The Australian Electoral Commission has now officially published the population projections to be used when redrawing Victoria’s federal electoral map prior to the next federal election. This follows on similar moments in the NSW and Western Australia federal redistributions in recent weeks.
Electorates must be drawn within 10% of the average enrolment as of the start of the process (August 2023, in this case) and within 3.5% of the average projected enrolment as of April 2028.
The second set of numbers is the more crucial restriction on mapmakers, so that will be my focus today.
Victoria is losing its 39th seat, so understandably most seats are now under the average quota. Just six seats are projected to be above the quota as of April 2028. Mallee is by far and away the largest, projected to be 3.2% above average as of 2028. The other 33 seats are all under the average, with Hawke and Higgins standing out, falling about 6% short of the average.
I’ve divided the state up in a few ways. I’ve split it between Melbourne and regional Victoria, and in Melbourne I’ve split seats between those north and south of the Yarra. I’ve also divided seats into six sub-regions.
While Melbourne is growing faster than regional Victoria, more than three quarters of the population deficit is in Melbourne, so it seems pretty certain that a Melbourne seat, will need to be abolished.
About half of the deficit is south of the Yarra, with just one quarter north of the Yarra.
There are deficits in all of the southside sub-regions – east, south-east and south-central.
Up next, this map shows the relative quota position of each seat. It looks like the deficit is biggest in a strip of seats stretching from Goldstein to Aston, via Higgins and Chisholm. These four seats between them make up about a quarter of the statewide deficit.
Overall I expect the map will need to be significantly redrawn statewide. The northern and western suburbs also feature quite a few seats significantly under quota. Ultimately a seat somewhere in the south-east of Melbourne will be abolished, but the knock-on effects will spread throughout the state.
The VEC offers a webtool for its local government ward redistricting. Does the AEC offer anything like that, or are you expected to roll your own?
No there isn’t a tool available for federal redistributions.
Ben, you said that a seat in the south-east of Melbourne will be abolished, however Antony Green wrote in his blog post “The geographic size of Hawke and McEwen makes it appear that a seat must go west of the Yarra. The numbers also point to a western Melbourne seat going, with six of 13 seats in Melbourne’s west and north below the allowed 3.5% variation compared to only five of 16 to the east”, which means he thought a seat in Western Melbourne will likely be abolished. How come you two psephologists arrive at two opposite conclusions?
https://antonygreen.com.au/projected-enrolment-data-released-for-victorian-redistribution/#comment-1392
It’s surprising not to see the usual decline in the eastern suburbs. The 18 seats east of the Yarra start at 17.45 quotas, and project to 17.48 quotas. With the shortfall so evenly split both sides of the river, it’s difficult to say where the abolished seat will be.
The seemingly obvious answer is that a seat be abolished north of the Yarra and half a seat shifts north. My early thoughts are:
– a combination of Menzies and Casey shift north and McEwen is abolished. The McEwen name could be reused in Mallee. JagaJaga would be the other candidate for abolition is this scenario.
– Scullin is abolished and is possibly repurposed in Corangamite – Jimmy Scullin was the Corangamite MP in 1910.
– An out there solution would be to abolish a south seat – Higgins or Hotham – and move Melbourne south of the river.
That there is a whole number and a half of quotas on both sides of the Yarra is going to make this a very difficult redistribution. Something is going to have to be radically redrawn.
Perhaps Antony is right. He’s had more time today to look at the numbers. It could be on either side.
Some things I’d like to see:
1. Kooyong (which is my seat) covers the entirety of Boroondara LGA.
2. Macnamara and Higgins (or another seat if the latter is abolished) do the Williams Road swap as proposed at the previous redistribution.
3. The messy boundaries of eastern suburban seats such as Chisholm and Deakin are made better.
4. Cooper and Wills become east-west seats using either Bell Street or Gaffney Street/Murray Road as the boundary.
Assuming McEwen/Indi wont shift its eastern boundary and nothing crosses the Yarra from Melbourne/Macnamara until the Warrandyte area, it seems like Jagajaga has to move something like 40% into Menzies. If something like Casey takes some of Nillumbik LGA, then even more (good excuse to make McEwen look less insane I hope, though IDK how Scullin/Cooper would end up if I do this yet) would move to the other side of the Yarra. I can’t see the commission canning Menzies so I am reasonably sure it (the abolished seat) will be one of the seats neighbouring Menzies – I personally think either Kooyong or Jagajaga.
If it is Jagajaga, then Menzies becomes notionally Labor and slightly similar to the old Diamond Valley. Not sure what this does to Ryan in Kooyong though if this happens, her home in Hawthorn would be moved into Higgins.
