







































AUSTRALIAN POPULATION STUDIES  2017 | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | pages 13–25 

 

© Wilson and Taylor 2017. Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence 3.0 Australia  
(CC BY-NC 3.0 AU). Journal website: www.australianpopulationstudies.org 

Alternative methods of determining the 
number of House of Representatives 
seats for Australia’s territories 

Tom Wilson*  Charles Darwin University 

Andrew Taylor  Charles Darwin University 

*Corresponding author. Email: tom.wilson@cdu.edu.au. Address: Northern Institute, Charles Darwin 

University, Darwin NT 0909, Australia 

Paper received 15 August 2017; accepted 19 October 2017; published 20 November 2017 

Abstract 

Background 

Population size determines the number of seats each Australian state and territory is entitled to in 

the House of Representatives. The Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 

were allocated two and three seats, respectively, in the August 2017 determination, but by very 

small margins. Both territories risk losing a seat at the next determination. This would result in them 

having considerably more people per member of parliament than any of the states. 

Aims 

This paper (1) provides modelling to support the consideration of alternative rules for determining 

membership entitlement to the House of Representatives which does not disadvantage the NT and 

ACT and (2) presents population projections for future determinations under the current and 

alternative rules. 

Data and methods 

Population projections for the states and territories were produced for three demographic scenarios. 

The resulting numbers of seats for the NT and ACT were calculated for each scenario under the 

current and proposed alternative seat entitlement rules. 

Results 

Under the existing rules the NT and ACT would only keep their current number of seats at the next 

determination if they experienced higher net in-migration than in recent years. Under the alternative 

seat entitlement rules suggested, the NT and ACT would be very unlikely to lose any seats and would 

almost certainly gain seats in ensuing decades. 

Conclusions 

There is a case for re-examining the way the states and territories are allocated seats in the House of 

Representatives. 

Key words 

Commonwealth Electoral Act; Constitution; House of Representatives; Australia; seat entitlements; 

population projections; Northern Territory; Australian Capital Territory. 

  

   

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/
mailto:tom.wilson@cdu.edu.au


14 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

1. Introduction 

Population statistics play a central role in determining the number of seats in the House of 

Representatives assigned to each state and territory. The seat allocation process is set out in the 

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and is based on the fundamental principle described in the 

Australian Constitution that each state is allocated a share of seats equal to its share of the national 

population (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900). 

Various special provisions, along with the need to round fractional seat entitlements (e.g. 10.6 or 

11.4 seats) to the nearest whole number, mean that the population–seat relationship is imprecise, 

but much of the basic principle is retained. 

Because of changes to state and territory shares of the national population over time, the Electoral 

Act requires the Australian Electoral Commissioner to periodically re-calculate seat entitlements. A 

year-and-a-day after the first sitting of the House of Representatives following a general election, 

updated population numbers are obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). New 

calculations of state and territory seat entitlements are then made. When the number of seats in a 

state or territory changes, a redistribution of electoral boundaries within that jurisdiction is initiated 

and the new boundaries come into effect at the next federal general election. 

Sometimes seat entitlement calculations have generated controversy, especially in the case of the 

Northern Territory (NT). In the 2003 determination of state and territory entitlements for the House 

of Representatives, the NT saw its entitlement reduced from two seats to just one because of a 

falling share of the national population (Australian Electoral Commission 2003). But it was very close: 

if the NT had just 295 more people it would have retained two seats. The ensuing controversy 

resulted in an Inquiry into representation of the territories in the House of Representatives by the 

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Committee report recognised the greater 

uncertainty of territory estimated resident population (ERP) calculations relative to those of the 

states and recommended both that the 2003 seat determination for the NT be set aside and a margin 

of error be incorporated in future seat determinations ‘when a Territory falls short of quota’ (Joint 

Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 2003, pp. viii–ix). The Electoral Act was amended the 

following year to incorporate the report’s recommendations and the NT retained its two seats. 

In the years 2013–2016 the NT again experienced population growth below the national rate (Wilson 

2017a) resulting in a declining share of the national population. In the recent 2017 determination the 

NT retained two seats, though by a very small margin (Australian Electoral Commission 2017). If the 

NT were to lose a seat in the near future, about a quarter of a million people would be represented 

by a single member of parliament, a population to seat ratio much higher than for any of the states. 

