Redistribution of Western Australia into electoral divisions

Updated: 8 February 2016

Chapter 2 - The augmented Electoral Commission’s redistribution and reasons for the redistribution

This chapter outlines the augmented Electoral Commission’s redistribution and the reasons for this redistribution. Also included is the augmented Electoral Commission’s approach to formulating the boundaries and names of electoral divisions.

Augmented Electoral Commission’s redistribution of Western Australia

  1. The augmented Electoral Commission was required to redistribute Western Australia into 16 electoral divisions.
  2. There are three components to the augmented Electoral Commission’s redistribution:
    • where to locate the new electoral division,
    • where to draw the boundaries between electoral divisions in Western Australia to accommodate the new electoral division, and
    • the names of electoral divisions.
  3. The new electoral division will be located in the City of Armadale and City of Gosnells area of the south-eastern Perth metropolitan region, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.
  4. The remaining 15 electoral divisions are as proposed by the Redistribution Committee with the following modifications:
    • the locality of North Fremantle will be located in the Division of Fremantle
    • the entire locality of Crawley will be placed in the Division of Curtin
    • the boundary of the Division of Perth will extend into the Swan River east of the locality of Crawley
    • the Shire of Wandering will be located in the Division of O’Connor, and
    • some minor changes are made to boundaries to provide electors with more readily identifiable electoral boundaries. These changes have not led to the movement of any electors.
  5. The augmented Electoral Commission has also adopted the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retain the 15 existing electoral division names and to name the new electoral division the Division of Burt.

Augmented Electoral Commission’s approach to electoral boundaries

  1. In deciding whether to amend the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to incorporate an idea advocated in an objection, comment on objection or submission to the inquiry, the augmented Electoral Commission was mindful of whether the amendment would improve on the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. As the augmented Electoral Commission’s formulation of electoral divisions must conform to the requirements of the Electoral Act, potential amendments were also analysed with respect to the requirements of sub-section 73(4) of the Electoral Act.
  2. The primary requirement was to ensure each electoral division remains within the permissible maximum and minimum number of electors around the projected enrolment quota (see Table B) and the current enrolment quota (see Table A). In modifying the boundaries of any one electoral division proposed by the Redistribution Committee, the augmented Electoral Commission was therefore required to ensure that all 16 electoral divisions continued to fall within the permissible ranges for the maximum and minimum number of electors in an electoral division.
  3. Similarly, when considering adjusting the boundary of an electoral division to better reflect one community of interest, the augmented Electoral Commission considered whether such an adjustment could prompt concerns about one or more different communities of interest.

Location of the new electoral division

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed locating the new division in the City of Armadale and the City of Gosnells area of the south-eastern Perth metropolitan region, which was supported in a number of objections.12
  2. The augmented Electoral Commission has adopted this proposal.

Adjusting the boundaries of existing electoral divisions

  1. In constructing their proposal, the Redistribution Committee noted:
    • construction of a new electoral division will, of necessity, result in significant movement of electors, and
    • consequential changes to other electoral divisions and subsequent movement of electors is required across the state in order to maintain the equality of enrolments across the state.13
  2. The Redistribution Committee’s proposal made changes to all of the existing 15 electoral divisions. Alternatives to the majority of these changes did not feature in objections, comments on objections or submissions to the inquiry.
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission considered the Redistribution Committee’s proposal and agreed with much of what was proposed. Where an alternative to the Redistribution Committee’s proposal was advocated, the augmented Electoral Commission considered whether modifications should be made to address the alternative. The following paragraphs outline the augmented Electoral Commission’s decision with respect to each alternative offered.

The locality of North Fremantle

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed moving the locality of North Fremantle from the existing Division of Fremantle to the proposed Division of Curtin.
  2. Objections concerned whether North Fremantle shared a greater community of interest with the proposed Division of Curtin or the proposed Division of Fremantle.14
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission noted the strong arguments made with respect to community of interest in favour of retaining the locality of North Fremantle in the proposed Division of Fremantle. Making this adjustment did not cause either the Division of Curtin or the Division of Fremantle to fall outside either of the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act for the maximum and minimum number of electors in an electoral division.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by placing the locality of North Fremantle into the Division of Fremantle.

