Step 6 – Announcement of names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in South Australia

Updated: 25 June 2018

Overview maps will be available on the website on Friday 20 July 2018. Detailed maps and a report outlining the augmented Electoral Commission's reasons for the formal determination will be tabled in the Federal Parliament and subsequently made publicly available.

The augmented Electoral Commission for South Australia's public announcement of final names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in South Australia was made on Tuesday 26 June 2018. Read the augmented Electoral Commission's public announcement.

The augmented Electoral Commission's reasoning behind the names and boundaries of electoral divisions will be contained in its report.

The numerical constraints of the redistribution process

The augmented Electoral Commission was required to consider all objections made to the Redistribution Committee's proposal in the context of the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). For the augmented Electoral Commission, the primary requirements contained within sub-section 73(4) are:

  • the number of electors in each electoral division shall, as far as practicable, not deviate from the projected enrolment quota of 122,731 at the projection time of Thursday 20 January 2022 by more than plus or minus 3.5 per cent. As far as practicable, the number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in South Australia at the projection time of Thursday 20 January 2022 must therefore be between 118,436 and 127,026, and
  • the number of electors in each electoral division shall not deviate from the current enrolment quota of 119,503 by more than plus or minus 10 per cent. The number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in South Australia must be between 107,553 and 131,453.

Objections that resulted in the number of electors in an electoral division or divisions being outside either of these ranges could not be considered for implementation.

Augmented Electoral Commission's proposed electoral divisions

Name of proposed electoral division Boundaries of proposed electoral division
Adelaide As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Barker As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Boothby As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Grey As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Hindmarsh As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Kingston As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Makin As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Mayo As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Spence As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia. The boundaries of this electoral division have been changed as a consequence of ensuring that all electoral divisions in South Australia meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act
Sturt As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act

Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix J of the Redistribution Committee’s report of 13 April 2018.

Maps of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions are also available.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusion on objections

An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the majority of issues raised in objections is presented on this page. A number of objections were unable to be accepted by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 10 electoral divisions in South Australia meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections not presented on this page will be available in the augmented Electoral Commission's report when it is published. Given the large number of objections received not all have been referenced in the commentary below on specific conclusions.

The abolition of the Division of Port Adelaide

Objections referring to this matter: OB3 – Domenic Barrett, OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB295 – Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust SA, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB315 – City of Port Adelaide Enfield, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the Division of Port Adelaide and retiring the name ‘Port Adelaide’.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

  • support for the abolition of the Division of Port Adelaide, or
  • the Division of Port Adelaide should not be abolished and the Division of Sturt should instead be abolished.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments offered were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • abolishing an alternative electoral division, along with the adjustments necessary to accommodate this change, would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

Several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retire the name ‘Port Adelaide’ while others argued that there should be an electoral division name of this name. Arguments in favor of retaining the name ‘Port Adelaide’ observed the significant role of the area in South Australia’s early European settlement and the historical and ongoing significance of the area to the Kaurna people.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘Port Adelaide’ were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

The Division of Port Adelaide will be abolished and the name ‘Port Adelaide’ will be retired.

The name of the proposed Division of Hindmarsh

Objections referring to this matter: OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB295 – Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust SA, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB35 – The Hon Christopher Pyne MP

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the name of the Division of Hindmarsh.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

  • support for retention of the name ‘Hindmarsh’,
  • the Division of Hindmarsh should be renamed ‘Port Adelaide’,
  • the Division of Hindmarsh should be renamed to reflect the strong Aboriginal links with Port Adelaide and the Le Fevre Peninsula, or
  • a restructured Division of Hindmarsh should be renamed ‘Port Adelaide’.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments offered in support of altering the name of the Division of Hindmarsh were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand and the electoral division will continue to be known as the Division of Hindmarsh.