The 2017 determination also gave the ACT an additional seat, but by a very small margin. If the ACT 

were to lose a seat, it too would be subject to a much higher population to seat ratio than any of the 

states. This raises two key questions: (1) Might the NT and ACT lose a seat in the next determination?; 

(2) What could be changed to ensure the territories do not lose a seat in the future? 

This paper proposes two alternative models for seat entitlement rules and presents population and 

associated seat projections for the NT and ACT under the current and proposed alternative seat 

entitlement rules. Section 2 of the paper describes the process for calculating seat entitlements 

prescribed by current legislation, and models two alternative schemes in which the territories are not 



Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 15 

 

subject to inferior representation in the House of Representatives. Population projections based on 

various scenarios for the three schemes (current and alternative models) are presented in Section 3, 

while brief conclusions form the final section of the paper. 

2. Current and alternative seat entitlement calculations 

2.1 Current scheme 

The current method for seat entitlement calculations is specified in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 

1918 as amended and in force on 21 October 2016. The 2016 amendments mean that the 

calculations differ slightly from those described earlier by ABS (2005), Corr (2016), Payer and Taylor 

(2015) and Wilson, Beneforti and Barnes (2005). 

The key elements of the process are summarised in the flow diagram in Figure 1. Seat entitlement 

calculations for each of the states are relatively straightforward. First, the quota is calculated. The 

quota is the population required for a jurisdiction to be assigned a seat in the House of 

Representatives. It is defined in the Electoral Act as the latest official population number for the six 

states combined, divided by twice the total number of senators for the six states (2 × 72 = 144). The 

number of senators is defined by legislation. While it can change in theory, for practical purposes the 

number can be assumed to be fixed at 72.  

The latest ERP of each state is divided by the quota to obtain the seat entitlement, shown in Figure 1 

as w.f. where w represents the whole number part of the seat entitlement and f the fractional part. 

The seat entitlement is rounded down if the fractional part f is less than or equal to 0.5, and rounded 

up if greater than 0.5. If any state (but not territory) has fewer than five seats, then the Australian 

Constitution requires the number of seats to be increased to five. In practice this now only applies to 

Tasmania (though long ago it was relevant also to other states). 

The calculations are more complicated for the NT and ACT. The populations of the territories of the 

Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are included in the NT’s population. (Strictly, the 

Electoral Act states that if the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island do not have sufficient population to 

be allocated a seat themselves they are to be included with the NT – but in practical terms they can 

always be regarded as part of the NT.) A similar provision applies to Norfolk Island whose ERP is 

included in the ACT’s population until it is entitled to separate representation1; Jervis Bay Territory is 

counted as part of the ACT. The provisional seat entitlements for the NT and ACT are then calculated 

by dividing their populations by the quota. 

At this point the calculations for the territories can deviate from those of the states. If the fractional 

part f of the unrounded preliminary seat number for the NT or ACT is less than or equal to 0.5, then a 

check is made to determine whether the population of the territory is within a specified margin of 

error. This margin of error allowance was introduced to the Electoral Act in 2004 on the 

recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (2003). 

  

                                                 
1 This is the first seat determination in which Norfolk Island’s population (most recently 1,756) has been included as part of 
the ACT due to recent changes in Norfolk Island’s status. However, it did not materially affect the seat determination 
outcome. 



16 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Summary of the current House of Representatives seat determination calculations 

Source: Based on Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Notes: w.f. = whole number.fraction; SE = Standard Error.   

Quota  =           Combined ERP of the 6 states 

                  2 × total no. of senators of the 6 states 

No. of seats  =  State ERP  =  w.f. 

                              Quota 

Is the fractional part f ≤ 0.5? 

No. of seats 

rounded 

down to w 

No. of seats 

rounded up 

to w+1 

Is the no. of seats < 5? 

Yes                                  No 

Yes                            No 

No. of seats 

unchanged 

No. of seats 

set at 5 

NT population 

= NT ERP 

+ Christmas Island ERP 

+ Cocos Islands ERP 

ACT population 

= ACT ERP 

+ Jervis Bay ERP 

+ Norfolk Island ERP 

No. of seats  =  Territory population  =  w.f. 

