.·.·

AUSTRALIAN LABOR  PARTY

Australian Capital Territory Branch

PhilGreen
ElectoralCommissioner,ACT
North buliding,Civic Square,London Circui t,Canberra City ACT 2601

2"" Submission to Redistribution Committee ACT El ectoralCommission

Dear Redistribution Committee members,

I make the following submission to the Redistribution Committee in response to the "Proposed Redistribution of the ACT into Electorates for the Legislative Assembly" and as the Secretary and Registered Officer of ACT Branch of the Australian Labor Party.

I would like to begin by stating my support for the Redistribution Committee's proposalas it has clearly considered all six initial public submissions and the redistribution criteria,before carefully concluding that a small change to the existing boundaries would provide the best available change to existing boundaries and ensure requirements of the Electoral Act are met. Until more substantial reform Is possbi  le in the future we believe that this is the most responsible outcome for the current electoralcycle.

Iam writing now to raise issues and concerns regarding matters  which have been aired in pubilc debate since the redistribution was first announced.ACT Labor sympathises with the submissions which have argued for clearer "community of Interest" Identification within electorates.In particular the frustrations which have been articulately explained in the Gungahlin Community Council submission include valid concerns about the challenges and benefits of fulfilling community of interest objectives.

However,simply transplanting the existing community of interest  frustrations from one part of the city to another will not resolve this problem in the long-term. We suspect that had i t beenin the Redistribution Committee's proposal,any plans to move lyneham and Watson into Ginninderra (an electorate that is largelyidentified with the Belconnen region) would cause some concern within those suburban communities,as much as it has been of concern to residents in the suburb of Nicholls In past elections.

The GCC submission adds considerable weight to the argument for a significant evolution of the ACT electoral system and boundaries to better reflect the physicaland demographic changes that Canberra has seen over the past 20 years. The only long-term resolution of the community of
interest challenge is a larger number of electorates that better reflect local communi ties and natural
geographic divisions. A new framework for future redistributions following the 2012 ACT Election would ensure orderly iterative electoral redistributions for several decades. Until that happens,we agree with the Redistribution Committee that the best interim measure is minimalist change,as represented in the current Proposed Redistribution.

Eilas Hallaj,Secretary,ALP (ACT Branch)
www.actlabor.org.au

AOBI IW<CHOff1Cl21TOAA9<S Sf BRAOOON ACT	• GPGeOX 306S CANBERRAACT 2601   • A&ll 144!!15<0 751	T (02) 6247 4066    F (02) 624738i5  f il1lo@acl.alp.og;w

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Alan Kerlin
Thursday,2 June 2011 11:53 PM Elections
Objection to proposed electoral boundary redistribution

Dear Mr Green

Thank you for considering  our submission on the 2011 boundary redistribution.

We are disappointed that the committee dismissed our proposal and instead opted for a proposal of further incremental tinkering,rather than seeking to resolve the problem that is the Molonglo electorate. Instead.the committee proposes to pull more suburbs from the main Gungahlin electorate.

The effect of what the committee is proposni g is that both the Woden and Gungahlin electorates would have multiple suburbs carved off into neighbouring electorates without any apparent regard to the requirements of the legislation that calls for common communities of interest. Gungahlin would have Nicholls, Crace and Palmerston in Ginnlnderra,and Woden already has Chiney, Pearce.Torrens and Farrer separated into Brlndabella. The problem with Molonglo is that it is
strung most of the length of Canberra. But instead of withdrawing from one end OR the other towards an eventually more compact electorate, the committee has over several redistributions actually made things worse rather than better

The legislation requires the committee to "duly consider-

1. the community of interests within each proposed electorate,including economic, socialand regional interests:
2. the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate;
3. the physicalfeatures and area of each proposed electorate;
4.  the boundaries of existing electorates; and
5. the boundaries of divisions and sections fixed under the Districts Act 2002."

The legislation either intended the options to be in priority order as listed, or of equalimportance.Our key point is that the second last criterion on the list seems to get most of the committee's consideration,disproportionately compared to the first criterion on the list. And by the way they are pursuing stability of the boundaries,the committee is instead ensuring precisely the opposite - ongoing need for continuous change.