The localities of Kingsley and Woodvale

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed moving Woodvale and a portion of Kingsley from the existing Division of Cowan to the proposed Division of Moore.
  2. Objections concerned whether Woodvale and Kingsley shared a greater community of interest with the proposed Division of Cowan or the proposed Division of Moore, with strong arguments made for and against the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.15
  3. As neither of the electoral divisions in place at the start of the redistribution conformed with both of the ranges for the minimum and maximum number of electors permitted by the Electoral Act, the augmented Electoral Commission needed to transfer electors out of both electoral divisions. The need was further reinforced as a result of adjustments made to ensure adjoining electoral divisions also met the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act. The augmented Electoral Commission considered that adopting an alternative, which would have required transferring a different locality out of the Division of Cowan, could generate community of interest arguments in relation to the alternative locality.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged and the localities of Woodvale and the western portion of Kingsley from Goollelal Drive should be located in the Division of Moore.

The Shire of Collie

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed moving the Shire of Collie from the existing Division of Forrest to the proposed Division of O’Connor.
  2. Objections concerned whether the Shire of Collie shared a greater community of interest with the proposed Division of O’Connor or the proposed Division of Forrest and recommended alternative transfers of other areas from the proposed Division of Forrest into the proposed Division of O’Connor.16
  3. Noting the depth of concern evident in relation to the proposed move of the Shire of Collie, the augmented Electoral Commission was also conscious that the proposal to retain the Shire in the proposed Division of Forrest could not be accommodated within the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act for the minimum and maximum number of electors in an electoral division. The augmented Electoral Commission was required to transfer electors out of the Division of Forrest as the electoral division, as structured prior to the commencement of the redistribution, did not meet the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act. The adoption of an alternative proposal to transfer electors out of a different part of the electoral division in order to ensure the number of electors was within the permissible ranges could, the augmented Electoral Commission considered, result in similar community of interest concerns to those raised by the proposed transfer of the Shire of Collie.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged and the Shire of Collie should be located in the Division of O’Connor.

The boundaries of proposed electoral divisions in the Perth metropolitan area

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed a series of alterations to boundaries across the Perth metropolitan area, impacting to varying degrees the proposed Divisions of Cowan, Curtin, Moore, Pearce, Perth and Stirling. The Redistribution Committee’s proposed changes followed on from its proposal to locate the proposed Division of Burt in the City of Armadale and the City of Gosnells area and the need to progressively restore equality of enrolment for surrounding electoral divisions.
  2. Objections concerned whether the number of changes made were necessary and several alternative recommendations were provided.17
  3. The adoption of an alternative proposal to transfer electors out of a different part of the electoral division in order to meet the ranges for the minimum and maximum number of electors permitted by the Electoral Act could, the augmented Electoral Commission considered, result in similar community of interest concerns.
  4. As the Divisions of Cowan, Moore, Pearce, Perth and Stirling in place at the start of the redistribution did not meet the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act, the augmented Electoral Commission needed to adjust the boundaries of each of these electoral divisions.
  5. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposed construction of electoral divisions for metropolitan Perth should stand unchanged, with the following modifications:
    • placing the entire locality of Crawley into the Division of Curtin, and
    • extending the boundary of the Division of Perth into the Swan River east of the locality of Crawley.

The boundary of the proposed Divisions of Hasluck and Pearce

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed various boundary adjustments between the proposed Divisions of Hasluck and Pearce.
  2. Objections concerned whether the proposed changes were necessary, particularly given the increased geographical area of the proposed Division of Hasluck.18
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that changes to the boundaries of both the Divisions of Hasluck and Pearce, as they existed prior to the commencement of the redistribution, were required to:
    • ensure the number of electors in both electoral divisions were within the ranges for the minimum and maximum number of electors permitted by the Electoral Act, and
    • accommodate changes made to adjacent electoral divisions as a result of the placement of the new Division of Burt.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged.

The Shire of Wandering

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed moving the Shire of Wandering from the existing Division of O’Connor to the proposed Division of Canning.
  2. Objections concerned whether the Shire of Wandering shared a greater community of interest with the proposed Division of Canning or the proposed Division of O’Connor.19
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission noted the strong arguments made with respect to community of interest in favour of placing the Shire of Wandering in the proposed Division of O’Connor. Making this adjustment did not cause the Division of Canning or the Division of O’Connor to fall outside either of the ranges for the maximum and minimum number of electors in an electoral division permitted by the Electoral Act.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by placing the Shire of Wandering into the Division of O’Connor.

The Shire of Kalamunda

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed allocating the Shire of Kalamunda across the proposed Divisions of Canning, Hasluck and Swan.
  2. Objections concerned whether the Shire of Kalamunda should be split across electoral divisions or contained within one electoral division.20
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that changes to the boundaries of both the Divisions of Canning and Hasluck, as they existed prior to the commencement of the redistribution, were required to:
    • ensure the number of electors in both electoral divisions met the ranges for the minimum and maximum number of electors permitted by the Electoral Act, and
    • accommodate changes made to adjacent electoral divisions as a result of the placement of the new Division of Burt.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission further noted that placing the Shire of Kalamunda within one electoral division would have required transferring electors out of a different part of the electoral division in order to ensure the number of electors was within the permissible ranges, which could, the augmented Electoral Commission considered, also prompt community of interest concerns.
  5. The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged and the Shire of Kalamunda would be allocated across the Divisions of Canning, Hasluck and Swan.

