6:12pm – I have one last update and then my margins will be finalised.
There are four seats in Victoria where independents made it to the two-candidate-preferred count (2CP), but have added new areas where there was no independent in the 2CP: Goldstein, Kooyong, Nicholls and Wannon.
This issue isn’t relevant in Curtin, since that seat only lost territory. It’s also not an issue in Labor vs Coalition seats with non-classic areas added, since the AEC has calculated a 2PP figure in every part of the country. It’s also not such a big issue in the seat of Melbourne. Since the Greens had a primary vote in the new areas added to Melbourne, you can calculate a margin based on preference flows.
But in the case of Goldstein, Kooyong, Nicholls and Wannon, none of that works. You could theoretically not count any votes in the newly-added areas, or give the independent candidates zero votes in those areas. Neither of those seem fair.
Accounting for these new areas is important in all four seats, but particularly in Kooyong. Almost one quarter of all electors in Kooyong are new to the electorate, all from Higgins. The figure in the other seats ranges from 3.7% in Wannon to 9.1% in Goldstein. This reflects the relatively minor changes in rural Victoria and the major changes in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.
My first approach earlier this afternoon was to credit all Labor 2PP votes to the independent, and all Coalition votes to the Coalition candidate. But I think that underestimates their support.
In the areas which were not new additions to these seats, we have both a 2CP between the independent and a Liberal or Nationals opponent, plus a 2PP which is Labor vs Coalition. We also have 2PP counts for all the new areas. In all four cases, the newly-added areas are less favourable to Coalition on the 2PP than the areas already contained in these seats. Indeed every seat that gave some territory to a seat where an independent made the final count is held by Labor: Hotham, Isaacs, Higgins, Bendigo and Corangamite.
We know that generally independents did better against the Coalition than Labor did in these seats.
So this table shows my revised approach. I have compared the 2CP and 2PP in the non-moving areas, to calculate how much the independent over-performed Labor. I then add that extra vote to the Labor 2PP in the newly-added areas.
This approach significantly improves the independent position in all four seats. What do you think?
I also want to briefly touch on the peculiar seat of Macnamara. My approach to redistribution (which I believe is similar to Antony and William) is to break up the vote by each SA1, and then reassign the SA1s to the new seats and merge them. Unfortunately this means that, when there is a vote category that has been amalgamated into a single seat-wide total (such as postal votes) effectively I assign the same share of postal votes to every SA1. This is less true for pre-poll votes (where there are multiple pre-poll centres with different geographic patterns) and much less true for election day votes.
I have an alternative approach for state and local redistributions, where we don’t have SA1 results data. For those, I distribute the election day votes then skew the special votes to match the skew of the election day vote. So if Labor does better in one part of the seat on election day, I give it a better share of the special vote in that part of the seat.
I tried to apply that approach to my federal method but it didn’t work, so I’ve left it as is.
Most of the time this doesn’t cause problems. Usually we’re most interested in seats where the changes were significant, not the seats where changes were slight. These estimates are not precise, so when changes are small they should be taken with a grain of salt. 0.1% one way or the other isn’t really meaningful.
Now in Macnamara and Higgins there is a peculiarly large gap between voting patterns in different parts of the seats, and we’ve often seen very left-wing areas around Windsor moved around while they are part of larger seats that have voted Liberal (or at least not been so left-voting). This can produce peculiar outcomes where a small movement of a very left-wing part of a more conservative seat produces a counterintuitive change in the margin.
I recommend that people don’t obsess over very slight changes in the margin or primary vote estimates in Macnamara. The seat was close to a three-way tie in 2022 and any redistribution changes will be much less significant than how voters change in 2025.
4:10pm – I’ve now finished replacing the data after fixing the SA1 issue. The margin in Melbourne has dropped a bit further to 6.9% (I’d previously estimated 7.9%). The Labor margin in Wills is slightly better than I’d previously estimated, now at 4.6%.
