At the start of this year I put together two blog posts looking at likely trends in how the redistributions might be drawn in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, looking at how much each seat is above or below the estimated enrolment quota.
For today’s post I am updating the maps from those posts with the latest data, as of May 2023.
New South Wales and Victoria are each losing a seat, while Western Australia is gaining a seat. This means, in the case of New South Wales, that seats will need to be drawn so that they are relatively close to a quota which will be the equivalent of 1/46th of the state enrolment at the time that the statistics are calculated. There are currently 47 seats, so most existing seats fall short of the necessary population. As each seat is redrawn to bring it up to quota, eventually a seat will be changed so much as to not resemble its predecessor, and thus will effectively be abolished. The same is true in Victoria, and true in reverse in Western Australia.
These electorates must be drawn to be within 10% of the quota as of the time of the redistribution, and within 3.5% of a quota based on estimates of enrolment 3.5 years from now. For now, I don’t have any projected figures, so I’m just looking at current figures. It would make sense for some seats to be drawn under quota if they are projected to grow faster than other areas, and vice versa.
For this post I am using the May 2023 enrolment statistics, but I’m also comparing them to the December and September 2022 numbers to get a sense of trends – some seats are getting closer to the quota, and others are moving further away.
Let’s start with NSW. Not much has changed on the map.
As of December 2022, the 27 seats in the Greater Sydney region were 1.29 seats under-quota. But Sydney is now growing faster than regional NSW, so that shortfall is now just 1.25 seats. I expect projected figures will be less than that.
Zooming in, it becomes clear that the growing areas are all in Western Sydney. The 11 seats of Western Sydney were 14% of a seat under-quota as of September, and are now just 1.7% under quota. Unfortunately this doesn’t mean these seats will be left alone, as shortfalls in other parts of Sydney will force dramatic changes in this area to meet up with regional NSW.
Meanwhile the remaining 16 seats in central, northern and southern Sydney were 1.17 seats under quota as of September and 1.24 as of May. I would expect a seat in this area to be abolished, most likely in northern Sydney. The six seats of northern Sydney only contain about 5.48 seats worth of enrolment.
Next up, Victoria.
Victoria has a similar story, in that most of the shortfall is in Melbourne, but Melbourne is growing faster. Melbourne was 89% of a seat short of its 26th seat in September, but that number is now 85%.
Central and eastern Melbourne are both falling further under quota, while the six seats of western Melbourne are creeping up closer to the quota. South-eastern Melbourne is steady, about 14% of a seat under quota. The fifteen seats in central and eastern Melbourne were 47.5% under quota in September, but that number is now up to 56%. Meanwhile western Melbourne has gone from 27% under to just 14.6% under.
If you look at individual seats, this becomes clearer. Five western Melbourne seats – Lalor, Calwell, Gorton, Gellibrand and Hawke – are amongst the eight seats growing fastest relative to the rest of the state.
Finally, Western Australia:
Unsurprisingly, the same patterns are obvious in Perth – the seats on the outskirts of the city are growing fastest relative to the rest. Hasluck, Brand, Canning, Pearce and Burt were 25% over quota as of September, and now they are almost 30% over. Meanwhile actual raw enrolment numbers have been falling slightly in Durack.
Every seat in WA is over quota, but some more than others. The three regional seats were collectively 16.4% over quota as of September, but now that number is 14.8%.
@adam they should be apart of La trobe as they apart of that lga
The redistribution before last aligned the Casey-La Trobe boundary to the LGA boundary. The most recent redistribution adjusted that slightly, not on community of interest grounds, but because the projected growth in La Trobe was so high that it was difficult to satisfy both numerical criteria.
It’s certainly something that should be re-examined. Either re-align the boundary to the LGA boundary, or, as you suggest, move all of Cardinia Shire’s northern towns into Casey, as was recently done for the state seat of Monbulk.
@david walsh il be proposing the realignment of the boundary.
heres what ive done so far on VIC
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1slywm6j2GD2Gej5D_rOFyxvBOYzRl3SX?usp=drive_link.
ive since altered Indi,Nicholls, Hawke, Gippsland, La Trobe, Casey and Monash though
these maps mean that Jagajaga will be abolished due to being sandwih between divisions named after PMs and other indigineous names.
based on my new maps however i will probably be abolishing a second division and then creating a new one.
These are my NSW divisions.
