1999 Redistribution of Tasmania - Final Report

Updated: 9 February 2011

REPORT OF THE REDISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 SECTION 68

Contents

Suggestions to the Redistribution Committee
Suggestion No Suggested by
1 The Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [PDF 52KB]
2 Alan Stacey [PDF46KB]
3 Liberal Party of Australia (Tasmanian Division) [PDF 800KB]
4 Tony West [PDF 110KB]
5 Australian Labor Party (Tasmanian Branch) [PDF 229KB]
6 Brian Dowse [PDF 48KB]
7 Darryl M Gerrity [PDF 26KB]
Comments on suggestions
Comment No Comment by
1 West Coast Council [PDF 32KB]

This report is published under Section 68 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

Reasons For The Proposed Redistribution Of The State Of Tasmania

Direction for a redistribution of Tasmanian Electoral Divisions

  1. Section 59(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act) provides that a Redistribution of a State into Divisions shall commence whenever the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) so directs by notice published in the Australian Government Gazette (the Gazette).
  2. A direction shall be made if a period of seven years after the day on which the State was last distributed into Electoral Divisions has expired. Tasmania was last distributed on 1 April 1992.
  3. The direction must be made within a period of 30 days after the expiration date and the direction was duly made on 14 April 1999 by notice published in the Gazette that a Redistribution was to commence in Tasmania.

Appointment of the Redistribution Committee for Tasmania

  1. In accordance with Section 60 of the Act, the AEC appointed the Redistribution Committee for Tasmania on 15 April 1999.
  2. The Redistribution Committee consists of the following members:
    • Electoral Commissioner: Mr Bill Gray
    • Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania (A/g): Mr Alex Stanelos
    • Surveyor-General of Tasmania: Mr Christopher Rowe
    • Auditor-General of Tasmania: Dr Arthur McHugh
  3. The Committee held its first meeting on 2 July 1999.

Invitation to submit Suggestions and Comments

  1. In accordance with Section 64 of the Act, the Electoral Commissioner invited written Suggestions and written Comments on those Suggestions by notice published in the Gazette, as well as The Advocate, The Examiner and The Mercury of 28 April 1999.
  2. At the closing date on 28 May 1999 Suggestions had been received from:
    • The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
    • Alan Stacey
    • Liberal Party of Australia (Tasmanian Division)
    • Tony West
    • Australian Labor Party (Tasmanian Branch)
    • Brian Dowse Darryl Gerrity
  3. The period during which Comments could be made on these Suggestions closed on 11 June 1999 and at that date Comments were received from:
    • West Coast Council

Statutory requirements for the making of a proposed redistribution

  1. Section 66(1) of the Act requires the Redistribution Committee for Tasmania to make a proposed redistribution of the State.
  2. Sections 66(3) and 66(3A) of the Act prescribe that:

    (3) In making the proposed redistribution, the Redistribution Committee:

    1. shall, as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that, if the State or Territory were redistributed in accordance with the proposed redistribution, the number of electors enrolled in each Electoral Division in the State or Territory would not, at the projection time determined under section 63A, be less than 96.5% or more than 103.5% of the average divisional enrolment of that State or Territory at that time; and
    2. subject to paragraph (a), shall give due consideration, in relation to each proposed Electoral Division, to:
      1. community of interests within the proposed Electoral Division, including economic, social and regional interests;
      2. means of communication and travel within the proposed Electoral Division;
      1. the physical features and area of the proposed Electoral Division; and
      2. the boundaries of existing Divisions in the State or Territory;

    and subject thereto the quota of electors for the State or Territory shall be the basis for the proposed redistribution, and the Redistribution Committee may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less.

    (3A) When applying subsection (3), the Redistribution Committee must treat the matter in subparagraph (3)(b)(v) as subordinate to the matters in subparagraphs (3)(b)(i), (ii) and (iv).

Impact of the 1998 Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act

  1. The 1998 Amendments to the Act had the following effects on the making of a redistribution:
    • Introducing provision for the AEC to alter the projection time in which to achieve equality of enrolment when a further redistribution is expected before the usual seven years.
    • Altering the time for striking the quota to the commencement of the redistribution process.
    • Altering the tolerance to be applied in achieving equality of electors at the projection time.
    • Requiring that consideration of the boundaries of existing Divisions be subordinate to the other criteria to be applied in the redistribution.

Quota

  1. At the end of 14 April 1999, the day of direction by the AEC that the Redistribution must commence, the number of electors enrolled for the State was 326 396.
  2. Under Section 65(2) of the Act, the Electoral Commissioner determined that the quota of electors for Tasmania was 65 279 (326 396 divided by 5). Thus, the permitted range of the margin of allowance of 10% below and above the quota would be 58 752 to 71 806 respectively. In making its proposals for the State, the Redistribution Committee is not permitted to exceed that range.

