From: Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

lan Ruecroft
Thursday,14 July 201110:33 PM
Elections
Redistribution of Electoral Boundries submission from Ian Ruecroft
14.7.11
Electorialboundries 15.7.11.doc

As a Gungahlin resident Iconsider lhat the Redistribution Committee has made a responsible decision by proposing lhat Ginninderra be made into the ?-Member electorate and Molonglo be made into a 5-Member electorate. Ibelieve that this proposalhas considerable merit but it could be further explored to:
1) Minimise the disadvantage to the NorthCanberra and Woden districts
2) Structure electoralboundaries to provide improved stabily.equaland consideration of future growth.

For the generalpublic, our main exposure to politicians (and pol ical candidates) occurs during the lead up to the ACT elections. However, there are olher times when politicians make the effort to seek community contact. Generally this occurs in public places where their constituents gather. If we use the'Shopping Centre'modelas a guide to shaping electoralboundaries thereis a strong possibility that lhe community and politicians will benefit.

In lhe ACT our communities of commoninterest identify with their local Shopping Centre. These being: Tuggeranong residents - Tuggeranong Hyperdome
Woden resident-Woden Plaza
Weston Creek residents -Cooleman Court
SouthCanberra residents -Kingston and Manuka shopping precinct
North Canberra residents -Dickson Shopping Centre
Gungahlin residents -Gungahlin Shopping Centre
Belconnen residents-Belconnen Mall

When a community of common interest is split,policians have restricted opportunto engage with their constituents. In reality they need to find out what the electorate's voters have to say. without wasting the time of voters from another electorate. Example -If a politician (from the Molonglo electorate)is engaging with voters at the Dickson Shopping Centre,how interested is that pol ician in the issues of residents of lyneham,O'Connor or Turner?

During the period of 2012 - 2016 the majority of the ACT population's growth will occur in the Gungahlin and Molonglo districts. Iwouldlike to suggest following modelas a guide for future electoralboundaries:
Brindabella (5 Members)- Tuggeranong, Weston Creek and Molongol Molonglo (5 Members)- Woden,North and South Canberra Ginninderra (7 Members)-Belconnen and Gungahiln

As an option for the 2012 election there may be advantages in considering including Acton and Yarralumla into the
Brindabella electorate and returning Turner,O'Connor and lyneham into the Molonglo Electorate.

Yours sincerely
T.l. Ruecroft

From:	Avinashananda Saraswati _ sent:	sunday, 24 July 2011 9:23  PM To:	Elections
subject: 	re-distribution of electorates

Dear Sir or Madam
I am a voter i n the Molonglo electorate of canberra. I live in the Inner
North. I have been interested by the suggested re-distribution of electorates. I would say that the Inner North deserves to stay together as a distinct
voting community. we have different voting dynamics to any other group. we are closer to the Gungahlin voters in that we share the artery of Northbourne Ave and hence use of Dickson shops, for example. Please keep us together and leave any further re-distribution till 2016 when the changing populations of Belconnen, Gungahlin and Inner North will make a re-distribution more necessary.
Yours sincerely
Avinashi Saraswati

Submissi on to the  Augmented ACT Electoral Commission

Objections to the electoral boundaries redistribution are mainly against splitting districts  such as Gungahlin or Woden between 2 electorates. I agree with these objections, and feel electoral boundaries should try to follow the natural geographic boundaries of the ACT. To remove the spil tting of Gungahlin between the electorate of Molonglo and Ginninderra,new boundaries have been proposed that now split the
Inner North between Molonglo and Ginninderra.I object to the 2nd boundary proposal, as it is just transferring the issue of a split community from Gungahlin to the Inner North.

All of the proposed electoral boundaries use the system of two 5 member electorates and one 7 member electorate. None appear to consider a system of two 6 member electorates and one 5 member electorate. The legislation states an odd number of members are to be elected from each electorate to ensure a total odd number of members, but this can be achieved with 2 even numbers  and one odd number.

Ithink the electoral boundaries should try to follow the natural geographic boundaries in the ACT,should endeavour not to split local districts between 2 electorates,and should consider altering the number  of members per electorate while still keeping the total of elected members at 17. If the below distribution is too far outside the box for the 2012 election, then I would prefer the 1st redistribution proposal which contained only minimal changes from the 2008 electoral boundaries.

Ginninderra - All of Belconnen and all of Gunqahlin.
Elected members 	6
Proposed enrolments for 2012 	96689
Deviation from quota 	6.94%
This electorate now roughly covers the Ginninderra Creek catchment.

Molonglo - all of the  Inner North, all of the Inner South, and all of Woden.
Elected members 	5
Proposed enrolments for 2012 	77921
Deviation from quota 	3.42%
This electorate now roughly  covers the Molonglo River catchment.

Brindabella - All of Tuggeranong and all of Weston Creek.
Elected members 	6
Proposed enrolments for 2012 	81558
Deviation from quota 	-9.79%
This electorate now roughly  covers the area closest to the Brindabella Mountains. Details of the below boundaries and number of enrolments are in the below table.

These suggested changes give a result that is outside 5% of the quota division, but within  10% of the quota division. These suggested boundaries do not split any of the local districts between electorates and follow natural geographic boundaries.

Submitted  by - Stuart Walkley,Lyneham, ACT	18 July 2011

Suburb
(bold suburbs are moved to a new electorate from proposed}		Projected
enrolments
20 Oct 2012
8rindabella	Projected
enrolments
20 Oct 2012
Ginninderra	Projected
enrolments
20 Oct 2012
Molonglo	
Banks	B	3951			
Bonython	B	2831			
Calwell	B	4402			
Chlfley	8			1764	
Chisholm	B	3709			
Conder	B	4084			
Fadden	B	2323			
Farrer	8			2489	
Gilmore	B	1964			
Gordon	B	6193			
Gowrie	B	2371			
Greenway	B	1199			
Isabella Plains	B	3008			
Kambah	B	11101			
Macarthur	B	1184			
Monash	B	4369			
Oxley	B	1309			
Pearse	8			1925	
Richardson	B	2166			
Theodore	B	2898			
Torrens	8			1677	
Tuggeranong - 550	B	22			
Wanniassa	B	5591			
Remainder of ACT	B	187			
					
Amaroo	G		3688		
Aranda	G		1836		
Belconnen Town  Centre	G		2843		
Belconnen  - SSD	G		30		
Bonner	G		523		
Bruce	G		3659		
Casey	G		723		
Charnwood	G		2052		
Cook	G		2180		
Crace	G		112		
Dunlop	G		5218		
Evatt	G		3865		
Florey	G		3656		
Flynn	G		2458		
Forde	G		862		
Franklin	G		2961		
Fraser	G		1541		
Glralanq	G		2425		
Gunqahlln	G		3513		
Gunqahlin - Hall - 550	G		16		
Hall	G		228		
Harrison	G		2790		
Hawker	G		2102		
Higgins	G		2137		

Holt	G		3602		
Kaleen	G		5330		
Latham	G		2630		
Lyneham	G			3451	
McKellar	G		2161		
Macgregor	G		4088		
Macquarie	G		1819		
Melba	G		2448		
Mitchell	G		8		
Ngunnawal	G		6187		
Nicholls	G		5151		
O'Conner	G			3942	
Paqe	G		2014		
Palmerston	G		4212		
Scullin	G		1859		
Spence	G		1836		
Turner	G			2535	
Weetanqera	G		1926		
					
Acton	M			368	
Ainslie	M			3973	
Barton	M			928	
Braddon	M			3157	
CamPbell - Duntroon - Maiura	M			3943	
Chitl)man	M	2087			
City	M			1060	
Curtin	M			3975	
Deakin	M			2127	
Dickson	M			1482	
Downer	M			2498	
Duffy	M	2260			
Fisher	M	2314			
Forrest	M			1156	
Fyshwick	M			21	
Garran	M			2342	
Griffith	M			3306	
Hackett	M			2299	
Harman	M			38	
Holder	M	1978			
Huqhes	M			2196	
Hume	M			7	
Isaacs	M			1948	
Jerrabomberra	M			9	
Kinqston	M			2368	
Kowen	M			26	
Lyons	M			1873	
Mawson	M			2205	
Molonqlo  Valley - SSD	M			4	
Narrabundah	M			4298	
Oaks Estate	M			174	
O'Malley	M			685	
Parkes	M			3	
Phillip	M			1558	

PialliQo	M			95	
Red Hill	M			2340	
Reid	M			1139	
Rivett	M	2383			
Russell	M			0	
Stirlina	M	1433			
Stromlo	M			5	
Svmonston	M			333	
Waramanaa	M	1825			
Watson	M			3733	
Weston	M	2416			
Weston Creek - Stromlo - SSD	M			26	
Yarralumla	M			2440	
					
Total		81558	96689	77921	
Quota		90412	90412	75344	
Variation from QUOta		-9.79%	6.94%	3.42%	
6 Members	6 Members	5 Members
Brindabella	Ginnlnderra  Molonglo

ProJected enrolments 20 Oct 2012		5 Member	6 Member	7 Member	
256168					
Not less than 90% of Quota		67809	81371	94933	
Not less than 95% of Quota		71576	85892	100207	
IOuota		75344	90412	105481	
Not more than 105% of Quota		79111	94933	110755	
Not more than 110% of Quota		82878	99453	116029	

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Geoff Davidson
Thursday,21July 201111:38 AM Elections
ACT Electoral Commission proposed redistribution of electoralboundaries

To the Augmented Electoral Commission:

I object to the second proposed redistribution of the ACT electoral boundaries,which moves Lyneham, O onnor and Turner from Molonglo to the Ginninderra electorate,on the following grounds:

1.    Lyneham,o· onnor, Turner residents have common interests with residents of other Inner North suburbs,being close to a major employment centre,well served by schools and public transport, aged urban infrastructure and similar age and social demographics
2.    Ginninderra electorate is comprised of new outer-Canberra suburbs,whose residents have significantly different  interests to those of the older suburbs of the Inner North (Lyneham,O' onnor, Turner). For example,lack of urban infrastructure and lack of local employment
3.    Ginninderra electorate has a significantly different age and social demographic to the Inner North electorate of Molonglo-Ginninderra electorate has a much younger population  than the older suburbs of Lyneham,o· onnor and Turner
4.    Ginninderra electorate is physically separate from,and disparate to,the suburbs of Lyneham,Turner and o· onnor.

Yours sincerely, Susan Davidson

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Emily Davidson
Sunday,24 July 20119:30PM Elections
ElectoralCommission proposed redistribution of electoralboundaries

To the Augmented Electoral Commission:

I object to the second proposed redistribution of the ACT electoralboundaries,which moves Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner from Molonglo to the Ginninderra electorate,on the following grounds:

Lyneham,O'Connor, Turner residents have common interests with residents of other Inner North suburbs, being close to a major employment centre,well served by schools and public transport,aged urban infrastructure and similar age and socialdemographics.
Ginninderra electorate is comprised of new outer-canberra suburbs,whose residents have significantly different interests to those of the older suburbs of the Inner North (Lyneham,O'Connor,Turner). For example,lack of urban infrastructure and lack of local employment.
Ginninderra electorate has a significantly different age and social demographic to the Inner North electorate of Molonglo - Ginninderra electorate has a much younger population than the older suburbs of Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner.
Ginninderra electorate is physically separate from,and disparate to,the suburbs of Lyneham,Turner and
O'Connor.

Yours sincerely, Emily Davidson

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Carol Kee
Saturday,23 Jul y 20113:11PM El ections
submission re new el ectoralboundaries in ACT

Dear ElectoralCommission

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on your proposals to change electoralboundaries in the ACT.

Purpose:To vigorously oppose the intention to remove Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham from
Molongolo to Gungahlin electorates.

I. The inner north suburbs are part of a cohesive and dynamic community,developed from like interests,philosophies and demographics, over a long period of time.
2.   Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham have been established for well over 50 years. Gungahlin suburbs are very new by comparison.
3.   By definition almost,the older suburbs have different interests and local problems to those of more recently established suburbs.
4.  The older Gungahlin suburbs (still less than 15-20 years old) have a great dealin common with Belconnen suburbs (e.g. Gungahlin and Belconnen have major issues with town planning, roads, development of facilities whereas Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham  are more interested In preservinghistoric buildings, trees;maintaininginfrastructure etc).
5.   The demographics of  Turner,O'Connor and lyneham fit perfectly with those of the rest of Molongolo. The demographics of inner Gungahil n fit well with those of Belconnen..(e.g. demographically Belconnen has 19% of its population under 14 years of age;Gungahlin has
25% and North Canberra only 13%:taken from 2008 ACT demographer's data).
6.   If Turner,O'Connor and lyneham were moved to Gungahlln,they would have different issues to those of the rest of the large 7 member electorate.A tiny voice in a huge pond.The democratic right of these 3 suburbs would be eroded considerably.Given the best will in the world,their voice would not be heard.
7.   On the other hand,Gungahlin residents, with similar issues and history  to those of Belconnen residents would be heard.Their democratic rights would be protected.

Whlist I sympathise with the nominated Gungahlin residents proposed to being moved,their move  would be less disruptive than moving the inner north old suburbs. They would retain good and strong representation from like- minded and similar issues people.They would not lose their democratic rights. People in Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham would be badly disrupted and would lose representation from like-mindede and similar issues people.

I strongly ask that you consider these points and do not approve  the proposal to split the Molongolo electorate.

Thanking you Yours sincerely Carol Kee

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Monday,25 July 20117:04AM Elections
Web Form:Contact Form

Web Form: Contact Form

Name Alan Ford

Rt!$ponse IliveIn Lyons and am  n the Molonglo electorate.

I consider that theInner northIs a strong and vi able community andIt should remain as a unit rather than sptlnlngIt up to enable glnnlnderra to be the 7 member electorate.

Iconsider that the status quo,Molonglo as a seven meber electorate,should be maintained. Alan Ford
Time Submitted 1on,25 Jul 2011 07:03: 39 +1000

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Keith and Gillian Helyar Monday,25 July 20113:27PM Elections
electoralredistribution

To whom it may Concern

I live in the Inner North,as you can see from my address.I am concerned that the proposed electoral redistribution will split this area in two -one half to the east and one half to the west of Northbourne. This area has been well established as a 'community area' for people seeking to live in a spedfic community,and help build it's functions and amenities.
I support the argument for maintaining the inner north as an electoralentity, rather than splitting it into two. Gillian Helvar,

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Keith and Gillian Helyar Monday, 25 July 20113:47 PM Elections
Redistribution of electorates submission

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do not support splitting the inner north of Canberra between the Molongalo and Ginninderra electorates. It seems to me to be wise to make minimal changes to the Molongalo electorate at this time - bearing In mind more extensive changes In prospect before the 2016 election, including a possible increase in the number
of MLA's to be elected.Apart from the matter of splitting communities that operate at the Community Council level as integrated units,minimal changes at this time will help to retain experienced MLA's in the parliament
- an important factor in operation of effective government when the total number of members is small.

Yours sincerely, Keith Helyar

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kristen Kri ppner ·
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 9:03 P M Elections
Objection to proposed  red istrubu tion

Dear Si r/Madam,
We appreciate the opportun ity to comment on these proposed electoral redistribution  i n the ACT We write to object to the proposed removal ofTumer, Lyneham and O'Connor from the Molonglo
electorate.

Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor have very l inle in common with suburbs in Belconnen or Gungahlin but much more so with other inner city suburbs which remain in Molonglo. Th i s is evident whether it relates to dwelling types, development pressures, demographics, amenities and lifestyles.

Given the constant pressures from redevelopment in Inner North Suburbs placing Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor in the same electorate as Belconnen and Gunghal in will re.al l y fragment the voice of Inner North residents  living in these electorates as we will be a very small minority i n the enlarged electorate ofGinninderra.

Whi l st there are no easy solutions to maintaining the equality of size in the three electorates the highest priority must be placed on keeping suburbs  with simi lar characteristics together, or a close as possible. Signalling out severa l  ol der suburbs to combine with the ACT's lastest growing area is a significant loss of representation for the older suburbs. Contrast this to the closer relation ship between Belconnen and the older suburbs ofGunghalin, simi l ar style of dwellings and cl oser demographics.

The issues arising from ever increasing densities and redevelopment in the lnner North are not at all compatible with the needs for fast growing new areas in Gunghalin where service provision is a high priority for the much younger demographic.

We urge the Electoral Commission  to reconsider the proposed remova l  of Turner, Lyneham and
O'Connor from the Molonglo electorate.

Regards,

J Garvey and K Krippner

From: Sent: To:
Su bject:

N ick Hopkins
Wednesday, 27 July 20119:47 AM Electi ons
proposed  red istribution

To the ACT Electoral Commissioner,

Basicly and briefly  I support the submission of the ACT Greens.
Also,  I live in Lyneham  and wouldn't want to see the Inner North split in half (only to be rejoined again at a later date)

Regards
Nick Hopkins

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ben Halliday ·
Thursday,28 July 201112:17 PM Elections
ACT Electoral Commission's Proposed Redistribution of the ACT into
electorates  for the Legislative Assembly

Good morning

I'd like register my opposition to the ACT ElectoralCommission's Proposed Redistribution of the ACT into electorates for the Legislative Assembly.Iam a long term resident of the Inner North of Canberra.

I believe that any move include Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor in the seat of Ginninderra represents a backward step for genuine representation for electors living in those suburbs.People
living generally in the postcode of 2602 use the same amenities, infrastructure and services and share the same/ similar concerns about planning decisions made by the ACT Government. For
example Dickson Shops is the major shoppni g,amenities and centre for services for residents in
Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor.Gungahlin town centre is not.

I think that if these Inner North suburbs were removed from the seat of Molonglo it would be at odds with major policy undertakings that are being pursued by the ACT Government,such as its Northbourne Precinct policy, which envisages  an expanded and integrated community living in high density accommodation.

I am also concerned  that such a move would provide greater representation for residents of new and developing suburbs at the detriment of residents of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham who have very different concerns about infrastructure and services to Gungahlin.

Yours Sincerly

Ben Halliday

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Davidson,Geoff  MR
Friday, 29 July 20117:30 AM Elections
ElectoralBoundarv change proposal for ACT-opposed

UNCLASSIFIED

I am strongly opposed to the proposed changes to the inner north suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner. These suburbs have the same heart,soul, feel,age,demographics and landscape as the rest of Molonglo,and are quite different in those respects to Gungahlin.The proposed changes would seem to have little regards to the distorted linking deep into Molonglo where linking should be on current adjoining suburbs to Gungahlin of the reasonably similar demographics.
Is there a political interest  in play here?

Regards

Geoff Davidson
Braddon

Acr Electoral Commission
P0Box272
Civic Square ACT 2608

lit; f ELEC rfJR1\l
COMMrssro

Proposed  changes to ACT Legislative Assembly electoral boundaries

Dear Commissioners -
Thank you for the opportunity  to comment on the proposals.
Of the two proposals,   believe the first- the one that retains the integrity of
Canberra's Inner North-is much better.
Primarily because the inner North has been a community for many decades, while Gungahlin has not. Bike paths, bus routes, Haig Park, all cross Northbourne Avenue. We see ourselves as "inner North" residents- it's a term that's been around for as long as   can remember. So splitting us between two electorates seems unnatural.
Another reason: the best way of redistributing boundaries would minimise moves of suburbs in and out of electorates, as population changes happen. In the second proposal,as Gungahlin grows,surely Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham would before long have to be moved back to join their other inner North neighbours in Molonglo? This would be disruptive for people living there.
So I support the first proposal, in which Crace and Palmerston would be transferred from Molonglo to Ginninderra.
Thank you for the worlyou're doing -

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Michael Thwaites
Saturday, 30 July 20116:13 PM Elections
Proposed Electoral Redistribution

Dear Sir/Madam

n1is ema.i l is in opposition to the proposed  electoral  redistribution wh ich will affect  the electorate of
Molonglo by d i viding it in two sections. As a resident and voter living in the area, I  feel that there
are common interests  for those living in the Inner North and it will be more difficult for these interests to be met if the Inner North is divided  in two.The Inner North  has many green spaces which its residents would like to maintain.  Also, there has been discussion of urban densitication in the areas both East and West ofNort hboume Avenue. I  feel that as a single electorate the citizens in Molonglo will best be able to meet its citizens interests.

G i ven the increasing numbers of residents  in the ACT, would it not be better justified  to increase  the numbers of representatives on the legislative assembly? This appears to be more preferable to me than dividing the Molonglo electorate in order to provide Gunghalin with a fairer proportion of representatives in the legislative assembl y?

Thank you for your considerati on. Yours sincerely,
Michael Thwaites

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Mia Kelly
Sunday, 31Ju ly 20119:31PM Electi ons
Proposed redistribution of the ACT electoral boundaries

Hello

I would like to comment on the proposed redistribu ion of the ACT electoral boundaries. in particular on the proposal to spl it the Inner North community. I  feel a part oflhe inner north community and would like to rema in represented in the Assembly by politicians who understand the issues throughout the inner north. While I l ive in O'Connor, I shop at Dickson and at the EPIC markets and mounlllin bike in the Majura Pines (near A i nsley).

Kind regards

Mia Swainson

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Jones, Rebecca
Wednesday, 3 August 20119:24AM Electi ons
Redi stribution of Electoral Boundaries [SEC=UNCLASSIFIEO)

Classification: UNCLASSIAED

To Whom It May Concern:

It bas come to my attention that the ACT Electoral Commission  is recommending a redistribution of the electoral boundaries in my seat of Mo.longlo whereby Molonglo's seats will be reduced from 7 to 5, giving two extra seats to Ginninderra.

As a Molongolo resident, I am quite unhappy with this proposal. While I understand and
can sympathise wi.th the reasons for the proposal -from a Ginninderra perspective - I can't begin to understand how this change woul d be of any benefit to those in my seat.

Tl1ose in the current  Molonglo seat (essentially inner city) are quite a different demographic from Gungahlin residents. We have a different set of priorities and local concerns, ones that aren't easily equitable  to those of residents further afield.

Such seat redistribution does not serve in the greater good of all Canberra  residents seat­ the size of the new redistribution looks very disrnptive for residents, candidates and serving members of the Assembly.

I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered and that the original proposal for a modest redistribution be implemented.

Yours sincerely,

Rebecca Jones

sent:	Monday, 1 August 2011 12:14 PM To:	Elections
subject: 	objection to July 2011 proposed redistribution for Molonglo
Attachments:	Electoral Redistribution re Molonglo Aug2011.odt

Attached is a formal ob1ection with respect to the latest (July 2011)version of the proposed redistrlbution for canberra's electoral boundaries.

The document is in open office. Please contact me if there is any problem with opening it, or with the formatting.

