VIC and WA federal redistribution drafts released – live

By
Ben Raue
-
465

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.

Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

465 COMMENTS

  1. i agree with Hotham being abolished so i am pleased with the Libs submission in that respect some other things i agree with in the Libs submission.
    1. Removing as much of Dandenong from Issacs
    2 Removing the Casey Coast semi-rural areas such as Pearcedale, Tooradin etc from Holt and putting it into Flinders to make Holt a Cranbourne Growth area seat.
    3. Retaining Casey

  2. I also understand why Labor does not want Wills to take up the excess of Melbourne such as Princess Hill, Carlton North and Fitzroy North and prefer it in Cooper. Labor is not concerned about Ged Kearney in Cooper but is gravely concerned about Wills and Peter Khalil.

  3. I logged an objection at a high level without maps due to technology and time issues. General thrust: –

    1. Transfer the areas of Melbourne City Council and Stonnington council to McNamara and transfer voters from the Port Melbourne and Southbank “side”” of McNamara to Melbourne.
    2. Rotate Dunkley, Flinders, Holt/Bruce and Isaacs anti clockwise with the aim of transferring Holts Westernport Bay areas to Finders for a better community of interest fit.
    3. Some suggestions regarding the boundary Menzies and Deakin. I suggested restoring the section of the City of Manningham back Menzies along with the section of the City of Whitehorse that is currently in Menzies. I then suggested transferring areas south of Maroondah highway into to Deakin. This would mean that Deakin is a Maroondah corridor seat.
    4. I also noted that the name Corangamite has no relevance to the seat and suggested Macfarlane-Burnett as an alternate.

    Happy for thoughts and looking forward to the big reveal on Monday.

  5. @Mike – great proposal. Don’t stress about maps: I didn’t include any either.
    I agree, Corangamite needs a name change ASAP! I like the name MacFarlane Burnet. I feel scientists are very under-represented. I proposed the name Connewarre as I couldn’t find a suitable name. Great suggestion by you!

  6. Just a point – Macfarlane was his middle name – but the name he was known as. And Burnet with one T. Nobel prize winners should be on the ‘names’ list. Hopefully if the house is enlarged a NSW seat could be named after Patrick White.

  8. @Redistributed – Thank you! I actually want the name White as a new NSW seat. I proposed renaming the state seat of Coogee after him. Though NSW doesn’t seem to prefer geographical names 🙁 It’s a great name though.

  9. Ive proposed corangamite be changed to Connewarre after the lake and it still maintains an Aboriginal connection

  10. @James @Redistributed Thankyou for your replies. Looking forward to seeing everyone’s thoughts t’row. I now need to move to NSW.

  13. Oh wow. Is that a record?

    At a glance it looks like at least 50% are to do with Higgins. Probably quite a few duplicated letters in there as often happens with these things.

    I wonder how many they would have received if they just abolished Hotham instead.

  16. Murray’s proposed abolition attracted ~130 objections from memory.

    Look to be a couple of templates, but some decently thoughtful submissions amongst it.

  18. Tried to do a quick count of divisions mentioned:

    Higgins 336
    Melbourne 142
    Kooyong 140
    Hotham 133
    Chisholm 127
    Macnamara 109
    Wills 86
    Deakin 58
    Menzies 50
    Casey 38
    Aston 32
    Maribyrnong 30
    Bruce 29
    Isaacs 24
    Goldstein 23
    La Trobe 23
    McEwen 22
    Corangamite 17
    Corio 17
    Cooper 15
    Gorton 15
    Hawke 15
    Lalor 15
    Ballarat 14
    Fraser 14
    Bendigo 13
    Dunkley 13
    Gellibrand 13
    Jagajaga 13
    Scullin 13
    Calwell 12
    Holt 12
    Nicholls 11
    Wannon 11
    Flinders 9
    Indi 9
    Monash 9
    Gippsland 8
    Mallee 8

    I’d say that one can probably just ignore the ones that are just marked as “Higgins” or as “Chisholm, Higgins, Hotham, Kooyong, Macnamara and Melbourne” as the majority of these look like templates, but there’s still a fair bit of reading to do outside of those.

  20. @G
    That’s a winner right there!

    I remember seeing their original submission and thinking it was serious, but maybe it’s just some very subtle satire.

  21. I havnt had the chance to look through all 508 i wonder how many suggest abolishing Hotham instead and used the name as one reason?

  22. I’m doing just a random skim of some objections. I post below from the Labor submission (which I have not looked at past the opening) which talks about the process.

    “In our opinion, it was not sound for the Committee to have compared suggestions with the proposed boundaries. Victorian Labor would have submitted a manifestly different suggestion had we had the accurate projections, as – we reason – would all others. While we understand the pressure the error placed on the redistribution timeline, reliance upon suggestions to the Committee which were informed by admittedly incorrect data is incongruent with the high standards maintained by the Redistribution Committee. Considering this, we submit that the Augmented Commission should not rely on any public suggestions which were informed by the erroneous projected population data when considering their decision.”

