Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix M of the Redistribution Committee’s report released on Friday 19 March 2021.

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 15 electoral divisions in Western Australia meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

Objections and comments on objections which have not been discussed below will be discussed in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is released. This section presents:

• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the names of electoral divisions
• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the placement of electoral divisions and divisional boundaries

Objections discussed below concern the:

• abolition of the Division of Stirling
• boundary of the proposed Division of Cowan
• boundary of the proposed Division of O’Connor
• boundary of the proposed Division of Pearce

The abolition of the Division of Stirling

Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – Rinaldo Ienco, OB9 – Steven Pitcher, OB11 – Martin Gordon, OB12 – Brenda Phipps, OB13 – Linda, OB20 – Wilma Clare Endall, Graham John Endall and Gary Malcolm Endall, OB21 – Sue, OB22 – WA Labor, OB27 – Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australian Division), OB29 – Lisa Thornton

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

Objections to the proposed redistribution advocated:

• support for the abolition of the Division of Stirling,
• acceptance of the abolition of the Division of Stirling,
• that the Division of Stirling should not be abolished and the Division of Pearce should be abolished instead, or
• did not dispute the abolition of a metropolitan division north of the Swan River.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that the majority of objections arguing against the abolition of the Division of Stirling did not provide alternatives as to which electoral division should be abolished. As such, the arguments offered were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. Further, the argument offered by one objector that a ‘newer’ electoral division should have been proposed for abolition by the Redistribution Committee ignores the fact that more recently created electoral divisions have often been situated in specific locations to accommodate areas of population and enrolment growth.

The augmented Electoral Commission 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.

Some objections to the proposed redistribution supported or did not dispute the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retire the name ‘Stirling’.

In the absence of arguments to the contrary, the augmented Electoral Commission considered that the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retire the name was sound and should stand unchanged.

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

The boundary of the proposed Division of Cowan

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Jacoba Everarda Tarry, OB3 – Dennis and Jenny Ryle, OB4 – Paul and Ann Harkins, OB7 – Heidi Gomez, OB11 – Martin Gordon, OB22 – WA Labor, OB27 – Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australian Division)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB2 – WA Labor

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: On the electoral division boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the Division of Cowan needed to gain electors in order to meet the numerical parameters required by the Electoral Act. As one of the electoral divisions adjoining the Division of Stirling, which the Redistribution Committee proposed for abolition, and the Division of Pearce, which was required to shed electors in order to meet the Electoral Act’s numerical parameters, substantial changes were proposed to the boundaries of the Division of Cowan by the Redistribution Committee.

Objections and comments on objections to the proposed redistribution advocated:

• support for the Redistribution Committee’s proposal
• changes should not be made to the boundaries of the Division of Cowan that existed at the start of the redistribution,
• retaining the existing boundary between the Divisions of Cowan and Pearce,
• retaining the suburbs of Bennett Springs, Darch, Kiara and/or Lockridge in the proposed Division of Cowan,
• retaining the suburbs of Becchboro, Kiara and Lockridge in the proposed Division of Perth,
• locating the City of Bayswater in its entirety in the proposed Division of Perth rather than splitting it between the proposed Divisions of Cowan and Perth, or
• placing most of the City of Stirling in the proposed Division of Cowan.

Arguments provided by those advancing these views concerned maintaining existing communities of interest and/or the representative efforts of the current Member for Cowan.

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 would have significant consequential effects on the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged, with the exception of the minor alignment detailed in Table 1 .

The boundary of the proposed Division of O’Connor

Objections referring to this matter: OB8 – Ryan Benjamin Spencer, OB14 – Shire of Wiluna, OB15 – Matthew Fisher, OB18 – Goldfields Voluntary Organisation of Councils, OB27 – Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australian Division)

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: On the electoral division boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the Division of O’Connor needed to gain electors in order to meet the numerical parameters required by the Electoral Act. The Redistribution Committee further noted that the electoral division, bordered as it is by the Great Australian Bight and the Northern Territory and South Australian borders, is restricted as to from where it can gain electors. Proposed alterations to the existing boundary of the electoral division were such that the proposed Division of O’Connor gained electors:

• from the Division of Canning: the Shire of Boddington,
• from the Division of Durack: the Shires of Bruce Rock, Cunderdin, Kellerberrin, Koorda, Merredin, Mount Marshall, Mukinbudin, Narembeen, Nungarin, Quairading, Tammin, Trayning, Westonia, Wyalkatchem and Yilgarn,
• from the Division of Forrest: the Shire of Nannup, and
• from the Division of Pearce: the Shire of Beverley.

