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.
@ Nicholas, what software are you using?
@Nicholas
Great work. Overall I prefer your prefer proposal. In this one I like what you have done with Melbourne and Isaacs (getting rid of one of my pet peeves in Melbourne). One thing that I would respectfully disagree with was the further extension of Menzies into Whitehorse council. I would prefer to see Menzies on a more east west orientation.
In proposal 2 I think there are significant community of interest concerns in Huggins and Isaacs.
@ Mike
Issacs has been a bug bear from myself as well, what is your thoughts about how Issacs in the ideal world should look like
@Truth seeker
I use QGIS.
The enrolment data provided by the AEC has SA1s duplicated if they are split between current electorates, so I have to write a script to sort that out.
In QGIS, I add an OpenStreetMaps layer, open the SA1 shapefiles provided by the ABS, and then join them to the enrolment data. This allows me to select SA1s on the map and see current and projected enrolment in the selected SA1s. Then to create my own maps it’s just a matter of using the vector processing tools.
There’s also a QGIS plugin for redistributions, but it’s a bit fiddly and buggy so I tend not to use it.
Maybe I should create a tutorial on this some time.
@Mike I personally think Menzies is best aligned with Whitehorse because the core of the seat (the suburban part of Manningham Council) does have a lot of ties and connections with the suburbs in the north of Whitehorse Council both demographically, geographically and community-wise which it does not have with the suburbs east of the green wedge. Of course, that is the opposite for the green wedge areas around Warrandyte but the bulk of enrolment and the base of this seat is around Doncaster/Templestowe. This is also why I think it’s worth considering whether Manningham should be split into 2 different electorates with both being north-south alligned which does eliminate this problem. That being said, the current use of Whitehorse Road is not the best solution since it splits Box Hill, which is basically Melbourne’s 2nd CBD, in half, ideally the boundary would be somewhere such as Canterbury Road or even Burwood Highway in the spirit of the Box Hill state electorate. Menzies expanding eastwards into Maroondah like the Warrandyte state electorate isn’t the best solution but what I definitely don’t agree with is expanding Menzies northwards into either Ivanhoe/Heidelberg or Eltham since demographically they are quite different, there are barely any road links between the areas. Manningham is clearly an eastern suburbs area rather than a northeastern suburbs area like Niumbilik and Banyule. Sure the Yarra isn’t as big a divide as say between Richmond and Hawthorn or Collingwood and Kew but IMO it’s still pretty significant, just like the Monash Freeway past Warrigal Road.
@Nicholas, creating a tutorial if you, if someone else, would be able to would great for many commentators. A big barrier for a lot of people’s suggestions is that they do not know how to incorporate the enrolment and projected data into their suggestions which is a shame I feel since I’ve seen some very good proposals but the projected or actual enrolments would be off.
Roughly 60,000 electors need to be in an electorate or electorates that straddle the Yarra.
The Upper Yarra option:
– Menzies plus Nilumbik – there are about 40,000 voters in Nilumbik. That would be almost all of Menzies north of the Eastern Freeway. Add in Montmorency to basically get to the 60,000.
– Don’t add Monty but move Murrindindi Shire from Indi to Casey. There is some community of interest as a Melba Highway seat. Indi then needs to get voters from Nicholls.
Problem with the latter is it sets up an anti clockwise shuffle and there just aren’t enough voters to do it. Between Nicholls, Ballarat and Bendigo they are short about 15,000 voters so adding another 12k from Indi means abt 25k (Indi being over) more voters need to be found. Any of those seats become perilously to ending up in Melbourne.
Keeping the Menzies crossing only seems more logical. I can see the merits of the Melbourne move south but not sure if it stacks up. Melbourne works pretty well now – maybe a Southbank beach head only.