A quick summary: Grayndler becomes Barton and the old division is abolished, North Sydney becomes Bennelong and the old division is abolished, Cunningham is abolished, Shortland is abolished, Parramatta becomes Jaku, Sydney becomes Philip, Fowler moves south into Liverpool, Richmond becomes Wollumbin, Newcastle becomes King, new division that takes in fairfield parramatta and cumberland is Pemulwuy, new division that takes in the remainder of the hills, blacktown and the part of hawkesbury south of the river is Bradman and the new division that comprises wollondilly, blue mountains, lithgow and oberon becomes Burragorang. So 4 are abolished and 3 are created.these are just draft maps obviously some will be out especially around parramatta and probly lake macquarie. If some could do a new deviations and margins I’d appreciate it.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qngxl0O-0WCfmu_wN2wGjW7GafIDO1An
What are the odds that the most under-quota seat in NSW/VIC each gets axed?
I’m thinking that three in NSW get axed but two new ones are created. I also think if your seat is surrounded by a sea of under-quota seats, your seat is at risk. At least one south of the Parramatta River or Sydney Harbour and at least one north.
Banks is a logical choice for abolition. It’s surrounded by under-quota seats and most seats south of Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River need to expand southward or westward, starting from Wentworth and Kingsford-Smith. Salt Pan Creek is roughly in the middle and is a bit of a geographical divider with just one road between the eastern and western part of Banks. On a side note, it’s awkward seeing/hearing political slogans like “delivering for Banks” or “Member for Banks” and thinking of banks with a lower-case ‘b’.
If not Banks, then Blaxland with an outside chance of Watson. This would address the under-quota problem in the southern part of Sydney.
Bradfield is an option for abolition in the north. It’s quite low-density, by metro Sydney standards (notwithstanding the high-density on the edges at Hornsby and Chatswood) and next to two of the most under-quota seats – Berowra and Warringah. Every seat from there, starting with Mackeller can expand westward whilst North Sydney can expand northward and westward.
@votante im saying 4 should be as there is a growing population in both nw and sw parts of western sydney im creating one in each of those while splitting up Macquarie to address surpluses in the hunter and the south coast. this effectively creates 4 divisions so 3 need to go.
ive proposed barton because its easier to carve up east to KS which loses territory to Wentworth, north to top up Grayndler and Watson and west to Banks while also reducing the amount of Cook that crosses the river. But given the name significance it effectively moves north to take over Grayndler much in the same way Hunter did to Charlton. on the north side ive disposed of North Sydney as Bradfield, Berowra, Mackellar and Warringah can take up fewer lgas that way. the rest can then move east. my mackellar heads south and then warringah west.
at the end of the day i think a high profile labor minister is going to be left without a chair as Sydney, Grayndler, Watson, Barton, Blaxland are all occupied by members of the Cabinet. most likely Linda Burney will miss out and even retire if the referendum goes down on her watch or try and contest the new Labor friendlier seat of Banks
It seems that a lot of people think Banks is the most logical choice to be abolished in Sydney, and I agree. Divide it by Salt Pan Creek and distribute it amongst its neighbouring dense urban seats.
There are a greater number of strong geographic dividers in the north of Sydney like Middle Harbour, Lane Cove River, and Berowra Creek. So the boundary changes could cascade north and east along the urbanised ridgelines between the creeks. Mackellar expands south slightly, Warringah includes Cremorne and Cammeray, North Sydney extends north including Roseville and Lindfield, Bradfield extends west to Berowra Creek including the Hornsby to Brooklyn ridge, and Bennelong expands north-west slightly.
That’s where the geographic barriers become less pronounced, plus the speed of housing growth in the north-west areas becomes harder to gauge. That leaves an open question whether the remnants of Berowra merges with Mitchell (with Parramatta also extending north into Mitchell), or Berowra pushes Mitchell and / or Parramatta south.
@peter i respectfully disagree with the move north from north sydney as you then cross the lga boundary and its easier to go west. berowra can form a whole division by taking in the reaminder of hornsby from bradfield.
@ john – Why a preoccupation with LGA’s for federal seat? I can see the logic for state seats as they interact with local councils quite a lot, but most federal seats in Sydney needs to take in more than one lga so I don’t see the point in trying. It’s not in the things to be considered by the Commissioners, is it?
North Sydney already has all or part of 4 lga’s – why not a 5th? What’s it matter?!
