Note: * indicates electoral division which, on the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. Changes were proposed to the boundaries of these electoral divisions as a consequence of changes proposed to the boundaries of adjoining electoral divisions.

Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix M of the Redistribution Committee’s report of May 2024.
Maps of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions are also available.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusion on objections

An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the majority of issues raised in objections is presented on this page. A number of objections were unable to be implemented by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 38 electoral divisions in Victoria meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

Objections and comments on objections which have not been discussed below will be discussed in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is released. Given the large number of objections received, not all have been referenced in the commentary below on specific conclusions.

This section presents:

• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the names of electoral divisions
• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the placement of electoral divisions and divisional boundaries

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the names of electoral divisions

Objections discussed in this section are concerned with:

• retiring the name ‘Higgins’.

Retiring the name ‘Higgins’

Objections referring to this matter: OB15 – Anonymous 4, OB18 – Peter Norman OAM, OB19 – Dr Michael Hedger, OB20 – Anonymous 6, OB21 – Anonymous 7, OB28 – Denzil Griffiths, OB39 – Thinus Keeve, OB55 – Lois Williams, OB86 – Nimalan Sivakumar, OB153 – James, OB346 – Phillip Starkins, OB463 – Matthew Lucas

Comments on objections COB49 – Anonymous 8, COB65 – Joseph Lin, COB94 – Trent Wilson

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the Division of Higgins and retiring the name ‘Higgins’. The Redistribution Committee considered whether it would be appropriate to rename another electoral division ‘Higgins’; however, it concluded there was insufficient justification to do so.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections may be categorised as:

• advocating the name ‘Higgins’ should not be retired,
• advocating the name of another electoral division should be retired and the electoral division be renamed ‘Higgins’.

Arguments in favour of retaining the name ‘Higgins’ observed the significant role that Henry Bournes Higgins KC (1851–1929) played in the foundation of Australia via:

• his participation in the Constitutional conventions,
• his career in Victorian and federal politics, and
• his role in the 1907 Harvester Case which guaranteed employees a ‘fair and reasonable’ wage.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission considered that although the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘Higgins’ were reasonable, they were not sufficient to justify departing from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the Division of Higgins is not an original federation electoral division name; and considered that the Redistribution Committee’s proposal was sound and should stand unchanged.

In consequence, the name ‘Higgins’ will be retired.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the placement of electoral divisions and divisional boundaries

Objections discussed in this section concern the:

• abolition of the Division of Higgins
• boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Bruce and Isaacs
• boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne
• boundary of the proposed Division of Wills – southern boundary
• boundary of the proposed Division of Wills – western boundary
• electoral division(s) in which the locality of Heathmont is located
• electoral division(s) in which the locality of Malvern East is located
• electoral division(s) in which the localities of Mernda and Wollert are located
• orientation of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies

The abolition of the Division of Higgins

Objections referring to this matter: More than 270 objections were received concerning the abolition of the Division of Higgins.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 30 comments on objections were received concerning the abolition of the Division of Higgins.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: Victoria is undergoing a redistribution because the number of members of the House of Representatives it is entitled to has decreased from 39 to 38 as a result of a determination made by the Electoral Commissioner on Thursday 27 July 2023. The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the existing Division of Higgins, with electors transferred to the proposed Divisions of Chisholm, Hotham, Kooyong, Macnamara, and Melbourne.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• for the abolition of the Division of Higgins, or
• the Division of Higgins should not be abolished.

Those in support of the abolition noted that the Division of Higgins was one of the most under quota electoral divisions and it was evident that abolition of an electorate from the inner suburbs, likely the inner eastern suburbs, was necessary on the basis of the enrolment projection data.

Those in favour of retaining the Division of Higgins argued:

• abolition would create transportation, economic, sporting and cultural issues,
• the Division of Higgins encompasses a diverse and united community, largely centred around Stonnington City Council, and
• the Redistribution Committee’s proposal would split Stonnington City Council across five proposed electoral divisions and therefore Stonnington City Council would be represented by five different members of the House of Representatives.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission acknowledged the Redistribution Committee’s considerations of which electoral division to abolish were guided by the provisions of the Electoral Act, namely the numerical requirements and the obligations relating to community of interests. It concluded that insufficient arguments had been advanced to warrant a departure from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to abolish the Division of Higgins.

