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 AEC has released the September 30 enrolments today for Victoria, which highlight how wrong the redistribution future enrolments figures are.
If we take the growth from August 9, 2023, figures to September 30, 2023 being the rough equivalent of 3.57% of the April 2028 projections the following seats have underperformed and have only reached the following % growth of the April 2028 redistribution projections.
North of the Yarra
Mallee 2.12%
South of the Yarra
Menzies 2.12%
Deakin 2.47%
Hotham 3.21%
Chisholm 3.51%
On the other hand, the following seats have overperformed and have now reached the following % growth of the April 2028 redistribution projections.
North of the Yarra
McEwan 16.45%
Calwell 14.79%
Gorton 13.68%
Lalor 11.78%
Hawke 11.37%
Melbourne 10.41%
South of the Yarra
Latrobe 16.61%
Holt 13.72%
While I believe the overall enrolments might be up due to more people enrolling to vote in the referendum, the monthly growth in McEwan and Holt is similar to the month prior.
I still believe that the ABS figures for the redistribution showing more people enrolling south of the Yarra until April 22028 is wrong and these last 7 weeks continue the trend of the reverse happening.
While I note several posters would like to see McEwan abolished (which I believe as it is the last seat drawn is hard to do) it is now the closest seat to reaching its April 28 project still needing 6,770 electors to reach this target. If the current trends hold true it could get there by June 2024.
@capitan unfortunately the rules are the rules and must be based on figures set out in law
@John I know we have to accept the rules. I hope that after this redistribution the AEC reviews how they come up with the forward projection numbers as this time they have done a poor job
Agree Captain Moonlight, I think the NSW figures are also somewhat questionable as they have many Hunter and North Coast seats with negligible growth (going backwards in relative terms when recent months have shown enrolment numbers growing at a faster rates). They also have seats in the middle ring suburbs of western and southern Sydney projected to grow at an above average rate when in recent months they have been fairly static, although this could be due to optimistic forecasting as many areas like Liverpool are seeing new apartment developments.
@captain next month McEwen could face an exodus. They have to draw a line somewhere
@ John, why next month, the boundaries are there until the next election
However I do believe the seat will move eastwards as Bendigo and Ballarat will need to move eastwards as well
@the boundaries are drawn on the numbers specified in the act
The peojecrtijs have always been mathematical rather than relying on actually projecting movements by demographics or sociology.
A few cycles ago they simply looked at the trend over the past 10 years for each SA1 and applied a median projection.
They’re not checking building permits and seeing how many people could move into each SA1.
I suppose in the end we have to work with the numbers that are provided.
As far as I’m concerned, they’re not population, just the numbers that show up in each SA1.
For me, it’s even more reason to:
1. Make boundaries that are decent, clear and logical within the tolerances, even if it’s at the very bottom or the very top. I don’t care as long as it’s inside the tolerance.
2. Not put too much effort into balancing high growth areas and low growth areas in an attempt to keep boundaries from changing too much next time. They’ll change next time anyway.
The peojecrtijs!? Obviously i meant the projections.
Remember to spell check before you post.
Based on limited research this morning, the projected enrolment figures don’t seem to be completely unassailable.
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – 66.3.a:
” (3) In making the proposed redistribution, the Redistribution Committee:
(a) shall, as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that, if the State were redistributed in accordance with the proposed redistribution, the number of electors enrolled in each Electoral Division in the State would not, at the projection time determined under section 63A, be less than 96.5% or more than 103.5% of the average divisional enrolment of that State at that time; and”
There’s a definition in the act for the projection time, but there’s no definition for how the enrolment numbers are to be calculated. That seems to be discretional as explained at https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2023/vic/enrolment-projections-overview.htm
“Following a recommendation by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) that the AEC and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) work together on enrolment projections, the ABS has supplied enrolment projections to the AEC using AEC enrolment data as the base. The ABS has used a cohort-component method to project the enrolment of each SA1. The methodology is detailed in the paper included with the projected enrolment.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I think it could be argued that the Committee would not be “endeavour(ing) to ensure” that all divisions will be within the +/-3.5% range. Everyone knows that those outer suburbs seats are going to be way higher than projected.
