Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix K of the Redistribution Committee’s report of Friday 19 March 2021.

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 accepted by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 39 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.

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 concern the:

• name of the proposed Division of Gellibrand
• name of the proposed Division of Hawke
• name of the proposed Division of Tucker

The name of the proposed Division of Gellibrand

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Nimalan Sivakumar, OB3 – Tim Barnes, OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB41 – Andrew Sutherland, OB63 – Victorian Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB29 – Donnie Grigau

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: Several suggestions to the redistribution and comments on suggestions argued that the Division of Gellibrand should be renamed. As the Redistribution Committee did not consider that strong enough reasons to alter the electoral division name had been provided in suggestions and comments on suggestions, it proposed retaining the name of the Division of Gellibrand.

A number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the name ‘Gellibrand’ should be retired or that the Division of Gellibrand should be renamed ‘Tucker’ to recognise Margaret Tucker. Those in favour of renaming the Division of Gellibrand to ‘Tucker’ observed:

• the Division of Gellibrand is named after a British colonialist, not an Australian,
• Joseph Gellibrand, for whom the electoral division is named, had links to John Batman and the Batman Treaty and his treatment of Indigenous people is up for debate, and
• Joseph Gellibrand did not have a sound connection to Victoria.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that this is the second consecutive redistribution at which arguments have been made to change the name of the Division of Gellibrand, however many of the alternative names offered have either not met the Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions or are better suited as the name for another proposed electoral division. The augmented Electoral Commission does not propose renaming the proposed Division of Gellibrand at this time, but encourages those who may be involved in future redistributions to consider doing so.  Those wishing to rename the electoral division are advised to review the guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions and to contribute alternative names during the suggestions period, which is the first time at which public input can be provided for consideration by the Redistribution Committee.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the electoral division will be known as the Division of Gellibrand.

The name of the proposed Division of Hawke

Objections referring to this matter: OB8 – Jacqueline Elworthy, OB9 – David Griffiths, OB17 – John Costa, OB21 – Albert Jarvis, OB23 – Janelle Jordan, OB24 – Stewart Jordan, OB32 – Margot Dunne, OB36 – Martin John Reich, OB48 – Colin McLaren, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB62 – Elidor Brown, OB65 – William Green, OB66 – Moira Shanahan, OB67 – Frances Lloyd

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB37 – Steve Melzer, COB44 – Elizabeth Ryan, COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: A significant number of names for the new electoral division were advocated in suggestions to the redistribution and comments on suggestions, with a number arguing that the new electoral division be named to recognise the Hon. Robert James Lee Hawke AC, former Prime Minister of Australia. Observing that the Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions note that ‘when new divisions are created the names of former Prime Ministers should be considered’, the Redistribution Committee proposed naming the new electoral division ‘Hawke’.

A small number of objections to the proposed redistribution supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to name an electoral division to recognise Mr Hawke, with there being differing views as to whether this should be the new electoral division or whether it would be better to rename the proposed Division of Wills.

One objection argued that 'Hawke' should be used as the name of a Western Australian electoral division, not a Victorian electoral division, on the basis that he was born in Western Australia. (The latter claim is incorrect as he was born in Bordertown in South Australia.)  Some objections to the proposed redistribution argued that the new division shouldn’t be named to recognise an individual who had no connection to the area covered by the proposed electoral division.  Another objection argued that because several electoral divisions located in that specific part of Victoria had been abolished in the past and the name subsequently retired, the Division of Maribyrnong should instead be renamed ‘Hawke’.

A number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections argued that the electoral division should not be named to recognise Mr Hawke as they did not believe that his alleged past behaviour was aligned to modern norms and that naming an electoral division after such a person could be seen as endorsing the alleged behavoiur. Others expressed the view that electoral divisions should not be named after former members of the House of Representatives.

Several names, or categories from which a name could be selected, were offered as an alternative to the name ‘Hawke’ should the augmented Electoral Commission decide against using this name.

In noting the views expressed by those arguing for an alternative name for the new electoral division, the augmented Electoral Commission observed:

• electoral divisions named to recognise former Prime Ministers have been located in the same state as the electoral division the former Prime Minister represented, and
• naming the new electoral division ‘Hawke’ would be consistent with the naming guidelines for federal electoral divisions.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound and follows the naming guidelines for federal electoral divisions, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the electoral division will be known as the Division of Hawke.

