It would impossible to draw three electorates in the ACT without splitting one or more of the major townships, according to the Liberal spokesman on electoral matters, Gary Humphries.
This made it more important for the boundaries not to be drawn by the proposed ACT Electoral Commission as suggested by the Government.
Mr Humphries thought the Chief Territory Planner and the Auditor-General should draw the boundaries, to add expertise and greater independence.
Mr Humphries has taken population figures as at 1990 and worked out that the three seats need to have 115,000 people, 83,000 and 83,000. He is yet to update the figures on the basis of electors voting at the last ACT election, but does not think it will make a great deal of difference.
He tried various combinations of three seats with five, five and seven members applying the rule of one vote, one value. The variations were with the seven-member seat in the centre, in Tuggeranong-Woden-Weston and in Belconnen (see maps).
If it were in the centre, a five-member Belconnen seat would be too populous without excising either Kaleen or Cook-Aranda into the central seat. A five-member Tuggeranong seat would be too small without embracing four or five suburbs from adjacent Weston or Woden. Taking all of Weston or Woden would make it too big.
If the big seat were in Tuggeranong-Woden-Weston, it would be too big unless the northern part of Woden were excised and put into the central seat. And the five-member Belconnen seat would still be too big without excising Kaleen or Cook-Aranda.
If the big seat were in Belconnen, it would have to take in parts of North Canberra. It could not take in all of North Canberra without becoming too big. And the five-member Tuggeranong seat would have to take in parts of Weston or Woden to make it big enough.
He had variations on Model 1 and Model 2 depending on where the boundary cut Belconnen and Woden-Weston.
His break-up was based on the following populations: Belconnen 89,260; centre 61,600 (40,350 north of the lake and 21,250 south); Weston 27,660; Woden 33,820; and Tuggeranong 69,080.
If the break up were based on the number of voters, rather than total population, Tuggeranong would be slightly worse off because of its larger proportion of non-voting children. None the less, it would still be impossible to get a combination of three seats of seven, five and five members without cutting through the traditional townships, or alternatively abandoning one vote, one value. The latter was unacceptable.
Mr Humphries thought this would make the task of drawing boundaries more difficult.
An electoral commission has some interest in the outcome of boundaries and has some interest in voting systems. An example of that was the Commonwealth Electoral Commission making it clear it did not like the d’Hondt system. That might have been a sound view, but he questioned whether an electoral commission should have a view at all. And he questioned whether an electoral commission on its own should draw boundaries.
It thought it safer to have a statutory redistribution committee to draw boundaries made up of the Electoral Commissioner, the Auditor-General and the Chief Planner. Appeals could be made to a boundaries commission of those three plus a Supreme Court judge as chair and the Chief Surveyor.
He hoped eventually that the ACT could use Federal boundaries like Tasmania. Once the ACT had three Federal seats this could be done, provided the number of MLAs were changed, either down to 15 or up to 21. However, it would be some time before people’s hostility to self-government was overcome to the extent that the numbers could fiddled with.
Mr Humphries thought that the Liberal Party would do better with Model 3, picking up seven seats on last election’s voting patterns, instead of the present six. However, he acknowledged that Model 1 was more logical.
It seems that Model 3 would give Michael Moore some trouble because it would bisect his heartland.