Mr McMULLAN (10:44 AM) —I support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Bill 2004 for the reasons outlined by the member for Lingiari and because it is a step in the right direction. It restores a reasonable outcome for the Northern Territory. But I am extremely concerned that the system we are establishing here, improvement though it is, is still not fair to the people I represent, the ACT voters. However, it is an improvement so I will support it. The voters of Canberra get the worst deal in Australia in terms of voting rights, and I will continue to campaign about that until it is corrected.

The situation in the Northern Territory was outlined by the member for Lingiari and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating that detail but will simply say that I think we have here a very pragmatic proposition dressed up in high principle. But it is actually very pragmatic and I support it for recognising issues that need to be recognised. I had a discussion in an entirely different context with the Statistician, Mr Trewin, when I was shadow Treasurer. In the course of that conversation, just by coincidence, we got on to a discussion which led to his raising his concerns about the margin of error for the Northern Territory in assessments around the census and derivations from it, including for electoral purposes. So that the committee has recognised that pragmatic point is correct. I would not originally have thought that was something that needed to be done. As I say, my conversation with the Statistician was not in the context of knowing that this bill was to be considered—that discussion was more than 12 months ago—but I do accept that he legitimately holds that view. I respect the ABS as a fine institution and Mr Trewin seems to be doing a very good job at its head.

Mr Georgiou —Canberra would not have lost its third seat if this had been in place.

Mr McMULLAN —That is not my point, although it is a valid one. The other pragmatic point—I do not regard saying that something is pragmatic as a criticism—is that I think the committee has erred in favour of representation instead of against. When there is a choice to be made about whether or not people should get more representation, within reasonable limits we should decide in favour. So I think those two things are correct.

I recognise that for the last 20 years we have had an established system of determining representation for states and territories which was designed—I strongly supported it when it was designed and in principle I still do—to overcome past mistakes, to put it politely, or past behaviour and to set down within the constraints of the Constitution a fair proposition that means that nobody can fiddle with electoral representation. That is an important part of our political system and one of the key elements of its integrity. I support all that.

But the problem is this: when you have a well intentioned system that for the most part delivers a fair result within the constraints of the Constitution, which I do not propose we should contemplate changing, but which continually provides an unfair result in one area, we have to look at it. A constituent of mine who is, of course, very well known in this area, Professor Malcolm Mackerras, is very critical of the committee's report—I do not share all his views—and argues that the territories prior to this bill and the ACT subsequent to it are still treated unfairly and that we need to deal with this matter. One vote, one value is not about saying, `We want a system that treats everybody as though they are the same'; we want a fair outcome.

Let me just talk about the outcome we are achieving as a result of this bill. I support the bill; I support erring in favour of giving the Northern Territory the second seat. Not only will I vote for this bill but also I am happy to come in here and speak in support of it. But on the last figures that I got—I thought this bill was going to come up a few weeks ago, so as my figures are from 2 March they are four weeks old—the total enrolment for the Northern Territory was 108,325, and it will get two seats. In my seat there are 112,000 voters. There are more voters in my seat than in the two seats that will be created in the Northern Territory. That is a travesty of one vote, one value.

People in Western Australia used to pass laws deliberately to have a two to one ratio, and that was a rort. This is not a rort. This is a properly constructed system which was done with good intentions and it produces an unfair result. In round figures, my seat is 113,000 and the seat of my colleague the member for Canberra is 107,000; the combined number comes to just under 220,000. That means we could have, in fact, four ACT seats which would be the same size as the two seats being generated here for the Northern Territory.

I do not support that; that would not be a fair outcome. It would be nice for my voters but it would not be fair, so I do not support that. I do not want anything gerrymandered in favour of my constituents—I just do not want the system to turn out badly for them. Let me point out what would happen if there were three seats in the ACT. On the figures as at 2 March, the average enrolment for those three seats would be 73,161. For example, in the state of Western Australia the smallest seat, the seat of Moore, has 73,000 enrolled voters. In Tasmania, the smallest seat, the division of Lyons, has 64,000, and in all the other states with the exception of South Australia the 73,000 would not trigger the redistribution provisions in those states for being disproportionately low. We are 50 per cent over what is the situation in any other state or territory, 100 per cent over in the case of the Northern Territory and 60 per cent over in the case of Tasmania.