The name of the proposed Division of Tucker

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Nimalan Sivakumar, OB3 – Tim Barnes, OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB11 – Rod Matthews, OB12 – Sandra & Robert Francis, OB13 – Cathy Walker, OB15 – Alison Carter, OB16 – Donald Gibson, OB18 – Margaret Borthwick, OB19 – Peter Collopy, OB25 – Joe Thwaites, OB26 – Charles Henry, OB27 – Matthew Briggs, OB28 – Russell Allthorpe, OB29 – Hilary Hallowes, OB30 – Cr Adrian Schonfelder, OB31 – Slobodanka Millicent Vladiv-Glover, OB33 – Jan Swain, OB41 – Andrew Sutherland, OB45 – Andy McClusky, OB47 – Susan Meyer, OB51 – Michael Claude Palmer, OB56  – Sue, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB62 – Elidor Brown, OB63 – Victorian Labor, OB65 – William Green

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB5 – Hilary Lovibond, COB10 – Maureen Turner, COB12 – Derek Costello, COB13 – Borough of Queenscliffe, COB19 – Marie James, COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB24 – Judith Brooks, COB26 – Geraldine Thomson, COB29 – Donnie Grigau, COB44 – Elizabeth Ryan, COB47 – Laurence Mason, COB49 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB50 – Val and Naomi Clayton, COB51 – Lucian Green

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: Several suggestions to the redistribution and comments on suggestions supported renaming the Division of Corangamite. The Redistribution Committee formed the view it would be appropriate to rename the electoral division due to its changed nature as a result of significant proposed changes to the boundaries of the electoral division. The Redistribution Committee proposed renaming the Division of Corangamite to ‘Tucker’ to honour and recognise Margaret (Lilardia) Elizabeth Tucker MBE (1904–1996), a Yorta Yorta woman, for her significant work to create a more equal and understanding society for Aboriginal people.

A number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections were of the view that an electoral division should be named to recognise Margaret Tucker, although arguments were made that:

• ‘Lilardia’, Margaret Tucker’s Aboriginal name, be used instead of ‘Tucker’,  or
• there may be a more appropriate electoral division than ‘Corangamite’ to be named to recognise Margaret Tucker. The proposed Divisions of Flinders, Gellibrand, Hawke, Hotham, Mallee and Nicholls were all suggested as suitable alternative electoral divisions to bear the name ‘Tucker’.

A significant number of objections to the proposed redistribution, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiry did not support renaming the Division of Corangamite to Tucker. Those arguing against renaming the electoral division to ‘Tucker’ advanced the following arguments:

• Margaret Tucker does not have a sufficient connection to the electoral division and is not known by the community,
• ‘Tucker’ can easily be changed by graffiti to a word which will open the electoral division and the local member to ridicule,
• if the electoral division is to be renamed, it should be to a name relevant to the Indigenous people associated with the country covered by the proposed electoral division, and/or
• the name ‘Corangamite’ should be retained as it is a Federation name, an Aboriginal name, and a name that is still strongly connected to the area.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered the arguments opposing the use of the name ‘Tucker’ for the electoral division presented by those making objections to the proposed redistribution, commenting on objections or making submissions to the inquiry and was not convinced by arguments that an electoral division should not be named after Margaret Tucker because she was not significant, was an activist female and was not known by an Indigenous name. Women, specifically Indigenous women, are under-represented in the names of federal electoral divisions, and frequently unrecognised for their achievements. The augmented Electoral Commission does not accept that, as Margaret Tucker is currently unrecognised by some segments of society, she should not be recognised today, and notes its own role in addressing such imbalances and oversights. The augmented Electoral Commission commends Margaret Tucker as an individual who has rendered outstanding service to Australia through her campaigning for citizenship rights for, and the health and welfare of, Aboriginal people.

The desire of those resident in the proposed electoral division to retain an Aboriginal name for their electoral division that had a connection to the country covered by the proposed electoral division was strongly argued throughout objections to the proposed redistribution, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiry. Many indicated that their preference would be to retain ‘Corangamite’. Some objections noted that the name ‘Corangamite’ has a strong connection to the area covered by the electoral division itself, rather than simply the lake or the local government area.  Several arguments were made that it was not appropriate to name the electoral division in recognition of Margaret Tucker as she was a Yorta Yorta woman with Yorta Yorta country spanning from Cohuna to Albury/Wodonga and covering land on both sides of the Murray River.