It doesn’t look like there’s any consequences if Committee swaps out the figures halfway through the redistribution process as long as they “endeavour to ensure”. We’ll have to see how much pressure is applied by the submissions. Labor is getting shortchanged by these figures in particular, so it will be interesting to see what they say.
I think I’m going to try to set my outer Melbourne divisions as close to the -3.5% mark as possible.
It looks like Lalor and Gellibrand can just fit entirely inside Wyndham and Hobsons Bay Councils by making some careful cuts through Truganina and Werribee South.
It might be a challenge, but it might actually be possible to avoid crossing the Yarra in a significant way by underallocating all of the Northern/Western seats at around -2% and overallocating the Southern/Eastern seats at around +3%. It’s within the rules.
I got most of what I wanted done but had to dial few unexpected things to get the numbers right. Problems to fix for another day. 9/10
@Angas – What I have been doing has actually had pretty similar outcomes. Because I have made some large changes in the southeast with a seat abolished, but only very small changes in the north & west, what I have generally ended up with is most north & west metropolitan seats below 125k and most of the southeastern metro seats above 128k. All are within quota, and if anything that will be more sustainable because the ABS growth projections probably overestimate the southeast and underestimate the northwest.
My most recent scenario hasn’t had to cross the Yarra River within the metro area yet, other than where the current boundaries already cross it in Menzies (taking in both Warrandyte & North Warrandyte).
@John – What @Angas said. The projection numbers aren’t set out in the act at all. It just says they have to try to ensure that the seats will all be within the 3.5% tolerance; there’s no specification about how they do that. To use the figures that the ABS has given them (presumably because someone uploaded the wrong file) would be to breach their legal duty.
Here are the boundaries in the south-eastern suburbs of the proposal I’m currently working on:
https://ibb.co/D7YYGGv
Before I get into these boundaries themselves, you’ll notice it says Hotham/Bruce for one of the seats. That’s because the seat to be abolished will be either Hotham, Bruce or La Trobe with the 3 seats effectively merging into two – one based on City of Dandenong and one based on Narre Warren, Berwick & Pakenham. I just don’t know which seat/name will go yet.
Onto the boundaries in the image, which I think are a HUGE improvement over the current ones!
MACNAMARA (my seat) – Unites the heart of the “inner south” being effectively the entire City of Port Phillip, City of Melbourne (south of the river), and all of South Yarra, Prahran & Windsor. A much better community of interest and a much better shape.
HIGGINS – Another much better shape and community of interest. It now encompasses all of Stonnington excluding its 3 most inner-city suburbs mentioned above and all of Glen Eira above North Road, as well as Hughesdale. Again, a very strong community of interest, plus very strong & simple boundaries (eg. North Road & Warrigal Road). All of Elsternwick & Caulfield are united in the same seat as Glen Huntly, Carnegie & Murrumbeena too.
GOLDSTEIN – Still includes the entire Bayside LGA, adds a small part of Bentleigh East to Bentleigh (having grown up there, East Boundary Rd is a strong boundary and west of it always felt like the ‘real’ border of Bentleigh & East Bentleigh), and adds 3 of the more affluent parts of Kingston: Moorabbin (west of Chesterville Rd), the remainder of Highett which crosses the highway, and the beachside part of Mentone (south/west of the highway).
A lot of these additions were just for numbers to compensate for losing Caulfield South & Elsternwick, but I think the added parts fit really well, and it’s a more compact shape too.
ISAACS – Big changes here as it loses the whole Dandenong South and area and instead extends north to take in Oakleigh South, Clarinda & Clayton South to unite most of Kingston in the seat, as well as Bentleigh East (east of East Boundary Rd) which again, having grown up there, I always felt that part was more connected to Oakleigh South & Moorabbin than it was to the rest of Glen Eira.