In particular, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal to abolish the Division of Higgins was sound, and
• abolishing an alternative electoral division, along with the adjustments necessary to accommodate this change, would not result in an improved outcome at this time.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed, however, that modifications could be made to the proposed electoral divisions such that the number of proposed electoral divisions across which the Stonnington City Council was allocated was reduced. As this change would better reflect communities of interest, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the Stonnington City Council will be located across the proposed Divisions of Chisholm, Kooyong, Macnamara and Melbourne.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Bruce and Isaacs

Objections referring to this matter: OB108 – Leon Shinkai, OB172 – Feras Jaber, OB175 – Rhonda Garad, OB177 – Louis Desribes, OB235 – Jeffrey Waddell, OB369 – Glenn Ruddle, OB398 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB416 – Phillip Drake, OB418 – Julian Hill MP, OB425 – Dave Perry, OB478 – Matthew Kirwan, OB481 – Australian Greens Victoria, OB495 – Anonymous 24

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB26 – Councillor Phillip Danh, COB34 – Mark Dreyfus KC MP, COB37 – Julian Hill MP

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: The Redistribution Committee proposed moving part of the localities of Dandenong and Noble Park from the Division of Bruce to the proposed Division of Isaacs. The Redistribution Committee proposed adopting a boundary following Lonsdale Street and the Princes Highway.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supporting the Redistribution Committee’s proposal argued the locality of Dandenong or only the residential parts of Dandenong should be united within the proposed Division of Bruce. Some submissions argued the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Bruce and Isaacs should return to the Pakenham-Cranbourne railway line.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: Some previous augmented Electoral Commissions have supported lessening the use of railway lines as boundaries. This is because train stations are seen to act as gathering points and hubs for communities.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that those arguing against the proposed boundary change did not address the criteria set down in the Electoral Act. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the Divisions of Bruce and Isaacs, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, both failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes retaining the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Bruce and Isaacs.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne

Objections referring to this matter: OB3 – Fab Scalia, OB10 – James Longford, OB53 – Crew Charleigh, OB86 – Nimalan Sivakumar, OB88 – Neil Pharaoh, OB94 – Therese Mulholland, OB95 – Lana Lyons, OB122 – Mitch Fuller, OB149 – Yaron Gottlieb, OB152 – Ben Mullin, OB153 – James, OB174 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB235 – Jeffrey Waddell, OB288 – Darren McSweeney, OB352 – Punjabi Club of Victoria, OB384 – Adam Bandt MP, OB396 – Abdella Umar, OB398 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB416 – Phillip Drake, OB432 – Victorian Pride Lobby, OB437 – Colin McLaren, OB439 – Ethiopian Community Association in Victoria, OB448 – Adam Ray, OB458 – George Black, OB462 – Michael Ritchie, OB471 – Australian Vietnamese Women’s Association, OB481 – Australian Greens Victoria, OB482 – Julian McCrann, OB486 – Farah Warsame, OB493 – Charles Richardson, OB499 – Will Douglas, OB503 – Liam Morris, OB504 – Anonymous 25

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB46 – Darren McSweeney, COB55 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB61 – Louise Crawford, COB62 – Adam, COB64 – Anonymous 10, COB65 – Joseph Lin, COB66 – Ben Mullin, COB71 – Josef, COB78 – Anonymous 14, COB80 – Phillip Drake, COB93 – Nina Taylor MP, COB94 – Trent Wilson, COB95 – Michael Ritchie, COB98 – Dr Adam Carr, COB107 – Hon. Philip Dalidakis, COB110 – Dean Sherr, COB117 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB118 – Josh Burns MP

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of Macnamara failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. As a direct consequence of the abolition of the Division of Higgins, the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne subsequently gained electors.

The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring part of the localities of Melbourne, Prahran and South Yarra to the proposed Division of Melbourne to enhance communities of interest and balance the transfer of localities in the north of the electoral division to the proposed Divisions of Cooper and Wills. This would result in:

• the proposed Division of Melbourne crossing the Yarra River, and
• more of the Melbourne City Council being united within the proposed Division of Melbourne. 

In order for the Division of Macnamara to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, it needed to gain electors from one or more electoral divisions. The Yarra River was retained as a divisional boundary to the greatest extent possible. The Yarra River was, however, crossed in the proposed Division of Melbourne, between the localities of Cremorne, Melbourne, Richmond and South Yarra. These localities contain significant crossing points in which major road, rail and pedestrian corridors are heavily used. Furthermore, St Kilda Road acts as a strong road boundary between the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne. Communities of interest, common means of communication and transport and a desire to minimise the movement of electors between electoral divisions formed the basis of this decision.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued both for and against the proposed Division of Melbourne crossing the Yarra River.

