"Comments, suggestions or objections received in relation to the 2nd Further Redistribution Proposal for the redistribution of the State into 15 Legislative Council electoral divisions."

Any person or organisation that has lodged a written comment, suggestion or objection no later than 5pm on Monday 1 February 1999 has a right to be heard.

Those intending to lodge submissions and who wish to be heard at the inquiry are asked to contact the Redistribution Secretariat as soon as possible.

Written submissions can be sent to the Tribunal by post, facsimile or email.

 Access to Submissions and Other Information

Copies of all comments, suggestions and objections received will be sent to all those who make a submission. They are also available from designated public offices (Service Tasmania), the Tasmanian Electoral Office, and will be added to our website as they are received.

Members of the public have a right to obtain other information on the 2nd Further Redistribution Proposal, and statistics and electoral maps from our designated public offices (Service Tasmania).

If you prefer other arrangements, the Secretary, Mr Rod Saunders may be contacted on the freecall number shown below. We will distribute material throughout Tasmania.

On 7 November 1998 the Redistribution Committee published an Initial Redistribution Proposal, including maps showing names and boundaries of proposed divisions, boundary descriptions and reasons. The proposal was exhibited at each public office.

Within 28 days, which was by close of business on Monday 7 December 1998, any person or organisation was entitled to lodge a written suggestion, comment or objection. The Tribunal considered the submissions lodged and held an inquiry.

Having completed its inquiries the Tribunal published a Further Redistribution Proposal on Saturday 9 January 1999. As the Tribunal had stated that in its opinion the further proposal differed significantly from the initial proposal, a person or organisation was entitled to lodge a further written comment, suggestion or objection within 7 days. That is, by 5pm on Monday 18 January 1999. The Tribunal considered the submissions lodged and held an inquiry on Tuesday 19 January 1999.

Having completed those inquiries the Tribunal now publishes its 2nd Further Redistribution Proposal. As the Tribunal has stated that in its opinion the 2nd Further Redistribution Proposal differs significantly from the earlier Further Redistribution Proposal, a person or organisation is entitled to lodge a further written comment, suggestion or objection within 7 days. That is, by 5pm on Monday 1 February 1999. An inquiry will be held into any further comment, suggestion or objection.

If, in the Tribunal’s opinion, a subsequent Further Redistribution Proposal differs significantly from the preceding Further Redistribution Proposal, a person or organisation may lodge a further written comment, suggestion or objection within 7 days. An inquiry will be held into any further comment, suggestion or objection.

The Tribunal then makes a final determination of the names and boundaries of the 15 new Legislative Council electoral divisions. The Tribunal’s determination is final. It may not be challenged or appealed against.

Transition arrangements to implement the redistribution are also to be determined by the Tribunal. The number of members of the Legislative Council is to be reduced from 19 to 15 by the third annual periodic election after the final determination of the new electoral boundaries.

The Tribunal must conduct a hearing into matters relating to transition arrangements. As soon as possible after that hearing, the Tribunal makes and publishes its Initial Transition Proposal. Within 14 days after publication, a person or organisation may lodge a further written submission in relation to the Initial Transition Proposal.
The Tribunal considers submissions received and may hold an inquiry into matters raised.

The Redistribution Tribunal is to make and publish a Final Transition Determination as soon as practicable after the completion of its deliberations.

In accordance with the Legislative Council Electoral Boundaries Act 1995, the Redistribution Committee and Redistribution Tribunal must take into account the following priorities—

– the first priority is to ensure, as far as practicable, that the number of electors in each Council division would not, (in four and a half years time) vary more than ±10% of the average Council division enrolment;

– the second priority is to take into account community of interest within each Council division.

After taking into account the priorities specified above, the Redistribution Committee and Redistribution Tribunal must consider the following matters in the case of each electoral division—

– the means of communication and travel within the division
– the physical features and area of the division;
– existing electoral boundaries;
– distinct natural boundaries.