The localities of Carramar and Mindarie

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed moving Carramar and Mindarie from the existing Division of Moore to the proposed Division of Pearce.
  2. One objection was received advocating this change not be made.21
  3. The proposal to retain Carramar and Mindarie in the proposed Division of Moore could not be accommodated within the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act for the minimum and maximum number of electors in an electoral division. The augmented Electoral Commission was required to transfer electors out of the Division of Moore as the electoral division, as it was structured prior to the commencement of the redistribution, did not meet both of the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act. The adoption of an alternative proposal to transfer electors out of a different part of the electoral division in order to ensure the number of electors was within the permissible ranges could, the augmented Electoral Commission considered, result in similar community of interest concerns to those raised by the proposed transfer of Carramar and Mindarie.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged and Carramar and Mindarie should be located in the Division of Pearce.

The City of Armadale

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed dividing the City of Armadale between the proposed Divisions of Burt and Canning.
  2. One objection was received advocating that this change not be made.22
  3. The proposal to locate the City of Armadale within one electoral division could not be accommodated without making significant changes to adjacent electoral divisions in order to ensure each was within the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act for the minimum and maximum number of electors in an electoral division.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged and the City of Armadale should be located across the Divisions of Burt and Canning.

The proposed Divisions of O’Connor and Durack

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors into and out of the proposed Division of O’Connor and decreasing its geographic area to 866 672 sq km. The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors into the proposed Division of Durack and increasing its geographic area to 1 629 858 sq km.
  2. Two objections were received advocating these changes not be made.23
  3. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that while the two electoral divisions each occupy a large geographic area, changes to the boundaries which existed prior to the commencement of the redistribution were required to:
    • accommodate changes made to ensure adjacent electoral divisions were within the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act for the minimum and maximum number of electors in an electoral division, and
    • ensure the Divisions of Durack and O’Connor were within the ranges permitted by the Electoral Act.
  4. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand unchanged, except for the placement of the Shire of Wandering in the Division of O’Connor rather than the proposed Division of Canning.

Movement of electors between electoral divisions

  1. The Redistribution Committee noted that, in the absence of any other changes, some six per cent of electors must be moved in order to create the new electoral division.24
  2. As a result of the adjustments made by the augmented Electoral Commission to the Redistribution Committee’s proposal, fewer electors have been moved between electoral divisions. Table E outlines the extent of elector movements resulting from the augmented Electoral Commission’s redistribution.
Table E: Summary of movement of electors between electoral divisions
Number Percentage
Electors remaining in their electoral division 1 243 305 82.64%
Electors transferred to another electoral division 261 108 17.36%
Total 1 504 413 100.00%

Augmented Electoral Commission’s approach to naming electoral divisions

  1. The naming of federal electoral divisions has been the subject of a number of recommendations from parliamentary committees. The ‘Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions’ (the guidelines) were developed by the AEC from recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in 1995 in its Report on the Effectiveness and Appropriateness of the Redistribution Provisions of Parts III and IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The guidelines were offered to interested persons when this redistribution was advertised, and are publicly available on the AEC website (see Appendix J).

