VIC and WA federal redistribution drafts released – live

Pesutto did. At state level, but still.

In regards to the Outer South East, it’s not awful, but there’s some obvious improvements which I think are quite sellable.

It’s a bit easier to reason about this group now that we can see where divisions like Deakin/Aston and Goldstein/Hotham are likely to sit.

There’s effectively 2 key decisions:
1. Do you want to resolve Flinders’ shortfall with Mount Eliza (which pushes Dunkley over the Patterson River) or with Pearcedale/Tooradin (which pushes Bruce further west)?
2. Do you want to send La Trobe’s surplus to Casey or to Bruce?

For all of Dunkley/Flinders/Holt/La Trobe/Casey, any of those combinations are reasonable from a community of interest perspective so it really comes down to where you want Bruce and Isaacs to be.

Right now, the proposed version of Bruce is probably the worst possible variation they could have come up with:
– Still contains Mulgrave in the City of Monash
– Extends as far as Cardinia Shire
– Also extends into Cranbourne North
– Plus splits Dandenong with Isaacs straight through the middle

The obvious move would be to revert the transfers between Bruce/Isaacs, Dunkley/Flinders and Bruce/Holt, and just offset Flinders’ shortfall with Holt’s surplus. That’s less electors transferred, and a better arrangement for Bruce at the very least.

The next logical step would be to push Isaacs out of Dandenong entirely. Now that we know that Casey is unlikely to shift west into Maroondah, it becomes reasonable for it to take in Emerald/Cockatoo/Gembrook from La Trobe, which would allow us to keep the Bruce-La Trobe boundary largely as-is, and then Bruce could address its shortfall by taking Dandenong from Isaacs.

I think the only reason you wouldn’t take this approach is if putting Mount Eliza into Flinders is a must have for you. Yes, it’d be good to do that, but having Dunkley as a division from Patterson River to Mount Eliza is a good contiguous area centered on Frankston. And Pearcedale/Tooradin would easily fit with Flinders’ rural components.

@g kooyong is currently in Higgins but it’s proposed to bring it back into kooyong

This term of parliament reminds me allot like the 1996-1998 parliament. The former government acts cocky and complacent in opposition and expects to win next time. And fields high profile candidates and former mp’s from their previous time in government. But fail to win. I expect some of the people coming back for the coalition will retire in 2028 or before.

2028 could be like 2001. Albanese could be another John Howard. unpopular. but the opposition keeps messing up and keeps having too much of high expectations. especially earlier on.

John Howard won in 2001 on the back of international and national crises

Which I expect will happen later this decade, the magnitude we will yet to see.

But Frydenburg would hurt the Liberls, Hamer is the perfect for the seat. Monique Ryan should be more worried of a Bridget Archer style Liberal (Hamer) than the man she defeated in 2022 which she could just use the same tactics.

Obviously a Frydenburg win would stop Hastie becoming leader. But the main issue is the Liberal electors of Kooyong wanted Hamer, and tossing her out is bad faith and not democratic, Jeff Kennett even warned that throwing Hamer out would be a bad idea.

Liberals if they are smart would keep Hamer, she has a famous surname, and she would be needed to help the Liberal party heal. She is like Jess Phillips, MP for Kew, moderate, and can beat a Teal.

I have been to Toorak a few times. I can definitely see them backing Monique Ryan against Frydenburg. I see this area as Tealish one, but fiscally conservative, but allot of the “Teal” seats are fiscally conservative but socially and environmentally progressive. I see the redistribution as not changing anything.

I am moving soon, and I would be exceptionally disappointed if I have to choose between Frydenburg or Ryan if I move to Kooyong.

*Jess Wilson, correction

@Daniel T, even putting Amelia Hamer might not be enough win back the seat as:
– Only older voters remembers Rupert Hamer as premier which are demographics that are weakest to Teals anyway
– Peter Dutton is leader and his anti-intectuallism and opposition to Voice won’t resonate on Teal Voters
– As a result, Hamer would still face the issue on “moderates don’t change the party, the party changes the moderates”

I am not sure if anybody else has noticed but the Commissioners have cut the eastern suburbs seats such as Kooyong and Chisholm very close to the top of the allowable range. Hence any seemingly minor change can knock an electorate over the quota. For example – the south west and north corners of Chisholm. The East Malvern area allocated to Hotham should really be in Chisholm and the Camberwell part in Kooyong – we are talking 4,000 or so electors here. All fine for Chisholm but it knocks Kooyong over the top and those comparitively few electors need to find a home. And Chisholm can’t have both either.

