The Redistribution Tribunal is to hold an inquiry, the subject of which is to be —

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

The public hearing will commence at 10am on Tuesday 19 January 1999 on the 4th floor, 25 Argyle Street, Hobart

Any person or organisation that has lodged a written comment, suggestion or objection no later than 5pm on Monday 18 January 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.

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 are being put on our website as they are received.

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

If you prefer other arrangements, the Secretary, Mr Rod Saunders may

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, that is by close of business on Monday 7 December, 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 now publishes its further redistribution proposal. As the Tribunal has stated that in its opinion the further proposal differs significantly from the initial proposal, a person or organisation may lodge a further written comment, suggestion or objection within 7 days. That is, by 5pm on Monday 18 January 1999. An inquiry will be held into any further comment, suggestion or objection.

If, in the Tribunal's opinion, a subsequent further proposal differs significantly from an earlier 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.

In accordance with the Legislative Council Electoral Boundaries Act 1995, the Redistribution Committee 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 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 Redistribution Proposal.

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 Initial Redistribution Proposal and Objections

Several submissions argued that Burnie should be wholly contained within a single division, but did not show how this could be achieved in terms of current and projected enrolment figures.

Most of the more detailed submissions relating to Burnie proposed the inclusion of Cooee and West Burnie in Montgomery. This would create a long narrow urban coastal division, severing communal ties between coastal towns and their immediate hinterland.

Other submissions regarding Burnie suggested that Somerset should also be included in Montgomery rather than Murchison. As well as the severing of communal ties in a long coastal urban division as mentioned above, Ulverstone would have to be split to comply with numerical constraints.

Thus, the Tribunal supported by several other submissions endorsed, as the best available option, the Burnie split initially proposed for the boundary between Murchison and Montgomery.

One submission, which supported the Burnie split in the initial proposal, suggested that the rest of the southern part of the Central Coast municipality be included in Montgomery to better reflect the clear community of interest between the service towns of Penguin and Ulverstone and the rural hinterland. Similar views were to be found in other submissions. The Tribunal accepted this suggestion which it saw as an improvement to the initial proposal.

Latrobe

It was suggested that the Latrobe township be moved from Mersey to Roland as it has stronger connections with Deloraine and Sheffield than with Devonport.

While the Tribunal acknowledges this connection, it is necessary for numerical reasons to include part of the surrounding Latrobe municipal area in the Devonport based division (Mersey). Given this constraint, the Tribunal took the view that the Latrobe township has a greater community of interest with Devonport than other parts of the Latrobe municipal area.

The Tamar

The establishment of three proposed Launceston-based divisions was supported by many of the submissions received. Two of the submissions suggested the following specific changes -

One of these submissions suggested combining the central business district of Launceston with Riverside/west Tamar, and that West Launceston, Prospect and Summer Hill be included in Paterson.

The Tribunal rejected these suggestions for three reasons. First, the suggested boundaries would split the old established suburb of West Launceston. Secondly, the suggestion split suburbs sharing community of interest around 'The Gorge'. Thirdly, that those boundaries were not as clearly identifiable as those initially proposed.

The other submission was that Flinders and Cape Barren Islands should be included in Windermere to enable easier servicing by the sitting member, as well as reducing the size of Apsley. The Tribunal rejected this option on the basis that no substantial link in terms of community of interest had been demonstrated.

The East Coast

Several submissions raised concerns about the size of Apsley.

In particular, two similar submissions argued that Apsley should not include southern orientated towns, and suggested that a smaller more easily serviced Apsley could be created by moving its southern boundary further north. To enable this to occur, a detailed package of inter-related alterations to 7 of the 15 initially proposed divisions would be required. These flow-on alterations follow in general terms -

- Apsley to include George Town and Low Head while excluding Lilydale and Evandale in the north, and Campania, Orford and Triabunna in the south.

- Windermere to include Lilydale and to extend further into urban Launceston.

- Paterson to include the commuter townships of Evandale and Perth.

- Roland pushed further south to include the Derwent catchment as well as absorbing the southern orientated towns of Strathgordon and Maydena.

- Derwent would stretch from New Norfolk to Otago Bay.

- Pembroke would be pushed further south to include Rokeby, allowing Rumney to include Campania, Orford and Triabunna from Apsley.

The Tribunal saw several of the above as reasonable alternatives on community of interest grounds in relation to the three Launceston-based divisions. These were - linking George Town/Low Head and the north east - including Lilydale in Windermere - including Evandale and Perth in Paterson.

However, the Tribunal also saw significant difficulties arising elsewhere in the State.

The Tribunal concurred with views expressed at the hearing, that ideally, in terms of community of interest and size, the southern boundary of Apsley would need to move to a north-south divide around the level of Swansea and Tunbridge.

The proponents conceded at the hearing however, that the adjustment suggested to the southern boundary of Apsley would move only marginally closer to the preferred north-south divide mentioned above. Gains in this regard that might be achieved in Apsley would be more than offset by negative counter effects, particularly in Roland. Largely due to a numerical imperative, the submissions would have the effect of pushing a large part of the Derwent catchment area, including the southern orientated towns of Strathgordon and Maydena, into Roland, a division with a clearly northern orientation. The Tribunal did not believe that a consequence such as this was reasonable in terms of community of interest or size.

On balance, the Tribunal formed the view that the advantages offered by these two comprehensive submissions were outweighed by the inherent disadvantages outlined above.

Hobart's Western Shore

A submission was received which suggested that Battery Point be moved from Wellington to Nelson.

The Tribunal did not accept this proposal. It would have had the effect of severing strong community of interest and common-use transport links between the Fern Tree/Cascades/Mount Wellington area through South Hobart to the city. Additionally, the Tribunal considered that Battery Point maintains strong links with Salamanca Place and Sullivans Cove.

The Huon

The Tribunal saw no real advantage in a suggestion that the Longley/Lesley Vale/Summerleas area be moved back into Huon from Nelson. The Tribunal held the view that both sides of the proposed boundary have similar community of interest and that the boundary initially proposed is clearly definable and easily identifiable by electors.

Technical adjustments

The Tribunal also agreed to the following three technical changes -

- Adjusting the Pembroke/Rumney boundary to include all of Howrah Heights in Pembroke - approximately 300 electors east of the South Arm Highway. There is no direct access between Howrah Heights and Rumney, which is separated by a hill reserve. The initial redistribution proposal used the boundary of a mountain census collection district that included a small portion of Howrah Heights, with the greater part of Howrah Heights being included in Pembroke.

- Extending the Pembroke/Rumney boundary to the shoreline south of Droughty Hill. There is one dwelling on the eastern side of the point that has community of interest with, and only access from, suburbs located in Rumney.

- Making the Liverpool Street boundary of Wellington consistent with the West Hobart/South Hobart locality boundary. The initial proposal followed a census collection district boundary that included a small number of Liverpool Street houses in Nelson.

Names 

Various submissions concerning names of divisions were received. These included suggestions that former names be retained, that military names should be used, that military names should not be used, and that names of political figures should be used.

After careful consideration the Tribunal preferred the approach taken by the Redistribution Committee and endorsed the reasons given in the initial redistribution proposal.

The retention of former names was discussed at length by the Tribunal, who took the view that confusion may result in some cases if this approach were adopted. For example, on the basis of historical reference the division of Paterson would become Cornwall.

With one exception, the Tribunal accepted each of the division names in the initial redistribution proposal.

The Tribunal believed it inappropriate to continue the name Roland as the geographical make-up of the division has significantly changed. In addition to parts of the existing Roland, the proposed division now includes a large number of electors from Macquarie, part of the central highlands from Derwent and a small part of Leven.

The Tribunal proposes that the division be named Rowallan.

Freecall 1800 809 861 Freefax 1800 198 822