We have proposed a major change that would have the effect of correcting the obvious problems that exist with the current Molonglo, and would set things up for the future growth areas to be incorporated into Molonglo and Ginnlnderra without constant future changes.Brindabella covering the southern band of the ACT across would cover all of Weston and Tuggeranong. With limited future growth Brindabella should be over quota. But by including Weston it provides a physicalconnection to the new development district of Molonglo (not the electorate),it can be expanded into that area if necessary at some stage in the future.

Molonglo would cover the central band of Woden, South Canberra and almost all of North Canberra. The new district of
Molonglo would also be incorporated into it over the next few years.so this electorate should be somewhat under quota.

Ginninderra  would cover the entire northern communities of 6elconnenandGungahlinand with the majority of the next few years' populat on growth,should be significantly under quota - at the very margin of the allowed variance.

Admittedly one or two suburbs of North Canberra would temporarily need to be in Ginnni  derra, bU1 the off-set of this is that the fragmentation of both Woden and Gungahlin districts are corrected - in a lasting way- and the districts of

Tuggeranong.South Canberra,Belconnen and Weston Creek are maintained as wholes and in a manner that will last. There can be no question that the solution reduces current fragmentation and will prevent future fragmentation for far more of the ACT than the alternatives put forth by the commillee.

We were disappointed to see the commillee buried its very important observation that the proposals made by us could win through if there were significant community support back in page 20. We would have thought that such a significant concession warranted some mention in the summary of the report.

We wish to point out that, apart from any submissions the commillee may receive,there has been a degree of discussion about our proposalon the online forums of GCC's Facebook site and the-riotact.com,with significant support for,and no dissention  against. il.

With regard to the electorate names, we point to the difficulty experienced herein of discerning between the district and the electorate of the same name.It will only get worse. We suggest the commlilee consider the name of Griffin for the central electorate,in recognition that the central band of Canberra (in the GCC proposed redistribution) contains most of the core areas desgi  ned by Walter Burley Griffin.

We also wish to finish off by reminding the committee that our preferred position i s for an expanded Assembly,with five five-member electorates. Through the committee, we urge all members of the Assembly, regardless of their politicalparty, to do the right thing by the ACTs democratic representation, and seek Commonwealth support for amendments to the legislation to enact this larger Assembly.

Regards,

Alan Kerlin
Gungah li n Commun ity Council
Spokesman -Planning. Transport and Environment

2

Woden Valley 	n
Community Council Inc.

PO Box 280 Woden ACf 2606;  e-mail info@wvcc.org.au; ph. 0420529747

ACT Electoral Commission Ground Floor, North Building Civic Square
London  Circuit
CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601

Email:  elections@act.gov.au

Dear Augmented Electoral Commission

Objection to the Redistribution Committee's Proposed Redistribution

The Woden  Valley Community Council (WVCC) would like to register its strong objection to the  Redistribution Committee's proposed redistribution of the ACT electoral boundaries. The bifurcation of Woden, with the  town split across the electorate of Molonglo and  Brindabella has been a long-standing concern of the WVCC. We are very disappointed that this issue has not been  resolved in the proposed redistribution.

Notwithstanding the primary criteria of quotas that must be met, it would appear that criterion (c)(iv) to consider 'the  boundaries of existing electorates' bas been  the primary consideration, and  that criteria (c)(i) to consider 'the community of interests within each proposed electorate, including economic, social and regional interests' and (c)(iii) 'the  physical features and area of each proposed electorate' have not  been  adequately addressed, despite the
Committee having stated in its report that it 'considered that these criteria were
best met by avoiding, where  possible, splitting suburbs and  districts and  by selecting boundaries which  clearly  separate communities'.

The current situation of representation with one  part of Woden being on  the periphery of the electorate of Brindabella, primarily comprising the Tuggeranong Valley, and  the  other part of Woden being on the periphery of the electorate of Molonglo that stretches all the way to the northern part of Gungahlin is niost unsatisfactory. The WVCC has found that the  bifurcation of Woden  in this way has resulted in, with few exceptions, inadequate

representation by our elected  members of the  Legislative  Assembly, and the issues facing our  town  being 'off the radar'.