Having stared long and hard at these boundaries over the weekend, I have come to the conclusion that Kooyong, Menzies, Chisholm and Deakin need to be lumped together and re cut. My current thoughts – not tested – is that Menzies should take North Balwyn and Balwyn, and Kooyong take those western parts of Chisholm west of Warrigal Road. Probably Chisholm ends up back with Box Hill. As I say, thoughts – not tested.
My overwhelming feeling is that much of the redistribution is like a piece of clothing that has been cut and left with scrappy ends and not trimmed. It is the trimming that it needs.

@Trent. Your observations about Fitzroy and Collingwood being akin to South Yarra and Prahran are spot on. There is also a similar connection between Brunswick and Footscray (The VS strongholds, and similar chain stores Savers, Kmart, and Cheaper by the miles. They also have hipsters who have moved in, yet still have the old school working class (which I am one), both also have one public housing tower).

It sounds like we have similar ideas. Maybe I am out of touch with Armadale, and Malvern as the only time I go near those suburbs is to visit relatives in the Caulfield area. One of my relatives (long deceased) rented an old school orange brick apartment in Malvern near Dandenong Road. The area she lived in wasn’t as bougie as the rest of the suburb. She lived there because it was the first place she got offered and it was within walking distance to her daughter and son in law (my aunt and uncle) in Caulfield North. Thankfully none of my relatives like Frydenberg.

Yes, Balwyn, Surrey Hills, Canterbury, and Camberwell are very conservative, and they are definitely different to Hawthorn.

VS are the only party who put any effort into my area.

@redistributed
I think that’s a good assessment of things.

Based on @Leon’s comments, I had a look at this kind of scenario last night and it basically works. Menzies can shed all of Whitehorse for all of Balwyn and Kew. My numbers would have Chisholm at +6.88% after shedding everything west of Warrigal Road, but I think that could be easily resolved with a small transfer to Kooyong (Mont Albert North) or Hotham (Wheelers Hill).

The proposed Aston I think is locked in. Deakin is broadly in a good arrangement but perhaps Casey could push it west to the boundary of Blackburn at Middleborough Road.

I know @Ben Raue has got a good interactive map with all the divisions above, but I’ve put together a PNG file of the divisions and SA1s so that I can draw my own amendments on top. Thought I’d share it here in case it saves anyone some time:
https://ibb.co/gvGrWdZ

My preference is for Menzies to become an electorate with Doncaster and Box Hill as its major centres (as the committee has done, but not in a particularly elegant way). But I can see reason for instead having Menzies move into Balwyn. I imagine the resulting boundaries would have it look more like Kooyong and Higgins have been merged.

Using the same methodology as before, I did a hypothetical notional Macnamara result if the boundaries were adjusted to what a few here have suggested with Southbank, Docklands and the north of St Kilda Rd (above Toorak Rd) being transferred to Melbourne, while South Yarra, Prahran & Windsor transfer into Macnamara.

That scenario gave me the following:
ALP – 30.90% (-0.86%)
GRN – 29.42% (-0.01%)
LIB – 30.04% (+1.04%)

ALP/LIB 2PP:
ALP – 61.55% (-0.7%)
LIB – 38.45% (+0.7%)

That makes sense because a couple of the booths in South Yarra and the ‘Prahran North East’ (formerly ‘Orrong’) booth are better for the Liberals than anywhere transferring out from the Southbank area. Add to that a much larger transfer of electors, meaning more ‘special votes’ coming from Higgins, and the adjustment for the area transferring vs Higgins as a whole was only -9.5% for the Liberals compared to just the Windsor area being a -20% adjustment.

The 3PP in this scenario was:
LIB – 34.63%
GRN – 32.73%
ALP – 32.64%

So that transfer would result in a GRN v LIB contest, and a notional GRN gain, one that is similar to the state seat of Prahran in both 2014 & 2018 where they won the seat from 3rd on primary votes.

