Anthony Albanese. Tony Burke. Jason Clare. Paul Fletcher. Kylea Tink. Andrew Gee. Jenny Ware.
Depending who you ask, these are the MPs whose seats should be abolished in the upcoming New South Wales redistribution. The changes could shorten the career or relocate the heartland of two independents, two frontbenchers, the manager of opposition business or … the prime minister.
Due to complex formulas I won’t bore you with, one seat has to go in each of NSW and Victoria, and one must be added in Western Australia.
But just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many ways to carve up NSW’s current 47 seats into 46.
Abolishing Grayndler is the Nationals’ suggestion. Could we see another “Save Our Albo” Daily Telegraph front page?
The Liberals want North Sydney kept in name only, while Tink’s voters are to be scattered to neighbouring Warringah, Bradfield and Bennelong. Calare, held by the Nationals defector Andrew Gee, and Clare’s heartland Labor seat of Blaxland would be similarly disbanded, with two new seats created in north-west and south-west Sydney growth areas instead.
Labor wants Hughes, held by the Liberal MP Jenny Ware, gone.
The Greens want the lentil belt of Newtown and Annandale put into Tanya Plibersek’s seat of Sydney, which could make a tasty morsel for the minor party when the environment minister retires. It says Grayndler should make like the Village People and go west, meaning the abolition of Burke’s seat of Watson.
The Australian Electoral Commission has a complex task assessing each of these moves against criteria considering the existing boundaries, physical features and communities of interest in each area.
But before all that, let’s begin by noting how glaring it is that every party seems to have landed on contrary solutions that all share one feature: eliminating their political opponents with surgical precision.
After a blockbuster performance at the 2022 election created a record crossbench in the lower house, the teal independents are none too pleased at the prospect of having their Sydney electorates carved up. But most submissions agree a seat north of the harbour needs to go.
Sophie Scamps wants to keep the surf lifesaving clubs of Mackellar together.
Tink doesn’t want to be stuck representing residents of six different councils if her electorate moves north and west, but the alternative may be her seat is the first on the chopping block.
Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender say the AEC should start at north and south head and work its way inwards, like two corners of a jigsaw puzzle. That would guarantee their seats expand, as required.
Similar contortions will be required in Melbourne, where the ABC psephologist Antony Green says a seat must go from the east or west, with seat boundaries shifted clockwise or counter-clockwise.
This stuff does matter. Labor has a three-seat majority, so a few seats here or there in a redistribution could be important for who forms government or whether the ruling party in the next parliament is in majority or minority.
But this is all fiddling at the margins compared with bigger changes that are being considered.
The joint standing committee on electoral matters has delivered its interim report on the 2022 election, recommending spending and donation caps, but has now moved on to the even thornier question of the size of parliament.
At its national conference in August the Labor party agreed to a push to increase the number of territory senators, which could see the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory elect four or six senators instead of two each.
The special minister of state, Don Farrell, has spoken about the importance of achieving one-vote one-value. Given Tasmania is guaranteed five lower house MPs by the constitution, MPs there represent about 80,000 voters each compared with more than 120,000 represented by many mainland MPs.
The Northern Territory is also malapportioned, with two MPs each representing about 73,000 people.
One solution put to the committee by the veteran psephologist Malcolm Mackerras is: 24 more mainland MPs, bringing the size of the House of Representatives to 175; paired with an increase in senators from each state from 12 to 14.
More politicians might sound like a hard sell, but it could happen if major parties agree. The Nationals fought like hell for the NT to keep its two seats when it looked set to lose one. More mainland MPs are needed or bush seats will face the chop in future.
Australians might be persuaded that more MPs means more electorate offices to call for help filling in forms for everything from visas for relatives to Centrelink payments and access to the national disability insurance scheme.
One last thought as I stare cross-eyed at a series of maps submitted by self-interested politicians and parties to the AEC: thank goodness for its independence.
The AEC is asked to make mostly nips and tucks, and the submitters do so with reference to real features of the physical world: rivers, oceans, roads, shopping centres and schools.
In the US, electoral redistributions are mostly partisan processes where political parties submit proposed changes to state legislatures, with courts the only independent check or balance.
The result is a system geared towards drawing boundaries that lump all your opponent’s voters into a few seats while all-but guaranteeing your own party an electoral majority, even if you’re short of a majority of actual votes.
At least Australian electorates resemble areas that humans live in, not the salamander that gave the process of rigging electoral boundaries its name “gerrymander”. Our democracy is in much better shape for it.