@high street it’s easier to draw boundaries. My north Sydney will move into ryde so it will be 5 but it sheds more of the north sydney lga to warringah. Not a rule perse but just makes it easier I try to draw as many without protruding into more lgas then necessary take mackeller it’s already taking in part of that lga so why not just take more of that one rather then expanding into another? It’s easy to determine the population and electors of a whole lga and some are bound by water. For example I’m not including the parts of hawkesbury south of the river with Macquarie. Obviously sometimes it is impossible
High Street. In recent NSW and Victorian redistributions the AEC commissioners seem to have placed great store in LGA boundaries. They are a useful line to define boundaries besides major roads, railway line and geographic features. The other useful aspect of LGA boundaries is that they don’t tend to cut activity centres in two.
@redistributed exactly that’s pretty much the guidelines I’ve used in my suggestions
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=19eZp-dZFMFT2JpjmltZAKM6L_YtkPPs&usp=sharing
For NSW, I have made draft boundaries for eastern Sydney seats but my calculations are very rough (because I knew that the projections may be wildly different to the next best useful figure (2021 NSW State Redistribution).
Effectively what I have done is:
– Abolish Banks and Berowra as:
– Inner/Southern Sydney is almost 1 whole quota under and Banks have not had a communitiy of interest for a while thanks to the Salt Pan Creek
– Knock-on effects from Mackellar and Warringah will cause Bradfield to expand into Berowra and Hornsby (though Northern Sydney is not quite 1 wholse seat under quota)
– Considering that there are 2 growth areas in Sydney, one at Northwest (Windsor to Marsden Park) and the other at southwest (Campbelltown, Camden and Badgerys Creek), a new seat is created in the Northwest partly to cover for some former Berowra Territory
– This new seat (I called it Ruse after James Ruse for now) takes in the rural parts of Hornsby/The Hills LGA, as well as parts of Penrith and Blacktown LGA
– Hughes takes in the area in Revesby to unite the whitest and richest areas of Bankstown and Liverpool LGA as well as create a transport connection between the Holsworthy and the Sutherland parts of Hughes that almost falls within the electorate
I consider parts of my proposed New seat (Ruse) to be quite ideal as:
– Macquarie had no community of interest since 1984 (bar 2007) as there were basically no public transport options between the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury Sides (without going through Penrith or even Blacktown) hence were split
– Made Windsor a centre of the seat by placing parts of the train line from parts of Schofields onwards (but stopped at Schofields Rd as Schofields was an intermediate terminus
– Added the western parts (Beaumont Hills to Box Hill) of the Hills where Old Windsor Rd is less of a demographic divide and to prevent Tallawong from being the only part of the Metro Line in Ruse. These parts could gravitate enough to Windsor over Castle Hills too.
– Added the rural parts of the Hills Shire because parts (though admittedly not all) have more transport networks to Windsor than Castle Hill
Obviously numbers are not perfect but I will adjust as needed when the figures are released. Based on communities of interests I think these are quite good tbh.
@Redistrubuted – and yet in 2016 faced with a choice of moving the northern boundary of North Sydney north two(!) streets so as to get all of Willoughby LGA into the seat, they decided to move it two streets south instead, splitting Chatswood in two – the exact opposite of what you say they like to intend to do – so let’s not cherry pick, ok?
As to John’s point, North Sydney has progressively extended further west, and now captures all of Lane Cove and Hunters Hill council. It doesn’t, as far as I can tell, include any of Ryde LGA. By John’s logic the first step for North Sydney would be to take in all of Willoughby LGA, so that some other seat doesn’t have too (currently Bradfield). If it then has to go further north into Roseville and Lindfield, I don’t see the problem – they are more “North Sydney” than Ryde is.
If Warringah takes in most of of North Sydney LGA, then I reckon you have effectively abolished North Sydney. As many have said before on here, Mackellar should move westward to take in St. Ives, before moving further sound, effectively causing cascading problems in Warringah and North Sydney. The seats drawn first in the corners aren’t any more special than all the other seats.
Macquarie should be entirely west of the Nepean and Hawkesbury Rivers. Richmond/Windsor look like they were suddenly thrown into Macquarie and looks/feels cut off from the rest of the electorate. Macquarie should take up Lithgow again and reunite it with the Blue Mountains like it was several elections ago.
