The much-awaited proposal redistribution of Tasmania's federal (and by normal standards, state) electoral boundaries has been published. I discussed the challenges facing the Redistribution Committee in my piece Clark Must Expand, But Where? In the draft proposal, the winner is "south".
The Committee (note, it is not correct to refer to the Committee as "the AEC" as two members are AEC and two are not) has proposed one of the more radical options that was considered in the process. Somewhat against my expectations based on the large movement of electors, they've decided that the further creep of Clark into Kingston, cutting parts further south off from their urban centre, really was unsustainable and it is now time to bite the bullet. They have recommended the southern boundaries of Clark, Lyons and Franklin as proposed by former Clarence Mayor Doug Chipman (there was a similar proposal by current Clarence Councillor James Walker). Clark becomes Hobart City, Kingborough and the Huon Valley, Franklin becomes Clarence, Brighton, Sorell and the lower and central east coast and Lyons becomes, well, whatever that is. In the north they've gone for the orthodox approach of Blackstone Heights and Prospect Vale into Bass, so I don't think anybody got their exact suggestion in full.
The approach that has been taken is to give each of the three electorates an urban centre, which means Greater Hobart is cut in three with each part getting a hinterland. Taken this way, Tasmania's cities are split up between the five divisions, rather than having one almost purely city division and one almost purely rural one. Lyons is also less sprawling reducing the number of tiny towns any new candidate has to canvass.
As a Clark resident (just under 2 km from the proposed border with Lyons) I think that proposed neo-Clark makes a high degree of thematic sense. It no longer has the old Hobart/Glenorchy divide with two halves that were both decidedly left-wing but socially quite different. Most of the proposed neo-Clark links in socially with aspects of Hobart City very well - Kingston and Blackmans Bay with Taroona and Sandy Bay, the very green Channel, Bruny and far south with South Hobart/Cascades/Fern Tree and so on. Having traditional Huon Valley forestry and farming areas in the same seat as the inner city does stick out but I expect the seat would get used to it.
Most of neo-Franklin makes a lot of sense too though as it stretches up the east coast held together by a relatively minor LGA that sense becomes a little stretched; Bicheno in the same seat as Bellerive etc. It's neo-Lyons that I still find to be rather odd. Glenorchy is the urban centre and it connects to New Norfolk, but its connection to the Midlands is interfered with by passing through the Brighton LGA, the main point of which seems to be making it easier for me to pass through all five electorates in one day. This is strongly driven by a concern about boundaries not crossing the Derwent River but I'd be interested to know how many Bridgewaterians (I'm sure there is some shorter lingo, Bridgies?) connect more with Clarence than they do with Glenorchy. Probably to me this lack of direct connection of Glenorchy to much of Lyons through the highway is the most difficult part of this proposal. This said, as I've been stressing all along, every possible solution seems to have something big wrong with it. Omelette, eggs.
Initial feedback on twitter is quite positive but I can't tell if the respondents are Tasmanians or not! I've started the same not-a-poll here in the sidebar.
Political Impacts
Ben Raue and William Bowe have compiled stats on redistribution estimates. William finds that the 2PP impact (if that's still a thing in 2028) is negligible save that Lyons becomes about a point better for Labor and Clark close to the reverse. (Ben's estimate for the Lyons improvement is larger.) Ben's Senate analysis is really helpful in steering around all the chaos of independents (and the Green candidate withdrawing from campaigning in Franklin) - on an underlying basis Labor loses 2.4% in Clark, largely to Liberals and a little to the Greens. Labor gains two points in Franklin where the Greens lose 4.3 and the Greens improve nearly three points in the new Lyons at the expense of the Liberals.
Ben also has estimates for state level where Labor seriously struggles in the new Clark, though that is partly because both David O'Byrne and Peter George ran in the ex-Franklin section, when probably now only one would run. New Franklin is notionally good for the majors on account of a reduced independent presence on the east coast, but O'Byrne would pick up votes in Brighton and Sorell LGAs. The Shooters Fishers and Farmers lose ground from there no longer being a single non-urban electorate though One Nation might look at the new Lyons still with interest as they are capable of getting votes in northern Glenorchy.
For parties there would be some interesting decisions to be made. For instance based on local support levels for particular candidates the Liberals could shuffle Eric Abetz from Franklin to Clark, Jane Howlett from Lyons to Franklin and move Madeleine Ogilvie from Clark to Lyons to have an incumbent with connection to Glenorchy. Labor could do the same thing with Dean Winter, Josh Willie and Jen Butler. For the Greens there's a question whether they would keep Rosalie Woodruff in Franklin, or given her historic support base in the new Clark section run both her and Vica Bayley in Clark to shore up their chances of two seats and find a new candidate for Franklin. Another factor here is that Tabatha Badger is currently contesting the Greens' Senate preselection, and if she wins that then Alastair Allan who lives in the Lyons part of the new Franklin may become an MP for the current Lyons.
For independents Kristie Johnston is the former Mayor of Glenorchy, but over time her support has shifted into Hobart City (in part because Hobart City hates the planned AFL stadium but it's not really an issue in Glenorchy). If Peter George ran again, his support is slightly stronger in the new Clark, and Johnston and George could be treading on each others' toes a lot if they ran in the same seat, but the Labor vote is so weak there that it's plausible both would still win - creating a rerun of Franklin 2025 where out of two independents, two Labor and two Greens somebody has to lose. Overall the redistribution is a nuisance for several of the current state non-Greens crossbenchers, Johnston and Carlo Di Falco probably most of all.
Federally, Ben has given an estimated margin of IND vs ALP 9.2% for Andrew Wilkie in Clark, based on simply giving him Peter George's 2CP results in the old Franklin. I also think Wilkie would do better than that, but I will have a close look at how much better if the proposal is adopted, including studying how various modelling methods fared in the seats where incumbent teals moved into new territory.
The other disclaimer I should add regarding the boundaries applying to state level is that there have been grumblings from some supporters of both major parties about the current 5x7 seat system, accompanied by very weak arguments. The federal boundaries will flow on to state if nothing changes with the state electoral system, but I can't yet be absolutely certain that's the case. I would hope any attempt to change the system to either 7x5 or 35x1, at least, would get short shrift in the independent-dominated Legislative Council given that no party has a mandate for such vandalism.
The Redistribution Committee has also indicated possible interest in renaming Franklin on the grounds that its namesake is extensively commemorated and relatively irrelevant and the change in the seat's shape is a major one, but it was not persuaded by any of the suggested alternative names that have been offered, in terms of connection to the new electorate. An anomoly if the electorate name Franklin is kept is that the town of Franklin will now be in Clark. The hunt is on for a persuasive and preferably pronounceable new name for the seat.
What happens now?
Firstly there is now a feedback phase where people who are displeased by the proposed redistribution can make comments (which I will probably cover in an update to this article), and then a phase for comments on the comments. People can also in this process support the proposed boundaries or suggest minor amendments. (It is not clear what those would be given the current draft's near-total adherence to LGA boundaries). It sometimes happens that radical redraw proposals encounter a tsunami of objections and are withdrawn, but we will see if this happens. My recommendation to anyone objecting to the draft is to say what you would do instead and explain you consider it better.
There has been some misreporting to suggest that voters will receive new MPs representing them once the redistribution completes (if the proposal is adopted). The current boundaries and representative arrangements remain in place until an election is held on the new boundaries (whatever they are), and this includes for any federal by-elections that may be held in that time.
