VIC and WA federal redistribution drafts released – live

@patreon nope. In my original suggestion my tangey looked like that but after I simply added bicton along the stock road to Fremantle which sured up tangey then removed everything east of the kwninana freeway to burt to fix Freon. My new brand is the exact same as the tribunals though

Could Bullwinkel be the name of the VIC seat where the (now former) hospital where Vivian Bullwinkel spent much of her career working is based (or near)? I believe it’s the current division of Cooper, very near the border with Kooyong.

Cooper is “named in honour of William Cooper, 1861–1941. Cooper was a Yorta Yorta man who as a spokesman for Aboriginal people called for direct representation in parliament, enfranchisement, land rights and federal control of Aboriginal affairs.”

Kooyong is “named after the geographic location covered at one time by the electoral division. ‘Kooyong’ is believed to be an Aboriginal word for camp or resting place or possibly derived from the word ‘guyun’ meaning fighting spear.”

Though a word of Aboriginal background, Kooyong’s name reasoning is no longer connected to its’ electoral division, similar to how the Werriwa name is no longer connected to its’ associated place name.

Bullwinkel could be the proposed new Cooper. Cooper then becomes the proposed new Kooyong. Another name is chosen for the (now former) proposed Bullwinkel – the Committee Report had many other suggestions.

Or Kooyong can take the name Bullwinkel. That also works.

I will not be putting in a submission but someone is welcome to use this idea/s should they wish to offer it.

I believe Vivian Bullwinkel mainly lived in and also died in WA, not Victoria.

@g first while she may haveworkwd thwre shes a west Australian. Secondly the name has already been set in as a wa division and i doubt they will alter it unless it’s uncovered shes was a black widow or something and thridly the new kooyong takes in kooyong again.

@n p while it’s a wa division on paper it has no incumbent memeber a low notional margin and with a correction anticipated in wa I’d say this is a liberal likely gain. Notionally. Also it would be good to compare the results of 2019 afainst the proposed wa maps to see what the range is between 2019 and 2022 so we can see where the seats might fall in 2025.
@raue or anyone else who can do this?

Ah. Fair enough, thank Votante. I was just reading some bios on her, but primarily her connection to Melbourne’s Fairfield Hospital – their work regarding infectous diseases was quite remarkable.

Feel free to ignore the above suggestion as you wish.

I’ve put it on my list to match the 2019 results to these boundaries. Eventually I would convert all of my 2004-2022 results to the new boundaries. But probably will need to wait until enxt week.

Thanks too John. I got a bit sidetracked with reading about the Hospital aspect of her life and work. I had thought there was a WA connection (given it was proposed) but didn’t see it before I got sidetracked into multiple hospital related articles and thought that was where you could put the name to use!

I think Monique Ryan will be cringing about his and she’s even more vulnerable now. Plus she has to appeal to new constituents though having prahan might help.

I think the reason the distribution is so out of whack is because they were relying on there own recognises as there was no suggestions based on the numbers used but how did thwy do such a good job ib wa bur mess up Vic? Definately gonna put in some objections. Though I think Higgins is gone thas for certain. Do they have a history of revesif abolished places?

I’m not sure I understand why this is meant to be bad for Ryan?

Agree, on the surface it looks like putting blue ribbon turf in Kooyong helps the Libs, but if the Labor 2PP in the “new” Kooyong is actually 2% better than the Labor 2PP in old Kooyong, it stands to reason that the IND 2CP will be too, so it would boost Ryan’s margin.

There could be an opposite effect of what was described for Macnamara in play, where perhaps the Lib special vote is being underestimated as a result of the more left wing parts of Higgins not being transferred, but at most that might just neutralise Ryan’s boost, it wouldn’t be enough to swing it the other way.

A few unpleasant-looking boundaries here and there including the shape of Kooyong, Menzies and the Scullin-Calwell border but I think this can be fixed.
I played with numbers a bit, now assuming Higgins is gone as per proposal. I think a Kooyong can be drawn in a better way than that tbh cuase rn the Stonnington prts look like an appendage
In the objections, I intend to propose a Menzies with all of Manningham, as well as Balwyn, Balwyn North, Deepdene, Mont Albert North and Box Hill North to minimise the Whitehorse component in the as much as possible.
Still finalising other electorates.

