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.