cent from the state average.
The enrolment
projections are prepared by the ABS, and the ABS
states that they are based largely on the calculated projections of
Australian residents aged 18 or over.[2]
Typically the projected enrolments are for a period three and a half years
after the redistribution is complete. However in the case of the current
Victorian redistribution the AEC has determined that the projection time for enrolments
is only two years.
Subsection 63A(3) of the CEA allows the AEC to use a shorter time for
the enrolment projection if it believes that a new redistribution of the state
will be required sooner than seven years. This suggests that the AEC believes
that the population growth of Victoria is such that another seat will be gained
at the entitlement determination following the sitting of the next (46th)
Parliament.
Note that, while the
whole Australian population is used for the determination of entitlement (the
number of electoral divisions in each state and territory), it is only the enrolled
population (and projected enrolled population) that is used for determining the
number of electors within the actual boundaries of each division. Average
enrolments are determined at the beginning of the redistribution process based
on current enrolments, and the enrolment projections are published by the AEC
as part of the redistribution process.
In regard to the secondary criteria (community of interests,
means of communication and travel, and physical features), because redistributions
are for entire states or territories, Redistribution Committees tend to take a
state-wide view of these issues. However, in the absence of significantly
different growth patterns and population movements in the state, unless the
redistribution is required to accommodate the addition or removal of a
division, boundary changes may potentially be minor.
Public consultation
Once a redistribution commences there is a public call for
written suggestions (the AEC provides guidelines
for making submissions). These suggestions are then made available for
public comment. The Redistribution Committee will consider the suggestions and produce
a set of boundary proposals, which are then published with a call for written
objections to the proposals. The objections are then published and written
comments on the objections are invited. The augmented Electoral Commission then
considers the objections and makes a final determination.
In cases where the proposed changes are particularly
contentious, such as in the most recent NSW redistribution, the augmented
Electoral Commission may hold public
hearings where objections can be discussed, before making its
determination.
Interpretation of the secondary criteria listed in section
66 (community of interests, means of communication and travel, and physical
features) by interested parties is largely subjective. Different parties will
tend to interpret the criteria to their own ends in their own submissions. The
community of interest criterion is particularly open to interpretation, and may
be discussed in terms of rural versus urban, dominant industries, socioeconomic
class, ethnic backgrounds, and so on.
The CEA (section 67) provides that a Redistribution
Committee must state in writing its reasoning for its redistribution proposal,
and, if any member of the Committee disagrees, the reason for the disagreement.
Typically, however, the decision is unanimous.
When a redistribution does need to accommodate the addition
or removal of a division, the effects of that will usually extend well beyond
the people enrolled in the division affected. The removal of one division (of
approximately 110,000 electors) in NSW in the 2016 redistribution resulted in
919,914 electors (18.91 per cent of all NSW electors) moving electorates.
Where an existing division must be abolished due to the results
of the entitlement determination (see above), the Committee must still abide by
the requirements of section 66 of the CEA, considering the current and
projected populations first, and other factors such as community of interests
after that. The decision about which division to abolish is usually suggested
by other boundary changes necessitated in accommodating areas where growth and
population rates have changed.
Political considerations?
As noted above, there is no provision in the CEA for
the consideration of political outcomes or electoral fairness in federal
redistributions. It
has been noted that, in 1984, shortly after the AEC was created and the
process of redistributions was separated from the Parliament, a federal
redistribution for Western Australia was subject to an appeal in terms of the
‘political effects’ of the redistribution. The Electoral Commissioner at the
time sought legal advice as to whether the augmented Electoral Commission had
the power to decline to hear arguments on the ‘political effects’ of a
redistribution in an objection to a redistribution.
The advice from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s
Department was that the augmented Electoral Commission could, at its
discretion, either include or exclude objections due to political effects. The
Commission took the position that it would not consider the political effects
of a redistribution. Maintaining impartiality as to the potential political
effects of a redistribution has remained part of the redistribution process since
that point federally, and has also been adopted by most state and territory
redistribution processes (as noted previously, South Australia is an exception
to this).