A number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the proposed Division of Melbourne should gain all or part of the localities of Port Melbourne, Southbank and South Wharf. Common means of communication and transport, and a commonality of interest between those living in these localities and the Division of Melbourne formed the basis of these arguments.

Other objections and comments on objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee. Arguments supported:

• the inclusion of the localities of Prahran and South Yarra within the proposed Division of Melbourne, and/or
• the proposed Division of Melbourne crossing the Yarra River in the location proposed by the Redistribution Committee.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission recognised those submissions which acknowledged that shared communities of interests and improved means of transport with the proposed electoral division were reflected in the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. The augmented Electoral Commission observed that those against the proposed boundary change did not provide substantive arguments addressing the criteria of the Electoral Act. It noted that the Division of Macnamara, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes retaining the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Macnamara and Melbourne.

The boundary of the proposed Division of Wills – southern boundary

Objections referring to this matter: More than 40 objections were received concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the localities of Brunswick East, Carlton North, Fitzroy North and Princes Hill are located. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB66 – Ben Mullin, COB69 – Nail Aykan, COB104 – Adam Bandt MP, COB105 – Australian Greens Victoria, COB117 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch)

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of Wills was outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The Redistribution Committee proposed altering the southern boundary of the Division of Wills to follow Alexandra Parade and Princes Street, then Cemetery Road East, College Crescent, and Cemetery Road West to Royal Parade. The proposed Division of Wills acquired:

• the localities of Carlton North and Princes Hill, and
• those parts of the localities of Brunswick East and Fitzroy North located to the south of Glenlyon Road and Alister Street.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the localities of Brunswick East, Carlton North, Fitzroy North and Princes Hill should be retained in the Division of Melbourne and not transferred to the Division of Wills.

Common means of communication and transport, a desire to minimise the movement of electors between electoral divisions and a commonality of interest between those living in the localities of Brunswick East, Carlton North, Fitzroy North and Princes Hill in the Division of Melbourne formed the basis of these arguments.

Other objections supported the boundaries of the proposed Division of Melbourne, as proposed by the Redistribution Committee. Supporting arguments noted:

• transport corridors including cycling paths and walking trails connected communities of interest, and/or
• shared use of local parks and gardens, and/or
• shared use of the largest shopping centre in the area.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission agreed the Redistribution Committee’s proposal met the secondary criteria in the Electoral Act by better reflecting means of transport and communities of interest, as noted by some objections to the proposed redistribution.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments addressing the numerical requirements in the Electoral Act were not provided by those arguing against the proposed boundary change. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that the Division of Wills, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• it was not numerically feasible to transfer these communities back to the proposed Division of Melbourne without further consequential changes elsewhere,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposed retaining the Redistribution Committee’s proposed southern boundary and the localities of Brunswick East, Carlton North, Fitzroy North and Princes Hill be located in the proposed Division of Wills.

The boundary of the proposed Division of Wills – western boundary

Objections referring to this matter: More than 60 objections to the proposed redistribution were concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the localities of Glenroy, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale and Pascoe Vale South are located. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB20 – Anonymous 3, COB47 – Eva Doumanis, COB65 – Joseph Lin, COB66 – Ben Mullin, COB69 – Nail Aykan, COB104 – Adam Bandt MP, COB105 – Australian Greens Victoria, COB116 – Peter Khalil MP, COB117 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch)

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of Wills and its two neighbouring electoral divisions, the Divisions of Cooper and Maribyrnong, were outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and were required to gain electors. As a direct consequence of the abolition of the Division of Higgins, the proposed Division of Wills subsequently gained electors from the Division of Melbourne. This resulted in the Division of Wills falling outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and being required to transfer electors to the proposed Division of Maribyrnong.

The Redistribution Committee proposed moving parts of the localities of Brunswick West, Glenroy, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale, and Pascoe Vale South from the Division of Wills to the proposed Division of Maribyrnong. This change moved the western boundary of the proposed Division of Wills east from the Moonee Ponds Creek to follow Citylink and Pascoe Vale Road instead.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the localities of Glenroy, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale and Pascoe Vale South should be retained in the proposed Division of Wills and not be transferred to the proposed Division of Maribyrnong due to a strong community of interest including:

• migrant and refugee groups from the Iranian, Kurdish, Kastorian, Nepalese, Bhutanese and Arabic-speaking communities, and
• sporting clubs and associations.