There is no chance of labor NSW proposal getting up. Based on the aecs redistribution in Vic labor will lose a senior minister to redistribution in NSW and possibly 2 seats and or a real ally on the north shore. But they will probably gain another in bradfield. The redistribution I likely to have dire consequences on bennelong and Parramatta too. Though they will get help in Fowler but the libs will get a new seat in the SW and possibly nw as well. It is going to really interesting to see who they abolish in central Sydney but I think Linda Burney will the one to ultimately make way. Givwn my previous assessment I think grayndper could actually be in the firing line as we learned from Vic the aec seems to be acting impartially and without fear or favour of eithwe aide

@Trent. It sounds like we have similar views.

I agree with you about the link between Collingwood, and Fitzroy with South Yarra, and Prahran. I have the same observation about Footscray and Brunswick (we both have a Savers, Kmart, and Cheaper by the miles. We are also both the VS strongholds. In reality VS organize out of both Footscray (borderlands co-op), and Brunswick (SAlt center). We both have hipsters yet we also still have traditional working class people (of which I am one). We both have one public housing tower).

I must admit I am out of touch with the suburbs on the other side of the CBD. The only time I go anywhere near Malvern, and Armadale is when I visit relatives in the Caulfield area. I had a great aunt, who after her husband passed away, moved from St Kilda to an old school orange brick apartment in Malvern (near Dandenong Road). She moved there because it the first rental she got offered, and it was up the street from her daughter and son in law (my aunt and uncle) in Caulfield North. I must admit the part of Malvern she lived in was less bougie than the rest of the environ. After all she was a working class (garment machinist) from Central Europe. It was a far cry from the Elizabeth Street hill where old Pig Iron Bob resided. It’s a fact that Pig Iron Bob always lamented that the view from his mansion was tarnished by the gasometers, and brickworks in the neighboring City of Hawthorn.

Come to think of it, you are right about the dry zone suburbs (Canterbury, Camberwell, Surrey Hills, Mont Albert, Balwyn, Balwyn North, and Glen Iris) north of Gardiners Creek. They are very conservative and quite different from Hawthorn. I have read several articles about the attitude of old school Camberwell residents towards Hawthorn. They see Hawthorn as a flashy suburb with inappropriate development and pubs. They see themselves as far more refined than the loud people of Hawthorn. People of Hawthorn can view Camberwell residents as killjoy wowsers. Kew was the birthplace of the far right Q Society (Q=Kew) and their electoral party, the Australian Liberty Alliance, which became Yellow Vests Australia.

The sad fact is that our parliament is full of old white Anglo-Celtic, cis gender, straight men, and the people of Higgins elect an ALP politician who is a woman with an Indian background, and now the AEC want to unseat her. There are plenty of old white conservative male politicians who could have their seats abolished. Why not start with Potato Head’s seat of Dixon in so called Queensland.

VS get a high vote in my area, because they make an effort to cross the Rubicon and talk to residents. The bougie Hippies just turn up with their green triangles on Election Day, while the Alternative Liberal Party have the attitude “it’s in the bag”. At my polling station VS beat the illiberal party, and the bougie hippies. Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not a SAlt member, but I do vote for VS.

@ Joseph Agree with all of your proposals and I’ll be proposing similar things. Only thing I disagree about is that those localities should remain in Corangamite instead of Wannon. There’s been lots of new development in Bellbrae that has been making it much more part of Torquay lately. Using the Torquay SA2 + Freshwater Creek is a good boundary. They are very much the coastal/Geelong based parts of the Surf Coast, further inland you get the more Colac based parts.

@Trent Interesting that boundary would result in a Greens win. At the end of the day it is at max 1% here and than, but that can produce very different outcomes, especially in a seat as close as Macnamara.

@Angas Thanks for that map. Very helpful. AEC says on their website they’ll release statewide maps today, but still not up. Really highlights how weird and arbitrary some of these boundaries are, kind of just feels like they just put random SA1’s into certain seats to get the numbers to work. The McEwen/Casey and Bendigo/Ballarat borders feel particularly bad with them just going through towns.

https://ibb.co/3cp4YVc

Did a quick blitz of Northern Melbourne and Outer Southeastern Melbourne, and now just need to work in the final 8.

