Yesterday’s post analysed the intra-state trends in terms of enrolment for each NSW federal electorate. Today I’m looking at the trends in Victoria and Western Australia. These states are slightly simpler since we know they will be losing and gaining a seat respectively, and there has been less time since the last redistribution.
Victoria gained seats at the last two federal elections after being stuck on 37 seats for a very long time. Western Australia gained a sixteenth seat prior to the 2016 election, and then lost that seat prior to the 2022 election.
Let’s start with Victoria. The current 39 seats need to be redrawn into 38, so most seats are currently too small and will need to add population.
| Region | Seats | Deviation |
| Central Melbourne | 7 | -27.82 |
| Eastern Melbourne | 8 | -23.31 |
| South-Eastern Melbourne | 5 | -14.00 |
| Western Melbourne | 6 | -23.42 |
| Melbourne | 26 | -88.55 |
| Eastern Victoria | 5 | -4.93 |
| Western Victoria | 8 | -6.50 |
| Regional Victoria | 13 | -11.43 |
Most of the shortfall is in Melbourne, but is reasonably evenly spread across the city.
The seats on the south side of the Yarra have slightly more of a shortfall than those on the north side, but wherever the seat is abolished will have knock-on effects all over Melbourne.
It’s a bit hard to pick which way they go. There are significant deficits on both the north side and south side of Melbourne, but neither of them is enough to absorb the abolition of a whole seat.
The story is similar in Perth, but with a lowered quota putting every seat over the quota. The biggest surpluses are in central Perth: Tangney, Swan, Perth and Cowan are collectively 37.75% over quota. I suspect the new seat will be somewhere close to the centre of Perth – possibly quite close to the location of Stirling, which was abolished at the last redistribution.
You’d have to assume the starting point, for WA in particular, is its previous 16 seat iteration.
Ben, I presume the variances you have listed on the maps are based on current enrolment only. With the need to factor in projected enrolments, I can easily see some of the inner suburban Perth districts (Cowan and Tangney) having slower growth compared to the outer suburban ones (Pearce, Hasluck, Brand, Burt and Canning).
I was thinking the new seat may have to be positioned more towards the outer suburbs rather than inner Perth, to take advantage of the projected enrolment growth. This was the case when Burt was created as the 16th seat (in the outer southeast of Perth). With the need for Brand and Canning to contract, all other Perth seats shuffle southwards and there may be space for a new seat to be carved out of Pearce, Hasluck and a few semi-rural areas currently in Durack.
Agree somewhat Alex, but it won’t be an exact match because of the differences in enrolment across districts. With the old 15 seat configuration pre-2016, WA had only 5 seats south of the river, with Hasluck in the middle. Now the current 15 seat configuration has 6 seats south of the river, with Hasluck moving more to the north to take in the rapid growth suburbs around Ellenbrook.
Correction, comment should refer to 5 then 6 PERTH seats south of the river, not WA.
It will be interesting to see which seat (or seats if VIC loses an additional seat) gets the chop in VIC. If VIC loses 2 seats, it’d be pretty safe to say that one seat in the northwest and one seat in the southeast gets abolished. If VIC only loses 1 seat, I’d suspect Hotham be chopped would given it’s lack of natural geographic boundaries and poor community of interest uniting Bentleigh East with Springvale and Noble Park. Other possibilities though not as likely could be Casey if the AEC decides to make take the rural wedge out of Menzies and push it further down in Whitehorse, Higgins or Chisholm. If only 1 seat gets abolished, I doubt a growth area seat would be abolished despite many of them being under quota but if 2 seats are abolished one of seat in the northwest, which could be a growth area seat like Hawke, will definitely be abolished which is where the new seats from the last 2 redistributions are.
Assuming VIC just loses the one seat, I’m wondering if it might be time to dismember Jagajaga.
The fact that the shortfall is spread between north and south might lend itself to Menzies resuming its 2018 river-straddling trick with the rest of Jagajaga absorbed by Scullin, Cooper and McEwen, the latter of which would probably lose most it’s western half to prop up the divisions in the west and north-west of Melbourne.