3:51pm – Looking at the Victorian 2PP and primary votes, the main changes were Bruce, where the Labor margin is now 5.3%, which is much closer to the pre-redistribution margin and closer to Antony’s margin.
3:06pm – Okay I’ve solved the SA1 problem and will start uploading the corrected figures. Starting with 2PP and primary for WA, the Labor margin for Cowan has dropped to 9.9%, whereas my first estimate had it up to 11.0% (from 10.8%). The Labor margin in Bullwinkel is just 3.3% (not 3.7%) and Labor in Pearce is on 8.8% (not 8.4%). The Liberal margin in Canning is now 1.1%, not 0.8%.
2:33pm – It appears the AEC has switched from using 2016 SA1s for the 2022 election results spreadsheet to 2021 SA1s for the redistribution data, so it will be necessary to add some extra code that adjusts for these changes and this may change some margins. I’ll get that done later today and update the tables.
2:07pm – Okay I’m logging off now. I’m sure there’ll be more analysis later. I will be writing a piece for the Guardian tomorrow and I’ll be carefully kicking some tyres to see if there are any errors in the estimates over the coming days.
If you appreciated this very quick analysis of the breaking news, please consider signing up to support The Tally Room on Patreon!
2:05pm – So the creation of Bullwinkel in the outer east of Perth has then pushed all of the neighbouring seats out of the way.
Hasluck has become a much smaller seat and now sits entirely on the northern side of Perth.
Moore has shifted south, with Pearce adding a small area from Moore. Cowan and Perth have lost their eastern edges to Hasluck.
Swan has also shifted west, while Canning has lost its north-eastern corner to Bullwinkel and compensated by picking up Karnup from Brand. This explains the big drop in the Liberal margin there.
Tangney, Fremantle and Curtin have experienced very minor changes.
1:59pm – And here is the interactive map for WA.
1:55pm – Okay now here we have the 2CP margins for WA. Curtin thankfully didn’t add any extra territory so no complicated calculations needed there. Bullwinkel is a notional Labor seat with a 3.7% margin. Labor has also significantly improved their position in Hasluck, and the Liberal position is weaker in Canning. Labor’s margin has also been dented in Burt.
This means that Labor has gained a seat and the Liberal Party has lost a seat so far in this redistribution, with NSW yet to come.
| Seat | Old margin | New margin |
| Brand | ALP 16.7% | ALP 17.1% |
| Bullwinkel (new) | ALP 3.3% | |
| Burt | ALP 15.2% | ALP 13.3% |
| Canning | LIB 3.6% | LIB 1.1% |
| Cowan | ALP 10.8% | ALP 9.9% |
| Curtin | IND vs LIB 1.3% | IND vs LIB 1.3% |
| Durack | LIB 4.3% | LIB 4.7% |
| Forrest | LIB 4.3% | LIB 4.2% |
| Fremantle | ALP 16.9% | ALP 16.7% |
| Hasluck | ALP 6% | ALP 10.1% |
| Moore | LIB 0.7% | LIB 0.9% |
| O’Connor | LIB 7% | LIB 6.7% |
| Pearce | ALP 9% | ALP 8.8% |
| Perth | ALP 14.8% | ALP 14.4% |
| Swan | ALP 8.8% | ALP 9.4% |
| Tangney | ALP 2.4% | ALP 3% |
1:49pm – And here we go with WA. This table shows the 2PP and primary vote estimates for each seat.
