I’ve recently completed two new maps for download and use: the (kind of) final boundaries for the 2018 South Australian state election, and draft boundaries for the Tasmanian upper house.
South Australia’s state redistribution was overshadowed by the federal election last year. A final set of boundaries was released late last year, with some significant changes to the draft boundaries in southern Adelaide, but these boundaries are stuck pending a lawsuit by the SA Labor Party. Both the first draft and final draft can be downloaded from the maps page, and the map is embedded here.
I’ve also completed the draft boundaries for the Tasmanian Legislative Council. The Tasmanian upper house consists of fifteen single-member electorates, but its members are elected in a very odd way: only 2-3 seats are elected each year, with members serving a six year term. Boundaries are redistributed roughly once a decade, with the sitting members assigned to finish their term representing a new seat.
There have been some major changes to the boundaries along the east coast of Tasmania. The three Launceston-area seats have remained largely the same, as have the four Hobart-area seats and the two rural seats to the west of Hobart. The west coast seat of Murchison has undergone minor changes.
The east coast seat of Apsley has been chopped up, while the seat of Rumney in the south-eastern corner of the state has been pulled in closer to Hobart, losing Sorell and the Tasman peninsula. A new seat of Prosser stretches halfway up the east coast from the Tasman peninsula to Swansea, while the remainder of Apsley has been moved into a new seat of McIntyre.
The seat of Western Tiers has been chopped up, with the north-western seats of Montgomery and Mersey expanding south and the south-western seat of Derwent expanding north. The remainder of Western Tiers has joined the remainder of Apsley as McIntyre, a strangely-shaped seat curving around Launceston, stretching from Cradle Mountain to Flinders Island.
I would expect the final boundaries for the Tasmanian upper house to be determined later this year, and the new boundaries will be used for the first time in 2018.
Surely not long now til we see QLD’s draft boundaries? They said mid-late Feb – does anyone have any more specific info?
I find is gobsmacking that the ALP would have the nerve to challenge the final result of the SA electoral redistribution. They have won the 2PP only ONCE in the last 30 years, yet have been in power for all but 8 years during this time. People need to seriously think about that!
That they are objecting should be a major scandal. The Liberals didn’t object last time even though the then commission flagrantly violated the Bannon-introduced electoral fairness provisions in the constitution.
There was rubbish spoken about how hard it would be to draw fair boundaries without compromising community of interest – including by Antony Green and if I recall correctly, Pollbludger, yet it has been achieved easily – so much for all the ‘expert’ opinion.
I’ll plead slightly guilty on the SA boundaries and community of interest question – it was easier than I thought it would be; that said it has taken quite a few attempts over several years to get there. (I take some of the previous failures to fix the issue, with the strange arguments advanced for them, as having been code for “it’s too hard”).
I’ll be interested to see how the TEC go with their McIntyre proposal. It’s quite controversial here; it scores highly on community of interest but poorly on connectivity which is a lower-level ambition. MLCs Hall and Rattray can’t stand it because it puts both their home bases into the same electorate.
Re SA: there’s only so many times ECSA can offset the Libs’ inability to (a) win marginal seats and (b) deal with hung parliaments before it starts looking like the Playmander. There’s been four hung parliaments in the last 30 years (so, 16 years), all with Lib 2pp majorities, and Labor formed govt in three of those after negotiating with independents. Particularly in 2002 and 2014: if the Libs manage to lose their own safe seats to independents who won’t work with them, that’s nobody’s problem but their own.
4 Elections?? BOP your argument is correct only one of the four instances!
1989 – the two independents were “Independent Labor” candidates in safe ALP seats and supported Labor. WRONG
1997 – was one of the two times that the Liberals formed government, so irrelevant. WRONG
2002 – the argument above is correct in this instance – and this instance only. (Its still shonky though because the 4 independents had promised prior to the election to support the Liberals and one of them betrayed this trust) RIGHT
2014 the SA Liberal won 53% of the 2PP. Thats more than Rudd’s victory in 2007 (52.7%) or any other ALP federal victory since WW2 (with the exception of 1983 when Hawke won 53.2%). Yet the SA Liberals won 22 seats to the ALP’s 23 with two independents elected, both in marginal seats. Even if both these seats were counted as Liberal, a 24-23 cliff-hanger is hardly normal for such a resounding win. WRONG
ALP 2PP wins in last 30 years: 2006 (1)
Liberal 2PP wins: 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2010, 2014 (6)
ALP 2PP Majority 1/7
Times ALP formed government = 5/7
The true scandal is expecting statewide 2PP results to translate fairly into statewide seats in a system of ordinary single-member electorates.
The expectation is simply wrong.
If you want a fair result, agitate for a system that actually has some mathematical reason to expect such, like MMP.
The redistricting rule may have had the accidental side effect of a good culture among Labor MPs; needing to hold onto their own notionally liberal seats through sheer local hard work. You can see it federally too with people like Tony Zappia and his “marginal seat”.
KME, so I take it you also would have no problem with the Playmander?
Peterjk23, if you seriously think these boundaries are good you clearly don’t know Adelaide very well. The seats of King and Newland for example are absolutely dreadful, I have lived in the area pretty much my entire life, and can confirm the electoral boundaries absolutely fail any community of interest test.
The Playmander was egregious malapportionment. A systematic bias towards rural areas for the benefit of the conservative side of politics. Any comparison to today’s non-partisan one vote one value boundaries is asinine.
GG, the boundary changes in King and Newland are not particularly significant in terms of their effect on 2PP fairness. The significant changes made in the final draft were to Elder and Colton. The changes to these two electorates have flipped them to probable Liberal gains, should the Liberals win 50% statewide. This has corrected a deficient first draft to one which now complies with the SA Constitution’s electoral fairness provisions.
David, the purpose of the Playmander was to advantage the LCL. The effect of the current boundaries and the earlier first draft from the current redistribution, gave an advantage to the ALP. The method was different but the effect has been the same.
ALP supporters may not like it, but the SA constitution requires 2PP fairness. Failure on the part of the commission to implement these provisions constitutes a deliberate act and therefore qualifies as a boundary manipulation, every bit as pernicious as the Playmander.