The Council division quota is to be the basis for the Initial and Further Redistribution Proposals.

For this redistribution the average divisional enrolment, or quota, is 21,986 and was determined as at
25 September 1998.

The Substance of the Tribunal’s Findings or Conclusions Concerning the Further Redistribution Proposal and Objections

The Redistribution Tribunal received 14 comments, suggestions or objections in relation to the Further Redistribution Proposal. Three witnesses were heard at the inquiry held on Tuesday 19 January 1999.

After consideration of the various written and oral submissions received, the Redistribution Tribunal now proposes four alterations to the boundaries shown in the Further Redistribution Proposal. One change affects the boundary between Montgomery and Mersey—the second includes more of the Derwent Catchment Area in the Derwent division—the third is a compensating adjustment to the rural area west of Kempton, between Apsley and Rowallan—and the fourth is a minor adjustment to the Wellington Street portion of the boundary between Paterson and Rosevears.

Several comments received were supportive of the Further Redistribution Proposal’s inclusion of the southern part of the Central Coast municipality in Montgomery.

Three of these submissions further recommended that this process be extended to include the communities of Abbotsham, Sprent and Upper Castra in Montgomery rather than Mersey. The proponents were able to illustrate their proposal with a clearly identifiable boundary that followed natural features and satisfied numerical requirements. The suggested change enabled the community of interest between Ulverstone and the above communities to be maintained within Montgomery.

Three suggestions were received concerning the placement of part of the Derwent Catchment Area within Rowallan. The point was made that the region including the townships of Derwent Bridge, Bronte Park, Tarraleah, Ouse, Hamilton and Wayatinah has a greater community of interest with the South, and would be better located wholly within the Derwent division.

The Tribunal supported this proposition, accepting the citing of the Lyell Highway as an important transport link.

The Tribunal accepted the suggestion of a minor boundary adjustment between Paterson and Rosevears. The proposed boundary now extends straight down Wellington Street to the Charles Street Bridge, beyond the intersection of Wellington and Paterson streets. This provides a simpler boundary to that shown in the Further Redistribution Proposal, with minimal numerical effect.

A further submission was received suggesting that Battery Point be included in Nelson instead of Wellington, and that South Hobart be included in Wellington.

The Tribunal retains the view that the proposal would have had the effect of severing strong community of interest and common–use transport links between the city, through South Hobart, to the Fern Tree/Cascades/Mount Wellington area.

While the Tribunal acknowledged that in terms of Legislative Council boundaries, Hobart has historical relationships with South Hobart, Fern Tree and Cascades, it was not disposed to splitting this cluster of localities, which some may perceive as having a holistic community of interest.

Numerical constraints preclude this cluster from being wholly included in Wellington, and the suggestions received did not provide alternatives that assisted significantly.

The Tribunal did not accept the proposition that Battery Point was more closely associated with Sandy Bay than with the Salamanca area and Sullivans Cove. It could be validly said that the Salamanca area’s emerging profile of ‘inner city living’ creates even stronger links, blending it even more with Battery Point.

A number of submissions concerning names of divisions was received. These included the retention of the names Launceston and Hobart and the use of the name Barnard rather than Windermere.

The Tribunal maintains the view that the use of the names of recent political figures is unlikely to find universal acceptance.

As a matter of record, the name ‘Paterson’ refers to Paterson Street, a well–known and historic thoroughfare in that division. The imposing landform of Mt Wellington, is clearly the dominant geographic feature of the proposed division of Wellington that nestles in its foothills.

In developing the Initial and Further Redistribution Proposals the Committee and Tribunal have used digital Census Collector Districts (CCDs) data as basic building blocks. Among other benefits, this system facilitates the accurate calculation of current and projected enrolment figures for proposed divisions.

While these data are highly suitable for redistribution and demographic modelling purposes, they are not capable of providing the spatial precision necessary for the unambiguous definition of the final divisional boundary plans prepared for certification and registration by the Surveyor–General.