Objection Number 2 Martin Gordon 5 pages Tasmanian secretariat Phone (03) 6235 0503 Email [email protected] The Committee Objection I wish to make an objection to the proposals of the Redistribution Committee for Tasmania’s proposals. I had earlier made a submission and commented on other submissions. Below I have comments on the individual components of the committees and proposals and my critique of the committees logic. Several aspects of their approach are reasonable, whilst several seem inconsistent when compared with each other. Maintaining local government areas as whole - is selectively applied, for instance to West Tamar and Dorset Councils, but not to Meander Council. Whilst existing boundaries are maintained (Denison and Franklin) but significant changes are made without sufficient explanation to parts of Bass and Lyons. Braddon The Committee has chosen the option which is agreed in full by a large number of submitters (including myself), in part by others and which complies with the requirements of the redistribution, and produces a outcome of closeness to quota. The maps with local government areas, significant geographic features and population centres and means of communication bring you to an obvious conclusion. As a result I am entirely in agreement with the committees proposals! Bass and Lyons There is considerable similarity between my submission and the committee proposals with regards to Lyons and Bass. But, I was surprised that the Dorset Council and Flinders Island were transferred from Bass to Lyons and that Meander Council was not united in Lyons to enable the generally agreed incorporation of rest of West Tamar Council in Bass. The committee document is lengthy and its proposals are not argued coherently, but rely heavily on references to proposals and comments that support their final position (or contention). However as public servants (that they all are, and like I was) they have not produced a compelling submission which spells out options, outlines issues and makes its recommendations on the most pertinent facts, leading to the decision maker to their obvious decision, ie to agree with the recommendation. The committee refers occasionally to the relevant considerations but not as to why one option was preferred over another, which is the whole point of a good submission. West Tamar is presently split between Bass and Lyons. Its incorporation in Bass was a common proposition of submitters, it also has strong links to Launceston and strong community of interest links etc. But reuniting the entire Council was a compelling logic. With transferring Dorset Council and Flinders Island (and numerous other islands that are spread around Bass Strait and nearly reach to Victoria!) there is scarce justification in evidence for this very significant change. For context, consider these consider points: These north eastern and Bass Strait Islands electors have been located in Bass since 1903, when Bass stretched down the east coast to Long Point (ie south of Fingal and St Mary’s); The various island groups such as Hogan Group, Curtis Group and Kent Group of islands are actually in some cases closer to Wilsons Promontory in Victoria than to Tasmania itself. Flinders Island commercially is linked to the north coast and Launceston, it is not really connected to the east coast in a community of interest sense at all. Areas such as Scottsdale link commercially, economically and in community of interest terms to Launceston. Areas such as Prospect and Hadspen appear to have only relatively recently been included in Bass (these are incidentally in Meander Council). Some proposals argued that the entire north coast of Tasmania should be encompassed in two Divisions, this committee proposed split still leaves that as three. Arguably this split is more unwieldy that at present. Lyons as proposed will stretch from nearly two thirds of the way across Bass Strait to the southern tip of the Tasman Peninsula. The Federal Member for Lyons operates his electorate office in Brighton in the southern portion of the Division (as it is presently or proposed). There are many regional electorates that have awkward to site electorate office decisions, and I do not begrudge the MP’s decision to have his office in Brighton at all. The committee has proposed a further expansion of the area of Lyons which is unnecessary. The committee has proposed an expansion of the area of Lyons adding electors with scant interest with the existing Division of Lyons, and the additional electors have a much stronger connection with their existing Division (Bass). To make the elector numbers add up, I proposed that the portion of Meander Council currently in Bass be transferred to Lyons. Again like with West Tamar reuniting both portions of a council made sense in terms of community of interest and numerical requirements. Whilst an argument could be made that maintaining a portion of Meander Council in Bass, it should be weighed against the consider points above. The choice is if you include West Tamar in Bass you have to chose between Dorset/Flinders Island, or the portion of Meander Council (noting most of the Council is currently in Lyons)? I chose retaining Dorset in Bass due to community of interest, geographical logic, and communications link the north east to Launceston much more strongly than the link to the east and south of the state in Lyons. Conclusion The committee has chosen an unnecessary split of the Meander Council area over the maintenance of a long term arrangement of Bass that has seen the northern eastern portion of Tasmania in the same Division as Launceston, and has existed since 1903. The committees have chosen to attach the most north easterly portion of the state and its adjacent islands to the most southerly portion of the state. The distance for these electors to contact their proposed representative in the southerly town of Brighton is the remotest connection possible for these people. For the people in Bass Strait Islands the distance and physical difficulty is significantly greater than for contact with the Bass centered Launceston. I believe the Committee has failed to meet considerations about communication, community of interest, and have possibly chosen the worst option for maintenance of existing boundaries (splitting Meander Council) in making their proposed changes. I would urge the proposals be changed to place the entire Meander Council in Lyons and the entire Dorset Council and Flinders Island and the other Bass Strait Islands in Bass. This revision is numerically possible and meets the redistribution considerations far better than the committee has proposed. Clark (Denison) and Franklin Renaming Denison as Clark Firstly the naming of the current Division of Denison has been contentious for sometime. The committee proposed the maintenance of the existing name for not entirely convincing reasons. Governor Denison was no doubt a worthy public official of his era, but in terms of contribution to the state of Tasmania and the Australian nation I think Andrew Inglis-Clark has had far greater impact. The most persuasive submitter in favour of the renaming was unsurprisingly The Hon Michael Kirby. He set out the considerable impact that Clark had on the life of his state, and also this nation through his contribution to our Constitution, as well as the electoral system (we know as Hare-Clark), which is seen as fair, representative and counter to the excesses of majoritarianism. THe local federal MP Andrew Wilkie is similarly supportive of the name change to Clark. It is a very rare thing for a sitting MP to support the change of the name of their Division. Living as I do in another Hare-Clark jurisdiction (the ACT), I appreciate the nature of the reform he proposed and also the considerable impact he had on Tasmanian life and also our nations constitution. All this said, Clark seems an entirely reasonable and honourable man to honour with the naming of a Federal Division. You could do far, far worse. I would urge the revision of the committees proposals to honour Clark as the great Tasmanian he is. This would be particularly apt if some consequential changes are made to the boundaries between these existing Divisions, rather than the minor adjustment the committee propose. Denison and Franklin Both Divisions need to be considered together, as any changes to one directly affect the other. I have no issue with the boundaries proposed between Franklin and Lyons, they reflect communities of interest, numerical considerations and communications. In defining the changes to Denison the committee prefer they only refer to in the text (paras 111- 117) to those that support that position. At Appendix F there is a table which provides some clarity around the respective positions of submissions and comments on various propositions the committee have or have not taken. Some of the representations of what submissions or comments say is in some cases misleading. I have included below (in italics) my comments on submissions in respect of Clark (Denison) which says in respect of the Liberal Party submission on Denison: “Should the committee prefer to maintain broadly the western shore urban Denison (or Clark) the Liberal Party suggestion for use of a continuous road boundary of a highway is quite reasonable and is numerically viable, and should be adopted.” However if you read my comments in full and that part of my submission relating to Clark (Denison) it is quite evident that I prefer the significant change option for Clark (Denison) and Franklin as does Jeff Waddell. I will quote myself from my comments on submissions referring to my preference for a significant reform, as well as renaming of Denison: The case of Denison (or Clark as it may become) is an instance of where reform is proposed by a few (Gordon and Waddell) whilst the more conventional approach (un-Clark-like) is to maintain existing boundaries in large part…… I had canvassed in 2009 the idea of a reducing the awkward split of Franklin.