![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
Committee activities (inquiries and reports)Electoral redistributionsGovernment response(Tabled on 26 November 1997)This document has been scanned from the original government response. It may contain some error. Government Response to Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report Electoral RedistributionsINTRODUCTION The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled its report "Electoral Redistributions" on 19 December 1995. The Australian Government's response to the recommendations of the report follows. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Recommendation 1 Response 2. The Government agrees that representation entitlements should be determined in the thirteenth month after the first meeting of the House of Representatives. The Australia Electoral Commission (AEC) advises that if the determination was made in the thirteenth month rather than the tenth, the population figures provided by the Australian Statistician would be one calendar quarter closer to those applying for the next election. The AEC also advises that moving the determination to the thirteenth month should not unduly affect the Redistribution timetable. Recommendation 2 Response Recommendation 3 Response 5. The Government notes that this was the most contentious issue at the JSCEM Inquiry -whether in fact the mid-point tolerance of two percent provides Redistribution Committees with the flexibility to give due consideration to community of interest and other qualitative criteria. 6. The JSCEM noted the AEC caution that community of interest is an elusive criterion. However, on the evidence received, the JSCEM decided that the numerical criteria do not allow due consideration to be given to the qualitative factors. The JSCEM therefore recommended that the enrolment requirements be relaxed to the extent necessary to allow a realistic degree of flexibility. Recommendation 4 Response Recommendation 5 Response 10. The Government agrees that Redistribution Committees and Augmented Electoral Commissions should continue to have regard to existing boundaries, but that this requirement should be subordinate to the other qualitative criteria set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Recommendation 6 Response 12. Currently three and a half years after a Redistribution is the point at which approximate equality of enrolments should be reached. This point was chosen because it is the halfway point of the maximum seven year cycle allowed for a Redistribution. 13. However, where the cycle is terminated by a change to State and/or Territory representation entitlements, three and a half years may not be the most appropriate point at which to aim for equality of enrolments. 14. The AEC will undertake consultations with the ABS to determine whether relative population trends in the States and Territories can be used to form a basis for an amendment to the projection period. Recommendation 7 Response Recommendation 8 Response 17. The Government notes that the AEC has consulted with the ABS about methodologies for enrolment projections and implemented an amended methodology in relation to the 1997 Redistributions of Queensland and the ACT. Recommendation 9 Response Recommendation 10 Response 20. See also Recommendation 8. Recommendation 11 Response Recommendation 12 Response 23. Currently, in accordance with section 65 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the quota is determined by the Electoral Commissioner at the close of the period for public suggestions and comments. While the intention is to ensure that the Redistribution Committee works on the basis of the most up-to-date figures, the provision means that those making the suggestions and comments must work in ignorance of the strict numerical constraint which will govern the redistribution. Recommendation 13 Response Recommendation 14 Response Recommendation 15 Response Recommendation 16 Response 28. The Government has noted that the right to lodge objections to an Augmented Electoral Commission proposal is currently restricted to those who lodged suggestions, comments, or objections to the Redistribution Committee proposal. This restriction may have an adverse impact on other people affected by the Augmented Electoral Commission proposal. The Government believes that the current position encourages the lodging of objections to a Redistribution Committee proposal in order to retain the option of a later objection. Recommendation 17 Response 30. There were submissions that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 should be amended to require that objections are responded to, even when the Augmented Electoral Commission does not make changes to the earlier proposals. The Government acknowledges that, while those making the objections should be aware of why an Augmented Electoral Commission arrived at its final determination, for reasons of practicality, timeliness and clarity, it is not considered necessary to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to require more detail to be given on objections not accepted. The Government supports the process whereby objections can be grouped together and responded to collectively. It is noted that this process has been adopted in the past, and that to date Redistribution reports have contained reasonably comprehensive explanations of chosen boundaries. Recommendation 18 Response 32. There will be cost implications. It is estimated that the cost associated with the provision of a transcript service is approximately $80.00 per hour. Assuming an average of 40 hours of hearings for each Redistribution, plus additional administrative costs such as recording costs, providing hard copies of the transcripts and transferring the transcripts onto microfiche, costs in the order of $6,000 might be expected for each Redistribution. These additional costs will be absorbed. Recommendation 19 Response 34. Software facilities were made available for the Redistributions of Western Australia, the ACT and Queensland at a total cost of $15,728. Very little public interest was shown in them. As requested, software facilities were provided to the Parliamentary Library, the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party. A report on the trials will be in the final reports on the Redistributions of the ACT and Queensland. Recommendation 20 Response Recommendation 21 Response Recommendation 22 Response Recommendation 23 Response 39. Guidelines on the naming of Divisions have been considered by two Parliamentary committees: the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Naming of Electoral Divisions (the Fox Committee) in 1969; and the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1986. The naming of electoral Divisions was also the subject of some discussion at the latest JSCEM Inquiry. 40. The Government considers that the use of guidelines, rather than binding legal provisions, allows enough flexibility for unanticipated circumstances while providing Redistribution bodies with ample assistance in performing their task. However, given the apparent lack of awareness of the naming conventions, more effort will be made to publicise the naming conventions when suggestions and comments are called for. Guidelines were published in Queensland and the ACT with respect to the 1997 Redistributions. Recommendation 24 Response |
![]() |