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.
i doubt it the last redistribution say many submissions not asking to radically change the seat. the best option is to abolish an inner melbourne seat given those are the most under quotas
Agree Ben and David Walsh, the best option is abolishing an eastern Melbourne seat. Anthony Green indicated Chisholm is probably the likely candidate as it lacks natural geographical borders. In particular, the suburbs of Box Hill and Blackburn are currently split between districts (the latter currently divided 3 ways between Menzies, Chisholm and Deakin).
The best solution may be uniting Box Hill into Menzies and all of Blackburn into Deakin. Kooyong can potentially gain Burwood and the rump of Chisholm is merged with Hotham.
Of course, it won’t be that simple. Adjacent Hotham also has suburbs split between districts, and a redistribution will likely see it losing the balance of Bentleigh and Bentleigh East to Goldstein, and then the balance of Noble Park to Bruce.
This way, more suburbs in East/Southeast Melbourne will be united into a single district and not be split up.
il personally making a suggestion that wills and melbourne move further south and higgins and chisholm move west
Therefore macnamara will be abolished. And the remainder goes to gellibrand.
Currently Victoria has a split of 21 seats north / west of the Yarra and 18 seats west / south. It is highly unlikely that either north or south will close a complete seat so the outcome will be 20.5 / 17.5. This would suggest that Jaga Jaga would be the seat to go and Menzies moves North and straddles the river – possibly more than what was in the 2018 redistribution.
“lose” a complete seat
Ben, I don’t think that will be a good proposal because the Docklands is quite a contiguous area. Even the state seat of Albert Park follows most of the boundaries aligned to Macnamara.
I think redrawing the district and exchanging territory with Higgins (swapping out Caulfield and Elsternwick for South Yarra and Prahran) is probably a better option.
this is my proposal
vic redistribution
monash gains , 2.8% from indi
casey gain .5% from indi
nicholls gain .5% from bendigo
bendigo gains 2.5% from mallle
ballarat gains 2.2% from mallee, .5% from wannon
corangamite gains 1.2% from corio
corio gains 3.5% from hawke
hawke gains 9.25% from mcewen
lalor gains 4.6% from gorton, .35% gellibrand
gorton gains 5.2% from fraser
fraser gains 8.6% from maribyrnong,
maribyrnong gains 14% from wills
mcewen gains 13.2% from calwell
calweel gains 17.6% from wills
scullin gains 5% from cooper
jagajaga gains 1.5% from cooper
cooper gains 11.7% from wills
wills gains 47.55% from melbourne
melbourne gains 49.25% from macnamara
la trobe gains 5% from holt
holt gains 9.8% from Bruce
bruce gains 11.8% from aston
aston gains 16.6% from chisholm
deakin gains 2.2% from chisholm
flinders gains 1.5% from dunkley
dunkley gains 4.6% from issacs
issacs gains 7.9% from hotham
hotham gains 9.2% from chisholm
chisholm gains 32.9% from higgins
menzies gains 2.4% from kooyong
kooyong gains 5.05% from higgins
higgins gains 38.15% from macnamara
goldstein gains 5.7% from macnamara
gellibrand gains 6.55% from macnamara
abolished macnamara
as you can see the biggest changes will see wills and melbourne move south and higgins and chisolm move west whilst abolishing mcnamara these are based on the last numbers and will probably change come june.
If it really is a case of 0.5 seat needing to transfer from north-south or vice versa, I’d be more inclined to either
a) Push Melbourne south into Southbank/Port Melbourne (i.e the ‘inner city’ part of Macnamara), or
b) Put the Yarra Valley back into McEwen.
Both of which would involve abolishing a seat in the south/east.
Both of those seem like better outcomes than forcing Jagajaga or Menzies across the river at a point where there isn’t much communication across it.
I agree with Mark Mulcair especially on the latter point the pre 2013 version of McEwen had much of the Yarra Valley. If the areas in the old Healsville Shire and Upper Yarra shire could be included in McEwen that would work well at the upper reaches the river is more narrow and does not form a barrier.
@ Ben
Interesting proposal but I am not sure the boundaries commission would go for a lot of your proposal and there are too many community of interest issues as well as geographical issues
I cant see Monash moving to Indi as crossing the GDR is hard especially during winter, I can see the area your talking about moving to McEwan.
When the Commission announces the growth projections, I don’t see Corangamite moving west, rather Coria might move into Corangamite
I cant see Mallee changing at all rather Ballarat and Bendigo moving towards Melbourne (into areas they have had before)
Your suggestion of Melbourne is interesting but ever since Melbourne Ports was moved out of Richmond, the Commissions have made the Yarra river at the city end a hard border.
Melbourne will be an interesting seat, the commission has 2 main options if the river is still the border, either put Flem/Ken back into Melbourne or remove North Melbourne to Maribyrnong from Melbourne and move Melbourne Northern Boundary into Wills,
Either way past history suggests that Jaga Jaga /Menzies will be the seat that crosses the river not the seat of Melbourne ( or if you go back far enough the Federal seat of Yarra being Richmond and Hawthorn will not be recreated either)
Mark Mulcair’s suggestion of taking Melbourne south of the river definitely has merit as it would allow a southern Melbourne seat to be abolished. However, it would need to take in Albert Park, South Melbourne and that part of South Yarra in the Melbourne City Council area to have a meaningful enrolment impact. However, it would be probably too radical a step for the AEC Commissioners if past Victorian redistributions are anything to go by.
@moonlight yes I condered that my other suggestion is to eliminate Gellibrand and move macnamara west il wait on the June numbers before I make my final call
i have redone my wa redistribution and taken into account the natural borders
forrest receives 6.5% from o’connor
canning receives 8.95% from forrest
burt receives 8.6% from swan, 22.55% from tangey
fremantle receives 7.55% from brand
tangey gets 13.1% from fremantle
swan gets 16.25% from burt,
hasluck gets 33.65% from burt, 13.75% from canning
cowan gets 9.9% from perth
moore gets 7.2% curtin
pearce gets 19.75% from cowan, 13.9% from moore
durack gets 38.2% from pearce, 54.4% from hasluck
new electorate created north of hasluck & pearce and south of durack
further update.
forrest receives 6.5% from o’connor
canning receives 8.95% from forrest, 22.55% from brand
brand gets 15% from fremantle
fremantle receives 9.45% from tangey
swan gets 2.5% from burt
hasluck gets 36.3% from canning, 11.1% from swan
cowan gets 9.9% from perth
moore gets 7.2% curtin
pearce gets 19.75% from cowan, 13.9% from moore
durack gets 38.2% from pearce, 54.5% from hasluck
new electorate created north of hasluck & pearce and south of durack
since north fremantle lies across the natural border of the swan river
the aec should consider sending this to curtin and adjusting the relative
number of electors in the resulting areas
i couldnt sleep and had to kill time 🙁 please delete my last two posts
@Ben
@Ben
Is there a program you use to do that? If so, what is it?
@micheal no just look at the map provided and you can move the numbers around. i was just playing with differet scenarios. i think they should consider using the swan river as a natural border as it goes through hasluck and thats where the new electorate should be. its based on what data in the map shows which will obviously change come june. i think they should move borders of the bigger electorates inwards and create a new one on the outskirts of perth as its easier of just plonking one in the middle based on what i did last night the ideal place should in between cowan perth hasluck and pearce
This is my first post on this site.
Given the combined numbers on either side of the Yarra as they stand it is very likely that the Yarra will need to be crossed. It has crossed my mind that this need not only happen in one seat. The commissioners for example could take a number of voters from Mcnamara – Southbank, St Kilda/Queens Rd/Port Melbourne and transfer them to Melbourne. McEwen could then also extend south eastwards into Casey. If 0.25 of a seat was taken from both Mcnamara and Casey, then the seats currently north of the Yarra all move either slightly west or south as needed. This could be viewed as a better community of interest fit than a seat effectively being split 50/50 over the Yarra. I realise that when the projected numbers come in it may not be a 50/50 split.
Previously the commissioners have tried twice that I am aware of to adjust the boundaries of McNamara and Higgins which I think has merit. This met substantial opposition and a backtrack resulted.
Then Mcnamara takes the voters from Goldstein which is effectively abolished. Isaacs sheds its Dandenong suburbs and Isaacs moved considerably northwest up the bay almost restoring it to similar boundaries which it held many years ago.
Higgins gains Caulfield and perhaps East St Kilda shedding the suburbs northeast of the Monash Freeway and in the east and southeast of the seat to top up other seats.
Hopefully this would enable some of the poorer boundaries (imho) such as Menzies/Deakin and Chisholm and Issacs/Hotham/Bruce to be improved.
Whilst this would be a radical carve up, I suspect that Chisholm will effectively be given the chop in part because it shares boundaries with the greatest number of seats.
Interested to hear the thought’s of others.
The AEC has released the January 2023 numbers which now take into account all the enrolment changes from the last Victorian Election
This has seen a number of seats change their enrolment numbers and it is interesting to note that Aston and Deacon have less electors than in July 2021
In looking at both sides of the Yarra, Northern and Western Melbourne / Victoria are 56,947 electors short of a seat where the South and East of the Yarra seats are 58,903 electors short of a seat with the statistical average being 115,884 based on Victoria losing a seat
In grouping the seats, we see the following:
Global North – 56,947 Short
Northern Country – Mallee, Nicholls, Indi, Bendigo, Ballarat, Wannon, Corangamite and Corio being a total of 835 electors short of 8 quotas.
Metro West – Fraser, Gellibrand, Gorton, Hawke, Lalor Maribyrnong being a total of 26,475 short of 6 quotas
Metro North – Melbourne, Wills, Cooper, Calwell, Jagjaga, McEwan and Scullin being 29,635 short of 7 quotas.
Global South – 58,903 Short
Eastern Vic – Gippsland, Monash, Casey, Latrobe being 8,278 short of 3 quotas.
Metro South – Dunkley Flinders, Goldstein, Higgins, Hotham, Issacs, McNamara being 23,602 short of 7 Quotas.
Metro East – Aston, Bruce, Chisholm, Deakin, Holt, Kooyong, Menzies being 27,023 short of 7 Quotas.
On a statistical quota of 115, 884 the current seats are over quota – Mallee, Indi, Wannon and Gorton in the North, Hotham and Gippsland in the South
Hi Mike, the areas of McNamara that you would like to move into Melbourne add up to 37,235 electors
Somewhere else you would need to find another 19,000 or so
If you put in the Melbourne City Council area of Higgins in that is around 6,600 electors
I realise this is all academic until the Boundaries Review Commission release their post code growth estimates but as the global North is attracting more people than the Global South, to give your suggestion a chance I think you need to find another 8,000 of so after the MCC electors
However which parts of the Federal Melbourne are you then looking to give off and to where?
you could create a federal Melbourne with the areas you mention and from the current Melbourne, remove, North Melbourne, Kensington, Brunswick, Carlton and Parkville.
However as you would be splitting the MCC and Yarra Municipalities I am not sure that the BRC would go for this as they like to follow council boundaries.
Now if the state government created an MCC consisting of Melbourne, Yarra the old MCC pre Kennett in the north and crossing hte river to take Port Philip and half od Stonnington, I think your seat would be created
Thanks Captain Moonlight. The shortfall of voters shed from Macnamara comes from Mcewen taking voters from Casey under my proposal. This would complete the voters transfer to the seats north of the Yarra compensating for the abolition of Goldstein.
@captain moonlight can you send the link. Also you got updated numbers on wa and nsw?
@ Ben
Please find a link to the AEC figures
https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/gazetted/index.htm
Isn’t NSW due for a redistribution?
based on the numbers nsw may well retain its seat. as based on december number they were 22,000 people short. in the month to january they gained 17000 electors whihc doesnt include children or unregistered voters and permanent residents so they may just hold that 47th seat. though the result will still be the same with them losing a seat in sydney and going somewhere like near hunter
@ben
I guess it is something to do with the NSW election coming up, hence more people see an immediate reason to enrol now. If you’re in other states, why would u rush to check your enrolment (assuming they don’t have an election soon, I stand to be corrected here)
But seriously, how the hell did Macarthur get 17% over quota? This is more absurd than Warringah and Wentworth being 10% under, Hunter and Cowper being 10% over, or even Paterson being 14% over!
And would a seat that is EXACTLY campbelltown LGA work fine according to numbers?
Yes, NSW is due for a redistribution, this was the third blog post in a series.
As for Macarthur, it’s not hard to understand – the population growth there is enormous and the projection was based on a target of August 2019.
Ben, I assume you’re talking about enrolment numbers. Bear in mind any population changes that are taking place right now are too late to be considered for the entitlement – the final population stats that will be used for the entitlement are December 2022.
Which os lucky for Victoria, otherwise it may of lost 2 seats
@raue source?
Ben, you can go to the aec website and search up ‘redistribution’. There is a section that explains the methodology including that population figures are taken from the most recent reference date (December 2022) according to ABS.
Also, it is not actual population but more of an estimate that is used. The ABS actually refers to this figure as ‘estimated resident population’.
The ABS data is for 30 June last year. Taking the same population growth rates forward it would indicate that both NSW and Victoria would lose a seat – no great surprise there. WA to gain – again no surprise and the QLD would just get over the hump for another seat.
@ redistributed according to aph numbers as of december nsw is 22000 short of its 47th seat and qld 8000. if nsw was going to defer based on december numbers they would of done so already most likely they are waiting for march numbers.
I don’t know what “APH numbers” are, but the latest population estimates from the ABS are as of June 2022. We won’t get December 2022 numbers until the middle of the year.
@Raue on the parliament house website they have projections for dec 22
Table 1: Estimated representation entitlements
Population projections Dec 2022 Calculated number of members (a) Entitlement Change (b)
New South Wales 8 183 714 46.376 46 -1
Victoria 6 646 840 37.667 38 -1
Queensland 5 374 690 30.457 30 0
South Australia 1 829 270 10.366 10 0
Western Australia 2 803 182 15.885 16 +1
Tasmania (c) 573 336 3.249 5 0
Total 6 states 25 411 032 145 -1
Northern Territory 251 358 1.424
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 619 0.004
Christmas Island 1 800 0.010
Total NT (d) 253 777 1.438 2 0
Australian Capital Territory 458 212 2.597
Jervis Bay 307 0.002
Norfolk Island 2 236 0.013
Total ACT (d) 460 755 2.611 3 0
Australia 26 125 564 150 -1
Can you post the link possibly?
BTW there is a blog post about the seat entitlements here, would make more sense to discuss the number of seats per state there. This post was about the distribution of boundaries within these states.
@raue https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Electoralredistributionsexpectedduring47thParliament#:~:text=The%20Parliamentary%20Library's%20population%20projections,sitting%20of%20the%2047th%20Parliament.
I thought I might look at the change in electoral enrolments from the start of Victoria current boundaries to now, i.e. July 2021 to Jan 2023
The range of Growth is Negative 563 to positive 8,036. The average seat growth in this time is positive 2,615 electors.
This is important as although the average seat for Jan. 23 is 115,884 in drawing the new reduced Victoria the commission can draw seats with a rang of 104,296 to 127472.
Currently all Victorian seats fall within this range.
The more I look and the current seats and consider the growth, the more I am convinced that several seats will have no boundary changes, including Mallee, Gippsland and Melbourne
The breakdowns on my defined regions (see above) are, for July 2021 to Jan 2023 are:
Victoria North – an increase of 22,718
Metro West – an increase of 23,554
Metro North – an increase of 24,994
Metro East – an increase of 7,724
Metro South – an increase of 9,502
Victoria East an Increase of 16,704
@ moonlight you simply need to divide total electors by number of seats which will be 38
@Ben, I’m not sure I can get sweat and what you mean, dividing the total by 38 gets the new average of 115884
However the commission will take into account growth rates and has a leeway in drawing each seat with a margin of between 10% above and below the 115884 figure, thus the range I posted above
If we take Mallee it is above the 115,884 now and it’s growth is less than the state average, I believe that as a result it’s boundary will not change
I also believe that Gippsland and Melbourne will not change boundaries for the same reason
The commission has to draw boundaries that hope to ensure that in 2030 the Victorian seats are within the 10% tolerance of the projected quota of that year
That’s how seat quotas are determined the take the total number of enrolled voters and divide by the number of seats and yes they do but they won’t leave a seat 10% over or under because then it’s will trigger another redistribution if over 1/3 are in this range they will most likely leave them 2-3% either way. Since they can never get that number exact since it’s hard to carve electoral boundaries on exact numbers of people but they use that number as a base.
regardless of how you look at it the electorates will have to cross the yarra border omewhere as the deviation is simply to far under quota on both sides
Latest ABS population figures out today – definitely on trend for NSW and Victoria to lose a seat and WA to gain. Queensland falling short at 30.34 so no gain there.
@redistributed, did you project those new population figures forward three more months based on these figures? The figures released next quarter relating to December 2022 will be the dataset used to lock these seat allocations in. These figures today overshot my Queensland population growth estimate from last quarter, but Victoria overshot my expectations even further which will counter-balance potential Queensland quota gains.
Doing some calculations, it seems redistributed’s quota is based on today’s release with no projection factored.
My really crappy projection of Queensland’s quota based on Dec 2022 growth figures applied linearly is now 30.38. Falling short of the new seat allocation.
NSW – 46.40 (down 1)
VIC – 37.72 (down 1)
QLD – 30.38 (unchanged)
SA – 10.36 (unchanged)
WA – 15.90 (up 1)
TAS – 3.23 (special rules/unchanged at 5)
Comments are closed.