It has been clear all this year that 2009 will see New South Wales lose yet another federal seat. In 2006 the number was cut from 50 to 49, effective from the 2007 general election. In 2009 the number will be cut from 49 to 48 at the next general election. Although the point has been clear to all observers it took the release of Australian Demographic Statistics by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to cause Antony Green in his blog to calculate the entitlements for all the states exactly. Green’s calculations reveal that Queensland will gain a seat and New South Wales will lose one.

In Antony’s blog there is much discussion as to which NSW seat will actually go. Early this year I was quoted in The Australian as saying that the name Throsby would disappear. The Illawarra media quickly picked up on this and I heard Jenny George say on ABC radio that I was engaging in “pure speculation”. She is quite right, of course. Although the loss of a NSW seat has always been assured, it is pure speculation to say which one it will be.

Nevertheless my proposition actually is that the south coast seats of Gilmore (Joanna Gash, Liberal) and Throsby (Jenny George, Labor) will be merged into a seat bearing the name of Gilmore. Such a seat would, in practice, be reasonably safe for Labor so really it would be Gash to lose her seat. As to why the name Gilmore would be preferred to the name Throsby the explanation is simple. Dame Mary Gilmore (1865-1962) was a woman whereas Charles Throsby (1777-1828) was a man.

We have the precedent of 2006 to know that the MP who is the actual victim of a redistribution is not necessarily the one whose seat disappears. In 2006 and 2007 Peter Andren was the true victim but the name of his seat, Calare, was retained. That he died shortly before the 2007 general election is not the point. His seat of Calare became so hopeless for him he announced that he would stand for the Senate. Consequently there is no reason why Joanna Gash may not be the real victim in 2009 even though the name of her seat is retained.

If this is the way the commissioners decide to do it then the flow-on effect would be interesting to watch. My belief is that Batemans Bay (presently in Gilmore) would be restored to Eden-Monaro, in which division it voted in 2001 and 2004. Then the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires (presently in Eden-Monaro) would be restored to Farrer, in which division they voted in 2001 and 2004. Consequently it would be possible to retain all the rural seats by moving them into more urban areas. Bearing in mind that in 2006 the NSW commissioners abolished a rural seat but made the remaining seats more rural it would seem to me logical that in 2009 they would retain all the rural seats but make some of them less rural.

Meanwhile, we now have the final reports of the redistributions for Tasmania and Western Australia. Politically the changes in Tasmania are not significant. By contrast Western Australia undergoes change much greater than expected. The Federation division of Kalgoorlie will disappear from the map at the next federal election and Kalgoorlie itself will vote in O’Connor. The current member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase, will seek election for the new seat of Durack. Essentially Durack is the entire north of the state and, in terms of its area, it will be the biggest division in the whole of Australia. Meanwhile in the Perth metropolitan area Swan changes from being a very marginal Liberal seat to being a very marginal Labor seat. The Liberal Party will need a swing of 0.5 per cent to retain its present seat of Swan.