Other objections supported the boundaries of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed Division of Wills, arguing that Citylink and Pascoe Vale Road provide a strong physical boundary and highlighting that the following localities in the Division of Maribyrnong have growing ethnic populations and can be considered communities of interest: Gladstone Park, Strathmore, Tullamarine and Westmeadows.

An alternative idea was presented to restore the western boundaries of the Division of Wills and instead transfer electors in the localities of North Melbourne and Parkville from the proposed Division of Melbourne into the proposed Division of Maribyrnong. Supporting arguments noted that:

• these inner-city localities have a close proximity to the CBD and share amenities with other inner-city localities,
• the existing boundary between the Divisions of Melbourne and Wills, consisting of the Citylink motorway and the Moonee Ponds Creek, is logical and strong,
• the localities of North and West Melbourne function as one singular community, or
• a locality that includes ‘Melbourne’ in its name, should be included within the Division of Melbourne.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission noted that submissions on this topic discussed different communities of interest while failing to provide substantive arguments as to why more weight should be given to retaining one community of interest within the proposed electoral division instead of another.

Further, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments addressing the numerical requirements in the Electoral Act were not provided by those arguing against the proposed boundary change. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that, the Division of Wills, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound, and
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes adopting the Redistribution Committee’s proposal for the western boundary of the proposed Division of Wills and to include parts of the localities of Brunswick West, Glenroy, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale and Pascoe Vale South in the proposed Division of Maribyrnong. 

The electoral division(s) in which the locality of Heathmont is located

Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – Benjamin Close, OB317 – David Harper, OB334 – Malcolm McDonald, OB359 – Ann Albrecht, OB376 – Maroondah City Council, OB388 – Prue Gill, OB393 – Don Kordick, OB395 – Margaret Harrington, OB397 – Neil Michael Harrington, OB403 – Melbourne East Netball Association, OB426 – Roslyn and Roland Ashby, OB437 – Colin McLaren, OB438 – Joanne Hart-Parker, OB442 – David Gee, OB460 – Donald Hamilton, OB473 – Heathmont Tennis Club, OB0475 – Graeme and Lynette Tonkin, OB487 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch)

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB12 – Maroondah Business Group, COB21 – Joanne Hart-Parker, COB35 – Maroondah City Council, COB44 – Punjabi Club of Victoria, COB46 – Darren McSweeney, COB50 – Crew Charleigh, COB55 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB66 – Ben Mullin, COB117 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB119 – Charles Richardson

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of Aston failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. The Redistribution Committee proposed the Division of Aston gain the locality of Kilsyth South, and parts of the localities of Bayswater North, Heathmont and Ringwood from the Division of Deakin, using Canterbury Road as a strong and identifiable electoral boundary. As a consequence of these proposed changes, the locality of Heathmont would be divided between the proposed Divisions of Aston and Deakin.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that Dandenong Creek should form the boundary of the proposed Divisions of Aston and Deakin and the locality of Heathmont should not be divided between the two proposed electoral divisions along Canterbury Road.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission noted that these wishes could only be accommodated by affecting multiple neighbouring electorates, which could result in subsequent groups arguing that their communities of interest would be neglected.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the locality of Heathmont will be located in both of the proposed Divisions of Aston and Deakin.

The electoral division(s) in which the locality of Malvern East is located

Objections referring to this matter: OB9 – Emma Minns, OB15 – Anonymous 4, OB17 – Anonymous 5, OB23 – Sasha Spivak, OB25 – Isaac Spivak, OB53 – Crew Charleigh, OB88 – Neil Pharaoh, OB94 – Therese Mulholland, OB95 – Lana Lyons, OB112 – Saul and Beatrice Bastomsky, OB130 – Tania Baxter, OB155 – Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham, OB169 – Louisa Willoughby, OB176 – Noel Wyndom, OB416 – Phillip Drake, OB424 – Colin Smith, OB427 – Jennifer Frieden, OB448 – Adam Ray, OB461 – Dr Carina Garland MP, OB478 – Matthew Kirwan, OB481 – Australian Greens Victoria, OB487 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), OB493 – Charles Richardson, OB503 – Liam Morris, OB504 – Anonymous 25

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB39 – Anonymous 5, COB40 – Anonymous 6, COB41 – Anonymous 7, COB42 – Sophie Pope, COB43 – Nella Gandolfo, COB49 – Anonymous 8, COB50 – Crew Charleigh, COB57 – Fiona Mowbray, COB65 – Joseph Lin, COB80 – Phillip Drake, COB85 – Anonymous 19, COB88 – Dr Carina Garland MP

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: The Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors from the proposed abolished Division of Higgins, in the locality of Malvern East, and dividing the locality between the proposed Divisions of Chisholm and Hotham. The Redistribution Committee acknowledged the Division of Chisholm needed to gain electors to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.  

