It is likely that the ACT will lose the third House of Representatives seat which it gained at the 1996 election. At the 1993 election, the two ACT seats, Canberra and Fraser were the two largest (by population) seats in the House of Representatives. At the 1996 election, the three ACT seats, Namadgi, Canberra and Fraser were the three smallest mainland seats.
Under the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, he ACT is right on the cusp between two and three seats. If the ACT returns to two seats, it will cause great inconvenience and considerable overall under-representation compared with other Australia states and Territories. But overall, the electoral system is a fair one.
Under the present system, House of Representatives seats are allocated among the states a follows. A quota is struck by dividing twice the number of state Senate seats (148) into the whole population. The quota is divided into the population of each state and territory to determine the number of seats each gets. If left-over is greater than half a quota the state (or territory) is given an extra seat, if the left-over is less that half a quota it is ignored. Having determined the number in each state, boundaries are drawn so that seats within each state are, as far a practicable, equal.
Before the 1993 election the ACT had a tad under 2.5 quotas. It rose to 2.504 in time for the 1996 election and now looks like dipping to 2.49 at the critical time when the new quota is set … the 10th month after the first sitting of the new House. The reduction is likely even though the ACT’s population is growing. It is just that it is not growing as fast as other areas in Australia.
It has been quite common for a state to lose or gain a seat. Victoria has been losing one and Queensland gaining one virtually every redistribution. But Victoria has 37 seats, so the loss of one can be accommodated more easily. In the ACT’s case, however, the change is more dramatic.
There is a worse possibility. If there is an early election, say through a double dissolution, before a full redistribution can take place, then emergency measures are enforced to ensure that the number of representatives in each state are proportional to the overall population. If a state gains a seat it is done by dividing the largest seat; if a state loses a seat it is done by amalgamating the smallest two contiguous seats. If that happened in the ACT, it would produce the seemingly absurd result of Fraser and Namadgi being amalgamated. They are the smallest two seats and their boundaries just touch in an unpopulated space on the western side. So the ACT would have one seat called Fraser-Namadgi of 130,000 and another seat called Canberra of about 70,000.
As it happens, Tasmania, for a long time the smallest polity represented in the federal parliament, was buffeted against this sort of thing. The Constitution guarantees each original state at least five members in the House. It has only been since the Senate was increased to 12 senators per state (and the Reps to about 148) in the mid-1980s that Tasmania has earned five representatives on the ground of comparative population. So it is only with the present ACT situation and the possibility of a double dissolution before a redistribution can be carried out, that the seemingly absurd situation, of two ACT electorates of 130,000 and 70,000 respectively, can come about.
What is to be done.
Compared to Tasmania, the people of the ACT are decidedly under-represented. Tasmania with 470,000 people has five MHRs, 12 senators, 35 state lower house and 19 state upper house members, not to mention local councillors. That is about one member per 6350 people. The ACT with 300,000 people has two senators, three (maybe two) MHRs and 17 territory members. That is one representative per 13,050 people.
On the other hand, NSW has 45 MHRs, 12 senators, 99 state lower house and 42 state upper house members. That is one member per 30,300 people … far fewer than the ACT, but NSW has local government.
What should be done about, first, the fact the ACT might lose a seat and, secondly, the way it would lose the seat?
The method of losing a seat before a proper redistribution is absurd. What might be reasonable for a state losing one of 20 to 50 members, is not reasonable for a territory losing one of three. It is ridiculous for the two smallest seats to be amalgamated. It would be better to just to revert to the 1993 boundaries.
As to whether the ACT should lose a seat at all, just because of a tiny comparative drop in our population as a proportion of Australia’s total, we will have to grin and bear. No-one appears to be in the mood to give a special deal to help the ACT. As it is the ACT and the Northern Territory have a guarantee of at least one MHR each, irrespective of their comparative populations.
It may be that the ACT will fluctuate between two and three members for some time, as the population varies with national averages due to such things as a higher birth-rate due to a young population, on one hand, and the political fall-out of the size of the public service desired by the government of the day. It is an inconvenience warranted by the overall fairness of the Australia-wide process.