1.2 Reasons for the determination made by the augmented Electoral Commission for South Australia (cont.)

Consideration of the Redistribution Committee's proposal and of the objections, comments and arguments presented at the Inquiry

The Redistribution Committee's proposal

29. In its report, 2011 Proposed Redistribution of South Australia into Electoral Divisions, which is provided on the enclosed DVD (available on request), the Redistribution Committee carefully considered the public suggestions and comments together with the statutory criteria specified in the Electoral Act.
30. The Redistribution Committee noted that at least seven of the 11 federal electoral divisions in South Australia required change in order to meet the numerical criteria set out in the Electoral Act.
31. The Redistribution Committee's general strategy was to supplement divisions with low projected enrolment with electors from adjacent divisions with high projected enrolment. From this point, the Committee moved to align the enrolment numbers in the remainder of the state, proposing that divisions within the acceptable projected enrolment range be used to adjust adjoining divisions that were not within range and could not logically be addressed otherwise. In making its proposal, the Redistribution Committee sought to maintain or improve communities of interest, produce clear boundaries and reflect the views expressed in the public suggestions and comments.
32. The Division of Makin, with the state's lowest projected enrolment, a lower than average projected enrolment growth rate, and bordering the Division of Port Adelaide, which needed to lose electors, was identified as a logical starting point for the redistribution.
33. The Redistribution Committee's proposal transferred the eastern area of the Division of Port Adelaide into the Division of Makin. Part of the suburb of Seaton was then moved from the Division of Port Adelaide to the Division of Hindmarsh. Port Adelaide then needed to gain electors and this was achieved through the transfer of the southern area of the Division of Wakefield into the Division of Port Adelaide. The Committee continued to progressively adjust the boundaries so that each division in the state contained the required number of electors.
34. The Redistribution Committee's proposal united the towns of Lyndoch, Williamstown and Sandy Creek into the Division of Wakefield, moved the McLaren Vale wine region from an outer metropolitan to a rural division, transferred the suburb of Aberfoyle Park to the Division of Boothby, and created stronger boundaries for the divisions of Adelaide, Boothby and Sturt.
35. The Redistribution Committee's proposal was notified and public objections were invited in accordance with section 68 of the Electoral Act. Subsequently, the augmented Electoral Commission, as required by section 72 of the Electoral Act, considered the three objections and four comments on objections lodged in response to the proposal, and the submission presented at the public inquiry into those objections.
36. The main issue of contention raised in the objection phase was the proposed change to the Barossa Council. The public submissions offered a range of views and suggested different approaches for the Barossa Council area.
37. There were a small number of other matters subject to objection.
38. In some cases the objections expressed support for aspects of the Redistribution Committee's proposal.
39. The augmented Electoral Commission carefully deliberated on each of the areas subject to objection, and upon the matter of the boundaries and names of the electoral divisions into which the state was to be distributed. The augmented Electoral Commission has concluded that the Redistribution Committee's proposal, as detailed in its report of 12 August 2011, shall be adopted without change.
40. State-wide maps that illustrate the boundaries as determined by the augmented Electoral Commission are enclosed with this report. Maps of each federal electoral division in South Australia are provided in the enclosed DVD (available on request).

Consideration of public submissions by the augmented Electoral Commission

Objections to the proposal for the Barossa Council

41. Two objections opposed the Redistribution Committee's proposal to place the Barossa Council in three divisions (Barker, Mayo and Wakefield), instead contending that communities of interest would be better served by situating the Council in one or, at most, two divisions. One objection, from the Barossa Council, argued for the Council to be located entirely in the Division of Wakefield, while the other objection sought to split the Council between the divisions of Mayo and Barker. The third objection offered a slightly different approach to the Committee's proposal, while still maintaining the split between three divisions.
42. The comments on objections generally supported the sentiment of uniting the Barossa Council into one division, while acknowledging the numerical impediments to achieving such an outcome. One comment maintained that the Council should be united in Wakefield. Another reiterated a preference for the Council to be split between Mayo and Barker, while two comments endorsed the Redistribution Committee's proposed boundaries for this area.
43. At the public inquiry in Adelaide, the augmented Electoral Commission heard evidence that the Barossa Council saw some strategic benefit in having at least some of its area located in the Division of Wakefield, in accordance with the proposal, notwithstanding a preference to be located wholly in that division. The Barossa Council representative indicated that, on balance, the Redistribution Committee's proposal was preferred over the status quo, which has the Council split between Mayo and Barker.
44. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the objections, albeit small in number, presented diverse views about the proposed boundaries without any consensus as to an alternative approach.
45. In light of the range of views submitted, the augmented Electoral Commission explored a number of options that might address the concerns raised, particularly about communities of interest.
46. Firstly, the augmented Electoral Commission assessed the feasibility of uniting the Barossa Council in one division, specifically within Wakefield, Barker or Mayo. However, each approach considered by the augmented Electoral Commission required significant consequential adjustments to other electoral divisions, creating disruption to other established communities of interest and electors, in order to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that the weight of argument to unite the Barossa Council in one division did not justify such major changes to the overall proposal.
47. The augmented Electoral Commission then reviewed options to put the Barossa Council in two divisions rather than three, noting that the Council was already split between the divisions of Barker and Mayo. Again, the augmented Electoral Commission found that the impacts of these options on other electoral divisions were less than ideal in terms of levels of disruption to electors and the potentially negative consequences for communities of interest outside the Barossa Council area.
48. In reaching its decision, the augmented Electoral Commission reflected upon the range of different outcomes sought by the relatively small number of public objections. It also noted the objections included some support for the Redistribution Committee's proposed approach. Further, the augmented Electoral Commission was cognisant of the significant flow-on effects of implementing some of the changes suggested in the objections to ensure that the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act were satisfied.
49. On balance, and given the evidence before it, the augmented Electoral Commission agreed that the Redistribution Committee's proposal for the Barossa Council was sound and would stand unchanged. The objections were, therefore, not upheld.