Name of the new electoral division

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed the new electoral division in Western Australia be named ‘Burt’.25 The name was proposed to honour succeeding generations of the Burt family for their significant contributions to the justice system and for their wider contributions to public service, specifically:
    • Sir Archibald Burt (1810–1879), first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia,
    • Septimus Burt (1847–1919), whose public roles included that of Attorney-General of Western Australia at the time of colonial self-government, and
    • Sir Francis Burt (1918–2004), who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Chief Justice of Western Australia, and Governor of Western Australia from 1990 until 1993.26
  2. While naming a federal electoral division ‘Burt’ was supported in several objections and comments on objections,27 there were also a number which advocated that the name ‘Burt’ should not be used.28
  3. The majority of those who opposed the use of the name ‘Burt’ did so because the Electoral Distribution Commissioners, as part of the review of Western Australia’s electoral region and district boundaries, proposed renaming one of the districts ‘Burt’.29 30 Several of those making objections and comments on objections observed that elector confusion could result from having two electoral divisions of the same name existing at the state and federal levels.31
  4. In its deliberations, the augmented Electoral Commission noted the possibility of some confusion but did not concur that this provided a compelling reason to overturn the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. In coming to this view, the augmented Electoral Commission noted that there are currently three other Western Australian state electoral districts that share the same name as an existing federal electoral division, namely the Divisions of Fremantle, Moore and Perth.
  5. Table F displays the alternative names offered in objections and comments on objections by those who did not support naming the new electoral division ‘Burt’.32
Table F: Names offered in objections and comments on objections as alternatives to those proposed by the Redistribution Committee
Name proposed by the Redistribution Committee Offered alternative name
Burt Dunlop – in honour of Sir (Ernest) Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop AC CMG OBE (1907–1993), the surgeon and former prisoner of war
Holman – in honour of Mary Holman (1893–1939), first Labor woman parliamentarian in Australia after winning a by-election for the Legislative Assembly
Beazley, Vallentine, Lawrence or Yagan – the objection did not specify who the names were intended to honour
Tonkin – in honour of John Trezise Tonkin (1902–1995), Deputy Premier of Western Australia (1953–59) and Premier of Western Australia (1971–74)
Canning – the proposed division is bounded to the north by the Canning River and contains Canning Vale
Canning McLarty – in honour of Sir Duncan Ross McLarty (1891–1962), Premier of Western Australia (1947–53)
Peel – in honour of Thomas Peel (1793–1865), an early settler of Western Australia
  1. While noting the valuable contribution these individuals made to Australian society, the augmented Electoral Commission did not consider these alternative names would result in an improved outcome within the guidelines.
  2. The augmented Electoral Commission therefore decided to adopt the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to name the new division as the Division of Burt.

Names of existing electoral divisions

  1. The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the names of the existing electoral divisions. One objection and one comment on objection were received which proposed re-naming the Division of Canning,33 as described in Table F.
  2. The guidelines note that the names of electoral divisions should not be changed or transferred to new areas without very strong reasons. Any decision to alter the name of an electoral division is not taken lightly.
  3. While noting the contribution to Australian society of those individuals submitted for its consideration, the augmented Electoral Commission considered it was first required to determine whether the name of existing electoral divisions should be changed or retained.
  4. With respect to the Division of Canning, the augmented Electoral Commission considered the guidelines and noted:
    • the existing electoral division is named after a deceased Australian who has rendered outstanding service to their country, and
    • ‘Canning’ is not the name of an original federation electoral division.
  5. However, the augmented Electoral Commission did not consider that compelling reasons had been presented to change the name of the Division of Canning.
  6. The names of all 15 existing electoral divisions will be retained, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.