M Foster (Dr)

ACT ElectoralCommission
PO Box 272
CIVIC SQUARE ACT 2608 elections@act.gov.au

Dear Sir/Madam

This is a formal objection with respect to the latest (July 2011) version of the proposed redistribution for Canberra's electoral boundaries.

Ihave noted the various criteria that are legislatively required for consideration by the Augmented Commission when making electoral redistributions in the ACT. However, I consider that the latest proposal does not apply the criteria appropriately, and this is to the detriment of the overall electoral redistribution objective.In particular, the residents of O'Connor, Turner and Lyneham have been disadvantaged for no noticeable improvement in the electoral redistribution process.

One of the more noticeable aspects of the Augmented Commission's report is that it makes many assertions. Seemingly it has arrived at an idea (in particular, making Gungahlin the 7-member  electorate) through listening to the loudest complaints rather than fact-based analysis of the problem.Unsubstantiated assertions are often then made to try
to justify re-arranging electorates to obtain this outcome.

Examples of this less-than-adequate approach can be given by analysing several key statements in the report. Since I am an inner-north resident, Ihave only addressed aspects that affect this area. This approach has been prompted by my very strong view that my community of interest is best preserved by O'Connor, Turner and Lyneham remaining in the Molonglo electorate.
Example 1

The Augmented Commission  a/so noted that many objections referred to the diverse nature and large size of the existing electorate of Molonglo (p13)

Reading the submissions, I certainly found that some Gungahlin residents made assertions about the so-called diverse nature of Molonglo.However there was no substantiation/quantification of this view, and once could just as well make a similar observation about Gungahlin and Belconnen, albeit focussing on different aspects. Under
a counterview, the older infrastructure, and possibly the older population (for exmaple),of
much of Molonglo contribute in their own ways to a community of interest with particular
needs.

Now that inner north areas have been alerted to the need to argue for their community of interest, the Augmented Commission might find that there are objections to the diverse nature of the new electorate of Gungahlin.

Example 2

... given too much weight to the criterion regarding existing electoral boundaries and too little weight to the other criteria related to community of interests, including economic, social and regional interests, means of communication and travel, and physical features and area. (p12)

There are some quite logical reasons why greater weight might be given to minimising changes to existing boundaries.In particular, it is relatively straight-forward and not subject to as much interpretation as "other less tangible criteria" (p13) criteria. It is only a few
years until the next redistribution process, and speculations as to future growth areas are not necessarily useful.

Example 3

The Augmented Commission  had sympathy with the submissions that argued that, as a rapidly growing new area, the fact that Gungahlin was split between two electorates divided the clear community of interests represented by the new community of Gungahlin, at a critical point in its development. (p12)

It could just as well be argued that much of Molonglo is undergoing growth too, though of a different type as it is more focussed on in-filling and replacing older infrastructure.This current era is also a "critical point" in the development of the inner suburbs.

Example4

"The Augmented Commission is inclined to accept the view that Molonglo now contains more significant variations of economic, socialand regional interests, and more extensive networks of communication and trave,l than it did at its inception." (p13)

The relevance as well as the accuracy of this statement is debateable. In particular, every electorate would have more variation in just about everything than "at its inception".

Example 5

... proposed transfer of Gungahlin to the same electorate as Belconnen received extensive endorsement by submissions from Gungahlin residents and the Gungahlin Community Council. (p13)

Yes, because inner north residents of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham possibly assumed that the originalcommission report seemed quite sensible and minimalist (as required}, and so did not feel the need to defend remaining in Molonglo.

Example 6

Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner- that had close connections with
each other and which were delineated by the major multi-lane thoroughfares of Northbourne Avenue and Barry Drive. The Committee a/so noted that two of these three suburbs were immediately adjacent to the Belconnen suburbs of Kaleen and Bruce, that they shared access to O'Connor Ridge Nature Park and that they had strong transport links along Belconnen Way; Ginninderra Drive and the Barton Highway. The Committee also noted these areas had a range of other connections due to their proximity; including access to schools, shops, sporting facilities and

Calvary Hospital. (p13)

These isolated observations have little discriminatory power in terms of making a decision as to what suburbs should go where. Similar statements could be made about almost any set of contiguous suburbs in the ACT.Furthermore, the commonality of links of these and other inner north suburbs to the ANU and Lake Burley Griffin could just as easily be emphasised.

Regarding transport and shopping links, as a resident of the one of the inner north suburbs that the latest proposalconsiders shifting to Gunghalin,Ican most emphatically  state that my community of interest is much more closely aligned with inner north suburbs on the other side of Northbourne Avenue than with any part of the Gunghalin electorate.Iwould suggest that Iam not alone in this.

Example 7

While this is a major change, it is one which will make it more likely that the stability of boundaries will be enhanced in the future. (p13)

This is quite a speculative statement.  More importantly, it pales into insignificance in the face of the movement of 31,600 electors under the latest proposal versus 4000 in the previous one.

It is of interest to note that the previous report noted that its redistribution proposal(which did not recommend transferring any inner north suburbs} had an advantage with respect to stability of boundaries:
the transfer of Crace would include in Ginninderra a developing  suburb that could be
expected to have high growth after the 2012 election, which may assist in preserving the
stability of the boundaries  at the following redistribution. (p15)

Example 8

In reaching this conclusion it agreed with the assessment made by the Redistribution Committee that, if Belconnen and Gungahlin are to be combined into a 7-Member electorate, the most appropriate suburbs to include would be Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner. (p15)

This statement is somewhat disingenuous, pulling out an assessment made by the previous Committee concerning one option without noted the reasons for the rejection by that previous Committee of this option.

In conclusion, Ibelieve that the Augmented Commission should revert to the redistribution recommended by the Redistribution Committee since the previous proposal achieved the necessary balancing of electorate numbers without excessive changes to boundaries.

Yours sincerely

M Foster (Dr)

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

David Ferris
Wednesday,3 August 20115:12 PM Elections
Proposed Redistribution

I understand that the ACT Electoral Commission is considering  a redistribution which would split the Inner North -the east side of Northbourne Avenue staying in the Molonglo electorate with the west side being moved into the Ginninderra electorate,joining up with Gungahlin.

This redistribution proposal seems to me to be counterintuitive. It seems sensible for communities with common interests to slay together. This makes it easier for members  to get a more "unified" view of their electorate's interests and - the other side of the coin - for voters with common issues to identify which members  to approach.

The Inner North is one community with very similar interests.

My own experience exemplifies this. for over 20 years I lived in Dickson. Two years ago, Imoved to Lyneham (The Sanctuary) -less than 1 kilometre away,but apparently, if the redistribution proposal is to be taken at face value,now with more in common with voters in Palmerston and Ngunnawal than with other Inner North residents.

I still:

-	frequent the same library (Dickson)- the one used by most Inner North residents on either side of
Northbourne
-	do my groceries in the same shopping precinct (Dickson)- the one used by most Inner North residents on
either side of Northbourne
-	eat out and buy takeaway at the same restaurants in Dickson  as previously
-	ride pretty much the same public transport routes - the Dickson Interchange remains my main hub or
spoke or whatever the right word is
-	still commute the same way to work as Iused to
-	face pretty much the same commuter and parking issues as other resdi ents of theInner North- very few of which are 'common'with residents of Gungahlin
- 	ride pretty much the same bike paihs
-	go to the same 'community club' facilities that Iused to- Ainslie Football Club and Dickson Tradies- the
main ones for all residents of the Inner North
- 	if Igo to the localfootie, Istill go to Ainslie Ovalto watch it,even though Iam not on the "west" side of
Northbourne
-	go to the same bridge and chess clubs as before (not in Gungahlin)
-  I still keep my Dickson post office box and use the Dickson post office for nearly all my parcels and correspondence.Note thaiIstill have the same post code even though I have crossed "the Rubicon" of Norlhbourne Avenue.
still play my golf at the closest course- Yowani- not Gold Creek or Gungahlin Lakes
-	still meet my friends at the same meeting places as before (Tilleys and All Bar Nun)
-	still go to the same medical practice (in Watson- which would be outside my electorate in your proposal).
-	still go to the same parks  and ramble on the same walking tracks as Iused when I lived in Dickson (again- I have only moved about a kilometre!)
-	have the same access to broadband and telephone services and Iface the same issues with television reception as other residents of the Inner North.

I contrast, although I am now to be lumped in with residents of that area (under the proposalyou are considering),I have only ever been to the Gungahlin shops about three times in my 25 years in Canberra.I have never been on a cycle path out that way,nor used any of the community facliities. I have never ridden a bus in that direction or been in peak hour traffic on the main arteries out to Gungahlin.There are suburbsin the Gungahlin area that I have never been in whereas I have probably at one time or another walked down every street of the Inner North.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with people from Gungahlin (or anywhere else in Canberra)- but from the perspective of community facilities,transport, zoning and planning issues,medicalservices, communications, shoppni g, parking or whatever, Isimply do not face the same issues as people in Gungahlin. Rather,Iface
the same issues as other people in the Inner North- no matter which side of Northbourne they are on.I am
sure that 99%  of other residents of the Inner North would say the same thing.

It therefore makes sense to keep voters of the Inner North within the same electorate. Please do not split usinto separate electorates.
Should you wish to contact me about any of these issues.I would be more than happy to engage further.

David Ferris

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Logan Mclennan
Wednesday,3 August 20115:14 PM Elections
Redistribution Submission

Iwrite to register my opposition to the augmented redistribution currently proposed by Elections ACT.This proposed redistribution fails to satisfy severalof  the ACT Electoral Commission's own criteria.

Section 36 of the ElectoralAct requires that any redistribution duly consider:

(i) the community of interests within each proposed electorate,including economic,socialand regionalinterests.

While the redistribution appears to be intended to enclose all of Gungahlln within one electorate,it tries to achieve this by dividing the Inner North of Canberra across both the Molonglo and Ginninderra  electorates.The ElectoralCommission is seeking to consolidate one community of interest at the expense of another.As a resident of O'Connor my community of interest  is being arbitrarily relocated from the electorate of Molonglo to the electorate of Ginninderra.The ACT Electoral commission has seen fit to pass judgement that my interests lie in voting with areas of Canberra in which I have no social,economic or regionalinterests. Ilive in O'Connor because I shop,commute,work,play sport,volunteer and socialise in the Inner North.

(i i) the means of commun ication a nd travel within each proposed electorate;

Residents of Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham are fully integrated into a community of interest in the Inner North which involves explicit networks of communication and transport.These networks of communication and travelfeed directly into Canberra city.Residents of Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham live where they do because they travel to and interact with Canberra city,not because they travel to and interact with Belconnen or Gungahlin. The proposed redistribution uses
Northbourne Avenue as a boundary between electorates. Any due consideration of the means of
communication and travel within on electorate would immediately reject electorates being
bordered by main transport arterials.To border  an electorate with a transport arterialIs to have failed to understand the relationship between a locality and its means of transport.Based on the proposed redistribution,the ACT electoral Commission appears convinced that residents of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham have less of an Interest in the Northbourne Avenue transport corridor than they do in Gungahlin Drive or Kingsford-Smith Drive.As a resident of O'Connor Icommute on roads and bike paths in the electorate of Molonglo every single day.If the proposed redistribution goes ahead and Iam required to vote in Ginninderra, I will have little to no recourse to lobby the Government  for the services Irequire daily.

(iii) the physical features and area of each proposed electorate;

The suburbs of Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham are overtly distinct from the rest of the current electorate of Ginninderra,so much so that they are separated from the nearest Glnninderra suburbs by the Black Mountain -O'Connor Ridge. The suburbs ofTurner,O'Connor and Lyneham are clearly and physically a part of the Inner North and by extension,the electorate of Molonglo.To

suggest Turner,O'Connor and lyneham are part of some greater North -Western Canberra is completely disingenuous.

(iv) th e boundaries of existing electorates;

The proposed redistribution takes little or no account of the existing electorates.The ACT Electoral Commission has proposed a radicalchange to the electorates of Canberra despite the ElectoralAct advising conservative changes.While the proposed redistribution may well be intended to locate all of Gungahlin in the one electorate,it does so through too great a change.In the medium term,the ACT Legislative Assembly needs to be expanded to include more seats. While this will not happen before the October 2012 election,it is incumbent upon Elections ACT to maintain existing electorates insofar as possible,until greater systemic change can be achieved through the Federal Parliament at a later date. The redistribution proposed by Elections ACT in March 2011 would serve to facilitate the 2012 ACT election with much less short term disruption.

For all of the above reasons,Iwish to strongly object to the redistribution currently proposed by
Elections ACT. Sincerely
logan Mclennan
O'Connor

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

brendan baxter
Wednesday,3 August 201110:55 PM Elections
ElectoralBoundary Changes: objection to current proposal

To the ACT El ectoralCommission.

As a resident of the Canberra's I nner North. I  am writing to object to the current Ekctoral Commission proposal to split the electoral boundaries for the Inner North along Norlhboume Avenue.Canberra's Inner North is a clear geographic/physic-al entity and a local community with common economic. social and regional interests. This common social identity and clear physical boundaries of the Inner North community has held true both historically and tor the forsccablc future.My experience is that many Inner North residents live on one side of Northbourne Ave but rely everyday on services on the other side of the Avenue. such as school, work or access to local services such as li brary and health services. As these kinds of daily services are often a key consideration for residents at elections, I believe  that currently proposed division along Northboumc Aven ue is a very detrimental change to the electoral boundaries.

Instead of the current proposal, Iprefer the previous proposal publi shed by the Redistribution Committee on 5 May 201 1The ACT to transfer Crace and Palmerston from Molonglo to Ginninderra.I also encourage the Commission  to identify further options that are less l ocally divisive.

yours sincerely

Brendan Baxter

From: Sent: To:
Subject:
Attachments:

McDermid,Jan
Wednesday,3 August 20117:13PM Elections
Further objection to the second proposed 2011redistribution
Copy of Current_and_projected_stats_.xls

Dear Mr Green,

Iam a resident of Turner and a enrolled voter,up until now in the Molonglo division. Iwork at the
ANU,but the following are my own private views.

Having read the "Statement by the Augmented Electoral Commission",Iagree with the statements towards the end of page 14 and the views of the Turner Resident' s Association expressed at the top of page 15 of that document. As an inner-city resident of a long established suburb,who walks, cycles or uses public transport and rarely uses my private motor vehicle;on community and
electoral issues,Idefinitely feela closer affinity to other residents of the North Canberra area,than
Ido with residents of Belconnen and Gungahlin (even though other members of my family live in
Belconnen).

Ialso feel that the Augmented Commission were a little hasty in dismissing Mr Reynolds' alternative suggestion,mentioned on page 11.Some quick calculations using your spreadsheet (copy attached- the only changes are on Table 1and a new pivot table) suggest that a 5 seat Molonglo electorate consisting of all of North Canberra,South Canberra and Woden Valley;a 5 seat Brindabella electorate consisting of all of Tuggeranong and all of the southern ACT located west of Tuggeranong Parkway and south of Hindmarsh Drive,Bulger Creek and the Murrumbidgee River (which includes the Weston Creek suburbs of Chapman,Fisher,Rivett,Stirling and Waramanga);
and a 7 seat Ginninderra electorate consisting of all of Gungahlin,Hall,Belconnen, the Molongio
Valley,Stromlo and the northern Weston Creek suburbs of Duffy,Holder and Weston would have the following profiles:

«Copy of Current_and_projecled_stats_.xls»

Alternative Proposal	Number of Members 	Approx.Enrolment 2011 Projected Enrolment Oct
2012 	%above or below quota 2012
Brindabella		5	74137  74909  -o.S8%	
Ginninderra	7	98117	103373 -2.00%	
Molonglo	5	75661	77886  +3.38%	

Ifeel this proposal has the following advantages:

1. 	It keeps all but one of Canberra's regional"townships" in a single electorate,i.e.under this proposal,none of Gungahlin,Belconnen,North Canberra,South Canberra, Woden Valley, Tuggeranong or Molonglo Valley are split between electorates,only Weston Creek.

2. 	It provides for future growth better than the proposalcurrently favoured by the Augmented Commission (refer page 2).Even without Molonglo Valley,the above proposed electorate of Molonglo does have some potential for growth with urban "in-fill" in older suburbs; new unit developments In Civic,Braddon and other areas of the inner North such as my own suburb of Turner,and townhouse developments such as those in northern Watson.Ialso argue that this

growth is decidedly different in character to the "green-fields" suburban growth in Gungahlin and Molonglo Valley and therefore will attract  new residents with different electoralinterests.Even with this new growth,Molonglo's future growth  will be smallrelative to the rest of the ACT and the
% over-quota will gradually diminish with time.Under both proposals,the electorate of Brindabella
is under-quota and has no obvious new growth areas; but under  the above proposal,an obvious way to address this in future redistributions,would be to transfer the northern Weston Creek suburbs (and even later the Molonglo Valley) from the high growth Ginninderra electorate to the low growth Brindabella electorate,eventually re-uniting Weston Creek in a single electorate.

3. 	All of the percentages under or over quota in this proposalare less than the -3.49%  under­ quota that the Brindabella electorate willbe under the proposalcurrently favoured by the Augmented Commission.Under that proposal and under the current  electoral system,the only way that this under-quota percentage can be readily be addressed in future redistributions is by carving off even more suburbs in the southern  Woden Valley to move from the Molonglo to the
Brindabella  electorate. To compensate for this,future redistributions will probably have to return
Turner,then O'Connor and finally lyneham from the high growth Ginninderra  electorate to the
Molonglo electorate.

The obvious disadvantage of this proposal is that it does (temporarily) split Weston Creek between two electorates,which is contrary  to current and historical objections,effectively isolating the suburbs of Duffy,Holder and Weston from the remainder of their community.However, I feel t is probably better to temporarily inconvenience the (projected) 6,680 residents of these three suburbs,rather than the (projected) 7,855 residents of the Woden Valley suburbs of Chifley,Farrer, Pearce and Torrens AND the (projected) 9,928 residents of the North Canberra suburbs of lyneham, O'Connor and Turner (including me).

Regards,lan

Ian McDermid
Lec urer in Sca istics
School of Finance, Actuarial Studies and Applied Statistics
College of Business and Economics
Room 3.08, ANU CBE Bllilding	[26C) The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

PIVOt U\ble

	Data	
Proposal2	ISSD 	!Suburb	Sum of Actual Sum of Projected	
Srindabella	74137	74909	
Ginninderra	98117	103373	
MolonQio	75661	77886	
Grand Total	247915	256168	

Current and Projected Numbers of Persons  Enrolled

Table  1:  Australian Capital Territory

Actual

B<addon
Bruce lwell
I I OunuoonI Maju.a
asev

Chlftey

:;tv
:onde'
Cook
c.-..e
Cu<tln
Deakin
-son
Oownc< Duffy Ounloo
Evatt
•a<lefen
'arre<
""'e'
'Iorey
Flynn

...,ln

Fo<'de Forrest F<ankl
,

IActual

36C
386<

· ·2

35631

3370
827
23861
3l
12!
2663
277C
304'
4225
39231
2291
12011
2123
t72C
3873
86•
15011
21811
ll
395!
211(
14)l
246!
23901
44501
40581
24691
i
262•
633
114l ll8!
1631

24

36!
3973
36881
_        talE
3951
92!
2&

5.
2831
3151
365!
44
39

2081
205l
1164
37<
101
401
218C
_u:
397!
2121
148l
149!
12601
521!
386!
2323
248!
2314
36561
24581
86l
115E
2961
1541

%

2.22%
2.82%
).51%
-·0,3 %
17.24%
12.21%
1!1.1

6.31%
13.97%
20.20'11
4.1
0.5

·5.18%
·3.34%
2.56%
·4.2
22.6
16.6
·0.05%

0.43%
0.81%
3.49•
.22.
·5.<4•
17.26%
•4.76%
·6.61'1<
·3.4
·I

·6.)3%
36.18%
1.23%

·5.86"

now 	now

SSD
'Canben-a
'Canberra

'Conbem>

>Valley

'Canberra

I
> Valley
>Conbeffa
'Conoen-a
'Canberra

> Valley

sse

21 ·12.50"

>Conbeffa

Gnff\th

Hackett Hall Ha,man Hamson Hawl<e< H'>o ns Holde' Holt
H ugheS
Hume
Isaacs

I     SSO Bal

23t:
2004
2594
545(
241
10
31
312C
lE
226!
235
4
246
21
mol
2071
3SOE
2163

19031

234l
196'
242!
6191
2371
1199
33061
3St:
1E
229!
22

279
21
131
197!
360l
219

194

1.08%
·2.00%
·6.52%
13.63%
·4.
10
4.
12.60%
0.00'!1
1.501<
·2.
·7.
13.
·4.41%
·5.44%
•4.77"
2.14'11

> Valley

> Conbe<ra

I
'Canberra

'canb«<a
I

'(

>Valley
>C.nbeffa
>Valley

ISabell a Plains

koleen
Kamt>an

Kowen
Witham

29881
!
5101
ll1
21

2175

30081

S33C
1lli
23,

263C

0.67%
0.00%	
·6.51%
·5....

8. '"
4. ,••
·5.23%

Actual

""

new 	new
20•0<t•1 2	SSD

3340 	)451	3.32'1E	.can..,.
Lyons 	18)1 	1S7: 	2. 2	•V•IIey
M<!«ollar	2131 	2W	1.41'1E
1161 	1184 	1.98'1E
33<6 	408S 	22.18'1E

'"•'""'

17' 	181	1.39'1E
M•wson	21! 	22051	0 59'!1
Mell,. 	241		 24..	·0.65.. MoJ<h<ll		8		8	  O.OO'IE Monash 	4205 	4)69 	  3.90'11
419 	4298 	136'1E
6008 	·18l 	1.98'11>1
Nleholls 	4990 	lSI	.23..
041<S Etc•••	_ 192 	_ 1]4 	·9JB'II	• Clnboml
o·con....-	38)'	394:	2.84'1E	oO.nboml

.... 	""

66'1	.16'1E	.v•...,
Oxley 	1311	 IO!l	.15'1E
20091 	114	.25..
388' 	421'	8.36'1E
Parkes 	O.OO'IE
Pea«e 	191> 	19 	).42..	'v.....
""''"•	>.88'11	• Volley

.P.l.a.ll./o.,o.
RelO

95 	).00'1!	Clnbernt

.can-.

.......

2)161 	2)40 	1.....	c a n -
UOJ 	1139 	2.89'>
2212	2166
.....