In my opinion, I think Issacs should be removed given if Issac’s boundaries focuses on aligning with a key community of interest, it would make the electorate too linearly North-South. Here is why:
I feel that Dunkley should move north to maybe around Chelsea due to the Frankston Line feel by removing Mount Eliza (and maybe Frankston South) to Mornington as they are old-money areas that do not share community interest with low-income areas like Frankston North/Carrum Downs. Plus, I believe Keysborough should share areas like Springvale.
@ Marh
The City of Kingston (South of the Dingley Bypass) is increasingly affluent and monocultural compared to Greater Dandenong which is why i would like a clear seperation. In the City of Frankston its is really Frankston North/Carrums Downs and some areas around Karringal that are low income. I am totally opposed to Dandenong being in the same seat as Mentone/Patterson Lakes. I also oppose East Bentleigh being with Noble Park. The Metro Tunnel once opened will mean a seperation of these two regions by PT as well
What about if similar to Nicholas’ original idea for Melbourne but you did Sth Yarra/Prahran into Melbourne instead of South Melb and Albert Park? Richmond, Sth Yarra, Prahran, Windsor were all in the same seat as recently as 1988 and they share a great deal in common. You could basically do the border similar to the state seats of Albert Park/Prahran with everything in the seat of Prahran nth of Dandenong Rd and West of Williams Rd going into Melbourne + the remainder of Macnamara’s share of Melbourne city council.
– Melbourne becomes this + Richmond + all of the Melbourne suburbs + Parkville + Kensington
– Macnamara gains all of Goldstein above Nth Road (except the Brighton part) and the remainder of Prahran and Armadale.
– Cooper gains all of Yarra council (except Richmond) + Carlton and goes all the way up to Preston
– Wills gains the small bit of Brunswick in Melb + Coburg part of Cooper
– Higgins is essentially abolished with Carnegie/Murrumbeena going into Hotham and the rest into Kooyong.
Scullin would than gain Reservoir & Kingsbury from Cooper and would be able to lose Wollert, Mernda, South Morang to McEwen. McEwen can then lose all of its Macedon Ranges part. Jagajaga can gain everything east of Plenty Rd from Kingsbury.
I feel like all of this work pretty well. This + Nth Warrandyte is enough to fix the Yarra issue on its own. Macnamara has kind of a weird shape but all the parts of it go pretty well together. Still not entirely sure how to arrange Kooyong/Higgins but I think you could make it work.
Nimalan, I’m with you on not combining Dandenong with Mentone/Patterson Lakes. If Hotham was abolished then Clayton might better suit a seat covering Dandenong.
Marth, Frankston South is more middle income than old money, and I would keep it with Karginal and Frankston North. They are demographically different. However, they are in the same local government area and share the same infrastructure. Mt Eliza could be shifted to Flinders but Flinders has a fairly stable boundary that could stay unchanged. Carrum Downs could be shifted to another seat since it is similar to Keysborough.
Thanks Pencil
Agree that Clayton fits better with Dandenong as it is part of the SE Manufacturing Belt. Even the parts of Kingston LGA north of the Bypass (Clarinda, Clayton South) are more like Dandenong than suburbs in the same LGA like Mentone/Paterson Lake. There is a big social divide but not often discussed.
I do agree Carrum Downs could be shifted to another seat again i feel a lot of manufacturing workers from the Dandenong South industrial zone live there so it is a bit like Hallam/Hampton Park as well. While Langwarrin should not shift as it is a middle income area with more self-employed tradies, larger houses, leafier streets.
This also begs how would Aston look like with redistribution given the boundaries are all in Knox Council and conversely all (Correct me if it is almost all) of Knox Council is within Aston. I believe it has no other choice but to go east to the Dandenong Ranges.
marh, I agree Aston should be a fairly easy solve. Upwey-Tecoma is the logical move as an extension of suburbia. LGA boundaries aside, I think everything along the rail line and Burwood Hwy is a better fit with Aston than with Lilydale and the Yarra Valley anyway. Unfortunately Belgrave doesn’t quite fit.
