Dear Sir,

I wish to make comment and suggestions (which may be interpreted as

objections as the case may be) in respect of the "Further Distrbution

Proposals" for the Legislative Council Boundaries published on 9 January, 1999.

My comments centre round the proposed division of Apsley.

I agree with what seems to be initially a thin view that the proposed

division is out of context relative to the "following matters" set out in

the Redistribution Criteria.

Viz. # communication and travel links within the division

# physical features of the division

# distinct natural boundaries

In no way do these items fit comfortably with Apsley.

In fact, it could be observed that out of all the proposed divisions, Apsley

is the most uncomfortable with these "matters". How do the other proposed

divisions fit with these "matters"?

If other criteria are considered to create models, 3 clearly distictive

areas/ regions exist throught the proposed Apsley division. Certain of these

models may be a little stretched.

# The far north east, commencing with (the proposed inclusion of

Georgetown/Low Head) to Weldborough.

# The east coast, commencing with the Fingal Valley, St Helens,

through to Bicheno, Coles Bay or Swanasea.

# The southern portion of the proposed divison, including Triabunna

through to Kempton.

Those regions which are adjacent do have some empathy, and this is shown in

the existing Esk Divison which currently includes the far north east and the

east coast.

The "following matters" can also be attributed quite clearly to most of this

Esk Division area.

However, there is, and can not be, any empathy between the northeast and the

far south, east coast. E.g. between Georgetown and Triabunna/Orford.

Similarly, concerns relate to the "following matters".

Testing the model against "following maters" relative to any link between

the far northeast and the far south, east coast:

+ communications and travel links - NON EXISTANT

+ physical features and divisions - NON EXISTANT

+ distinct natural bondaries - NON EXISTANT

Also taking an item introduced in the advertisment in consideration of some

other divisions:

+ community of interest & social ties - NON EXISTANT

In fact, in consideration of some other division modifications,

ideas/proposals have been rejected because the issue/model of "community

interest and social ties" could not be validated.

Serious consideration should be devoted, on that basis alone, to adjusting

the proposed southern boundary much further north, at least to the boundary

of the 63 telephone district.

It would seem certain that the southern located towns/areas would have a far

greater desire to be included in "southern orientated" divisions. I do not

wish to be involved with suggestions about how that may be carried out

because I have insufficient knowledge of those adjacent southern areas.

But it would be possible to flex the various areas against their

local/adjacent divisions of Derwent, Rumney (and maybe Rowallan). It would

seem very obvious that the majority of these far east coast areas would have

muchf greater empathy to the Tasman area than to the Low Head area.

STRETCHING THE POPULATION in the current South Esk area (divison).

There are obviously two geographical limitations - the Tasman Sea and the

Western Tiers.

A further difficulty is created through peeling off the new division of

Windermere, but this makes some sense as a feature of the Tamar valley.

Possibly more sense with creating one division for both sides of the Tamar

valley?

(Picking up the St Pats Valley of Nunamara and Patersonia to Windermere may

also be an adjustment factor, as well as Lilydale. I.e. taking blocks of the

Launceston Municipality.)

Windermere forming a buffer between Launceston urban and its neighbouring

rural area also attacks the feasibility of utilising eastern Launceston as a

stretch area for "South Esk" cum Apsley.

While there are considerable difficulties and restrictions in stretching the

population, the limitations are confined to these areas:

+ the northern verge

+ Norfolk Plains

+ The Macquarie Basin

+ The eastern edge of Paterson, mainly urban.

The northern verge is already being considered through removing Georgetwon

and Low Head from Windermere.

What is the affect of adding the Norfolk Plains area to "Apsley"? And go

even further south to include the balance of the Macquarie Basin? This means

that the areas of Longford and Cressy and Bishopsbourne clearly become

attached to those areas with which they currently have empathy.

This Norfolk Plains model plus Georgetown/LowHead should provide sufficient

population. Order of preerence would be to use the Norfolk Plains area first

so that if possible Georgetown remains in Windermere.

Some gains may also be feasible from the urban eastern border of Paterson or

even eastern rural. Should Georgetown be retained in Windermere, then

Evandale and Western Junction could be included in the modified Apsley. It

however seems important that Perh must remain together with the Norfolk

Plains grouping, whichever way that goes.

Subsequent compensation for Paterson would be the Meander Valley to the west.

For similar reasons given for southern adjustments, I am not sufficiently

aquainted with the Rowallan environs as to suggest the compensating adjustment.

However, it could give reason for retaining further of Burnie in to

Montgomery, and moving Montgomery to take in the Forth Valley?

An alternative system for stretching the poulation in "Apsley" could be to

take small groups from each of the models quoted above, provided each was a

total social unit.

It seems categorically important to retain small groupings where they

socially and historically belong. Refer to an Education Department

experiment at the end of 1998 where they attempted to attach some northern

schools to Hobart and some northern schools to Devonport. This reverberated

so much that the Education Department had to rethink their options. But

education has organised groups that can exercise pressure. I do not think

the same situation occurs electorally. Hence if people are upset it will

only create and maintain a lot of ill feeling.

TITLE "APSLEY"

Where is Apsley? Is a clear question envisioned from electors round the

north east?

Apsley may have a meaning for the east coast and even the far south of the

east coast around Triabunna and Orford. But the term is completely unrelated

to the far northeast round to Georgetown.

The questions could be asked:

+ who chose Apsley?

+ what criteria applied to underline the choice?

The selection of regional terms from a quite small region to then spread

across a much larger area has been experimented with by the Education

Department, and has not been entirely successful at all. E.g. the Education

Department named its

north east district, Forester. Who on the fringes of the district, let alone

elsewhere in the state could relate to the term, Forester.

It is believed that everyone residing in an electoral district must be able

to relate to the title of the district. And if a person is away in an

adjacent district and say they are in ??? district then it should easily be

understood where that district is. Test that model against various other

district names.

I find it difficult to suggest a name that fits this criteria that covers such

a very wide area. Though often overworked, "Flinders" may be a suggestion.

"Batman" is a similar term of historical inference that covers most of the

north east.

JULIAN CARTER

12A Albert Street, Bridport. 7262

PO Box 230, Scottsdale. 7260

Julian Carter

E-Mail

jcarter@tassie.net.au