Menu lock

The Australian Electoral Commission has unveiled the proposed new boundaries for Tasmania. More to follow.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

35 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Scotty
Guest

Well as a local of the eastern shore in Franklin i can say i don’t know many who have strong concerns about the shape of franklins borders. Maybe the odd jealous swipe at Kingston for a perceived unfair treatment. Though i will concede that we may have more in common with the area around Sorell than The Huon valley. This divide may become problematic in future if these areas continue to grow as quickly as they have.

On the same note i would worry if the status quo was changed then it might give CFMEU Labor even more influence within Tasmania which i personally think is strong enough already.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

Franklin is pretty bizarre; there is really no community of interest between the Huon/Channel area and the eastern shore; perhaps the South Arm area has characters intermediate between them to make some kind of continuum out of it but that’s about it.

However, it’s really hard to find a better solution. If you put the Huon/Channel in Lyons you end up with the Huon/Channel area as an effectively disjunct arm of Lyons – even if it isn’t spatially disjunct, it may as well be since it is only connected to the rest of the electorate by obscure dirt roads.

If you put the Huon/Channel in Denison then you end up having to give some of the Greater Hobart area to Lyons for population balance reasons which makes Lyons a semi-urban semi-rural mess.

At least given the small size of Denison the disconnection between the bits of Franklin isn’t very large in spatial and travel time terms.

Antony Green
Guest

Pseph, the arrangement with Franklin has been in existence since 1903. I suspect that if the locals had a concern about Franklin’s fragmented state, we would have heard about it by now.

David Walsh
Guest

J-D – Give it a rest. This is beyond tedious.

Pseph – Franklin is contiguous through the D’Entrecasteaux Channel.

Pseph
Guest

Err, Franklin.. without the g

Pseph
Guest

I’m quite surprised that Frankling still remains a fragmented seat… no requirement for contiguity, which is interesting. Not sure what the community of interest is between the Huon Valley and Eastern suburbs of Hobart either… anyway, that’s my two cents.

J-D
Guest

Adam, are you asking what the point of the guidelines is in theory, or what the point of them is in practice? If you mean ‘in theory’, then I don’t know the answer. The practical answer, though, is empirically clear. The guidelines are used to provide justification for dismissing public suggestions which the commissioners don’t want to accept and which also conflict with the guidelines. When the commissioners themselves want to do something which conflicts with the guidelines, they simply don’t refer to them.

Adam
Guest

What’s the point in guidelines if they’re to be ignored? I agree the Commissioners are not *required* to preserve federation seat names, or they wouldn’t have been able to abolish Gwydir. But the point of guidlelines is to guide people. The Commissioners are supposed to be guided not to abolish federation seat names.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

typo – “Labor” for “Lanor” in last para

Kevin Bonham
Guest

I’ve noticed some amount of jumping the gun in the media about what are at this stage still only draft changes. It is worth bearing in mind, for example, that the Tasmanian boundary changes to Legislative Council divisions ended up being quite significantly different in some cases following the public comment period on the proposal. I don’t know how often changes in response to public comment on the draft occur at federal level however.

Thanks to Antony for the nice work on the state swings (saved me some effort!). Kim Booth’s current margin over Labor in Bass is 0.224% of the valid vote so one would have to go to a second decimal place to see whether the proposed redistribution (which transfers 0.1% from Green to Labor on Antony’s figures, ie a loss of 0.2%) might make his seat notionally Labor or not. Either way there is virtually nothing in it.

Lanor currently holds three in Franklin by 1.6%. The proposed redistribution removes 0.9% from that buffer although it also adds 0.4% to the Greens, some of which returns to Labor. So the third seat would remain notionally Labor’s – however with the loss of Paul Lennon and the uncertain future of Paula Wriedt (who only just held her seat last time) Labor is facing a profile crisis in this seat and I will be extremely surprised if it holds three in Franklin at the next election.

Shriking pipe
Guest

Regarding the Federation Seat Names

A good example of this would be the merger of Wakefield and Bonython in SA in 2004

There were more electors from Bonython in the new seat but the Committee went with Wakefield – a Federation seat (or 1903 seat in SA’s case)

J-D
Guest

Adam in Canberra Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am

… the commissioners are supposed to preserve federation seat names if possible. …

No they aren’t.

http://aec.gov.au/Electorates/Electoral_DPM/Guideline.htm

It should be noted that neither Redistribution Committees nor augmented Electoral Commissions are in any way bound by the guidelines

Couldn’t be clearer, could it?