                                       Quota 

States 

Yes                                                   No 

The population is increased by 2 × SE of 

the net undercount 

Is the fractional part f ≤ 0.5? 

Yes                                        No 

NT                                       ACT 

No. of seats 

rounded 

down to w 

No. of seats 

rounded up 

to w+1 

Yes                                        No 

Is the fractional part f ≤ 0.5 

and 

(Quota × n.5 – population) ≤ (2 × SE net undercount)? 

Is the no. of seats zero? 

No. of seats 

set at 1 

No. of seats 

unchanged 

No. of seats  =  Augmented population  =  w.f. 

                                        Quota 



Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 17 

 

The increase in population required to obtain an entitlement with exactly a 0.5 fraction is then 

calculated. For example, if the whole number part of the seat entitlement is 2, then this ‘threshold’ 

population is 2.5 × quota. If the increase required to reach this threshold population is less than or 

equal to twice the standard error (SE) of the net undercount estimated from the last census, then the 

official population of the territory is taken to be its original population plus twice the SE of the net 

undercount. The seat entitlement calculation is re-calculated using this augmented population. The 

same rounding process as for the states is then applied. Finally, a check is made to ensure that each 

territory has a minimum of one seat. 

Table 1 presents key statistics from the 2017 seat determination. The most recent official population 

numbers at the time of the determination were the 31 December 2016 ERPs published by the ABS in 

Australian Demographic Statistics on 27 June 2017 (ABS 2017). Using these data, the quota was 

calculated as 23,729,561 / 144 = 164,788.6181. Three jurisdictions experienced changes in their 

number of seat entitlements. Victoria gained a seat while South Australia lost one.  

The ACT also gained a seat due to the margin of error allowance for its ERP. The preliminary 

unrounded number of seats for the ACT was calculated as 2.4793 (column B). Because the fractional 

part f was less than 0.5 it was necessary to determine whether the ACT’s population was within the 

permitted margin of error to get above 2.5. Twice the SE of net undercount from the ABS 2016 

Census for the ACT was 10,694 (column C), while the additional population required to increase the 

seat entitlement to 2.5 was 2.5 × 164,788.6181 – 408,562 = 3410 (column D). Therefore, the 

population of the ACT was increased by twice the SE of the undercount to obtain an augmented 

population (column E) and the entitlement calculation was repeated (column F). 

Table 1: State and territory seat determinations, 2017 

Jurisdiction Population 

 

(A) 

Population/ 

quota  

(B) 

2 × SE net 

undercount 

(C) 

w.5 quota – 

population 

(D) 

Augmented 

population 

(E) 

Aug. popn/ 

quota 

(F) 

Seats 

 

(G) 

NSW 7,797,791 47.3200     47 

Vic. 6,244,227 37.8923     38 

Qld 4,883,739 29.6364     30 

SA 1,716,966 10.4192     10 

WA 2,567,788 15.5823     16 

Tas. 519,050 3.1498     *5 

NT 247,512 1.5020     2 

ACT 408,562 2.4793 10,694 3,410 419,256 2.5442 3 

Total – – – – – – 151 

Source: Based on Australian Electoral Commission (2017). Note: *5 seat minimum applied. 

Under the current legislation the NT and ACT have two and three seats, respectively, by very small 

margins. If they were to drop to one and two seats, then the population being represented by each 

member of parliament in the territories would be far higher than that of any of the states. There are 

a number of alternative ways in which the number of seats could be calculated for the territories 

which would prevent them from being disadvantaged in this way. We propose two alternative seat 

entitlement schemes, the special quota scheme and the fixed quota scheme, discussed below. 



18 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

2.2 Special quota scheme 

Because the Australian Constitution provides for a minimum of five seats in any state, Tasmania 

receives two more seats than it would be assigned simply on the basis of its population size. The 

effective quota for Tasmania is therefore substantially lower than the actual quota and in the 2017 

determination was 519,050 ERP / 5 seats = 103,810. Under our proposed special quota scheme the 

effective Tasmanian quota would be applied to the NT and ACT, the argument being that if a state is 

entitled to minimum representation due to small population size, then these two territories should 

be afforded the same treatment. 