McEwen loses Woodend to Bendigo and only gains Kalkallo from Calwell but makes up for this at the eastern end. Jagajaga and Cooper do most of the work of taking Melbourne’s surplus instead of Maribyrnong and Wills.

In the Southeast, the divisions have been rotated slightly to ensure better boundaries for Bruce, Dunkley, Holt and La Trobe.

I hope the colour scheme isn’t too hard to decipher:
– Original boundaries: Blue
– Proposed boundaries: Black
– Updated boundaries: Green

If there’s anything you see that can be improved, let me know!

@Drake
Thanks for your ideas for the North, as they work quite well. The transfer of Kingsbury was useful, however I still might see if there’s a way to keep it in Cooper so that Jagajaga can gain Diamond Creek.
I think that’ll run into problems however.

The libs have a potential huge credibility problem in
Kooyong… Freudenberg said he WAS NOT standing his party went and selected
Ms Hamer now he is interested??????

@No Mondays Jesus Christ how many left wing Reddit/Twitter talking points are you going to regurgitate

@Angas

Wow, that already looks so much better than the committee’s proposal! Great work!

@John
The only part that the Labor submission got right was the Georges River and Sutherland divisions. Although it was still better than the Liberal Party submission which was an absolute mess in my opinion.

The New South Wales redistribution has so many more degrees of freedom compared to Victoria. Given how surprising the Victorian proposal has been who knows what we’ll get this Friday (or next?).

I’ve been finalising my NSW proposal recently and I think I’ve found a way to balance everything with only 1 or 2 clearly compromised divisions. I was originally going to transfer Engadine to Cunningham (just like the Labor arrangement), but I’ve found that keeping the Sutherland-Illawarra boundary fixed is better for Cunningham and the rest of the South Coast. This would make Hume a much more compact Camden-Wollondilly seat.

In terms of the redistribution committee for New South Wales, it’s a different set of people (except for the Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers), so they may well have prioritised different principles to the Victorian group.

@Nicholas
Thank you for the kind words. Feel free to spruik any of these changes if you have time to do a submission!

One other point I was thinking about earlier.

I think the abolition of Higgins took most of us by surprise because we were expecting a crossing between Jagajaga and Menzies. On that basis it feels like an illogical choice.

But if the likely first decision the committee made was where they should cross the Yarra and they chose Melbourne-Macnamara as we have seen, then it becomes quite hard not to abolish Higgins

Due to the fact that Kooyong can effectively only grow southwards, Higgins can only really stay intact if it gains Caulfield. Otherwise it’d have to contort into Bentleigh East or merge with Hotham.

Regardless of whether Melbourne gains territory from Macnamara or from Higgins, it’d mean that Caulfield would have to stay in Macnamara. The only alternative would be to abolish Macnamara instead and create a long coastal division containing Port Phillip and Bayside.

So I think that leads to the conclusion that if you decide to cross the Yarra at Melbourne, then you have either have to abolish Higgins or merge it with one of its neighbours. There’s been a few comments already about rearranging things to do an effective Higgins-Kooyong or Higgins-Hotham merger.

There were certainly a lot of submissions suggesting that Melbourne gain Southbank so that might have encouraged them to make a crossing here, but I’d love to know why they didn’t think crossing between Jagajaga and Menzies was a suitable option.

Interestingly, the committee says they did not consider Macnamara or Menzies as candidates for abolition, although Dunkley was considered for some weird reason. (The others were Aston, Casey, Chisholm, Hotham, Kooyong, Maribyrnong, McEwen, Wills).

@Angas

Looks great. Hadn’t though about putting Wollert into Scullin, that way all of Mernda can fit in the same seat. Scullin already includes a lot of Wollert anyway, and this way you help spread out some of the high growth areas. I might try that, as the high growth of Wollert is throwing a lot of my McEwen proposals off. You can’t really see on the map but I’m assuming you are giving just Kalkallo to McEwen so that it is able to give Woodend to Bendigo (which I very much agree with).

It’s interesting you gave that little bit of Merri-bek to Maribrynong to get it to quota. I’ve been experimenting with a similar way to get Maribrynong to quota. Having it follow the state Greenvale/Sunbury border + Keilor SA2 gets it just below quota. Wondering it it’s better if it gains a little bit more from Gorton, Jacana from Calwell or maybe something from Wills.