If it is not Jagajaga then that becomes the old Diamond Valley instead.
Btw Casey-McEwen border moving east but I can see it moving west
I believe McEwen should be abolished. It spams the east west divide and can be broken up into different lgas. Hotham will need to be renamed as it needs a major remodel
The McEwen name would transfer to jagajaga
A couple of points from me
1. I do agree 100% that Ashburton fits better with Kooyong these days rather than with Carnegie/Murrumbeena. Ashburton is increasingly upper class these days and the divide with Glen Iris/Camberwell is increasingly blurred.
2. Finding out which seat will cross the Yarra should be the starting point.
3. I think in terms of naming of seats to be abolished it would be either Higgins or Hotham (my preference as a colonial name). I think a seat named after a woman, PM or indigenous person like Jagajaga will be less likely to be abolished.
I realised Jagajaga aint going because McEwen can take some Yarra ranges (like it did till 2010 – somehow thought it was in Indi) while Hawke takes its far west areas (making McEwen look less insane). The means Jagajaga only has to take like 20% from Menzies.
In recent decades, growth has been much stronger in north-west Melbourne than the south-east. So I think for longer-term stability, it would make sense to abolish a seat east of the river rather than west.
Melbourne could then gain as much of Southbank/Fishermans Bend as needed, and McEwen could regain the Upper Yarra. The western half of the existing McEwen can then be used to top up any under-quota seats in the north-west of Melbourne.
At least, that’s how I see it working at a high level.
How’s this for a trans-Yarra division?:
All of Murrindindi and Mansfield LGAs, most of Nillumbik, and the northern end of Yarra Ranges, including Chirnside Park, Lilydale, Mount Evelyn, and everything along the Warburton Highway.
Would solve a lot of problems elsewhere. But maybe this is too objectionable.
macnamara should lose caufield and gain south yarra and prahan
this causes it to lose about 1000 voters to higgins
@Ian
1. Kooyong (which is my seat) covers the entirety of Boroondara LGA. won happen Kooyong is close to quota and theres about 15k voters in higgins from Boroondara.
2. Macnamara and Higgins (or another seat if the latter is abolished) do the Williams Road swap as proposed at the previous redistribution. same here
3. The messy boundaries of eastern suburban seats such as Chisholm and Deakin are made better. working on that
4. Cooper and Wills become east-west seats using either Bell Street or Gaffney Street/Murray Road as the boundary. good idea
@John
For Kooyong, it may work if you give the Whitehorse LGA portions to Chisholm, otherwise, I don’t mind.
John, I’m pretty much going to endorse your entire Victoria proposal anyway.
i think the hotham name will need to go as it can shed territoy in its west in exchange for pushing further east. whether hotham is just abolished alltogether will be the decision
Doubt McEwen is abolished. If Ballarat swifts into Hawke (->east), Hawke swift into McEwen (->east) then McEwen shifts into Casey (->east) Casey can then push into Menzies or Deakin, with one or both seats pushing into Chisholm., which is either abolished or shifts into abolished Hotham or pushes into Kooyong as Kooyong pushes into abolished Higgins.
@ Pencil
That is my preference. I would prefer if McEwen goes into the Upper Yarra. Chisholm can be abolished and the name retained for the new Hotham. Either Deakin or Menzies will then flip to notionally Labor.
The one thing that might save Hotham is the government will object to Claire O`Neil’s seat being abolished.
@John
I really like the idea of Kooyong becoming coterminous with Boroondara LGA.
Will Menzies move out of Whitehorse or further into it in your plan?
i think the best option is to abolish hotham and then spread out the voters counter clockwise. mcewen can shed wallan romsey and riddels creek to sure up the divisions in the west
gippsland indi mallee wannon corangamite can all remain unchanged,
@ Pencil
If Hotham is abolished, Claire O’Neil will contest Chisholm and Carina Garland ought to contest either Menzies or Deakin one of which will turn notionally Labor depending on where Box Hill is as Nicholas pointed out.
Bendigo – Current Enrollment 113381 – Projected enrollment 122771
After redistribution – Enrollment 116323 – Projected enrollment 125920
gains lockington from Nicholls
Nicholls – Current Enrollment 114691 – Projected enrollment 124233
After redistribution – Enrollment 119192 – Projected enrollment 129136
loses Lockington to Bendigo and gains kilmore from mcewen
@John Why do you think Kooyong should be coterminous with Boroondara LGA, but Wills and Cooper shouldn’t be with Merri-Bek and Darebin as they almost are now? Brunswick and Northcote may share demographic similarities but are not really a strong community of interest. There are poor east west connections in this part of Melbourne. If you contrast this with the eastside of Melbourne there are strong north south connections in terms of roads and tram lines between say Boroondara and Stonnington.