    I have no particular comment on the suggested outcome but the note that they “would have submitted a manifestly different suggestion” with the correctly updated data was interesting.

    Maybe Higgins and the surrounds “thing” was always going to elicit 508 comments but this comment from Labor (and others earlier) makes me wonder if this volume could have been lessened, even a little, had the correct figures been able to be used by submitters.

  23. I read through some of the main ones and the Liberal Party’s submission also supports abolishing Hotham instead, arguing that the existing division already splits LGA’s in half compared to Higgins which is mostly intact (covering Stonnington, which will be divided into 4 or 5 parts should Higgins be abolished under the draft proposal).

  24. Similarly from the Liberal Party.

    “Due to this failure to promptly identify and correct the error, all submissions and all comments on submissions were made using significantly wrong information, and accordingly all groups and individuals submitted proposals with no relation to mathematical reality.”
    “All submissions and comments – including that of the Liberal Party – made this fundamental decision based on inaccurate data. There is no doubt that the Liberal Party submission would have advocated for the abolition of a different division had we had access to accurate data.”

  25. By contrast, WA has about 45 objections, and more than half seem to be about the name Bullwinkel.

    I’m guessing they’ll wrap that one up pretty quickly and spend all of their time on Vic. Might be easiest for them to go back to the drawing board and see if they can scrap Hotham in a way that works (would come with a fraction of the outcry – even if many of the Higgins objections are on admittedly spurious grounds.)

  26. “The augmented Electoral Commission has 60 days after the closing date for receipt of comments on initial objections to finish its considerations. After considering these objections, the augmented Electoral Commission publicly announces a proposed redistribution.

    If the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposed redistribution is significantly different from the proposal made by the Redistribution Committee, the augmented Electoral Commission invites further objections. Interested people or organisations have seven days to make further objections.”

    https://www.aec.gov.au/redistributions/about/steps.html

  27. Because there are so many submissions here is some from the major parties + tallyroom commentors. Anyone I’m missing? I actually took so long to find my own I thought it didn’t send through

    #1 John
    #86 Nimalan
    #108 Leon
    #174 Mark Mulcair
    #288 Darren McSweeney
    #398 Liberal Party
    #416 Drake
    #437 Colin McLaren
    #487 Labor Party
    #493 Charles Richardson
    #504 Angas

  28. Darren McSweeney, excellent work, however on your submission for Kooyong pp16, you say the AEC hasn’t moved any part of Higgins into Macnamara, when the AEC has proposed to move part of Prahran from Higgins to Macnamara, and I would suggest the high-end demographics of Higgins actually mirror Kooyong’s demographics.

  29. I haven’t been paying attention to this thread this afternoon as I was finishing my Franklin booth comparison file.

    Anyway, I forgot to submit an objection for Victoria or WA but I did one for NSW. When are the NSW objections released?

  31. The AEC has got to sift through 508 objections and many more comments on them to redraw the boundaries before mid-October. That is surely going to be a tight schedule. Hope they don’t rush it and ignore many of the reasonable suggestions. It’s easy to just get lost in all the objections, particularly when many are saying the exact same thing on saving Higgins and abolishing Hotham but not giving any guidance on how that would fix the other seats.

  32. @Dan M – agree that there are a lot of objections without solutions.
    @Drake – thanks for the list of submissions to start with. A couple more:-

    OB 152 – Ben Mullin – has maps eastern Melbourne
    OB 235 – Jeffrey Waddell – state
    OB 481 – Greens
    OB 462 – self

  33. I have to laugh at the Labor party’s proposal to put Parkville and North Melbourne into Maribyrnong. There Chisholm and Hotham and Deakin/Casey/Aston were so obviously just them trying to help their own party out.

    Greens and Libs did this too, but they at least put together good proposals.

  34. @Drake @Mike
    Thank you for the list.

    I’ll also add:
    #10 – James
    #384 – Adam Bandt
    #418 – Julian Hill
    #461 – Carina Garland
    #497 – Katie Allen
    #501 – Monique Ryan
    and also
    #402 – Paul Keating (not the one everyone knows but a good submission nonetheless)

    I also thought Yaron Gottlieb’s submission (#149) was an interesting proposal, effectively retaining Higgins by abolishing Chisholm instead.

    @Dan M @G
    Did either of you make a submission?

    @Nether Portal
    Still another 2 weeks for NSW. Kind of glad they didn’t do them all at once!

  35. Anyone able to give me a TLDR of the objections to the Victorian proposal? A list of the larger submissions and a list of common themes in the smaller ones would be good.

  36. And some others of minor note:
    #88 – Neil Pharaoh, former ALP candidate
    #311 – Mike Scott, Greens councillor
    #429 – Time Read, Greens MLA
    #430 – Teal jobshare candidates
    #466 – Kim Rubinstein

  38. There is also a lot of opposition to dividing Pascoe Vale, Glenroy and Oak Park along Pascoe Vale Road including from ethnic communities such as the Nepalese community and the Kurdish community. The Greens would want this it removes some centrist suburbs from Wills while Peter Khalil will be relying on these areas to offset loses elsewhere. The Nepalese community may be Peter Khalil best bet to hold the seat.

