I think Tasmania is also politically different. For the ALP to get almost 50% and the Greens to get 16% as in 2006 shows a different political complexion to all other states.

Part of the negotiations for the legislative reform package in WA proceeded on an understanding that each house was best to decide how that house was formed. I would also expect that if the negotiations were looking like a multi member lower house that the Libs would have negotiated an alternative that suits them. The current system promotes the Nationals and Greens against Labor and the Liberals. i do believe that this promotion is minor though.

The regions are now determined in part by land-use and this could stymie any objections about relative sizes of the regions. There is no requirement that the regions be equal (outside of the metro area) in numbers of electors or electorates, so there argument would have to be some other argument (maybe demographics). Half of the south-west electorates are under quota whereas 3 of the four in the slow growing agricultural are under quota. I think an argument could be made that the agricultural boundary should be shifted – whether east or west, i am uncertain, but it is an argument with merit.

The Liberals will find it hard to object to the northern boundary of Dawesville as their submission has a similar boundary – though more favourable to them. Their submission included the shire of Waroona – which of course would have increased their margins. Dawesville is now at 1.7% from 4.1% and this is ordinarily the lowest they would get.

The commissioners have been prudent in seeking objections, reminding people that an objection to an element of the redistribution requires a solution and they have asked people to come up with a solution that meets the objection. This makes it harder to say the redistribution is flawed.

The Eastern Metropolitan “problem” for the Liberals is that the region always had some very dense areas of ALP support and usually less strong areas of Liberal support. With the increase of seats in the area, parts of the ALP support have been joined to the Liberal areas to make marginal Labor seats.

I think this is more a consequence of what was almost a landslide election in WA terms and the fact that what was once very strong Liberal voting areas are not so dark blue anymore. In 1996 John Day achieved a 55% 1st primary vote in Darling Range and a 63% 2PP. In 2001, these had dropped to 36% and 50.3%. These elections were held under the same boundaries and so are comparable.

In Roleystone (1996 48%/57% 2001 32% 45%) and Swan Hills (1996 51% / 60% 2001 35% / 48%) the figures are the same. The Liberals suffered a lot of swings in 2001, but they should never have suffered this in good Liberal areas.

The two things I can see triggering objections are the spill of Dawesville over the Mandurah bridge (probably from the Libs) and the relative sizes of the South-West and Agricultural regions (probably from Labor). The fact that the Libs had two marginals in East Metro and now have none despite their being more actual electorates might make them object to that section of the redraw. Labor might object to Esperance being in Mining and Pastoral rather than Agricultural (as it makes it impossible for them to win a seat in the South-East)

The new system with 6 members will give them more chances now.