Timeframes
The most recent redistributions have taken 13 to 14 months
to complete. The Electoral Commissioner must direct that a redistribution
commences ‘forthwith after making the determination’ (CEA, paragraph
59(2)(a)). The redistributions of Victoria, SA and the ACT commenced on 4
September 2017.
The AEC has projected
that the redistributions will be complete by July 2018, but if the recent past
redistributions are any indication, an election before October or November 2018
could result in the triggering of a mini-redistribution for each jurisdiction.
Appendix D provides dates and timeframes of recent redistributions.
Naming electorates
Under the CEA a Redistribution Committee and the
augmented Electoral Commission are not restricted in their approach to naming
new divisions or renaming old divisions. However in practice they tend to
follow a set of non-mandatory guidelines which emerged out of recommendations
from a 1987 Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform (JSCER) inquiry.
In brief, the guidelines
state that:
- Electorates should be named after deceased Australians who have
rendered outstanding service to their country, and deceased former Prime
Ministers should be considered when naming new divisions.
- Electorate names that date from the time of Federation should be
retained (a list of Federation divisions is in Appendix E).
- Place names should be avoided.
- Aboriginal names should be used where appropriate, and existing
Aboriginal division names should be retained.
- Names should not duplicate existing state electoral district
names.
- Names of divisions should not be changed or moved to new areas
without very good reasons.
- When multiple divisions are combined the new division should be
the name of the old division with the greatest number of electors in the new
boundaries.
As an example of the practical application of the
guidelines, in the 2016
NSW redistribution the division of Hunter was abolished. Around half of the
electors from the division of Hunter went into the neighbouring division of
Charlton. However, as Hunter was a Federation electorate, it was decided to
rename Charlton to Hunter to preserve the Federation name.
A recent
analysis has concluded that 15 seats in the current parliament (10 per
cent) are named after women, while 92 (61 per cent) are named after men, and
three (2 per cent) are named after families.
At the 2016 redistribution for the ACT, the division of
Fraser (named after John Fraser, a member of the House of Representatives for
the ACT from 1951 to 1970) was renamed to Fenner (after scientist Frank Fenner)
in order to free-up the name of Fraser for a future division in Victoria to be
named after former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. As such, it is likely that
Victoria will gain a division of Fraser in the upcoming redistribution of that
state, although whether this will be a new division or a renamed existing
division is yet unknown.
What happens if an election is
called when a redistribution in is progress?
As noted above, if the calculated representation entitlement
is different to the current entitlement for a state or territory, then the
state or territory must undergo a redistribution. The 2017 entitlement
determination indicated that SA must lose one seat and the ACT and Victoria
must gain one seat each.
If a federal election is called and a redistribution is due
for a state or territory but is not complete, and the state or territory has
not changed its entitlement, the election will be conducted under the existing
boundaries. However, section 76 of the CEA provides that, if a state or
territory changes its entitlement and an election is called before the
resulting redistribution is complete, the state or territory must undergo a ‘mini-redistribution’.
A mini-redistribution is triggered when the writs for an election are issued.
Where a state or territory is to lose a seat (such as in SA),
the two adjacent divisions with the combined lowest number of electors are
combined into a single electorate. When a seat is to be gained (as with
Victoria and the ACT), the two adjacent electorates with the combined largest number
of electors are split into three electorates, each of which has, as close as
possible, the same number of electors. These changes must happen between the
issue of the writs for the election and the declaration of nominations (between
10 and 27 days after the issue of the writs).
For the purpose of conducting a mini-redistribution, the
number of electors in electorates is the most recent monthly gazetted enrolment
figures. It is possible to estimate the likely result of mini-redistributions
for SA, Victoria and the ACT on the basis of enrolments
as of 30 September 2017. This calculation is an estimate only on the basis
of the current enrolments, and changes in the relative enrolments in the
Victorian and SA divisions could mean that a different set of electorates would
be subject to any mini-redistribution by the time an election was called.
