Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020. I'm pleased with this outcome not only as the assistant minister responsible for electoral matters but also as a senator for the ACT, one of the jurisdictions that is affected by this bill.

We know concerns were raised on sheer geography. It was pointed out that the new division of the Northern Territory would constitute one-sixth of Australia's total land mass, equal in size to the area of France, Spain and Italy put together. If it were a country, it would have been the 20th largest in the world. Notwithstanding the fact that geography is always an issue when it comes to electorates, the real concern is that we have evolved a system that could be considered, in some cases, unduly harsh, unfair and unrepresentative against that backdrop. In essence, a reduction of a relatively minor margin in voters can result in a massive reduction in representation for those areas. In the Northern Territory, dropping below the quota would result in representation being reduced by half. It also exaggerates the differences between populations per representative. For example, the Northern Territory with one representative would have a population 74,743 greater than other mainland divisions, 139,878 greater than a Tasmanian division and 100,529 more than a division in the ACT. As further illustration, adding one seat in Victoria reduces the average population per member from around 175,000 to 170,500, a difference of only about 4,500. By comparison, dropping one seat in the ACT changes the population per member from 143,186 to 214,780, a difference of 71,594. In the Northern Territory, dropping a seat creates a difference of over 123,000 votes.

These risks are not just hypothetical. They are historical facts. In 2003 the Northern Territory's population fell just 294 short of the required quota, yet it threatened to take their representation down to just one seat. This resulted in amendments to electoral legislation that took into account statistical errors in population estimates. The use of the margin-of-error calculation did indeed keep a second seat for the Northern Territory in 2004, but it was a solution built on the acceptance of statistical error as a legitimate tool for representation and it did not address the issue of aligning the number of voters per electorate as closely as possible between crowded city electorates and sprawling regional ones.

The question then was how to create an electoral system that was fair and representative across the whole of our nation but also reasonable and robust as a matter of electoral mathematics. There was the option of simply mandating a minimum number of seats, which was put to this parliament. Upon closer examination, that simplicity is also a flaw. While simple, that option does not fully discharge our responsibility to deliver, as far as possible, the best, principled basis for determining seats for representation. A politically mandated number could easily be seen as arbitrary, and certainly not in the spirit of the founding of our nation nor the interests of finding a genuinely robust methodology. This very point was raised during the 2004 debates when Warren Snowden warned that such a path could:

… undermine the credibility of the Electoral Act and which would create a precedent for future governments to intervene in a very political and partisan way …

It's a wise warning, and it's worthy of serious consideration. It's also a two-edged sword. Mandating a minimum seat number regardless of how low population actually falls could result in the perverse outcome of an electorate being massively over-represented. In either case, there are issues that need to be addressed. That's why, after consultation with colleagues and submissions from stakeholders, another method was considered and is included in this bill.

This bill proposes the adoption of the harmonic mean, or Dean's method, as a fairer, more robust and more reliable solution than others proposed so far. As Antony Green advocated in his submission on this matter, the adoption of the harmonic mean both protects the people of the territories and provides a legitimate, principle-based solution going forward. It removes the harshness and inequity of knife-edge differences in population creating massive drops in representation. It removes the requirement for statistical errors to be included as a safety net to overcome more fundamental flaws in our electoral calculations. It is a system designed to keep the voter-per-member average in smaller population areas more closely aligned with the national average, something Antony Green notes is not a property of the existing method.

Not only am I pleased with the solution proposed as a legitimate, tested and supported solution for all Australians, it's also a sound result for the Australian Capital Territory. Though smaller in size, the ACT does face the same vagaries in terms of outcomes. Despite our population, the ACT was only granted a third seat based on the margin-of-error calculation. According to Antony Green's submission, using the proposed harmonic mean would have given the ACT a third seat for 1993, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2016, in each case applying the same rules that would apply to the Northern Territory. It is this issue of equal treatment between the territories that has raised concerns not only in the pursuit of electoral fairness but also to ensure it is fair to the ACT as well as to the Northern Territory. As Senator for the ACT I'm very pleased with where we've gotten to. I contrast this with the proposal that was supported by Labor representatives for the ACT. The bill included in its title the words, 'Ensuring Fair Representation for the Northern Territory'; it didn't give the same fairness to the ACT.

After that bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, this issue became abundantly clear. The committee's report notes:

The private Senators' Bill would introduce a new minimum of two seats for the Northern Territory but would keep the Australian Capital Territory, uniquely, on the lower one seat floor. 1.80 This would institute a two-tier arrangement for minimum Territory representation, rather than modelling the section on the constitutional treatment of Original States whereby all Original States are treated with parity. It would also be a departure from existing electoral arrangements.

It further notes:

By having separate minimum entitlement provisions treating each Territory differently, the Bill departs from this longstanding position, raising parity, equity and, conceivably, constitutional concerns.

…   …   …

Notwithstanding whether this may give rise to legal issues, the Committee considers that on principle alone there ought to be parity in the treatment of the two Territories.

This is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Clearly, Labor, including Senator Gallagher, Andrew Leigh, Alicia Payne and David Smith, supported a solution which would have treated the ACT differently and at a significant relative disadvantage to the Northern Territory. Their proposal was far more favourable to the NT as against the Australian Capital Territory. This disparity guaranteed two seats for the Northern Territory but only one for the ACT. This is not only unfair to the people of the ACT, it raises constitutional issues of treating voters differently in different jurisdictions. As I said, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made this point in a very sound way.

Lastly, I would note that the bill before us today removes the margin-of-error rule as it is applied to the ACT and the Northern Territory. This rule was arguably only affixed for a specific fault at the time. With better systems, those reasons no longer apply. Far more importantly, the system proposed does not need a second safety net, and certainly not one based on codifying a margin of error as a permanent part of our electoral system. As I've said and welcomed, our electoral systems are vital to our democracy, and faith in that system from the public is dependent on the good faith of negotiations undertaken by this parliament. I believe the bill before us today is a demonstration of that commitment and that good faith.

As Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters, I applaud the hard work and rigour that colleagues and commentators have brought to this discussion. As a local representative for the ACT, I'm very pleased to champion and deliver a system that gives fair representation to both territories: the ACT and the Northern Territory. As a parliamentarian, I welcome a system of fairer representation for all Australians, whether here in the seat of government in the ACT or in the heart of our country in the Northern Territory. I thank everyone who contributed to the development of the bill, and I commend it to the Senate.