| Seat | ALP 2PP | LIB 2PP | ALP prim | LNP prim | GRN prim | IND prim |
| Brand | 67.1 | 32.9 | 50.7 | 21.8 | 11.3 | 0.0 |
| Bullwinkel | 53.3 | 46.7 | 36.4 | 35.74 | 11.3 | 1.8 |
| Burt | 63.3 | 36.7 | 49.8 | 24.78 | 9.5 | 0.2 |
| Canning | 48.9 | 51.1 | 35.1 | 41.44 | 8.4 | 1.6 |
| Cowan | 59.9 | 40.1 | 45.8 | 30.97 | 10.0 | 0.0 |
| Curtin | 44.4 | 55.6 | 13.8 | 41.36 | 10.4 | 29.7 |
| Durack | 45.3 | 54.7 | 28.8 | 44.84 | 9.5 | 0.0 |
| Forrest | 45.8 | 54.2 | 27.7 | 43.13 | 13.3 | 0.1 |
| Fremantle | 66.7 | 33.3 | 44.0 | 24.38 | 17.9 | 0.0 |
| Hasluck | 60.1 | 39.9 | 43.7 | 30.12 | 11.4 | 2.1 |
| Moore | 49.1 | 50.9 | 31.9 | 41.81 | 14.1 | 1.3 |
| O’Connor | 43.3 | 56.7 | 26.7 | 44.5 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Pearce | 58.8 | 41.2 | 42.4 | 30.12 | 11.2 | 0.0 |
| Perth | 64.4 | 35.6 | 39.1 | 27.21 | 22.0 | 0.0 |
| Swan | 59.4 | 40.6 | 40.0 | 31.64 | 15.1 | 0.0 |
| Tangney | 53.0 | 47.0 | 38.2 | 39.41 | 12.4 | 0.0 |
1:36pm – So just a quick description of what the map shows before moving on to WA.
The seat of Melbourne has jumped the river into South Yarra, which has then pulled Wills and Cooper south, making Wills much stronger for the Greens. This doesn’t appear to have done much to the Greens’ position in Macnamara, although we’ll need to wait for a 3CP estimate to know for sure.
The abolition of Higgins has had dramatic impacts in the eastern suburbs, with Kooyong and Chisholm absorbing most of the seat.
Menzies has lost areas further east and expanded into Box Hill, which explains the seat becoming notional Labor.
Deakin has retracted to areas further east, further reducing the Liberal margin from a slim 0.2% to 0.02%.
Aston was barely touched, as was Goldstein, but Hotham, Isaacs and Dunkley have all been pulled north. Casey also expanded west to take in areas from McEwen and Menzies.
In the western suburbs, Lalor has contracted sharply, and Hawke has taken in the area around Melbourne Airport. But generally changes in the west were mild.
Outside of Melbourne, Corangamite has again shrunk in size, now almost entirely fitting within the Bellarine Peninsula.
Indi, Gippsland, Mallee and Monash appear to be unchanged, or close to it. McEwen has moved closer to Melbourne, but it has made no difference to the margin.
1:26pm – Okay I have now had a chance to revise my Melbourne 2CP estimate which was very quick. I now have the Greens on 7.9% by applying the same preference flows to the new areas as the rest. That is a drop in the Greens margin of 2.3%, but nothing like my first estimate.
1:18pm – Okay here is my interactive map where you can toggle between the old and new boundaries for Victoria. Will take a quick bathroom break then be back.
1:05pm – And here is my first stab at the new margins for Victorian seats compared to the old margins.