I get the logic behind wanting to put Diamond Creek in Jagajaga but I don’t really think there is any way for it to work. McEwen is just so fast growing it needs a few slow growth areas to keep it within quota. You’d have to split up parts of Mickleham to try and get those numbers to work.

Another solution to the Cooper/Jagajaga border could be to use Plenty Rd as the boundary instead of the SA2. This was actually the boundary from 1994-2003. That area is actually pretty separated from the rest of Cooper.

@SCart. Well actually, if you want sanitized bougie prattle go drink your Chardonnay elsewhere. This is a political website, and far left rhetoric is part of politics. Far left rhetoric is common in many countries around the world. It seems in this country if you talk far left you are seen as uncouth, and uncivilized.

I am not one of those polite middle class small l liberal leftists. Nor am I a tote bag carrying hipster. I am old school far left, and a unionized blue collar worker, and stand by my views and make no apologies for them. In fact this country needs more far left talking points.

I admit I am arrogant, angry, unfriendly, and dogmatic, but I stand by my beliefs.

These talking points make you uncomfortable because you don’t want to admit that there is a lot of truth being offered by the left.

@Drake
I appreciate the feedback, thank you. Sounds like we’re in broad agreement on overall strategy, but I’ll be interested in seeing your map once it’s ready.

Wollert is definitely a handy transfer if you need to take some heat out of McEwen. The only downside I see is that the locality boundary is a bit awkward but this could be ameliorated by just cutting in the section below Boundary road. It also helps to fully unite Mernda and Doreen together in McEwen. That said, the main motivation is just around getting McEwen’s numbers up or down as required, so I’d be happy with either this or the committee’s version.

The Citylink proposal I thought had some merit to it, but I am probably leaning back towards the original LGA/suburb boundary. It’d be good if we could hear from someone familiar with the area to know if that pocket of west of the freeway feels more like Essendon or Brunswick/Pascoe Vale.

Good that you mentioned the Greenvale/Sunbury boundary as I hadn’t realised that it was right there. I’ve being using West of Mickleham Road instead which combined with Keilor is just enough to get Maribyrnong into quota. Taking the Merri-Bek part is purely optional in that case, but that state district boundary would be much better better to align to. I don’t think Jacana would be appropriate unless you absolutely had to. Hard to see any neat options in Gorton beyond Keilor too. Maybe the part of the locality of Maribyrnong north of Raleigh Road could be appropriate. Kind of a tricky division to get right at the moment.

You’re right about Diamond Creek. I think it’d only work by putting the top half of Mickleham into McEwen and also Heathcote into Nicholls instead of Kilmore. It’s a shame, because McEwen could really do with a bit of a trim. Next time I suppose.

Plenty Road does look like a better boundary actually. It is probably better to keep the Kingsbury part of Kingsbury SA2 paired with Reservoir which is closer.

Am I the only one who thinks Clifton Hill in Cooper is just odd? I don’t think there was much wrong with the old Melbourne, including Clifton Hill, anyway.

I’m not a fan of having a suburb geographically cut off from the rest of the electorate. Clifton Hill is geographically cut off from the rest of Cooper by Merri Creek. To go from Clifton Hill to the rest of Cooper would mean traveling along its proposed boundaries i.e. going on Hoddle St/High St or Eastern Freeway. There’s talk about communities of interest but geographic continuity is more objective and more definable.

East and west clifton hill are divided by hoddle st which is more of a geographical barrier than heidelberg road which divides East clifton hill with northcote/fairfield (in Cooper). Therefore i think it makes more sense the eastern part of clifton hill being in Cooper and the western part in Melbourne.

The two halves of the suburb were divided between the two electorates before the last election anyway

@Votante
That’s what I was thinking for a long time. Merri Creek seemed like a great natural boundary and I thought it’d be better for it to extend further into Bundoora.

Cooper is either going to have to breach its Darebin LGA boundary or Merri Creek. Neither are great options, but there is reasonable similarity between Clifton Hill and Northcote, and it’d be better for Clifton Hill to go into Cooper than into Wills if Melbourne needs to move southwards.