DUNKLEY simply takes Carrum from Isaacs to get within the quota range, using the Patterson River as the boundary.
CHISHOLM – This seat basically becomes the City of Monash with a couple of very small pockets added or removed around the fringes, and extending a little bit into Whitehorse where Burwood Highway is a very strong boundary. I think this is an improved community of interest too.
HOTHAM/BRUCE – As mentioned above, these two effectively merge into one seat based on the City of Dandenong, plus a couple of the more established suburbs from Casey (Doveton, Endeavour Hills & Hallam) in the east. So whichever one it ends up being, it loses the more affluent western part of Hotham and the newer “growth areas” from the east of Bruce. This is a better community of interest as well I think.
What I haven’t finalised yet is the Holt / former Bruce / La Trobe area but effectively what’s happening there is:
– Holt is losing its pockets of Narre Warren & Berwick in the north but taking Clyde North from La Trobe, to be more focused on the newer growth areas around Cranbourne;
– The Narre Warren areas from Bruce & Holt and the Berwick, Officer & Pakenham area from La Trobe will unite in a single seat, which may be either Bruce or La Trobe depending on which I abolish;
– The more rural parts of La Trobe move into surrounding regional seats, eg. Gembrook into Casey, Koo Wee Rup into Monash.
I have most of the northern & western suburbs already done from a previous scenario which shouldn’t really need touching and all looks pretty good, with much smaller changes over that side of the city (but beneficial ones, I think).
Again, the Casey & McEwan boundary is going to be the most difficult to get right and every scenario just seems to not be ideal, might just have to cop that. But this time I’m playing with different options around Deakin, Menzies, Aston & Jagajaga to see if I can end up with something where McEwan is less of a mess.
Forgot to mention one..
KOOYONG – Obvious changes here that I think everybody has also suggested anyway. Loses the City of Whitehorse strip and gains the remainder of Booroondara (Ashburton & Glen Iris) from Higgins. Much better.
@Trent That’s a nice arrangement.
I’ve been working on Southeastern Melbourne today as well. Have ended up with the same Macnamara/Higgins/Kooyong and Dunkley as you. Very neat boundaries for those.
I like what you’ve done with the Dandenong centered seat. I tried to do something like that but couldn’t get it to work for some reason. For now, I’ve settled on using the M3 as the western boundary for my Bruce for now. That has given me a Chisholm that runs from Waverley Rd to the Eastern Freeway, which isn’t too bad. I had to split the Belgrave area with La Trobe to make that work though.
Overall, it has been quite difficult to get good boundaries in the outer-Southeast. Would be nice to pull Bruce east out of Dandenong and to take in the rest of Berwick. Plus, it’s hard to find a single good division to put Belgrave/Monbulk/Emerald/Cockatoo/Gembrook in.
Thanks! Out of curiosity, which seat is abolished in your scenario?
The outer southeast & northeast (basically La Trobe to McEwan) is the one area I just can’t find a solution for. I have generally tried to make Casey a seat based on the Dandenong Ranges including the Gembrook, Emerald and Belgrave areas, but moving it down into La Trobe territory means McEwan ends up a real mess (can’t find a way to not have Whittlesea and Lilydale in the same seat!).
@Trent
Haven’t made it that far yet, but I’m thinking it’ll be Casey. It’s funny because it’s an almost perfect Yarra Ranges LGA division, but it has all these parts that could easily top up Aston/Deakin/La Trobe/McEwen, so I think it’ll have to go.
Think I might have painted myself into a corner actually.
I’ve got:
– Menzies: Manningham + Banyule (Ivanhoe to Rosanna)
– Chisholm: Whitehorse (west of Springvale Rd) + Monash (north of Waverley Rd)
– Deakin: Whitehorse (east of Springvale Rd) + Maroondah
– Aston: Knox + Yarra Ranges (Belgrave)
– La Trobe: Cardinia + Yarra Ranges (Selby)
But now I’ve got a Casey that is 15% of a division short. Whittlesea would be the obvious addition but that’s pretty grim. Seems like I’ve got the same problem as you @Trent.
