The Substance of the Tribunal's Findings or Conclusions concerning the 2^nd Further Redistribution Proposal and Objections

The Tribunal received 15 comments, suggestions or objections in relation to the 2^nd Further Redistribution Proposal, with two witnesses being heard at the Inquiry of Tuesday 2 February 1999.

After careful consideration, the Redistribution Tribunal reaffirmed the names and boundaries of divisions proposed in the 2^nd Further Redistribution Proposal—without change.

Tribunal members were mindful of their impending responsibility—that of determining transition arrangements to implement this redistribution. It is extremely important that the Tribunal's objectivity and impartiality is jealously guarded. This redistribution and its transition arrangements will have a serious effect on the practical distribution of political power in Tasmania.

In particular, Tribunal members expressed concern that nothing is done in relation to naming, which might impinge upon the exercise of wide transitional powers, which they have yet to put into effect.

Two submissions proposed that the Flinders Island group be included in the division of Windermere, on the basis that there are transport and communication links between the Islands and Launceston (and the Tamar Valley). They reiterated the difficulty of servicing the large division of Apsley. Though the Tribunal acknowledged that this suggestion could reduce the size of Apsley, it found that no substantial case for a special community of interest between the proposed division of Windermere and the Flinders Island group had been established.

The Tribunal received two suggestions that the Derwent boundary be extended further north to include all of the Central Highlands municipal area. This would mean the inclusion of Bothwell, Waddamana, Interlaken and Miena, transferring about 600 electors.

The Tribunal acknowledges that this suggestion has merit on community of interest grounds, having considered this concept in some detail at an earlier time. As previously indicated by the Tribunal, numerical constraints severely limit the options available for Bothwell and the rest of the Central Highlands municipal area.

Wherever possible, the Tribunal has tried to propose boundaries that, in any division, balance regional communities of interest with the legal restrictions that limit the number of electors to within plus or minus 10 per cent of the average enrolment, or quota.

To transfer 600 electors from Montgomery and Apsley in the way suggested would create difficulties for the production of easily identifiable boundaries that satisfy both criteria. As a consequence, similar and compounding boundary problems would spread to other divisions.

Several submissions again suggested the use of the names 'Launceston' and 'Hobart'. Reasons given included historical usage and the practice throughout Australia of using the names of cities for electoral divisions. Further, the proponents did not favour the names Paterson or Wellington, largely for geographic reasons.

The Tribunal found no significant reason to vary its view that Mount Wellington is a well-recognised landmark overlooking the proposed division of Wellington. This name is both appropriate and in keeping with the Tribunal's preference for using the names of geographical features.

Given that there are now three proposed divisions—not just one— that could be described as Launceston–based, the Tribunal continued in its view that on balance, the use of the name Launceston for any one of those three divisions would involve an element of misdescription, and was therefore not appropriate.

After consideration the Tribunal reaffirmed its view that Paterson is an appropriate name for a Launceston–based division. Paterson Street, named after the early Lieutenant Governor of that name, runs through the central business district and is well known locally.

A further submission suggested that the name Windermere be replaced by the name Barnard. Once again, the Tribunal reaffirmed its view that using names of recent political figures would be inappropriate.

Members of the Tribunal wanted to make absolutely sure that they would not be in any way inhibited or affected in their exercise of discretion by considerations such as a division name implying an incumbency which could advantage or disadvantage a sitting member.

One suggestion introduced the concept of using Aboriginal names for divisions (subject to Aboriginal community approval). The Tribunal found that this submission had been received too late in the redistribution process for necessary consultation to be undertaken in a proper manner.

The Hon R R Nettlefold Chairperson of the Redistribution Tribunal 6 February 1999