Should be a fun one to tackle in any event.
Agree Dan, if it is just one seat being abolished then it won’t be one that is growing fast. Lalor and La Trobe in particular saw growth rates of 1% in just 3-4 months, so these seats will likely be within 3% of tolerance by the time the redistribution starts and may well be over quota on projected enrolments.
No seat named after a Prime Minister will be abolished. My candidate would be Chisholm.
@Adam Carr They could theoretically simply just rename another existing electorate after abolishing a seat named after a prime minister for example they could abolish the current Fraser then decide to rename the current Hotham into Fraser. That’s not to say I think that would happen but it’s possible that a seat after a prime minister could be abolished with the name still being retained.
Like in NSW, there are some weird boundaries that need to be resolved. The Higgins/Macnamara boundary will need to be revisited. The Menzies/Chisholm/Deakin border along Whitehorse Road and Blackburn Road also needs to be reviewed. I’d argue the Chisholm/Hotham/Bruce borders need to be revisited as well. I guess the problem for many of these seats is the fact that community of interest tends to be of a continuum. For example, Doncaster and Warrandyte have a community of interest being the same LGA while Doncaster and Box Hill have a community of interest being demographically and culturally similar, same with Warrandyte and Chirnside Park. However, no one would say that there is a community of interest between Doncaster and Chirnside Park or Box Hill and Warrandyte. There are some instances where there is a very obvious boundary between communities of interest (like the Yarra between Collingwood and Kew) but most of the time it’s not too clear and can be argued both ways. The line has to be drawn somewhere (pun intended).
@ Dan M, i agree if Chisholm is abolished Hotham will probably be renamed Chisholm. Caroline Chisholm was a pioneering woman and Hotham was just a colonial governor. I would prefer Hotham be abolished as well since as you pointed out Bentleigh East has nothing in common with Springvale/Noble Park. I hope Issacs can be fixed as well and the Dandenong part removed as well.
What of country Vic..,?
Clearly not as simple as this but Deakin is a electorate that could be abolished and merged into Chisholm, Aston and Menzies.
Nunawading, Mitcham, Blackburn and Vermont demographically and geographically fit very nicely in Chisholm and Ringwood, Heathmont and Croydon are very similar demographically and geographically to Aston. Ringwood North, Warranwood, Croydon Hills etc fit into Menzies.
I think the distribution of the shortfalls in VIC means a return to Menzies straddling the Yarra as it did in the 2018 redistribution. I’m wondering if you could then eliminate Jagajaga – dividing the remainder between Cooper, Scullin and McEwen, with McEwen losing a lot of it’s western end to prop up the divisions in the west and northwest of Melbourne.
Just personally, if straddling the Yarra was absolutely necessary, I’d look at either (a) pushing Melbourne into Southbank and Fishermans Bend, or (b) bringing the Upper Yarra Valley back into McEwen, before looking at fiddling with the Menzies/Jagajaga boundary again.
@Mark Mulcair – the options really depend on exactly what north/south ratio you need the straddling division to have. In 2018 it was about 30/70. My suggestion then was extending Casey into Diamond Creek, which you canvassed in your suggestion before opting for bringing Ivanhoe into Menzies. The AEC went with Menzies taking the other end of Jagajaga. Melbourne straddling the river really only works if you’re looking for a division that is majority north, and I think likewise for McEwen extending east and south. I reckon we’ll be looking at something in the order of 40/60 this time. Unless that’s completely wrong, I think the 2018 options are going to be the live ones again, with the Casey option losing ground to Menzies/Jagajaga the closer the split gets to 50/50.
I disagree that the new WA seat would look like Stirling. That would push Pearce back into the wheatbelt, not ideal.
I think the logical thing is to radically redraw Hasluck; firstly north to the metropolitan boundary, then west to absorb the northern suburbs surplus. The areas Hasluck loses in the southern end would form the basis of a new seat, along with northern parts of Canning and eastern parts of Swan.