Is a division that contains Lilydale and Mansfield too objectionable? Just like Eildon, but with outer suburban parts too. Is it worth it just to consolidate Indi along the border?
Trent, those boundaries look good and have done well to align similar demographics.
Angus, you could have Lilydale and Mansfield in the same federal seat but I cannot visualise how you come to that boundary unless your seat is running through Murrindindi Shire.
Angus, you could have Lilydale and Mansfield in the same federal seat but I cannot visualise how you come to that boundary unless your seat is running through Murrindindi Shire.
@Pencil Yeah it would be all of Yarra Ranges except for the Belgrave/Selby area, plus Murrindindi and Mansfield Shires. Indi would then take Moira Shire from Nicholls, but give up the rest of Strathbogie. Nicholls would have to expand into Kilmore/Wallan though. It kind of all works, but I’m not sure if it’s an option people would be happy with.
I think I’ve found a better way though. Just need to check my Northern suburbs divisions first.
@angas ive had indi give up murrindindi and mansfield then take moira from nicholls and expand into kilmore / wallan as well
I’ll have to double-check my boundaries, but I think I’ve managed to draw an arrangment with only 2 small crossings of the Yarra:
– Docklands, South Wharf and Southbank north of City Rd into Melbourne
– Warrandyte, South Warrandyte and Wonga park into Jagajaga
It’s all very finely balanced though. It rations 20.64 quotas over the 21 divisions in the North/West, and the 17 divisions in South/West are overenrolled at 17.36 quotas. This is a more stable arrangement however, as I think we all expect the North/West to outpace the South/East despite what the enrolment projections state.
I’ll see if I can get a map together, but here are some of the key changes:
– McEwen is still a bits-and-pieces division, but gives everything west of Romsey to Bendigo and Hawke, and gains Kinglake from Indi, plus nibbles from the top of Calwell, Scullin and Jagajaga
– Casey only changes along its southern border, giving Belgrave to Aston and gaining Emerald/Cockatoo/Gembrook from La Trobe, as well as Neerim from Monash
– Hotham gets abolished and split between Chisholm, Higgins, Goldstein, Isaacs and Bruce
– Isaac is still a bits-and-pieces division but I think this is unavoidable
– Bruce consolidates nicely around Dandenong like @Trent’s arrangement
– Menzies takes in Box Hill
– Kooyong takes in the rest of Boorondara
– Higgins takes in Caulfield and the northern part of Glen Eira, plus Hughesdale and Oakleigh
@Angas, i like this proposal, how do you treat Corio, Corangamite and Wannon?
Trent. I really like your proposal dated 14 November. Cleans up a lot of bad seats. It is cleaner that what I was trying to do which was abolish Mcnamara. Melbourne came south. I ran into problems in Isaacs. Do you have updated maps. Liked Mcnamara ans Higgins and Isaacs. All much better. Mike
Trent I’m curious how you are making La Trobe work. Using Kevin Chen’s SA2 tool, I get all of the Narre Warren, Berwick, Beaconsfield and Pakenham SA2’s as way over quota. Where does Bunyip go? Into Casey? I like a lot of what you are doing but very curious how you are going to get it all to work.
As someone based around Wannon/Corangamite here’s what I’d like to see happen. Acknowledge that Corangamite is fast growing and leave it as underquota as possible.
Corio
– Gain the remainder of Moolap SA2 from Corangamite, aligning with state seat of Geelong
– Gain the remainder of Highton (Ceres) from Corangamite
Ballarat
– Gain the Bacchus Marsh surrounds SA2 from Hawke (Ballan). Ballan fits better with Ballarat than a Melbourne seat
– You can put the small bit of Golden Plains Sth (Inverleigh) in Ballarat if you want, I think it works fine in either seat.