Objection to the proposed boundary between Port Adelaide and Wakefield

50. The Redistribution Committee proposed that 8 067 projected electors be transferred from the Division of Wakefield to the Division of Port Adelaide, as detailed in its report of 12 August 2011. One objection was received about this proposal. The objection, restated in a comment, countered that 3 000 of those electors in the Salisbury area should remain in Wakefield for community of interest reasons, to improve projected enrolment numbers and to minimise elector disruption. The objection did not recommend a specific approach to achieve this outcome. In response, two comments were received supporting the original stance taken by the Redistribution Committee and another opposed the objection.
51. The objection about transferring 3 000 fewer electors in the Salisbury area was premised on the need to supplement the Division of Wakefield should the Barossa Council be moved from Wakefield. As the objection to partially transfer the Barossa Council out of the Division of Wakefield was not upheld, the transfer of electors from the Division of Port Adelaide to supplement any loss to Wakefield became unnecessary. That said, the augmented Electoral Commission reviewed a number of options whereby the Salisbury area was split as suggested by the objection. However it found no compelling community of interest case or numerical reasons for making this change to the proposal.
52. The augmented Electoral Commission decided, therefore, that the objection not be upheld.

Objection about uniting the Wakefield District Council within the Division of Wakefield

53. One objection advocated uniting the Wakefield District Council within the Division of Wakefield. The Redistribution Committee's proposal retains the Council in its pre-redistribution location spanning the divisions of Grey and Wakefield.
54. The augmented Electoral Commission saw merit in the notion of uniting the Wakefield District Council. However it was not convinced that the suggested change was warranted on the basis of the arguments presented in the objection. It also noted that the move created a narrow land corridor, which had the potential to affect transport access within the Division of Grey.
55. After deliberating, the augmented Electoral Commission agreed to support the Redistribution Committee's proposal to leave the Wakefield District Council unchanged.
56. Therefore the objection was not upheld.

Objection to the proposed boundary between Hindmarsh and Port Adelaide

57. In response to public suggestions, the Redistribution Committee's proposal shifted the boundary between the divisions of Hindmarsh and Port Adelaide east from Frederick Road to Tapleys Hill Road and north from Grange Road to West Lakes Boulevard, moving part of the suburb of Seaton in order to balance elector numbers.
58. One objection suggested extending this proposed boundary further north to Old Port Road from West Lakes Boulevard, bringing the suburb of Royal Park into the Division of Hindmarsh. The augmented Electoral Commission acknowledged that Hindmarsh has the state's lowest projected enrolment growth rate and could accommodate additional electors. However the augmented Electoral Commission did not believe that this argument, of itself, warranted relocating a further 2 057 projected electors, particularly given the emphasis on minimising elector movement that emerged during the public suggestion phase.
59. The objection was not upheld.

Objections to the proposed boundary between Divisions of Adelaide and Sturt

60. The Redistribution Committee's proposal introduced a small change to the boundary between the divisions of Adelaide and Sturt to unite the entire Walkerville Council in one division (Adelaide), which was recommended in a public submission. The proposed boundary follows Fife Street and the River Torrens.
61. In response it had been suggested, in an objection and a supporting comment, that Ascot Avenue and Lower Portrush Road would present a better and clearer boundary line than Fife Street and the River Torrens.
62. As the objections noted, this change would split the Walkerville Council, contrary to community of interest arguments put forward during the public suggestion phase of the redistribution. The augmented Electoral Commission observed that it would also split the suburbs of Vale Park and Marden across two divisions whereas the Redistribution Committee's proposal places the suburb of Vale Park entirely in the Division of Adelaide and the suburb of Marden completely in the Division of Sturt.
63. In the augmented Electoral Commission's view, the case for retaining Fife Street and part of the River Torrens as the boundary is sustainable on the grounds that it delivers community of interest benefits. Fife Street, while not a major arterial road, represents both the suburb and local government boundaries and is a clearly identifiable line.
64. On this basis, the objection was not upheld.

Objection to the proposed boundary between Boothby and Mayo

65. One objection was lodged about the proposed boundary between the divisions of Mayo and Boothby. The objection claimed that moving the whole suburb and locality of Coromandel Valley into the Division of Boothby was logical and would unite the locality, which currently is split between the divisions of Boothby and Mayo.
66. A comment subsequently opposed this objection, claiming it would jeopardise the strong community of interest and numerical arguments underpinning the Redistribution Committee's proposal, with which it agreed. The comment also cited the 'strong support in several public suggestions' for the Committee's proposal in this area.
67. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the Coromandel Valley move could be achieved numerically, but would require compensating adjustments to a number of other divisions to ensure the requirements of the Electoral Act were met. On balance, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded that the weight of argument did not sufficiently justify the changes as suggested by the objection.
68. The objection about transferring the Coromandel Valley was not upheld.