Redistribution of Western Australia – by electoral division

  1. For each of the electoral divisions in Western Australia, Table G presents:
    • enrolment as at Monday 1 December 2014,
    • percentage variation from the current enrolment quota,
    • projected enrolment as at Wednesday 8 February 2017,
    • percentage variation from the projected enrolment quota, and
    • the approximate area of each electoral division.
Table G: Summary of electoral divisions
Electoral division Enrolment as at Monday 1 December 2014 Projected enrolment as at Wednesday 8 February 2017 Approximate area
Number Percentage variation from the current enrolment quota Number Percentage variation from the projected enrolment quota
Brand 90 093 -4.18% 96 631 -3.06% 377 km2
Burt 93 763 -0.28% 100 530 0.85% 172 km2
Canning 90 883 -3.34% 96 383 -3.31% 6 304 km2
Cowan 93 613 -0.44% 100 388 0.70% 180 km2
Curtin 94 033 0.01% 99 066 -0.62% 98 km2
Durack 95 644 1.72% 100 543 0.86% 1 629 858 km2
Forrest 94 559 0.57% 98 311 -1.38% 11 072 km2
Fremantle 94 241 0.23% 100 408 0.72% 196 km2
Hasluck 91 739 -2.43% 97 337 -2.36% 1 192 km2
Moore 98 158 4.39% 102 958 3.28% 90 km2
O’Connor 99 006 5.30% 103 123 3.45% 868 576 km2
Pearce 91 678 -2.50% 98 945 -0.74% 13 250 km2
Perth 94 518 0.52% 100 895 1.21% 80 km2
Stirling 95 584 1.66% 101 801 2.12% 74 km2
Swan 93 811 -0.23% 99 687 0.00% 134 km2
Tangney 93 090 -1.00% 97 967 -1.72% 83 km2
Total 1 504 413 1 594 973 2 531 736 km2
  1. Statistical summaries of the electoral divisions are provided in Appendix K.
  1. Objections supporting the location of the new electoral division are: O7 – City of Armadale; O12 – Darren McSweeney; O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair; O19 – The Greens (WA); O20 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; and O21 – WA Labor. I2 – The Greens (WA) supported the location of the new electoral division.
  2. Redistribution Committee for Western Australia, op. cit., page 15–16
  3. Objections which referred to this matter: O5 – Martin Gordon; O6 – Harry Pickett; O12 – Darren McSweeney; O13 – David Weber; O19 – The Greens (WA); O20 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc; O22 – The Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MP and The Hon. Melissa Parke MP. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB1 – Andrew Owens; COB3 – The Hon. Melissa Parke MP; COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; COB6 – The Greens (WA); COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc; COB10 – WA Labor. Submissions to the inquiry which referred to this matter: I1 -– Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; I2 – The Greens (WA); I4 – The Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MP; and I6 – WA Labor.
  4. Objections which referred to this matter: O5 – Martin Gordon; O10 – John Chester; O11 – Returned Services League of Australia Wanneroo–Joondalup Sub-Branch; O14 – Hon Cheryl Edwardes; O20 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB4 – Martin Gordon; COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; COB8 – Donald Ian and Joyce Marion Bulloch; COB10 – WA Labor. Submissions to the inquiry which referred to this matter: I1 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; I3 – Donald Ian Bulloch; and I6 – WA Labor.
  5. Objections which referred to this matter: O8 – David Smith; O12 – Darren McSweeney; O16 – Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance; O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair; O18 – Shire of Collie; O21 – WA Labor; O23 – Hon Dr Sally Talbot MLC; O24 – Ed Riley; O25 – Mick Murray MLA; O26 – John Borlini; O27 – Hon Adele Farina MLC. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB1 – Andrew Owens; COB4 – Martin Gordon; COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc. Submissions to the inquiry which referred to this matter: I1 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; I5 – Hon Dr Sally Talbot MLC; and I6 – WA Labor.
  6. Objections which referred to this matter: O5 – Martin Gordon; O9 – Dean Ashley; O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair; O20 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; O22 – The Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MP and The Hon. Melissa Parke MP; O28 – Andrew Owens. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB4 – Martin Gordon; COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; COB6 – The Greens (WA); COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; COB10 – WA Labor. Submissions to the inquiry which referred to this matter: I1 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; I2 – The Greens (WA); I4 – The Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MP; and I6 – WA Labor.
  7. Objections which referred to this matter: O5 – Martin Gordon; and O21 – WA Labor. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; and COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc. I6 – WA Labor referred to this matter.
  8. Objections which referred to this matter: O12 – Darren McSweeney; O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair; and O21 – WA Labor. COB10 – WA Labor referred to this matter.
  9. Objections which referred to this matter: O12 – Darren McSweeney; O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; and COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.
  10. O2 – David Anson referred to this matter. Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB2 – David Anson; and COB10 – WA Labor.
  11. O4 – Bret Busby referred to this matter.
  12. Objections which referred to this matter: O15 – PA and JW Sambell; and O17 – Dr Mark Mulcair.
  13. Redistribution Committee for Western Australia, op. cit., page 4
  14. The name ‘Burt’ was originally proposed by S17 – Andrew Metaxas and Anthony Rossiter.
  15. Redistribution Committee for Western Australia, op. cit., page 17
  16. Support for the name of ‘Burt’ is to be found in: O8 – David Smith; O12 – Darren McSweeney; O20 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; COB7 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; I1 – Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.; and I2 – The Greens (WA).
  17. Objections to use of the name ‘Burt’ were made by: O1 – Richard Wyndham; O3 – Stephen David John Marshall; O5 – Martin Gordon; O7 – City of Armadale; O13 – David Weber; O19 – The Greens WA; O28 – Andrew Owens; COB1 – Andrew Owens; and COB4 – Martin Gordon.
  18. The Electoral Distribution Commissioners proposed altering the boundaries of the district of Alfred Cove and renaming it ‘Burt’, noting the Burt family were prominent in Western Australia’s early colonial history.
    Electoral Distribution Commissioners, 2015 Proposed Boundaries and Reasons by District and Region (July 2015), page 89
  19. In finalising their review of Western Australian electoral districts, the Electoral Distribution Commissioners decided against using the name ‘Burt’.
  20. Objections which referred to this matter: O3 – Stephen David John Marshall; O7 – City of Armadale; O13 – David Weber; and O19 – The Greens (WA). Comments on objections which referred to this matter: COB5 – Dr Mark Mulcair; and COB7– Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc.
  21. Alternative division names were offered by: O3 – Stephen David John Marshall; O5 – Martin Gordon; COB1 – Andrew Owens; and COB04 – Martin Gordon.
  22. Alternative names for the Division of Canning were offered by: O28 – Andrew Owens and COB1 – Andrew Owens.