SHOULD the ACT get a third seat in the Houseof Representatives? The most recent redistribution has delivered an odd result. The Northern Terri�tory is to have a second seat. Its two seats will have 55,000 and 52,500 electors. The ACT will continue to have two seats of 108,500 and 107,000 electors. The ACT’s seats will each be double the size of the North�ern Territory’s. How could this be fair? Surely, the ACT deserves a third seat. Even then its electorates would have more voters than both the Northern Territory’s electorates.
Representation of the territories has a different constitutional base than representation of the six original states. Each original state must get an equal number of senators; a minimum of five members in the House of Representatives; and subject to the minimum, representation in the House in proportion to its population. Also, the House must be approximately twice the size of the Senate.
Redistributions are based on these requirements. The total population of the states is divided by double the number of state senators, to get a quota. The quota is divided into each state’s population to determine how many members each state gets, rounding remainders of more than a half up and remainders of less than a half down.
Territory representation is different. The High Court ruled that territory representation is based on a different part of the Constitution, Section 122. Using that section the Federal Parliament can grant whatever representation it likes to the territories.
In 1949 it granted a single member in the House to the ACT. For 17 years that member could vote only on ACT matters. Over time representation was increased to two members and a member for the Northern Territory. Then the Parliament provided each territory with two senators. These senators were elected differently from state senators; they had a term equal to that of the House of Representatives, not a fixed six-year term. In 1983, the Parliament applied the state quota system to the territories. The theory was that it would enable territory representation to grow as their proportion of the total population grew. Alas, for the ACT, its population growth rate slowed. It no longer grew faster than the Australian average. Now its quota is just under 2.5 and the Northern Territory’s is just over 1.5. So the ACT is rounded down to two members and the Northern Territory is rounded up to two. And given that the quota is based on people (including children), not just voters, and the Northern Territory has a high proportion of children, the result is skewed further.
In short, imposing the state-quota system on the territories has thrown up an anomaly. The ACT has the two electorates with the most voters and the Northern Territory has the two electorates with the least. The Commonwealth Parliament can and should do something about it. Even if the quota system seems fair, the result not because small changes in population within small-population territories have a dramatic effect on representation. To gain or lose one of 30 or so seats in the case of NSW, Victoria or Queensland is not a big deal. To lose one of two or three is. The Constitution recognised this with respect to small states, by giving them a guaranteed minimum. In that circumstance it would be appropriate for the Parliament to do a similar thing for both internal territories, perhaps giving the ACT a minimum of three and the Northern Territory two unless the quota system put their seats under the quota of the smallest state (Tasmania).