- In South Australia, the large rural divisions of Barker
and Grey
would be combined into the one division, which would be named Barker-Grey. Both
of these seats are currently held by Liberal members.
- In Victoria, the divisions of Gorton
and McEwen
would be split into three divisions: Gorton, McEwen, and Gorton-McEwan[3].
Gorton is currently a safe Labor seat and McEwen is a fairly safe Labor seat.
- The two ACT seats of Canberra
and Fenner
would be split into three divisions: Canberra, Fenner and Canberra-Fenner.
Fenner is currently a safe Labor seat and Canberra is a fairly safe Labor seat.
The distribution of the two-party preferred vote in each of
these seats from the 2016 federal election can be seen in a July 2017 Library
Flagpost on the topic.
The mini-redistribution provisions have never been used, and
as such it is impossible to say exactly how the Redistribution Commissioners
(the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Electoral Officer for the state,
or the senior Divisional Returning Officer in the case of the ACT) would split
up two divisions into three. Mini-redistributions in SA, Victoria and the ACT would
likely leave very little time to decide pre-selection for the newly created (or
newly abolished) seats, and could result in extensive voter confusion.
Further reading
Appendix A: the fate of recently abolished
divisions
2016—NSW
The most recent NSW redistribution saw the division of
Hunter abolished. However, the division of Charlton was moved so that it
contained about half the population of the former division of Hunter and half
of the former Charlton. Charlton was then renamed to Hunter (notionally
marginal Australian Labor Party (ALP)[4]).
The sitting Member for the previous division of Hunter (Joel Fitzgibbon, ALP) ran
for and won the new division of Hunter, while the sitting Member for Charlton (Pat
Conroy, ALP) ran for and won the division of Shortland (notional fairly safe
ALP) at the 2016 federal election. The previous Member for Shortland (Jill
Hall, ALP) retired before the 2016 federal election.
2009—NSW
In the 2009 redistribution of NSW the division of Reid (safe
ALP) was abolished. The Redistribution Committee proposed renaming the existing
division of Lowe to McMahon which the augmented Electoral Commission then renamed
to Reid (and the existing division of Prospect was renamed to McMahon). The new
division of Reid (notionally safe ALP) had about one third of its population
from the previous division of Reid, and two thirds from the existing division
of Lowe (marginal ALP). The Member for Lowe (John Murphy, ALP) ran and won the
new seat of Reid, and the Member for the previous division of Prospect (Chris
Bowen, ALP) ran in and won the new division of McMahon (notionally safe ALP) in
the 2010 election. The Member for Reid (Laurie Ferguson, ALP) ran for and won
the division of Werriwa (notionally safe ALP). The previous Member for Werriwa (Chris
Hayes, ALP) ran for and won the division of Fowler (notionally safe ALP).
2005—NSW
The division of Gwydir (safe National Party (NAT)) was abolished,
with most of the population transferred to the division of Parkes (safe NAT in
2007), and a smaller proportion to Hunter (notionally safe ALP in 2007) and
other electorates. The sitting Member for Gwydir (John Anderson, NAT) retired
prior to the 2007 federal election, and the sitting Member for Parkes (John
Cobb, NAT) moved to the seat of Calare (notionally safe NAT) at the 2007
election, with a new Member (Mark Coulton, NAT) elected in Parkes.
2003—SA
In the 2003 redistribution of SA the division of Bonython (safe
ALP) was abolished, with most of the population of Bonython going into the
division of Wakefield (safe Liberal Party (LIB) at the 2001 election). The Member
for the previous division of Bonython (Martyn Evans, ALP) ran in the new seat
of Wakefield (notionally marginal ALP) in the 2004 election and narrowly lost
to a new Liberal candidate. The previous Member for Wakefield (Neil Andrew, LIB)
retired prior to the 2004 election.
1994—Victoria
The seat of Corinella was abolished. The former Member for
Corinella (Alan Griffin, ALP) went on to contest the seat of Bruce (notional
marginal ALP) in the 1996 election and won against the incumbent Member (Julian
Beale, LIB) in what had previously been a fairly safe Liberal seat.