Whitlam also needs to be fixed up. It should be focused on the Southern Highlands or Shellharbour/Illawarra, but not both regions. Both Whitlam and Hume are under-quota so it’s probable Whitlam will shrink and/or expand southward (Kiama has a smaller population than Mittagong/Bowral).
High Street, the problem with Ryde Council’s eastern boundary is that it awkwardly divides Gladesville into two. A better configuration is to reunite Gladesville and possibly Putney with Hunters Hill, given that these areas are more ‘affluent’ and less diverse compared to Ryde proper and other westernmost suburbs like Eastwood.
@high street in my proposal bradfirld extends further into Willoughby. Please see the maps I have submitted earlier. Yes I have abolished North Sydney.
@votante you mean over quota? In my proposal mittagon/bowral goes to hume and Whitlam takes in more or woolongong. Kiama stays in Gilmore.
Whitlam has to change, having the Highlands, Dapto and Shellharbour makes no sense whatsoever. It would make sense if this moves north to take more of Wollongong and loses the Highlands – becoming a purely Illawarra seat. Hughes then to take the northern suburbs of Wollongong, similar to how the seat of Heathcoate does.
Gilmore recently included the coastal parts of Shellharbour: Shell Cove, Shellharbour Village and Warilla. Possible it takes this again plus some extras. It could then lose the southern parts to EM – how much is the question… would Batemans Bay stay in the seat, or would the cut off become the Shoalhaven City Council border? This would give the whole Batemans Bay Area to EM.
This would give Labor a stronger margin in Gilmore post redistribution, but there has been swings against the ALP in the Southern Illawarra for sometime. There were swings towards the Liberals in Scomo election, the Liberals won the Albion Park booths in 2019 state election, ALP had a major primary swings against them in Shellharbour booths in 2023 state election, and council voting out the Labor Majority and electing an independent Mayor. Couple this with Fiona Phillips having zero profile in the Illawarra – Liberals could pick this up. You just have to wonder would Constance contest this?
@stew my proposal does exactly that. If batemans bay where he is located goes to EM he would be better off contesting Em as it would contain his former state seat. My prediction Constance will be in the nex parliament whether its as the member for Eden-Monaro or the member for Gilmore.
@John (to your earlier comment @me)
The neighbourhoods of North Sydney and Bradfield are quite linear – they follow the north shore train line and the Pacific Highway north-south, and are strongly bounded by Middle Harbour to the east and Lane Cove River to the west. The only connection that North Sydney has with Hunters Hill is cultural, even though the physical link on that side is just one small bridge.
North Sydney can easily expand northwards into very similar neighbourhoods, and Bradfield can also slide north, but there is very little affinity between the lower north shore and the Ryde area. Moving North Sydney westwards would create the same problem that Banks has currently, by being centred on Salt Pan Creek, but the Lane Cove River divide is even bigger.
@peter my north Sydney will shed most of the north Sydney lga and the eastern part of willoughby
@John
You’re restating your approach, but that doesn’t add any justification. It seems quite inconsistent to argue for strictly observing some LGA boundaries while readily relinquishing others, and to create entirely new division boundaries within otherwise contiguous neighbourhoods while ignoring some other fairly significant discontinuities between different neighbourhoods. But if your position on that approach is fixed, then I will simply wish you well with that.
@peter it’s like that because berowra to Bradfields north can be contained entirely in the Hornsby lga boundary that leaves Bradfield nowhere to go if north Sydney goes north.and as it was stated the aec likes to use lga boundaries as one of it ways of defining an division.I use lga boundaries where no other significant boundary such a river exists. I don’t ignore them. I simply find better features to define a border and obviously don’t where it would cause a significant deviation.
@John, Yes, I was meant to say Whitlam and Hume are hugely over-quota. They need to shrink and/or swap out highly-populated areas for smaller population centres.
I don’t agree with abolishing North Sydney or any of the coastal electorates. I’d rather see some under-quota inland electorates (that are surrounded by under-quota electorates) get axed and then divided up for its neighbours. Bradfield is a better choice for abolition. North Sydney should expand northwards and take up all of Chatswood and/or go west and take up Gladesville. It might changes its name so that we have one less electorate named after a suburb. Also, the suburb of North Sydney might go to Warringah.
@im aboloishing Bennelong but moving the nam. Also warringah also needs a rename. I’ll be renaming a few that are named after places
@votante Hume can give up its share of Camden and possibly wollondilly or parts of it in exchange for taking in the remainder of Wingecarribee from Whitlam. I’ll be transferring most but not all of north Sydney to “warringah” probably along the pacific highway. In my opinion beenlong/north Sydney works better as there is more defeceit westwards hat needs to be fixed.Ive already solved berowra by it taking in the remainder of Hornsby from Bradfield. And Mackellar is solved by taking in Killarney heights from warringah.therefore all Bradfield needs to do is take in more of Willoughby from NS.your way the west problem is solved by Bennelong crossing the lane cove river.
@John – I’m with Peter on this (very much liked your comment Peter).
The idea of starting by drawing Berrowa first so it can take in all of Hornsby LGA (and not much else I presume) but then cleaving North Sydney LGA down the Highway and worse, Willoughby LGA down Penshurst street/Willoughby road, it quite frankly, bizarre. Splitting Willoughby via Eastern Valley Way as others have proposed in map link above is nearly as bad.
The north shore is a difficult situation. However I think the best outcome is to make Mackellar a “bar bell” seat, with two large ends, joined by Mona Vale road. Warringah then moves anti clockwise and North Sydney takes up the rest of the area east of Lane Cove River. Bradfield becomes Hornsby and the rest of Berrowa. Hunters Hill LGA would probably move to Bennelong, thus solving the “Gladesville” problem people here seem so concerns about.
I’ve been to Gladesville – it’s nothing compared to dividing Chatswood and the no one much seem perturbed by that last time
@High St
Once Warringah takes in all of Neutral Bay and Cremorne (possibly Kirribilli too, though I personally prefer to avoid Kirribilli in Warringah anyway), and Mackellar takes in all of St Ives (Maybe North Turramurra too), the 2 Northern Beaches seats cannot expand much further at those 2 points. I strongly believe that Warringah should NOT take in Cammeray, especially considering its connection to Crows Nest and Northbridge.
If even this is not enough for 2 seats then at that point there are really no other choice left than to move Roseville Chase, Castle Cove and Middle Cove into Warringah. (Assuming a seat covering Pittwater to Manly is still numerically unviable for it has too many electors.)
@Leon,
I agree with you regarding Cammeray – having that in a seat where everything else in east of the expressway is not ideal.
I think you are limiting your vision though. As per my comment above, Warringah would move – not just extend in an anti-clockwise or northern direction. That is easily done as there is no defined boundary. North Sydney can take in Neutral Bay, rather than lose Cremorne.
What this does is push Mackellar into the upper north shore, which you have already flagged with North Turrmurra. I’d actually make a north to south line running through Bobbin Head road, Pacific Highway, and Ryde Road (until Lane Cove River) and put everything east of that (that’s currently in Bradfield) in either Mackellar or North Sydney, making the dividing line between the where required (as Peter said, really can go any where it needs to). Everything east of this line (all the way down River to the Harbour) would therefore be 3 seats. Someone can work out how many quota’s that is and if it needs a small top up around North Turrmurra. Or it might even be better to make Avon Road, Pymble and the Golf Course the boundary instead of Ryde Road if more numbers are needed.
The Bradfield/Berrowa seat to the north therefore becomes very much centred on Hornsby and only extends to the south east down to the north-south line described above.
@High Street
Thanks, that’s nice to hear.
@All
These north-eastern Sydney areas are indeed challenging, especially given the requirements of the redistribution. Ben and Antony’s recent podcast was interesting, with northern Sydney seats pushing generally westwards. More specifically, it seems this push can be reasonably well resolved as a meandering pathway with a series of steps:
Mackellar -> Warringah -> North Sydney -> Bradfield -> Berowra -> Parramatta and Mitchell.
Bennelong is the exception that remains reasonably static, as it is like a promontory that is well defined by the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers.
From Mackellar, it does seem it would be best to start pushing south slightly rather than west. (I note John takes this path too, I agree with that idea). Mackellar’s southern boundary is quite arbitrary and relatively easily adjusted amongst close and similar neighbourhoods. Conversely, there’s a big physical gap between Terry Hills and St Ives, and those suburbs basically face away from one another in terms of the directions where their closest connections lie.
That retains Warringah as the electoral connection between the Northern Beaches and northern Sydney regions, with the Spit Bridge of course being a major city artery and bus route that links these areas.
So where should Warringah end and North Sydney begin? These are the conclusions I’m led to draw, from easiest to hardest choices:
1. All of Cremorne and Neutral Bay can fit neatly into Warringah, with the gaping chasm of the Warringah Expressway offering an appropriate new boundary.
2. North Sydney (the suburb) is a major CBD, so should be kept intact, and kept connected with its big city neighbours Crows Nest and St Leonards.
3. That suggests that Warringah could then expand north into Cammeray and possibly beyond – however little or much it needs to meet the quotas. While the eastern fringes of Willoughby such as Cammeray and Northbridge are indeed more closely connected to North Sydney than to Mosman, it seems to me to be the smallest compromise available to put them into Warringah alongside Neutral Bay.
That’s all getting rather in-depth, and there may be other ways to sort out the details. But I hope the meandering pathway concept is a useful idea 🙂
In NSW I tend to agree with some of the comments that both Banks AND a northern Sydney seat should be abolished, but I’m not quite sure what the best option is for the creation of a new seat. I was thinking along the lines of a new seat similar to the old incarnation of Reid (Auburn, Granville, Guildford, Merrylands, Greystanes), but not sure if the numbers quite work.
In Victoria I am starting to lean more and more towards the abolition of Higgins, with most of it absorbed by a redrawn Macnamara, and Goldstein pushing up to include all of Caulfield, Elsternwick and St Kilda. This seems to make seats like Kooyong, Chisholm, Hotham and Isaacs fall into place quite naturally.
In WA I think it’s relatively straightforward to divide Hasluck – Canning into 3 Divisions instead of two: one Ellenbrook/Midland and the northern seat leftovers, one Darling Range and foothills and southern seat leftovers, and one on Mandurah and surrounds.
Hopefully the numbers work for all of them.
@Mark Mulcair
I dont think he numbers quite work for an Auburn-based seat (though I could be wrong). Since 2 seats in Sydney is abolished then I think a new seat should be in Sydney, I assume either Northwest or Southwest.
Since South and Inner Syndey (Up to Reid, Blaxland and Hughes) are less than 10.2 quotas (I think), the abolition of Banks will not cause issues any further out than Blaxland. Meanwhile the shortfalls in Northern Sydney s not as clear cut (Bradfield taking in the suburbs of Berowra and Hornsby is almost guaranteed meaning Berowra has to be removed). The shortfalls doesnt seem enough. This is why I have been pushing for a seat in the Hawkesbury with a bit of the Hills and Riverstone (possibly Londonderry too) to absorb some of Berowra territory, as well as split Macquarie.
ALL
this constraint of not letting Mackellar take in anything further west hasn’t worked all that well with 47 seats – the border of Warringah and North Sydney through Neutral Bay leaves a strip on the eastern side of the expressway in North Sydney and has Cremorne a bit marooned away from its neighbours – but it will not work at all well under 46 seats, as somewhere on the eastern side of the current North Sydney, needs to be split in two.
From what I have read and heard Antony Green say, the exact placement of the Hornsby based seat is pretty important, so as not to disturb Mitchell and Greenway too much. It also might help improve Macquarie. So oddly, rather than start on the coast they may start there and reverse engineer the others. Where the south east boundary of the Hornsby based Bradfield is drawn may then decide what happens to the other north shore seats, incl Bennelong. If it’s far enough north then North Sydney may be abolished and a seat centred on Chatswood may be drawn with North Sydney itself in Warringah, though I think that name becomes untenable pretty quickly. If it’s far enough south then a seat stretching across the north shore and top end of the northern beaches may become obvious, so as to leave North Sydney in North Sydney and Warringah centred on Manly and its nearby northern neighbours.
I note that Warringah is the aboriginal word for Middle Harbour – so under that name having all suburbs that face the waters of Middle harbour might makes sense, but they have very little connection and I can’t recall any other seats centred around a large body of water. You might as well have Rose Bay and Mosman in the one seat and call it Port Jackson – at least that would solve the problem of how to get extra electors into Wentworth.
@high street I didn’t start with berowra I started with richmond. Then mackellar->warringah. I then did macquarie which I split up a decision I notice is broadly agreed on. I then did Calare->New England->Page. Then Riverina-> Eden-Monaro->Gilmore. Then Wentworth->KS. Hume->Whitlam. Afterwards I went through the lga numbers and realized Hornsby lga had enough population to sustain one division within that boundary. From there Bradfield extended into NS to make up the numbers. Cook->Hughes->Fowler->MacArthur->werriwa->Lindsay->mcmahon-> blaxland,-> Watson->banks->Grayndler->reid. Chifley->Greenway->Mitchell->new division> cowper–>lyne->paterson->newcastle->hunter->dobell-> Robertson.after this i had Bennelong parramatta and the new seat where i just guestimated the boundaries which imagine will be over but I’m just waiting on official numbers.