The suburbs of Chifley, Farrer, Pearce and Torrens are  part of the Woden Valley, not  the Tuggeranong Valley, from both  a geographic, demographic and community point of view.  It is our view that the issues of concern in the Woden Valley are similar across all the suburbs in the  Valley and would  be best served by having  local members responsible -for an electorate that contains the Woden Valley as a whole.

While we understand the constraints of the  current electoral legislation and criteria that the  Commission must adhere to, we would suggest that the starting point of the redistribution process be that as far as possible, none of the towns of Canberra should be split across electorates. While there may be some initial (and we believe relatively  minor) disruption to members and the electorates that they serve,  this would  provide  better long-term outcomes for the  residents of the Woden Valley, and  we would suggest, for all residents of Canberra.

We request that the Augmented Electoral Commission consider this objection and restore the integrity of Woden's suburbs into  the one electorate under the
'Second Proposed Redistribution'.

The WVCC appreciates the opportunity to again put forward  its views and looks forward  to a positive response.

Yours s.incerely

Shirley  Lithgow
Secretary
wvcc

2 June 2011

From: Sent: To:
Subject:
Attachments:

bogey musidlak
Thursday, 2 June 2011 2:08 PM Elections
objection to proposed redistribution
ACT redistribution objection.doc

Hello

Please find attached a submission from the ACT Branch of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia objecting to the proposal to alter a boundary in the MoUnglo Valley.

Bogey Musidlak
Convenor

1

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BRANCH)

LEAVE MOLONGLO VALLEY BOUNDARIES UNCHANGED

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Australian Capital Territory Branch) warmly applauds the Redistribution Committee’s recommendation that Palmerston and Crace be transferred from Molonglo to Ginninderra, as such a decision would cause the minimum possible disruption to voters while ensuring compliance with the mandatory legislative framework that is in operation.

We object though to the premature proposed boundary change in the Molonglo Valley that would include those areas north of the Molonglo River within Molonglo rather than in Ginninderra where they have been to date.

Even though, as the Redistribution Committee has indicated, only four current electors would be affected, a sudden change along these lines solves does not solve any additional problems, as there are none further that must be tackled. By proposing the immediate placement of all these anticipated future growth areas exclusively within Molonglo, the Committee appears to be slanting the discussion necessary in around four years’ time, as this change would result in the bulk of predictable population growth occurring in Molonglo, and continue to skew future elector-to-MLA ratios that are published at the start of each redistribution process.

In the Society’s view, the best time to deal thoroughly with these specific matters is when the salient conditions in the lead-up to the 2016 general election are clearer. At the time of the next redistribution process, there will be far better information on current and projected enrolments in all the suburbs where significant development activity is occurring or anticipated, and the outcome of any concerted attempt to change the size of the Legislative Assembly will also be known.

The Society notes that there has not been any public agitation for an immediate change of the nature being proposed.

A change in Molonglo Valley boundaries should therefore not be made currently in accordance with some subsidiary principle of redistribution practice, but await a full and informed public discussion during the term of the next Assembly when far more of the key relevant facts will be known or can be estimated or projected much more confidently.

Abandonment of this premature proposal would best uphold the accepted and welcome past practice of causing minimum disruption to voters within the stipulations of the legislation covering redistributions.

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Australian Capital Territory Branch) has consistently pointed to stability of electoral boundaries as an anticipated and appreciated feature of the Hare-Clark system. When detailed consideration is given to our boundaries during the term of the next Assembly, if there is to be no change in its size, the starting point should be the current longstanding layout of boundaries in the Molonglo Valley.

We trust that this matter can be resolved quickly without unnecessary excessive diversion of
ACT government resources.

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Harvey Bromwich
Friday.20 May 2011 9:25AM Elections
Electoral Boundary changes

Dear Sir/Madam,
Iwish to support the Gungahlin Community Council proposalfor the redistribution of boundary changes. As a recent resident of Amaroo (relocated from Sydney) I strongly appose the proposal to'split'  the Gungahlin region across two electorates. As a fast growing region we already have inadequate narrow roads,a lack recreational and sporting facliities,poor access to hospital facilities and government services,the most expensive petrol outlets in Canberra (WHY?) and limited shopping outlets.
Gungahlin needs STRONG representation by elected members,not a split vote which weakens our voice.
Gungahlin should be a showcase for the new Canberra,NOT a neglected northern region. Harvey Bromwich
Amaroo

From: Sent: To: Subject:

· marina.costelloe Monday, 16 May 2011 8:00PM Elections
nicholls needs to be with gunghalin we are a community

Consider Belconnen and Gungahlin combined into one seven-member eleetomte. The electomtes would then essentially be Ginninderrn with seven members across the north, Molonglo with five members across the central areas, and Brindabella with live members covering the south and Weston Creek. This would also set the electorates up to cater for future growth with minimal further changes

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kevin Cox
Monday, 16 May 2011 6:49 PM
Elections
Boundaries

As a residem of Gungahlin I would like to make a plea for all suburbs in Gungahil n to be included in the one electorate.  Thsi could be done by making Gitminderra a 7 member electorate by including all gungahlin in Gininiderra.

The end result  would be to put all of Woden into Mol onglo. The only suburb outside its natural boundaries would be Watson and thatis unlikely to remain that way for l ong.

Kevin

From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject:

Paul Crowley Monday,16May2011 9:38PM Elections GungahlinCommunity Council electoral boundaries

To whom it may concern at the Electoral Commission.

I have read with horror that you might be further splitting up the Gungahlin Community, politically even more. I would like to express my objection to this possibility. Whatever technical reasons you might have to do this please consider qualitative reasons in this relatively small Community.Gungahlin is a growing community with a strong need for consultation, thinking and planning and the community having a strong voice to have its views taken notice of.

Please keep all of Gungahlin in the one Electorate. It does nothing for the democratic process to split us up

Yours sincerely
Paul Crowley
12 Yarrawonga Street Ngunnawal ACT

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Elizabeth(Betsy)Dixon
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 8:39PM
Elections
SupportforGungahlinCommunity Council proposal reelectoral boundaries

Hello,
I support the proposal by the Gungahlin Community Council to have all of the Gunghalin
communities in one electorate. I do not support the Electoral Commission proposal to move
Palmerston and Crace into another electorate.

Gungahlin is a fast-growing area--l have lived here since 2002 and have seen the incredible growth and numerous changes.	It seems to me that it would be more sensible to have all the Gungahlin communities in one electorate,where the needs and interests of Gungahlin residents can be fairly and accurately represented.

Regards

Elizabeth Dixon

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear Sir/Madam,

TazDeSilva
Thursday, 19May 2011 8:47PM
Elections
Electoral Boundary redistribution

I am writing to you about the proposed boundary changes, in particular the decision to separate Crace & Palmerston from the broader Gungahlin suburbs.

Having recently moved into the Gungahlin area I feel that the needs of the broader Gunghalin area is not being addressed as it is.
I believe any further division would not be in the interests of Gunghalin residents.

I feel that the residents would be better served with either
a electorate over Gunghalin to account for future growth or a electorate tied with
Belconnen

Given the lack of employment prospects in the region, especially the lack of government departments given that practically all other town centres have some form of government department.
The need of residents to have the ability to vote on these matters as a region is important.

Also, with the future growth of new suburbs in the Gungahlin area I think it would be wise for residents to be properly represented so that we might have the ability to influence government policy and stop useless/wasteful government policy like the construction of Gungahlin Drive.

Some of the current MLA's for the region also appear to be very limited in consulting with residents unless facing an election campaign.

Thank you

Taz De Silva

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dan Fearns . Tuesday,17May20119:56AM Elections
Electoral Boundary Redistribution

I wishtorecord my viewthat thewholeofGungahlin beincluded inoneelectorate.

Thiscould bedoneifall ofGungahlin wereincluded In theelectorateofGinninderraasproposed by theGungahlin Community Council. Glnninderrashould then bea 7- memberelectorate,with Molongloa 5- member electorateand Brindabellaa5- member electoroategiventhe presentsizeoftheLegislative Assembly.

I havelivedin Nichollsfor16years and watched Gungahlingrowin sizeand developacommunity ofinterest that is coherent and meaningful. Thisshould be reflected intheACTelectoral structure.