The process for the NT and ACT might be amended to something like this: 

• The number of seats which would be allocated to each territory under the regular quota is 

calculated. 

• If the minimum 5 seat provision is applied to any state, then the effective quota for that state – 

which could be termed the special quota – is calculated. If the minimum 5 seat provision applies 

to more than one state then the lowest effective quota is deemed the special quota (though in 

practice this is unlikely). 

• If (i) a territory would be allocated fewer than 5 seats by dividing its population by the quota and 

(ii) the minimum 5 seat provision is applied to any state, then the seat entitlement for that 

territory is calculated by dividing its population by the special quota. 

• The number of seats calculated in this way for any territory is capped at 5. 

The rounding up or down of fractional parts of the seat entitlement remains the same as in the 

current process, as does the provision of a margin of error based on the SE of the net undercount 

from the last census. 

Had this alternative system been in place in the 2017 determination, then the outcome would have 

been as shown in Table 2: the NT would have achieved two seats comfortably, while the ACT would 

have been allocated four seats. The NT’s entitlement of 2.3843 would not have put it within the 

margin of error to be rounded up to 3. 

Table 2: 2017 seat determinations for the NT and ACT under the special quota system 

Territory Population Population/special quota Seats 

NT 247,512 2.3843 2 

ACT 408,562 3.9357 4 

Source: Authors’ calculations. 

2.3 Fixed quota scheme 

Another alternative scheme would be to keep the current seat entitlement calculation rules but with 

one exception: the current method of calculating the quota based on the states’ latest populations 

would be replaced by a fixed number. This might be, for example, 150,000 people per seat. The 

argument behind this approach is that each member of the House of Representatives can only 

effectively serve a certain number of constituents. Therefore, as Australia’s population increases, so 

will the number of seats in the House of Representatives. Given the constitutional requirement that 

the total number of seats for the six states be twice the number of senators, the number of senators 



Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 19 

 

would also have to increase. This method also has the advantage of being very simple. The seat 

entitlements which would have been calculated in the 2017 determination with a quota of 150,000 

are shown in Table 3. The NT would comfortably have been assigned two seats, while the ACT would 

have been allocated three seats. The total number of seats in the House of Representatives would be 

165 under this scheme. 

Table 3: 2017 seat determinations with a fixed quota of 150,000 

Jurisdiction Population Population/quota  Seats 

NSW 7,797,791 51.9853 52 

Vic. 6,244,227 41.6282 42 

Qld 4,883,739 32.5583 33 

SA 1,716,966 11.4464 11 

WA 2,567,788 17.1186 17 

Tas. 519,050 3.4603 *5 

NT 247,512 1.6501 2 

ACT 408,562 2.7237 3 

Total  – 165 

Source: Authors’ calculations. Note: *5 seat minimum applied. 

3. Projections 

How might the NT’s and ACT’s seat entitlements change in the future under the current legislation 

and alternative calculation schemes described above? To provide answers, population projections 

were produced for the states and territories from 2016 to 2051. Calculations of seat entitlements for 

the NT and ACT were then made for every projection year (2021, 2026, … , 2051) under the current, 

special quota and fixed quota schemes. 

3.1 Projection methods, data and scenarios 

Projections were prepared using the Regional Population Projection Program (RePPP) (Wilson 

2017b). This Excel/VBA program incorporates a multi-regional type cohort-component model which 

outputs projections by sex and five-year age group for every fifth year into the future. Most input 

data were sourced from the ABS website, primarily from ABS.Stat (http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/). 

These included preliminary rebased 30 June 2016 ERPs, total fertility rates (TFRs) and age-specific 

fertility rates, state and territory life expectancies at birth, interstate migration flows, and overseas 

migration flows.  

National mortality rate projections were created using Ediev’s (2008) extrapolative method based 

on data extracted from the Human Mortality Database (2017). Jurisdiction-specific mortality 

assumptions were created by scaling national mortality projections according to recent life 

expectancy at birth values. For all three scenarios the average TFRs of 2011–2016 were assumed to 

remain constant. The populations of the small territories of Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands, 

Jervis Bay and Norfolk Island were assumed to remain constant at their 2016 ERPs. The SEs of net 

undercount from the 2016 Census for the NT and ACT were also assumed to remain constant. 