Several alternative names were offered should the augmented Electoral Commission decide against using the name ‘Tucker’ or retaining the name ‘Corangamite’, with these names connected to the country included in the proposed electoral division.

In making its decision, the augmented Electoral Commission was mindful of the following elements of the Guidelines for naming federal electoral divisions, and observed arguments could be made for and against each of them:

• every effort should be made to retain the names of original federation divisions,
• locality or place names should generally be avoided,
• Aboriginal names should be used where appropriate and as far as possible existing Aboriginal divisional names should be retained, and
• names of divisions should not be changed or transferred to new areas without very strong reasons.

On balance, and in light of the above, the augmented Electoral Commission considered it would be appropriate to retain the name ‘Corangamite’. Doing so will allow for the retention of a Federation name and an Aboriginal name.

As a consequence, the augmented Electoral Commission does not propose naming an electoral division to recognise Margaret Tucker at this time, but encourages those who may be involved in future redistributions to consider doing so.  

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes the electoral division will be known as the Division of Corangamite.

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

Objections discussed in this section concern the:

• boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Bruce, Holt, and La Trobe
• boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Chisholm, Deakin and Menzies
• boundary of the proposed Division of Hawke
• boundary between the proposed Divisions of Higgins and Macnamara
• boundary of the proposed Division of Corangamite (previously the proposed Division of Tucker)

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Bruce, Holt, and La Trobe

Objections referring to this matter: OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB37 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB48 – Colin McLaren, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB60 – Charles Richardson, OB63 – Victorian Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB7 – John Smith, COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB31 – Julian Hill MP, COB34 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB49 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The proposed Division of Bruce’s southern and eastern boundaries adjoin the proposed Divisions of Holt and La Trobe. On the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the Division of Bruce needed to gain electors and the Divisions of Holt and La Trobe needed to shed electors for each of these three electoral divisions to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. To enable this to occur and to ensure that all surrounding electoral divisions would continue to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, the Redistribution Committee proposed, amongst other movements, that:

• the proposed Division of Bruce gain electors in the areas of:
  • Berwick, Harkaway and Narre Warren from the Division of La Trobe, and
  • Hampton Park and Narre Warren South from the Division of Holt
• the proposed Division of La Trobe gain electors in the areas of:
  • Clyde and Tooradin from the Division of Holt

As a result of the Redistribution Committee’s proposal, the locality of Berwick, which has experienced high levels of population and enrolment growth, was proposed to be split across the proposed Divisions of Bruce, Holt and La Trobe.

While there was some support for the Redistribution Committee’s proposal, a number of objections to the proposed redistribution, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiry took issue with the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries at the intersection of the Divisions of Bruce, Holt and La Trobe, particularly the splitting of Berwick along High Street/Princes Highway. Arguments were made by those who thought most of Berwick should be located in the proposed Division of Bruce, with the locality continuing to be split across three electoral divisions, and those who thought the locality should only be split across two electoral divisions – the proposed Divisions of La Trobe and Bruce. Those making the latter argument presented a number of compensatory changes involving Clyde, Hampton Park, Narre Warren South and Tooradin which sought to ensure that growth areas would be more evenly spread across several electoral divisions. The augmented Electoral Commission noted that these changes, together with alterations to place part of the locality of Dandenong in the proposed Division of Isaacs and the residential part of the locality of Lyndhurst in the proposed Division of Holt, would meet the requirements of the Electoral Act. As these changes 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 Bruce:
  • that portion of Berwick located south of Greaves Road and west of Clyde Road
  • that portion of Narre Warren South located east of Narre Warren – Cranbourne Road and north of Glasscocks Road
• in the proposed Division of Holt:
  • the entirety of the locality of Clyde and part of the locality of Tooradin
  • that portion of Hampton Park located to the north of Pound Road
• in the proposed Division of Isaacs:
  • the part of the locality of Dandenong located to the south of the Pakenham-Cranbourne rail line and bounded by Eastlink, the Dandenong Bypass and the South Gippsland Highway
  • the residential part of the locality of Lyndhurst, bounded by Western Port Highway, Thompsons Road and the Cranbourne rail line
• in the proposed Division of La Trobe:
  • that portion of Berwick located to the east of Harkaway Road and north of High Street/Princes Highway
  • that portion of the locality of Harkaway located to the east of Harkaway Road

As a result of this proposal, the locality of Berwick will only be split across two electoral divisions.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Chisholm, Deakin and Menzies

Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – John Smith, OB3 – Tim Barnes, OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB34 – Therese Mulholland, OB35 – Ruixing Zhang, OB37 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB39 – Abdullah Bin al‑Azziz, OB48 – Colin McLaren, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB60 – Charles Richardson, OB61 – Justin Lamond, OB63 – Victorian Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB4 – Maroondah City Council, COB6 – Connor Hickey, COB7 – John Smith, COB9 – Asian Business Association of Whitehorse, COB11 – Khalsa Punjabi School, COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB23 – Maroondah Business Group, COB25 – Heatherdale Community Action Group, COB27 – Nicholas Weston, COB34 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB41 – Australian Greens Victoria, COB49 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: At its northern end, the proposed Division of Chisholm’s boundary adjoins the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies. On the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, each of these three electoral divisions did not meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act and were therefore required to gain electors. To enable this to occur and to ensure that all surrounding electoral divisions would continue to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, the Redistribution Committee proposed that these electoral divisions move generally southwards. Specifically, the Redistribution Committee proposed that:

• the proposed Division of Chisholm gain electors in:
  • the balance of Chadstone, Glen Waverley and Mount Waverley, plus Wheelers Hill, Notting Hill and parts of Clayton, Oakleigh, Oakleigh East and Mulgrave from the Division of Hotham
• the proposed Division of Menzies gain electors in:
  • Box Hill North, Blackburn North, and parts of Box Hill, Blackburn and Nunawading from the Division of Chisholm
• the proposed Division of Deakin gain electors in:
  • the balance of Forest Hill, a further part of Nunawading, and parts of Blackburn and Burwood East from the Division of Chisholm.
  • the locality of Warranwood, from the Division of Menzies, uniting Maroondah City Council in the proposed Division of Deakin.

Several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

A number of objections, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiry took issue with the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to use Whitehorse Road as the northern boundary of the Division of Chisholm and proposed alternatives such as Canterbury Road, Koonung Creek or Gardiners Creek be used. Doing so, it was argued, would maximise the community of interests and prevent splitting the shopping precincts around Box Hill and Blackburn into two and three electoral divisions respectively.  This would also enable Burwood East to be united in the proposed Division of Chisholm instead of being split across the proposed Divisions of Chisholm and Deakin.

Other objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections were against the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to use Dandenong and Wellington Roads as the southern boundary of the Division of Chisholm and proposed alternatives such as, or combinations of, the Monash Freeway, Ferntree Gully Road and/or Police Road. Such an alteration would enable the locality of Oakleigh East to be united in the one proposed electoral division.

While several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries between the proposed Divisions of Deakin and Menzies, several did not. On the basis of community of interest and ease of transport, a number of objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections presented competing arguments as to whether the following groupings should be located in the proposed Division of Deakin or the proposed Division of Menzies:

• part or all of Blackburn, Blackburn North, Box Hill, Box Hill North, Nunawading and Mitcham; and
• Croydon, Croydon Hills, Croydon North and Warranwood.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• uniting the localities of Burwood East and Oakleigh East into the proposed Division of Chisholm and the proposed Division of Hotham, respectively, would better reflect communities of interest and could be adopted, and
• any other 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 locality of Burwood East, in its entirety, will be located in the proposed Division of Chisholm and the locality of Oakleigh East, in its entirety, will be located in the proposed Division of Hotham.

The boundary of the proposed Division of Hawke

Objections referring to this matter: OB21 – Albert Jarvis, OB23 – Janelle Jordan, OB24 – Stewart Jordan, OB32 – Margot Dunne, OB37 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB46 – Ron Geurts, OB48 – Colin McLaren, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB60 – Charles Richardson, OB66 – Moira Shanahan, OB67 – Frances Lloyd

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB41 – Australian Greens Victoria, COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed creating the new electoral division to the north-west of Melbourne, specifically incorporating electors from the local government areas of Hume City Council, Melton City Council and Moorabool Shire Council, to be named the Division of Hawke. The proposed new electoral division incorporates high-growth areas around Bacchus Marsh, Melton and Sunbury.

