Research Note Index

Research Note no. 3 2006–07

Queensland and New South Wales proposed redistributions, 2006

Stephen Barber and Paul Nelson
Statistics and Mapping Section
7 August 2006

Introduction

Under the provisions of the Constitution, the electors of Australia are required to have equal electoral representation. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, requires the Australian Electoral Commissioner to determine: the number of divisions for each state and territory; the quota of electors for each state and territory; and, the minimum and maximum allowable voters in each division of a state or territory.⁽¹⁾

On 17 November 2005, the Electoral Commissioner determined that a redistribution was necessary in the states of Queensland and New South Wales (NSW).⁽²⁾ Continuing high population growth in Queensland and slower than average population growth in NSW means that this redistribution will increase the number of electoral divisions in Queensland to 29 and decrease the number in NSW to 49.⁽³⁾

The proposed boundaries for each state were released on 23 June 2006 (Queensland)⁽⁴⁾ and 30 June 2006 (NSW).⁽⁵⁾ After consideration of objections, the final determination for both States is expected to be announced on 30 November 2006.

This Research Note describes the proposed redistributions. The possible electoral impact—by converting the two-party preferred (2PP) vote from the 2004 Federal Election onto the proposed boundaries⁽⁶⁾—is discussed and a revised electoral pendulum is attached.

QUEENSLAND

At the last redistribution in 2003 the population growth in Queensland was centred in the far south-east corner (resulting in the creation of the new outer metropolitan division of Bonner). Since then, the greater population growth has been in the coastal areas from the Sunshine Coast to Cairns. There is also high continuing growth in the region around south-west Brisbane and Ipswich.

The Redistribution Committee believed that this large population growth, which is projected to continue, in the North/Central Queensland divisions of Herbert, Capricornia and Hinkler (and extending down into the Sunshine Coast) meant the new division should be situated in this region.

New division of Wright

A new division of Wright—named after the poet and social and environmental activist, Judith Wright (1915–2000)—is proposed for Central Queensland based on the coastal city of Gladstone and extending westward as far as Winton.

Wright has been created mainly from the current division of Hinkler, with large portions of Maranoa and Capricornia and a very small contribution from Wide Bay. It is not surprising that Wright is notionally a fairly safe Coalition (National Party) division with an estimated 2PP vote of 56.8 per cent.

Major vote changes

Table 1 compares the 2004 2PP votes with these proposals. There are two divisions—Bonner and Ryan—that are unchanged and a number of others, mainly in and around Brisbane, are largely unchanged. However, there are four divisions with changes in their 2PP vote of 2.0 percentage points or more—Blair (5.5 per cent to ALP), Hinkler (3.4 per cent to Coalition), Oxley (2.6 per cent to Coalition) and Fisher (2.0 per cent to ALP). Despite this, no divisions have notionally changed party status.

Table 1: House of Representatives 2004

Queensland electoral division summary, two-party preferred vote

Note: Kennedy is a notional LP/NP division on a two-party preferred basis but is held by an Independent.

The division of Blair has experienced the largest notional change, moving it from a safe to a marginal Liberal Party division. It has lost Coalition voting areas to Dickson and Maranoa while picking up Ipswich Labor voting areas from Oxley. Hinkler loses half of its electors to the new division of Wright (helping to make Wright a notional National Party division); however, Hinkler has picked up Hervey Bay National Party voters from Wide Bay, turning it into a fairly safe National Party division. Oxley is still a fairly safe Labor division, but has mainly lost ALP voters, from Ipswich, to Blair while picking up Liberal voters from Moreton. Fisher has remained a very safe Liberal division, but has lost a higher proportion of Coalition voters to Longman than it has picked up from Fairfax.

Next redistribution in Queensland 

The Redistribution Committee has decided that the next projection date for enrolments will be only one year after the expected 30 November 2006 determination of this redistribution. ⁽⁷⁾The current trend in Queensland’s population growth leads the Committee to believe that Queensland may be entitled to an additional electoral division at the next determination expected in November 2008.

NEW SOUTH WALES

The shares of the State’s enrolment in the northern and southern coastal areas are projected to continue to grow while the north-west will decline. Greater Sydney, as a whole, is also declining slightly despite the pockets of growth in the outer metropolitan areas.