@adam because the river makes for a good boundary
@John Wasn’t suggesting Kooyong cross the Yarra. Just making the point that if you made Cooper/Wills into 2 east-west seats you would stop those seats being based on LGAs as they pretty much are know. If you think it’s important for an LGA to be contained in one electorate in the eastern suburbs (ie Kooyong and Boroondara) why shouldn’t that be the case in the north?
@adam it’s not just the lga it’s contained by the river and then Higgins doesn’t cross it
My solution is for the abolition of Casey which prevents seats further downstream from crossing the Yarra where it is actually a pretty big divide between Northern and Western Melbourne vs Eastern and Southern Melbourne. Lilydale and surroundings can go into Deakin where there is a strong community of interest along the section of the Lilydale Line. Aston can absorb the Mount Dandenong section which puts the suburbs up to Belgrave in a single seat with a community of interest along the Belgrave Line. McEwen can then move in to absorb the outer rural areas of Casey similar to the state seat of Eildon. Jagajaga relieving some of the excess of McEwen around the Hurstbridge line and potentially around Doreen/Mernda. Menzies can then shed North Warrandyte to Jagajaga and absorb Whitehorse Council up until Canterbury Road which solves the current ridiculous boundary. Chisholm could then establish the Monash Freeway as the southern boundary and create a nice and compact electorate, absorbing what remains of the Whitehorse portion of Deakin which will then become a Maroondah based seat with parts of Kilsyth/Lilydale. This will allow Kooyong to push into the rest of Boroondara. Higgins can then push south into Caulfield and Caulfield South while also pushing South Yarra/Prahran into Macnamara. Goldstein and Issacs to an extent can then absorb Bentleigh and Bentleigh East which will allow Hotham to be based on the working class suburbs south of the Monash freeway from Oakleigh onwards. I haven’t run the numbers fully for this scenario but this is something I think worth considering.
It seems to me like the demographers have just phoned this in.
Most SA1s are expected to grow 9.6% +/- 0.2%? No SA1s that are currently unpopulated will get population – no new housing estates? Only 9 SA1s with growth over 17%?
I take it consultants produced this. Lowest bidder consultants.
@josh still its based on these numbers and will only last for the next 2 elections at most. no need to get your knickers in a twist
I think if a seat in the east were to be abolished, Higgins is a logical choice.
The reasons for this are not only that it’s well below quote and has had the slowest population growth, and a VERY strong NIMBY element in most of the seat (almost everything east of Williams Road) as well as surrounding seats like Kooyong & Goldstein ensures this is likely to continue, but that of all seats it probably has the least cohesive “community of interest”.
The western quarter of the seat is inner-city, dominated by apartments, renters and a young demographic. The entire middle half of the seat is affluent “old money” territory. The eastern quarter of the seat is middle class suburbia.
What’s more, each of these 3 distinctly different sections of the seat borders another seat that those areas are better suited to, and in most cases need the extra population:
– The middle half borders Kooyong to the north and has Goldstein to the south (albeit with a slice of Macnamara in between, more on that below). Both seats are under quota, both have strong NIMBY elements slowing population growth, and both are similarly affluent areas with similar communities of interest.
– The more suburban eastern part of Higgins is well suited to seats like Chisholm (under quota) and Hotham. For example, Murrumbeena is in Higgins but Hughesdale is in Hotham, having grown up there, they are essentially the same suburb and the new Hughesdale Station is even in Murrumbeena. Meanwhile areas like Ashburton fit better in Chisholm.
– Most importantly, the western quarter of Higgins (the Chapel St corridor) has always been far more suited to Macnamara. It’s a large chunk of population, but that allows Macnamara to either send Southbank north to Melbourne, or the Caulfield area south to Goldstein, or even a bit of both.
It also may not get much of an objection from the major parties either. Labor only just won Higgins for the first time but know they probably won’t keep it. The Liberals have already lost it and sending Liberal heartland suburbs like Toorak & Malvern into seats they recently lost to teal independents would probably appeal to them. The Greens would support it because they’d probably gain Macnamara (the only reason Labor may not support it).
So abolishing it and pushing its suburbs into Kooyong, Chisholm, Macnamara, Hotham and Goldstein would probably be a great place to start, and in particular moving a huge chunk of population into Macnamara provides a logical place to breach the Yarra by forcing Macnamara to send places like South Wharf.