Dan Fearns
6AnneClark Avenue
NichollsACT2913

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Janice hodgson
Monday,16 May 2011 8:44 PM
Elections
electoral boundaries

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

As a long-time resident of Nicholls,I find it ridiculous that our area of Gunghalin is split into two electorates.
I shop in Gunghalin and Belconnen,
my library is in Gunghalln,
one day my swimming poolwill be in Gunghalln and meanwhile I swim in Belconnen, my grandchilren attend schoolin Gunghalin,
I use the parks In Gunghalin.
I walk the walkwaysin Gunghalln.

and yet all these Gunghalin facllilies come under the care of the electorate of Molonglo,while Iam in Ginninderra! Molonglo is VAST,spread from one end or Canberra to the other, taking in areas Ihave no connection with.

Would you please consider combining all Belconnen and Gunghahn in the one electorate - Ginnmderra? This would provide a consolidated physicalarea, one which most people In this area would appreciate, an area that Is linked through amenities provided,
an area where we would have interface with our elected members - members who would have a better overall understanding of the needs of the area as a whole and provide a much clearer picture for future development.

Thank you for your consideration, Janice Hodgson
Candlebark Cl
Nicholls

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Gus Pauza
Monday,16 May 2011 5:10PM
Elections
Objections to the Proposed Redistribution

I am a  long standing resdi ent  of  Palmerston,	having  moved  there in 1993.  I f ind	t inconceivable that you  woudl consider  carving  off Palmerston and  Crace  from  the Molongol electorate and  incorporating us  into  Gnininderra . As  a  Gungahlin resident  I have  absolutely no  affinity with  the Ginninderra e  ectorate, their problems  are   not ours and  their  issues would be  quite different to ours.  It would appear   that there is a  desire to split the Gungahlin community, initially by  carving off Nicholls and  now Palmerston and  Crace.

I find the   idea of this  proposalto be  an  insult to the   Palmerston and  Crace   community  and one  that totally  disregards community   standards  and  affiliations. I request that  this proposalbe  reconsidered_
Gus Pauza

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Robert Mair
Thursday, 5 May 20115:10PM
Elections
ACT ElectoralBoundaries

Dear Sirs,

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed new electoral boundaries involving the exorcism of the suburbs of
Palmerston and Crace from the Molonglo Electorate to the Ginninderra Electorate.

The basis of my objection is that these suburbs including Nicholls are an integral part of the Gungahlin district in the Molonglo Electorate and as such do not fit into the Ginninderra Electorate. It would be necessary for Ginninderra members to give different emphasis to these suburbs as any problems are ostensibly Gungahlin based and as such unique to Gungahlin.  These suburbs are physically separate from Ginninderra by both a green belt and the Barton highway,a main thoroughfare.    The focus of these suburbs is also towards the centraldistrict of  the Gungahlin Town Centre and in no way can be linked to any happenings in the Ginninderra Electorate.

I regard this proposal as another piecemealattempt to artificially adjust boundaries to try to maintain the strange tripartite electoral system of five, five and seven member electorates. 	This original electoral system is unfortunately restricted by the inability of the ACT to increase the totalnumber of members in the Assembly when the number of ACT voters is rapidly risirg.   Surely one sure answer is to increase both the total number of electoralmembers and the number of ACT electorates.   If this cannot occur due  to Federal restrictions, then why not increase the number of ACT electorates wtihin the existing  total member level and have four electorates of three members  and one electorate of five members.    I feel sure that smaller electorates could be adequately catered for by three members.  This is of course still better than the single member federal electorate mode.l

Yours faithfully

Robert Mair

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J S Mair
6 Arid Place
Palmerston, ACT 2913, Australia

-------------------------------------------------------

From: Sent: To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jan Ruecroft
Monday, 16 May 2011 8:58PM
Elections
Redistribution of Electoral Boundries submission from Jan Ruecroft
Electorialboundries 15.5.11.doc

