The augmented Electoral Commission for Tasmania's announcement of final names and boundaries of the five federal electoral divisions in Tasmania was made on Wednesday 27 September 2017. Read the augmented Electoral Commission's public announcement.

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

The augmented Electoral Commission’s previous announcement of a revised proposal of federal electoral divisions in Tasmania was made on Thursday 20 July 2017.

The numerical constraints of the redistribution process

The augmented Electoral Commission considered all further objections made to its revised 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-sections 66(3) and 66(3A) are:

• the number of electors in each electoral division shall, as far as practicable, not deviate from the projected enrolment quota at the projection time of 14 May 2021 by more than plus or minus 3.5 per cent. As far as practicable, the number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in Tasmania at the projection time of 14 May 2021 must therefore be between 74,289 and 79,677, and
• the number of electors in each electoral division shall not deviate from the current enrolment quota by more than plus or minus 10 per cent. The number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in Tasmania must be between 67,513 and 82,515.

Further 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

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusion on further objections

An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the majority of issues raised in further objections is presented on this page. A number of further objections were unable to be accepted by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in all electoral divisions in Tasmania meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.  The augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on further objections not presented on this page will be available in the augmented Electoral Commission's report. Not all of the further objections received have been referenced in the commentary below on specific conclusions.

The name of the proposed Division of Clark

Further objections referring to this matter: FOB1 – Bob Holderness-Roddam; FOB2 – Darren McSweeney; FOB4 – Rodney Croome; FOB7 – Dr John Bennett AM; FOB8 – Robin Banks; FOB9 – Michael Roe; FOB10 – Barry Holmes; FOB11 – Matthew Groom MP; FOB12 – Bohdan Bilinsky AM; FOB13 – Professor Richard Eccleston; FOB16 – Catherine Cowie; FOB18 – Lawrence Neasey; FOB19 – Andrew Wilkie MP; FOB20 – Helen Neasey; FOB21 – Australian Labor Party Tasmanian Branch

Augmented Electoral Commission’s conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission proposed renaming the Division of Denison to ‘Clark’ in recognition of the contribution Andrew Inglis Clark made to Australia’s political and legal systems.   

Further objections to the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal:

• supported the proposal to rename the electoral division ‘Clark’ in recognition of Andrew Inglis Clark,
• supported the proposal to rename the electoral division in recognition of Andrew Inglis Clark but advocated that the name should be ‘Inglis Clark’, or
• disagreed with the proposal to rename the electoral division and advocated for the retention of the name ‘Denison’.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered that Andrew Inglis Clark’s contributions to the political and legal systems have had a lasting and perpetual impact on Australia.  Altering the name of an electoral division which has been in place since 1903 is in no way intended to diminish the achievements of Sir William Thomas Denison.  Renaming the electoral division is a means of acknowledging an individual whose work is continuing to influence the Australia we know today.

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

The electoral division in which the Municipality of Dorset is to be located

Further objections referring to this matter: FOB2 – Darren McSweeney; FOB16 – Catherine Cowie

Augmented Electoral Commission’s conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission proposed locating the Municipality of Dorset in the proposed Division of Bass to better reflect existing communities of interest.

Further objections to the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal supported the location of the Municipality in the proposed Division of Bass.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that its revised proposal was sound and should stand unchanged.

The electoral division in which the Municipality of Flinders is to be located

Further objections referring to this matter: FOB2 – Darren McSweeney; FOB16 – Catherine Cowie

Augmented Electoral Commission’s conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission proposed locating the Municipality of Flinders in the proposed Division of Bass to better reflect existing communities of interest.

Further objections to the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal supported the location of the Municipality in the proposed Division of Bass.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that its revised proposal was sound and should stand unchanged.

The electoral division in which the Municipality of Meander Valley is to be located

Further objections referring to this matter: FOB2 – Darren McSweeney; FOB3 – Rhiannon Menegon; FOB5 – Donna Sargent; FOB6 – Dr Joanna Ellison; FOB14 – Jill Handley; FOB15 – Cr. Peter Kearney; FOB17 – Meander Valley Council; FOB21 – Australian Labor Party Tasmanian Branch; FOB22 – Michael Ferguson MP

Augmented Electoral Commission’s conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission proposed locating the entirety of the Municipality of Meander Valley in the proposed Division of Lyons.  The transfer of that portion of the Municipality of Meander Valley located in the Division of Bass to the proposed Division of Lyons would unite the Municipality in one federal electoral division.

Further objections to the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal opposed the location of the more urban parts of the Municipality in the proposed Division of Lyons due to their shared community of interests with Launceston.  Some further objections advocated for no changes to be made to the existing boundaries of the Division of Bass or for alternative boundaries.

The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the adoption of alternative boundaries could also result in community of interest concerns, and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.  Further, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that the small number of federal electoral divisions in Tasmania reduces the latitude available to determine the location of boundaries which meet the requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• its revised 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, and
• for these reasons, its revised proposal should stand unchanged.

The electoral division in which the Municipality of West Tamar is to be located

Further objections referring to this matter: FOB2 – Darren McSweeney; FOB15 – Cr. Peter Kearney; FOB16 – Catherine Cowie

Augmented Electoral Commission’s conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission proposed the Municipality of West Tamar, in its entirety, be located in the proposed Division of Bass. 

One further objection to the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal advocated leaving the Municipality split between the Divisions of Bass and Lyons.  Other further objections supported the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that its revised proposal was sound and should stand unchanged.