Rivett	23J·	 2383 	).55'
Ruudl
SaiiUn 	198 	18..	.210
Spcn«	193l 	183E  ·5. 21'!E
Sttf1lng	1496 	14)) 	....21'11
SttoMIO	6 	5
Jl:	33'	0.30
2740 	28981	5.7J
Ton-ons	1694 	167l	·1.0()..
'. sso 8al 	26 	2;

!Cinbeml

"

T.......r	24 	3.010	• can..,.
59 	5'	•6.03'
19 	--6.02.
WatSOn	3629 	)J)J	2.8J'IE	•ca<>berr•
1994 	1926 	•l.OI'IE
Wtston	2444 	2416 	·1.15'11
W<s<O!I	>·SSOS.	30 	26 ·U.3l'IE
H02 	2440	I. Sft
I ACT	211 	18l
Total	3.33'11<

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Thursda y, 4 August 20117:52  AM Elections
new electoral boundaries

Importance:	Low

I'm not sure what prom pted the proposa l  to change the electoral boundaries but I   feel thaL changing the Molonglo electorate will disperse a strong community with a particular set of values. Li ving and voting in O'Connor I have al ways felt that I  li ve among l ike-minded people wbo are able to elect a member who represents those values.

Regards

Nicc i  Haynes

From: Sent: To: Subject:
Attachments:

Turner Residents Association · Thursday,4 August 20119:33AM Elections
Proposed Redistribution of ACT Electorates
ElectoralBoundaries - Objections.doc

Please find attached submission from Tumer Residents Assodation on behalf of Tumer residents.

TURNER RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC.
P 0 BOX 6169
O'CONNOR	A C T 	2602
EMAIL tumer.residents@hotmail.com

Mr Phillip Green
ACT ElectoralCommissioner,
ACT ElectoralCommission
P 0 Box 272
Civic Square ACT 2601

3 August 2011

Dear Mr Green,

RE: Redistribution of the ACT Electorates

The Turner Residents Association (TRA) is grateful for the opportunity to address the guidelines  for  its  views  and  concerns  about  the  ACT  Electoral Commission's Proposed Redistribution of the ACT's electorates. We are especially grateful for the Electoral Commission's decision to extend the timeframe for receiving submissions from the public, especially in light of the hitherto low level of community awareness about the importance of   the process and its democratic implications - especially the radical and unprecedented extent of the electoral redistribution that is currently being proposed as a result of earlier submissions and objections considered by the Augmented Commission.

The TRA endorses the Redistribution Committee's original proposal for the retention of a seven member Molonglo seat through the transfer of Crace and Palmerston into the  seat  of  Ginninderra  - this  represented a  careful,  sensible  and  equitable balancing of interests by  the Electoral Commission and one that most minimises disruption and delivers certainty for voters,candidates and MLAs alike.

In support of this view we address the guidelines which the Committee and Commission must  duly  consider. Guideline C(i) specifies the need for due consideration  for  the  community  of  interests  within  each  proposed  electorate including economic, socialand regionalinterests.

Turner is one of the suburbs which surround the city and was developed according to the 'garden city' concept which historically has been the defining character of Canberra.        It  has  enabled  ACT residents  to  'belong'  to a planned city of parks and open spaces. The older suburbs require adequate electoral representation as a bloc to preserve this character. The alternative is to artificially combine old and new suburbs which have few common interests.

Turner is one of the long established suburbs together with those In the inner north. It was settled  during the 1940s some 70 years prior to Gungahlin which was commenced during 1991. It is a vibrant, decades-old social community whose residents continue to share common values and bonds and pursue

initiatives, notwithstanding gradual demographic alteration brought about by densification.

North Canberra, South Belconnen and Woden contain nearly half of all people aged 65 and over in Canberra. In contrast, the more recently settled suburbs of Gungahlin and South Tuggeranong have fewer numbers of older residents. Based on this demographic they have similar infrastructure needs such as transport, support services and social networks. They therefore belong together electorally.

The inner north and south suburbs are situated in the vicinity of the major social, cultura,l educational and legal institutions of the National Capital. Their shared voice is paramount to the maintenance and development of  these institutions for the use and participation of all ACT residents.

The North Canberra suburbs have a long-standing, organic connection to the remainder of  the inner  north through the public  schooling system, health centres, sport  and  recreational associations, and employment  in  the  city centre, CSIRO and Australian National University. By the same token, all residents in the north depend on major health care facilities (notably Calvary Hospital) located in neighbouring Ginninderra.

Guideline C (ii) requires due consideration of the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate.

Turner and O'Connor are within walking distance of the city. Hence their focus is on cycle access, footpath safety and road maintenance. They are supplied with frequent bus  services. In this  dimension they are quite  distinct from suburbs such as Gungahlin, Palmerston and Crace where the majority of residents must,of necessity, commute for work, leisure and recreation.

Guideline C (iii) requires due consideration of the physical features and area of each proposed electorate.

Turner as one of the older suburbs in the inner City has physical features which are similar to suburbs such as Reid in terms of their heritage character. Their role in the preservation of these features (such as Haig Park) is necessary for the benefit of all Canberrans.

The suburbs of Turner, Braddon, Lyneham and Dickson have been brought together physically through the Government's housing re-development program. They  share  similar  concerns  related  to  the  quality  of  housing, privacy and the preservation of green space.

The Augmented Commission's revised preference for an expanded seven member seat of Ginninderra will compound rather than help ameliorate the above legitimate

concerns that all Canberra residents have about the limitations posed by the current system to more effectively represent distinct residential communities with differing and unique characteristics in the Assembly.

Gungahlin is not the only growth centre experiencing significant demographic change which, in the interests of fair and just democratic representation, warrant its residents having a more coherent voice in the Assembly. The ACT Government's policy of increasing population density in suburbs which are proximate to the city centre also entails a rapid increase of the voter population in the inner north through a policy of urban infill-and in suburbs such as Turner, Dickson and Braddon, this has recently been accelerated.Population increases in all inner north suburbs are, in the Electoral Council's  own estimates, among  the highest  anywhere in  Canberra  beyond  the newly created subdivisions to the north. Voter numbers are neither static nor declining in these inner north suburbs, unlike in some established suburbs in Molonglo and Brindabella.

Conclusion
The proposed electoral bifurcation of the inner north through the removal of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham from the seat of Molonglo would diminish the capacity for inner north residents to have a fair voice within the Assembly.

Furthermore, the impact on residents and  voters in  the suburbs affected by  the revised redistribution (approx. 30,000) would be particularly adverse given the very different nature of their interests and concerns facing them - these tend to be more synonymous with issues and concerns relevant to voters and candidates In Central Canberra (Molonglo).

Under the proposed redistribution to result in an augmented Ginninderra, suburbs such as Turner and O'Connor would become a marginal and electorally insignificant pool of votes in that they would find themselves on the periphery of an electorate governed for the most part by entirely different sections of the revised Territory Plan, and divorced from the attendant issues, concerns and interests that  the Territory Plan seeks to balance in those areas. Suffice to say, the electoral process is a vital pillar of public accountability in the democratic process of effectively balancing these interests.

Yours sincerely

Anne McMahon
President

From: 	Bob Edwards
sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 11:02 AM
To:	Elections
Subject: 	Redistribution of ACT Electoral boundaries, 2011

To the Augmented ACT Electoral commission,

I appreciate the difficulty the commission is facing in coming up with an acceptable distribution of electoral boundaries, considering the constraints of the 3-electorate Hare-Clark system we presently have to work with in the ACT.

However, as a resident of Turner, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the revised proposal is to divide the inner-North of canberra into two separate electorates. I believe that the residents of the three suburbs of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham have a lot more to share in common with those of the other inner-North suburbs, such as Dickson, Ainslie, Reid etc. than they do with residents of Gungahlin or Belconnen (in the current Ginniderra electorate).

In the absence of any other more acceptable redistribution proposals, I strongly support the original redistribution proposal of the ACT Electoral Commission, which seems to require the smallest number of chan9es and would appear to have the longest viability into the future, key cons1derations addressed in the ACT Electoral Act.
Sincerely, Robert Edwards,

From: Sent: To: Subject:

AlpineSigns
Thursday,4 August 201111:24 AM
Elections
Proposed Molongloredistribution

Dear people,
CouldI humblysubmitthatitwould beundesirabletospliteithersideofNorthbourneAvin the electorate. Itis paramountthata communityshould remainintact,especiallyanestablished one,accordingtothe Electoral Commissionguidelines

Northbournedoes notseparatethecommunity,manyinterests,aspirations and problemsareshared and thecommunityinterestshould be maintained

Yours Sincerely
Colin Handley

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Smith,Tracey
Thursday,4 August 201111:45 AM Elections SupportforGungahlinsuburbstobeinoneelectorate(SEC=UNCLASSIFIED)

Towhomit mayconcern,

I wishtoadd mysupporttotheproposal thatall Gungahlinsuburbs beintheoneACTelectorate. I agree withthe propositionthatappropriateandcomprehensiverepresentationoftheinterestsofGungahlin residents,ofwhichI amone,will be betterserved by a singleelectorate.

Kind Regards TraceySmith FordeACT

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Angela  Arena
Thursday,4 August  201111:50 AM Elections
Electoralboundary changes

I support GCC's  push to have aU of Guo :.rahlin io the one ACT electorate. I think should  be kept together and not have represemation from two different MLA's.

Regards Angela

Angela Arena
Harrison resident

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

loris
Thursday,4 August 201111:52 AM Elections
Boundaries

As a resi dent  of Gungahiln for the past 7 years I wish to express my support for having all of Gungahlin and Belconnen included in the one electorate and not split.For far too long we have been represented by MLA's who we never see.
Loris Manns JP

From: Sent: To: Subjert:

JC.aodula,Aswin
Thursday, 4 August 2011 12:15 PM
E*«Cions,
lectol bound;uy thinges

To: ACT tleuonlCommiSsion.

ltl rec•rds.
Aswitl lCat dula

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dee,Barry
Thursday,4 August  201112:19 PM Elections
ElectoralBoundary Changes [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED)

Isupport the proposed Electoral boundary changes for the following reasons;as they better reflect the community of interest within each proposed electorate, including economic,social and regional interest.

As a former President of the Gungahlin Community Councilit was difficult to get Molonglo MLAs to attend meetings of the Gungahiln Community Council because of the distance involved,the new proposed Electoralboundary changes should eliminate this problem.

Equal politicalrepresentation is more than just one vote being as near as possible equalto another vote it has to be practical as well,in other words your representatives have to be readily accessible, which is not the current case.

Barry Dee

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Shirley Ferguson
Th ursday, 4 August  201112:23 PM Elections
Red istribution of  electra! boundaries

Dear Sir

I am appalled at the suggestion that the Inner North should be divided as an electorate. The Inner North is a community of people. The electoral act states comm unities should not be divided by electoral boundaries.I believe this is designed to minimize the impact, and silence the voice of this community. I lived in a rural community in the 1980s where despite have three counselors on the local council, and the alternative community, com prising one third of the population, we were denied a seat, and a voice,  by always holding elections separately.

Please reconsider this boundary, the Inner North is a unique part of canberra, as are all inner areas in cities. It holds a disproportional number of academics, students, and alternative lifestyle people. Give all parts of our canberra comm unity a voice.

Shirley Ferguson

From :	Giul io  Zambon
Sent: 	Thursday, 4  August  2011 12:50 PM
To: 	E l ections
subject: 	submission

Dear  Sir/Madam ,

I firmly believe that  all  the suburbs of   Gungahlin  should bel ong   to the  same electorate .	In  general, I find that  the distribution  of   suburbs into  a northern, central,  and  southern electorates  woul d  provide the  best  possible rep resentation fo r  all   residents.

Therefore,   I support the  red istribution  of   the el ectoral  boundaries  as described in
http:/lel ections.act .gov.au/page/view/487/title/2011-redistribution

Sincerely, 	Giulio  zambon.

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Joseph  Calvo
Th ursday, 4 August 20111:56 PM Elections
El ectoral Boundaries

I support the Gungahlin Community Council initiative to have all of Gungahlin in the one electorate.

Yours sincerely, Joseph Calvo

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Thursday,4 August 20111:24 PM Elections
Web Form:Contact Form

Web Form: Contact  Form

NamePeter Nicholson

ResponseI owna property at 38Bluebell Street,O'Connor.I wish toobject to the proposed redistribution of the electoral boundaries to move Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner to Ginninderra. I strongly endorsethe view expressedInthe2011 Redistribution Committee Report'..t.hat thisoption would significantly disrupt the community  of interests that Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner  share with
neighbouring(north)Central canberra suburbs. As the variousCentral canberrasuburbs weredeveloped and settled much earlier  than the suburbs of Belconnen and Gungahlin ... they have much  more in common with each other than they do with thesuburbsdeveloped morerecently...Lyneham,Tumer
and O'Connor have much closer connections to the university  precinct of Acton, the adjacent  City area
and the neighbouringsuburbsofBraddon,Dickson,Downer and Watson than they do with Belconnen or
Gungahlln.'
Furthermore,Ifthe proposal wasto proceed,then It should be partofa complete redistribution In the
ACT not an Isolated change. The creation of a new 7 member electorate should be canvassed Canberra­
wide.It hasbeen argued for by only oneofCanberra'sregions.

TimeSubmitted Thu,04Aug 2011 13:24:08+1000

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

lesley Brink
Thursday,4 August 2011 2:03 PM Elections
ElectoralBoundary Changes

As a long temt resident of Gungahlin, I wish to add my support to the electoral boundary changes as proposed by the Gungahlin Community Cou ncil to include all of Gungablin in one electorate.

Kind regards, Lesley Brink

From:	Peter Rayner
sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 3:26 PM
To:	Elections
subject: 	Proposed electoral redistri bution for the ACT

August 4 2011
To whom it may concern

I wish to express my concern at the proposed electoral redistribution for ACT. 1 understand the reasoning for this proposal, and another announced previously - the electorate of Molonglo Cas it contains
Gungahlin)will be too big by the time of the next election in 2012.
The first suggestion was to move 2 suburbs of Gungahlin (Crace and
Palmerston)to the Ginninderra electorate. This would have left all of the

the

inner North together, as 1 feel it should be, as it is a distinct community wi th common long-standing interests that should be left as one entity in electoral terms if the inner North is not to lose its identity and ethos.

Please reconsider the proposal to spli t the Inner North in two - down Northbourne Avenue - so that the west side (Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham)joins with 8elconnen and Gungahlin to become a 7 member electorate. splitting a community in two is one of the things that the electoral commission should not do according to its legislation - splitting the inner
NOrth in two would divide and challenge the 1ntegrity of a currently cohesive, very diverse and vibrant community.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Yours sincerely
Peter Rayner

From: Sent: To: Subject:
Attachments:

Shane Marsh
Thursday,4 August 20116:03 PM Elections
Submission re Molonglo boundaries
Submission2toAEC.doc

Miss Shane Marsh

ACT ElectoralCommissioner
Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission

Dear Sir,

Objection to proposed changes to ACT Legislative Assembly electoral boundaries

1object to the current proposal to move  the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the electorate of Molonglo  to the electorate of Ginninderra.

Section 36 of the ACT Electoral ACT 1992 states  that:

In making  a redfstributfon of electorates, the avgmented commission shall .... (c) dvly  consfder-

(i) the community of interests within each proposed electorate, lnclvding economic, social and regional Interests; and

(II) the means of communication and travel  wfthln each proposed electorate; and

(iii) the physical features  and area of each proposed electorate; and

(iv) the bovndaries of existing electorates; and

(v) the boundaries of divisions  and sections fixed vnder  the Districts  Act 2002.

These criteria are plainly  intended  to help identify natural communities and groupings of suburbs, taking account of the physicaland socialgeography of the ACT.   The inner-north area of Canberra, I.e. Civic,Campbell, Reid, Ainslie, Braddon, Dickson, Hackett,Acton, Turner, O'Connor
and Lyneham, has long been considered to constitute a naturalcommunity and grouping  of
suburbs:

•	Physically, the Inner-north suburbs  form a natural group, lying within  the geographic basin between  Black Mountain,Mount Pleasant, Mount Ainslie, Mount Majura and Lake Burley Griffin. They share a common waterway,Sullivan's Creek,currently being improved by wetlands in O'Connor,Dickson and Lyneham;

•	Historically, the inner-north suburbs  were among the first built  in the city of Canberra, sharing health services, education facilities,transport and shopping centres.Children from these suburbs attend  schools such as Dickson College, and Lyneham and campbell High; residents  shop in Civic and Dickson; readers use Civic and Dickson libraries; politicalparty branches Include residents  of a mixture of suburbs  rather than only one or two.   In recent years, most of these suburbs have undergone some degree of urban renewal,sharing common  issues of asbestos removal, multi-storey development and urban In-fill;

•	Demographically, analysis  would almost  certainly reveal that resi dents of Turner, Lyneham, O'Connor have more in common  with other residents of Molonglo than  they do with residents of Ginninderra,reinforcing the view that  their "natural community"lies in Molonglo, not Ginninderra.  I strongly suggest  that the Commissioner conducts such an analysis as part of a rigorous examination of what the term "community of interests" within each proposed electorate,including economic, social and regionalinterests" means. I consider that  the change proposed will lead to much confusion,especially among older residents of Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner, of which there  are many  who have lived in the Molonglo electorate since the inception of self-government in 1g92;

•		In terms of localpoliticalconcerns,there are natural alliances between O'Connor and Sraddon, Lyneham and Dickson, Turner and Reid, and Acton and Civic. 	Residents in these areas share concerns about  inner-city infill, traffic and transport arrangements, and health and education provision.Northbourne Avenue serves as the common spine of these suburbs, rather than as a division.Residents share common  bike paths and bus routes that cross-cross Northbourne Avenue,rather than staying on one side or the other;they use
the Civic cinemas rather than travelling to Belconnen;they swim in Dickson and Civic pools,more often than those at Belconnen or the AIS; they walk around Lake Burley Griffin or up Mount  Ainslie rather than Lake Ginninderra; and they shop in Dickson and
Civic rather  than Belconnen or Gungahlin;

•		In terms of localinstitutionalarrangements,the inner north's status  as a natural oommunity islong established.   For example, health workers treat the Inner-north as one area and the North Canberra Community Council title speaks for itself.Dickson College's recent fight  to stay open serving  the communi ty of students from the feeder schools of L.yneham and Campbell High Schools is one example of the inner-north community's common purpose in political decision-making;

•	Socially,the term "inner north" is known to almost everyone in Canberra; that  surely  says something. Splitting the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the other inner­ north suburbs would be artificially dividing what almost all Canberrans know as the inner north. While I am sure the ACT ElectoralCommissi oner is impartial in his judgement, i t is hard not to suspect poilti cal motivations could be influencing the outcome  of this proposal;

•		1 suggest that  the citizens of Nicholls, Palmerston and Crace have far more in common with the residents of the much newer suburbs of Belconnen,in the electorate of Ginninderra, than do the citizens of Lyneham, Turner and O'Connor;

•		In addition,voters have an expectation of a high levelof stability in electoral arrangements, which originated with the campaign for the Hare-Clark system. Stable boundaries were repeatedly mentioned as a reassurance  to the people when deciding the nature of the future  electoralsystem. For example, In the  1991 pamphlet,How to make your vote really count, the Hare-Clark Campaign Committee prominently contrasted stable boundaries under  the Hare-Clark system  with the frequent  boundary changes of single· member electorates. In the official case for the Proportional Representation (Hare-Clark) System sent to voters in 1992, the following comments were made in relation to stability:

A voting system should also provide stability: a government with  broad support should not be "held  to ransom•by parties  with a very small share of the primary vote, nor should  voters face constantly-changing electoral  boundaries.

Under the ACT version  of Hare-Clark, a quota  of at least 12.5% of the vote will be needed to win a seat;  this  will exclude  parties with  very little popular  support.
Boundaries  will seldom change.

Itis highly likely  that population  growth In the Gungahlin  area will force further redistributions in the not too distant future. Therefore it is incumbent on the Commission to minimise the extent  of the current proposed change, with its Inherent  confusion and possible reversals  for subsequent elections.

I am not a member of any politicalparty. Iregard myself  as a resident of the inner-north with much more in common  with my Ainslie neighbours than the residents of Belconnen or Gungahlin.

Yours sincerely, Shane Marsh

The Chairperson
ACT Electorul Commission
POBox272
Civic Square ACT 2608

De81' Sir,

RECEIVED

- 4 AUG 2011
A8b ,.jj  Po AL

Re: Proposed Molonglo-Ginninderra Electorates Boundary Change

1wish to lodge my strong objection to the proposal of the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission (the 'Commission') to the change ofbound81'y between the Molonglo and Gi nnindena electorates as it relates t9 the the area of Lyneham and O'Connor. The social and political integrity of the ltiner Nonh community should not be sacrificed in this way to the interests, legitimate as they may be, of growing suburbs elsewhere.

As a resident of Canberra's Inner North (O'Connor, Lyneham) over many years, it is my experience and belief that the Inner North is a stnble and established community with strong intra-communal tics.   It is the integral area whereI live my personal and communal life.  It is an area where communal discourse is also bonded with U1e ANU and the central city and their residents.

The area around Gungahlin is quite distinct from that of U1e Inner North.   Gungahlin is a rapidly growing area with major differences relating to demography (age structure, family status) and in tem1s of government, to requirements for physical and social infrastructure provision. The differences also relate to geography:the two
areas ofGungahl in and the Inner North are substantia ll y SCJJarated  by a hu·gc a.rea of non-residential uses, including the Mitchell industrial orca, the Canberra Racecourse and the Canberra Nature Park.

To propose, as the Commission does, to conjoin elcctomlly the Gungahlin area with that of O'Connor/Lyneham is to seriousiy impair the representation of residents of the latter, on account of its smaller size relative to Gungahlin, its differing requirements, and its isolation from  the •·est of the electorate. The p1·oposed change would also serio11Siy damage the integrity ofU1e Inner North community.

In !his matter I would  like to refer to lhe Commission's interpretation of of !he criteria relating to redistributions set out in Section 36 of the Electorul Act. ln the Commission's report Proposed Redistribution of the ACI'  IIIlo Electorates for tire Legis/alive Assembly (20 II), the Commission states (page II) that it bas a
' requircment'to be 'within +/- 5% of the quota at the time of the 2012 election'. I do
not believe that this is a correct interpt·ctation of tbe Act. According to Section 36(a)
the dut y on the Couunission is to 'ensure' that the number of electors is within
+!- 10".4 of tl1e quota. This is the requirement. According to Section 36(b) the
Commission is then charged, within these bounds, to 'endeavour  to ensure' i.e. to do
the best to ensure, in accordance wilh the criteria set out in Section 36(e), that the
number of electors is within +/- 5% of thequota. The Act requires the +I·I0".4 figure,
it does not require the+/· 5% r.gurc. To adopt the Iauer as the requirement, ns the Commission appears to do, would be to reuder Section 36(a) of the Act redundant.  r would therefore contend tl1at within the requirement of +I·10% the Act provides sufficient nexibility for the Commission to satisfy t11e wishes botl1oftl1e Inner North community lind of the Guogahlin community with regard to numbers of electors, without doing the serious damage to the Inner North community !hat the Commission currenty! intends.