Theodore lan Ruecroft
42 Brinkley Cct Palmerston ACT 2913

As a Gungahlin resident Iwould like to express my concern at the recommendat on that the suburbs of Palmerston and Crace be transferred from the electorate of Molonglo to the electorate of Ginninderra. This proposal would further disadvantage the Gungahlin community and compound the electoraldisadvantage of Gungahlin voters.
The Gungahlin communityis a'community of commoninterests' just the same as Belconnen,Weston Creek, Tuggeranong and other clearly identified communities. The needs of any community experiencing sustained growth must be an important factor when determinni g electoralboundaries. Gungahlin has been a community since 1992 and now has a substantialpopulation. Because our voting power is split over two electorates, MLAs do not focus on Gungahlin issues and this is reflected in the levelof community infrastructure. Inote that legislation requires the ElectoralCommission to duly consider the community of interests within each proposed electorate,including economic,social and regionalinterests.
The proposed distribution will maintain the existing Gungahlin status, where we are a minor community within two electorates. This has resulted in our under representation within the ACT legislative Assembly and an associated tack of provision of services for the Gungahlin community. Politicians from both electorates have difficultyin necognising that Gungahlin even belongs in their electorate. As an example- following the outcome of the 2008 ACT election, Jon Stanhope {speaking in front of TV cameras) thanked the voters of'Belconnen'for electing him to office. If the most-senior politician can't remember that Nicholls was alsoIn hsi electorate,how well is Gungahlin represented in the ACT Legislative Assembly?
In April2012 Gungahlin will celebrate the 20"' anniversary of our community. Facilities and services provided of other ACT communities, during their development stages,have not been available to Gungahlin; although the financial contributions made from land sales,stamp duty and rates from the Gungahlin district have made significant contributions to the ACT's finances. Every audit comparing services and/ or facilities, within the ACT community,confirms that Gungahlin is a disadvantaged community and this situation has cont nued to deteriorate over recent years. Successive ACT Governments have failed to respond to community representation or to deliver reasonable levels of infrastructure. They have also failed to create incentives to attract employment to the Gungahlin/ Mitchell district and failed to provide public transportinitiatives or road networks that are adequate for the growing population.
There are many options that would bring all the Gungahlin suburbs into one electorate. Ibelieve that the Electoral Commission has a responsibiilty to work with the Gungahlin community to explore every possible solution to the current situation and implement changes that willensure that Gungahlinis contained within one electorate for the 2012 ACT election and for future elections. Gungahlin willbe a major community within one electorate or two minor communities within two electorates.
If it is not possible to develop a suitable option that contains allcommunities of common interests within the same electorate,then thereis a need to develop a process that rotates the disadvantage. Gungahlni can be wholly contained within either the Molonglo or Ginninderra electorate,however this may impact on other parts of these electorate. Without major changes to electoralboundaries it may not be possible to slructure electoralboundaries unless one or more communities of common interests are disadvantaged. If this
is the case itis time that other districts are disadvantaged.
Gungahlin has been split into two electorates for too long. In the 2012 ACT election, allGungahlin suburbs must be ccntained within one electorate. This should be a non-negotiable consideration, as it is required to resolve the current issues and to provide the ACT ccmmunity with a transparent and socially equitable model for electing members of the ACT Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely
T.l. Ruecroft

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Pauland Sandy
Wednesday,18 May 2011 10:25 PM
Elections
Electoralboundaies of divisions and sections ACT

I support the Gungahlin Community Council's proposalfor all of suburbs of Belconnen and Gungahlln regions to be combined into one seven-member electorate.

The ACT electorates would then essentially be Ginninderra with seven members across the north, Molonglo with five members across the central areas, and Brindabella with five members covering the south and Weston Creek.
This would also set the electorates up to cater for fulure growth with minimal further changes. Sandy $herd
1Gamburra Street
Ngunnawal

From: Sent: To: Subject:

KarlSchaffarczyk
Tuesday,17 May 2011 1:28PM Elections
Objection to proposed redistributions

Dear Elections,
I  object to the proposed redistribution which will see Crace and Pahnerston moved into Ginn inderra.

As an el ector, I wish to be grouped with electors with sim ilar interests and issues, and while Molonglo has issues i nsofar as access to elected MLAs, breaking my suburb into a Belconnen electorate will make it harder for MLAs to care about issues relevant to me.