David Walsh
Guest

I guess my point was that the Mersey hospital is still a potential pork-barrel target for the voters of Braddon. Albeit a slightly reduced one.

But I take your point about the north-west having a larger community of interest than can fit in one electorate.

Antony Green
Guest

David, I think your extrapolation from my joke about LaTrobe hospital to a community interest argument about the boundary between Lyons and Braddon is funnier than the original joke. I note West Coast Council is thoroughly happy to have been transferred back into Braddon, but something has to come out if that happens.

LaTrobe Council has only been in Braddon since 2001 and is the obvious candidate to come out. I presume the residents of Braddon will just go back to having the community of interest with LaTrobe hospital that they used to have before 2001. I’m not aware they used to be turned back at the electoral boundary, though perhaps there is a local Tasmanian version of the League of Gentleman roaming the northern plans of Tasmania intoning “This is a local hospital for local people”.

Adam in Canberra
Guest

Braddon has now resumed its historic boundaries – the old seat of Darwin/Braddon always included the West Coast (which used to be called “the Gibraltar of Labour”), which was how King O’Malley used to win it.

I agree that a seat named for Inglis Clark would be good, but Denison has existed since 1903 and the commissioners are supposed to preserve federation seat names if possible. (Although you wouldn’t know it they way they quite unnecessarily abolished Gwydir.) The only Tas seat names which don’t date from 1903 are Braddon and Lyons. Tasmanians will just have to breed faster until they qualify for a sixth seat.

David Walsh
Guest

I hate when I spot errors only after I have posted.

CORRECTION:

‘Moving Bridgewater from Lyons into Franklin…’

should read

‘Moving Bridgewater from Franklin into Lyons…’

David Walsh
Guest

There are more changes than I expected here.

With all the old electorates except Franklin within tolerance, my expectation was that a southward expansion of Denison might be the only change.

They have made precisely that change, so a big tick there. The modest expansion of Bass also makes plenty of sense.

The other changes I find less convincing. Moving Bridgewater from Lyons into Franklin may make sense in numbers terms, in that it gets both divisions closer to parity. But it’s not strictly necessary according to the figures, and it can’t be a good thing to have more of suburban Hobart in Lyons.

Even more odd is the chopping and changing of the Lyons-Braddon boundary. Antony’s point about the Mersey hospital is amusing, until you realise all those Devonport residents who use the hospital are still in Braddon. (Community of interest anyone?)

These are two changes that could see being reversed. Below I’ve calculated how the numbers fall. I’m using the projected figures, because the requirements are tighter (+/- 3.5% tolerance). Hopefully I haven’t goofed.

As proposed:

Braddon 74,041 (+1.4%)
Franklin 71,877 (-1.5%)
Lyons 73,272 (+0.4%)

a) Reversing the Braddon/Lyons changes

* moves 7768 from the proposed Braddon back into to Lyons
* moves 7257 from the proposed Lyons back into Braddon, thus restoring the old Braddon

Braddon 73,530 (+0.7%)
Lyons 73,783 (+1.1%)

b) Moving Bridgewater back into Franklin

* moves 2631 from the proposed Lyons back into Franklin

Franklin 74,508 (+2.1%)
Lyons 70,641 (-3.2%)

c) A combination of a) and c)

Braddon – per a)
Franklin – per b)
Lyons 71,152 (-2.5%)

Antony Green
Guest

Shane, I’ve already changed the Lyons figure. That’s a number of transcription errors I’ve made using the blogging software provided to me. It unfortunately won’t let me cut and paste out of Word or Excel.

Antony Green
Guest

Ok ok. It actually wasn’t a calculation problem at all. I typed the wrong original margin for Stirling into the blog. Now fixed.

rod
Guest

Sorry Shane

I had to post it after seeing Antony’s comment.

“I’ll check Stirling after I’ve done the WA Election, the NSW Local Government elections and the two Federal by-elections.”

wpDiscuz