Appendices

Please note the following when reading tables in this report:

• percentages and calculated numbers have been rounded
• numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers

Appendix A: Legislative compliance table

The following table demonstrates the Committee’s compliance with the various redistribution provisions of the Electoral Act.

Appendix B: Operation of statutory requirements for the making of a proposed redistribution

Section 66 of the Electoral Act requires the Committee, in making its proposed redistribution of Western Australia, to abide by the following requirements:

• the Committee must ensure that the number of electoral divisions that Western Australia is to be divided into, is equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in Western Australia at the next general election, and
• the Committee must abide by the following requirements contained in section 66 of the Electoral Act:
  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;
        4. the physical features and area of the proposed Electoral Division; and
        5. 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.
  3. (A) 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).

These statutory requirements are expressed in a hierarchical order.

The purpose of paragraph 3(a) is suggested by its history. It has undergone some transformation since the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 stipulated that boundaries were to be drawn, as far as practicable, to achieve equal numbers of electors in each of a state’s divisions three-and-a-half years after a redistribution. By 1984 ‘it was observed that the three-and-a-half year rule had in some areas forced the adoption, on purely numerical grounds, of boundaries which took little account of perceived community of interest’.¹¹ Therefore, in 1987, the rule was relaxed to permit a measure of tolerance to plus or minus two per cent from average projected enrolment. Subsequently, the JSCEM concluded that:

the numerical criteria do not allow “due consideration”, in the words of the Act, to be given to the qualitative factors. Rather, the political parties and others attempting to frame electoral boundaries essentially find themselves engaged in a mathematical modelling exercise. In order to relax the enrolment requirements to that extent necessary to allow a realistic degree of flexibility the Committee recommends … that subsections 66(3)(a) and 73(4)(a) of the Electoral Act be amended, so as to extend the variation from average divisional enrolment allowed three-and-a-half years after a redistribution from two to 3.5 percent¹².

The JSCEM also, in the same report, refers to its recommended amendment as one that ‘would maintain substantial restrictions on malapportionment [and] would allow other legitimate policy objectives to be more effectively met’.

Paragraph 3(a) follows this recommendation. The terms of the recommendation, and the discussion which preceded it, make clear the purpose of paragraph 3(a), as it now stands, and how it was intended to interact with the other criteria set out in the sub-paragraphs of paragraph (b), to which also ‘due consideration’ must be given. The Committee has considered the suggestions and comments and made its proposed redistribution on this basis.

In summary, the primary criteria are to:

• endeavour to ensure that the number of electors in the proposed divisions are within a range of 3.5 per cent below or above the average divisional enrolment at the projection time, and
• ensure that current enrolments are within the range between 90 per cent and 110 per cent of the current enrolment quota.

The secondary criteria to be considered by the Committee are community of interests, means of communication and travel, physical features and area of proposed divisions. The Committee also considers the boundaries of existing divisions; however the Electoral Act stipulates that this criterion is subordinate to all other secondary criteria.

Appendix C: Public suggestions for the Western Australia federal redistribution

27 written suggestions were received.

Appendix D: Comments on suggestions for the Western Australia federal redistribution

16 written comments on suggestions were received.

Appendix E: Redistribution Committee’s response to themes contained in suggestions and comments on suggestions

S = suggestion received and CS = comment on suggestion received (refer to Appendix C and Appendix D for full list)

S = suggestion received and CS = comment on suggestion received (refer to Appendix C and Appendix D for full list)

Appendix F: Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions

Determining the names of federal electoral divisions is part of the process of conducting a federal redistribution within a state or territory.

The criteria used by redistribution committees to propose the names of electoral divisions, and used by the augmented Electoral Commission to determine the names of electoral divisions, have previously been the subject of recommendations from the JSCEM. From these recommendations, a set of guidelines were developed as a point of reference only.

It should be noted that redistribution committees and the augmented Electoral Commission are in no way bound by the guidelines.

Naming after persons

In the main, divisions should be named after deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their country.

When new divisions are created, the names of former Prime Ministers should be considered.

Federation division names

Every effort should be made to retain the names of original federation divisions.

Geographical names

Locality or place names should generally be avoided, but in certain areas the use of geographical features may be appropriate (e.g. Perth).

Aboriginal names

Aboriginal names should be used where appropriate and as far as possible existing Aboriginal divisional names should be retained.

Other criteria

The names of federal divisions should not duplicate existing state districts.

Qualifying names may be used where appropriate (e.g. Melbourne Ports, Port Adelaide).

Names of divisions should not be changed or transferred to new areas without very strong reasons.

When two or more divisions are partially combined, as far as possible the name of the new division should be that of the old division which had the greatest number of electors within the new boundaries. However, where the socio-demographic nature of the division in question has changed significantly, this should override the numerical formula.

Appendix G: Description of the method used to calculate the areas of electoral divisions

The AEC maintains the electoral roll on the basis of alignment to Statistical Area 1s (SA1s), and is able to provide statistical data on enrolments and projected enrolments at this level. Accordingly, in formulating its proposals, the Committee utilised Western Australia’s 5 599 SA1s as its basic building blocks. The SA1s have defined boundaries and are of differing population, area sizes and shapes. In a small number of cases where the Committee considered that a particular SA1 boundary did not form a strong electoral boundary, the SA1 was split along a stronger boundary.

The indicative area of each proposed electoral division has been calculated by aggregating the area of:

• all land-based SA1s,
• any parts of land-based SA1s, and
• any lakes, ponds, rivers, creeks, wetlands or marshes not already included in land-based SA1s that are contained within the divisional boundary of each electoral division.

Areas are calculated on the Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94) spheroid using the AEC’s Electoral Boundary Mapping System (EBMS), developed within the ‘MapInfo Professional’ software package.

The Committee used EBMS to model and assess various boundary options. This system was also made available for public use during the comments period, and will be made available during the objections period at the office of the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia in Perth.

Appendix H: Timetable for the remainder of the redistribution process

Appendix I: Statistical summaries of proposed divisions

Previous redistribution reports have set out how each proposed division is constituted from existing divisions, arranged under Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) which broadly corresponded with LGAs.

The statistical summaries provided below are arranged under SA2s. Each SA2 is comprised of a grouping of SA1s, which form the base building blocks for the redistribution.

It is important to note that SA2s do not necessarily align to LGA boundaries. A description of how SA2s differ from SLAs is available on the ABS website.

11. JSCEM’s Report on the Effectiveness and Appropriateness of the Redistribution Provisions of Parts III and IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (December 1995) paragraph 4.3
12. ibid. paragraph 4.11