Enrolment projections

  1. Section 66(3)(a) of the Act requires the Committee to "as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that, if the State or Territory were redistributed in accordance with the proposed redistribution, the number of electors enrolled in each Electoral Division in the State or Territory would not, at the projection time determined under section 63A, be less than 96.5% or more than 103.5% of the average divisional enrolment of that State or Territory at that time."
  2. To assist the Committee, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) supplied enrolment projections to the AEC using AEC enrolment data as the base, and used a cohort-component method to project enrolment of each Census Collection District (CCD) to 30 June 2003. Divisional Returning Officers (DROs) were asked to examine the ABS projections in the light of their local knowledge and experience, and to substitute their own projections where appropriate. DROs made use of information supplied by relevant local authority planning and statistical groups, as well as their own resources in undertaking this task. The Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania also reviewed the projections, and any changes made by DROs, to ensure a consistency of approach. The projections were available in both hardcopy and on floppy disk to persons or organisations interested in using them as an indication of the likely growth and as an aid to the preparation of Suggestions or Comments.
  3. The projected total enrolment for Tasmania at 30 June 2003 is 337 034. Thus, the average enrolment of the 5 Divisions at that time would be 67 407 and the 3.5% tolerance below and above that average required that Divisions be constructed in the range between 65 048 and 69 766.

Community of interests, means of communication and travel, physical features and area, and boundaries of existing Divisions

  1. The criteria set out in section 66(3)(b) of the Act – community of interests, means of communication and travel, physical features and area, and boundaries of existing Divisions – are subservient to the two objectives of enrolments in proposed Divisions being within a range of 3.5% above or below the average divisional enrolment at the projection time, and current enrolments being within 10% above or below the quota. However, notwithstanding these overriding constraints, the Committee sought to ensure that the other criteria were given maximum possible effect. Within the constraints necessarily imposed by the numerical and other criteria, the Committee adopted the view that it is highly desirable that electoral boundaries be readily identifiable, both to individual electors and to the wider community. Accordingly, in developing this redistribution proposal, the Committee has sought to utilise, wherever practicable, either existing electoral boundaries or current and former local government boundaries,all such boundaries being readily identifiable, having previously been defined by reference to registered property boundaries, roads, waterways and other linear topographic features.

Suggestions and Comments

  1. When the period for the receipt of suggestions closed on 28 May 1999, the Committee had received seven suggestions. Copies of these were made available for perusal at the office of the Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania, and at divisional offices in Launceston and Burnie from 31 May 1999. In addition, photocopies of the suggestions were made available to members of the public.
  2. The Committee received one written comment relating to the suggestions by the close of the comments period on 11 June 1999.
  3. One of the suggestions confined itself to proposing a name change for Bass and is commented upon below. The other six suggestions predominantly focussed on solutions to rectify the imbalance in elector numbers that exists between the Divisions of Braddon and Lyons. The main issues centred upon whether the West Coast Local Government Area (LGA) or the Latrobe LGA (part or entire) should move from or remain within Lyons. The Kentish LGA was also proposed as an alternative LGA to be moved, but was not contemplated as a primary option within any of the suggestions. The single comment on the suggestions that was received also dealt with the ultimate placement of the West Coast LGA.
  4. In the three instances that references were made to the remaining three Divisions in the State, one suggested that, should an adjustment be made between Bass and Lyons, it would support the movement of the remainder of that part of the Tamar region that is currently contained within Lyons into Bass. The second stated specifically that there should be no changes made, as elector numbers show it to be unnecessary. The third proposed that boundary changes should only occur where it will not entail a significant shift of elector numbers.
  5. Clearly, the provision by the AEC of current and projected enrolment figures to interested parties facilitated the process, as most suggestions took account of the numerical criteria set down in the Act, although the community of interest criteria was consistently given greater weight than the other Section 66(3)(b) criteria, by most respondents.
  6. As required by section 64(4) of the Act, the Redistribution Committee considered all of the suggestions and the comment lodged.

Names of proposed Divisions

  1. Naming of federal Divisions has been the subject of a number of recommendations from Parliamentary Committees. The subject was dealt with most recently by the 1995 Inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. From these recommendations, there has developed a set of guidelines or conventions that have been used by Redistribution Committees. These guidelines were offered to interested persons in the advertising of this Redistribution.
  2. The Committee's deliberations have resulted in proposed Divisions that can be readily identified with the existing five Divisions. The Committee therefore has proposed the retention of the names of the existing Divisions. Of the seven suggestions received, only one advocated a change to the name of an existing Division, namely the Division of Bass. The Committee was not persuaded that a name change to the Division would be appropriate, particularly given the significant historical fact that a federal Division of Bass has been in existence in Tasmania since federation.