1992—NSW
This redistribution abolished the divisions of Phillip and
Dundas, and created the division of Paterson (notionally marginal LIB). The
Member for Phillip (Jeannette McHugh, ALP) contested and won the division of Grayndler
(notional safe ALP), and the Member for Dundas (Philip Ruddock, LIB) contested
and won the existing division of Berowra (safe LIB). The previous Member for
Grayndler (Leo McLeay, ALP) contested and won the division of Watson (fairly
safe ALP). The previous Member for Berowra (Paul Edwards, LIB) retired before
the election. The winner of the division of Paterson (Bob Horne, ALP) was new
to Parliament.
1992—SA
The division of Hawker was abolished, and its population
mainly went to the divisions of Boothby and Hindmarsh. The Member for Hawker (Christine
Gallus, LIB) went on to contest and win Hindmarsh, which was notionally
marginal Liberal, at the 1993 election. The previous Member for Hindmarsh (John
Scott, ALP), which was previously a marginal ALP electorate, retired before the
election.
1989—Victoria
The divisions of Henty and Streeton were abolished and the
new division of Corinella was created (which did not include any of the
electors of Henty or Streeton). The Member for Henty (Joan Child, ALP), a
fairly safe ALP electorate, retired in 1990. The Member for Streeton (Tony
Lamb, ALP) went on to contest the division of Deakin (which was notionally
marginal ALP) and lost at the 1990 federal election.
Appendix B: recent redistributions
Redistributions were undertaken in 2016 for New South Wales
(NSW), Western Australia (WA), the ACT and the Northern Territory (NT). The
submissions to these redistributions are still available online.
NT (2017)
Public
suggestions
Comments
on public suggestions
Objections
to the redistribution proposal
Comments
on objections
Final
determination report
NSW (2016)
Public
suggestions
Comments
on public suggestions
Objections
to the redistribution proposal
Comments
on objections
Final
determination report
WA (2016)
Public
suggestions
Comments
on public suggestions
Objections
to the redistribution proposal
Comments
on objections
Final
determination report
ACT (2016)
Public
suggestions
Comments
on public suggestions
Objections
to the redistribution proposal
Comments
on objections
Final
determination report
Appendix C: number of House of
Representatives seats by state for each federal election
Election
year |
NSW |
Vic. |
Qld |
SA |
WA |
Tas. |
NT |
ACT |
Total |
Total with full
voting rights(a) |
| 1901 |
26 |
23 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1903 |
26 |
23 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1906 |
27 |
22 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1910 |
27 |
22 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1913 |
27 |
21 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1914 |
27 |
21 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1917 |
27 |
21 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1919 |
27 |
21 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
75 |
75 |
| 1922 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
76 |
75 |
| 1925 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
76 |
75 |
| 1928 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
76 |
75 |
| 1929 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
76 |
75 |
| 1931 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
76 |
75 |
| 1934 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
75 |
74 |
| 1937 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
75 |
74 |
| 1940 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
75 |
74 |
| 1943 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
75 |
74 |
| 1946 |
28 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
|
75 |
74 |
| 1949 |
47 |
33 |
18 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
123 |
121 |
| 1951 |
47 |
33 |
18 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
123 |
121 |
| 1954 |
47 |
33 |
18 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
123 |
121 |
| 1955 |
46 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
124 |
122 |
| 1958 |
46 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
124 |
122 |
| 1961 |
46 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
124 |
122 |
| 1963 |
46 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
124 |
122 |
| 1966 |