While there was some support for the Redistribution Committee’s proposal, several objections to the proposed redistribution argued:

• Bacchus Marsh should not be located in the same electoral division as Sunbury and Melton but should remain in a regional electoral division,
• Bacchus Marsh should be located in a different electoral division,
• the eastern boundary of the Division of Hawke should extend eastwards along the rail corridor rather than northwards, excluding Sunbury, and
• more or all of the Moorabool Shire should be retained in the Division of Ballarat,

Those arguing against the inclusion of these areas in the proposed Division of Hawke were of the view that these predominantly rural and farming areas did not fit within the proposed electoral division.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that Bacchus Marsh is an area that is growing and is likely to continue to grow.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• the inclusion of Bacchus Marsh in a different electoral division would require large compensating changes to a number of electoral divisions which would have similarly strong claims regarding the electoral division they should be placed in, 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 and would have significant consequential effects on the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The localities of Bacchus Marsh, Sunbury and Melton will be located in the proposed Division of Hawke.

The boundary between the proposed Divisions of Higgins and Macnamara

Objections referring to this matter: OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB5 – Jesse Mansfield, OB20 – Adrian Jackson, OB37 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB38 – Adass Israel Community, OB42 – Adjunct Associate Professor Mark Baker, OB49 – Julia Nelson, OB53 – Jennifer Huppert, OB54 – Zionism Victoria, OB58 ‑ St Kilda Hebrew Congregation, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB60 – Charles Richardson, OB63 – Victorian Labor

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Yaron Gottlieb, COB3 – Dick Gross, COB8 – Australian Jewish Association, COB14 – St Kilda Hebrew Congregation; COB15 – Alexandra Fein, COB16 – Joel Silver, COB17 – Andrew Dye, COB18 – John Safran, COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB21 – Peter Martin, COB28 – Sarah Barton, COB32 – Robert Simons, COB33 – Josh Burns MP, COB34 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB36 – Michael Borowick JP, COB38 – Danny Blay, COB40 – June Sorbi, COB41 – Australian Greens Victoria, COB42 – Maddy Blay, COB43 – John Lowndes, COB46 – Michael Crane, COB48 – William O’Loughlin, COB49 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the Division of Macnamara needed to lose electors in order to meet both of the numerical parameters required by the Electoral Act. The Redistribution Committee proposed that:

• the proposed Division of Macnamara gain further territory in the Stonnington City Council from the Division of Higgins, gaining all territory west of Williams Road (South Yarra and part of Prahran), and
• the proposed Division of Macnamara transfer all territory east of Williams Road to the Division of Higgins, being part of Port Phillip City Council and its share of Glen Eira City Council (Caulfield East, Caulfield, Caulfield North and parts of St Kilda East and Elsternwick).

Several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal. Supporting arguments noted that:

• the proposed electoral division boundaries unite parts of both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities, including the LGBTIQ+ community,
• the Jewish community is not located solely in St Kilda, and
• Melbourne’s Jewish community is diverse and many Jewish people live outside of areas of higher Jewish population density.

Objections to the proposed redistribution, comments on objections and submissions to the inquiry opposing the Redistribution Committee’s alteration of the boundary argued that the proposed boundary split a community of interest based on Melbourne’s Jewish community, with the adoption of Hotham Street as a boundary splitting inner city suburbs that shared common commercial centres, transport links, school zones and community groups. Supporting arguments were made that the Redistribution Committee had proposed more substantial moves than were required to meet the numerical parameters of the Electoral Act, which could instead be met if the only change to be made was transferring the locality of Windsor to the proposed Division of Higgins.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that:

• the primary factor for consideration in determining electoral divisions is to ensure the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act are met,
• the Division of Macnamara, as it existed at the commencement of the redistribution, exceeded the permissible requirement for projected enrolment under the Electoral Act and was therefore required to transfer electors to one or more other electoral divisions,
• the Division of Macnamara is projected to continue to grow and will likely need to transfer further areas to other electoral divisions in the future, and
• communities of interest evolve over time, individuals perceptions of communities of interest may reasonable differ, and individuals' may relate to more than one community of interest.

The augmented Electoral Commission proposes altering the Redistribution Committee’s proposal by:

• locating that portion of the localities of South Yarra and Windsor located to the east of Punt Road and that portion of the locality of Prahran located between Punt Road and Williams Road in the proposed Division of Higgins, and
• locating the entirety of the localities of Caulfield, Caulfield East and Caulfield North, together with that portion of the locality of St Kilda East located to the east of Hotham Street and those portions of the localities of Elsternwick and Glen Huntly located to the north of Glen Huntly Road in the proposed Division of Macnamara.

