Is Australia's house of representatives becoming malapportioned?
The Constitution
The Constitution of Australia regarding political representation states that,
"24. Constitution of House of Representatives
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.
[...]
But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State."
To summarise, the number of state elected members in lower house should be twice the size state elected senators, with all original states guaranteed five members. Since there are 12 senators per state equalling a total of 72 senators (since there are 6 states), 145 members are to be elected from states (since 2x74=144 and 'nearly as practicable' allows for an extra member).
How is Australia's house becoming malapportioned?
Since the last time the number of members in the parliament changed was 1984, and since then, in those 40 years, Australia's electoral roll has grown twice as quick as Tasmania's roll. (an increase of 83.39%, 41.95% respectively)
This has led to the consequence that with keeping Tasmania's 5 elected members (as required by section 24 of constitution) that the division of Clark (Hobart) to have 74,315 electors in 2025. While the one my local electorates, Blair (Ipswich, west of Brisbane), had 142 021 electors - the second highest in the country behind Longman, another Queensland electorate. Therefore, the absolute difference between all house of representatives' divisions is 68 495 or 92.17% of Clark: nearly half as many people get a representative compared to others. For a house that is designed to give all communities - not states - equal representation, Australia is failing to meet that objective.
Admittedly, Queensland and Tasmania haven't had a redistribution since 2018 and 2017 respectively, but my point still stands. As even if redistricted perfectly, Tasmania will have 82336 electors per division, compared to Queensland's 124 603 per division, a 42 267 difference in the number of electors.
Remedying this issue
To remedy this issue of growing malapportionment there are two solutions: amend the constitution or increase the number of senators per state.
Referendum
Amending section 24 of the constitution to remove the sentence "But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State," will solve this issue of malapportionment. If this amendment were to be passed by referendum Tasmania will be entitled to three seats. This means in turn, that Tasmania will actually be slightly under-represented in the lower house because it's average electors per division will be 12.14% above the national population quota.
Calculating
Population quota = Ascertained total population of the six states / (Number of Senators for the states x 2)
Addition of all state electors: 17 620 882
Number of state senators: 144
Population Quota: 122367.2361
Number of members = Ascertained population of individual state / Population quota
Tasmanian electors: 411 681
Number of members: 3.364307417
Average number of electors per division: 137227, 12.14% above quota.
Change the number of senators
The number of senators will need to change to 18 per state (108 total), if the population quota was based of Tasmania's average of 82 336 electors per district - as established earlier. Subsequently, this adding this 150% increase to territory senators too (3 per territory), the number of senators in parliament will increase to 114, an increase of 38 senators.
In the lower house, it's size will increase to 222 divisions, with 216 entitled to states. The table below shows the new distribution of members based on their populations. This would be an increase of 72 members in the lower house, totalling 110 new members to be elected to the parliament.
| States | Members | Current | Difference |
| NSW | 70 | 46 | 24 |
| VIC | 56 | 38 | 18 |
| QLD | 46 | 30 | 16 |
| WA | 23 | 16 | 7 |
| SA | 16 | 10 | 6 |
| TAS | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| ACT | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| NT | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Calculating
Population quota off based on Tasmania's guaranteed five members: 82 336
Addition of all state electors: 17 620 882
Seats for states: all state electors / TAS population quota = 214.0113583 ~ 214
Senate: lower house seats / 2 = 214/2 = 107
Senators per state: 107/6 = 17.83333333 ~ 18
Total state senators: 108
An increase of 1.5 (12*1.5=18), so territory senators will be 6 (assumed, not necessary)
Total senators: 6*18 + 6 = 114
Difference: 114 - 76 = 38
New population quota = Ascertained total population of the six states / (Number of Senators for the states x 2)
Addition of all state electors: 17 620 882
Lower house entitlements: 108 * 2 = 216
New population quota: 81578.15741
Using excel (link to spreadsheet I made is attached with the sources) produces below table
1. Total all electors in the states in a column (let's say A)
2. Number of members = Ascertained population of individual state / Population quota (ROUND(A/populationquota, 0)
3. List existing entitlements in a new column
4. Calculate the difference
5. Add up new members to be elected: 222 (6 more than states, because territories, ACT gains 1)
| States | Members | Current | Difference |
| NSW | 70 | 46 | 24 |
| VIC | 56 | 38 | 18 |
| QLD | 46 | 30 | 16 |
| WA | 23 | 16 | 7 |
| SA | 16 | 10 | 6 |
| TAS | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| ACT | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| NT | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Opportunity costs of either option.
