Enabling Australia

Enabling Australia

Monday, 06 December 2010 06:03

comments 0

151 hits

“community of interests within the proposed Electoral Division, including economic, social and regional interests”, “means of communication and travel”, and “the boundaries of the existing Divisions.”

“Melbourne Ports has had the same boundaries for 20 years, and it has become a distinct political community,” Danby said. “People in Caulfield, St Kilda, South Melbourne and Port Melbourne, despite their differences, have similar concerns, about the environment, about human rights, about housing and transport, about child care, about the quality of inner city life.”

“The changes would alter the character of the Melbourne Ports community, and would put Caulfield people into safe Liberal seats where they would be on the fringes and ignored. People there have been part of the electorate since 1989, and they know that I listen to their concerns.”

“I believe whatever the views of the members for Higgins and Goldstein, voters in Elsternwick and Caulfield will miss the access they now have and my demonstrated record of achievement.”

Danby said that the proposed boundary changes were not necessary. “Because Melbourne Ports is such a great place to live, it has above average population growth, which means it has to lose some voters. In my opinion it is not necessary to cut the seat virtually in half. I’ve proposed an alternative, which transfers some parts of South Caulfield to Goldstein but otherwise preserves the unity of the seat. This is an important perspective as having long established boundaries helps lower informal voting. I also believe my suggestions allow the Redistribution Committee to fulfil its imperative of increasing numbers in other seats in the south east of Melbourne, while preserving the identity of Melbourne Ports. I hope the committee accepts my suggestion.”

Media enquiries: Patrick Reeder 03 9534 8126 mailpatrick.reeder@aph.gov.au