Yours sincerely,

C.L  Nobbs

From:	Miles soak
Sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 7:32 PM To:	 Elections
subject: 	Electorate boundary change Molonglo and Ginninderra Electorates
Attachments: 	Beale.docx

Dear Mr Beale

Attached is the Downer Community Association submission on the electorate change

Miles soak

Convenor of Downer Community Association

Mr Roger Beale AO Chairperson
ACT Electoral Commission

Dear Mr Beale

Re: New boundaries for the electorate of Molonglo

The Downer Community Association understands the requirement for examining electorate boundaries but we strongly objects to the proposed move of the suburbs of Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor from the electorate of Molonglo to Ginninderra.

This move appears to have no rationale except political expediency and strikes at the heart of the cohesion of North Canberra. North Canberra suburbs have been an "entity" since Canberra's inception and the time of the Walter Burley Griffin Plan.

We consider the integrity of North Canberra part of the electorate of Molonglo
is threatened by such a move. This part of the electorate represents Canberra's historical core, especially in the older suburbs. In our opinion the community of interests of Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor best matches those of the electorate of Molonglo rather than those of Ginninderra. The proposed move is inconsistent with Canberra Plan that treats the 7km radius of the city centre as specific planning area that should be kept together.

We suggest the radical step of reducing the number of representatives in Molonglo needs further consideration.

The Downer Community Association would prefer a system where all electorates are treated equitably rather than adopt a boundaries that have no relevance to obvious geographic divisions of the territory.

Yours sincerely

Miles Boak
Convener
Downer Community Association

From: Sent: To:
Cc:

Felix
Thursday,4 August 20118:3S PM Elections

Subject: Attachments:

OBJECTION TO NEW PROPOSED 2011ELECTORATE REDISTRIBUTION NCCC Objection to 2011Electorate Redistribution.doc

Please accept the attached objection on behalf of the North Canbera Community Council

Felix MacNeill

N Can/Jerra;CCoul'ldbiJWt ( NCCC)
Box 396 P.O.Dickson, 2602

ABN 71962 447 215

ACT Electoral Commission Ground noor, North Building Civic Square, London Circuit CANBERRA CITY ACT 260 I
Postal: PO Box 272. CI VIC SQUARE ACT 2608
Email: elections@act.gov.au

OBJECTION TO NEW PROPOSED 2011 ELECTORATE REDSI TRIBUTION

The North Canberra Community Council (NCCC) appreciates the opportunity that the
20 II Augmented Electoral Commission has provided in seeking the community's views on its Proposed Redistribut ion of 5 July 20 II , which outlines its decision to propose major changes to the electoral boundaries for the ACT.

The NCCC agrees with the Augmented Commission that its proposal differs significantly from the 20 II  Red istribution Committee's proposal of 5 May 20 II .The NCCC must therefore object to the 2011 Augmented Electoral Commission's Proposed Redistribution of5 July 2011. This objection is due to this proposed redistribution being less compliant with the Electoral Act 1992 (the Act) than is the 20 II  Redistribution Commince's proposal of 5 May 20 II.

The NCCC is particularly concerned with the proposal to move the Inner North suburbs of Lyneham, O'Connor and Tumer from the electorate or Molonglo to the electorate of Ginnindcrra. In doing so, the 2011 Augmented Commission has applied Section 36(c) of ihe Act significant ly differently from the 20 II Redi slribution Commillee, the 2007 Augmented Commission, the 2007
Redistribution Committee and tl1c bodies involved in the 2003 and 2000 redistributions.

To elaborate. Section 36(c) of the Act states that in making a redistribution of electorates, tl1c augmented commission shall du ly consider-

(i) the community of interests within each proposed electorate, including economic, social and regional interests;and
(ii) the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate; and
(iii) the physical features and area of each proposed electorate: and
(iv) the boundaries of existing electorates; a11d
(v) the boundaries of divisions and sections fixed under the Districls Ac1 2002.

ln moving Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner from Molonglo to Ginninderra, the NCCC submits that the Augmented Committee's proposed redistribution violates all of Section 36 except for Section 36(c)(v). Tn fact, the redistribution goes against conclusions from previous redistributions as recently as 2007.  For example, the Augmented Commission's Final Redistribution Report of2007  (the previous redistribution) states emphatically on page 59:

transferring (to Ginninderra) all three of these suburbs (Lyneham, O'Connor, Turner) would further disrupt the communities of interests these suburbs share with the adjacent north Canberra suburbs.

For these reasons, and the fact that this wou l d represent a substantial change to the electoral boundaries, the Committee considered that neither of these options was very suitable.

There have been no significant changes in the Inner North since 2007, so even by the Augmented
Commission's standards the proposed redistribution violates Section 36(c)(i) and 36 (c)(iv).

The 2007 Final Report also states on the same page, in the scenario of transferring Lyoeham and
O'Connor to Ginninderra, that:

The Committee considered that Lyneham and O'Connor share significant communities of
interests with the adjacent north Canberra suburbs, such as Watson, Downer, Dickson and Turner.
These suburbs were developed at similar times and share similar socioeconomic characteristics, as well as transport links, schools and shopping and employment facilities. While Lyneham and O'Connor share some interests with the adjacent Belconnen suburbs, particularly O'Connor ridge, the new Gungahlin Drive extension forms a natural barrier between them. The Committee
considers that Lyneham and O'Connor have much stronger links with the adjacent north Canberra
suburbs.

Duplicating the Gungahlin Drive extension only increases the barrier, which is certainly greater than barriers of other roads such as Nortbboume Avenue. The 20 II  Redistribution Committee's Report also discusses the option of moving Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner to Ginninderra and concludes on page 19:

The Committee is also concerned that this option would significantly disrupt the community of interests that Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner share with neighbouring (north) Central Canberra suburbs. As the various Central Canberra suburbs were developed and settled much earlier than the suburbs ofBelconnen and Gungahlin, it is arguable they have much more in common with each other than they do with the suburbs developed more recently. For example, it could be argued that Lyneham, Turner and O'Connor have much closer connections to the university precinct of Acton, the adjacent City area and the neighbouring suburbs of Braddon, Dickson, Downer and Watson than they do with Belconnen or Gungahlin.

For the above reasons, the Committee concludes that it could not propose this change to the existing boundaries.

The NCCC submits that the descriptions provided above show that the 2011 Augmented Commission's proposal, without even considering existing electoral boundaries, violates Section 36(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act. It could also be argued that the Inner North suburbs,

including Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner, have more issues in common with Inner South
Canberra suburbs due to similar periods and types of development.

However, the 2011 Augmented Commission's report paradoxically tries to claim that barriers with Belconnen such as O'Connor Ridge are actually links, clearly contradicting the earlier report by the Augmented Commission itself. The NCCC therefore supports the 2007 and 2011 descriptions above as accurate and questions contradicting statements in the 2011 Augmented Commission's report.

All of the strong evidence above, provided by the Augmented Commission and Redistribution Committee themselves, begs the question of why now make such a dramatic change in electoral boundaries that is so at odds with Section 36(c) of the Act?

There has been strong lobbying now and in the past by the Gungahlin Community Cow1cil and Oungahlin residents to include all ofGungahlin in a single electorate. This has ranged from resisting the move of suburbs from Molonglo to Ginninderra to suggesting more far reaching changes. The 2007 Augmented Commission report (page 28) noted that "only representatives and/or residents of Oungahlin have argued for changing the location of the 7 member electorate." The location of the 7-member electorate has therefore not been a Canberra-wide issue.

However, besides Oungahlin, the issue of split electorates is one that Woden already faces (and the Woden Valley Community Council has opposed), and NCCC notes that the Weston Creek Community Council provided a submission requesting that Weston Creek not be split i11 any redistribution.  And of course, in this objection the NCCC is opposing splitting Inner North suburbs between electorates.

Interestingly enough, the 20ll Augmented Commission's report (page 12) decided not to change the Brindabella-Molonglo boundary (which splits Woden) because Woden Valley suburbs have been included in Brindabella since its inception and that the boundaries of existing electorates
are a factor to be given weight under Section 36 of the Act.  If the same logic were to be applied to the Oinninderra-Molonglo boundary, this would favour the 2011 Redistribution Committee's original proposal to move just the suburbs of Palmerston and Crace to Ginninderra, following precedent from previous redistributions.

While strong growth of population of Gungablin is what originally began Gungahlin's progressive splitting between electorates, it bas also made the option of combining all of Oungahlin with Belconnen into a 7-member electorate closer to reality. However, the population ofGungahlin is not quite large enough to accomplish this. Even the 2011 Redistribution Committee's report notes in page 16 that because Oungahlin and Belconnen combined are not yet large enough to constitute a 7-member electorate, "any attempt to avoid splitting Oungahlin must of necessity split another district."  For some reason the Augmented Commission has decided to make the shift now, but the NCCC argues that the Augmented Conunission has jumped the gun

and that it is not yet time to make such a dramatic shift, especially if it is at the price of splitting already established and linked communities.

The NCCC notes that the Augmented Electoral Commission has decided to include the new district ofMolonglo Valley in the electorate ofMolonglo. As Molonglo Valley develops, the increase in population of the Molonglo electorate will accelerate the movement ofGungahlin suburbs from Molonglo into Ginninderra and can make a 7-member Ginninderra including all of Belconnen and Gungahlin a reality in the near future.  And this can happen without having to resort to ripping out suburbs from other areas to make up for the difference in electors.

It would be a subjective argument say whose community interests outweighs whose, but if the Augmented Commission weighs both Gungahlin's and the lnner North's interests at the same value, Section36(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) would cancel each other out.  Tbe only portion of Section 36 that differ between the 2011 proposals is Section 36(c)(iv), the boundaries of existing electorates. The only conclusion one can make therefore is to follow the 2011 Redistribution Committee's original proposal to move the suburbs of Palmerston and Crace to Ginninderra.

The NCCC therefore believes that the Augmented Commission should take a long-term perspective and aim for the ultimate goal of combining Gungahlin suburbs into the same electorate while following Section 36 of the Act.  This need not involve a drastic change in trajectory from previous redistributions.

The NCCC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 201 I  Augmented Commission's proposal, as it differs significantly from the 20 II  Redistribution Committee's earlier proposal. ln conclusion, given the evidence provided above, the NCCC argues that the redistribution option that is more compliant with the Electoral Act 1992 is the 201 1 Redistribution Committee's original proposal of 5 May 20 I I. The NCCC therefore requests that this redistribution option be followed.

North Canberra Community CoLmcil

4 August 2011

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

Barbara  Chevalier
Thursday,4 August 20118:45 PM Elections
B.Chevalier: Submission to AEC opposing move of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from Molonglo electorate
Submission to AEC BChevalier  4.8.11.pdf

Iattach my objections to proposed changes to ACT legislative Assembly electoralboundaries.

I have lived in O'Connor since 1975 and oppose the proposalto move the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the electorate of Molonglo to the electorate of Ginninderra.Of the two proposals under consideration,Isupport the one that maintains the integrity of Canberra's Inner North, in which Crace and Palmerston would be transferred from Molonglo to Ginninderra.

I make supporting points in the attached document.

Sincerely,

Barbara Chevalier

Objection to proposed changes to ACT Legislative Assembly electoralboundaries

I have lived in O'Connor since 1975 and oppose the proposal to move the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the electorate of Molonglo to the electorate of Ginninderra.Of the two proposals under consideration,Isupport the one that maintains the Integrity of Canberra's Inner North,in which Crace and Palmerston would be transferred from Molonglo to Ginninderra.

I make the following points in brief, in the knowledge that others have made similar points providing detailed evidence and argument.

1. The inner-north area of Canberra-Civic,Campbell,Reid,Ainslie,Braddon,Dickson,
Ha ckett,Acton,Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham- has formed a naturalfamily of suburbs, socially,geographically and historically. Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner (LOT) are quintessentially "inner north" in local sense of place.

2. I seriously wonder what the impact on voting patterns of splitting LOT from the rest of the inner north will be- in particular on the number of Greens MLAs in the ACT legislative Assembly. Potentially splitting the Green vote is an issue of considerable import  for a Sustainable Canberra, and not merely a matter of numbers or politicalnaivety. Are there any vested political interests in play?

3. Given that future growth will require further redistributions,it makes more sense for newer suburbs to coalesce as they grow than splitting older suburban constellations- both to minimize changes,to leave the existing aggregations intact,and to maintain stability in boundaries and electoralarrangements.

4. Older and newer suburbs will have different ages of infrastructure and compositions of population which in turn result in different 'communities of interest' with respect to natural urban and socialplanning.

Sincerely
Barbara Chevalier.

From:	Russell Orrell -
sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 4:55 PM To:	 Elections
Subject: 	Gungahlin electoral boundaries change

to whom it may concern
I implore you to consider keeping gungahlin in its geographical electoral boundary as the entire community out here share the same local poltical/social issues and would not get local representation .Thank you or Russell Orrell

From: 	Barbara Meyer
sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 5:53 PM To:	 Elections
subject: 	electoral redistribution

Dear Electoral Commissioner,

I object to the proposed re-distribution, in particular to the hiving off of o'connor and Lyneham to be part of Gungahlin. o'connor and Lyneham should remain part of a North canberra electorate. I appreciate that boundaries must change with changes in population but there are practical problems in splitting up a coherent area such as the old North Canberra. I do not feel that members representing Belconnen and Gungahlin will give enough regard to the character of this area, where I have lived for 32 years.

Yours sincerely

Barbara Meyer

From: Sent: To:
Cc:
subject:

Barry MacDonald·
Thursday,4 August 2011 7:06PM
Elections
'GungahlinCommunity Council'
SupportforGungahlinstayingin theonelectorate.

Iwould like toregister mysupportfor not havingGungahlinsplitintotwoelectorates.

Thankyou
Barry MacDonald

From: Sent: To: Subject:

JeremyTager
Thursday,4 August 20118:59PM
Elections
redistribution

Iam writing in regard totheproposed redistribution in theACT. Ilivein O'Connor do not,in any way,support the inclusion ofO'Connor in the Belconnen electorate.Thisisan entirelyartificial separation from other inner northsuburbsand anentirely artificial connection to Belconnen.These inner northernsuburbshaveshared interests,histories,and facilities. Idon'town acarand although I use thebicyclepath to Belconnen occasionally,Itend toshop and movewithin theseinner north suburbs.
Iurgethecommission not to makethischange. Sincerelyyours
JeremyTager

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Thursday,4August 20119:24PM Elections
ACTelectoral boundaries

Plene let h be known th&t Paul.nd Julte Ballard ot Amaroo.ACT suppott theclm INIon GungohJ1n suburb$   be within the one eJeetorate

Paul Ballard
Jur&Ballard

From:	Kay de Vogel
sent:	Thursday, 4 August 2011 9:40 PM
To:	Elections
subject: 	Electoral boundary changes for the ACT

Dear commissioners

I would like to thank the commission for giving us the opportunity to respond to the proposals for changing the electoral boundaries in the ACT, and allowing us extra time to do this.

I feel strongly that the integrity of Canberra's Inner North, as it currently stands, must be retained.

The inner North has been a community for many decades, sees itself as community and has a vibrant Northside Community Fair.	We see ourselves as "Inner North" residents, and this definitely includes Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham. Also, Turner, Lyneham and O'Connor have far more in common with the rest of the inner north than they do with Gungahlin - the age of the suburbs, their housing styles, the interaction of the residents being just a few examples of this.

splitting the Inner North between two electorates seems unnatural and will cause confusion and unhappiness, and so I suggest that an alternative boundary change be made.

Sincerely, Kay de Vogel

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Janice hodgson
Friday,5 August 20118:29AM
Elections
Electoral boundaries

As a resident  in Nicholls, Ionce again ask that a/1 Gunghalin be In the same electorate/
This is the sensible way to go- to give us a greater sense or community. for us to feel we "belong" with our
neighbours!

Thank you
Fred and Janice Hodgson

From: Sent: To: Subject:

KevinCox
Friday,5 August20117:18AM Elections
Electoral Boundary Changes

In the past new town areas of Belconnen and Tuggeranong were a l ways in the same electorate. This
is right and proper as new areas have the most infi·astructure development and have the most need for a single representation. Gungah l in has not had th i s priv ilege and has been d i v i ded. Gungah l in
should be one electorate. Wh i le it is un fortunate that other older areas are divided the impact of the d ivision is not as great as it is in new areas. The boundaries should be changed so that Gungah lin is in the one electorate and so ihat as new suburbs can be more easi ly accommodated within the same electorate.

Kevin Cox

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Troy Knowler
Thursday,4 August 20119:49 PM Elections
Support for proposed Gungahiln Electoral Boundary Changes

To whom it may concern,

I support Gungahlin Community Council's push to have all of Gungahlin in the one ACT Electorate. Thank you,
Troy Knowler
NgunnawalResident

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Gordon McAllister
Thursday,4 August 20119:59 PM Elections
objection to revised boundary redistribution

HiElections ACT

I wish to object to the revised proposalto change the boundaries of the ACT electorates which primarily makes Ginninderra the 7 member electorate.I believe that the originalproposal to just make minor changes to the boundary between the Molonglo and Ginninderra electorates to be preferable.

It is quite odd that the ElectoralCommission wants to solve concerns raised by a small number of Gungahlin residents to a relatively minor excision from the Molonglo electorate into Ginninderra by making a much more significant split in electorates through North Canberra.

It is also particularly odd to make a major adjustment in the numbers of members in Ginninderra and Molonglo relatively close to the next ACT election and to cause disruption to the work of the existing MLAs who may find themselves in new electorates through no fault of their own.

I am a resident of Lyneham and feel strongly that the inner North of Canberra should be regarded as
a united community.The inner North is one of the oldest developed areas of Canberra and has a long history of interaction between its suburbs and with the commercial centres of Civic and Dickson. Black Mountain/O'Connor Ridge and Mount Ainslie/Mount Majura  form natural boundaries to the inner North and Sullivans Creek winding through the valley to the lake provides a uniting natural feature.

As a Lyneham resident,and knowing many other people in this area,I know that we have much more affinity  to the inner North than to Belconnen. Ihave few reasons to travel to Belconnen whereas I travelaround the inner North daily for work,shopping,recreation and visiting friends.Iam aware of many people who have chosen to stay in the inner North,even though they may have moved houses a number of times,because they like the community and location here.

1 can understand the concerns of some Gungahlin residents to having their community split into different electorates,but it has to be admitted that the Gungahlin community is young and still in the process of formation and the disruption to their community caused by the boundary change there would be much less than a boundary change in the inner North. Indeed, the suburb of Crace has very few people living in it at present so would be hardly affected by the originally proposed change.

I accept that electoral boundaries will almost always divide some community or other,but Ithought that the Commission was obliged to make the minimum necessary changes to keep the electorates within their quotas.The original proposal did that and should be maintained.

Yours sincerely

Gordon McAllister

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

The Newtons
Thursday, 4 August 201110:54 PM Elections
One Electorate

We refer to the current review  of electoral boundaries in the ACT and have one,logical request - Gungahlin and Belconnen have to be in the one Electorate. Anything different is so unrepresentative and so unfair to residents as to be bordering on criminally stupid.

We in the northern area of the ACT have different needs and priorities to constituents  in other areas, and those other areas have their own needs and priorities.  To be effective representatives,elected members need to be able to focus their priorities in a clear single area, and that isn't possible  wiih a different configuration of the boundaries,and it's not possible with the totally artificial and disjointed configuration proposed or one with an elongated  shape that cuts across different,identifiable communities groupings.

Garry & Jo Newton
Residents of Palmerston for 19 years and Belconnen for 10 years before that.

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Jodie Pipkorn
Friday,5 August 201110:33 AM Elections
ACT Electoral Boundary proposed changes- submission

To whom it may concern

Thank you for the opportunity  to make further submissions  on the redistribution  of the ACT Electoral Boundaries. I acknowledge the difficulty the Commission faces in making an equitable decision. However, Lyneham and O'Connor belong in the 'inner-city/Canberra central' boundary and following are my key points as to why:

Separating O'Connor/Lyneham from inner-city will undermine densification
Although the Commission has accepted that Gungahlin Drive is a natural barrier between O'Connor/Lyneham and that they have stronger links with the adjacent north Canberra suburbs, I completely disagree. The culture of both O'Connor and Lyneham is very much connected to the inner city.These suburbs.particularly with their increasing densities, are increasingly becoming more connected to the city and to separate them in the electoral boundaries would completely undermine the densification that is occurring.

O'Connor and Lyneham are very much connected to the inner city
The issues faced by O'Connor and Lyneham are much more closely related to the changes taking place in the
city,not related to the newer suburbs.These suburbs are well-established and are very much focused on increasing densities. This is very different to what Belconnen and Gungahlin are dealing with.In addition, the greater densification of these areas increases the connection within the community.

Decisions now need to consider longer term strategic directions
Changing electoral boundaries now should be considering  future growth plans.Lyneham and O'Connor are
increasing densities, along with other outer areas like Molonglo.Consideration now should be given to increasing electorates to 7-member electorates  rather than 5 and, if decided that these changes should happen in the future,then any solutions now should be looking for the least disruption to residents - ie. moving the low population areas like Crace and Palmerston at this stage and communicating the luture plans which wlil potentially move them back at some point. This would be consistent with the Crace and Palmerston dealing with similar issues to that of Belconnen or Gungahlin and the fact that both of these areas are relatively new and connections  to place are not as deep-seeded as the connections  to place that inner areas have.

Regards

Jodie Pipkom

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Attachments:

John Symond
Friday, 5 August 201111:33 AM Elections
A submission concerning the proposed changes to ACT Electoral
Boundaries
Friends of OConnor ACT Electoral Commissioner.doc; ATTOOOOl.htm

I submit  the attached  letter on behalf of an ACT registered association.

John Symond
Chairman of the Friends of O'Connor Association Inc.

Friends of O'Connor
ACT Association Number A05026

ACT Elcctoml Comm issioner
Austmlian Capita l  Territory  El cctom l  Commission

Dear Sir or Madam,

A n objection to proposed cha nges to
ACT Legislative Assembly electoral bo undaries

Our as. ocimion rcpr.:s nts the i nterests of local residents and business people.