| Seat | Old margin | New margin |
| Aston | LIB 2.8% | LIB 2.6% |
| Ballarat | ALP 13% | ALP 13% |
| Bendigo | ALP 12.1% | ALP 12% |
| Bruce | ALP 6.6% | ALP 5.3% |
| Calwell | ALP 12.4% | ALP 12.4% |
| Casey | LIB 1.5% | LIB 1.4% |
| Chisholm | ALP 6.4% | ALP 3.3% |
| Cooper | ALP vs GRN 8.7% | ALP vs GRN 7.8% |
| Corangamite | ALP 7.6% | ALP 7.8% |
| Corio | ALP 12.8% | ALP 12.5% |
| Deakin | LIB 0.2% | LIB 0% |
| Dunkley | ALP 6.3% | ALP 6.8% |
| Flinders | LIB 6.7% | LIB 6.2% |
| Fraser | ALP 16.5% | ALP 16.6% |
| Gellibrand | ALP 11.5% | ALP 11.2% |
| Gippsland | NAT 20.6% | NAT 20.6% |
| Goldstein | IND vs LIB 2.9% | IND vs LIB 3.9% |
| Gorton | ALP 10% | ALP 10% |
| Hawke | ALP 7.6% | ALP 7.6% |
| Higgins (abolished) | ALP 2.1% | |
| Holt | ALP 7.1% | ALP 7.1% |
| Hotham | ALP 14.3% | ALP 11.6% |
| Indi | IND vs LIB 8.9% | IND vs LIB 8.9% |
| Isaacs | ALP 6.9% | ALP 9.5% |
| Jagajaga | ALP 12.3% | ALP 12.2% |
| Kooyong | IND vs LIB 2.9% | IND vs LIB 3.5% |
| La Trobe | LIB 8.7% | LIB 8.4% |
| Lalor | ALP 12.8% | ALP 12.8% |
| Macnamara | ALP 12.2% | ALP 12.2% |
| Mallee | NAT 19% | NAT 19% |
| Maribyrnong | ALP 12.4% | ALP 13% |
| McEwen | ALP 3.3% | ALP 3.4% |
| Melbourne | GRN vs ALP 10.2% | GRN vs ALP 6.9% |
| Menzies | LIB 0.7% | ALP 0.4% |
| Monash | LIB 2.9% | LIB 2.9% |
| Nicholls | NAT vs IND 3.8% | NAT vs IND 2.5% |
| Scullin | ALP 15.6% | ALP 15.3% |
| Wannon | LIB vs IND 3.9% | LIB vs IND 3.4% |
| Wills | ALP vs GRN 8.6% | ALP vs GRN 4.6% |
The Greens margin in Melbourne has been weakened quite significantly, while the Greens are much closer in Wills. Labor is also slightly weaker in Cooper.
Labor is much weaker in Bruce, Chisholm and Hotham, but stronger in Isaacs.
The seat of Menzies has flipped from 0.7% for the Liberal Party to 0.3% for Labor.
With Labor losing Higgins but picking up Menzies, that’s a net loss of one seat for the Liberal Party.
12:47pm – Okay I have calculated the 2PP and primary vote for the main parties for each seat, below.
| Seat | ALP 2PP | LNP 2PP | ALP prim | LNP prim | GRN prim | IND prim |
| Aston | 47.4 | 52.6 | 32.5 | 42.8 | 12.2 | 0.1 |
| Ballarat | 63.0 | 37.0 | 44.8 | 27.1 | 14.5 | 2.1 |
| Bendigo | 62.0 | 38.1 | 42.8 | 26.7 | 14.0 | 4.4 |
| Bruce | 55.3 | 44.7 | 40.3 | 31.7 | 9.7 | 0.2 |
| Calwell | 62.4 | 37.6 | 44.9 | 23.7 | 9.8 | 0.0 |
| Casey | 48.6 | 51.4 | 25.1 | 36.6 | 13.1 | 11.4 |
| Chisholm | 53.3 | 46.7 | 35.0 | 39.2 | 13.8 | 4.0 |
| Cooper | 75.7 | 24.3 | 40.7 | 16.2 | 28.4 | 0.0 |
| Corangamite | 57.8 | 42.2 | 38.4 | 34.0 | 15.3 | 0.0 |
| Corio | 62.5 | 37.5 | 41.9 | 25.0 | 14.7 | 0.1 |
| Deakin | 50.0 | 50.0 | 32.9 | 41.5 | 14.2 | 1.1 |
| Dunkley | 56.8 | 43.2 | 40.5 | 31.7 | 10.6 | 3.4 |
| Flinders | 43.8 | 56.2 | 22.8 | 43.3 | 9.5 | 11.7 |
| Fraser | 66.6 | 33.4 | 42.1 | 24.5 | 18.9 | 0.0 |
| Gellibrand | 61.2 | 38.8 | 42.8 | 27.2 | 15.6 | 0.3 |
| Gippsland | 29.4 | 70.6 | 19.2 | 54.1 | 8.5 | 0.0 |
