Comment on objection number 2 Bob Holderness-Roddam 3 pages Tasmanian secretariat Phone (03) 6235 0503 Email [email protected] TO: The Australian Electoral Commission (Attn. Redistribution Secretariat) Ground Floor, 2 Salamanca Square HOBART The Australian Electoral Commission (Attn. Redistribution Secretariat) GPO Box 520, HOBART, TAS., 7001 [email protected] Comment upon objections to the proposed Electoral Redistribution for Tasmania and Division names Monday, 5 June 2017 Comment on Objections Denison electorate name change OB1 Darren McSweeney Opposes Opposes the change of name from Denison to Clark or to Inglis Clark, unless there are major boundary changes. This clearly overlooks the considerable variation in Denison boundaries since the initial (1903) distribution. I see no merit in his argument. OB2 Martin Gordon Supports Advocates strongly for the change in name to Clark or to Inglis Clark. This is in striking contrast to his earlier opposition to such a name change! Points out the strong support of the Hon. Michael Kirby, a highly regarded former member of the High Court, and of the current Federal member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie MP. OB3 Jeff Waddell Foreshadowed support Although not listed as an objection covering renaming Denison, I note with interest that Mr Waddell will put forward his proposed boundaries at the next redistribution, and could support the renaming of Denison at that stage! OB4 Bob Holderness-Roddam Supports I don’t believe that I have to repeat the very strong arguments in support of recognising Andrew Inglis Clark’s magnificent legacy, given that the initial report from the Redistribution Committee agreed that “Andrew Inglis Clark made a significant contribution to Australian society and naming an electoral division after him would provide an appropriate recognition of that contribution … .” It seems to me that the Redistribution Committee then went in search of excuses for not renaming the Denison Division. The principal reason given by those opposing the change was based on the lack of major changes to the current Division boundary – I now point out that the maps attached to my submission clearly show the very considerable variations in the Denison Division’s boundaries since the 1903 distribution! This cannot be used as an excuse for retaining the current name. OB6 Margaret and Henry Reynolds Support This submission strongly advocates for renaming the Division of Denison. They are both well qualified to comment. Margaret Reynolds is a former ALP Senator for Queensland, whilst Professor Henry Reynolds is a highly regarded academic historian who regularly addresses learned societies regarding Clark’s legacy! They must not be ignored. OB7 Dr Peter Jones Support Dr Peter Jones was an early proponent for the change in name from Denison to Clark, in a letter to The Mercury on 4 November 2007, in recognition of the tremendous contribution that Andrew Inglis Clark made to public life in Tasmania, to mark the 100th. anniversary of Clark’s (premature) death. So far as I am aware, this change in electorate name was first promoted by the late former Premier W.A. ‘Billy’ Nielson in a Hobart Mercury article on Monday 27 August 1984. OB9 Rodney Croome Support Mr Croome’s comments are an excellent summary of the case for renaming the electorate to Clark or to Inglis Clark. His quote from the Hobart Mercury at the time of Clark’s death further indicates the considerable recognition of Clark’s lifelong contribution to Tasmania and to Australia: "The name of Andrew Inglis Clark deserves to be remembered...with a tenderness and regard which few other public men have been able to so justly claim at the hands of their fellow countrymen." OB11 Australian Labor Party, Tasmanian Branch Support A well-researched submission that strongly supports the proposed Division name change to Inglis Clark. Summary Eight of the eleven comments dealt with the proposal to rename the Division of Denison to either Inglis Clark or to Clark. Only one of these comments could be said to oppose the renaming. The only reason given is the lack of boundary changes for the Division of Denison. My submissions have dealt with this in some detail, including the maps showing all the different boundaries for Denison since the 1903 distribution. I submit that these illustrate that Denison has had considerable alterations to its boundaries over the past 114 years and that – therefore – reliance upon a major boundary change should not be a consideration when deliberating on Division names. Yours sincerely Bob Holderness-Roddam .