46 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
124 |
123 |
| 1969 |
45 |
34 |
18 |
12 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
125 |
125 |
| 1972 |
45 |
34 |
18 |
12 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
125 |
125 |
| 1974 |
45 |
34 |
18 |
12 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
127 |
127 |
| 1975 |
45 |
34 |
18 |
12 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
127 |
127 |
| 1977 |
43 |
33 |
19 |
11 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
124 |
124 |
| 1980 |
43 |
33 |
19 |
11 |
11 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
125 |
125 |
| 1983 |
43 |
33 |
19 |
11 |
11 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
125 |
125 |
| 1984 |
51 |
39 |
24 |
13 |
13 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
148 |
148 |
| 1987 |
51 |
39 |
24 |
13 |
13 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
148 |
148 |
| 1990 |
51 |
38 |
24 |
13 |
14 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
148 |
148 |
| 1993 |
50 |
38 |
25 |
12 |
14 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
147 |
147 |
| 1996 |
50 |
37 |
26 |
12 |
14 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
148 |
148 |
| 1998 |
50 |
37 |
27 |
12 |
14 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
148 |
148 |
| 2001 |
50 |
37 |
27 |
12 |
15 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2004 |
50 |
37 |
28 |
11 |
15 |
5 |
2(b) |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2007 |
49 |
37 |
29 |
11 |
15 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2010 |
48 |
37 |
30 |
11 |
15 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2013 |
48 |
37 |
30 |
11 |
15 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2016 |
47 |
37 |
30 |
11 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
150 |
150 |
| 2019? |
47 |
38 |
30 |
10 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
151 |
151 |
(a) The member for the Northern Territory had limited voting
rights between 1922 and 1968. The member for the Australian Capital Territory
had limited voting rights between 1949 and 1966.
(b) The NT was reduced to 1 seat after the entitlement determination
of 19 February 2003 but reverted to two divisions after the passage of the Commonwealth
Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Act 2004
and did not undergo a redistribution.
Key: numbers in green indicate a seat gained since the last election, and numbers in red indicate a seat lost. Shaded cells indicate
that the seat has undergone a
redistribution prior to the election.
Source: Compiled by the Parliamentary Library from various
sources.
Appendix D: start dates and
selected milestones of recent redistributions
| State |
Date
redistribution
commenced |
Days until
suggestions
closed |
Days from
suggestions
closed to
proposal
released |
Date Finalised |
Days from
proposals
released until
redistribution
finalised |
Total time |
| Days |
Months |
| NT |
15/10/2015 |
141 |
189 |
7/02/2017 |
151 |
481 |
15 |
| NSW |
1/12/2014 |
172 |
147 |
25/02/2016 |
132 |
451 |
14 |
| WA |
1/12/2014 |
130 |
133 |
19/01/2016 |
151 |
414 |
13 |
| ACT |
1/12/2014 |
179 |
105 |
28/01/2016 |
139 |
423 |
13 |
| SA |
12/01/2011 |
114 |
98 |
16/12/2011 |
126 |
338 |
11 |
| Vic. |
1/02/2010 |
67 |
112 |
24/12/2010 |
147 |
326 |
10 |
| Qld |
19/02/2009 |
78 |
77 |
15/12/2009 |
144 |
299 |
9 |
| NSW |
19/02/2009 |
71 |
98 |
22/12/2009 |
137 |
306 |
10 |
| Tas. |
13/02/2008 |
86 |
105 |
16/02/2009 |
178 |
369 |
12 |
| NT |
16/01/2008 |
72 |
84 |
19/08/2008 |
60 |
216 |
7 |
| WA |
14/12/2007 |
105 |
126 |
10/12/2008 |
131 |
362 |
11 |
| NSW |
2/12/2005 |
112 |
98 |
22/11/2006 |
145 |
355 |
11 |
| Qld |
2/12/2005 |
91 |
112 |
22/11/2006 |
152 |
355 |
11 |
| ACT |
30/11/2004 |
108 |
98 |
9/12/2005 |
168 |
374 |
12 |
| Qld |
12/03/2003 |
100 |
63 |
25/11/2003 |
95 |
258 |
8 |
| SA |
12/03/2003 |
114 |
32 |
17/12/2003 |
134 |
280 |
9 |
| Vic. |
18/01/2002 |
91 |
133 |
29/01/2003 |
152 |
376 |
12 |
| WA |
23/12/1999 |
92 |
63 |
20/11/2000 |
178 |
333 |
10 |
| NT |
23/12/1999 |
71 |
56 |
21/12/2000 |
237 |
364 |
11 |
| Tas. |
14/04/1999 |
44 |
84 |
22/11/1999 |
94 |
222 |
7 |
| NSW |
26/02/1999 |
49 |
91 |
11/02/2000 |
210 |
350 |
11 |
| SA |
10/02/1999 |
37 |
63 |
13/08/1999 |
84 |
184 |
6 |
Source: AEC and
Parliamentary Library calculations.