Perhaps the area enclosed by the Tonkin and Reid Highways could be the basis of a new electorate. Unsure if there’s a commonality of interests though.
Are there issues with any of the names of Victorian seats? Gellibrand is one that got mentioned in the last redistribution because of colonial links, but I don’t know the detail of that, what the person it was named after did, or if it was just about colonialism in general? I don’t have a problem with seats being named for historical figures, it all depends what they did as individuals whether those naming rights should be stripped or not. Stirling it was justified to remove the name honours.
@Ursula while personally I’m not sure if any of Victorian seats have particularly problematic names, I know the electoral commission seems intent on changing Corangamite’s name despite apparent local opposition and the unnecessary nature of doing so. I won’t be surprised if they try to again. Although 3 times in 5 years is a bit ridiculous.
Laine, I think the reason why the Aec wants to change the name of Corangamite is because Lake Corangamite and its namesake council no longer fall within the district boundaries.
Unlike other indigenous named seats like Ballarat and Parramatta, which still contain their namesake locations and council areas.
Werriwa also falls into the same category as Corangamite in terms of a seat named after an indigenous word, but the name is not in common use, and there are no other localities bearing that name.
From what I can see, it appears that the AEC’s proposed redistributions in 2010 and 2021 for Melbourne Ports / Macnamara have involved swapping Caulfield in Melbourne Ports/Macnamara to Higgins for South Yarra & Prahran from Higgins. However, it appears the AEC abandoned these proposals in their final determinations due to community opposition.
Given that these proposals have been defeated twice, does anyone think it is likely the AEC will propose a similar boundary swap again for Macnamara and Higgins? And if so, does anyone think the boundary swap will survive to see the light of day or be ditched again after considerable community opposition?
Labor would have every incentive to keep the current boundaries given they retained Macnamara but won Higgins on the current boundaries while the Libs and Greens will be more determined than ever to have the boundary swap occur. That being said I think there will be less Jewish community opposition than there was at the last redistribution. Even on the current boundaries, Labor only narrowly won Macnamara and it’s not inconceivable for the Greens to win on current boundaries in 2025. Labor’s problem with a boundary swap would be it essentially locks them out of winning Macnamara by making it very favourable to the Greens while it makes it harder for them to retain Higgins by removing the left leaning suburbs in Prahran/Windsor and replacing them with more right-leaning Caulfield. On the other hand, orthodox Jewish communities in Caulfield wouldn’t be happy about the possibility of their suburb being represented by the Greens. Putting it in Higgins significantly reduces that possibility.
nsw and vic will lose a seat wa will gain one.
@ Dan M, Totally agree with you. Labor would vehemently oppose the swap as they stand to loose both seats as you correctly mention. I point i would add is that Macnamara(Melbourne Ports) is growing rapidly in the Western end around Fishermens Bend/Southbank that is diluting the Jewish community even if the swap does not go ahead. For example, until 2013 Melbourne Ports included Caulfield south and the entire share of Elstenwick and went as far south as North Road. Its is likely more of Caulfield will be lost to either Goldstein or Higgins overtime for this reason even if the swap does not go ahead. Goldstein and Higgins are not experiencing population growth so will need to expand unlike Macnamara.
This Victorian distribution will be more interesting this year as the number of Independent’s who will be fighting to keep what they know will lead to a lot of submissions.
Further abolishing seats gives the Boundaries Commission far more flexibility and I wonder if they will look at making major changes to Indi and Nicholls and revisit a former proposal where Indi joins up to Mallee (ie 2 seats only along the Murray) and Nicholls Being a more Hume Highway seat taking in Wang. to the border with Casey
Many years ago a senior member of the Commission told me that when they do redistributions in Vic, they start with 8 corner seats (Mallee, Wannon, Gippsland and Indi in the Country Melbourne, McNamara, Kooyong and Higgins in Metro) and work their way towards each other with the last seat drawn usually being McEwan.