The 'Friends of O'Connor  thank the Augmented Commission  for the opponunity to make a submission , at this late stage. and we acknowledge the difficulty  the Commission faces in making an equitable decision. The Commission is on record as having said:

"any auempl  to avoid splilting Gungahlinmust of necessity split another district."

We submit the following points regarding the current  proposal to move Lyncham, O'Connor and Turner (LOT) into an enlarged Ginninderra  electorate:

I .The creation of a new seven  member e lectorate should be canvassed  Canberra-wide.It
has been argued  for by on ly one of Canberra's regions - Gungahlin.

(The 2007  Augmented Commission  report (page 28) noted that "only representatives and/or residents ofGungahlin have argued for changing  the location of the 7 member electorate." The location of the 7-mcmbcr clcctor.uc  has therefore not been a Canberra­ wide issue.]

2.The Commission  has accepted  that there is a community of interest with 'adjacent north Canbem1 suburbs', and has stated carl icr.

"While Lyneham and O'Connor share some interests with the adjacent Belconnen suburbs. particularly O'Connor ridge, the new Gungahlin  Drive extension  fonns a natural barrier between them.The Conunittee considers that Lyneham and O'Connor have much stronger links with the adjacent north Canbcrr:1 suburbs."

This is even more true of Turner.

3.The disruption  of a long established community:
TI1c 2011 Redistribution Committee's Report (aka 'the first report') discussed the option
of moving Lyncham. O'Connor and Turner (LOT) to Ginnindcrra  and concluded  on page
1 9:

The Commillee is also concerned  that thi s option would significantly dismptthe community of interests that Lyneham.O'Connor and Turner share with neighbouring  (north) Central Canberra  suburbs. As the various Central Canberra suburbs  were developed  and senled  much earlier than the suburbs of Belconnen and Gtmgahlin, it is arguable they have much more in common  with each other than they do with the suburbs developed  more recently. For example,  it could be argued that Lyneham,Turner and O'Connor have much closer connections to the university  precinct of Acton, the adjacent City area and the neighbouring suburbs ofBraddon, Dickson, 00\\1ler and Watson than they do with Belconncn or Gungahlin.

However. the 2011 Augmented Comm ission's report (aka the second  repon) paradoxically claimed that barriers with Belconnen such as O'Connor  Ridge are actually links, clearly contradicting the earlier report by the Augmented Commission  itself.

Northboume Avenue  is an insignificant barrier between the suburbs of the Inner Nonh and has no intrinsic merit as an electoral houndary, whereas O'Connor  Ridge, far from being a comleCiion between LOT and Beleonnen, is in fact a harrier.

4. Oensification  and urban in-fill.
The planned dcnsification  of population a long Northboume Avenue will create. rather than diminish, community  between both sides ofNonhbourne Avenue.The expected densification  of population elsewhere in the inner nortl1 creates a distinct set of issues and interests different from issues in other more recently developed suburbs.

5. Moving the 'LOT' suburbs is unnecessarily  disruptive and may need to be reversed later.

The changes in the second  proposal would lead to a major change in boundaries and would substantia lly disrupt  residents in both Gungahlin  and the Inner North. TI1is is not necessary or desirable. In addition, Gungahlin's expected gr0\\1h might result in the three
'LOT' suburbs in Inner North.being moved back to Molonglo in the 2016 re.distribution.

Future population  trends will require more redistributions.and the COJTCCt course for
2011 is to make the minimal changes suggested  in the Commissions first proposal.

6.The 'Friends of O'Connor' therefore submi t that the least disruption  to voters and to community  loyalties would be achieved  by moving Crace and Palmerston as originally proposed.  Crace has a population of less than 200.TI1is would be consistent with the clearly desirable cominued  progression towards the electoral union ofGungahlin with Belconnen.

7. We note our concem that the means of public notilication  have been inadequate, thus inhibiting public debate and the democratic process, and giving an unreasonable advantage to those who have been made aware. by good fortune. of the redistribution

issue earlier in the process. We request an e: :act description of the means by which the public was notilied.

8. We note that the legal requirement for three electorates, with 7,5,5 members, and geographical contiguity, greatly constrains the decision and makes the disappointment of some voters inevitable.

We therefore believe that the interests of Canberra would be better served by three electorates of seven members each, which we understand would require legislation both at the local and the federal level. We would be interested to know, !Tom the Commission. whether that solution would make the issue of boundaries less contentious.

Yours sincerely,

John Symond
Chairman, The Friends of O'Connor Inc

From: 	Maryanne McKay

Sent:	 Friday,5 August 20112: 22 PM To: 	Elections
Subject: 	Electoralboundaries redistribution

Good afternoon

I write to express my deep concern regarding the proposed electoralboundaries redistribution that would see my local community of the Inner North divided across different electorates.

I Identify strongly as a community member of the Inner North.Ihave lived at various addresses in the Inner North over a 20-year period, including in my current home in Lyneham for over 10 years.I feela great sense of connectedness and belonging to my localcommunity: most of my friendslive in the Inner North, most of the amenities I use are in the Inner North,and there is a strong sense of cohesion in our community.

Under the current proposal. there would be a disconnect between the local services I access and where Ilive: my localshops.post office,library and swimming poo,l which are all just a few minutes walk away from home, would be ln a different electorate.But mostimportantly.the sharedinterests,issues and priorit es of the Inner North community would be divided.

While Isympathise with the desire of Gungahlin residents to be part of a common electorate, Ifeel that this shouldn't come at the expense of splitting an already well-established community.As Gungahlin is such a fast-growing and expanding region, Iimagine that in the redistribution for the election after next,Gungahlin may be sufficiently populated to be transferred in its entirety to Ginninderra,in which case Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner could very well be returned to Molonglo,posing another significant disrupt on for residents in these suburbs and the wider Inner North community.

I implore the Commission to reconsider  the current proposaland keep the Inner North community together and not divide us across different electorates.

Kind regards
Maryanne McKay

From: Sent: To: Subject:
Attachments:

Nell Parsons
friday,5 August 201111:35 AM Elections
Submission re ElectoralRedistribution
Submission re ElectoralRedistribution from Neil Parsonsp. df

Dear Mr Green,
Please accept my attached submission concerning the proposalto redistribute the ACT electorates. Yours sincerely
Neil Parsons

Mr Phillip Green
ACT Electoral Commissioner,
ACT Electoral Commission
P 0 Box 272
Civic Square ACT 2601

3 August 2011

Dear Mr Green,

RE:Redistribution of the ACT Electorates

I am  a resident  of Turner and have recently become  aware of  the ACT Electoral Commission's Proposed Redistribution of the ACTs electorates.   I would like object to the radicalextent of the proposed electoral redistribution and support the Redistribution Committee's original proposal for the retention of  a  seven  member  Molonglo  seat  through  the  transfer  of  Crace  and Palmerston into the seat of Ginninderra.  This would be a better outcome for the ACT  as  a whole as It  would group  voters with similar concerns and Interests and who live near each other to be in the same electorates without the major and unprecedented rearrangement currently proposed.

The  reasons  in  support  of  this  position  are  set  out  below  using  the
Commission guidelines that must be considered in electoraldistributions.

Guideline  (i) specifies the need for due consideration for the community of interests  within each  proposed  electorate including  economic, social and regionalinterests.

Tumer. Lyneham and O'Connor share a very similar history and interests with the other inner north and inner south suburbs, most of which were built and developed between the 1920s and the 1960s.   They face the same  Infrastructure  and  redevelopment  issues.  have  similar demographics and have a focus on the Civic Centre.   In contrast Belconnen and Gungahlln suburbs are much newer with more recently built infrastructure, younger people and families and which are focussed on their respective town centres.

A particularly Important and shared challenge facing the suburbs on both sides of Northboume Avenue is the increased building density that will occur in the next decade or two. This is leading to fundamentalchange in these communities and this Is an important interest that should not be divided down the middle.

Guideline  (II) requires due consideration of the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate.

The argument that Northboume Avenue is a significant divider between them is just not true-it is just a road. On the other hand the closest point

between Turner and any part of Belconnen and Gungahlin is over 2.5 kilometres!    The inner north suburbs are within walking or cycling distance of Civic and Dickson and these are the centres that the inner north residents predominately use. The same is true of the recreational. educational and  sporting facilities with residents  predominately using those that are within the inner north.

Guideline (iii) requires due consideration of the physical features and area of each proposed electorate.

Turner, O'Connor and lyneham along with the other inner north suburbs are located In the plain that Is surrounded by Mount Ainslie and Mount Majura in the east and Black Mountain and O'Connor Ridge to the wesL This is a naturalphysical grouping of suburbs which wouldideally be kept together.  An example of the close physical link between the Turner and Braddon is Haig Park which transverses across both suburbs.  last year the  ACT Government held a joint community  consultation between the lwo suburbs to discuss the proposed Master Plan for the park.

The ACT Government Is pursuing a policy of Increased population densityin the Inner north and these suburbs are facing large and rapid demographic and infrastructure change. The voters in this area deserve a coherent and unified voice  in  the  Assembly representing  their Interests  during  this  period  of proposed significant change.  The proposed division of the Inner north into
two different electorates.In both of which  they will represent a minor part, will slgnincantly reduce the proper representation they wtil receive and are entitled
to.  The interests that Tumer, Lyneham and O'Connor have In common with the other Inner north suburbs will be swamped by the very different Belconnen and Gungahlin concerns.  The other inner north suburbs will also suffer as these  common  Interests  will  have  much  l ess  impact  on  the  Molonglo representatives In the Legislative Assembly.  Iurge the Commission to adopt the Redistributions Committee's original and very  sensible proposal which  results In the Molonglo electorate staying as the 7 seat electorate and which allows the inner north to be property represented.

Yours sinyerely
/)/
,'/  .,.- :.

Neil Parsons

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Margaret Evans
Fri day,5 August 20113:01PM Elections
ACT Electoral Boundary proposed changes

Objection to proposed changes to ACT legisla t ve Assembly electoral boundaries
To whom it may concern:

Ibelieve it is important to keep the Northside suburbs together in one electorate.

The inhabitants do share a lot in terms of historical status and development,socialoutlook.shared concerns,have proven they can work together to solve problems,and arc regarded as an entity by the rest ofCanberrans (I should know,Ilive in the South!)

It is fairly hard for any area to eastblish an identity  in Canberra,the city being so spread out,with a largely middle-class.educated populace and allen with no great dill'crencc between one suburb and the next.so please help to preserve the identity of the  'Northside' by keeping it as one electorate.

Margaret Evans

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Tristan Viscarra Rossel
Friday,5 August 201111:38 AM Elections
Fw:Object on to proposed changes to ACT legislative Assembly electoral
boundaries

Oear StrJMadam,

Objection to proposed changes to ACT Legislative Assembly electoral boundaries

I object to the current proposal to move the suburbs or Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the electorate or Molonglo to the electorate or Glnntnderra.

Section 36 of the ACT Electoral ACT 1992  states that:

In making a redistribution of electorates, the augmented commission shall
(c) duly constder-

(i) the commumty of interests wtthm each proposed electorate, mdudmg economtc,sooal and regtonal
Interests; and

(II) the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate; and

(Ill) the physical features and area of each proposed electorate; and

(lv) the boundaries of existing electorates; and

(v) the boundaries of dtvtslons and sections fixed under the Dlstncts Act 2002.

These criteria are plainly Intended to help 1dentify naturalcommuni ties and groupings of suburbs, taking account or the physicaland socialgeography of the ACT. The Inner north area or Canberra (I.e. Civic, Campbell, Reid,Ainslie, Braddon,Dickson, Hackett, Acton, Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham),has
long been considered to constitute a naturalcommunity and grouping or suburbs:

• Physically • the Inner north suburbs form a natural group, lying within the geographic basin between Black Mountain,Mount Pleasant,Mount Ainslie,Mount Majura and Lake Burley Grrffin.They share a common waterway,Sullivan's  Creek,currently being improved
by wetlands In O'Connor,Dickson and Lyneham.

• Historically • the Inner north suburbs were among the first built In the city or Canberra, sharing health services,education fclcllltles, transport and shopping centres.Children from these suburbs attend schools such as Dickson College,and Lyneham and Campbell High; residents shop In Civic and Dickson; readers use Civic and Dickson libraries; politicalparty branches include residents of a mixture or suburbs rather than only one or two. In recent years, most or these suburbs have undergone some degree or urban renewal,sharing
common Issues of asbestos removal, multi-storey  development and urban in-rm.

• Demograph cally • analysis would almost certainly reveal that residents of Turner, Lyneham,O'Connor have more 1n common w1th other res1dents or  lolonglo than they do with residents or Glnnlnderra, reinforcing the view that the1r 'natural community' lies in Molonglo,not Glnninderra.   1strongly  suggest that the Commissioner conducts such an analysis as part or a rigorous examination or what the term 'community of Interests' means w1thin each proposed electorate,Including  'economic,social and regionalinterests'. l
consider that the change proposed will lead to much confusion,especially among older residents or Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner,of which there are many who have lived In the
Molonglo electorate since the inception of self government in 1992.

• Localpoliticalconcems • there are naturalalliances between O'Connor and Braddon, Lyneham and Dickson, Turner and Reid,and Acton and Civic. 	Residents In these areas share concerns about Inner city inOII, traffic and transport arrangements,and health and education provtston. Northbourne Avenue serves as the common sp1ne or these suburbs, rather than as a div1slon.Res1dents share common bike paths and bus routes that cnss-

cross Northboume Avenue,rather  than staying on one side or the other;they use the Civic cinemas rather than travelling to Belconnen;they swim In Dickson and Civic pools, more often than those at Belconnen or the AIS;they walk around Lake Burley Gliffin or up Mount Alnshe rather than Lake Glnninderra; and they  shop In Dickson and Civic rather than
Belconnen or Gungahlin.

• local Institutionalarrangements - the Inner north's status as a naturalcommunity is long established. For example,health workers treat the Inner north as one area and the North canberra Communoty Council title speaks for itselr. Dockson College·s recent fight to stay open serving the commumty of students from the feeder schools of lyneham and Campbell High Schools Is one example of the Inner north community's common purpose In politicaldeclsoon-making.

• Socially, the term "inner north" Is known to almost everyone In Canberra; that surely says something.  Splitting the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner from the other Inner north suburbs would be artificially dl\llding what almost all Canberrans know as the Inner north.  While I am sure the ACT Electoral Commissioner Is Impartial In his judgement,It Is hard not to suspect polltocal motivations could be Influencing the outcome of this proposal.
J suggMt that the dtlzen-s of N!cholts. Palmcf5too and CtaMc. ve far more ln common w1lh tne tfitdents ot the muc-h n!h'f ubUrtH of
Selconnen. In the eltcrornte of Gln"•ll<lerri, than 00 the at1lt'ns of Lyne-hiam, Tumer and O'Conr.or.

In  addition, it fS highly likely that papulation growth In the Gunga.,lnaa wtll rortt: ful"lhe,. redistnbutJons In the no.t too distant
rutvre  Therefore it Is 1nc;umbent on lhe Comm»sslon co minimise the eX\ent of the ''"Tent proposed change, w1th lti 1nhere.nt <onfuslon
;:tnd poSstble reVers;;Is; for sub$equent el«bOns.

I am not a member of any political party.Iregard myself as a resident of the Inner north with much more in common with my Ainslie and Dickson neighbours than the residents of Belconnen or Gungahlln.

Yours sincerely,

Tristan Vlscarra Rosse!
Rosldent •"" riJOlsia....S votet
o·connor ACT

ACT Electom l  Commission Ground lloor. North Buil d i ng Civic Square. London Circu it CANBERRA CI TY ACT2601
Posta l: PO Box 272, CIV IC SQUARE ACT 2608
Email: elect ions@lllcl.gov.au

Dear sir or madam,

I  appreciate the opportunity that the 20 I  I   Augmen ted Electoral Commission has provided in seeking the commun ity's views on its Proposed Redistribution of5 Ju ly 201 1 , which out lines its decision to propose major changes to 1he electora l  boundaries for the ACT.

I support the submission sent to !he augmented electordl commission on 4 August 20I I  by the North Canberra Community Counci l  and wish to add a personal comment. I believe thai the electorate of Molonglo (which includes Gungahl i n and lhc I nner North) should not be
spl it because the electomtc of Molonglo provides I he bu l k of employment for Gungah l in and Gungahl in prov ides the labour and is a driver for infrastructure to serv ice this employment. Together, we will still be the primary economic drivers in the ACT by the end oflhe current
electord l  cycle. Therefore, we urc more or a nalural  fir than is Gungahlin - Bclconnen in an expanded Orindabella clcclomte.

R icha(d Larson

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Eugene Bajkowski[apbci@netspeed.com.au] Fri day,5 August 2011 2:42PM
Elections
Submission RE: Redistribution of the ACT Electorates

Canberra.4 August 2011

Mr Phillip Green

ACT Electoral Commissioner, ACT Electoral Commission P0Box272
Civic Square ACT 2601

5 August 2011

Dear Mr Green.

RE:Redistribution of the ACT Electorates

As a 50% co-owner of a property in Turner.ACT (a free-standing house with a backyard at 12 Stawell Street which earlier was the residence of my deceased parents for many years) Iwholly and vigorously endorse and support the Submission lodged with you by the Turner Residents Association (TRA) in relation to the ACT ElectoralCommission's Proposed Redistribution of the ACT's electorates.Ishare TRA's grateful acknowledgment olthe Electoral Commission's decision to extend the timeframe lor receiving Submissions from the public. especially in tight of the hitherto very low level of community awareness about,and clear understanding of,the importance of the process and its implications for the democratic process ol representation of community views,aspirations and concerns.In particular. and especially,in view of the stunningly radicaland unprecedented extent of the proposed electoralredistribution.

I support lhe Redistribution Committee's sensible originalproposalfor the retention of a seven member Molonglo seat through the transfer of the suburbs Crace and Palmerston into the seat of Ginninderra.This represents a sensible and equitable balance of interests by the ACT ElectoralCommission and also minimises disruption and delivers a welcome measure of certainty to voters,candidates and ACT Legislative Assembly members..

In support of this view I now tum to the guidelines which the Committee and Commission must duly consi der.

Guideline em specifies the need for due consideration lor the community of interests within each proposed electorate including economic.socialand regionalinterests.

Turner is one of the suburbs which surround the City andit isimportant to remember that it was developed in accordance with the "Garden City• concept which historically has been the defining character of Canberra. This has enabled ACT residents to "belong• to a planned city of parks and open spaces. The older suburbs thus require adequate electoral representation as a bloc In order to preserve this character.The alternativeIs to artificially combine old and new suburbs which have few common interests, and possibly some divergent interests and different preferences and lifestyles.

Turner is one of the long established suburbs of the Inner North.It was settled during the 1940s,that is some
70 years prior lo Gungahlin which was commenced during 1991.It Is a vibrant. decades-old socialcommunity
whose residents continue to share common values and bonds and pursue common Initiatives, notwithstanding gradual demographic alteration brought about by densification.

North Canberra.South Belconnen and Woden contain nearly hallof all the Canberra residents aged 65 and over.In contrast.the more recently setUed suburbs of Gungahlin and South Tuggeranong have less older residents.Based on this demographic they have similar infrastructure needs such as transport, support services and socialnetworks.They therefore belong together in electoralterms.

The Inner North ard South suburbs are situated in the vicinity or the major social,cultural educationaland legalinstitutions of the NationalCapital. Their shared voice is paramount  to the maintenance and development or these institutions lor the use and participation of all ACT residents.In particular.the North Canberra suburbs have a long-standing,organic connection to the remainder of the inner north through the public schooling  system.health centres. sport and recreational associations.and employment in the city centre,CSIRO and Australian National University.By the same token, all residents in the north depend on major health care facilities (notably Calvary Hospital) located in neighbouring Ginninderra.

Guideline C (jj) requires due consideration or the means or communication and travel within each proposed electorate.

Turner and O'Connor are within walking distance of the clty.Hence their locus is on cycle access, footpath safety and road maintenance.They are supplied with frequent bus services.In this dimension they are quite distinct

North Canberra.South Belconnen and Woden contain nearly hallof all people aged 65 and overin Canberra. In contrast. the more recently settled suburbs of Gungahlin and South Tuggeranong have fewer numbers of older residents. Based on this demographic they have similar Infrastructure needs such as transport, support services and socialnetworks.They therefore belong together electorally.

The Inner north and south suburbs are slluated in the vicinity of the major soclal,cultura.l educational and legalinstitutions of the NationalCapital. Their shared voice is paramount  to the maintenance and development or these institutions for the use and participation or all ACT residents.

The North Canberra suburbs have a long-standing.organic connection to the remainder of the inner north through the public schooling  system,health centres,sport and recreational associations,and employment in the city centre,CSIRO and Australian National University. By the same token.all residents In the north depend on major health care facilities (notabyl  Calvary Hospital) located in neighbouring Ginninderra.

Guideline C (jjJ requires due consideration of the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate Turner and O'Connor are within walking distance of the clty. Hence their focus is on cycle access. footpath safety and road maintenance.They are supplied with frequent bus services. In this dimension they are quite distinct from suburbs such as Gungahlin,Palmerston and Crace where the majority or residents must, of necessity, commute for work, leisure and recreation. This is a very important distinction.
Guideline C (!jil requires due consideration of the physical features and area of each proposed electorate. Turner as one of the older suburbs In the Inner City has physicalfeatures which are similar to such suburbs as
Reid in terms of their heritage character.Their role in the preservation of these features (such as Haig Park) is
necessary for the benefit of all Canberra residents.

The suburbs of Turner,Braddon,Lyneham and Dickson have been brought together physically  through the Government's housing re-development program.They share very similar and valid concerns related to the quality of housing, privacy and the preservation of green space.

The Augmented  Commission's revised preference for an expanded seven member seat of Ginninderra will compound rather than help to ameliorate the above legitimate concerns that all Canberra residents have about the limitations posed by the current system to more effectively represent in the ACT Legislative Assembly distinct residential communities with differing and unique characteristics.

Gungahlin is not the only growth centre experiencing significant demographic change which,in the interests of fair and just democratic representation, warrant its residents having a more coherent voice in the Assembly. The ACT Government's policy or increasing population density in suburbs which are proximate to the city centre also entails a rapid increase of the voter population in the inner north through a policy of urban infill - and in suburbs such as Turner,Dickson and Braddon. this has recently been accelerated. Population increases in all inner north suburbs are, in the Electoral Council's own estimates.among the highest
anywherein Canberra beyond lhe newly created subdivisions to the north. Voter numbers are neither  static nor declining in these inner north suburbs,unlike In some established suburbs in Molonglo and Brindabella.