I think it makes much more sense if paired with part (using St Georges Road/Brunswick Street) or all of Fitzroy North. That way the division properly captures the areas around Clifton Hill and Rushall stations and looks less like a random chunk has been attached to the main body of Cooper.

I see Clifton Hill as more connected to Northcote/Westgarth than to Collingwood/Fitzroy/Abbottsford. The Eastern Fwy/Alexandra Pde feel like a bigger boundary than the Merri Creek at that location. I agree Fitzroy North would also fit in Cooper.

NSW proposal either this week or next.
https://x.com/AusElectoralCom/status/1796377680646181037

Would it be fair to say that the Monash Freeway no longer acts as a significant cultural divider?

I’d still say it is a very significant divide. You have middle class and affluent areas north of it and working class areas to the south. Before the Lib vote collapsed in suburban Eastern Melbourne, north of the Monash freeway was strongly Liberal, south was strongly Labor.

@Dan M
Just to clarify, would you consider areas like Clayton and Mulgrave to be working class or are you more referring to Springvale and Noble Park?

My understanding is that there’s quite a gap between Clayton and Mulgrave and areas in Greater Dandenong, so I guess I’m wondering whether the local government boundary is a stronger predictor of affluence than the freeway.

@g thanks
@angaw I think the yarra crossing in Melbourne was a result of Higgins abolition. If memory serves me they always try to abolish the most under quota seat. The did it in 2019 whwn they abolishes Stirling however they really should have abolishes cowan but simply transferred the name to preserve that of a woman who in my opinion deserves to be saved although the resulting division and also the latest version almost resembles the old Stirling. They did a similar thing in NSW when they were going to abolish hunter but went with the name Charlton and simply shifter hunter to resemble Charlton almost. So that’s why. Il be objecting to Higgins abolition on the grounds it causing way too many problems for neighbouring division divides suburbs and lgas and creates bad communities of interest not just in hotham which is now worse but chisholm menzies thenrest of manningham and breaks years of precedence of crosaing the yarra to the north. Ive already submitted my revised proposal so willpoint out that. That’s what has me wondering what they’re gonna do since Wentworth is the most under quota. Although the defects in NSW are spread much further then south of the harbour and there’s also the massive surpluses in gws.

Question – Could some of the awkwardness with Cooper and Wills be mitigated with an east-west alignment?

@No Mondays.
Totally unrelated to the redistribution, but this is probably the only place I’ll catch your attention.
What do you think of Cr Jorquera chances with the return to single member wards in Maribyrnong? Is he even going to run? You would assume in Sheoak Ward with Footscray and Seddon being the better target demographics.

@John Aston was the most under quota seat, not Higgins.

Will probably have my Melbourne map up later tonight.

After going through the numbers I don’t hate the redistribution, but there is some weird boundaries here and there, most of which have a pretty easy solution. In some seats you can clearly see where they just put a bunch of SA’1 together to get the numbers to work (Lalor & Corio, Bendigo & Ballarat, McEwen & Casey).

I don’t mind abolishing Higgins, actually quite like some of the changes it leads too. The Macnamara/Melbourne border crossing makes much more sense than Menzies/Jagajaga (though I hope they do Southbank instead of Prahran).

A few things though. Hotham is still a mess, but if you remove Malvern East then it’s not any worse than it was before. I know the temptation is to fix the seat, but abolishing it did lead to a bunch of issues further out. I think we’re just stuck with this seat being a mess because there isn’t enough voters for this area to not venture into Dandenong. Dandenong is just always going to be a mess. Unless you make a Dandenong only seat, you are stuck having to merge it with a bunch of middle class areas quite far away. Even the state seat of Mulgrave does this.

Chisholm isn’t ideal, and if you didn’t abolish Higgins you could make a much better Chisholm but I think it works well enough. The areas in the seat at least seem to be somewhat demographically similar. I’ve got Burwood Highway as the northern boundary, Monash Freeway as the southern + parts of Stonnington, so it at least have solid boundaries.