I  ask Elections ACT to rethink the proposed distribution, and where possible keep town centres in their own groups (eg all ofGungahlin in one electorate, all ofbelconnen in another, etc etc) This is not to say that multiple town centres cant share an electorate.

Karl Schaffarczyk
77 Chance Street
Crace ACT 2911

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Bill Reid
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 3:44 PM
Elections
Electoral boundary redistribution

Dear Madam/Sir

I wish to submit the following comments on the proposed ACT el ectoral redistribution.  I  do so as a voter in the
Molonglo electorate of some 14 years.

I f an elected representative departs too far !Tom the wishes of the electorate, the term representative democracy loses all content.  A representative, while not necessarily being the typical, or the average, citizen of his or her electorate, should not be so far out of touch with the feelings and wishes of the ordinary citi zens as not to be able to listen to their problems witb sympathy or express their needs with vigour and conviction.  (See Graham Maddox, Aus /ralian Democracy in TheOIJ' and Practice)

Within the present boundaries of the Molonglo electorate there is a real schism between the feelings, interests and needs of the demographically  young, developing area ofGungahlin (including the Ginninderra electorate suburb ofNichols), and the mature, almost moribund, central areas.  Subsequently, most candidates base their
el ectoral appeal, and pertormance if elected, on party affiliation and interaction with non broadly-representative
networks of interest and pressure groups.  Neither area seems to be satisfactori l y represented in this situation.

It is in the best interests of representative democracy for both areas, and for the fostering of democratic dialogue, that the electorate  boundaries encourage a more genuine representation than ex ists now. Given the realities of current electoral laws, this is better achieved by joining all of Belconnen and Gungahlin in a 7 member electorate, reduci ng the Molonglo electorate to 5 members across the centra l areas.

Such a redistribution will also cater for future growth with minimal future changes. The opportunity to make these changes should be taken now.
Yours sincerely,

W.A. Reid

16 BullaIa Court
Ngunnawal 2913

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Bori
Wednesday,18 May 20114:29PM
Elections
Opposition to Electoralboundary redistributions Gungahlin

Electoralboundary redistributions is something that as a Gungahlln resident I would like  to express my opposition to help stop further splittni g of Gungahlin suburbs Into a second ACT electorate.
Currently all of Gungahiln is in the Molonglo electorate except Nicholls. which is in Ginninderra.The ACT Electoral Commission is proposing that Palmerston and Crace are also carved off into Ginninderra. They've also failed to address the long-standing problem of the Molonglo electorate sprawling from almost Tuggeranong to the northern ACT border. leaving us in the north represented by MLAs some of whom we seldom ever see.

The legislation requires the ElectoralCommission to duly consider:

•	the community of interests within each proposed electorate, including economic, socialand regionalinterests
•	the means of communication and travelwithin each proposed electorate
•	the physical features and area of each proposed electorate
•	the boundaries of existing electorates,and
•	the boundaries of divisions and sections fixed under the Districts Act 2002."

Our argument is that for too long,they've paid attention to the last two of these points, to the exclusion of the first three poni ts -to the detriment of good representation for the Gungahlin community.

GCC has proposed that allof Belconnen and Gungahlin are combni edinto one seven-member electorate. The electorates would then essent ally be Ginninderra with seven members across the north, Molonglo with five members across the centralareas,and Brindabella with five members covering the south and Weston Creek. This would also set the electorates up to eater for future growth with minimalfurther changes.
We fully support the Gungahlin Community Councils view above on this matter opposing any further splitting of the Gung8hlin
electorate.

Regards

Robert Dale Wright & Valda June Wright

24 Penfold Street

Gungah/in

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Nola & Geoff Shoring Wednesday,18 May 2011 3: 36PM Elections
Redistribulion

I fully support  the Gungahlin Community Council's submission on redistribution,to have all of Gungahlin in the one electorate, so that the Assembly would be comprised of 7 members  for Ginninderra,5 for Molongo and 5 for Brindabella.