Bendigo
– Gain Woodend from McEwen. Kyneton + Woodend should be in the same seat
Wannon/Malee
– Keep the same
@Captain Moonlight
Good question. I hadn’t actually made any changes to these ones yet because they were kind of independent to the rest of the state.
But I think we need to get Wannon close to +3.5% limit to be viable, so it should probably take in the western half of Golden Plains Shire from Ballarat like it used to have, plus Inverleigh. Ballarat needs to gain Bannockburn in that case. That puts Wannon over the limit, but it’d be nice to put the Surf Coast back into Corangamite.
Corio should at least gain the remainder of Highton from Corangamite, and maybe also Moolap.
Wannon creeping ever closer to Geelong… If the House doesn’t get expanded, Nicholls, Mallee and Wannon are going to have to start doing some weird things at the next redistribution.
@Angas
I was able to work it out by Corio gaining Moolap + Highton as you outlined. Then Winchelsea into Corangamite and Stawell back into Wannon. The Division of Mallee is at the high end of tolerance so doesn’t need any change.
Ballarat gains Ballan, and Bendigo gains Woodend. That’s really all I needed to do in regional Vic.
@Mark Mulcair
Didn’t think about shifting the Mallee-Wannon border, but that might be easier to sell than some of my proposed changes.
I agree on Ballarat gaining Ballan and Bendigo gaining Woodend. I also put Heathcote into Nicholls to give it a bit of a boost.
On the other side of the state, my plan required me to move Foster and Wilsons Promontory into Gippsland, so that Monash could take everything east of Pakenham from La Trobe. Moe-Newborough would have been nice to move, but it is still too big to shift it without splitting it down the middle.
Angas
I would have thought that Gippsland can stay unchanged.
Also the area around Foster has little community of interest with Gippsland but strong links with the remainder of the South Gippsland Shire. If you really feel the need, Mirboo North would be a better move as it has stronger links with the Valley.
There is comments about adding Belgrave into Aston, it would make much more sense to have Vermont, Vermont south and the parts of Forest hill back into the electorate and for the small parts of the Dandenong suburbs into Casey.
I think Vermont, Vermont South, Forest Hill would be better aligned in an electorate division with Glen Waverley like the state electorate rather than in a division with Knox Council.
@Drake, sorry for the delay, was travelling for work for a couple of days and didn’t have access to my spreadsheet!
I have my Narre-Pakenham seat within range mostly because I exclude Narre Warren North from it, that whole SA2 (the parts currently in both Bruce & La Trobe) is transferred to Casey along with Emerald-Cockatoo.
So my hybrid of Bruce & La Trobe that runs from Narre Warren to Pakenham includes:
– All the Narre Warren SA2s EXCEPT Narre Warren North
– All the Berwick SA2s
– Beaconsield-Officer
– All the Pakenham SA2s
– Just 3 SA1s from Koo Wee Rup (those ending in 08,09,13) which cover Officer South
It comes to 127,333 for the 2028 projection.
That said, in this scenario I still have Holt about 1900 electors over quota. Bruce has the capacity to take them, I just need to find the most suitable pocket to transfer.
2dan m ive moved bruce adn holt east into casey lga untiing it in 2 divisions
Sorry, I also had all of the ‘Narre Warren South – West’ SA2 that is currently in Holt remaining in Holt too. So that part isn’t in the new Bruce/La Trobe hybrid seat.
That SA2 is well over 8000 electors so would also have added significantly to that seat being over quota if you had it there.
When I finalise a good boundary between Holt & the Narre-Pakenham seat (let’s call it Bruce for now) that transfers about 2000-3000 electors from Holt to Bruce, I’ll draw up the boundaries and share it. That will very likely be from the ‘Narre Warren South – West’ SA2.
sry i meant trent
Ok, done! Finalised the boundaries for the following three seats:
– The Hotham/Bruce hybrid (Greater Dandenong based seat)
– The Bruce/La Trobe hybrid (Narre to Pakenham seat)
– Holt
I had to leave ‘Narre Warren South – West’ SA2 in Holt because the boundary (Pound Road) makes perfect sense, there’s no suitable way to split that 8000 electors up.