Technical procedures

  1. The Australian Electoral Commission maintains the electoral roll on the basis of alignment to CCDs, and thus is able to provide statistical data on enrolments and projected enrolments on this basis. Accordingly, in formulating its proposals, the Committee used the CCDs as its basic building block. The State is divided into 1 104 whole or part CCDs as used at the 1996 Population Census. The CCDs each have defined boundaries and are of differing sizes and shapes. Where the Committee considered that a particular CCD boundary was inappropriate for an electoral Division boundary the CCD was split to provide a more useful boundary.
  2. As an aid to the rapid development and testing of various boundary options, the Committee used the AEC Electoral Boundary Mapping System (EBMS) which was developed within the proprietary "MapInfo" software package. EBMS was also made available for public use.

General strategy

  1. The State is experiencing moderate to low levels of growth with the existing Divisions of Braddon (lowest) and Lyons (highest) appearing at the opposite extremes of the ranges of growth.
  2. The Committee is persuaded that there is no necessity to make any significant alterations to the existing boundaries for the Divisions of Bass, Denison and Franklin on the basis of any of the Section 66(3)(b) criteria. Some barely discernible variations may however be evident between the existing and proposed new boundaries. These changes are due to the fact that, since the last redistribution, LGA boundaries have been generally redefined so as to follow relevant property or registered parcel boundaries, thus minimising the possibility of future difficulties arising as a consequence of the bisection of individual properties.
  3. Following an examination of the broad trends, and mindful of the suggestions and comments received, and the criteria laid down in Section 66 of the Act, the Committee chose to achieve the requisite numerical tolerances between Braddon and Lyons by way of the transfer of the entire Latrobe LGA into Braddon from Lyons. As is the case with the other divisions, both Braddon and Lyons will also be affected by minor LGA boundary redefinitions.
  4. The Committee is particularly of the view that the community of interest between the Latrobe LGA and the Devonport area was more clearly identifiable than that which might exist between the West Coast LGA and the North-West generally. The latter being the main alternative option canvassed or opposed within suggestions received.
  5. Descriptions of the boundaries of each proposed Electoral Division appear on the enclosed maps.
REDISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE FOR TASMANIA
Bill Gray Alex Stanelos Christopher Rowe Arthur McHugh
Presiding Member Member

Hobart
August 1999

Statistical Summary

DETERMINATION OF QUOTA AT 14 APRIL 1999
Number of Divisions into which Tasmania is to be distributed 5
Number of electors enrolled in Tasmania 326 396
Quota for Tasmania 65 279
Permissible maximum number of electors (+10%) in a Division 71 806
Permissible minimum number of electors (-10%) in a Division 58 752
Projected number of electors in Tasmania at 30/6/2003 337 034
Average enrolment for Tasmania projected at 30/6/2003 67 407
103.5% of average enrolment projected at 30/6/2003 69 766
96.5% of average enrolment projected at 30/6/2003 65 048
Enrolment Projections Of Existing Divisions At 30 June 2003
Division No of CCDs (or part CCDs) Enrolment 14/4/1999 Estimate 30/6/2003
Bass 210 64 985 66 751
Braddon 206 61 693 62 595
Denison 200 66 267 67 936
Franklin 193 65 285 68 084
Lyons 295 68 166 71 668
Tasmania 1 104 326 396 337 034
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DIVISIONS
No Division Actual Var%(A) Projected Var%(P) Area(sq km)
1 Bass 64 985 -0.45 66 751 -0.97 7 229
2 Braddon 67 360 3.19 68 640 1.83 11 760
3 Denison 66 267 1.51 67 936 .78 221
4 Franklin 65 285 0.01 68 084 1.00 7 933
5 Lyons 62 499 -4.26 65 623 -2.65 40 717
Average 65 279   67 407   13 572
Sum 326 396   337 034   67 860
SUMMARY OF MOVEMENT OF ELECTORS BETWEEN DIVISIONS
Number of Electors remaining in their existing Division 320 729 98.26%
Number of Electors transferred to another Division 5 667 1.74%
TOTAL 326 396  

General description of the manner in which each proposed division has been constituted