As a result, the augmented Electoral Commission’s proposed Division of Macnamara is the same as at the commencement of the redistribution, except that the majority of the locality of Windsor has been transferred to the proposed Division of Higgins.

The boundary of the proposed Division of Corangamite (previously the proposed Division of Tucker)

Objections referring to this matter: OB4 – Martin Gordon, OB6 – Cameron Peel, OB22 – Golden Plains Shire Council, OB37 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB45 – Andy McClusky, OB59 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), OB60 Charles Richardson, OB63 – Victorian Labor, OB65 – William Green

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB13 – Borough of Queenscliffe, COB19 – Marie James, COB20 – Dr Mark Mulcair, COB34 – Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division), COB35 – Kaz Paton, COB39 – Libby Stapleton, COB44 – Elizabeth Ryan,  COB45 – Gary Allen, COB47 – Laurence Mason, COB49 – Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch), COB50 – Val and Naomi Clayton, COB52 – Shane Scanlon, COB53 – Charles Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: On the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution, the electoral division needed to lose electors.

The Redistribution Committee considered the community ties between the Golden Plains Shire Council and the Division of Ballarat and therefore proposed altering the existing boundary of the Division of Corangamite so as to transfer part of Golden Plains Shire Council, including Lethbridge and Meredith, to the proposed Division of Ballarat.

The Redistribution Committee deemed no change was required to the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Tucker and Corio, and therefore considered the west of the Division of Corangamite to be the most sensible place to transfer further electors.

The Redistribution Committee proposed moving the balance of Colac Otway Shire Council plus the eastern parts of the Surf Coast Shire Council, including Anglesea, Lorne and Winchelsea, to the proposed Division of Wannon, uniting communities along the Great Ocean Road and the Otway hinterland in the more regional proposed electoral division.

Some objections to the proposed redistribution argued that the electoral division should be based on Lake Corangamite, with one objection arguing that a proposed Division of Corangamite should be based on Lake Corangamite and a new Division of Tucker should be based on the Bellarine Peninsula and the urban growth corridor from Geelong to Ballarat. Comments on objections to the proposed redistribution sought to modify the proposed electoral division boundaries by retaining some or all of Aireys Inlet, Anglesea, Fairhaven and Lorne, all of which are located in the Surf Coast Shire Council, in the electoral division rather than being transferred to the proposed Division of Wannon.

These objections and comments on objections argued that:

• these areas were strongly aligned with towns to the east, such as Geelong and Torquay, rather than those to the west, such as Warrnambool and Hamilton,
• the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral division boundaries would lead to a reduction in the representation of electors’ interests and their disenfranchisement, and
• there is not a common community of interest with the Division of Wannon, which has an agricultural focus whereas these areas are focused on culture and industries.

In considering arguments that the boundaries of the proposed Division of Corangamite should extend further to the west and should include more of the Surf Coast Shire Council, the augmented Electoral Commission noted that concerns about the quality of representation, or any potential change in representation, fall outside the scope of the augmented Electoral Commission’s considerations. Further, for the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act to be met, it was not possible to adjust the boundaries of the electoral division in order to accommodate these objections and comments on objections.

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.

Other objections to the proposed redistribution sought to alter the proposed electoral division by retaining some or all of Inverleigh, Lethbridge, Shelford and Teesdale, all of which are located in Golden Plains Shire Council, in the electoral division rather than being transferred to the proposed Division of Ballarat. Those arguing for these changes did so on the basis of:

• community of interest, with it being argued that these communities were more aligned with Geelong than Ballarat, and
• the belief that the distance of these towns from the City of Ballarat would result in poor representation from the elected Member.

An alternative idea offered was to transfer Inverleigh to the proposed Division of Wannon as the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries left it isolated from other communities along the Hamilton Highway.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that Teesdale in particular is an area that is growing and is likely to continue to grow. Noting that substantial changes to the boundaries of the electoral division were proposed by the Redistribution Committee in order to accommodate the high growth in the Division of Corangamite, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that it would not be possible to incorporate all of the localities advanced in objections.

Observing that the locality of Inverleigh was split over two electoral divisions, the augmented Electoral Commission noted that adjusted boundaries would enable Inverleigh in its entirety to be located in the proposed Division of Corangamite. As this change would better reflect communities of interest, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded the Redistribution Committee’s proposal should be modified.

The locality of Inverleigh, together with Hesse and that portion of Wingeel in the Golden Plains Shire, will be located in the proposed Division of Corangamite.