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the locality of Malvern East should be unified into a single electoral division. Common means of communication and transport and a commonality of interest between those living in the locality of Malvern East formed the basis of these arguments.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission noted the locality of Malvern East could be located in its entirety in the proposed Division of Chisholm. Implementing this change would mean both the proposed Divisions of Chisholm and Hotham meet the numerical parameters of the Electoral Act and better reflect communities of interest. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by:

• uniting the locality of Malvern East in the proposed Division of Chisholm, and
• as a result of the above movement, the proposed boundary follows Dandenong Road and Warrigal Road before returning to the Monash Freeway, now forming a stronger and more identifiable boundary.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposes the locality of Malvern East will be located in its entirety in the proposed Division of Chisholm.

The electoral division(s) in which the localities of Mernda and Wollert are located

Objections referring to this matter: OB153 – James, OB174 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB288 – Darren McSweeney, OB366 – D.G. Clarke, OB416 – Phillip Drake, OB458 – Jarrod, OB487 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), OB503 – Liam Morris, OB504 – Anonymous 25

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB58 – David G Clarke, COB65 – Joseph Lin, COB121 – Anonymous 22

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of McEwen needed to decrease electors and the Division of Scullin was required to increase electors in order for the two electoral divisions to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. The localities of Mernda and Wollert were each divided across the proposed Divisions of McEwen and Scullin.

The Redistribution Committee proposed:

• the proposed Division of Scullin gain part of the localities of Mernda and Wollert from the Division of McEwen, adopting Bridge Inn Road as the boundary.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that:

• the locality of Mernda should be located in its entirety in the proposed Division of McEwen, and
• the locality of Wollert should be located in its entirety in the proposed Division of Scullin.

Common means of communication and transport and a commonality of interest between those living in the localities of Mernda and Wollert in the Divisions of McEwen and Scullin formed the basis of these arguments.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission noted the locality of Mernda could be located in the proposed Division of McEwen and the locality of Wollert could be located in the proposed Division of Scullin. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that this change would accommodate the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, provide strong and identifiable electoral division boundaries and would better reflect communities of interest. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal could be improved by placing:

• in the proposed Division of McEwen:
• the entirety of the locality of Mernda
• in the proposed Division of Scullin
• the entirety of the locality of Wollert.

The orientation of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies

Objections referring to this matter: More than 40 objections were concerned with the orientation of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 25 comments on objections concerned the orientation of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies. These will be listed individually in the augmented Electoral Commission’s report when it is published.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Divisions of Deakin and Menzies both needed to increase electors to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The Redistribution Committee proposed to:

• unite the localities of Mitcham, Nunawading and Ringwood North within the proposed Division of Deakin,
• expand the Division of Deakin into the Manningham City Council, and adopt major arterial roads and significant local roads for its boundary, and
• unite the localities of Box Hill, Mont Albert and Mont Albert North within the proposed Division of Menzies.

These proposed changes would result in the Whitehorse City Council being divided across only three electoral divisions (the proposed Divisions of Chisholm, Deakin and Menzies) instead of four (the Divisions of Chisholm, Deakin, Kooyong and Menzies). The shape of, and area covered by, both of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies also differed from that of the electoral divisions at the start of the redistribution. 

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Some objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections do not support the Redistribution Committee’s proposal, arguing the proposed Division of Deakin should revert to its original boundaries, arguing Whitehorse City Council should not be divided between multiple divisions.

Some submissions advocate moving the localities of Blackburn, Blackburn North, Donvale, Mitcham, Nunawading, Park Orchards, Ringwood North, and Warrandyte South from the proposed Division of Menzies to the proposed Division of Deakin. Others support uniting the locality of Box Hill, and including part of the localities of Blackburn and Blackburn South, in the proposed Division of Menzies. All of these ideas would alter the orientation of these two proposed electoral divisions.

A significant number of objections and comments on objections to the proposed redistribution supported the Redistribution Committee’s orientation of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission observed that substantive arguments which addressed the criteria of the Electoral Act were not provided by those arguing against the proposed boundary change, noting that the Divisions of Deakin and Menzies, on the boundaries in place at the commencement of this redistribution, failed to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

Accordingly, the orientation and boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies will be retained.