 

http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/


20 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

Three scenarios with differing migration assumptions were produced: 

1. Current Trajectory scenario, in which the net interstate migration (NIM) values of 2011–2016 for 

the NT and ACT were held constant; for the states an annual average of the last 20 years of NIM 

was assumed (but adjusted to ensure NIM summed to zero across all jurisdictions). Net overseas 

migration (NOM) values from 2011–2016 were held constant for all jurisdictions. Projections 

under this scenario demonstrate the population outcomes if the demographic ‘settings’ of the 

2011–2016 period for the NT and ACT were to remain unchanged. 

2. Low Migration scenario, in which NIM and NOM for the NT and ACT were held constant at the 

10th percentile of their distributions over the last 20 years. Assumptions for the states were the 

same as in the Current Trajectory scenario (with adjustments made to obtain zero NIM when 

summed across all jurisdictions). Projections from this scenario show the result of long-run highly 

negative net migration outcomes for the two territories. 

3. High Migration scenario, in which NIM and NOM for the NT and ACT were held constant at the 

90th percentile of their past distributions. Again, assumptions for the states were the same as in 

the Current Trajectory scenario (except for adjusted NIM values). This scenario’s projections 

reveal the outcome of consistently high net migration gains for the two territories. 

Assumptions for the scenarios are given in the Appendix (Table 4). Projections from the three scenarios 

do not cover the range of all possible demographic outcomes, of course. Migration for individual five-

year projection intervals may fall outside the High–Low range, and fertility and mortality are both likely 

to deviate somewhat from the assumptions used. However, past analyses have shown that migration is 

the greatest source of uncertainty about future population for both the NT and ACT (Wilson 2012), and 

the High–Low ranges considered here cover a wide range of plausible outcomes for the two territories. 

3.2 Projection results 

The projected populations of the NT and ACT according to the three scenarios are shown in Figure 2. 

Given the wide range of historical NIM and NOM values for these two territories, it is not surprising 

to see substantially different results from the High Migration and Low Migration assumptions. 

 

Figure 2: Population projections for the NT and ACT, 2016–2051 

Source: Authors’ projections. Note: The ACT’s Current Trajectory projection is closer to its High Migration projection 
because NOM over 2011–2016 was towards the higher end its distribution for the last 20 years. 



Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 21 

 

Northern Territory                                        Australian Capital Territory 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Unrounded seat entitlements for the NT and ACT, 2016–2051, according to three seat calculation 

schemes and three demographic scenarios 

Source: Authors’ calculations. 



22 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

Figure 3 illustrates the unrounded seat entitlements calculated for the NT and ACT if seat 

determinations were made on 30 June of the projection years 2021, 2026, … , 2051. The detailed 

calculations behind these graphs are contained in the Excel workbook accompanying this paper. 

Under the current seat entitlement rules, each territory only keeps the number of seats assigned at 

the 2017 determination under the High Migration scenario. This is because population growth 

amongst the six states results in the quota increasing over time, reaching about 260,000 by 2051. 

Under the Current Trajectory scenario both territories lose a seat in the 2030s but, as the graphs 

show, they remain very close to losing a seat for the entire preceding period. If the Low Migration 

scenario was to eventuate, both territories would probably lose a seat as early as the next 

determination. 

Under the special quota scheme, the quota is determined by the size of Tasmania’s population. The 

seat projections are therefore less robust because of uncertainty about the future of Tasmania’s 

population. In our projections Tasmania experiences only a modest amount of population growth 

until the early 2030s (to about 540,000), followed by gradual decline. As a consequence, the special 

quota never exceeds 108,000. Under the ‘worst case’ scenario of Low Migration the NT increases 

from two to three seats in the 2040s and the ACT retains four seats through to 2051. Under the High 

Migration scenario both territories increase to five seats: the NT at the end of the projection horizon, 

and the ACT early on (noting that the special quota scheme provides a maximum of five seats). Even 

if the slightly more optimistic ABS 2012-based Series B projections for Tasmania were used instead 

(ABS 2013), the ‘worst case’ Low Migration scenario would keep the NT on two seats, and the ACT on 

four throughout the projection horizon. 