Considering the average seat would currently be 118,500 (before considering population growth prospects and that they will be drawing seats for a 7 year period (even if after the next election Victoria regains its lost seat)) there are going to be major movements this time.
I do agree with Dean Ashley (above) that Menzies will straddle the Yarra and large parts of Jaga Jaga will form part of that seat and Hotham could well be abolished on the south side of the river, there could well be other seats that will be abolished (ie 3 go and 2 created) or transformed so that they don’t look like their current iterations.
This time I currently believe the Boundaries Commission will be far more radical which will be fascinating to watch
What I’ll be submitting as a proposal regarding Macnamara is:
– Move South Yarra, Prahran (west of Williams Rd) and Windsor from Higgins to Macnamara
– Move Caulfield North, Caulfield, Caulfield East and part of St Kilda East (east of Hotham) from Macnamara to Higgin
– Move the Goldstein border north from Glenhuntly Rd (I don’t think a major shopping strip should be a boundary) to Glen Eira Rd, uniting all of Elsternwick and Caulfield South in Goldstein.
That should be a net + for both Higgins and Goldstein, and a net – for Macnamara where more population growth is forecast.
It strengthens the communities of interest in all 3 seats. Transport wise it unites the Sandringham line from South Yarra to Ripponlea in Macnamara, and unites the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines from Toorak to Hughesdale in Higgins.
In regards to the Jewish community, it creates a larger and more unified Jewish community in Higgins than what currently exists in Macnamara, plus as Dan M said, any small swing away from Labor in 2025 will likely flip both Macnamara to the Greens and Higgins to the Liberals even without a swap, and I’m sure the Orthodox community in Caulfield would prefer a Liberal MP to a Green, so their objection may not be as strong.
But I have no doubt Labor will vehemently oppose it.
@Dan M Where would you put the rural edge of Menzies if you take it out of Menzies.
@Dean Ashley I think a lot of Jagajaga wouldn’t fit well wwith the seats of Scullin, Cooper and Mcewen. Although if the top part of Jagajaga is added to Mcewen then Mcewen will likely lose its western end.
@Ruixing Zhang Agrred about your point about community of interest. As you go further away from the CBD in the north east/east along the river you get larger built up areas that absorb smaller surrounding suburbs that they have a community of interest with but this smaller suburb has pretty much nothing to do with other suburbs within the boundaries. Nillumbik council is a bit like this, Eltham has a community of interest with the areas in the east such as Research, North Warrandyte and Kangaroo Ground and areas in the north such as Diamond Creek (maybe Yarrambat and Plenty as well though i’m not sure) whereas these areas in the east and north likely have very little lap over.
Also i think it was around the discussion of federal redistribution for the 2022 election but when discussing their proposals everyone was using a certain website to create their boundaries. Would someone be able to tell me the website
@North East for that scenario I was thinking putting it in Deakin along with Chirnside Park and Lilydale while putting the Whitehorse parts of the current Deakin into Menzies and Chisholm with either Heatherdale Road or the Eastlink being the southwestern border for Deakin. Aston would expand east and take in the southwestern part of Casey while the sparsely populated remainder of the seat is absorbed by Monash, McEwen and Indi.
@ Trent, I agree with you on your recommendations. Just a couple of points
1. I especially like the fact that you correctly pointed out that the Glen Eira portion of St Kilda East is more like Caulfield than St Kilda itself. It is actually 56% Jewish one of the few places in Australia where a minority religion makes a clear majority
2. Also totally agree with you about moving to Goldstein border to Glen Eira road. That may happen anyway if the swap does not go ahead as Goldstein is not growing fast unlike Macnamara
3. One point i disagree and this is important to my next point nicely and i plan to highlight this when the AEC calls submissions is that post 2025 when the Metro tunnel opens the Pakenham/Cranbourne line will be totally segregated from the Frankston/Sandringham lines there will only be one interchange at Caulfield before the CBD.
