Division Names

Honouring Australians with division names

While noting the proposed boundaries and electoral representation is the main objective in a redistribution process, it must be acknowledged that redistributions are more than a technical exercise in numbers and cartography. Indeed, the most controversial parts of recent redistributions has been proposed names for new divisions, or the names of divisions proposed to be abolished.

Redistributions are opportunities to revisit who we choose to honour as a nation. Federal division names are long-lived, visible, and symbolic. They communicate values about the individuals and events that a society considers worthy of recognition. They should reflect people whose contributions were nationally significant, enduring, and for the betterment or advancement of Australians, not merely historical.

According to the Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions, divisions should, in the main, be named after deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their community. This provides a clear framework, but each redistribution allows us to apply it with attention to contemporary standards of fairness, diversity, and relevance. Naming reflects societal priorities; it is not a neutral administrative decision.

Divisions named for colonial-era persons

Not surprisingly, an inordinately large number of older divisions are named after colonial-era figures: politicians, governors, explorers, settlers and pioneers, including many of whom would not have considered themselves Australian, and whose continued recognition today is, at best, obsolete, and at worst, problematic.

Many of these individuals are already extensively commemorated in other ways: their names grace local government areas, suburbs, roads, highways, geographic features, military installations, universities, banks, hospitals, airports, parks, public buildings, and monuments. It is not uncommon for the names of some individuals, such as Lachlan Macquarie, James Cook, or John Hindmarsh to appear across vast categories of public recognition. The need to also preserve their names through federal electoral divisions should therefore be seen as a lower priority.

While these figures gave some contribution to the foundations of Australia, many of them identified primarily as British and spent only a portion of their lives here, often returning to their homeland to retire, or to continue exploration elsewhere. For example:

• John Franklin, after serving his time as Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, embarked on extensive exploration of Canada and the Arctic.
• George Grey served as Governor of both Cape Colony in Africa and New Zealand.
• Robert Herbet had an extensive career in various secretarial roles in the government of the United Kingdom.

Their legacy is, therefore, tied to the British Empire rather than Australia specifically, and their continued prominence overlooks more diverse, contemporary Australians who have made significant contributions.

More seriously, in other cases a division is named for a colonial-era person, when new evidence or information places the behaviour or actions of the person into question. In all cases where the individual’s actions are problematic, the name should be revoked and a new, more appropriate name should be selected at the first opportunity. The renaming of Batman, McMillan, Wakefield and Denison, and the abolition of Stirling followed community concern about the legacy of the individual.

Where division names are considered for abolition or retirement, the first candidates should be those named for colonial-era men, particularly where the individual identified primarily as British rather than Australian, already has received substantial public commemoration, or has a record of conduct now understood to be unworthy of public honour. New divisions should ideally recognise contemporary Australians, including women, Indigenous Australians, or people of diverse backgrounds who have made significant national contributions.

Divisions named for geographic features

Divisions named after towns, suburbs, rivers, lakes, mountains, or other geographic features present their own challenges. Large divisions frequently encompass multiple, distinct communities, making it difficult for a single geographic reference to resonate across the entire electorate. Naming a division after a single feature may fail to connect with residents at the periphery, particularly in expansive rural divisions, where most electors hold no connection to the feature.

Some use Aboriginal words that may not reflect local First Nations languages or are the result of mistranslations. The fact that a name is of Indigenous origin should not exempt it from review. Where a division’s name is an authentic Indigenous place name that exists alongside an English alternative, such as Calare, Indi or Werriwa, there may be a stronger case for retention, with the usual caveats if the feature is no longer inside the boundaries.

Geographic names are also duplicated across other layers of government; state electorates, local government areas, and council wards, frequently use the same or similar names, creating confusion. For example, the name Parramatta applies not only the suburb and federal division, but a state division, the local government area, and a ward within council, yet none of the boundaries align. Residents in parts of Parramatta, Seven Hills, Epping, North Rocks, and Newington find themselves inconsistently associated with the name, depending on the level of government, undermining clarity and identification.

Electoral division boundaries, by their very nature, shift over time, disconnecting geographic divisions from their eponymous feature. Corangamite, McPherson, Richmond and infamously, Werriwa have all drifted away from the geographic references for which they were named. In other cases, the division remains rigidly anchored to the feature, constraining adjustments to better represent communities of interest.

The Augmented Redistribution Committee for Western Australia noted regarding objections to the name Bullwinkel:

…in any event, a connection between an electoral division name and the electoral division itself may change over time, as boundaries shift over the course of redistributions.

While this was in reference to naming a division for a person born inside the boundaries of the proposed division, this principle is even more true for geographic divisions.

Divisions names Brisbane or Perth make some sense being the capital cities of their state. However more specific geographic-based divisions such as Newcastle, Fremantle, Maribyrnong, or Wide Bay, should be considered outdated and ready to be retired. At a minimum, divisions should be drawn without regard to eponymous features and then renamed if the feature falls outside the boundaries of the new division.

Finally, divisions named for prominent people is a rare approach in electoral division naming conventions throughout the world. Most jurisdictions globally apply simple or compound geographic names or merely number districts. Australia, however, has a rich history of honouring prominent Australians, oftentimes those who might otherwise go unrecognised in their achievements, but retaining outdated geographic names can limit this practice.

Federation divisions

The guidelines recommend preserving the names of federation divisions where practicable. That principle has some notion of romanticism, but overall, it’s not tenable long-term.

The pressing need for increased diversity in division names, along with assigning additional divisions to future prime ministers means that, unless the number of divisions is increased with an expansion of parliament, the list of suitable candidates to retire, rename or abolish is constantly shrinking. In the main, suitable candidates to rename or retire should come from divisions named for either colonial-era persons or geographic areas and it is not a coincidence that the majority of federation divisions fall into these two categories.

There are officially 65 federation divisions remaining, however, the actual number of divisions that have persisted intact since Federation is fewer. The original federation divisions of Parkes and Oxley, were abolished, and only recreated several years later. The division of Riverina was renamed Riverina-Darling for nine years and therefore is also not a true federation division.

The sanctity of federation divisions has been selectively upheld, with various redistribution committees willing to abolish federation divisions when ideal or practical. For example, the divisions of Gwyder, Kalgoorlie, Melbourne Ports, and North Sydney were abolished when it suited the redistribution process, while Denison and Wakefield, also sometimes considered to be federation divisions, were both renamed. The 2016 New South Wales redistribution saw the division of Charlton renamed Hunter solely to preserve a federation division name, an unnecessary constraint.

Retention of federation divisions is largely nostalgic and has limited relevance in contemporary Australia. I will continue to advocate for renaming or retiring federation names where appropriate, prioritising names that reflect national significance, contemporary contributions, and diversity over historical sentiment or tradition.

Proposals to name divisions after recent politcians

There was a trend recently where, particularly the political parties, had made numerous submissions to add divisions after recent politicians. Almost always these individuals were politically aligned to the party making the submission, and frequently their contributions were no more signficant or worthwhile than any other politican. A politican should not have a division named for them simply because they were a premier of a state, or that they were a minister or cabinet member. The honour of a division name belongs to those who have made an outstanding contribution to modern, contemporary Australia. The days of naming divisions after state-based politicans is hopefuly behind us.