@mark mulcair I’m agreed on bothe the north and south require one to be abolished but differ on which however in the end it will only be a matter of the name as me abolishing Barton and others abolishing banks seems to end up with the outcome with the seat being east of the creek. However given that I believe one needs to created the new and SW and macquarie needs to be split creating a third I’ve abolished 4. In Victoria I think Hotham should be jagajaga to split the difference east and west. Although my Hotham will be renamed due to major changes. In WA I think it should be somewhere between hasluck and Perth pushing hasluck further out. Though I’m sure il have time to do WA given I’m concentrating on Vic and NSW.
@leon agreen il be pushing for a seat in the hills/black town and Liverpool with another in the hunter.
@high street The seat was named after the lga that no longer exists and for that reason I’m changing it to Sydney harbour. The aboriginal word for it might be an alternate.
When can we expect enrollment data to be released
John, the AEC says that this info is released just prior to submissions being called. I would probably say mid to late September, hopefully in 2-3 weeks’ time.
Abolishing Higgins and having Goldstein absorb all the Caulfield area certainly makes sense, but St Kilda wouldn’t fit in Goldstein at all as a community of interest and would need to stay in Macnamara.
I’d have Macnamara lose the entire Caulfield area, and send all that to Goldstein which doesn’t need to lose any territory as it needs a substantial enrolment boost anyway, and Caulfield is a natural fit with Elsternwick, Glen Huntly & Caulfield South (already in Goldstein).
St Kilda, Balaclava & Elwood remain in Macnamara which would also absorb the west of Higgins (Prahran, South Yarra, Windsor). That would be a small enrolment increase because the loss of Caulfield would offset a lot of the gain from Higgins, but – without having seen the numbers yet – I assume that would be appropriate given the much higher levels of residential development in Port Phillip compared to the other inner southeastern councils. And as has been said many times before – St Kilda, Balaclava, Prahran, Windsor & South Yarra are a perfectly suited community of interest that should have been united a long time ago.
The east of Higgins would be absorbed back into Hotham where it once was anyway, which could move back westward a little bit, uniting Murrumbeena, Ormond & Carnegie with suburbs like Hughesdale & Bentleigh East.
And the northern/central parts of Higgins could be absorbed by Kooyong & Chisholm and potentially improve their boundaries a bit too. Eg. Chisholm could move slightly west into Mont Albert and Surrey Hills, also absorbing Ashburton & Malvern East from Higgins, while Kooyong extends further south into suburbs like Glen Iris & Toorak. It all makes sense from a community of interest perspective.
Again, I’d need to look at the population estimates when they’re released but that’s definitely an idea I’ll be looking at.
From the perspective of both communities of interest and geographic shape, Higgins has been a weird seat for a long time. A very long, abnormal shape that has 3 extremely different, distinct sections (progressive/inner-city west, very affluent ‘old money’ centre, and suburban middle class east), each area already bounded by seats that are very similar in character to those sections and could easily absorb them.
@trent I’ve abolished jagajaga
Most of the eastern and southeastern divisions can be confined to lgas
@ Trent, i prefer Chisholm/Hotham abolished instead as it does not have natural boundaries. Higgins does have natural boundaries in many places such as the Yarra River, Gardiners Creek et. Whilst Higgins maybe under quota now this may change going forward. I suspect even if South Yarra/Caulfield exchange goes ahead Higgins will have to move westward again to include all of Stonnington Council at some point. Macanmara will have significant population growth around Fishermens Bend/Southbank etc so longer term will progressively loose territory. On the other hand the middle ring suburbs are not expected to grow in population significantly so better abolish a seat in the middle ring including even Jagajaga as John mentioned or have Jagajaga go South of the river and allow Menzies to move.
@Trent, I agree in principle with your arrangement for Macnamara, but this was rejected twice and no doubt Labor will muster local opposition again were it put forward. Hence my idea of linking St Kilda/St Kilda East with Caulfield and Elsternwick.
