Step 6 - Announcement of names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in the Australian Capital Territory

Updated: 25 November 2015

Steps in the redistribution

Overview maps will be available on the website on 28 January 2016. Detailed maps and a report outlining the augmented Electoral Commission's reasons for the formal determination will be tabled in the Federal Parliament and will subsequently be made publicly available.

The augmented Electoral Commission for the Australian Capital Territory's public announcement of final names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in the Australian Capital Territory was made on 24 November 2015. Read the augmented Electoral Commission's public announcement.

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

The numerical constraints of the redistribution process

The augmented Electoral Commission was required to consider all objections made to the Redistribution Committee's 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-section 73(4) 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 28 July 2019 by more than plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 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.

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

Proposed electoral divisions
Name of proposed electoral division Boundaries of proposed electoral division
Canberra As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory
Fenner As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusion on objections

The location of the suburb of Turner

Objections referring to this matter: O2 – James Eveille, O16 – Tom Anderson, O18 – Dr Mark Mulcair, O28 – ACT Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB2 – Darren McSweeney

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed allocating part of the suburb of Turner to the proposed Division of Canberra and part to the proposed Division of Fenner. Objections concerned whether the suburb of Turner, as a community of interest, should be united in one electoral division, with a number of different boundaries offered for consideration.

Noting that the adoption of alternative proposals could result in similar community of interest concerns, and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, 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, and
  • for the above reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The location of the suburb of Braddon

Objections referring to this matter: O2 – James Eveille, O16 – Tom Anderson, O18 – Dr Mark Mulcair, O28 – ACT Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB2 – Darren McSweeney

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed allocating part of the suburb of Braddon to the proposed Division of Canberra and part to the proposed Division of Fenner. Objections concerned whether the suburb of Braddon, as a community of interest, should be united in one electoral division, with a number of different boundaries offered for consideration.

Noting that the adoption of alternative proposals could result in similar community of interests concerns, and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, 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, and
  • for the above reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The location of the Jervis Bay Territory

Objections referring to this matter: O22 – Darren McSweeney

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed locating the Jervis Bay Territory in the proposed Division of Fenner. The objection advocated the Jervis Bay Territory should instead be aligned with the national capital and therefore located in the proposed Division of Canberra.

The adoption of alternative proposals could increase the number of electors moving between electoral divisions as a result of the redistribution process, including the transfer of some Norfolk Island electors due to the legislative requirement preventing them from being enrolled in the same electoral division as electors from the Jervis Bay Territory. The augmented Electoral Commission therefore 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, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The proposed division in which the electors south of Pialligo Avenue should be located

Objection referring to this matter: O18 – Dr Mark Mulcair

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed the eastern boundary between the two electoral divisions should follow Pialligo Avenue in an east/south-easterly direction until the intersection with Yass Road, and then follow Yass Road in a south-easterly direction until it meets the territory/state border. The objection contended the electors south of Pialligo Avenue appeared to be cut off from the rest of the proposed Division of Canberra and should therefore be located in the proposed Division of Fenner.

Noting that the adoption of the alternative proposal could result in similar community of interests concerns, 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, and
  • for the above reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The location of the suburbs on the south side of Belconnen

Objection referring to this matter: O2 – James Eveille

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB2 – Darren McSweeney

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed the suburbs on the south side of Belconnen should be located in the proposed Division of Fenner. The objection noted that the Redistribution Committee's proposed electoral divisions would result in the current Member for Fraser's electorate office being located in the proposed Division of Canberra. The objection therefore advocated moving the suburbs on the south side of Belconnen into the proposed Division of Canberra as an alternative to moving the inner north suburbs.

Noting that the adoption of the alternative proposal could result in similar community of interest concerns, and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, 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, and
  • for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The name of the southern electoral division in the Australian Capital Territory

Objections referring to this matter: O2 –James Eveille, O4 – Roger Bacon, O5 – Gary Potts, O17 – Martin Gordon, O18 – Dr Mark Mulcair, O19 – Tim Cooke, O22 – Darren McSweeney, O23 – Catherine Brown, O24 – Andrew Fraser, O29 – David Wedgewood

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB3 – Martin Gordon, COB4 – Brian Cox, COB5 – David Wedgewood

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed the Division of Canberra should retain the name 'Canberra'. Some objections supported retaining the name while others advocated changing it. The augmented Electoral Commission agreed that while the alternative names offered had merit as the name of an electoral division, the current name of the Division of Canberra also had merit, and arguments offered in support of renaming the proposed electoral division were not substantive enough to warrant change.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives names proposed would not result in an improved outcome within the requirements of the guidance provided to the augmented Electoral Commission on naming federal electoral divisions, and
  • for the above reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the southern electoral division in the Australian Capital Territory will be known as the Division of Canberra.

The name of the northern electoral division in the Australian Capital Territory

Objections referring to this matter: O1 – Robyn Bergin, O2 – James Eveille, O3 – Geoffrey Robertson, O5 – Gary Potts, O6 – John Clowry, O8 – Jon Stanhope, O9 – Canberra and District Historical Society Inc, O10 – Professor Ian Young AO, O11 – Harry Burkett, O12 – Judith Thompson, O13 – Steve Whan, O14 – Carol Keil, O15 – Jack Pennington OAM, O16 – Tom Anderson, O17 – Martin Gordon, O18 – Dr Mark Mulcair, O19 – Tim Cooke, O20 – Lin Enright, O21 – Denis Robinson, O22 – Darren McSweeney, O23 – Catherine Brown, O24 – Andrew Fraser, O25 – Peter Edwards, O26 – Brian Cox, O27 – Arno Mikli, 028 – ACT Labor, O29 – David Wedgewood

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB2 – Darren McSweeney, COB3 – Martin Gordon, COB4 – Brian Cox, COB5 – David Wedgewood

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed the Division of Fraser be renamed 'Fenner'. In reaching this decision, the Redistribution Committee noted that renaming the division in the Australian Capital Territory would provide an option for the name 'Fraser' to be used as the name of a Victorian federal electoral division in honour of the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser AC CH, in the future.

Objections to the proposed name may be categorised as:

  • supporting the Redistribution Committee's proposal to name the electoral division as 'Fenner',
  • advocating the electoral division should continue to be known as the Division of Fraser in honour of James Fraser, the former Member for the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives,
  • advocating the electoral division should be known as the Division of Fraser in honour of James Fraser, the former Member for the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives, and the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser AC CH, or
  • advocating the electoral division should be known by an alternative name.

The augmented Electoral Commission, mindful of the guideline that consideration be given to naming electoral divisions after former Prime Ministers, considers the name 'Fraser' should be retired in the Australian Capital Territory to provide the option of naming a Victorian electoral division after the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser AC CH, in the future. The augmented Electoral Commission notes the achievements of James Fraser, after whom the electoral division has been named since 1974, are reflected in the naming of an Australian Capital Territory suburb in his honour and his inclusion in the ACT Honour Walk.

The augmented Electoral Commission does not consider it appropriate to co-name the electoral division as 'Fraser'.

The augmented Electoral Commission agreed that while the alternative names offered had merit as the name of an electoral division, the arguments offered in support of renaming the proposed Division of Fenner were not substantive enough to warrant changing to one of these alternatives.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

  • the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
  • any alternatives names proposed would not result in an improved outcome within the requirements of the guidance provided to the augmented Electoral Commission on naming federal electoral divisions, and
  • for the above reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the northern electoral division in the Australian Capital Territory will be known as the Division of Fenner.