Appendix E: the Federation
divisions and their fate
| State |
Divisions |
Time in use |
History |
| NSW |
Barrier |
1901–22 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1922 |
| |
Bland |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
Canobolas |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
Cowper |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Dalley |
1901–69 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1968 |
| |
Darling |
1901–77 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1977 |
| |
East Sydney |
1901–69 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1968 |
| |
Eden-Monaro |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Gwydir |
1901–2007 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 2006 |
| |
Hume |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Hunter |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Illawarra |
1901–22 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1922 |
| |
Lang |
1901–77 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1977 |
| |
Macquarie |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Newcastle |
|
Still in existence |
| |
New England |
|
Still in existence |
| |
North Sydney |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Parkes |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Parramatta |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Richmond |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Riverina |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Robertson |
|
Still in existence |
| |
South Sydney |
1901–34 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1934 |
| |
Wentworth |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Werriwa |
|
Still in existence |
| |
West Sydney |
1901–69 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1968 |
| Vic |
Balaclava |
1901–84 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1984 |
| |
Ballaarat |
|
Still in existence; renamed Ballarat 1977 |
| |
Bendigo |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Bourke |
1901–49 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1948 |
| |
Corangamite |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Corinella |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
|
1990–96 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1994 |
| |
Corio |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Echuca |
1901–37 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1936 |
| |
Flinders |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Gippsland |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Grampians |
1901–22 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1922 |
| |
Indi |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Kooyong |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Laanecoorie |
1901–13 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1912 |
| |
Melbourne |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Melbourne Ports |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Mernda |
1901–13 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1912 |
| |
Moira |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
Northern Melbourne |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
Southern Melbourne |
1901–06 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1906 |
| |
Wannon |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Wimmera |
1901–77 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1977 |
| |
Yarra |
1901–69 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1968 |
| Qld |
Brisbane |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Capricornia |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Darling Downs |
1901–84 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1984 |
| |
Herbert |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Kennedy |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Maranoa |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Moreton |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Oxley |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Wide Bay |
|
Still in existence |
| WA |
Coolgardie |
1901–13 |
Abolished on redistribution of seats, 1912 |
| |
Fremantle |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Kalgoorlie |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Perth |
|
Still in existence |
| |
Swan |
|
Still in existence |
Note: Corinella was abolished twice, once in 1906 and for the
second time in 1994. Only 63 of the first Parliament’s 75 divisions were
Federation divisions as the first MPs from both Tasmania and South Australia
were elected ‘at large’. This was due to the colonial parliaments not having
managed to distribute the colonies in time for the 1901 election (held on 29
and 30 March), and meant that each of these MPs was known as the ‘Member for
Tasmania’ and the ‘Member for South Australia’. The first named divisions for
Tasmania and South Australia were not used until the 1903 election.
[1].
Confusingly, the ‘Australian Electoral Commission’, under the CEA (section
6) consists of three members, including the Chair, who is usually a retired
judge, the Electoral Commissioner, and a third member, usually the Australian
Statistician (the head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics). In order to
distinguish between the statutory agency, also referred to as the Australian
Electoral Commission, this is often referred to informally as the
‘three-person Commission’. All links current as of 14 November 2017.
[2].
The resident population 18 and over is only an estimate of the population
that is eligible to vote, as resident
non-citizens who cannot vote are included in the count.
[3].
The CEA says the newly created division ‘shall have a name
consisting of the names of each Division included in the pair of contiguous
Divisions arranged in alphabetical order and hyphenated’, (subsection 76(12)).
[4].
Details on the candidates and the notional election margins have been taken
from Adam Carr’s
Australian Election Archive.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work 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.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.