The name of the proposed Division of Spence

Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – Ian Rohde OAM JP, OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB320 – Hon J N Andrew AO

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB3 – Malcolm Mackerras AO, COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB7 – Kim Kelly, COB28 – Hon David Hawker AO, COB33 – Michael Burke, COB34 – Ivan Venning, COB35 – The Hon Christopher Pyne MP, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed renaming the Division of Wakefield to ‘Spence’ in honour of Catherine Helen Spence (1825–1910) for her work as an advocate for female suffrage and electoral reform. This alteration was proposed as, following the adjustments made to accommodate a reduction in the number of electoral divisions from 11 to 10, the proposed Division of Wakefield differed significantly from the existing Division of Wakefield, changing from a hybrid urban/rural electoral division to one with a predominantly urban focus. The Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions refer to considering the name of the electoral division where the socio-demographic nature has changed significantly.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections:

  • supported renaming the Division of Wakefield to ‘Spence’ with those doing so supporting the Redistribution Committee’s reasoning behind proposing a new name or questioning whether Wakefield was an appropriate person after whom to name an electoral division, or
  • opposed renaming the electoral division and/or argued it should continue to be named the Division of Wakefield. Those in favour of retaining the name ‘Wakefield’ argued that it was a Federation name, it recognised the contribution Edward Gibbon Wakefield had made to colonisation of South Australia and in recognition of the contributions made to Australian society by former members for the electoral division.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘Wakefield’ were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the electoral division will be known as the Division of Spence.

The boundary of the proposed Division of Boothby

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Luka Rinaldi, OB52 – Daniel Hughes, OB148 – Campbell McKnight, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB255 – Richard Vear, OB265 – Henrik Wallgren, OB272 – Archbishop John Hepworth, OB279 – Raymond Mercure, OB284 – Robyn Hudson, OB285 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB297 – Mrs H M Robertson, OB298 – Craigburn Farm petition of 87 people, OB303 – Sam Duluk MP, OB308 – Stephen Patterson MP, OB310 – Laura Coppola, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow, OB321 – Charles Richardson

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB15 – Andy Partridge, COB19 – MA Roberts and PM Roberts, COB27 – Yvonne Riddell, COB31 – Mr Robert A Baker, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: As a result of the need to abolish an electoral division and the consequential adjustments required to ensure that all of South Australia’s electoral divisions would meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, a number of changes were proposed to the boundaries of the Division of Boothby. The Redistribution Committee proposed the Division of Boothby:

  • transfer the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill and part of the suburb of Happy Valley into the proposed Division of Kingston,
  • transfer the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene and part of the suburb of Coromandel Valley to the proposed Division of Mayo,
  • gain the suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Kings Park and part of the suburbs of Forestville and Millswood from the Division of Adelaide, and
  • gain the suburbs of Ascot Park, Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glengowrie and South Plympton and part of the suburb of Glenelg North from the Division of Hindmarsh.

Objections to the proposed redistribution relating specifically to the first three of these dot-points are discussed separately below.

Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s boundary for the proposed Division of Boothby, with reference made to supporting the inclusion of the entirety of the City of Holdfast Bay in the proposed electoral division. Others argued for further changes to be made, such as transferring the suburb of Novar Gardens from the proposed Division of Hindmarsh to the proposed Division of Boothby so as to include it in the same electoral division as the suburb of Glenelg.

As well as differing views as to whether a greater or lesser number of suburbs from the City of Mitcham should be transferred from the proposed Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Mayo, a number of objections and comments opposed any change being made to the boundary of the Division of Boothby.

Those making these arguments did so on the basis of improving the community of interest in the proposed electoral division.

A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections were from those wishing to be located in the proposed Division of Boothby.  The augmented Electoral Commission noted that these wishes could only be accommodated by moving one or more different groups of electors out of the proposed electoral division, which could result in these groups arguing that their communities of interest would be neglected.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Kingston, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the boundary of the Division of Boothby will be that proposed by the Redistribution Committee.

The electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 220 objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published. Objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: OB255 – Richard Vear, OB284 – Robyn Hudson, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB297 – Mrs H M Robertson, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 15 comments on objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.

Comments on objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB32 – Dr Dorothy Turner, COB38 – Steve Murray MP, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Kingston and uniting all of the suburb of Happy Valley in the proposed Division of Kingston. Ensuring the proposed Divisions of Boothby and Kingston both met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and maintaining the strong natural boundary between the proposed Divisions of Boothby and Kingston at the Boral quarry and Majors Road led the Redistribution Committee to propose these changes.

Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal in full or in part, with some advocating moving the suburb of Aberfoyle Park and part of the suburb of Happy Valley from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Kingston while leaving the suburb of Flagstaff Hill in the proposed Division of Boothby.

A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections did not express support, with many arguing that some or all of the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley should be located in the proposed Division of Boothby and not in the proposed Division of Kingston. These objections and comments on objections noted a stronger community of interest link between the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley with the Blackwood and City of Mitcham area and argued there was little community of interest with those suburbs located in the Division of Kingston.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections also advocated moving:

  • the suburb of Aberfoyle Park from the proposed Division of Kingston to the proposed Division of Mayo, or
  • moving the suburb of Happy Valley from the proposed Division of Kingston to the proposed Division of Mayo.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Kingston, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley will be located in the proposed Division of Kingston.

The electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach are located

Objections referring to this matter: OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB255 – Richard Vear, OB285 Dr Mark Mulcair, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors in the suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach from the Division of Kingston to the proposed Division of Mayo. These changes were proposed to ensure that the Division of Mayo met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach should be retained in the Division of Kingston and not transferred to the Division of Mayo. Common means of communication and transport, a desire to minimise the movement of electors between electoral divisions and a commonality of interest between those living in the suburbs of the Division of Kingston formed the basis of these arguments.

Other objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Division of Kingston, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Division of Mayo, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet either of the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach will be located in the proposed Division of Mayo.

The electoral division(s) in which the City of Unley is located

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Luke Rinaldi, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB285 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB36 – Hugh Sutton, COB37 – Meredith Sutton, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed that, in order to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, the City of Unley would not be united in one electoral division but would continue to be spread across the proposed Divisions of Adelaide, Boothby and Sturt. Specifically, the suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Kings Park and part of Forestville and Millswood were proposed to be transferred from the Division of Adelaide to the proposed Division of Boothby.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Division of Adelaide, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.

Other objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued:

  • the suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Forestville, Kings Park and Millswood should be located in the Division of Adelaide and not in the proposed Division of Boothby on the basis of a shared community of interest between these suburbs of the City of Unley and the City of Prospect and in order that Cross Road remain the southern boundary of the proposed Division of Adelaide,
  • moving those parts of suburbs in the City of Unley located to the south of Mitchell Street, Park Street and Wattle Street from the proposed Division of Adelaide to the Division of Boothby due to the community of interest links this area shares with the suburbs located to the south of Cross Road in the City of Mitcham, or
  • moving the suburb of Myrtle Bank and part of the suburb of Fullarton from the proposed Division of Sturt to the proposed Division of Boothby to enable a stronger boundary to be used than the railway line and tram line around the suburbs of Kings Park and Millswood.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Division of Boothby, on the boundary in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet either of the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Kings Park and part of the suburbs of Forestville and Millswood will be located in the proposed Division of Boothby.

The electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 70 objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published. Objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: OB265 – Henrik Wallgren, OB272 – Archbishop John Hepworth, OB298 – Craigburn Farm petition of 87 people, OB303 – Sam Duluk MP, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB8 – Neil McNish, COB22 – Carolyn Hemer, COB39 – Australian Labor Party, COB42 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Mayo. These changes were proposed as the Division of Mayo, as it existed at the commencement of this redistribution:

  • needed to gain electors to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, and
  • shared boundaries with six other electoral divisions, five of which also needed to gain electors in order to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

Some objections to the proposed redistribution supported the boundaries of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed Division of Kingston.

A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene should be located in the Division of Boothby due to a strong community of interest link between the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene with the Blackwood and City of Mitcham area, as opposed to the regional localities in the Division of Mayo.

Other objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

  • keeping the suburb of Craigburn Farm in same electoral division as the suburb of Blackwood, noting that these two suburbs form a strong community of interest, or
  • keeping the suburb of Hawthorndene in the same electoral division as the suburb of Glenalta, noting that these two suburbs form a strong community of interest.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those arguing against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Mayo, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene will be located in the proposed Division of Mayo.

Back to top