From memory the boundaries into Knox used to be far more mangled. If they don’t stray too far from Aston = Knox, Kooyong = Boorondara this time around, they can rely on just the fuzzy border between Chisholm and Hotham to balance other movements in the East.
Playing around a bit more:
– The wonky population growth figures could cause serious issues down the line. One can draw a fairly compact McEwen taking in all the new developments around Mernda/Mickleham and pushing into Scullin. All fine by the rules, though I’ve no confidence it wouldn’t be over quota in short time.
– I will be curious to see how/if Labor argue for Macnamara to retain as many of the Jewish communities this time around. Best iterations of Goldstein I can find has it taking most of these (which seems reasonable per historical redistribution submissions, as it already comes with its own large share.)
– There’s a much-improved alignment available of Menzies/Deakin/Chisholm where they get centred on Doncaster-Box Hill, Ringwood and Glen Waverley respectively and sprawl out from there.
– Hotham is so disparate as it is, but even carving it up, I’m a bit unsure where to go with it. Isaacs will likely need to move into it, somewhere… Oakleigh matches well with some parts of Glen Eira, but not others. And I can’t get the numbers to work to get Springvale in with Dandenong, so it would be left as this weird appendage on one of the neighbouring seats
@Nicholas
Yes, I’d also be interested to see a QGIS tutorial if you’re able to make one. Or, if you didn’t want to produce a whole new tutorial, you could list out the steps in your process, and then link to existing tutorials (e.g. youtube or other types) that explain each of those individual steps.
One specific QGIS question I have is how to show a live tally of current and projected electors? I’m imagining there’s some way to view this that updates when you allocate SA1 areas into one division or another? At the moment I’m just using Excel, which is clunky to step outside of QGIS, and I’m sure there must be a better way. If you’re able to suggest what the appropriate tool or process is called, please, then I’ll be able to look up existing tutorials to work it out. Thanks!
@Nimalan – re Isaacs my preferred option would for it to be a “sandbelt” seat shedding the areas near Keysborough and Dandenong. This would require One of Goldstein, Higgins or McNamra to be re eliminated and for Melbourne to be the “straddle seat”.
@Drake – not a fan of having South Yarra and Prahran in the same seat as Melbourne. I feel that the superior option is to have South Melb, Port Melb and Albert Park and Middle Park added alond with Queens Rd and Southbank of course. Ideally there would be no need to cross the Yarra however this is a luxury we do not have!
Interesting proposals here. As someone who grew up in Tecoma, I definitely agree that Upwey/Tecoma should be added to Aston, as they share much more of a community of interest with Ferntree Gully (especially), Boronia, Rowville and Wantirna than with Lilydale/Yarra Glen/Healesville which are on the other side of the mountain. But there’s no way that Belgrave would ever be in a separate seat to Upwey and Tecoma, they are pretty much all one suburb.
Reposting my suggestion as I think it got swamped last time, whilst being moderated. In short, I’ve moved McEwen eastwards and have abolished Casey, with Deakin taking the urban part. This allows for minimal changes elsewhere, even where it is probably warranted.
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
I’d love to hear thoughts on it.
David
David, Like what you did with McEwen but does it leave Indi under quota? and many metro seats have to gain 3,000 to 6,000 voters.
Mike, the sandbelt runs from Brighton, along the bayside suburbs to Frankston and in land to around Oakleigh and Clayton.
@ Pencil I’ve run the numbers and everything is within the quota, often just. With Indi, Yarrawonga has been transferred from Nicholls this fixes the shortfall. This can be done with relatively minor changes, eg. Higgins has gained just Hughesdale and the rest of Glen Iris, Goldstein – Glen Huntly, Cooper – the rest of Bundoora, etc. The flow on effects from this can be seen in seats like Chisholm and Hawke which have had more noticeable change.