Conclusion

The proposed electoralbifurcation of the inner north through the removalof Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham from Ihe seat of Molonglo would diminish the capacity  for inner north residents to have a fair voice within the Assembly.

Furthermore, the impact on residents and voters in the suburbs affected by the revised redistribution (approx.
30,000) would be particularly adverse because of the very different nature of their interests and concerns facing them -these tend to be more synonymous with issues and concerns relevant to voters and candidatesin Central Canberra (Molonglo).

Under the proposed redistribution to result in an augmented Ginninderra,suburbs such as Turner and O'Connor would become merely a marginaland insignificant electoral pool or voles because they would find themselves on the periphery of an electorate governed  for the most part by entirety different sect ons of the revi sed Territory Plan, and divorced from the attendant issues, concerns and interests that the Territory Plan seeks to balance in those areas. Suffice to say. the electoral process is a vitalpillar of public accountability in the democratic process of effectively balancing theseinterests.

Yours sincerely.

Eugene Andrew Bajkowski

Submission re. proposed changes to ACT Legislative Assembly electoral boundaries

The ACT Electoral Commission elections@act.aov. au
Dear Mr.Green

Dear Commissioners,

I am a long-time resident  of Braddon and I thank you for the opportunity  to comment on the proposals. Of the two proposals.I believe the first- the one that retains the integrity of Canberra's Inner North-i s by far the very much better. I also wholly endorse and support the Submi ssions made to ACT ElectoralCommission on this subject by the Turner Residents' Association and by my husband Eugene Andrew Bajkowski.

First of all, the Inner North of Canberra has been an integrated.cohesive community for many decades. while Gungahlln has not. Bike paths, bus routes,Haig Park,all cross Northboume Avenue. We see ourselves as "Inner North" residents - it's a term that's been around for as long as Ican remember and I have lived with my family in Braddon since 1975.Braddon already was a long-established community at that time. We brought up our family here.We have many common communityinterests on both sides of Northbourne Avenue. Our son lives In Turnerin the house in which his Grandparents lived and of whi ch he i s a co-owner.

Splitting us between two electorates seems unnaturaland it is difficult to see what usefulpurpose it might possibly serve.There Is another reason:the best way of redistributing boundaries would minimise moves of suburbs in and out or electorates.as population changes occur.In the second proposal. as Gungahlln grows and expands,surely Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham would before long have to be moved back to join their other inner North neighbours in Molonglo? This would be disruptive for people living there.

Therefore Isupoort the first proposaL in which Crace and Palmerston would be transferred from Molonglo to
Glnninderra. Yours sincerely, Jolanta Bajkowskl

ACT Electoral Commission
PO Box 272
Civic Square ACT 2608

Friday, 5 August 20 I  I

Dear ACT Electoral Commission

I am writing to object to the proposed changes to the ACT electoral boundaries that would see the inner North divided: Turner.O'Connor and Lyneham separated from Braddon, Reid, Ainslie, Dickson, Hackett, Watson and Downer.

My objection l ies in how this proposed redistribution divides a relatively long esta blished inner North communit y. I usc my own pattern of Canberra habitation to substantiate this claim.

I  grew up in Suuon, NSW and went to High School at Lyneham, then College at Dickson, this school ing undertaken in the early 1980s. My catchment of friends was not surprisingly mostly from the inner North. n1is association and an emerging identity with this area deepened when lief\ school. where I lived in a range of houses in Turner, Reid, Ainslie, and O'Connor.  I purchased the place where I now live two years ago and plan to reside here long tcnn.These suburbs both east and west ofNorthboume Avenue arc Canberra to me.
North boume Avenue was and is not an obvious and self-evident dividing line. My present domestic paucrn of lile in Ainslie cannot be distinguished from when I lived in O'Connor, Tumcr, or Reid. Apan from the obvious, ie I now leave from home cast of Northboume, I still shop at the same shops (Ainsl ie, Dickson, O'Connor, Lyneham), I go to the same bars and cafes (Ci vic, Lyncham), I visit the same friends (Ainslie, O'Connor, Lyneham).

Di vidi ng this communit y of which I am pan takes somet hing important away from me. The electorate in which one resides means something. Identity, connection, shared services, common representatives, shared vision. This is Communit y. By dividi ng thi s area across two electorates you would be dividing a palpably l i ving community. Division of the inner Nortll seems antagonistic to the spirit and i ntent of good decision-making with regard to the placement of an electoral boundary.

Sincerely

J acqueline de Chazal

From:        Reqan   Fiel d
Sent: 	Fr1day, 5  August 2011 3:41 PM To:	Elections
subject:             objection to the changed electoral boundaries

To  whom It May concern:

I am writ i ng  as a resident  of  O'Connor to  express  my concern at  the proposed changes to  the  Electoral   boundaries to  separate  Turner,  O'Connor and   Lyneham from the rest  of   the  Molongolo el ectorate .

I  have lived in the inner North   of   canberra for  over 11 years and   consider al l the inne r -North  subu r bs   as one   comm unity of   interest.
while I l i ve   in O'Conno r , my household regularly  frequent Civic and   Di ckson for  work, shopp i ng  and   leisure . I think the issues of   concern for  my subu rb are more  comparabl e to those of   Ainslie, Reid,  Dickson,  Downer, watson  and
H ackett,  given the age   of   the  suburbs and   common   central l ocation. These suburbs and   their  residents share a community of  interest and   if split , I wou l d  be  conce r ned   that our interests  may  not  be as  wel l  represented in the Leg i slative Assemb ly.

Kind   regards

R  Fiel d

Sent: To: Subject:

Friday,5 August 20114:14 PM Elections
A submission concerning the proposed changes to ACT Electoral
Boundaries

Dear Sir/Madam

Isupport the following 'Friends  of O'Connor' submission. thank you
Michael Walsh

'l'hc 'Friends of O'Connor thank the A ugmented Commission for the opportunity to make a submission.at this late stage. and we acknowledge
the difficulty 1he Conunission faces in making an equitable decision. The Commission is on record as havingsaid:

..any aue-rnpt lo avoid splining Oungahlni must of Jlecessity split another dis1ric1.'"
We submit the following poin ts regarding the currcm proposal to move Lyucham.O'Connor and Turner (LOT) into an enlarged Ginninderra
clectorotc:

1.'fhe creation of a new seven member clectomte should be canvassed Ca ntx.."'''"a widc. It has been argued ror by only one of Can berm's regions· Gungahlin.

fFhe 2007 Augmented Com mission repcm (page 28) noted thzu •only reprtserumivcs and/or residents ofGungahlin ha,•c argued for changing t he loc-ation or the 7 member el('(:tor:ue.'' The locn tion of the 7-mernbcr electorate has thcrerorc not been a C:mberr::t -wide issue.)
2.The Commission has acccpu.-d t hat there isa communi ty or interest with 'adjncem nonh Canbcrrn suburbs', a nd has stated <."Urlier.

"While Lyneham :md O'Connor share some i nterests with the adjacem Belconnen su burbs. particularly O'Connor ridge.the new
G ungahlin Drive ex tension fonns a natural barrier between them. l11e Committee considers that Lyneham and O'Connor have much stronge.r links with the adjacem north canberra subu rbs."

This is even more trucorTumer.

J. The disruption of a tong cst3blishcd com munity:
The 2011 Redistribution Committee's R.cpon (aka ' the first report') discussed t he option of moving Lyneham. O'Connor and Turner (LOT) to
Ginninderra and concluded on page 19:
The Committee is also concerned that this op4ion would significantly disrupt the com munity of intcn.'SlS tha t  Lyneham. O'Connor and
Turner share with neighbouring (north) Central Canberra suburbs. As the 'arious Centro!Canberra su burbs were developed and settled
much earlier chan the suburbs or Belconnen and GungahHn. it is arguable they have much more in oommon with each other than they do
with the subu rbs developed more recernl y. For example, it could be argued that Lyneham, Turner and O'Connor have much closer
connections to the uni versity preciJlCt of Acton, the adjacem Ciry area and the neigh bouring suburbs of Braddon. Dickson.Downer and
Wmson than they do with Belconuen or Gurtgahlin.

I lowever, t he 20 II A ugmerued Commission's repon (aka the second repon) p:.rado:<ically claimed that b:. rriers with lleloor1nen such as
O'Con nor Ridge arc actually links.c:le1trly contradicting the cttrlier repor1 by t he Augmcn u.-d Commission i tseiC

North boume Avenue is an insignificant barrier between the su burbs or the Inner Nonh and has no intrinsic merit tlS an cl(!(;toral boundary. whereas O'Connor Ridge.rar from being a connection between LOT and Beloon nen, is i n fact a b."lrr/er.

4. Oensitication and urban i n· fill.
The planned densification or population along Nonh boume Avenue will create. ra ther than diminish. com munity bet ween both sides of Non h boume Avenue.The expected densi fication of population elsewhere in the inner north creates a distinct set of issues and interests differem from issues in other more rcceruly developed suburbs.

5. Movirlg.ahe 'LOrsuburbs is unnecessarily disrupti ve and may need to be reversed Jmer.

'l'he changes  in the second proposal would lead to a major change in boundaries and would substantially disrupt residcms in both Oungahlin and the I nner Nonh. This is nm necessary or desirable. In addition.G u ngahlin'scxpe<:tcd growth mighc result in the three 'LOrsuburbs in Inner Nonh. being moved back to MolongJo in the 2016 redistribution.

J=uture population 1rends will requi re more redistributions, and lhe correct course for 20 II is to ma ke the minimal changes suggested in the
Commissions first proposal.

6.The 'Friends of O'Connor' therefore submit thm the least disruption to vmers and tO community loyal!i(.'S would be achieved by mO\'ing Cntce- and Pa hutrston as originally proposed. Cra<.-e has t1population of less than 200. This would be consistent with the clearly desi rable continued progression lowards lhc electoral union ofGunguhlin wilh Beh:onncn.
7.We note our concen1 that lhe means or public notification have been inadequate. thus inhibiting public debate ruld 1he democratic process, and giving M unreasonable ad va.1tage 10those who ha ve been made aware. by good fOrtune.of the redistributior1 issue earlier in the process. We reques1 au exact description of the 1nea.ns by which the public was notified.

8. We nOit' t hat Ihe legal requi rement tOr t hn:c eleelorntcs.with 7.S.S member:;,, and geographical con tiguity, grcally consl r3ins the decision and makes the disa ppoi nlmcm of some voters i nevitable.

We therefOre believe tha t  the interests of Canberra would be bener served by three electomtes of seven members each, which we unders1and would req ui re legislation both at t he focal and the fedeml level. We would be irucrested to know, from the Commission. whether that solution would make the issue of boUJ1daries less comeruiou..

Sent: To:
Subject:

Friday,5 August 201110:54 AM
Elections
Electorate Boundary Change

ACT ElectoralCommissioner,Dear Sir,
We strongly support the proposal of a redistribution of an electoralboundary which combines ALL
of the Gungahlin region into Ginninderra electorate (combining with Belconnen region).
Gungahlin is a rapidly growing region and is now lackingin adequate infrastructure,(both into and throughout the region) very limited job opportunities,(particularly Government jobs) and poor facilities (not even a canberra Connect office) while each week more and more people are moving into Gungahlin area. The ACT Government has NOT delivered on many "promises" (completion of roads,provision of an Aquatic Centre,etc) and have disregarded many pressing issues as the region has been "split" across two
electorates.
Combining the region will give the Gungahlin community i.e. the voting public, the opportunity to press for these issues (and many more) to be addressed. We look forward to this proposalbeing adopted.

Harvey & lorraine Bromwich
Amaroo

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Nicola Davies
Friday,5 August 20112:22 PM El ections
Molonglo Redistribution

To whom it may concern

1 am writing to object  to the most recent  proposed  redistribution which sees north  canberra  spl t between  Molonglo and Gininderra, and would request  a return to the original proposalwhich say Crace and Palmerston moved to Ginninderra.   As a resident of Molonglo, and therefore a citizen a ffected by this proposal, I am deeply  concerned about the impact of this proposal on my commLmi ty.  The North Canberra  community is a well
defined, engaged, and dynamic community built  around  the environmental,
town planning and social factors  that define inner north
Canberra.  Moreover we are represented as a community by  the North Canberra  Community  Council exactl y because of the commonality of interests that define  this unique community. I understand  that one of the main reasons  for the new proposed  redistribution was concerns  by Gungahlin residents  about the impact  of the original redistribution on their community.  In response Iwould say that consequently Iwould expect  the same treatment of the North Canberra  communi ty and further  that the
new proposed  redistribution has a much larger  impact  on the North Canberra community than the orginal proposal to remove Palmerstone and Crace ( which in the l ater case less than half built)  to Gininderra.

Nicola  Davies

From:	Lynn
Sent:	Friday,· s  August  2011 4:46PM
To: 	Elections
subject: 	Gungahlin electoral boundary  changes

I l ive in Ngunnawal and  have   done  for 14  years.I   would like to see  the changes made  to the electoral  boundaries in my  area. It makes  no  sense   at al l to have   one  area divided  as  Gungahlin is. It is confusi ng  for  voters and surely,  unnecessary.

Here is my  vote to have  Gungahlin one  electoral zone  with Bel connen. thankyou
Lynn  Nerdal

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

JenniBoon
Friday, 5 August 20112:04 PM
Elections
A submission c-oncerning the proposed changes to ACT Electoral
Boundaries

Dear Commissioners

TI1ank you for the opportunity to make a subm ission on the proposal to move Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner (LOT) into an enlarged Ginninderra electorate. As a resident and rate-payer of O'Connor I have several concems about the proposal and wish to register my objections to it for the IC>IIowing reasons:

I.The creation of a new electorate has not been adequately cMvassed. It has been argut-d for by only one of Canberra's regions -Gungahlin and should be canvassed Canberra-wide.

2.The Commission has accepted that there is a comm unity of interest within 'adjacent
North Can berra suburbs'.and has previously stated:

"While Lyncham and O'Connor share some interests wit h the adjacent Bclconnen suburbs. particularly O'Connor ridge, the new Gungahlin Drive extension forms a natural barrier between t hem.The Commiuce considers that Lyneham and 0'Connor have much stronger links with the adjacent north Canberra suburbs."

3.The disru ption of a long established community:
1l1e 2011 Redistribution Committee's Report discussed the option of moving
Lyneham, O'Connor and Tumer (LOT) to Gi nninderra and concluded on page 19:
"The Comm ittee is also conoemed that t his option would sign i licantly disrupt the community of interests that Lyoeham, O'Connor and Tumer share with neigh bouring (north) Central Canberra su burbs. As the various Central Canberra suburbs were developed and settled much earlier than the suburbs of Belconnen and Gungahlin, it is arguable they have much more i n common  with each other than they do with the suburbs developed more recently. For exam ple, it could be argued that Lyncham, Turner and O'Connor have much closer connections to the university precinct of Acton, the adjacent City area and the neigh bouring suburbs of Braddon, Dickson, Downer and Watson than they do with Belconnen or Gungahlin".

4. Densification and urban in-li ll.
The planned densilication of population along North boume Aven ue will create, rather
than diminish, community on both sides of Northboume Avenue. The expected
densification of population elsewhere in the i nner nonil creates a distinct set of issues
and interests di fferent from issues in other more recently developed su burbs.

5. Moving the 'LOT' suburbs is unnecessarily dis.ruptive and may need to be reversed later.

The changes in the second proposal would lead to a major change in boundaries and would substantially disrupt residents in both Gungahlin and the Inner North. ll1is is not necessary or desirable. In addition, Gungahlin's expected growth might resu lt in the three 'LOT' su burbs in I nner North, being moved back to Molonglo in the 2016 redistribution.

Future population trends will req uire more redistributions, and the correct course for
20I I  is to make the minimal changessuggested in the Commissions lirst proposal.

6. The least disruption 10 voters and to comm unity loyalties would be achieved by moving Crace and Palmerston as originally proposed. Crace has a population of less than 200.This would be consistent with the clearly desirable contin ued progression towards the electoral union ofGungahlin with Belconnen.

Your sincerely

Jenni Boon

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Colin Pardoe
Friday,5 August 2011 4:39 PM Elections
Submission on ACT Electoralboundaries

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to express concern about the proposal to shift the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and
Turner from the electorate of Molonglo into the electorate of Gni ninderra.
Such a proposal seems to contradict many of the principles of the ElectoralAct.These include community of interests such as economic and soci al interests;communication and travel;and physicalfeatures.
Clearly Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner have a strong historic,social,institutionaland demographic
relationship with the other inner northern suburbs as well as a number of shared values and concerns. Belconnen,on the other hand,Is geographically separated from us by kilometres of bushland and many litres of petrol. It does not form part of the same naturalcommunity in any social,demographic or economic sense.
I am also concerned that the proposed move will diminish the representation of local knowledge,
understandings and issues at the political level by cutting across natural alliances with like-minded citizens and disrupting an established community with a strong historic and contemporary social identity.
The first report recognised these problems and I endorse the original proposal by the Redi stribution
Committee.
I strongly urge rejection of the recommendations of the second report by the Augmented
Commission. Yours faithfully
(Dr) Colin Pardoe

From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:

David Turbayne
Friday,5  August 20114:53 PM Elections
Vilaisan Campbell
Objection to Redistribution Committee proposal

We wish to express our objection to change the ACT electoralboundaries as proposed by the
Redistribution Committee.

In particular  we are concerned by the propsal to divide  the current inner north suburbs which would see Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner split  from the other inner north suburbs to form a new electorate with Belconnen and Gunghail n.

Both my panner and myself have lived in the suburb of Watson in the inner north for over a decade. I(David) have also lived  for number of years in Lyneham where I owned a nat and was an active participant in the 'Save the Ridge' campaign during the 1990's. We are currently  members of the Watson Community Association and follow  closely community issues that affect the inner north.

What is demonsrtrably clear is that there arc strong areas of common interest and concern in the inner north;current examples are the wetl ands ponds being created in Lyneham,O'Connor and Dickson and the concerns over infill planning and the impact on socialamenity of commuter traffic emmanating li·om Gunghalin and Belconnen.

As such, we woul d like to see the ACT ElectoralCommission revert to its original option which moved the Gunghalin suburbs of Grace and Palmerston into Ginninderra  and l eft the inner north intact within the electorate of Molonglo.

David Turbayne and Vil aisan Campbell

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Penny Taylor
Friday,5 August 20114:59 PM Elections
Submission relating to ACT Electoral boundaries and suggested changes

Dear Sir/Madam
Iam writing to express some of my concerns about the proposed boundary changes that would result in the moving of three inner north suburbs (Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner) from the Molonglo electorate  to Gininderra.
The first report into possible redistribution came down strongly against such a move,arguing
cogently that it would 'significantly disrupt  the community of interests that Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner share with neighbouring (north) Central Canberra suburbs'.Given this,it came as a surprise  to me to read the second proposal that these three suburbs were to be removed from their
organic geographic,historical,social and demographic community of interests. The demographics
and interests of Gunghalin seem to fit far better with those of Belconnen.
In this submission,Iwill focus on socialand community aspects since these are close to my heart.I would ask that you not read this submission as comni g from an inner-city elitist who does not wish to be linked to the outer suburbs. Ihave given this some thought,particularly since many of our son's friends live in Gungahlin,a suburb they love and that Ienjoy visiting.Gungahlin has developed its own thriving sense of community in a remarkably short space of time - but it is a community based on shared experiences,needs,and issues of concern. These are not the same as those that have formed and continue to inform the community we now know as 'the inner north'.
I first moved to Canberra in 1979. When we bought our house in Turner,many of my colleagues
were surprised that we had opted for a 'guvvie' instead of larger suburban dwelling. Irecall explaining to them that it was the local character we loved,the sense of community.Over the years, we have put a lot of effort into maintaining our community,physically and socially.My husband and I spent our earlier years in local council areas and have always missed this particular
layer of government.When it comes to effective  decision-making and implementation of actions,it
is hard to beat local knowledge and understanding of local issues. Living in a local council area puts responsibility at the local level and gives easy access to one's elected representatives. In Canberra, this layer of government and sense of local representation is lacking,but at least members representing Molonglo could be expected to have a reasonable understanding of inner north issues
- something we risk losing.
In the absence of a local council structure,and given our increased remoteness from decision makers,my husband and I have considered it important to assume more responsibliiti es ourselves. Let me give you some examples of how we live in our inner north community.
We live in Turner and play tennis at both Lyneham and Reid.We have never considered
Northbourne Avenue a boundary- rather  it is the boulevard that runs through the centre of our lives,something that has been enhanced by increased development along its flanks.We walk and cycle to shops and cafes in Civic,Braddon and Acton.We have friends across the inner north whom we visit regularly.Some have downsized and are enjoying life in new developments on either  si de of Northbourne Avenue,in both Turner and Braddon.We walk the full length of Haig Park (which crosses Northbourne Ave) with our dogs at least once a week,calling in on Ainslie friends when we reach Corroboree Park. We also take the dogs to the O'Connor Ovaland to the Acton Peninsula.We shop principally in the locaiiGAs at O'Connor,Lyneham and Ainslie because we appreciate the community atmosphere in these shopping precincts and consider it important to support local facilities so that everyone has shops within walking distance. We go to Dickson Library,Dickson Swimming Pool,and large supermarkets as needed. Our doctor is in Ainslie;our dentist  in Civic. Our children went to Turner Primary School and then to Campbell and Dickson.We seldom go to Belconnen or Gininderra;it is a long way away and we try to limit fuelconsumption.

Wepick uplitter whereverourlivestake usin theinner north. Weprune branchesthat risk getting in cyclistse'yesasthey pedal throughoursuburbsontheirwaytotheANU ortown.Wetake part inseasonal working beesat DirrawanGardens,Reid tolookafter thetenniscourtsand their surrounds.We pull out noxious weedswhereverweseethemandfill in holesin nearby parksthat risk breakingankles. My husband regularlycleans park benchesin our area toencourage people to sitonthem and enjoyour neighbourhood.In livingour lives,webecomeawareof theneedsof peoplein ourcommunityand try toassistas much aspossible.
Ofcourse,thereisnoreason whyanyof thisshould changejust because anelectoral boundary
changes,butI fear theredistribution will have morethansymboliceffects.The basis ofour political representation will change aswill manyof theinstitutionsthat broker ourinterestsand concerns resulting infragmentation and confusion.
I amcurrently workingon an ACTHeritage Grant preparing twoself-guided walksfocussingon inter-war ArtDecoarchitectureat Actonand theinner north.Conducting thisresearch has made me particularlyconsciousoftheshared social history oftheinner north.Inthetextfor my guides,I noticethatI havereferred frequentlyto'theinner north',confidentthat readersfrom within or outsidethearea would understand and relate totheconcept.Yetthisveryconceptappearstobe under threat.
CanI pleaseurgeyou torejecttheredistribution proposed inthesecond report bytheAugmented
Commission.
Yoursfaithfully

PennyTaylor

From:	David Shorthouse
Sent:	Friday, 5 August 2011 3:58 PM To:	Elections
subject: 	Electoral redistribution
Dear sir

I support the general thrust of the many submissions you have had from residents in inner north canberra who OPPOSE the proposal to move Lyneham, o'connor and Turner into the Ginninderra electorate.	North canberra is 	my community. I have no affinity with Belconnen or Gungahlin.