Yours faithfully

Geoff C Shoring
22 Whatmore Court
NICHOlLS  ACT 2913

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Carolyn Sullivan
Thursday,19 May 2011 5:08PM Elections
don't split Gungahlin

lfGungahlin , including N icholls, was all in oneelectorate, the  fact that there is such a huge problem l eav ing in the mornings wou l d have been addressed as every suburb in the district is affected. It is a nonsense th.inking that we in Nichol l s have anything in common re electora l  concers with the rest of our current electorate. It also makes it very d i fficult to seck redress for what is a problem for mere Broadband, roads, etc

From:	Jonathon Reynolds

Sent: To: Subject:

Thursday,2 June 2011 3:37 PM Elections
Written objection relating to the proposed redistribution of the ACT Legislative Assembly electorates 2011

Augmented Electoral Com mission ACT Electoral Commission Ground Floor, Nonh Building Civic Square, London Circuit
CA NBERRA CITY 260 I

Dear Sir/Madam.

I wiSh to lodge a formal objection with regard to the proposed redistribution as recommended by the
Redislribution Committee.

As you are aware any redistribution must take into consideration the foUowing criteria:

•	ensure that the number of electors In an electorate immediately after the redistribubon is within the range of not greater than 110%, or less than 90% of the quota;
•	endeavour to ensure, as far as practicable,that the number of electors In an electorate at the time of the next generalelection of members of the Legislative Assembly will not be greater than 105%,or less than 95%,of the expected quota for the electorate at that time; and
•	duly consider -

1. the community  of mterests within each proposed electorate, Including economoc, social and regional
Interests;

2.  the means of communocatlon and travel within each proposed electorate;

3.  the physical features and area of each proposed electorate;

4.  the boundaries of existing electorates;and

5.  the boundaries of diviSions and sections fixed under the Districts Act 2002.

I believe tl1at it been previously established at previous redistributions that none of the criterion as outlined above should have a higher rating or emphasis than any other. However I would argue that in this instance the

Redistribution Committee has placed undue emphasis on sub-criterion 4 in the bottom criterion bullet point to arrive at their preferred outcome.

The first two major bullet points can always easily be met. even if necessary. using an arbitrary redistribution methodology, to ensure full compliance.

With respect to the third bullet  point. each sub-criteria  must also be met.

Given that no criterion should have an emphasis or weighting greater than any other, the only way to correctly evaluate a preferred redistribution outcome in these circumstances is to analyze which options will accurately meet the MAJORITY of these sub-criteria and choose the redistribution outcome on that basis, irrespective of circumstances where a single criterion cannot be fully compliant or met.

On the page 21 Conclusion of the "Proposed Redistribution of the ACT into Electorates for the Legislative
Assembly". I believe that the Redistribution Committee has incorrectly:

• Omitted to properly assess and consider the ongoing inequities for "conmmnities of interest" for the electors in the Woden Valley suburbs who remain split across two electorates,
• Incorrectly arrived at a preferred outcome using a concept of minimizing "public confusion" as a justification  for the proposed boundary change, despite this not being one of the criteria it has been tasked to consider as part of a redistribution process.
•  Incorrectly assessed the communication and travel means within each of the current and proposed electorates. The Redistribution Committee also fails to consider t11e similar on-going impact on electors in suburbs split across two electorates in the Woden Valley.
• And finally placed undue emphasis on maintaining continuity of existing boundaries as far as practicable where is can be demonstrated the majority of the other four sub-criteria could possibly be better met with alternative distribution  models.

Whilst there is no "perfect" outcome possible. the Redistribution Committee has failed to take the opportunity to make the appropriate changes that could lead to potentially a better outcome for this iteration and the longer term.

In my previous submission  (specifically in my third model as previously subm ined) I proposed changes that could potentially lead to better longer-term outcomes. Whilst my model has its own deficiencies and inadequacies.  it attempted to demonstrate  how a significant change to the boundaries could be made that could
i mprove (better matching the redistribution criteria) immediately and over time as various areas grew and developed. Unfortunately the Redistribution Committee appears more intent on taking a path of least resistance and minimal change. which ultimately will exacerbate the current problems and issues with this and each subsequent  redistribution.

Ongoing work commitments permitting. I wou l d be prepared to present in person to the Augmented
Redistribution Committee if desired.

Yours faithfully

Jonathon  Reynolds

Jonathon  Roynolds
2