Hey David, really like your idea for McEwen/Casey. I originally tried to get McEwen/Casey to work but didn’t think to go further than Healesville/Yarra Valley. Turning McEwen into a NE mostly rural seat is much better than the weird bits and pieces it currently is. I’m actually impressed with how you managed to do this with so little changes all around. I could definitely see the AEC wanting to do something similar to this.
I think Melbourne/Macanamara or McEwen/Casey work the best as the split Yarra seat. I don’t think Menzies/Jagajaga work that well as a split.
@ Mike
Agree. I feel Dingley Village fits well with the rest of Kingston LGA even through not Bayside due to similar demographics. Keysborough fits better with Dandenong, Noble Park etc. Do you think East Bentleigh could go into either Issacs/Goldstein instead.
This is a rather vexing issue in terms of how to proceed. The Yarra must be crossed substantially. Not being able to get mapping software to work my comments are of a general nature and I am nit sure re how the numbers would stack up.
My main bugbears with current boundaries are: Isaacs, McNamara and Higgins, Menzies/Deakin/Chisholm and to a lesser extent Hawke.
My current thinking is similar to @Nicholas – (your first map). Shed half of Melbourne (everything north and east of Flemington Rd and Victoria Pde to top up other seats north of the Yarra. Melbourne then absorbs half of Mcnamara. McNamara is then effectively merged with the northern portion of Goldstein (eliminating Mcnamara). Goldstein could shed areas south of South Rd and East of the Frankston train line.
Isaacs then reverts to being a sand belt seat losing Keysborough and Dandenong. The other southeastern seats (Flinders, Dunkley, Holt, Hotham, Bruce, Monash and Gippsland) rotate to meet quotas. Patterson Lakes and the southern tip of the city of Kingston also provide top up voters to Issacs.
Higgins gains Caulfield and sheds voters in its east/south to top up other divisions.
I see Menzies swapping the areas added from the City of Whitehorse at the last redistribution and then gaining voters from Deakin north of Mt Dandenong Rd. Casey sheds voters to Aston and gains from the eastern end of Deakin.
Deakin then contracts westwards to the border of Kooyong (which would take a small number of voters in the city of Whitehorse to meet quota.
Chisholm would move southwards. Hotham gains from Higgins. Latrobe, Holt and Bruce move westwards to soak up voters from Hotham and Issacs.
I’m sorry I do not have the mapping capacity so am unsure re numbers but hope it stimulates ideas and discussions. It is certainly a major redraw of east and south of the Yarra and might me a bit much for the committee. I have not thought about north of the Yarra yet.
Thanks for reading!
@Nimalan – I agree that East Bentleigh could go into Goldstein.
@ Pencil – re the sandbelt I have always been under the impression based on commentary that it referred to seats on and very close to the Frankston line. Hope this helps explain my “logic”
@David – re your proposal to abolish Casey. I have had a quick look and the general direction looks very solid. Great efforts. Given that redistribution committees tend to not want to make too many changes your suggestion could be close to the general direction they go in with McEwen trending to the McEwen from 15/20 years ago although slightly smaller. Well done on some great work.
@Josh Parris Good that you noticed that these numbers are off.
Given the importance of the elector projections the redistribution, I wonder if there will be a legal or proceedural challenge to these?
Even with the difficulties of population projections, they don’t come close to matching reality. The question is… Malice, laziness, or stupidity?
I just took the Aug ’23 enrolment data and compared it to the Aug ’22 enrolment data. I used it to get a growth rate and then projected things forward 4 and a half years:
– Smallest division: Menzies (-11.76%)
– Largest division: Lalor (+27.45%)
– Quotas north of the Yarra: 20.95
To compare, the numbers we’ve been given:
– Smallest division: Hawke (-6.23%)
– Largest division: Mallee (+3.23%)
– Quotas north of the Yarra: 20.52
I’m sure the annual trend won’t necessarily continue and the numbers I’ve generated in Excel in 20 minutes aren’t the most accurate, but 0.43 of a quota is a pretty stark difference. And that has some rather large ramifications for political representation across Melbourne.