I live in yneham.and identify itno th anberra. I shop at ickson, that is where my l1brary iS, my doctor 1s 1n A1nsl1e, I mostly go to C1v1c for department store shopping and the cinema, I regularly access the ANU and CSIRO at Acton. Northbourne Avenue is no barrier to active enjoyment of north canberra. I go the Lake Burley Griffin for lakeside recreation (not Lake Ginninderra), I attend a church in Turner.

David shorthouse

From:	Matt Ryan
sent: Friday, 5 August 2011 5:03 PM
To: 	Elect1ons
Subject:	Objection to the second proposed redistribution
Hello,

I would like to raise my objection the Electoral commission's second proposal, which will split the Inner North between two electroates.
There is a great commonality of interest and a sense of community within canberra's Inner North, focussin9 on the proximity to ANU and to civic and based also on the long period wh1ch the suburbs have been established.

This community also suffers similar otential threats to amenity and lifestyle as its streets are used to traverse from Canberra'she far northern suburbs to Civic and beyond.  It is important that this established community be in a position to express a cohesive voice in its struggle to prevent the subburbs bein9 transfornmed into traffic thoroughfares forthe benfit of newer suburbs outs1de this area.
regards
Matt Ryan

Augmented ACT Electoral
Commission's Proposed Redistribution

ACT Greens Party Submission

August 5, 2011

Graham Jensen
Convenor
ACT Greens Party

Phil Green
ACT Electoral Commissioner

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

Subject: Augmented ACT Electoral Commission’s Proposed Redistribution

The ACT Greens write to express a number of concerns about the recent augmented  proposed redistribution which changes the electoral boundaries to include parts of the Inner North in the electorate of Ginninderra.

The ACT Greens support the notion that Gungahlin should, when possible, be represented in a single electorate. However, in attempting to address this issue, i.e. that of the community of Gungahlin being broken across two electorates, the most recent proposal from the electoral commission essentially creates the same concern for another community i.e. that of the Inner North. We contend that this is not in the interests of the community of the Inner North, particularly given that ongoing strong expected growth in the population of Gungahlin will render this a short term solution. We believe that it goes against the principle outlined in the legislation that smaller changes are preferred. We also believe the proposed changes potentially results in unnecessary upheaval and confusion for residents of both the Inner North and Gungahlin should there be future changes associated with changes to the size of the Legislative Assembly in the short to medium term.

The previous proposal only changed two suburbs, one of which is a very new suburb, yet this proposal moves 3 very well established suburbs, which have always been in the Molonglo electorate since the ACT Assembly was established.

Comments on the second redistribution

Section 36 of the Electoral Act sets out the criteria under which a redistribution is to be conducted. The ACT Greens make the following comments on two items under the criteria:

(i) the community of interests within each proposed electorate, including economic, social and regional interests;

The ACT Greens believe that, like the community of Gungahlin, the Inner North is a community of shared interests, demonstrated through the shared services and facilities within the area, and
by a shared culture exhibited in community events.
By drawing the boundary along Northbourne Avenue, the Commission is splitting this in two. The community of the Inner North is united through:
x	The physical separation between the Inner North and other parts of Canberra by O’Connor Ridge to the West, the Lake Burley Griffin, Mount Ainslie/Majura to the East, and EPIC to the North.  It is a physically separate community;
x	Sullivan’s Creek runs from one side to the other and unites it;
x	The many community festivals held on an Inner North basis such as the recent series of wetland festivals and the Majura Festival;
x	Representation by one community council – that is the North Canberra Community
Council;
x	Dickson as the group centre is the major shopping destination for all of Inner North;
x	District sporting grounds provided for the whole of the Inner North; and
x	The one college for the area  located in Dickson.

The Inner North community also faces common challenges, including:
x	Traffic management issues as people use the suburban streets to reach further destinations;
x	Transport issues on the Northbourne Avenue corridor;
x	Urban densification of the area – in the suburbs and along Northbourne Avenue;
x	Redevelopment of older houses;
x	Changes to the central area around Civic;
x	An ageing population; and
x	Ageing infrastructure such as footpaths, shops and schools.

Similarly, the community of Gungahlin also has challenges unique to its community, and whilst the Greens support addressing how those issues might be best represented within the electoral distribution framework, we do not support creating similar challenges in another area as a by- product of resolving the issues for Gungahlin.

However, the ACT Greens also believe that there is some commonality of interest between the Inner North and Gungahlin. Both areas are growing in population. Many people from Gungahlin use Dickson as their shopping area, partly for historical reasons.  Many people from Inner North also shop to some extent in Gungahlin and use some facilities there.  Both areas share Northbourne Avenue as a major road and there is a clear shared interest in the Inner North and Gungahlin around transport planning. Much of the congestion being experienced in the Inner North is resulting from the growth of Gungahlin.

It could be considered that, at least in the short term, leaving the two areas in a single electorate would be preferable in seeking positive solutions to some of these issues.

In contrast Belconnen is not growing to such an extent and has different issues to both Gungahlin and Inner North.

(ii) the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate;

The Inner North and Gungahlin are well connected by Northbourne Avenue.  Most bus routes to Gungahlin go through the Inner North.  The connection between Gungahlin and Belconnen is not as great, as the Gungahlin Drive Extension goes through O’Connor Ridge, not a residential area.

(iii) the boundaries of existing electorates; and

The proposed redistribution will mean that all of Gungahlin (except Nicholls which is already in Ginninderra), and the western half of Inner North, will change electorates from Molonglo to Ginninderra. The Greens believe that the criterion in the legislation supports minimal change. The proposed second redistribution cannot be described as a minimal change.

Overall comments against the criteria

The ACT Greens appreciate that the commission is in a position that, given the number and size of electorates, there is no perfect solution that meets all criteria.  From the point of view of the
'community of interest' criteria, both of the two proposed redistributions solve one problem and
create another.  Either Inner North or Gungahlin will be divided.  However taking into account the criteria of  'boundaries of the existing electorates', our conclusion is that the  whereas the first redistribution is consistent with that criteria,  the second  is not.

Process issues

While the redistribution has been commented on in the media, most of this commentary has been on the possible effects on political parties, it’s likely that very few members of the public in the Inner North would be aware that their region is proposed to be split into two by an electoral boundary.  The ACT Greens believe that such significant electorate changes should be supported by more extensive public engagement before they are incorporated  into legislation.

Longer term issues

The Greens believe Gungahlin should, ideally, be wholly within one electorate.  However, we would suggest that such a radical re-drawing of the electoral boundaries should not be undertaken for the 2012 election, but reviewed within the context of debate about resizing the
Legislative Assembly, an issue that has been under consideration for some time.  This would be a more logical time to undertake major boundary change, and as this remains a live political discussion, is a relevant factor for consideration.

This is particularly pertinent as it is likely to be the case that the Inner North suburbs, moved into Ginninderra under this proposal, would be re-incorporated into Molonglo at the next re- distribution. This would result in compounded confusion for voters. We believe that it is preferable to gradually expand Ginninderra, rather than make two significant changes to Molonglo over two or three electoral cycles. .

Conclusion

The ACT Greens support the Commission’s first redistribution, which was one of minimal change and left the electorate of Molonglo essentially the same with the transfer of Palmerston and Crace into Ginninderra..

from; sent; To: Sub)«t

A ch.,..nts:

EwonB<own
frid v.S August 2011 5:26PM
Ele<tioM
Obje<tions to the Propos<><! Redlsuibutfon by the Auament<!d ACT
EIKtotal Commlssion.doa
Objections to the Proposed Redlstributooo by the Auament<!d  ACT
Elettotal Commlsslon.dooc

-	rlr)d atlached mysubmossoonto  	,_, 	

Ew>nlln>wn

Objections to the Proposed Redistribution by the Augmented ACT Electoral
Commission

Submitted by Ewan Brown (resident of Ngunnawal Acn.

In generalI support the Augmented Commission's proposals to:

•	Alter the Redistribution Committee's proposed redistribution to propose that Molonglo become a 5-Member electorate including all of the district of Molonglo Valley;
•	Retain the existing Brindabella electorate unchanged; and
•	Retain the existing names for the electorates of Brindabella, Ginninderra and
Molonglo.
•	Alter Ginninderra to be made the 7-Member electorate.

However I do not agree with the proposal to include the Canberra Centralsuburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor & Turner with the suburbs of Belconnen,Gungahlin and Hall to form this electorate.

I support the earlier objections which argued that, in making its proposa,l the Redistribution Committee had given too much weight to the criterion regarding existing electoralboundaries and too little weight to the other criteria related to community of interests.including economic,social and regionalinterests, means of communication and trave,l and physical features and area.

Gungahlin,as a rapidly growing new area,is split between two electorates with a range of community interests represented by both older & new communities at criticalpoints in their respective development.

The 'older' areas of Gungahlin suffered for many years from lack of essential amenities,including lack of adequate telecommunications {broadband),adequate road access,commercial facilities & employment opportunities. The rapidly expanding newer areas of Gungahlin are also experiencing the ramifications of
'catch-up' planning & provision of facilities & amenities commensurate with the needs of the growing population.  The residents of Canberra Centralsuburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor & Turner do not experience similarissues & their interests are better aligned with the residents of North Canberra.

I support the view that the growth in Gungahlin has been accompanied by Increasing connections between Gungahiln and Belconnen as:
•	many Gungahlin residents have made use or schools.medical facilities. employment opportunities,shopping and commerc alareasin the adjacent district of Belconnen.
•	the development of the Gungahlin Drive Extension and the heavy usage of other roads linking Gungahlin and Belconnen have facilitated these connections.

In relation to the arguments calling for stability of boundaries and for minimising the transfer of electors between electorates it can be argued that most Gungahlin residents would support the move from one electorate to another (to combine

Gungahlin and Belconnen together in the one electorate) under the Augmented Commission's proposalas it would create an area with vastly more similarities between affected Gungahlin & Belconnen residents rather than maintaining an electorate comprising some residents of South Canberra - far removed from most synergies  with Gungahlin residents.

My main issue is with the view that these two districts (Gungahlln & Belconnen) by themselves are not large enough to create a 7-Member electorate, thus 'makingit necessary' to include other adjacent areas to make up the numbers to bring the electorate to within +/- 5% of the quota at the time of next election.

The Augmented Commission concluded that its preferred option would be to include the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor and Turner as the other suburbs which could be combined with Belconnen and Gungahlin to constitute a 7-Member electorate.

The Committee noted that the option to make Ginninderra the 7-Member  electorate, comprising all of Belconnen, Gungahlin and the suburbs of Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner would result in the electorate of Ginninderra being 1.08% above the quota at the time of the next elect.ion.This result would be comfortably within the required +/-5% variation from the quota. This option was considered by the Committee to be the best mix of suburbs that could constitute a 7-Member electorate including Belconnen and Gungahlin.

(The alternative of a progressive incrementalshift of Gungahlin suburbs to the Ginninderra electorate in future redistributions would entrench the existing lack of commonality of interests perceived by affected Gungahlin residents & result in continuing dissatisfaction from those residents remaining in a less appropriate electorate (Molongolo)).

The Committee noted that a negative impact of this option would be the separation of the community of interests that Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner share with neighbouring (north) Canberra Centralsuburbs as it could be argued that Lyneham, Turner and O'Connor have much closer connections to the university precinct of Acton, the adjacent City area and the neighbouring suburbs of Braddon, Dickson, Downer and Watson than they do with Belconnen or Gungahlin.

The Turner Residents Association stated "that the suburbs or Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham should NOT be part of a larger Ginninderra electorate as Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham have much stronger links with centralCanberra than with the newer suburbs to the north and should remain within the electorate of Molonglo."

My objection to part of the current recommendations is based on the 'requiremenr to comply too heavily with variance limits to electorate quotas.  As at 31 March 2011
the electorate of Molongolo was 2.7% over quota & Ginninderra was 0.60% below quota.

The Gungahlin area continues to grow at a significant rate. The suburbs of Bonner, Casey, Crace, Forde. Franklin, Gungahlln & Harrison have projected growth rates of enrolled persons in excess of 10% up to October 2012.In Belconnen the suburbs of

Belconnen Town Centre, Bruce, Dunlop & Macgregor have growth projections over
10%.Only Braddon, City & Phillip in the electorate of Molongolo have growth rates
{from a reasonable base) over 10%.

Residents of Gungahlin feel that they have,and continue to,suffered from 'catch-up' remedialaction in relation to many services facilities, services & amenities that they require.  More growth is inevitable in Gungahlin as Kenny, Moncrief & Kinleyside are developed & populated.

Regardless of whether a complete review of electorate boundaries in undertaken shortly after the next ACT election there is a need to apply pro-active policies in addressing the needs of residents in growing areas in the ACT.

On 'paper' the proposed new electorate of Ginninderra would see a shortfall of
8.33% under quota at October 2012 if the suburbs of Lyneham,O'Connor & Turner were excluded. This variation from quota is based on population projections to October 2012 but the Gungahlin suburbs will continue to grow well after that date & a significant surplus situation could well occur within a short time afterwards, again placing the residents of that electorate at a representationaldisadvantage (under current terminology).  Net growth in Gungahlin & Belconnen should significantly surpass that in Central& South Canberra so there is a need to anticipate this process.

Gungahlin residents in particular would prefer to see evidence of forward planning in relation to many of the issues they currently face. An electorate model that recognises the ramifications of rapid growth and an appropriate levelof representation {both in terms of numbers of politicians & regional focus) should meet with a high degree of satisfaction.

Ewan Brown

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Kerlin, Alan
Friday, S August 2011 8:57PM Elections
Submission: electoral boundaries augmented committee recommendation

GCC wish to convey our thanks to the augmented commiuee for the consideration gi ven to the concerns we have raised regarding the current and prc•,iously proposed ACT electoral boundaries.

Although we have some residual concerns about the commiuee's proposal with regard to the retention of the split of Woden suburbs between two electorates, on the whole we support the proposal. Most importantl y, the new boundaries will resolve the problem of the sprawled out Molonglo electOrate. Irrespective of any remaining or future fragmentation of individual districts, it is far more important that the electorates are relatively compact geographically. We feel this will
ultimately lead to more connected and therefore bcuer electoral representation across all of Canberra.

We have canvassed the new proposal among Gungahlin residents and rnet with good support.We trust this will be reinforced by additional submissions from Oungahl in residents.

We look torward to seeing the new boundaries in place. Regards.
Alan Kerlin
Gungahlin Community Council
Spokesman·Planning, Transport and Environment

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

bogey musldlak
Friday,S August 201111:27 PM Elections
objection to boundaries proposed by Augmented ACT Electoral
Commission
Augmented Commission objection 201l.doc

Hello

Please find altached an objection by the ACT BranCh or the ProportionalRet)<esentation Society of Australia
to the electoral boundaries that were proposed last month by the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission

Bogey Musidlak

Convenor
PROPORTlONAL REPRESENTATION SOCLETY Or AUSTRALLA
(AUSTRAUAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  BRANCH)

Abandon the proposal  for major boundary upheaval

The Proportional  Representation  Society of AustTa l ia (Australiru1 Capital Territory Branch) st:rongly opposes the boundaries proposed by the Augmented  ACT Electoral Commission after the worst red i stributi.on  reasoning printed since the incepti on of the Hare-Clark system. Wh i le we did not agree with all aspects of the Red i stribution Comminee's earlier proposal, it was markedly superior  in its repon  in applying the stat utory cri teria to be considered, and the rationale for its plan to shift Palmerston
and Crace from Molonglo to G i nninderra  was convincing.

For the first time in the history of our redistributions, we are confronted  with an intervention ist approach and arguments espoused  that can only cause unnecessary and unwanted inconven.ience to voters if they arc proceeded with.

We disagree with the Augmented Commissi on's apparent anempts to address grievances  raised by some electors that would create greater cause for unease elsewhere, as well as setting what cou l d become a \'Cry bad precedent if the cunent proposals remai n substantially intact.

The ACT Branch much prefers the pri ncipl.es enunciated  during earl ier redistribution processes when the approach being taken was expl icitly one of causi ng minimum dislocation to voters. In addition, there should not be attempts to runicipate problems that might arise in the future when it is quite possible that efforts will be made tO increase the size of the Assembly  in association  with centenary celebrations.

Some change is necessary

TI1e Proportional  Representation Society of Austra l ia (Austra liaJJ Capital Territory Branch)  note at the outset that Lhe recently-released ACT govemment  popu l ation projections (http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/policystrategic/actstatslprojections/suburbs) by suburb for 2009-2021 are not consistent with the Augmented Commission's projected enrol mentS for October 2012.

In pru1icular, in the former Coombs is projected to l1ave 250 residents by the end of
2012, whereas neither Coombs nor Wright is projected by the Augmented Commission to have any electors before the next election. If this is due to known slippage,  the ACT govemment projections should be appropriately annotated without delay and otherwise projections  relating to electors shou ld be ac\ justed.

The ACT Branch  nevenheless agrees that projected enrolments l ie outside statutory tOlerances in Molonglo and G inn i nderra and therefore some alteration to boundaries is necessary.

Under the Hare-Clark system, a very high proportion of participati ngelectO(S get an effective vote. You cannot do betler than have the whole of your single transferable vote contributing to one or more candidates' election , and, with others, on polling day really innuence who goes into the next Assembly.

Because of th is basic fa i rness to voters, as well as candidates and parties, attempts at fiddl ing with electora l  boundaries for advantage are essentially  pointless and, in l ight of the entrenched provisions regarding odd numbers and minimum size of electorates, would even be of lim i ted effectiveness  in the absence of the statutory provisions regarding member-to-elector ratios. Political parties or groupings have recognised this and concentrated  their efforts more on linding the right mixes of candidates for the different electorates while independents have not found grounds for complaint. As opposed to the frenetic jostling in single-member jurisdictions  under a wi nner-take-all atmosphere, we have not had partisan controversies about boundaries since the inception of the Hare-Clark system, and there has been understandi ng by electors of occasional excisions that have been necessary to comply with enrolment  to.lerances..

Redistributions here have essentially been about avoidance of overl y many or too few electors in Molonglo, Brindabella or GinnindeJTa under a legislative framework where the current boundaries are specifically set out as a significant consideration  when decision-makers come to weigh up how to draw boundaries for the next election.

The ACT Branch has regularly emphasised, including when originally campaigning for the adoption of the Hare-Clark system, that i f popu lation movements are small, boundary changes should be avoided as no benefit can arise to voters from them. In particular, if population numbers actually remained static, there should be no questioning of the status quo just because the composition of a Redistribution Committee or Augmented ACT Electoral Commission changed.

The prospect of arguments from past years being re-run and previous dec isions being effectively overridden because of fresh individual preferences or prejudices is generally eschewed in legal contexts and should be avoided in administrative  arenas, in th i s case because it wou ld tail to attach suflicient weight to the boundaries in operation at a particular point in time.

Major change is not warran ted

The arguments adduced by the Augmented Commission, ma in ly comparing the current si n.ation with one determined on the basis of populations and i nfrastructure over fifteen years ago, are wholly i nappropriate and indeed disturbi ng. In the l ight of the specific statutory references to existing boundaries, a sound basis for decision­ making requires consideration of whether the changes that have occurred since the previous redistribution was finalised in 2007, and to whose effects voters have become accustomed with minimal complaint, mandate some changes to boundaries, and if so, to what degree.

I n this case, continuation of current boundaries would pl ace projected enrolments at next year's election outsi de statutory tolerances. Withi n Molonglo, there is projected to be 8.3% growth over actua l  enrolment numbers at the last election, more than double the rate of increase in Ginninderra.

I n the view of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Australian
Capital Territory  Branch), the changes that have occurred are not of suffici ent scale to warrant a major adjustment of boundaries, patticu larly as we a l ready have the

precedent in Brindabella of additional suburbs  being transferred !Tom Molonglo so that statutory tolerances for enrolments were adhered to.

The approach adopted previously at redistributions and proposed by the Redistribution Committee earlier this year is in accordance with sound practice and fits in with the expectations of voters that stabil ity of boundaries will be maintained and seismic shifts avoided. This is all the more important if particular proposals under consideration involve disturbing significant groups of voters who have done nothing to warrant disl ocation.

The mere fact of having to propose that three inner northern suburbs  be excised from Molonglo to make the Augmented Commission' s proposal "work" in relation to meeting statutory requirements, should be cause for careful thought. Why should the electors of Turner, O'Connor and Lyneham at a stroke be forced into an unwanted and avoidable predicament involving the highest-ever departure from natural boundaries in the ACT just so that others with in Gungahlin are made to feel happier about having been heard, without the major sources of their grievances necessarily having being tackled effectively?

Population movements since the last redistribution do not provide adequate support for such a disruptive approach, part"icularly as voters in those suburbs voiced their displeasure when alerted to a surprise prospect and there is a more reasonable approach towards dea ling with the statutory imperative that the Redistribution Committee espoused, namely shilling fewer than 5,000 voters from Molonglo to Ginninderra.

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Australian Capital Territory Branch) is cognisant and respectful of the pred i cament of voters in some Gungahl in suburbs who do not wish to be in an electorate different from that of friends in nearby ones, just as we feel for those similarly placed in the Woden Valley suburbs that have previously been affected by the need for Brindabella to have more electors.

However, in our view, their interests wou ld be better served by having a standing Legislative Assembly committee or subcommittee dedicated to addressing  issues faced by those in our fastest-growing suburbs or regions. Not only would such a practica l  step provide them with a regular forum for raising important issues for the
attention ofalll'vlLAs and electors because of the media interest that would ordinarily
ensue, but also it would allow the committee to develop expertise in dealing with the executive, public servants and serv i ce providers that shou l d minimise the prospect of avoidable probl ems occurring elsewhere in the Territory when devel opment activity occurs rapidly.

With major new expansion of home building poised to start in the Molonglo Valley and ongoing i1mer urban and lakeside developments, it would be to the Territory's ongoing advantage to have relevant issues focused upon regu larly initially by a standing committee, and, through that, then the entire Assembly. Such a comprehensive approach of long-lasting value to the Territory  is much more attractive than any proposal to take a step that seems to provide a greater level of political attention to electors in one suite of affected suburbs but not necessarily others.