4. That flows to my next point nice. The metro tunnel will mean that longer term Sandbelt/Southern Melbourne will increasingly be seen as separate from South East Melbourne. For this reason i hope that East Bentleigh is no longer in Hotham and Dandenong and most of Keysbrough is removed from Issacs. East Bentleigh has a Jewish community and very different socio-economically from Noble Park etc. East Bentleigh should be in Goldstein or worst case is Issacs but Certainly not with the SE Manufacturing belt. Keen to hear your thoughts about this
One thing that might work is transferring South Yarra/Prahran to Macnamara as outlined, but then placing Caulfield/St Kilda East in GOLDSTEIN instead of Higgins. This would resolve the argument over Higgins, as well as some of the comments that the existing Macnamara/Goldstein boundary already splits Caulfield and Elsternwick.
Higgins could then potentially take in the Ormond/Bentleigh area from Hotham. Maybe it would then have room to shed more of Glen Iris/Ashburton to top up Kooyong.
If Goldstein gains Caulfield, it will probably need to give up Black Rock and Beaumaris to Isaacs, which would allow Isaacs to shed its “inland” end.
The only issue is that this might give Higgins a bit of a weird shape. But it would address most of the points raised by other posters, without running into the same “Higgins shouldn’t take Caulfield” arguments that have scuttled this in the past.
@Dan M The rural edge of Menzies would fit well with the northern part of Deakin (Warranwood, Croydon Hills and Ringwood North) but wouldn’t fit well with the rest of the electorate, especially the south western end.
on Victoria i think Macnamara should be the one to go as it hold no namesake, isnt of aboriginal origin is not a founding electorate. other then that gellibrand but il publish my movements later. the biggest changes il be suggesting are wills, melbourne, higgins and chisholm
wa was relatively easy to figure out this is what i came up with
wa redistribution
hasluck gains 7.2% from durack
cowan gains 4.75% from pearce
curtin gains 6.9% from moore
perth gains 14.8% from cowan
tangey gains 14.3% from curtin
swan gains 25% from perth
fremantle gains 24% from tangey
burt gains 33.9% from swan
brand gains 29.65% from fremantle
canning gains 36.5% from burt, 37.4% from brand, 14.7% from hasluck
forrest receives 91.1% from canning
o’connor receives 93.55% from forest 100.05%
new electorate created in south between forrest and o’connor
the name im suggesting either way is Hartog the first European to sight Western Australia
alternate. naturally this will need to be ajusted on new numbers but you get the idea
alternate
forrest receives 6.7% from o’connor
canning receives 9.35% from forrest
hasluck receives 14.35% from canning
fremantle receives 7.75% from brand
swan gets 2.7% from burt
tangey gets 13.5% from fremantle
perth gets 11.5% from swan
curtin gets 23.15% from tangey
cowan gets 21.4% from perth
moore gets 30.55% curtin
pearce gets 31.45% from cowan, 37.45% from moore
durack gets 73.65% from pearce, 21.65% from hasluck
new electorate created north of hasluck & pearce and south of sdurack
If you’re moving 91% or 93% of a seat to another seat, then you’ve just transferred a name. Effectively the seat you’ve named ‘Canning’ is actually the new seat considering less than a third of it comes from Canning. Likewise in your second plan the seat you call “Pearce” is actually the new one.
I don’t see Hartog getting anywhere. Better to name it after someone who has actually set foot on this continent. Consider how the AEC has shifted away from seats named after people with a limited connection to the early colonies eg Denison.
Im just using the names to show how I solved the aecs problem they can solve that problem
Why on earth was my previous comment removed? I was stating WA shouldn’t gain a seat after losing a seat and then gained one the previous election before that.
@ daniel t I believe your in the wrong thread that’s why
I had a look at entitlements shortly after the federal election utilising Dec 2021 data, what has become more apparent with the last six months. It’s pretty much certain that WA will get a seat, Vic lose one. This hasn’t changed.