Such an inner city seat being abolished, and Melbourne potentially moving south to breach the Yarra, would also let the under quota seats on both sides of the river expand inwards rather than outwards.
@John Smith: I also really like your scenario too and would be interested to look at the numbers for that.
I’d like some feedback on this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrFFa0UdWfNz1Q8namMlPcI9lkCwzXoI/view?usp=sharing
I’ve solved the trans-Yarra problem by having Melbourne be the only division that crosses the Yarra. I’m wondering if this would be too outrageous.
@ Nicholas Great work just some points from me
1. See if you can separate as much of the City of Kingston from Greater Dandenong. Dingley Village is more middle class and Anglo and does not really fit from a community of interest. Try and Follow the Dingley Bypass as that is a social divide in this part of Melbourne.
2. It would be great if East Bentleigh is either Issacs or Goldstein certainly not with working class suburbs like Noble Park. It is also very ethnically different.
3. I dont like idea of splitting St Kilda along Fitzroy Street with is an activity centre use Dickens Street which is used at a state level
4. Iam happy for Melbourne to cross the Yarra but going as far south as the Beach maybe a strech not much in common between Albert Park and Carlton.
5. I feel Black Roack, Beaumaris are more like Brighton upper class compared to Middle Class Mentione, Aspendale etc. Beuamaris/Mentone boundary divides the upper class from the middle class.
Once again great work
Thanks @Nimalan, really appreciate it! Some of those desirables might be hard to achieve, or be mutually exclusive.
If Melbourne doesn’t go all the way to the coast, either McEwen would have to move into the Yarra Ranges or Jagajaga would need to move into Manningham.
Speaking of which, what do you think of what I’ve done to Manningham?
@Nicholas I think it’s a very solid proposal. Splitting Manningham like that is something I’ve advocated in the past. I think it does work well and definitely should be something worth considering. Your proposed Melbourne is pretty good with a strong community of interest between Southbank/Port Melbourne and the CBD.
I personally think the part of Mulgrave south of the freeway should be with the other suburbs in Hotham. Perhaps, that could be solved with Chisholm taking up Box Hill South from your proposed Menzies and a little bit of tweaking of the Menzies/Deakin and Deakin/Casey boundaries.
@ Nicholas
1. I also think McEwen going into the Upper Yarra (Yarra Ranges LGA) is probably the safest Bet. There is precedent for this. Until 2010 McEwen crossed the Yarra River and at a state level the electorate of Eildon does this. The River tends to be narrow in its upper reaches and there is a lot of common between Yarra Glen and Kangaroo Ground for example.
2. I am actually not opposed to Jagajaga going into Manningham. Again the old Diamond Valley electorate used to do this and in 2019 Menzies extended into Eltham. I have said before the Yarra River is not a social divide in this part of Melbourne. Jagajaga and Menzies tend to be quite similar socio-economically it is just that Jagajaga tends to be more socially progressively. The other argument against this is that there is few crossings of the Yarra River in this part of Melbourne. However, i would argue that children in both seats currently cross the river to attend especially non-government schools on both sides such as Marcellin, OLMC, Whitefraiers, CLC, Ivanhoe Grammar & Eltham College. The Viewbank College school zone goes into Bulleen.
3. I am happy with your proposed Menzies also Casey can pick up a lot of semi-rural Manningham if McEwen extended into the Upper Yarra.
I thought I might share my proposal here. It is quite similar to some of @ John Smith’s ideas in that it abolishes Casey and moves McEwen eastwards. This means that there doesn’t have to be widespread change amongst the other electorates. Pretty much every other division (except Deakin) has had only adjustments made.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZR0CHFjxcgnye97VMRH83H7YHbEaDPmq/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H9YxT1ssri2VhPo7rmPtIdZvHyAP4v6O/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jKq7zwpJ5Z0O7CaH5npS9hsX89syVKFf/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10uHnpES5K-2SiHHF3FQtabrYI3_eJZUP/view?usp=sharing
If any of you have any thoughts about it, would love to hear them. I should note this is definitely just a first draft, eg. I’ll probably end up moving Belgrave out of La Trobe. Also, before everyone comments about it, I left the McNamara Higgins boundary as it is deliberately. I don’t think it is completely terrible, South Yarra and parts of Prahran definitely fit in Higgins to some degree, and Caulfield is definitely different to Malvern and Glen Iris. That said I am not against the change, just that given the vocal opposition that arises every time it is proposed for minor benefit, I may not necessarily be suggesting it.
Warmly,
David
Good work Nicholas. A few comments from me, I also think Melbourne is the best candidate to cross the Yarra because I feel like Southbank & South Wharf at the very least naturally belong with the CBD and Docklands.