Revert  to min i mal change along the lines the Redist.-ibution Committee proposed

I n summary, our Hare-Clark system does not have winner-take-all  bonuses available for potential party capture through meticulous attention to exactly where boundaries are drawn because we predominantly get an effective vote wherever we l ive. Where population changes have been modest and boundary changes must occur, most voters will expect only modest changes to boundaries and shou l d not be subjected to surprises that have limited community support  but entail avoidable adverse consequences.

G i ven the relatively modest changes in population since 2007 and the dislocating impacts of making major changes, i t is most reasonable to opt to now shift Palmerston from Molonglo to Ginninderra, and having made that threshold decision, to take the additional associated step of transferring Crace so that Ginninderra' s boundaries remain as natural as possible. In this case, such a second step also happens to diminish future prospects of further boundary movement being required.

Where changes are not required by statutory provisions, an activist future-oriented­ role on the part of the Redistribution Committee or Augmented ACT Electoral Commission is not appropriate, as there are always mu ltiple unknowns to be dealt with before the next redistribution process gets under way.

ln l ight of the scale of changes that have previously occurred through add i tion of Woden Valley suburbs to Brindabella, i t is not appropriate to now put forward a massive rejigging of northern electoral boundari es that would cause an enormous amount of disruption to voters, candidates and parties.

The Proportiona l  Representation Society of Australia (Austral i an Capital Territory Branch) trusts that the fearful prospect that has been raised by the proposal set out in the Augmented ACT Electora l  Commission's report will be set aside for one more along the l ines of what the Red i stribution Committee enunciated.

I n the process, all partici pants in our democracy have been put on notice that if growth patterns in Mol onglo and Ginninderra remain noti ceably uneven, there w i ll come a time when on balance major change wi ll be inev i tabl e if Assembly numbers remain the same and further excisions from Molonglo become necessary in any case. This understanding may lead to discussions about taki ng steps to try to secure a modest and realistic i ncrease in the size of the Assembly before the next redistribution gets under way.

The ACT Branch's view however in the current circumstances with which we actually need to dea l remains strongly that only Palmerston and Crace should be transferred from one electorate to another, and other matters are best left for public debate and more detailed consideration  when the operative underlying conditions are known in a bit more than three years' time.

From:	Jonathon Reynolds

Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

Friday, 5 August 201110:37 PM Elections
Objection to proposed  el ectoral boun dary distribution (as proposed  by
Augmented ACT Electoral Commission)
Fut u re Effects of Current Proposed  Distribution-2-2.pdf; ATI00001.htm; Ideal Long Term Model.pdf; ATI00002.htm

Augmented ACT Electoral Commission
ACT Electoral Commission
Ground Floor, North Building Civic Square, London Ci rcuit CANBERRA CITY2601

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to lodge a objection with regard to portions of the ACT Electoral Boundary redistribution as proposed by the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission.
I generally endorse the proposa l to modify the electoral  boundaries such that Gi1minderra becomes
the Seven Member Electorate, with Molonglo and Brindabella the Five Member Electorates. The basis of my objection is that the proposal does not go far enough to address the problem of splitting of"communities of interest"across electoral  boundaries with the potential impact that will occur at future redistributions.
With the current proposa l the suburbs of Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner are to be removed from
Molonglo included in the Ginninderra Electorate. Whilst this is an unfortunate spl itting of the North Canberra "community of interest" for the current red istribution, it can clearly be extrapolated, that with rap i d development  predominately in Gungahlin, these three suburbs shou l d be returned back to the Molonglo Electorate at the next redistribution as the number of voters in Ginninderra signilicantly increases. I endorse this current proposal.
Unfortunately no attempt has been made to address the underlying problem as it currently exists on
the Molonglo/Brindabella boundary with the suburbs of the Woden Valley District still to be split across two electorates.
In the Statement published by the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission  the following excuse was given for not attempti ng to address this issue:
"Given that the inclusion of Woden Valley suburbs in Brindabel/a has been a feature of the
Brindabella electorate since its inception. and given that the boundaries of existing electorates are a factor to be given weight under seclion 36 of ti1e Electoral Act, ti1e Augmented Commission was not satisfied that a case had been made for altering the existing boundaries. Accordingly. the Augmented Commission decided to retain ti1e BrindabeJJa­ Molonglo boundary unchanged."
Given this approach it could be argued that the Augmented ACT Electora l  Commission intends to
permanently entrench the practice where the suburbs of the Woden Valley will be redistributed piecemeal to the Bri ndabella Electorate as needs to "balance the numbers"dictate.
The diagram "Future effects of the currently proposed Electora l Boundary Model"attempts to
i llustrate this how this effect may p l ay out.

I argue that the Augmented ACT Electoral Commissi on shou ld be adopting a l onger-tenn  approach to addressing the problem along the Molonglo/Brindabella boundary.

The diagram "Suggested  Ideal Target Electoral Boundary Distribution Model"attempts to illustrate a possibl e "pertect" electoral boundary scenario. Obviously, achieving perfection is a virtua l impossibility, as the actual  boundaries will need to be compliant with the relevant legislation at the time.

The Augmented ACT E l ectoral Commission  has already noted that my previous proposal of transfet.Ting all Woden Valley suburbs to Molonglo and transferring the Weston Creek suburbs or Chapman, Fisher, Rivell, Stirling and Waramanga (that is, those suburbs south of Hindmarsh Drive) from Molonglo to Brindabella would ensure that the Brindabella E lectorate is compliant with the relevant legislation for quota in October 2012.

My argument for this change based on my previous proposal as outlined above is now in pan supported by demographic figures "ACT Suburbs and Districts Population Projections: 2009 to
202 1 " published on the ACT Govemmenl Ch ief Minister and Cabinet Web Page:
http://www.cmd.act.!l:Ov.au/poI icvslrategic/actstats/pro jcct ions/suburbs

A casual examination of these figures show that there wil l  be a sign ificant increase in popuJation for the Mol onglo District (immediately to the nonh of Weston Creek) Whereas the population of
Woden remains stable, and the populations of Weston Creek and Tuggeranong Districts show sl ight
declines over time. With th is proposed  model as the Molonglo Electorate (including all suburbs of the Woden Valley and Molonglo Districts) expands, more suburbs from Weston Creek wil l  be transferred to Brindabella, u ltimately with all suburbs of the Weston Creek District in the Brindabella Electorate. Obviously the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission  will have access to resources to analyze these figures at a much finer detail in association with relevant Land Release and development data.

I trust that this information meets with the approval of the Augmented ACT E lectoral Commission and I look forward to favorable outcomes based on my submissions  from your continued deliberation on this matter.

Yours faithfully

Jonathon Reynolds

Future effects of
currently proposed Electoral Boundary Distribution Model

Suburbs redistributed back to
Molonglo as Ginninderra grows.

Woden Valley suburbs redistributed to Brindabella as other electorates generally grow.

Suggested Ideal Target
Electoral Boundary
Distribution Model

North Canberrra district suburbs
redistributed back to Molonglo

Woden Valley district suburbs redistributed back to Molonglo

Entire Weston Creek and
Stromlo districts redistributed
to Brindabella as entire districts

WK ďŽǆ ϮϴϬ tŽĚĞŶ ϮϲϬϲ ACd͖ ĞŵĂŝů ŝŶĨŽΛǁǀĐĐ͘ŽƌŐ͘ĂƵ͖ ƉŚ ϬϰϮϬϱϮϵϳϰϳ 

ACd EůĞĐƚŽƌĂů CŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
'ƌŽƵŶĚ &ůŽŽƌ͕EŽƌƚŚ BƵŝůĚŝŶŐ CŝǀŝĐ ^ƋƵĂƌĞ͕ >ŽŶĚŽŶ CŝƌĐƵŝƚ CAEBEZZA C/dz ACd ϮϲϬϭ

EŵĂŝů͗  ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐΛĂĐƚ͘ŐŽǀ͘ĂƵ

DĞĂƌ AƵŐŵĞŶƚĞĚ ACd EůĞĐƚŽƌĂů CŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕

dŚĞ tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ CŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ CŽƵŶĐŝů ;tsCCͿ ǁŽƵůĚ ůŝŬĞ ƚŽ ůŽĚŐĞ ŝƚƐ ŽďũĞĐƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƌĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ EůĞĐƚŽƌĂů BŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ Ă ŶĞǁ ƌĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŽĨ Ă ŶĞǁ ƐĞǀĞŶ ŵĞŵďĞƌ BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ͕ Ă ĨŝǀĞ ŵĞŵďĞƌ 'ŝŶŶŝŶĚĞƌƌĂ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ĂŶĚ Ă ĨŝǀĞ ŵĞŵďĞƌ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ͘

dŚĞ tsCC ŝƐ ĚŝƐĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂů ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ ĂŶĚ BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ ƚŚĂƚ ƐƉůŝƚ ƚŚĞ tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘  tĞ ďĞůŝĞǀĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚŝƐ ŚĂƐ ĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůǇ ĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ ďǇ ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ACd ůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞ ĂƐƐĞŵďůǇ͘

dŚĞ tsCC ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ Ă ŐŽŽĚ ĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂů ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ϭϳ ŵĞŵďĞƌ ĂƐƐĞŵďůǇ ƚŚĂƚ ĂůƐŽ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƐĞƐ ƚŚĞ ƐŝǌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĂƐƐĞŵďůǇ ŝƐ ƚŽŽ ƐŵĂůů ƚŽ ŐŽǀĞƌŶ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ͘ 
/ƚ ŝƐ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ƐŝǌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂƐƐĞŵďůǇ ďĞ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ƚŽ Ϯϭ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƌĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂů ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͘  dŚĞ tsCC ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ͗

D	dŚĞ BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ dƵŐŐĞƌĂŶŽŶŐ͕ tĞƐƚŽŶ  CƌĞĞŬ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƚŝƌĞ tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘  dŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ŶĞǁ  ŝŶĨŝůů ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ dƵŐŐĞƌĂŶŽŶŐ ĂŶĚ  tŽĚĞŶ dŽǁŶ ĐĞŶƚƌĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĂůŽŶŐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ ĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞ ƚŽ ĂŶ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝŶ 
ƚŚĞ ŽǀĞƌĂůů ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘  Aůů ƐƵďƵƌďƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ ǁŝůů ƚŚĞŶ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŶĞǁ ƐĞǀĞŶ ŵĞŵďĞƌ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ŽĨ BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ͘
D	&Žƌ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽĨ 'ƵŶŐĂŚůŝŶ ͕tĞƐƚ BĞůĐŽŶŶĞŶ ĂŶĚ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ sĂůůĞǇ͕ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƌĞŵĂŝŶ ĨůĞǆŝďůĞ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ͘

D	EŝĐŚŽůůƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƌĞŵĂŝŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ŽĨ 'ŝŶŶŝŶĚĞƌƌĂ ǁŝƚŚ ŶŽ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŽĨ >ĂǁƐŽŶ ^ŽƵƚŚ͕  tĞƐƚ DĂĐŐƌĞŐŽƌ ĂŶĚ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ tĞƐƚ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ sĂůůĞǇ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĂŶ ŽǀĞƌĂůů ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝŶ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘
l

D	dŚĞ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƌĞƚĂŝŶ 'ƵŶŐĂŚůŝŶ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ EŝĐŚŽůůƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ ĂƌĞĂ ŽĨ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ ǀĂůůĞǇ ǁŚŝĐŚ ĐŽƵůĚ ĂůůŽǁ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ĂƵŐŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ DŽůŽŶŐůŽ ĂŶĚ 'ŝŶŶŝŶĚĞƌƌĂ ĂƐ ƐƵďƵƌďƐ ĐŽŵĞ ŽŶůŝŶĞ͘

dŚĞ ƚĂďůĞ ďĞůŽǁ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ Ă ƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂů ƐƵŵŵĂƌǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ tsCC ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚ ĂďŽǀĞ͘

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞƐ ͗ ^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂů ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ
EǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ EůĞĐƚŽƌĂƚĞ	EƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ DĞŵďĞƌƐ	EŶƌŽůŵĞŶƚ
DĂƌĐŚ ϮϬϭϭ	й ĂďŽǀĞ Žƌ ďĞůŽǁ ƋƵŽƚĂ ϮϬϭϭ	WƌŽũĞĐƚ ĞŶƌŽůŵĞŶƚ KĐƚŽďĞƌ ϮϬϭϮ	й ĂďŽǀĞ Žƌ ďĞůŽǁ ƋƵŽƚĂ ϮϬϭϮ	
BƌŝŶĚĂďĞůůĂ	ϳ	ϭϬϰ ϵϯϴ	Ϯ͘ϳϬй	ϭϬϲ ϮϰϮ	Ϭ͘ϳϮй	
'ŝŶŶŝŶĚĞƌƌĂ	ϱ	ϲϵ ϵϳϰ	Ͳϰ͘ϭϮй	ϳϭ Ϭϵϰ	Ͳϱ͘ϲϯй	
DŽůŽŶŐůŽ	ϱ	ϳϯ Ϯϯϱ	Ϭ͘ϯϰй	ϳϴϴϯϮ	ϰ͘ϲϯй	

AůƐŽ ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ ĨŽƌ ǇŽƵƌ ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ŝƐ Ă Ă ŵĂƉ  ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ ďǇ tsCC ƐŚŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂů ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͘

;DĂƌƚŝŶ DŝůůĞƌͿ
tŽĚĞŶ sĂůůĞǇ CŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ CŽƵŶĐŝů ϱ AƵŐƵƐƚ ϮϬϭϭ

AƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗  tsCC ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚŽƌĂů ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ

2

·­

New
w..,.

PAOOY8RMR

Redistribution of the
Austrailan Capital Territory Into etee1orates
pursuant to the Sectoral Act 1992

Proposed Electorates for the
ACT Legislative Assembly
of BRINDABELLA, GINNINDERRA
and MOLONGLO
ODD 	Boundaries of Elootorates
Division Boundaries

District Boundaries

0 	4
Kilometres

-."- ...;.-

­  .,
·-- --·-

Proposed Electorates 2 11

Woden Valley Comh'i'ititv Council

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrew Bajkowski
Friday, 5 August 2011 6:48 PM Elections
Redistribu tion of ACT electorates- submission  by Andrew Bajkowski and
Caroline Wallace

Mr Phillip Green
ACT Electoral Commissioner.
ACT Electoral Commission
P 0 Bo.x 272
Civic Square ACT 260I

S August 20 II

Dear Commissioners

Re distribution of ACT electorates

We recently became aware that the ACT Elcctorol Commission is planning to move the suburb in which we live (Turner) from the seat of Molonglo into Ginnindcrro.We
thank the Commission  for the opportunity to respond to this proposed decision.

We object to this taking place and would urge the Commission to reconsider the need for such a major distribution.Our understanding is that the original redistribution proposed moving two Gungahlin suburbs - Crace and Palmerston
-into Ginnindcrro. H owever. objections by some Gunghalin rcsidems have thus led to
a new proposal that would result in a split of the inner north into two electoral seats by moving Tumcr.O'Connor and Lyneham (over 30,000 voters) with Gungahlin
and Belconnen suburbs.

We think this is undemocratic - and we would have objected earlier had there been more consultation about this pnx:ess.

I n relation to guidelines the Commission is to consider in arriving at its decision. we would make the following points:

Guid eline C (i) specifies the need for due consideration for the community of interests within each proposed electorate including economic, social and  regiona l interests

By way of illustration.we as residents ofTumer usc sporting and recreational facilities at the Australian National University, libraries in Dickson and Civic. cat at restaurants in Bmddon, Dickson and Watson and have memberships in local clubs, such as the White Eagle Club.Tumer Bowling Club. Braddon Bowling club and ACT Leagues Club (Bmddon). We shop at local supermarkets and purchase goods and services rrom small businesses in the area - hair dress salons, bike shops, chcmisiS and ncwsagents. We know the proprietOr$ personally as they have run these businesses for many years.

Strong social and family links exist between people in our suburb (as well as in
O'Connor and Lyncham) with people in Ainslie, Braddon, Dickson, Watson. Downer
and Watson.These are socially organic connections that sustain informal and voluntary people­
to-people networks that provide important - albeit not necessarily formally recognised social services- including child care and help for ihc elderly. Allhough

redevelopment is slowly changing the local demographic, rdative to newer parts of Canberra. there is still a higher proportion of people aged over 65 due to major aged care aee.ommodation in suburbs such as Ainslie.

At the same time, North Canberra residents tend to share common social values
that have a distinct electordl voice that is reflected in the current composition of the
Legislative Assembly.

The implications of the proposed change for the seat of Molonglo lor people in North
Canberra arc very significant  in that this would inequitably marginal ise the inner north electorally by denying our representation as a distinct geographic and social community " th its own identity entitled
to a fair voice in the Legislative Assembly on issues of common interest and concem: how
densification and redevelopment is managed; the future of Dickson college and other public schools:stom1water and sewerage and other infrastructure needs (for instance. cycle paths); health centres. and many other issues.

Apart from being older and established communities, we also depend on the same community  facilities and public amenities. use the same parklands and ovals for recreation purposes, arc members of local inner north-based clubs and associations and read the same local newspapers and newsletters. So we belong together in the same seat.As a community, we identify as North Canberra and do not distinguish
ourselves as a discrete set of suburbs- we arc part of the Braddon, Hackett. Dickson , Watson and
Downer communities.

We do not belong with Gungahlin-their necdsand interests are different to ours.
Nor do we have much in common with Bclconnenvoters and issues their MLAs seck to address.

Guideline C (ii) requires due consideration of the means of communication and travel within each proposed electorate.

Suburbs such as Turner. Braddon, Reid and Campbell arc within walking distance of the city. lssues such as cycle access. footpath safety.lighting.and parking are important and difTerent in nature to amenity and infrastructure concerns in newer suburbs in Gungahlin and Belconnen.

Traffic management is a major concern tor people in North Canberra-and our concerns arc entirely difTercnt in nature to Gungahlin or Belconnen residents since we reside in areas which become heavily congested as commuters travel 10 major employment centres in city centre, Russell and ANU and in and around the Parliamentary Triangle, which is situated in the Molonglo electorate.

Guideline C (iii) requires due consideration of the physical features and area of each  proposed electorate.

Parts oflhc inner north coupled with older areas oflhe inner soulh comprise the bulk of areas in Canberra with recognised heritage streets and buildings that are governed by relevant zoning and planning controls.This gives these areas a particular character
; it is also importnnt for the efficacy of of public consultation  processes that the ACT government engaged us on, especially as it revises the Territory  Plan and devises new neighbourhood
master plans. Voting in the Assembly is important for public accountability  i n terms of how well this is managed.

Tumer. Braddon, Lynchnm and Dickson are afTeeted by the Territory Government housing re-development  program. Voters share similar concerns related to the quality

of housing,privacy and lhe preservation of green space.The Norlhboumc Precinct proposalseparately envisages high rise unit devel opment on a significant scale.To
separate voters on one side of Nonhboume A venue from the other would not be fair.

Conclu$ion

If the Assembly is to more effectively manage und balance issu "S and interests
niTecting different parts of the city and its distinct communities,it is more sensibl e to maintain
like-with-like and minimise electoral boundary changes gi•len the very diO'crent nature between newer
and older parts of Canberra.The proposal to move Crace and Palmerston was an equitable and sensible one given the interests lhc Commission had to balance (which it did very well).On the other hand.the proposal to expand Ginniderra  seems totally disproponionate to the balancing of interests that all of us seck.

Yours sincerly

Andrew Bajkowsk.i

And

Caroline Wallace

From:Joan Cornish
Sent:Monday, 1August 201111:12 PM
To:Division - Fraser - ACT;mo!ongoiO@aec.gQV. au;qunqahlin@aec.gov.au
Subject:ACT Electoral Boundary proposed changes

To whom It may concern at the ElectoralCommissi on,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposals to change electoralboundariesin the ACT. This emaili s to strongly oppose the intention to remove Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham from
Molongolo to Gungahlln electorates.

1. 	The inner north suburbs are part of a cohesive and dynamic community, developed from like interests,philosophies and demographics, over a long period of time.
2.	Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham have been established for well over SO years. Gungahlin suburbs are very new by comparison.By definition almost,the older suburbs have different interests and localproblems to those of more recently established suburbs.The older Gungahlin suburbs (still less than 15-20 years old) have a great dealin common with Belconnen suburbs.
3. 	The demographics of Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham fit perfectly with those of the rest of
Molongolo.The demographi cs of inner Gungahlin fit well with those of Belconnen.

4. 	If Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham were moved to Gungahlin, they would have different issues to those of the rest of the large 7 member electorate.A tiny voice in a huge pond. The democratic right of these 3 suburbs would be eroded consi derably. Given the best will in the world,their voice would not be heard.
5. 	On the other hand,Gungahlin residents,with similar issues and history to those of
Belconnen residents would be heard.Their democratic rights would be protected.

Whilst I sympathise with the nominated Gungahlln residents opposed to being moved,their move would be less disruptive than moving the inner north old suburbs.They would retain good and strong representation from like- minded and similar issues people.They would not lose their democratic ri ghts.

I strongly ask that you consider these points and do not approve the proposal to split the Molongolo electorate.The Inner North has a very strong character and history. If its character is eroded it will be a greatloss for Canberra of an artistic hub with great community cohesoi n.

Canberra is undergoing great development and change.The qualities of the Bush Capital is why many live here.Should this change Canberra will become undistingulshable from other monolithic suburbs across Australia.I particularly support any measures to keep a strong proportion of open spaces and parkland. While this is not directly linked to this issue these sons of values could be eroded by the proposed changes.

Finally the Government has yet to outline the benefits to Turner OConnor and Lyneham of the proposed change.

I look  forward to your response. Warm regards
Joan Cornish
Watson

Supplimentary comments after having rece1ved a copy of the Augmented Electoral Commission's reasons for proposed redistribution

Thank you Unzi

I have read the document andit seems that in each case the objections have been put aside for largely insufficient reason and a faulty logic.

Eg The whole case seems to rely on numbers only.Eg The proposed move Turner,O'Connor and Lyneham from Molongolo to Gungahlin el ectorates is put forward as the best out of a bad range of options.
I think this is a negative move for the inner north and the suburbs concerned and should be rethought. There is a dramatic levelof growth and change going on in canberra-some of which seems set to upset the
character  of older suburbs who are in fact the heart of Canberra- and homogenise these suburbs with the
new face of Canberra which is of an entirely different character.less trees an green space,bigger houses and lack of an identity being the most obvious.

I hope the committee will rethink
Regards

Joan