As I kind of do not have an opinion this is not the usual evaluation in the sense that a clear recommendation will be provided, but rather an outline of the pros and cons of each option: a referendum, changing the number of senators, or doing nothing. This is so you can form an opinion of how this issue should be addressed.
Referendum
Referendum traditionally have failed, but this referendum might succeed in all but 1 state (Tasmania, probably) due to public opposition and perception around our elected representatives and increasing the size of parliament.
This is obviously at the expense of obviously Tasmania. With Tasmania's comparative economic disadvantage to the rest of Australia, by removing Tasmania's representation federally will not help and Tasmania will not help to progress its struggle for further equality with the rest of Australia. In fact, Tasmania will be underrepresented, with its average district population 12.14% above the national expected population quota. However, the senate was designed for this purpose to give all states equal representation, specifically so that issues plaguing one state have elevated importance in the parliament - especially since STV proportional representation is used which has allowed for 2-4 senators per state to come from minor parties.
Changing the number of senators
However, if we don't want a referendum, we would have to balance out our electoral districts and thus the senate to match Tasmania's expected district size. This will result in 110 new members to be elected in both the upper and lower house. Increasing the number of lower house MP's will make our districts smaller, and as such rural districts too would become smaller. This will have many logistical benefits for regional communities in districts like Maranoa, Kennedy, Grey would because a local member will be more accessible if their office 3 hours away, instead 6 hours.
However, if 110 members are added, there would be many upfront and continuing costs. Salaries for these new members alone will be $25.5 million ($233 660 is base salary and it's indexed). This is not including other expenditures like travel expenses, paying political staffers, paying leases new local MP offices, and renovating the parliament to add the new seats - although this would be pretty cheap as space in parliament has been reserved. So, making a random assumption, the actual figure could be over double $25.5 million if accounting for those other expenses as well.
Furthermore, by balancing out the numbers, so Tasmania isn't overrepresented in the lower house, its power in the senate is still retained and made more pronounced. With the same number of people electing 6 more representatives.
Doing nothing - continuing with the status quo.
Ultimately, by doing nothing and keeping the lower house malapportioned, communities in Tasmanian voters will wield continued strength over the house: especially since Tasmania's population is continuing to stagnate. Furthermore, Tasmania's traditionally marginal electorates will continue to have more focus put on them, especially since campaigns can work with half as many voters compared to other electorates.
However, a referendum or changing the number the elected representatives will just give another reason for the public to be put off by politics in general - especially since we had a referendum recently. Furthermore, the public might interpret increasing the number elected representatives as a means for Labor to attempt to keep it's new staffers and new representatives it won from its landslide.
On top this, journalists and thus most of public haven't realised that Australia's house is malapportioned, so they have no reason to be angry. By bringing this issue to light, this could likely infuriate a significant portion of public who don't want to be thinking about politicians and the order of parliament.
Concluding statement
In the grand scheme of things, compared to other issues plaguing Australia, the malapportionment faced in the house of representatives isn't really an issue.
Unless you think more representation (by increasing the number of representatives we elect) is the key to face the larger issues. Especially when most new seats will go to the Liberals or Labor, unless you believe that smaller district sizes will make it easier for independents to campaign.
Comments
Post a Comment