Several objections to the proposed redistribution and submissions made to the public inquiry argued that the Shire of Wiluna should be located in the proposed Division of O’Connor and not in the proposed Division of Durack. Arguments favouring this change included:

• making this change would not result in either of the proposed Divisions of Durack or O’Connor failing to meet the required numerical parameters of the Electoral Act;
• the Shire of Wiluna shares many communities of interest with the proposed Division of O’Connor, including similar primary industries; and
• the proximity of the nearest major service centres, with Kalgoorlie, located in the proposed Division of O’Connor, being some 530 kilometres away by sealed road and Geraldton, located in the proposed Division of Durack, being more than 700 kilometres away and including unsealed road.

The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the Shire of Wiluna could be located in the proposed Division of O’Connor.  As this change would better reflect communities of interest, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by moving the Shire of Wiluna from the proposed Division of Durack to the proposed Division of O’Connor.

Other objections advocated:

• support for the addition of the Shires of Beverley, Boddington and Nannup, together with 15 of the Wheatbelt Shires, to the proposed Division of O’Connor,
• retaining the existing boundary between the Divisions of Cowan and Pearce,
• the Shires of Meekatharra and Sandstone be located in the proposed Division of O’Connor and not in the proposed Division of Durack,
• some or all of the Shires of Bridgetown-Greenhbushes, Boyup Brook, Collie, Manjimup and Nannup be located in the proposed Division of Forrest and not located in the proposed Division of O'Connor, and
• the Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup be located in the proposed Division of O’Connor.

The augmented Electoral Commission noted that those objections advocating for further changes to be made to the boundaries of the proposed Division of O’Connor did not provide strong arguments as to why the advocated changes should be made. Further, the alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate the changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects on the rest of the redistribution.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound, and
• the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged with the exception of the transfer of the Shire of Wiluna from the proposed Division of Durack to the proposed Division of O’Connor and some minor boundary alterations to align with local government area boundaries detailed in Table 1 .

The boundary of the proposed Division of Pearce

Objections referring to this matter: OB3 – Dennis and Jenny Ryle, OB4 – Paul and Ann Harkins, OB5 – Tom Newburn, OB6 – Melissa Newburn, OB7 – Heidi Gomez, OB8 – Ryan Benjamin Spencer, OB9 – Steven Pitcher, OB22 – WA Labor, OB25 – Shire of Chittering, OB28 – City of Swan

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: On the electoral division boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, a significant reduction in the number of electors in the Division of Pearce was needed for the numerical parameters required by the Electoral Act to be met. In addition, these boundaries saw the Division of Pearce share boundaries with two electoral divisions required to gain electors, the Divisions of Durack and O’Connor. The Redistribution Committee proposed altering the existing boundary of the electoral division such that the proposed Division of Pearce:

• transfer electors to:
  • the proposed Division of Durack – the Shires of Chittering, Gingin, Northam, Toodyay and York plus the localities of Bullsbrook, Walyunga National Park and Avon Valley National Park;
  • the proposed Division of Hasluck – the suburbs of Aveley, Baskerville, Belhus, Brabham, Brigadoon, Dayton, Ellenbrook, Henley Brook, Herne Hill, Millendon, The Vines, Upper Swan and West Swan, the balance of Middle Swan and Red Hill; and
  • the proposed Division of O’Connor – the Shire of Beverley, and
• gain electors from the Division of Cowan – the suburbs of Ashby, Darch, Cullacabardee, Gnangara, Hocking, Jandabup, Landsdale, Madeley, Pearsall, Sinagra, Tapping, Wangara and Wanneroo, plus part of Ballajura.

One objection to the proposed redistribution supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral division.

Another argued that the proposed boundary be amended to follow a pre-existing infrastructure boundary, the Tonkin Highway. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that while this would split the suburb of Lexia across two electoral divisions, it would create a stronger, more readily identifiable boundary that did not involve the movement of any electors. As such, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by making this amendment.

A number of objections to the proposed redistribution were in favour of altering the Redistribution Committee’s proposal by:

• the suburb of Wanneroo not becoming part of the proposed Division of Pearce,
• retaining some or all of the Shires of  Beverley, Chittering, Gingin, Northam and Toodyay in the Division of Pearce, and
• retaining some or all of the suburbs of Bullsbrook, Burns Beach and Kinross in the Division of Pearce.

The augmented Electoral Commission notes that these alterations were based on considerations of existing relationships between communities and the changing nature of some local government areas as a result of ongoing development.

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 would have significant consequential effects on the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged with the exception of the amendment to follow the Tonkin Highway discussed above and the alignment to follow the local government area boundary between the Shire of Chittering and the City of Wanneroo detailed in Table 1.