@leon agreed there will be many complaints here. I doubt these boundaries will be the final makeup. At least I hope they wont

There is a “Further objection period (if required)” after the “announcement of final electoral divisions” but before the “determination”, so perhaps that remains an option.

https://www.aec.gov.au/redistributions/2023/vic/timetable.html

Monique Ryan is probably the weakest of the teals and the libs have put up a good candidate lowering the margin only helps them. Plus the fact if any objections are made and say prahan is removed from kooyong that could erode the margin further

Why not rename the new Chisholm back to Higgins and basically abolish Chisholm?

I will object because Higgins is a very famous seat and was held by 2 Liberal prime ministers, Holt and Gorton. as well as one of the longest serving treasurers Peter Costello.

AEC attacked the Liberals legacy by abolishing Higgins, and this is coming from someone who isn’t fond of the federal Liberals. I believe the abolition was politically motivated.

“Colleagues, it is imperative that we find a way to attack the legacy of the Liberal Party. Does anyone have any suggestions?”

“Let’s abolish a seat currently held by Labor. That’ll show them.”

“Huzzah! Huzzah!” *clinking of glasses* *much merriment*

The name Higgins a permanent reminder to voters that Labor’s 2022 win was built on incorrrect perceptions of a sexual assault cover up?
Otherwise, why not retire Chisholm?

Regarding Monique Ryan and Kooyong, the proposed addition of Toorak, Armadale and Malvern is interesting as those three suburbs has super expensive real estate and old-money wealth and is staunchly Liberal. This may make the Liberals more competitive in Kooyong next election. You have to remember that these areas voted Liberal last election when the alternative was Labor. The Liberal 2PP would’ve been much lower if a teal had run. This is because a teal would have attracted the “never Labor” type of moderate liberals, teal liberals and protest voters.

@Votante do you think that teal voters mostly preferenced Liberal or Labor?

@Daniel T I agree it’s had three famous members who ranked highly in Cabinet and in the Liberal Party. Hopefully NSW is better than this bullshit for Victoria.

Daniel:
“I will object because Higgins is a very famous seat”
What??? Very famous?? An electoral division? I looked up the AEC naming criteria and thankfully this wasn’t one of them.

“…was held by 2 Liberal prime ministers, Holt and Gorton. as well as one of the longest serving treasurers Peter Costello.”
And?? Again, the specific previous holders of a seat aren’t a AEC naming criteria. This would mean there could be any number of seats you couldn’t rename because certain politicians with certain criteria held them. Holt and Gorton have seats named after them, no? And as past PM’s have an AEC naming criteria.

“AEC attacked the Liberals legacy by abolishing Higgins… I believe the abolition was politically motivated.”
What???? The AEC have zero interest or concern as to any said person who held any said seat in the past. Divisions will come and go that have or haven’t had particular people sitting in them or not. Because a divison name might have had less high-ranking politicians sitting in it, does this make it less deserving of being kept?? A Division isn’t political, it’s just a bounded construct with a name that holds a certain community for a certain time.

Nether Portal:
“I agree it’s had three famous members who ranked highly in Cabinet and in the Liberal Party.”
So there should be a criteria that if a certain number of poltical figures who held a seat under certain criteria, then that division name should not be changed??

Both:
Your case would have been MUCH stronger if you’d actually suggested keeping the name because:
“Named in honour of Henry Bournes Higgins KC, 1851–1929. Higgins was an active member of the Constitutional Conventions that led to the Commonwealth of Australia, Member of the House of Representatives (1901–06), a Justice of the High Court (1906–29) and President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court (1907–21). Higgins is known for the Harvester Decision.”

Then you have to pick another name to remove. https://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/ – take your pick.

We’ll get the NSW redistribution proposal in the next couple of weeks. Some of the suggestions proposed Grayndler go. Should that be categorically ruled out because of the current holder?

We know there are going to be some significant changes in that region with some combination of Grayndler, Barton, Banks, etc etc. likely going to look very different by the end of the process. I also recall reading a comment that the Grayndler name is the least connected to the naming criteria, so could be a reasonably logical option for the name to go. Should that be ruled out?

Last time I checked, the previous prime ministers and cabinet ministers that held a seat do not play a role in the redrawing of electoral boundaries.

Some seriously ludicrous accusations being thrown around here.