Under the fixed quota scheme the seat projections are determined solely by each jurisdiction’s 

future population. Under the Low Migration scenario, both the NT and ACT remain on two and three 

seats, respectively, for the whole projection horizon. Under the High Migration scenario the NT will 

have gained one seat and the ACT two by mid-century. 

4. Conclusion 

We believe there is a case to re-examine the legislation on representation in the Commonwealth 

House of Representatives, focusing particularly on the NT and ACT. Not only are there precedents for 

this, with revisions made previously to the legislation, it is also permitted under the Constitution. 

Section 122 of the Australian Constitution states:  

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory … and may allow the 

representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms 

which it thinks fit. 

Under the current Electoral Act both the NT and ACT are at risk of losing a seat in the House of 

Representatives if current population trends continue. If this were to occur, then the population 

represented by each of their members of parliament would be greater than in any of the states. 

Preventing future seat losses in the two territories will require much higher net migration than 

experienced in recent years (or very low population growth in the six states). The alternative special 

quota and fixed quota seat entitlement schemes proposed in this paper would prevent the territories 



Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 23 

 

from losing seats. Even under the Low Migration scenario, neither the NT nor the ACT lose seats 

under these two schemes; under the High Migration scenario both will gain seats. 

The straightforward nature of the fixed quota scheme would potentially make for simpler and clearer 

legislation. Alternatively, the special quota scheme would place the NT and ACT at least on a par with 

Tasmania, in that they would be subject to the same effective special quota. The two schemes could 

even be combined using a standard quota of 150,000 together with the special quota applied to the 

NT and ACT. 

Of course, there are other seat entitlement schemes which could be considered. One would be to 

provide a minimum of two seats each for the NT and ACT, a proposal made to the Joint Standing 

Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry in 2003 but not recommended by the Committee. 

Alternatively, the two territories could be subject to the same minimum number of seats which apply 

to the states (5 seats), but that might be seen as being too generous to the NT. 

With no change to the current rules the NT and ACT could well lose a seat each – possibly at the next 

determination. Importantly, should the NT be reduced to just one seat it would then be by far the 

most poorly represented jurisdiction in the House of Representatives, with about a quarter of a 

million people to one member of parliament for an electorate covering 1.4 million square kilometres. 

On that basis alone, there is sufficient weight to consider alternative approaches, including those 

proposed here. 

Key messages 

• There is a case for the Parliament of Australia to re-examine the way seat entitlements are 

calculated. 

• In the recent 2017 determination of House of Representatives seats the NT and ACT were 

allocated two and three seats, respectively. However, they avoiding being assigned just one and 

two seats, respectively, by the narrowest of margins. 

• Had the NT and ACT lost seats at the 2017 determination, the two territories would have had a 

much larger number of people per elected member than any of the Australian states. However, 

projections in this paper demonstrate that under the current seat entitlement rules, the NT and 

ACT are at risk of losing a seat each at the next determination. 

• This paper proposes two alternative ways in which seat entitlements could be calculated for the 

NT and ACT which would prevent them from being disadvantaged. Under these proposed 

schemes, the NT and ACT would be very unlikely to lose any seats at the next determination and 

therefore would not be disadvantaged in their representation in respect to the states. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors are most grateful for helpful advice and comments on an earlier draft by Australian 

Electoral Commission staff and the anonymous reviewers. All opinions and errors remain our own. 

  



24 Wilson T and Taylor A Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 

 

 

References 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2005) Information paper: determining seats in the House of 

Representatives – legislative requirements for provision of ABS Statistics. Cat. No. 3107.0.55.002. 

Canberra: ABS. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013) Population projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101. Cat. No. 

3222.0. Canberra: ABS. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2017) Australian demographic statistics: December quarter 2016. 

Cat. No. 3101.0. Canberra: ABS. 

Australian Electoral Commission (2003) 2003 redistribution process commences. Electoral Newsfile 110 

(April). Canberra: Australian Electoral Commission. 