Loss of an electoral division

As the inland areas of NSW have been growing more slowly than the rest of the State, and the Federation divisions of Parkes and Gwydir have ‘the lowest projected enrolment and the greatest variation from the State average,’ it was decided that ‘there were insufficient electors … to retain these two divisions.’⁽⁸⁾

The proposal is to abolish Gwydir, which means that nearly 81 300 currently enrolled voters need to be transferred to other divisions. These voters have been spread between five existing divisions (the number transferred shown in brackets): Parkes (47 919), Calare (20 129), Hunter (9 039), New England (4 023), and Macquarie (158).

Major vote changes

The loss of an electoral division and the consequential transfer of its electors can have a major impact on many other electoral divisions. The Redistribution Committee has needed to move 695 000 electors, or 16 per cent of total enrolled, to other divisions. The estimated electoral impact of the proposed boundary changes can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: House of Representatives 2004

NSW electoral division summary, two-party preferred vote

Note: Calare and New England are notional LP/NP divisions on a two-party preferred basis but are held by Independents.

The westward shift of Greenway into the Hawkesbury region of Macquarie has turned it from a (very) marginal to a safe Coalition (LP) division. Greenway’s expansion sees Macquarie taking in Bathurst, Lithgow and Oberon from Calare, notionally changing Macquarie to a (marginal) ALP division. The only other division to notionally change party status is Parramatta, which moves from a marginal ALP to a marginal LP division with the loss of more ALP voters to (mainly) Reid, Prospect, Bennelong and Mitchell than are gained from the parts of Blacktown moved from Greenway.

One other division that may be uncertain is Calare, which currently is held by the Independent, Peter Andren. However, the proposed boundary changes have notionally moved it from a marginal to a safe Coalition (NP) division with the swapping of 39 000 electors from Parkes and Gwydir with the same number of voters to Macquarie.

Electoral pendulum

The proposed redistribution outlined above has not changed the current number of divisions between the parties. A consolidation of the above estimates; the estimated 2PP results for the 2005 determination of the redistribution in the ACT; and the 2004 results for the remaining states and territory is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: House of Representatives: Electoral pendulum (a)

2004 two-party preferred vote on 2005-06 boundaries (b)

Per cent

Note: the Independent held divisions are all notional LP/NP divisions on a two-party preferred basis.
(a) Two-party preferred swing required for division to change party at the next election.
(b) Redistributions: final boundaries for ACT; proposed boundaries for NSW and Queensland.

Assuming Calare, Kennedy and New England continue to be Independent held divisions—it is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the two candidate preferred vote for these—the Coalition would lose its overall majority (of the 150 divisions) with a uniform swing of 2.9 per cent. However, for the ALP to win the extra 16 divisions to govern in its own right would require a uniform swing of
4.8 per cent.

1. Commonwealth Electoral ACT 1918, ss. 48, 65 and 66.
2. AEC, Commissioner Issues Federal Electoral Determination,  Media Release, 17 November 2005.
3. Gerard Newman and Stephen Barber, ‘Possible electoral redistributions during the 41^st Parliament: an update’, Research Note, No 10, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 5 October 2005.
4. AEC, 2006 Proposed Redistribution of Queensland into 29 Electoral Divisions, Report of the Redistribution Committee, AEC, Canberra, 2006.
5. AEC, The 2006 Proposed Redistribution of New South Wales into 49 Electoral Divisions, Report of the Redistribution Committee, AEC, Canberra, 2006.
6. The Parliamentary Library has estimated voting at the 2004 Federal Election at the census collector district (CCD) level. The AEC provided concordances of CCDs to the proposed boundaries and the Library has estimated 2PP votes by summing the votes for the CCDs of the proposed boundaries.
7. A foreshortened projection period is needed relatively infrequently. Normally the next projection date is 3½ years from a determination (which, in this case, would have been 30 May 2010).
8. See Endnote 5.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 14 August, 2006 by the Parliamentary Library Web Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia

Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of Parliamentary Services, other than by senators and members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties.

This brief 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.

Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC