Mr ANDREN (12:17 PM) —According to the explanatory memorandum to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Bill 2004, this legislation removes an ambiguity about which is the latest set of statistics to be used in determining the number of people in each of the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory federal seats. That sounds simple enough, and this bill is being debated in the Main Committee because it is regarded as noncontentious, having been based on a unanimous and multiparty report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

While I do not oppose the legislation, I wish to point out some potential democratic shortcomings in the outcomes reached. In February 2003 the Australian Electoral Commissioner determined the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen by electors in the two territories. He was working to section 48 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which determines:

The quota for representation in the territories is arrived at by dividing the number of people in each territory by a quota the same as that used to decide the number of seats in the states. According to that formula, South Australia was to have one less seat, while the Northern Territory was also set to lose a seat and return to the status of representation it had prior to the 2001 election. In effect, the current status of one Country Liberal seat and one Labor seat would return to a one-seat territory. This resulted in a flurry of activity, culminating in the inquiry by the committee and the introduction of the so-called Tollner private member's bill to guarantee two House of Representatives seats in the Northern Territory.

According to my understanding of the joint committee report, there was no support for two seats being guaranteed for each of the ACT and the Northern Territory regardless of their population relative to the states. That was, I understand, inherent in the report. There was nothing set in cement; it was to clarify the process and to afford decisions to be made on the most up-to-date information. Again, that is fair enough. The committee also sought to remove the degree of unintended discretion afforded to the Australian Statistician and the Electoral Commissioner in deciding which quarterly population estimates are to be used in the `latest' statistics of the Commonwealth used to determine state and territory entitlements to House of Representatives seats.

Additionally, though, there is provision for greater error margins in population estimates of the territories. One can understand this in the case of the Northern Territory but I wonder why the ACT should be any different from the state error margin. I presume it is because of the uncertainty of public service tenure or circumstances such as that, but I would suggest that there are marked differences in the demographics, population trends and movements, temporary absenteeism and so on in the Northern Territory vis-a-vis the Australian Capital Territory. I think they are special and different cases and I really wonder about the error margin that is employed in both circumstances.

Some have asserted that the ACT is more entitled to three House of Representative seats than the Northern Territory is to two seats. Based on democratic principles that each vote should have as close to possible equal value, whatever that vote is, then the argument can be made that the ACT is entitled to three seats and the Northern Territory just one, although such an outcome would see 110,000 people in the Northern Territory seat and just under 70,000 in each of the ACT seats. This is significantly more in the case of the Northern Territory and significantly less in the case of the ACT than the average number of electors in House of Representative constituencies in the states.

By interfering with the Electoral Commissioner's assessment of the right to seats in this place, we are risking the politicising of our electoral redistribution process. I hear some say, `What's new?' While it is certainly not a case of gerrymandering, we have seen instances around Australia in the last century, particularly in Queensland, where gerrymanders have been part and parcel of Australian political life. The electorate, far wiser now perhaps than they were a decade or two ago, are adamant that they want as close to proportional representation as we can achieve.

I am an unwavering proponent of proportional representation in our lower houses as the only way of delivering proper and fair representation to the electorate. This kind of legislation that we are looking at certainly increases representation for the Northern Territory, but how proportional is it vis-a-vis the rest of the nation and how does it compare with that representation we have allocated to the ACT? Would there have been as much will to adjust the formula for setting representation in the territories had the government of the day—coalition or Labor—been faced with the possibility of ensuring that the relevant territory had an extra seat hostile to the political colour of the government of the day? It is an interesting question.

It is interesting also to note a table prepared by Associate Professor Malcolm Mackerras detailing what he sees as the rightful seat allocations should the territory formula be based on the number of electors and not the total population. The number of electors is used in determining federal House of Representative distributions in the states, even though section 24 of the Constitution says the distribution should be made on total population. According to Mackerras, based on the number of electors in each state and territory, New South Wales should be unchanged with 50 seats, Victoria should have one more at 38, Queensland should have one more at 28, Western Australia one less at 14, South Australia should retain its 12 seats, Tasmania is entitled to four and not five House of Representative federal seats, while the ACT should have three and the Northern Territory one based on the way the formula is supposed to work.

I have not checked the mathematics of all that and I do not pretend to totally understand error margins and two standard errors of the net undercount or, indeed, the gross undercount but, if Mackerras's maths are right, we have a democratic problem with this bill. Finally, as an aside, I note the comment from the member for Batman on the bill and the electoral entitlements and note the sensitivity of all members, and I look forward to some policy initiatives from both the opposition and the government in the lead-up to the election—maybe some movement on Centenary House as well, and printing and political donations.