| Goldstein | 46.3 | 53.7 | 13.6 | 39.6 | 8.4 | 31.3 |
| Gorton | 60.0 | 40.0 | 41.3 | 27.4 | 9.0 | 2.5 |
| Hawke | 57.6 | 42.4 | 36.7 | 26.4 | 8.9 | 7.9 |
| Holt | 57.1 | 42.9 | 40.8 | 29.5 | 8.6 | 3.0 |
| Hotham | 61.6 | 38.4 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 15.0 | 0.2 |
| Indi | 44.7 | 55.3 | 8.6 | 34.3 | 3.6 | 40.7 |
| Isaacs | 59.5 | 40.5 | 42.8 | 29.5 | 12.1 | 0.0 |
| Jagajaga | 62.2 | 37.8 | 40.8 | 29.2 | 16.7 | 3.0 |
| Kooyong | 46.3 | 53.7 | 11.3 | 43.4 | 9.9 | 31.0 |
| La Trobe | 41.6 | 58.4 | 26.2 | 45.2 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Lalor | 62.8 | 37.2 | 44.1 | 25.0 | 10.4 | 2.8 |
| Macnamara | 62.2 | 37.8 | 31.7 | 29.1 | 29.7 | 1.9 |
| Mallee | 31.0 | 69.0 | 16.8 | 49.1 | 5.3 | 12.2 |
| Maribyrnong | 63.0 | 37.0 | 42.2 | 26.8 | 16.7 | 0.0 |
| McEwen | 53.4 | 46.6 | 36.9 | 33.1 | 14.2 | 0.0 |
| Melbourne | 73.1 | 26.9 | 25.7 | 19.5 | 44.7 | 1.0 |
| Menzies | 50.4 | 49.6 | 31.8 | 41.0 | 12.9 | 4.9 |
| Monash | 47.1 | 52.9 | 25.6 | 37.8 | 9.9 | 10.7 |
| Nicholls | 34.1 | 65.9 | 13.2 | 43.5 | 3.7 | 24.0 |
| Scullin | 65.3 | 34.7 | 46.1 | 21.9 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Wannon | 41.4 | 58.6 | 19.7 | 44.2 | 6.7 | 20.8 |
| Wills | 77.1 | 22.9 | 36.4 | 16.2 | 32.8 | 0.2 |
12:40pm – The AEC has now published the Victorian redistribution. I’m going to focus on getting the new margins up first then analyse the trends.
12:17pm – While the AEC has not published anything, the Gazettes are now up.
In Victoria, the seat of Higgins has been proposed to be abolished. No other seat has changed names, and apparently 34 other divisions have been changed. 8.31% of all electors have been moved to a new seat.
In Western Australia, the new seat is named Bullwinkel, after Lieutenant Colonel Vivian Bullwinkel. The seat seems to be located in the outer eastern suburbs of Perth. 14.57% of electors have been moved to new seats.
12:00pm – The Australian Electoral Commission will be announcing the draft federal electorate boundaries for the states of Western Australia and Victoria this afternoon. They have indicated that the boundaries will be published at some point between 12:30pm and 2:30pm AEST.
My plan is to publish my estimated margins for each electorate, and estimated primary votes for the main party groupings, some descriptions of what changes have happened, and maps showing the old and new boundaries.
In 2021 I was held up by a problem where they didn’t publish the SA1s for Victoria until a couple of hours after they published their report, and then there was a problem with the data. Hopefully that won’t happen again, but I’ll be relying on that data to calculate the new margins.
On the other hand, I have previously drawn my own KML versions of the electorate boundaries. I am not planning to do that this time, so it should be quicker to take the AEC shapefile and make interactive maps this afternoon.
@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.