However, I do echo Nimalan’s comment that I don’t think it going all the way down to (and including) St Kilda West really works, I would probably only go as far as Southbank, South Wharf and the northern part of Port Melbourne which will become Fishermans Bend, as I don’t think Carlton & St Kilda West belong in the same seat.
As a St Kilda resident myself too, I’d probably object strongly to St Kilda being with Brighton, Hampton and Bentleigh in what I assume is Goldstein (is Macnamara abolished?), while Sandringham & Beaumaris are not in the same seat as Brighton & Hampton.
From a community of interest point of view there are much stronger links between the affluent City of Bayside suburbs (Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham, Black Rock) which should remain in the same seat, while St Kilda & Balaclava have much stronger links with the inner-city suburbs of Albert Park, Prahran, Windsor, etc.
I do like what you’ve done combining Collingwood, Fitzroy & Richmond with the Northcote & Thornbury area, I think that’s interesting and could work well. I also like that you’ve put a significant chunk of the Caulfield area in Higgins, which is certainly needs if it were to not be abolished.
From what I can tell in the proposal, either Macnamara or Goldstein is abolished but I think the main issue with that, is that both had very cohesive communities of interest (apart from Caulfield being in Macnamara) which are now broken up and creating less cohesive ones, such as St Kilda with Bentleigh and Sandringham with Heatherton.
The flow on effects outside of that immediate area are positive and create some good boundaries, but I think the same can probably be achieved by abolishing Higgins – which has the least cohesive community of interest and a weird shape – and then arranging the surrounding seats like Macnamara, Goldstein & Kooyong around absorbing those electors who actually fit really well from a community of interest perspective (eg. Chapel St into Macnamara), and that also still facilitates Melbourne moving south to cross the river into Southbank & Port Melbourne.
How’s this?:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16CdiotLHRJZIJ49cgyqkejaI7IpU-jrl/view?usp=sharing
I’m not thrilled at all about that division that straddles the Monash Freeway, but I’m not sure what to do about it.
It looks like the flow-on effects of this configuration is Menzies and Jagajaga are effectively merged, forming a division that takes in the southern end of Banyule and the western end of Manningham.
@ Nicholas
I like your proposal. I do take your point that there will be a Monash council based seat. I have actually suggested this in the past (many people raised concerns about my suggestion). I do note many are not as thrilled about this as Monash Council covers both the Eastern Suburbs and SE Manufacturing belt two very different demographic groups. However, there maybe no other choice in this case. Melbourne is growing so maybe a future seat to be added will correct this next time.
@Josh Parris. You are absolutely correct these figures bare no resemblance to reality and will set up Victoria for some very difficulties in future redistributions and possible election outcomes.
The proposal has in the next 56 months a growth range per electorate of 8,090 to 11,875 electors (from smallest to largest).
The past 25 months have seen a growth range of between 68 to 11,425 electors (from smallest to largest) (this is the roll from the start of the last redistribution)
Another way of looking at these figures is that the projections have Mallee gaining more electors than either McEwan, Holt and Latrobe. I cannot see this happening.
In the last 25 months McEwan has grown by 9,143 electors and is projected to grow by 8,103 electors in the next 56 months despite all the new estates coming on line.
Despite the last number of years seeing the growth of electors being greater north of the Yarra, apparently this will reverse in the next 56 months with the South out pacing the North.
The result, in my view, of these very dodgy figures is that it is more likely a seat in the North of Melbourne will be abolished rather than in the South of Melbourne
Also if Victoria does not lose or gain a seat after the next election, the next redistribution will be in 7 years time which could see elector difference in seats be as wide as 40,000 electors and the next redistribution could then see 3 seats being abolished in the south.
I hope the next election is not determined because of these poor growth predications forcing a different outcome than what is the reality.
I note yesterday there was an article in the Age looking at population growth which essentially said that the growth will be in places like McEwan, Holt and Latrobe and will not be a consistent spread across the state
The ABS has done a shocking job, I can only hope its through laziness rather than design.
I understand that these figures can not be challenged so everyone has to use them but they are just not creditable.
@Nicholas, I think that second one looks excellent andlove the idea of Caulfield, Malvern, Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale all being in the same seat. I think they have a strong community of interest.
Also I’ve been working on some numbers and also had all (or at least most) of Elsternwick in Macnamara, which I think is a great fit alongside Elwood and Ripponlea.
Captain Moonlight, most of McEwen is outside of Melbourne’s growth suburbs and the government wants to slow urban expansion and with Ballarat and Hawke shifting, then McEwen might shift into more established areas or areas with less growth.
Comments are closed.