@Votante, I think Teal will do well south of Malvern Road as they have higher densities so more younger and white-collar demographics making it similar to Hawthorn and Kew but most communities North of Malvern Road will be more Teal-proof as the demograhics are old-money businesspeople owning expensive mansions even evident from having one Toorak booth narrowly voted No to the Voice (No vote is probably even higher as wealthier people vote early/postal).

One theory I have on Higgins is that the committee made a decision to abolish it as a starting point, rather than working in from the corner seats and finding out which seat was abolished at the end.

Or, since it looks like the committee had at least 2 or 3 meetings before they received updated enrolment data, it’s quite possible that made the decision to abolish early on and then didn’t bother to fully start over once the numbers change.

My stance is that neither of those approaches lead to decent boundaries, but I get that the committee is probably more focused on “just getting the job done.”

There was certainly more of a case to abolish Higgins (and for Melbourne to cross the Yarra) on the original numbers as the deficit was spread consistenly over all of Greater Melbourne, but that case has faded on the updated numbers as the deficit is more clearly centered on Eastern Melbourne

I’m trying to work out a way to quantity the “centre-of-gravity” of the enrolment deficit, because I think it could be a good way to spell out why Higgins was a suboptimal choice to abolish. At a glace, it looks far more like it would be around Mount Waverley than it would be around Malvern. Anyone with a mathematical background know how this might be calculated?

So I would say the Teal vs LNP advantage in the adding this part of abolished Higgins into Kooyong would likely cancel out each other from the Malvern Road boundary

Also, a small factoid for anyone interested (if my numbers are correct):
– The number of split SA2s has increased from 98 to 128
– The number of split SA1s has increased from 116 to 156
– The number of local council-division pairs in Metropolitan Melbourne has increased from 63 to 80

It does seem like the starting point for the AEC was to abolish Higgins because it was the most under quota, and the adjust the rest of the seats from there. I thought the approach was normally to start drawing boundaries on the coast and go from there.

Seems like quite an indictment on the AEC that members of the general public with far fewer resources and time have been able to come up with far more logical proposals.

@Angas I 100% agree with that assessment. I think further evidence to this is that in the list the AEC provided of seats that were investigated for abolition, Deakin was not even there, despite that being the consensus next best option after Chisholm/Hotham. They also still considered seats like Maribyrnong and McEwen for abolition, which although they were suggested by the parties, again, were on the wrong enrolment numbers, meaning they probably made their decision very early on.

We could always blame Antony Green:
“The Commissioners could choose to abolish Higgins as a seat squeezed between the other three, solving the eastern shortfall and leaving an enrolment surplus to distribute eastward.”
https://antonygreen.com.au/victorian-federal-redistribution-using-updated-enrolment-data/

I think the wrong ABS numbers saga was a very unfortunate thing that meant a lot of people’s initial submissions based on the best (given) available information just didn’t quite hold up when those variables later changed. It would have been good if there had been the chance for people to resubmit ideas.

The ALP recorded wins in booths across the area of Higgins added to Kooyong, and even where the Liberals did win booths, they faced big swings. However, many of these booths went Liberal in the last state election.

https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-215.htm

Many of these booths went Liberal in the last state election.

https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/state-election-results/2022-state-election-results/results-by-district/malvern-district-results/malvern-2cp-results-by-voting-centre

Ok, so because I have the time today I just did a really thorough calculation of Macnamara’s notional result including a 3PP just out of curiosity. I totally agree with what Ben said that the 3PP is SO close anyway that any notional result for Macnamara is pretty meaningless because such small swings at the next election could change the whole contest. My results actually back that up completely.

First I’ll talk about my methodology. I was very thorough and applied the exact percentages of every type of vote including even splitting ‘Ordinary’ into polling day & PPVC results, and applying the +/- adjustments for the areas being transferred in & out for all vote types expect polling day places. To distribute the 3PP I even factored in the tiny difference in 3PP preference flows between Macnamara (for the ‘Other’ vote transferred out) and Higgins (for the ‘Other’ vote transferred in).

What I ended up with for Primary Votes was:
ALP – 31.71% (-0.05%)
GRN – 30.14% (+0.49%)
LIB – 28.53% (-0.47%)
Other – 9.62% (+0.04%)

And for the ALP v LIB 2PP:
ALP – 62.73% (+0.48%)
LIB – 37.27% (-0.48%)

Very small differences like Ben said, but in the direction I would have expected by replacing an affluent part of South Yarra with Windsor.