@David your proposal is pretty solid. I like how you adopt a strong boundary between Chisholm and Hotham with the M1, which is a major dividing line, on par with the Yarra River. The fact that it is pretty minimalistic makes it quite convenient for the commissioners to adopt aspects your proposals. Of course, the fact that it is minimalistic means some areas that should be fixed this time around such as the Caulfield tail in Macnamara are not but I think that can be rectified pretty easily with some minor tweaks.
Angas, I wonder if they use the historical growth numbers (i.e., those which were low during the previous COVID period).
I read somewhere on Ben’s earlier post for NSW that enrolments were out of alignment well before COVID (as early as 2018/19) and the reason was because they used projected growth numbers that were based on the time before the redistribution and not a proper ‘future forecast’.
Mike, you are right in thinking the Frankston trainline runs along the sandbelt.
Another possible cross Yarra seat could be to abolish Higgins or Kooyong, then merge all of the City of Yarra south of Victoria St, with all of the City of Stonnington and the western half of Boroondara.
The area north of Victoria St stays in Melbourne or shifts into Cooper, and the area east of Burke Rd, Camberwell stays in Kooyong, if it remains or moves into Chisholm or Deakin.
Then add the City of Melbourne areas south of the Yarra into a new Melbourne. With a new McNamara keeping all of the City of Port Phillip and taking a larger part of Caulfield, this would enable Goldstein to shift east or into Mentone/Mordialloc.
Bendigo will be in danger of being lost to the Nats if the seat gets some territory from Mallee. (Nats will contest instead of Liberals if it takes more rural areas)
@daniel I’m giving it territory from Nicholls taking in Lockridge. Nicholls then gets Kilmore from McEwen. Ive left Mallee as is due to it won’t grow
Bendigo is not remotely under threat from the Coalition. Its fairly left wing now. Mount Alexander Shire is as left-wing as the inner city now. The Libs will win Werriwa before the Nats win Bendigo
@nimalan I will bet the libs will win it in 2025
@ John
Do you mean Werriwa or Bendigo will be won by Libs
Angas
You will find that the divide is 21:18 if there are 39 seats but 20.5:17.5 when there are 38 so there is no big shift in numbers that has to be achieved.
Hopefully this redistribution will be used to fix up the borders of Gellibrand a bit.
The remaining parts of Yarraville should be moved into Fraser.
Then the last bit of Point Cook (between the Princes Freeway, Hacketts Road and Sneydes Road can move from Lalor into Gellibrand.
Also the entire suburb of Williams Landing (the remaining part of Lalor east of Forsyth Road) can also move in Gellibrand.
This give Lalor a little bit more growing room in the future.
I’m wondering if projected quotas should just be scrapped. I don’t like dual quotas as it makes it really difficult to draw districts in high-growth areas. So I had thought that maybe we should just have a projection at the midpoint between the expected times of the next two elections.
But given the issues with projections, maybe the AEC should just use current enrolment, like they do in most countries.
There have been other cases of projections being way off resulting in boundary changes across redistributions being more drastic than they needed to be.
Nicholas, aren’t you contradicting yourself a bit because I read on a thread for the most recent NSW state redistribution and your suggestion that ‘projected enrolment’ is a better gauge for ensuring long term stability of boundaries compared to solely using the current enrolment numbers.
@Yoh An
I have been of the view that we should have one quota. As acknowledged in my previous comment, I had been of the view that this quota should be based on projections at the midpoint of the expected dates of the subsequent two elections. The rationale is that assuming the projections are reasonably accurate, deviation from the quota would be minimised at the time of those two elections as best as possible. I didn’t claim that it would ensure long-term stability of boundaries, but rather it would help to ensure that enrolment is close to a quota at the time of elections.
But in light of the fact that projections are often very wrong, I think there is a strong case for just using current enrolment.