  39. I was quite disgusted by Objection 19 for the WA Redistribution from Professor Peter Hancock Ph.D. Here it is:

    “I am so disappointed that the committee would choose to name the new seat after a British
    officer.
    The new seat sits entirely on Noongar lands, the name should be a Noongar one. There are
    hundreds to choose from.
    Racism and discrimination in this part of WA is extremely bad. The AEC had a chance to
    do something empowering, but instead chose the conservative option.”

    Here was his second objection:

    “I wrote to you many months ago vis the naming of the new seat. I am actually shocked and
    saddened by the name BULLWINKEL. I thought I was having a bad dream. I believe
    BULLWINKEL is an embarrassing blunder. An army officer. Please show some respect
    for the Aboriginal people – Noongar – and use a word that reflects their culture.
    After two terrible state and federal blunders Aboriginal peoples trust of government is at
    an all time low. Mistrust and hopelessness are real issues. Using a Noongar name could
    make an enormous difference.
    I’m an Anthropologist working with Noongar people in the proposed seat of
    BULLWINKEL.
    I’m quite ashamed to read this. It should not be named after a military officer, a significant
    symbol of oppression that continues to exist in Aboriginal song lines and yarning.”

    First of all, Vivian Bullwinkel is not from Britain. She was born in South Australia, and died in Western Australia, spending time in the Indo-Pacific during WW2 and working in Victoria. No mention of the UK whatsoever.

    Second of all, what Noongar names are there? You listed ‘hundreds’ of options. Give some examples. Actually justify.

    Last of all, how in the world is it ‘racist’ and ‘conservative’ to name an electoral division after a war nurse who saved hundreds of lives, and held war criminals to account? Honestly it blows my mind that people are so incredulous to claim that a war nurse who did nothing wrong whatsoever is ‘racist’.

    Not everything needs to be given an Aboriginal name. Making some link between an army nurse who held
    war criminals to account and Aboriginal oppression is just absurd. Get some sense please.

  40. @ James
    I agree with you coming from a person who actually made a submission that new seat be named Yagan. I am happy with Bulliwimkel and i actually did not submit an objection for the WA redistribution. There is a lot of people who wanted Alma May Beard though. However, i will not make a comment on that.

  41. @Nimalan – I don’t see anything wrong with the name Yagan. Same with Beard. It’s just that this Peter Hancock is somehow making an absurd link between a war nurse, not a military officer, and racism and Aboriginals, and I find that just senseless. I think Bullwinkel is an outstanding choice.

  42. Agree James. I am hoping someday there will be a seat named Yagan, Perkins (Charles), Jacka (Albert), i would also like to see Streeton and Lawson return someday hopefully expansion of parliament will do that.

  43. @James that so called “professor” seems to be a dumbass trying to implement a woke agenda.

  45. @James @Nimalin
    Yeah, I understand the underlying sentiment of Peter Hancock’s objections, but it’s quite a stretch to blame Vivian Bullwinkel for colonialism.

    I agree that Western Australia probably should receive a name of indigenous origin at some stage. There’s Canning, jointly named for both Sadie Miriam Canning and Alfred Wernam Canning, but I’m assuming that it is a name of European origin.

    Just read up on Yagan. What a fascinating story, but I wonder if it might prove to be a somewhat controversial name choice, given his role as a participant in conflict, however justified it was.

    On Bullwinkel, the arguments that she was was more strongly connected to another state have some merit. And while Beard, Hodgson and Lyon are certainly all deserving of honour, Bullwinkel was ultimately the one who fate allowed to continue her service to the community beyond Bangka. I think honouring her can be seen as a way to honour all of the nurses and soldiers who weren’t given the same opportunity. I suppose that’s an issue with honoring war heroes. Out of the thousands of Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice, only a small handful will ever receive national recognition.

  46. On the boundaries for Western Australia, it seems there are very few objections, particularly from both the major parties.

    A handful of objections wanting to retain Donnybrook-Balingup in Forrest.

    Only a few of us suggested that Bullwinkel should remain within the Perth metropolitan area by transferring the area around Kenwick and Maddington from Burt. That would also help solve the issue with Bullsbrook being in Durack. We’ll have to see if they take that idea on board.

  48. @Dan M
    Was reading through that one earlier, thinking it was nicely in alignment with some of what I’ve submitted. Didn’t realise it was yours! I like the maps. Nice and neat.

  49. If you’re looking for comedic, non-redistribution submissions, there’s OB 488 and OB 505.

  50. Ok, I’ll have a look.

    Update: 488 – Anne Webster is the Nationals, smh.Still humourous.
    505 – Why. Just why.

« Older Comments Newer Comments »

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here