Now the 3PP is where it gets interesting! In 2022 the difference between 1st and 3rd place was only 0.83%. On the notional results, now the difference between 1st and 3rd place is only 0.23%! So Ben is right that really this is meaningless because it’s well within a margin of error here (as thorough as my method was there is still guesswork involved).

But, the order has changed, and not in the way I expected. I thought the notional result would be just enough for the Greens to surpass Labor, but that’s not the case, I got the following:

ALP – 33.45%
GRN – 33.34%
LIB – 33.22%

An unbelievably close result! But, if these calculations are about as accurate as you could get, it would notionally make an ALP v GRN contest.

Again though with all that said, what’s more important is any swings in 2025 and Labor really only need the slightest swing away from them, which I think most people expect, for this to be a Greens v Liberal contest. Which regardless of these notional results, I expect to be the case.

G, many people here seemed to ignore Antony Green’s comment about Higgins being likely to be abolished when the redistribution was first announced, and I just assumed he had inside information.

Worth pointing out that I estimated the Labor 2PP in the part of Higgins moved into Kooyoung as 47.8%. Which is a Liberal majority but not by much. It’s also 2 points better than the 45.8% Labor polled on the 2PP in the remainder of Kooyong (specifically, the areas in Kooyong in both 2022 and the 2025 draft).

In relation to some suggestions that instead of putting Chapel St corridor in Melbourne, it would have been better to transfer Docklands/Southbank from Macnamara to Melbourne and try to put Chapel St into Macnamara instead, which I totally agree with, I just ran the numbers for that to see if it would work.

What I transferred from Higgins to Macnamara was:
– Prahran (minus the Prahran East part going into Kooyong)
– Windsor
– South Yarra North
– South Yarra South

What I transferred from Macnamara to Melbourne was:
– Docklands
– Southbank (West) / South Wharf
– Southbank East
– Port Melbourne Industrial (north of West Gate Fwy, City of Melbourne)

South Yarra West remained in Macnamara.

I got the following:
Melbourne – 105074 (2023), 119030 (2028)
Macnamara – 122907 (2023), 131277 (2028)

So it works for Macnamara which remains within range for both (just); but Melbourne falls 3755 electors short which they would need to gain from somewhere else. This could be solved by moving South Yarra West into Melbourne, as that part is better connected to the CBD by St Kilda Road and unites the City of Melbourne in Melbourne that way. But it does leave a weird little gap between Albert Park and the remainder of South Yarra in Macnamara.

Looking at the AEC’s decision to shift South Yarra into Melbourne could have been influenced by the soon to open Metro Rail tunnel, and South Yarra and Richmond were previously in the same federal electorate when they were part of Melbourne Ports.

Pencil, where did I ever write that Higgins was ‘likely’ to be abolished? I said nothing of the sort.

This is what I wrote –
The Commissioners could choose to abolish Higgins as a seat squeezed between the other three, solving the eastern shortfall and leaving an enrolment surplus to distribute eastward. Or perhaps it will be Macnamara abolished with Higgins and Goldstein sliding into the void left. Or Higgins could be retained by slipping east, which has significant implications for the political complexion of Macnamara. Keeping Higgins makes it more likely one of the following could be for the chop – Chisholm, Menzies, Deakin, Casey, Hotham, Isaacs , Aston or Bruce.

Multiple options there, not one, Higgins abolished, Macnamara abolished and Higgins moving west, or both seats being retained and Higgins moving east. There had to be significant boundary changes in that part of Melbourne. I am surprised that the option chosen was to draw Melbourne across the Yarra.

Antony, I differently didn’t mean to suggest that you said Higgins would be abolished, but as you have explained, you were throwing around ideas of what the AEC might do to make the enrollment numbers work.

Interestingly though the Metro Tunnel will bypass South Yarra Station, so the current state of those lines connects South Yarra to Richmond better than the Metro Tunnel will anyway. That will actually just make two of those key lines (Pakenham & Cranbourne) actually bypass both of those stations and effectively run direct from Caulfield to Anzac Station to Town Hall.

Looking again at the idea of moving Docklands/Southbank/Port Melb Industrial into Melbourne and South Yarra & Prahran into Macnamara, for that ‘South Yarra – West’ SA2 you could draw the boundary at Toorak Road (north into Melbourne, south into Macnamara) which makes a more cohesive shape, because north of Toorak Road is more next to Southbank than Albert Park.