Instead, I moved the section of Hampton Park that’s north of Pound Road into the Hotham/Bruce hybrid, which also has Hallam.
The reason this works is that Pound Road is already the boundary between Holt and the former Bruce seat in Narre Warren South – West, so it actually just continues the same road the boundary through Hampton East too. It moves just over 2000 electors out of Holt and puts all 3 seats within quota:
Holt – 130,991
Hotham/Bruce – 128,886
Bruce/La Trobe – 127,333
Here is a link to a new map of the boundaries:
https://ibb.co/0Y8938F
FYI – Pearcedale/Tooradin is transferred to Flinders and the remainder of Koo Wee Rup SA2 goes to Monash. I haven’t drawn that on the map yet as I only have completed seats done on the map.
Really, this is still going to wind up with the same McEwan/Casey mess I have in every other scenario, but I’m just going to live with that. In my submission I might not even mark a boundary there, and instead just say the proposal leaves approximately 255,000 (or whatever exact figure is left) electors to split between those two seats, I don’t have the local knowledge to define the best boundary.
Happy to take suggestions as to which name should be abolished out of those 3 seats too.
Should I keep Hotham (Dandenong) & Bruce (Narre-Pakenham) and abolish La Trobe? Or keep Bruce (Dandenong) & La Trobe (Narre-Pakenham) with Hotham as the abolished name?
I’m thinking Hotham might be the best name to abolish, because firstly it’s the seat that moves/changes the most in this proposal losing most of its population to a number of seats, and also if I’m not mistaken Bruce actually used to be where it would end up now in this scenario, based on Greater Dandenong.
From your maps it looks like you’ve abolished Hotham
Have you tried giving Pearcedale to Flinders?
I haven’t read everything, but after about 3 different plans, restarts and then a few thousand electors being tweaked, i have finally arrived at my final design:
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/dmcsw/clp1xhau700e101pwfh1j0ou9.html?title=view&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoiZG1jc3ciLCJhIjoiY2poa21kaGs4Mm95YjM2bzFxMmNkYmJnaCJ9.xhKyqTaibNsU01LzeWpjkw&zoomwheel=true&fresh=true#7/-36.57/145.469
No changes to Mallee, Wannon, Corio, Corangamite, Gippsland, Monash, Flinders or Indi.
McEwen is abolished, but the name is reapplied to Casey.
Hawke picks up McEwen in Macedon (except the part that goes to Bendigo).
Calwell picks up Kilmore and Wallan, along with Whittlesea and Mernda and Dorreen (north of Bridge Inn Rd).
Clonbinane and Waterford Gardens goes into Nicholls because I couldn’t make the numbers worth nicely otherwise.
I’ve cleaned up the Lalor-Gellibrand border, giving Truganina back to Lalor and Williams Landing to Gellibrand.
The McEwen abolition pushes Maribyrnong, Wills, Scullin and Cooper up and then Melbourne. Jagajaga crosses Darebin Creek into Reservoir (this is probably the most touchy part of my submission).
I’m trying to straighten Macmarara/Higgins again. Third time lucky.
Hotham moves eastward, picking up Keysborough and Noble Park from Isaacs.
Dandenong South and Bangholme are split along Eastlink, Eumemmering Creek and Abbots Road into Isaacs, Dunkley, Hotham and Bruce. This whole area just doesn’t belong anywhere and trying to include it all in one place makes the whole thing clunky and unworkable.
Menzies pushes into Box Hill and Blackburn, if youre going cross Koonung Creek, might as well do it properly. Deakin is pushed out of Whitehorse and into Yarra Ranges and Knox.
Aston expands out to gain Belgrave, Mount Dandenong and Silvan. This is possibly the other controversial part, but I think it works.
That’s a pretty good proposal Darren! I do like the idea of abolishing McEwan because it’s a real mess, and what you’ve done in the area previously covered by Hawke, McEwan, Casey and La Trobe I think works out a lot better than what I’m working on (which focuses more on the inner city outwards) and it ends up being the mess left at the end.