One vote, one value is about the fact that everybody's vote should be as equal as we can make it in determining the outcome of the election in the country. Broadly, we do that in Australia better than most countries in the world, and one of the reasons has been the 1984 amendments, which were very good amendments, and the continuing scrutiny and monitoring of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its bipartisan performance over the years. Those things are great strengths in our system. But we still have to face up to the embarrassing reality that we continue to provide, as a result of an ostensibly fair system, an unfair result. You cannot go on shrugging and saying, `Well, it's unfair; bad luck.'

Mr Georgiou —What do you propose?

Mr McMULLAN —It needs a bit more work. There are a few propositions. Malcolm Mackerras has a proposition that says that the only fair way to deal with the territories is in fact to deal with them by number of voters rather than by population because the population figures will never work out one vote, one value but dealing with it by number of electors will. I think that would solve today's problem but I am not convinced yet that it is an ongoing solution. But it is an interesting proposition that says that we need to look at the long-term consequences, because the projections of population as I see them suggest that the problem in the ACT is going to get worse, not better. In 2006, after the next census, the range of population in the other states and territories is between 95,000 and 140,000 people per constituency and in the ACT it will be over 165,000.

If I thought this was a one-off, I would just shrug and say, `That's what happens; sometimes you fall a little bit below, sometimes you end up a little bit above.' As someone who previously had their seat abolished as a result of one of these changes, one simply lives with the consequences. You cannot have a rule that says some people can win but nobody can lose; it cannot work like that. But you have here an ongoing outcome that is proving to be systemically unfair, although not intentionally. It may well suit the current government that it is unfair to my constituents, because they continue to commit that arch-folly of voting for the Labor Party, but it is not a system designed to derive this outcome. It is, however, a system that does derive this outcome.

I simply want to flag this and say that nobody is addressing it because everybody is hiding behind the fact that we set this system up with good intentions and, nationally, it is providing a fair outcome. We have recognised an anomaly in the Northern Territory and we have dealt with it pragmatically in a manner which I am prepared to support and which will, at the margin, improve the circumstances for the ACT. I accept that, because our margin of error, while not as high as in the Northern Territory, is higher than the national average. It will not be sufficient to resolve the anomaly that exists, but as it is an improvement and as it deals generously to the voters of the Northern Territory—erring in favour of representation rather than against it—I am happy both inside my party and publicly to vote for it and to speak for it.

But we have to address this situation. Nobody I have ever spoken to has any qualms about the fact that the federation compact gave a guarantee of minimum representation to all the states but, in effect, to Tasmania. I certainly have no qualms about that. It is part of the federation compact. It is not consistent with one vote, one value, but it is a decision into which we all entered with our eyes wide open and nobody would wish in the slightest to interfere with it. But looking at this generous proposition that is being laid down for the Northern Territory, I cannot stand idly by and allow the value of the vote of the people who do me the great honour of sending me here to represent them to be continually undervalued, valued at significantly less than the vote of anybody else in this country. I am going to continue to raise it. I think that to rush in and say that A or B is the best answer is to be too glib about a complex question. I regret the fact that the committee continues not to, in my view, adequately recognise this.

I have raised issues in the past that are of the pragmatic character of the ones that are being raised here today, and I would still like to see those addressed. They do not breach the principle of one vote, one value. They are consistent with the way in which the Constitution operates, and those are issues that need to be considered. For example, while the Constitution refers to populations—that is, the catchment area from which voters are drawn and not voters—it does not deal with the ACT in that manner, because part of the catchment area for voters for the ACT is Norfolk Island, and they are not counted as part of the population for the ACT. I appreciate they have a special character, and there is an argument against that proposition because of the unique voting circumstances on Norfolk Island, but if we are talking about pragmatic propositions that do not breach the principles and project fair outcomes, I continue to put that proposition. It does not have the support of my party, let alone the joint standing committee—and I do not criticise people who come down on the other side of that particular point. It is simply that they continue to come down, on the balance of all the decisions, in a manner that leads to an unfair outcome for the people who send me here to represent them. I cannot quietly accept that.

There is the Mackerras proposition and, while I have always been a critic of Malcolm about his predictions and what might happen in elections, I respect him as an analyst of the statistical circumstances with regard to elections. He is always accurate in that, and he has a proposition which warrants serious attention. I am content for people to pursue better alternatives, but we have a continuing anomaly and I will not stand idly by and allow it to be perpetuated. However, having said that, I reiterate my support for the proposition. I indicate my continuing concern about the broader consequences of the structure as it is operating, but this pragmatic set of proposals which errs in favour of enhancing the representation of the citizens of the Northern Territory should be supported.