That still leaves Melbourne with a 1171 shortfall on the 2028 numbers but that’s probably easier to overcome elsewhere than over 3000 would have been. They could easily take something back from Wills or Cooper to make that up.

I think that’d be a better proposal than what the committee came up with and might base an objection around that idea as a starting point.

Higgins is the most under-quota electorate I believe and all its neighbours, except for Hotham, are well below quota, especially Kooyong and Chisholm. In hindsight, it’s not a surprise that Higgins is on the chipping block. Regarding the axing of a seat held by two ex-PMs and a long-serving treasurer, the AEC doesn’t take into consideration former members when deciding which one to axe.

@Marh, “I think Teal will do well south of Malvern Road as they have higher densities so more younger and white-collar demographics making it similar to Hawthorn and Kew”.
I agree that south of Malvern Road is not really old-school Liberal and are much younger and more educated. The Liberal vote held up last election because voters were forced to choose between Labor and Liberal. There’s a cohort who are small-l liberal or moderate liberal and would’ve voted teal if there was an option.

The proposed Kooyong will have a part of Prahran – a high-density suburb with lots of hipsters, renters and share-housers and young, educated professionals. Prahran also has a high Greens voter base who would be happy to preference a teal MP ahead of the Liberals.

Antony and Pencil,
My apologies if I inferred that Antony was in any way involved (or not) that Higgins should be abolished. I was perhaps being a bit little cheeky by not providing the full context and saying there was blame. Of course, it was absolutely one concept among a suggestion of many and no single person is responsibile for such an outcome.

Sorry, Antony.

All this carry-on about the abolition of a former PM’s seat, when the abolition of the current PM’s seat is a live and realistic option in the upcoming NSW redistribution. Methinks some on these hallowed boards will be singing a different tune if that were to come to fruition.

@Trent, “In relation to some suggestions that instead of putting Chapel St corridor in Melbourne, it would have been better to transfer Docklands/Southbank from Macnamara to Melbourne and try to put Chapel St into Macnamara instead, which I totally agree with, I just ran the numbers for that to see if it would work.”

I agree. Putting Southbank and South Wharf, instead of South Yarra, into Melbourne makes sense. The proposed Melbourne is disjointed. South Yarra is cut off from Melbourne’s CBD with King’s Domain, Royal Botanic Gardens, AAMI Park and the MCG between. Southbank is much closer to the CBD and there are several river crossings. If the AEC really wants an electorate crossing the Yarra, Southbank is perhaps the best place to include.

I just played around with the numbers to see how I could make sure I got Melbourne back within quota, and was able to draw the following:
https://ibb.co/xYry4d0

This winds up with 2028 projected enrolments of:
Macnamara – 125844
Melbourne – 124463

And I think it looks much better than what the committee proposed. It’s a clean boundary and uses big major arterials like Williamstown Rd, City Road, Kings Way and Toorak Rd (between Kingsway and Punt) as its boundaries.

I should mention too, Macnamara now has capacity to take the remainder of Prahran off Kooyong as well, where it no doubt fits better. So you could redraw that to include the rest of the Prahran and follow the SA2 line, and that would let Kooyong replace Prahran with something a little more suitable like part of Glen Iris instead.

Votante, the domain part of South Yarra is in Melbourne, with the AEC using St Kilda Rd as the boundary. The AEC could be looking ahead to future redistributions, where they add the whole of the City of Melbourne, south of the Yarra into Melbourne.

Knowing the area, the proposed boundary for Melbourne can work but the AEC could have added all of the city of Melbourne, south of the Yarra and South Yarra to Melbourne, and then added Prahran in Macnamara, which could then be offset by shifting part of Elwood or Caulfield into Goldstein.

Using the trainline for the boundary between Macnamara and Kooyong would enable the AEC to shift Kooyong’s eastern boundary back to the city of Boroondara LGA boundary.

Yeah even just transferring Prahran from Kooyong to Macnamara allows Kooyong to take back either the “Glen Iris – East” or Camberwell electors the AEC are sending to Chisholm.

Macnamara can absorb that just on the boundary I drew 3 posts above even without having to offset it elsewhere.

All 3 seats, actually 4 if you include Chisholm, are probably better off and the shapes are a bit less weird too.