For what it’s worth I think your Macnamara / Higgins boundary is perfect. The small part of St Kilda East that gets transferred to Higgins works ok I think because it’s the part that’s in Glen Eira council and is a little different in character than the remainder of St Kilda East & Balaclava (it’s the least ‘inner city’ pocket).
Interesting that you’ve kept Caulfield South in Goldstein and extended Higgins down into Bentleigh East instead. I think that also works pretty well and saves Goldstein from having to cross the Nepean Highway south of South Road.
That sounds good Darren, although I would move some parts of Corangamite into Corio
@Trent, my original proposal just moved the Macedon Ranges part into Hawke. Melbourne crossed the Yarra, into Southbank and Toorak Rd, so Macnamara stretched as far Kooyong Rd. It actually worked pretty good, but it left McEwen stretching from Kilmore to Reefton and I thought that didn’t work.
So i went back and thought I could make it work with Calwell.
I played around with Goldstein, Higgins, Macnamara Hotham and Isaacs a fair bit. In my original idea i had Goldstein cross as far as Chesterville Rd and Higgins as far as Huntingdale Rd and abolished Hotham. It left a nice Chisholm from Heatherton Rd to High Street Rd.
But i think the Moorabbin part didn’t really fit in Goldstein and I had to keep Keysborough in Isaacs which has been a bugbear for a long time. I also had Menzies push down to Eley Rd which isn’t really a main road and Casey took Warrandyte. So it didn’t really work for me.
@Capt Moonlight, thanks. I decided not to even look at Corio or Corangamite, they’re both in quota and reasonably bound. I’m sure there’s some boundaries that could be moved between them, but i decided to concentrate on the metro areas instead. Even then it still took me four weeks to find something I am reasonably happy with.
@ Trent, i would support your proposal i especially Abolishing Hotham, which is something i have advocated for sometime. Just one suggestion, when you do submit your final proposal to AEC please just name the Greater Dandenong based seat as Bruce and the Narre Warren-Pakenham seat as La Trobe. Hotham is named after a colonial governor and it only dates back to 1969 anyway so i dont think you will face any pushback and it will be easier to explain three outer SE Melbourne seats and explain the narrative. Bruce based on the SE Manufacturing Belt and La Trobe based on the growth corridor along Pakenham train line. Holt is based on the Cranbourne/Clyde growth corridor along that railway line.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-federal-seat-of-monash-should-be-in-monash-not-gippsland-20180425-p4zbj8.html – here it was suggested that Hotham be renamed Monash,.
@ Darren
I would like to echo Trent and suggest it is a good proposal as well. I also agree that the Glen Eira portion of St Kilda East is 56% Jewish while the Port Philip portion is only 12% Jewish and has a irreligious majority of 51% so the Glen Eira portion should go with Caulfield North especially in the current climate to ensure that community is represented adequately.
One suggestion, from me i dont feel that any part of Reservoir should be in Jagajaga. Cooper despite having a working class north and a trendy south is quite a cohesive electorate bound together by High Street and the Mernda line. This creates a sense of community and forms a spine through the LGA. There is a case for moving parts of Darebin LGA such as Bundoora-Macelod which are somewhat detached middle class suburbia and more of a NE suburb and is based on the Plenty Road corridor. Maybe LGA boundaries can be breached to fix this the new Jagajaga can extend into Nilumbik Shire parts of Doreen in Whittlsea council can go with Niumbik Shire etc
@Darren McSweeney
I really like your proposal.
@Nimalan, to be honest im not really happy with Reservoir in Jagajaga, but i couldn’t figure out another way without disrupting everything else. It just didn’t fit the numbers with Collingwood and Abbotsford in Cooper.
I guess i could try rotating it through to Scullin, moving Jagajaga up towards Doreen. I’ll give it a try before submitting the final report.
Comments are closed.