Australian Electoral Commission (2017) Determination of membership entitlement to the House of 

Representatives, media release, viewed 31 August 2017,  http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-

releases/2017/08-31.htm. 

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Compilation prepared on 25 July 2003 taking into 

account alterations up to Act No. 84 of 1977, viewed 1 July 2017, 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00469. 

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Compilation No. 63 as amended and in force on 21 October 2016, 

viewed 1 July 2017, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01022. 

Corr P (2016) Democracy and dollars: use of demography in distribution. In: Wilson T, Charles-Edwards E 

and Bell M (eds) Demography for Planning and Policy: Australian Case Studies. Applied 

Demography Series, vol. 7. Cham: Springer; 9–29. 

Ediev D M (2008) Extrapolative projections of mortality: towards a more consistent method. Part I: The 

central scenario. Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers 3/2008. Vienna, Austria: 

Austrian Academy of Sciences. 

Human Mortality Database (2017) Deaths and population data for Australia. University of California, 

Berkeley USA and Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, viewed 

7 July 2017, http://www.mortality.org/cgi-bin/hmd/country.php?cntr=AUS&level=1. 

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (2003) Territory representation: report of the Inquiry into 

increasing the minimum representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern 

Territory in the House of Representatives. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of 

Australia. 

Payer H and Taylor A (2015) Northern Territory seats in the Australian Parliament: it’s a long way up, but 

not far down. Research Briefs 02: 1–11, viewed 17 July 2017, 

http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/research-brief-2015-02.pdf. 

Wilson T (2012) Forecast accuracy and uncertainty of Australian Bureau of Statistics state and territory 

population projections. International Journal of Population Research. Volume 2012. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/419824. 

Wilson (2017a) Territory population update: new population statistics for December 2016, viewed 8 July 

2017, http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-

institute/territory_population_update_27-06-2017.pdf. 

Wilson T (2017b) Regional Population Projection Program (RePPP) model description. Northern Institute 

Working Papers 2017/01, viewed 8 July 2017, http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-

northern-institute/docs/reppp-model-description-revised2.pdf. 

Wilson T, Beneforti M and Barnes T (2005) Population statistics and the number of House of 

Representatives seats for the Northern Territory. People and Place 13(4): 23–33. 

  

http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2017/08-31.htm
http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2017/08-31.htm
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00469
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01022
http://www.mortality.org/cgi-bin/hmd/country.php?cntr=AUS&level=1
http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/research-brief-2015-02.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/419824
http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-institute/territory_population_update_27-06-2017.pdf
http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-institute/territory_population_update_27-06-2017.pdf
http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-institute/docs/reppp-model-description-revised2.pdf
http://www.cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/the-northern-institute/docs/reppp-model-description-revised2.pdf


Australian Population Studies 1 (1) 2017 Wilson T and Taylor A 25 

 

Appendix 

Table 4: Summary of projection assumptions used in the three projection scenarios 

Jurisdiction TFR 
e0 in 2046–51 

(males; females) 
NIM per annum 

NOM per 

annum 

 Current Trajectory 

NSW 1.88 88.0; 89.9 -17,429 66,781 

Vic. 1.77 88.7; 90.1 2,977 58,514 

Qld 1.94 87.8; 89.4 19,428 29,881 

SA 1.85 87.9; 89.7 -3,089 10,649 

WA 1.90 88.1; 90.4 1,582 29,436 

Tas. 1.97 86.3; 88.0 -763 1,176 

NT 2.06 82.8; 83.5 -2,375 2,233 

ACT 1.77 88.9; 90.7 -331 2,354 

 Low Migration 

NSW   -16,806 66,781 

Vic.   3,088 58,514 

Qld   20,148 29,881 

SA As above As above -2,978 10,649 

WA   1,641 29,436 

Tas.   -736 1,176 

NT   -2,795 482 

ACT   -1,561 -159 

 High Migration 

NSW   -19,099 66,781 

Vic.   2,717 58,514 

Qld   17,730 29,881 

SA As above As above -3,385 10,649 

WA   1,444 29,436 

Tas.   -836 1,176 

NT   728 2,111 

ACT   701 3,090 

 

 