  1. The tables in the following pages set out how each proposed Division is constituted and are arranged under Statistical Local Areas (SLAs). Each SLA comprises a number of CCDs that applied at the 1996 Population Census.
  2. The SLA is the most widely used unit in the presentation of census data and collectively covers the whole of Tasmania without gaps or overlaps. SLAs correspond, in the majority of cases, to Local Government Areas (LGAs). Where a particular LGA is substantially different from the general run of LGAs in terms of size and economic significance, the LGAs can be split into a number of SLAs. For reasons of availability of data, the SLAs used for this redistribution are those in place at the 1996 Census.
Tasmania – Proposed redistribution into electoral divisions 1999 – Proposed division 1 (Bass)
How Constituted Actual Enrolment
14 April 1999		 Projected Enrolment
30 June 2003
From existing Division of Bass SLAs of –    
Dorset (M) (part) 5 116 5 237
Flinders (M) 672 703
George Town (M) Pt A 3 780 3 965
George Town (M) Pt B 735 784
Launceston (C) Inner 179 161
Launceston (C) Pt B (part) 41 257 41 362
Launceston (C) Pt C 1 998 2 064
Meander Valley (M) Pt A (part) 3 824 4 421
West Tamar (M) Pt A (part) 7 424 8 054
Total from existing Division of Bass 64 985 66 751
Total for Proposed Division 64 985 66 751
Tasmania – Proposed redistribution into electoral divisions 1999 – Proposed division 2 (Braddon)
How Constituted Actual Enrolment
14 April 1999		 Projected Enrolment
30 June 2003
From existing Division of Braddon SLAs of –    
Burnie (C) Pt A 11 917 11 998
Burnie (C) Pt B 1 599 1 618
Central Coast (M) Pt A 12 692 13 058
Central Coast (M) Pt B 2 209 2 275
Circular Head (M) 5 490 5 597
Devonport (C) (part) 17 221 17 221
King Island (M) 1 225 1 234
Waratah/Wynyard (M) Pt A 7 708 7 912
Waratah/Wynyard (M) Pt B 1 632 1 682
Total from existing Division of Braddon 61 693 62 595
SLAs received from Division of Lyons    
Devonport (C) (part) 4 0
Latrobe (M) Pt A 5 153 5 547
Latrobe (M) Pt B 510 498
Total for Proposed Division 67 360 68 640
Tasmania – Proposed redistribution into electoral divisions 1999 – Proposed division 3 (Denison)
How Constituted Actual Enrolment
14 April 1999		 Projected Enrolment
30 June 2003
From existing Division of Denison SLAs of –    
Glenorchy (C) 30 952 31 978
Hobart (C) Inner 268 267
Hobart (C) Remainder 32 792 33 283
Kingborough (M) Pt A (part) 2 255 2 408
Total from existing Division of Denison 66 267 67 936
Total for Proposed Division 66 267 67 936
Tasmania – Proposed redistribution into electoral divisions 1999 – Proposed division 4 (Franklin)
How Constituted Actual Enrolment
14 April 1999		 Projected Enrolment
30 June 2003
From existing Division of Franklin SLAs of –    
Brighton (M) (part) 5 423 5 667
Clarence (C) (part) 33 917 34 654
Derwent Valley (M) Pt B (part) 0 0
Huon Valley (M) 8 978 9 511
Kingborough (M) Pt A (part) 15 215 16 339
Kingborough (M) Pt B 1 752 1 913
Total from existing Division of Franklin 65 285 68 084
Total for Proposed Division 65 285 68 084
Tasmania – Proposed redistribution into electoral divisions 1999 – Proposed division 5 (Lyons)
How Constituted Actual Enrolment
14 April 1999		 Projected Enrolment
30 June 2003
From existing Division of Lyons SLAs of –    
Break O'Day (M) 4 131 4 281
Brighton (M) (part) 2 437 2 982
Central Highlands (M) 1 733 1 680
Clarence (C) (part) 1 178 1 244
Derwent Valley (M) PT A 4 453 4 461
Derwent Valley (M) Pt B (part) 1 957 2 020
Dorset (M) (part) 23 32
Glamorgan/Spring Bay (M) 3 081 3 176
Kentish (M) 3 707 4 013
Launceston (C) Pt B (part) 206 233
Meander Valley (M) Pt A (part) 1 128 1 177
Meander Valley (M) Pt B 7 150 7 321
Northern Midlands (M) Pt A 4 948 5 271
Northern Midlands (M) Pt B 3 387 3 331
Sorell (M) Pt A 6 550 7 374
Sorell (M) Pt B 646 752
Southern Midlands (M) 3 955 4 187
Tasman (M) 1 572 1 671
West Coast (M) 3 826 3 553
West Tamar (M) Pt A (part) 5 200 5 533
West Tamar (M) Pt B 1 231 1 331
Total from existing Division of Lyons 62 499 65 623
Total for proposed Division of Lyons 62 499 65 623
SLAs transferred to Division of Braddon    
Devonport (C) part 4 0
Latrobe (M) Pt A 5 153 5 547
Latrobe (M) Pt B 510 498