@nimalan Werriwa. i believe the redistributio will be kind to them in the liverpool camden area. bendigo is not currently vunerable to being lost
@nimalan though depending on whihc way bendigo expands it could become marginal
@Redistributed
What I’m saying is that the split should actually be 21:17 if the AEC/ABS provided sensible figures.
I’ve had a deeper look at the projection spreadsheet and it’s clear that someone has mucked up here. With the exception of 9 SA1s that appear to have been manually overidden, all other SA1 projections seem to be capped somewhere in the range of 9.5% to 10% growth. It’s shown pretty clearly if you do a scatter plot of Projected vs. Current enrolment. This looks dramatically different to the NSW projections which show a lot more natural variation. I can’t see that this would be due to COVID as both states were impacted, so I’m thinking that this is a software bug or that someone has made a deliberate choice.
When 90% of the SA1s have the same growth rate, we may as well not be using projected enrolment figures at all. I think this is actually quite serious. We wouldn’t need to be talking about crossing the Yarra if the AEC/ABS provided “accurate” projections.
Given how marginal Eastern Melbourne is currently, using lazy projections has the potential to flip a seat or two relative to a redistribution used with sensible projections. And that could make all the difference at the next election.
The 20.5-17.5 split we’ve been given means that either Jagajaga and Menzies will be merged, or Melbourne and Macnamara will be merged. This would have direct ramifications for Labor vs. Liberal representation and Labor vs. Green representation respectively.
Overall, using these projection figures will mean that Southern/Eastern Melbourne will be allocated 0.5 of an MP more than deserved, and Northern/Western Melbourne will be allocated 0.5 of an MP less than deserved. That’s a clear benefit to the Coalition and would raise doubts about the impartiality of the AEC.
It might appear that they are drawn within the 3.5% range, but the Northwestern seats of Lalor, Gorton, Calwell, and McEwen and the Southwestern seats of La Trobe and Holt will all be beyond the 10% range at the 3.5 year date.
@ John
Even ignoring the redistribution i have mentioned before i feel Werriwa is vulnerable because Anne Staley is an underperfoming MP. I strongly support a preselection challenge to her. Werriwa is like Macarthur, McMahon and Greenway a socially mixed electorate but the margin is too low currently especially primary vote.
With Bendigo it is trending Labor with more tree changers/public servents and hybrid workers moving in.
Bendigo might be labor leaning, however its more traditional left leaning than progressive leaning, as shown by it voting 59% no to the voice. Bendigo will probably shift towards Melbourne or Ballarat instead of Mallee.
@ Pencil
I agree Bendigo is still more traditional left-leaning than progressive leaning. However, it does have both demographics especially around Castlemaine. While it did vote 59% against the voice in 1999 (adjusted to current boundaries) it voted 60% against the republic despite the Voice doing much worse nationally and statewide than the republic, showing that it has become more progressive over the last 24 years.
after carving off glen eira and parts of monash and kingston to chisholm issacs and goldstei it appears that the hotham name can be retained due to still having 75k voters from the previous division
Macnamara – Current enrollment 112881 – Projected enrollment 124756
After redistribution – Enrollment 117858 – Projected enrollment 129800
Higgins – Current Enrollment 109335 – Projected enrollment 119660
After redistribution – Enrollment 113255 – Projected enrollment 124327
Goldstein – Current Enrollment 111083 – Projected enrollment 121366
After redistribution – Enrollment 110554 – Projected enrollment 122837
Isaacs – Current Enrollment 111083 – Projected enrollment 121366
After redistribution – Enrollment 117232 – Projected enrollment 127939
Chisholm – Current Enrollment 110672 – Projected enrollment 121345
After redistribution – Enrollment 114177 – Projected enrollment 125202
Dunkley – Current Enrollment 112715 – Projected enrollment 122613
After redistribution – Enrollment 117757 – Projected enrollment 128135
Hotham – Current Enrollment 117704 – Projected enrollment 128957
After redistribution – Enrollment 114720 – Projected enrollment 126841
Comments are closed.