Bruce is a mess and I get the temptation to try and move the seat west and make it more of a Dandenong based seat. But thinking about it a bit more, due to the high growth in La Trobe and Holt, Bruce is basically always going to be the seat that has to take their surplus of voters and then the western part of Bruce goes to filling up a bunch of other seats. Yes you can delay the inevitable a bit putting Emerald/Cockatoo and Pearcedale into surrounding seats, but Bruce’s future will be being a northern Casey based seat. When this happens, I guess Hotham and Isaacs will have to become even more Dandenong based.

@henry on projected enrollment yes but on current enrollment it was higgins hence why a mini redistribution would combine higgins and chisholm

@drake i like the proposed bruce. it will probably shed the rest of dnadenong in future as casey continues to grow

https://ibb.co/prvfnsS

Have finished off my first draft for the redrawing of the proposed boundaries. It’s the same as my previous map, but with the final 8 seats of Eastern Melbourne filled in.

The big change is a reorientation of Chisholm/Kooyong/Menzies:
– Chisholm now retains all of the Box Hill and Waverley areas, similar to its 2019 version
– Menzies takes in all of Balwyn and Kew, uniting the more conversative parts of Eastern Melbourne
– Kooyong takes in all of Stonnington not transferred to Melbourne/Macnamara and now has a more compact shape

Menzies feels like the weakest link here. I’d be interested to know if people think that the improvements to Chisholm and Kooyong are worth the impact to Menzies?

I’m also curious to know what people think of my composition of Hotham and Bruce compared to the committee versions.

@angas i dont think they will push casey into la trobe and then bruce west i think theyre gonna laregly stick with what they ve done albeit with a few corrections

@Drake @John
Looks like my solution for Bruce is at-odds with your views on Bruce.

I agree that Bruce is destined to become Berwick-Narre Warren based division, and that it’ll have some degree of compromise made to it for now.

However, while it has to contain at least some of Greater Dandenong, I think it’s best that it doesn’t split Dandenong-proper with Isaacs. In the map I just uploaded I’ve leaned on using the gap created by Sandown Racecourse and Springvale Cemetary to push Hotham out of Noble Park, but the Eastlink is probably the neatest boundary here.

I also think that uniting Dandenong in Bruce leads to a better Isaacs as it can retain more of Kingston and utilise Patterson River as a neat boundary. However the key it that is to unfortunately swap Flinders’ gain of Mount Eliza for Pearcedale/Tooradin. I’m going to do my best to argue for that as I think it’s a better result for Dunkley and Holt at the expense of Flinders. It also leads to less electors transferred overall which I think is something the committee will appreciate. I get that Mount Eliza into Flinders is the obvious choice though.

Emerald/Cockatoo into Casey is an optional extra, and I’d argue that it leads to neater boundaries for both Casey and La Trobe, but I’m aware that this is a minority view. To me the north of Casey has strong connections to the rest of the Dandenong Ranges and is more similar in character to parts of the Yarra Valley than it is to now outer-suburban Berwick/Clyde/Pakenham.

@angas i think Dandenong will be a Issacs/Hotham seat in the future and its best to shed it as much as possible.

i agree on the patterson river boundary and as ive demonstrated in my proposal if dunkley goes to the river it can still Mt Eliza with Flinders and be with quota range

i think casey should go into Maroondah instead. La trobe should hopefully be able to regain the rest of cardina at the next redistribution then shed parts of clyde north. holt would then shed to bruce whican then hopefully remove more if not all of dandenong at a future redistribution

@Angas Clayton and Mulgrave definitely resemble the Greater Dandenong suburbs more than Mount Waverley, Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill north of the M1 despite being in the same LGA. Despite Springvale/Dandenong being much more economically deprived, I’d still say Clayton and Mulgrave, and Oakleigh too, resemble them more than they do the upper middle/affluent areas north of the M1.

In regards to your proposal, its quite a stretch to lump in the Manningham suburbs with Kew in the same electorate. With Balwyn and Balwyn North it is arguable because they have a large Chinese community similar to Doncaster/Templestowe. Putting in Doncaster and Box Hill in the same seat works quite well, not only are they demographically similar, Doncaster is increasingly becoming a satellite area of Box Hill, undergoing intensive apartment development like Box Hill is right now, as Box Hill develops into what is essentially Melbourne’s 2nd CBD. But that being said, 2019 Chisholm is also a pretty sensible arrangement too.

ive put in 10 objections for vic and 3 for wa