What has changed is the momentum behind population (which is with nothing), these trends have accelerated between June and December. With the result NSW is now more likely to lose a seat (previous data pointed towards it keeping is entitlement) (on previous trends this wouldn’t have happened until post the 2028 election) .
Previously the data pointed to Vic would most likely lose a second seat in the next parliament post 2025, Queensland gain a seat, with Queensland gaining a further seat the following parliament post 2028 election and before the Brisbane Olympic games. This has gone from a 20% possibility to 50/50 possibility.
I’m sticking with the Vic loses one scenario mindful that it may be a close call in June 2022.
I suspect that may go in Vic is Nicholls. This would allow for the northern suburban seats to extent out into Mitchell shire which is an established growth corridor. McEwen will move into Seymour, Nillumbik into Casey, Cooper and Wills to both jump the ring road. I suspect Wannon, Gippsland, Corio, Flinders and Corangamite boundaries will be untouched. Northwards move of Casey will allow a stretch in the seats along the Maroondah and Princes highways but these are more ‘nip and tucks’.
In WA, I’m going for splitting Hasluck, Hasluck A based on boundaries stretching from Alexander Drive into Midland, Aveley, Beechboro possibly even as far north as Bullsbrook. Cowan into North Beach/Carine which would result in more moderate boundary changes North of the Swan. Hasluck B based on Walliston, Great Eastern highway townships and to the south High Wycombe, Forrestfield Kenwick and Orange Grove again the attraction more moderate boundary changes to the south.
@sandbelter it will be an inner metropolitan seat as tey are the ones most under quota same as in sydney
Sandbelter, I suspect you are right about McEwan, and that a seat as outlined will be moved but that will carry the name Nicholls, based around Shepparton, Wang and Southern Indi
I agree with Ben that a metro representtion will be reduced by 1
@captain agreed why would they gut nicholls as the current boundaries are pretty much at quota same with gippland wannon and all the regional seats are either pretty close or over quota and there wont be any ned to gut them
im guessing that vic and nsw loses can be attriubted to covid exoduses and wil probly see a reversal in 2026
i came up with a solution to the naming problem in Corangamite. Elizabeth
@ Ben, a couple of redistributions ago, the proposed boundaries had only 2 seats along the Murray, I am wondering if they will prose the same again as it might be easier to pull off
The current Indi reaches from the NSW / Vic Border to the outer townships of Melbourne, I can see an argument to have Indi based along the Murray Valley Highway thus keeping all the irrigation lands in one seat which would be stable
Looking forward this will allow the next redistribution where Victoria gains a seat to easily play with the northern boundaries as most of the northern growth will be in McEwan / Nicholls corridor
Personally I don’t see any changes being made to Mallee but the BRC might want to lock the rest of northern Vic away for some time.
This redistribution, in my view, will see massive changes to Hawke, and while the name might survive it might not exist in recognisable form as I believe Ballarat will take back the General Ballan territory pushing it into Gorton which will be eaten by all the other seats around it and the left over of Gorton / Hawke will be the remaining seat
Bendigo, I believe will move back into Macedon / Sunbury area pushing that eastwards, which could push McEwan into parts of Indi and Casey
However a seat Based around Wang, Benalla, Seymour, Mansfield and other parts of Southern Indi and the northern part of Casey (called Nicholls could also be attractive) if Indi is changed from a North /South seat ot a East West Seat
The 2010 proposal that abolished Murray (now Nicholls) made a lot of questionable re-arrangements in western and northern Victoria. In particular, stretching Lalor out to Lara & Avalon and drawing Shepparton into McEwen. It wasn’t a satisfactory proposal and was scrapped for a reason. I believe it’s the only time in recent memory where the committee has been forced to start from scratch with a second proposal.
Several of the current rural divisions were drawn with high relative enrolments in the expectation they would steadily decline. As you can see from the graphic above, that has yet to happen. Indi, Mallee, and Bannon are above even the 38-seat quota. On these figures, Nicholls and every other rural seat are safe from abolition. It will be a suburban seat that gets the chop.
* Bannon = Wannon
Comments are closed.