@Nimalan, one issue I can see is that if Higgins is retained, it starts becoming a bit of an awkward seat that impacts surrounding seat’s boundaries. As Trent and others have noted, Higgins is made up of several different areas that could arguably be accommodated much better in surrounding seats.
I too agree with the redrawing of Macnamara to get rid of the Caulfield ‘Tail’. This might the redistribution where it does finally go as to some extent it has driven the slightly strange Higgins map. Higgins has been getting pushed south as Kooyong has needed more voters – 20 years ago Riversdale Road was the boundary between Higgins and Kooyong and now only a small area of Booroondara is still in Higgins.By removing the tail Higgins can go down into Caulfield and include areas that are now in Goldstein.
I have toyed with abolishing Higgins and having Kooyong go south to take in Toorak and Malvern – I always get stuck with where the eastern and northern boundaries might be. West of Warrigal Road – Burke Road is the only obvious line but you end up with Camberwell Junction being cut in two.
My thoughts at present are that a seat north of the river goes – Scullin comes to mind. The name Scullin could get moved to Corangamite – he was member for Corangamite from 1910 to 1913.
One option for Victoria that i’ve only just considered is abolishing is Deakin. Ringwood North, Warranwood, Croydon Hills and Croydon North could fit in Menzies, although these areas don’t have much community of interest with the western part of Menzies. Forest Hill, Vermont and Mitcham could go into Chisolm, Kilsyth South could join the rest of Kilsyth in Casey and Ringwood, Ringwood East, Heathmont, Croydon, Croydon South and Bayswater North could join Aston.
@John Thanks for the maps. What tool did you use to create the map boundaries.
@ALL i think we are all in agrrement on macnamara. labors opposition to those weird boundaries being fixed could be constrewed as a form of gerrymandering as they are simply trying to preserve there vote and the seat. i think they will do it this time. especially if we all support the same proposal however my higgins wont be abolished it will shed boorondara to kooyong and take caufield from macnamara and a bito glen eira from goldstein. in my opinion hotham should be abolished as well as jagajaga in favour of a new division a bit further borth as the major changes it will undergo will demand a rename
@redistributed named cant be transfered across they can only absorb territory in in any direction or be abolished and then brought back at a later redistribution. hwoever im in favour of the name being abolished as its named after a guy who was at best leader of the opposition and never pm. however given that division probly wont undergo significant change this can be done at a later redistribution.
@north east aston is not that under quota and will only need to absorb a small part of deakin which cannot be abolished due to being named after a PM. in regards to maps i simply downloaded the current maps and just used data to draw new boundaries but they are guestimatiions without official data on enrollment numbers
i think we are all in agreement on macnamara and should all make that suggestion come the time. the aec cannot ignore it forever. labors efforts to overturn what are weird boundaries can be constrewed as a form of gerrymandering given it is under quota the boundary will need to expand and the only logical way is east. if labor continues with their protest of taking in that area they will create a deformaty and that will be seen as gerymandering. however caufield should go to higgins to bolster its numbers and ive suggested that along with parts of glen eira from goldstein as well as losing the remaining of boorondara to kooyong.
@north east Deakin wont be abolished as ts named after a PM. Aston does not need that many more elctors so that wont happen. i just downloaded the maps from the aec and just drew boundaries as i saw practicle but they are guestimations and im waiting on official numbers
@John Thanks. Good point in regards to Deakin.
My submissions will include some blunt words about names influencing boundaries. In short, they shouldn’t.
The naming guidelines that reference PMs and retaining Federation divisions are not even in the Electoral Act, let alone the criteria for drawing boundaries. The nearest thing in the Act is the criterion referencing existing boundaries, and that makes no refence to names and is subordinated to the other criteria anyway.
I also disagree with @John regarding the transfer of a division name. It was done as recently as the 2016 NSW redistribution, albeit the renamed division significantly overlapped with the the one to previously bear the name. While it is common to refer to Charlton as the eliminated division in that redistribution, the report and tables make clear that it was actually Hunter that was abolished, with Charlton then re-named as Hunter. While a transfer across the map would be an additional and possibly confusing step, it would not be an improper one.
i believe the aec is waiting for the close of roles for the voice to release the data as it would make sense as there is no point in releasing the data now when it will be updated on september 11th which is the date. in other news they have just released july numbers.
https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/gazetted/2023/07.htm
Comments are closed.