From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrew Bajkowski
Friday, 5 August 20116:48 PM Elections
Redistribution of ACT electorates- submission by Andrew Bajkowski and
Caroline Wallace

Mr Phill i p Green
ACT Electoral Commissioner, ACT Electora l  Comm ission
P 0 Box 272
Civ ic Square ACT 2601

5 August 20 II

Dear Commissioners

Re distributi on of ACT electorates

We recently became aware that the ACT Electoral Commission  is planning to move the suburb in wh ich we l ive (Turner) from the seat of Molonglo into Ginninderra. We
thank the Commission for the opportunity to respond to this proposed deci sion.

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 origina l redistribution proposed moving two Gungah lin suburbs - Crace and Palmers10n
-into Ginninderra. However, objections by some Gw1ghalin residents have thus led to
a new proposal that would result in a split of the inner north i nto two electora l  seats by moving Tumer,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 process.

In relation to guidel ines the Commission is to consider in arriving at i ts decision, we would make the following points:

Guideline 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 resi dents of Turner use sporting and recreational
faci l ities at the Australian National University, l ibraries in Dickson and Ci vic, eat at restaurants in Braddon, Dickson and Watson and have memberships i n local cl ubs, such as the White Eagle Club, Turner Bowl ing Cl ub, Braddon Bowling club and ACT Leagues Club (Braddon). We shop at loca l  supern1arkets and purchase goods and services from small businesses in the area -hair dress salons, bike shops, chemists and newsagents.  We know the proprietors personally as they have run these businesses for many years.

Strong social and family l inks exist between people in our suburb (as well as in
O'Connor and Lyneham) with people i n Ainsl ie, 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 necessaril y formally recognised social services - including child care and help for the elderly. Although

redevelopment i s slowly changing the local demographic, relative to newer parts of Canberra, there is still a h igher proportion of people aged over 65 due to major aged care accommodation  in suburbs such as Ainsl ie.

Ai the same time, North Canberra residents tend to share common social values
that have a distinct electoral voice that is reflected in the current composi tion of the
Legislative Assembly.

The imp l ications of the proposed change for the seat ofMol onglo tor people in North
Canberra are very significant  in that this wou ld inequitably margina l ise the inner north electorally by denying our representation as a distinct geographic and soci al community with its own ident i ty entitled
to a fair voice in the Legislative Assembly on issues or common interest and concern: how
densification and redevelopment is managed; the future of Dickson college and other publ ic schools;storm water and sewerage and other infrastructure needs (for instance, cycle paths); hea lth centres, and many other issues.

Apart from being older and established communities, we a lso depend on the same community facil ities and publ ic amenities, use the same parklands and ovals for recreation purposes, are members of local inner north-based clubs and associations and read the same l ocal newspapers and newsletters. So we bel ong together in the same seat. As a commun i ty, we identify as North Canberra and do not distinguish
ourselves as a d iscrete set of suburbs- we are part of the Braddon , Hackett, Dickson, Watson and
Downer communities.

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

Guideline C (ii) requ ires due consideration of the m ea ns of commun ication and travel within each proposed electorate.

Suburbs such as Turner, Braddon, Reid and Campbell are within walking d istance of the city. Issues such as cycle access, footpath safety, lighting, and parki11g are important and different in nature to amenity and infrastructure concerns in newer suburbs i n Gungahlin and Belconnen.

Traffic management is a major concern for people in North Canberra-and our concerns are entirely different in nature to Gungahlin or Belconnen residents since we reside i n areas which become heavily congested as commuters travel to major employment centres in city centre, Russell and ANU and in and around the Parliamentary Triangle, which is si tuated in the Molongl o electorate.

Guideline C (iii) requ ires due consideration of the physical  features and area of each  proposed electo1·ate.

Parts of the inner north coupl ed with older areas of the inner south comprise the bu lk of areas in Canberra with recognised heritage streets and bui l d i ngs that are governed by relevant zoning and planning controls. This gi ves these areas a particular character
; it i s also important for the efficacy of of publ ic consultation  processes that the ACT government
engaged us on, especially as it rev i ses the Territory Plan and devises new neighbourhood master plans. Voting in the Assembly i s important for public accountability in terms of how well this is managed.

Turner, Braddon, Lyneham and Dickson are affected by the Territory Government housing re-development program. Voters share similar concerns related to the quality

of housing, pri vacy and the preservation of green space. The Northboume  Precinct proposal separately envisages high rise unit development on a significant scale. To separate voters on one side ofNorthboume Avenue from the other wou ld not be fair.

Conclusion

If the Assembly is to more effectively manage and balance issues and interests
affecting different parts of the city and its distinct communities,  it is more sensible to maintain
l ike-with-l ike and minimise electora l  boundary changes gi ven the very different nature between newer
and older parts of Canberra. The proposal to move Crace and Pahnerston  was an
equ i table and sensible one given the interests the Commission  had to ba lance (wh ich it did very well). On the other hand, the proposal to expand Ginn iderra seems tota lly disproportionate to the balancing of interests that all of us seek.

Yours sincerly

Andrew Bajkowski

And

Carol ine Wallace