South Australia redistribution
Announced on Tue 26 June 2018
Overview maps will be available on the website on Friday 20 July 2018. Detailed maps and a report outlining the augmented Electoral Commission's reasons for the formal determination will be tabled in the Federal Parliament and subsequently made publicly available.
The augmented Electoral Commission for South Australia's public announcement of final names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in South Australia was made on Tuesday 26 June 2018. Read the augmented Electoral Commission's public announcement.
The augmented Electoral Commission's reasoning behind the names and boundaries of electoral divisions will be contained in its report.
The augmented Electoral Commission was required to consider all objections made to the Redistribution Committee's proposal in the context of the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). For the augmented Electoral Commission, the primary requirements contained within sub-section 73(4) are:
Objections that resulted in the number of electors in an electoral division or divisions being outside either of these ranges could not be considered for implementation.
| Name of proposed electoral division | Boundaries of proposed electoral division |
|---|---|
| Adelaide | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Barker | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Boothby | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Grey | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Hindmarsh | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Kingston | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Makin | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Mayo | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Spence | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia. The boundaries of this electoral division have been changed as a consequence of ensuring that all electoral divisions in South Australia meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
| Sturt | As proposed by the Redistribution Committee for South Australia, the boundaries of this electoral division will change to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act |
Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix J of the Redistribution Committee’s report of 13 April 2018.
Maps of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions are also available.
An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the majority of issues raised in objections is presented on this page. A number of objections were unable to be accepted by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 10 electoral divisions in South Australia meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections not presented on this page will be available in the augmented Electoral Commission's report when it is published. Given the large number of objections received not all have been referenced in the commentary below on specific conclusions.
Objections referring to this matter: OB3 – Domenic Barrett, OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB295 – Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust SA, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB315 – City of Port Adelaide Enfield, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the Division of Port Adelaide and retiring the name ‘Port Adelaide’.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:
The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments offered were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.
The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded that:
Several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retire the name ‘Port Adelaide’ while others argued that there should be an electoral division name of this name. Arguments in favor of retaining the name ‘Port Adelaide’ observed the significant role of the area in South Australia’s early European settlement and the historical and ongoing significance of the area to the Kaurna people.
The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘Port Adelaide’ were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.
The Division of Port Adelaide will be abolished and the name ‘Port Adelaide’ will be retired.
Objections referring to this matter: OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB295 – Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust SA, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB35 – The Hon Christopher Pyne MP
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the name of the Division of Hindmarsh.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:
The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments offered in support of altering the name of the Division of Hindmarsh were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.
The augmented Electoral Commission therefore concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should stand and the electoral division will continue to be known as the Division of Hindmarsh.
Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – Ian Rohde OAM JP, OB184 – Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB320 – Hon J N Andrew AO
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB3 – Malcolm Mackerras AO, COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB7 – Kim Kelly, COB28 – Hon David Hawker AO, COB33 – Michael Burke, COB34 – Ivan Venning, COB35 – The Hon Christopher Pyne MP, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed renaming the Division of Wakefield to ‘Spence’ in honour of Catherine Helen Spence (1825–1910) for her work as an advocate for female suffrage and electoral reform. This alteration was proposed as, following the adjustments made to accommodate a reduction in the number of electoral divisions from 11 to 10, the proposed Division of Wakefield differed significantly from the existing Division of Wakefield, changing from a hybrid urban/rural electoral division to one with a predominantly urban focus. The Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions refer to considering the name of the electoral division where the socio-demographic nature has changed significantly.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections:
The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘Wakefield’ were not substantive enough to warrant change from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.
The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the electoral division will be known as the Division of Spence.
Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Luka Rinaldi, OB52 – Daniel Hughes, OB148 – Campbell McKnight, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB255 – Richard Vear, OB265 – Henrik Wallgren, OB272 – Archbishop John Hepworth, OB279 – Raymond Mercure, OB284 – Robyn Hudson, OB285 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB297 – Mrs H M Robertson, OB298 – Craigburn Farm petition of 87 people, OB303 – Sam Duluk MP, OB308 – Stephen Patterson MP, OB310 – Laura Coppola, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow, OB321 – Charles Richardson
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB15 – Andy Partridge, COB19 – MA Roberts and PM Roberts, COB27 – Yvonne Riddell, COB31 – Mr Robert A Baker, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: As a result of the need to abolish an electoral division and the consequential adjustments required to ensure that all of South Australia’s electoral divisions would meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, a number of changes were proposed to the boundaries of the Division of Boothby. The Redistribution Committee proposed the Division of Boothby:
Objections to the proposed redistribution relating specifically to the first three of these dot-points are discussed separately below.
Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s boundary for the proposed Division of Boothby, with reference made to supporting the inclusion of the entirety of the City of Holdfast Bay in the proposed electoral division. Others argued for further changes to be made, such as transferring the suburb of Novar Gardens from the proposed Division of Hindmarsh to the proposed Division of Boothby so as to include it in the same electoral division as the suburb of Glenelg.
As well as differing views as to whether a greater or lesser number of suburbs from the City of Mitcham should be transferred from the proposed Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Mayo, a number of objections and comments opposed any change being made to the boundary of the Division of Boothby.
Those making these arguments did so on the basis of improving the community of interest in the proposed electoral division.
A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections were from those wishing to be located in the proposed Division of Boothby. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that these wishes could only be accommodated by moving one or more different groups of electors out of the proposed electoral division, which could result in these groups arguing that their communities of interest would be neglected.
The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Kingston, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:
The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the boundary of the Division of Boothby will be that proposed by the Redistribution Committee.
Objections referring to this matter: More than 220 objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published. Objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: OB255 – Richard Vear, OB284 – Robyn Hudson, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB297 – Mrs H M Robertson, OB312 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow
Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 15 comments on objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.
Comments on objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB32 – Dr Dorothy Turner, COB38 – Steve Murray MP, COB39 – Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Kingston and uniting all of the suburb of Happy Valley in the proposed Division of Kingston. Ensuring the proposed Divisions of Boothby and Kingston both met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and maintaining the strong natural boundary between the proposed Divisions of Boothby and Kingston at the Boral quarry and Majors Road led the Redistribution Committee to propose these changes.
Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal in full or in part, with some advocating moving the suburb of Aberfoyle Park and part of the suburb of Happy Valley from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Kingston while leaving the suburb of Flagstaff Hill in the proposed Division of Boothby.
A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections did not express support, with many arguing that some or all of the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley should be located in the proposed Division of Boothby and not in the proposed Division of Kingston. These objections and comments on objections noted a stronger community of interest link between the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley with the Blackwood and City of Mitcham area and argued there was little community of interest with those suburbs located in the Division of Kingston.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections also advocated moving:
The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Kingston, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:
The suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley will be located in the proposed Division of Kingston.
Objections referring to this matter: OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB255 – Richard Vear, OB285 Dr Mark Mulcair, OB287 – Jeff Waddell, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), OB319 – Darryl Parslow
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB29 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), COB42 – Charles Richardson
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors in the suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach from the Division of Kingston to the proposed Division of Mayo. These changes were proposed to ensure that the Division of Mayo met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach should be retained in the Division of Kingston and not transferred to the Division of Mayo. Common means of communication and transport, a desire to minimise the movement of electors between electoral divisions and a commonality of interest between those living in the suburbs of the Division of Kingston formed the basis of these arguments.
Other objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Division of Kingston, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.
The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Division of Mayo, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet either of the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:
The suburbs of Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga and Sellicks Beach will be located in the proposed Division of Mayo.
Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Luke Rinaldi, OB240 – Darren McSweeney, OB285 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB36 – Hugh Sutton, COB37 – Meredith Sutton, COB40 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed that, in order to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, the City of Unley would not be united in one electoral division but would continue to be spread across the proposed Divisions of Adelaide, Boothby and Sturt. Specifically, the suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Kings Park and part of Forestville and Millswood were proposed to be transferred from the Division of Adelaide to the proposed Division of Boothby.
Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Division of Adelaide, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.
Other objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued:
The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Division of Boothby, on the boundary in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet either of the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:
The suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park, Kings Park and part of the suburbs of Forestville and Millswood will be located in the proposed Division of Boothby.
Objections referring to this matter: More than 70 objections solely concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene are located were received. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published. Objections which also refer to the electoral division in which these suburbs are located are: OB265 – Henrik Wallgren, OB272 – Archbishop John Hepworth, OB298 – Craigburn Farm petition of 87 people, OB303 – Sam Duluk MP, OB318 – Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)
Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Martin Gordon, COB8 – Neil McNish, COB22 – Carolyn Hemer, COB39 – Australian Labor Party, COB42 – Charles Richardson
Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene from the Division of Boothby to the proposed Division of Mayo. These changes were proposed as the Division of Mayo, as it existed at the commencement of this redistribution:
Some objections to the proposed redistribution supported the boundaries of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed Division of Kingston.
A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene should be located in the Division of Boothby due to a strong community of interest link between the suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene with the Blackwood and City of Mitcham area, as opposed to the regional localities in the Division of Mayo.
Other objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:
The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments that addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those arguing against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Boothby and Mayo, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.
The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:
The suburbs of Craigburn Farm and Hawthorndene will be located in the proposed Division of Mayo.