LIB 3.7%
Incumbent MP
Katie Allen, since 2019.
- Geography
- Redistribution
- History
- Candidate summary
- Assessment
- 2019 results
- Booth breakdown
- Results maps
Geography
Higgins covers suburbs in the inner south-east of Melbourne. Its suburbs include South Yarra, Prahran, Toorak, Carnegie, Malvern, Glen Iris, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale. Most of the seat is covered by Stonnington LGA, as well as southern parts of Boroondara LGA and small parts of Glen Eira LGA.
Redistribution
Higgins experienced minor changes around the edge, gaining part of Windsor from Macnamara in the west, and losing Hughesdale in the south-east to Hotham and losing the north-eastern corner to Kooyong. These changes cut the Liberal margin from 3.9% to 3.7%.
History
Higgins was first created in 1949 when the Parliament was expanded in size. Its first member was Harold Holt, who had previously been Member for Fawkner in the same part of Melbourne. Holt was a minister in the Menzies United Australia Party government at the beginning of the Second World War.
Holt returned to the ministry in 1949 as Minister for Immigration. He became Menzies’ Treasurer in 1958 and became Prime Minister upon Menzies’ retirement in 1966.
Holt disappeared in sensational circumstances in December 1967 while swimming at Cheviot Beach in Victoria. Higgins was won by new Prime Minister John Gorton in a 1968 by-election. Gorton had previously been a Senator and was required to move to the House of Representatives.
Gorton held the seat continously until the 1975 election. Following Malcolm Fraser’s accession to the Liberal leadership Gorton resigned from the Liberal Party and sat as an independent. At the 1975 election he stood for an ACT Senate seat and Higgins returned to the Liberal Party.
Roger Shipton won the seat in 1975 and maintained his hold on the seat until 1990, when he was challenged for preselection by Peter Costello. Costello held the seat from 1990 until his 2009 resignation, triggering a by-election.
The ensuing by-election became a contest between the Liberal Party’s Kelly O’Dwyer and the Greens candidate, prominent academic Clive Hamilton, as the ALP refused to stand a candidate. O’Dwyer won the seat comfortably, and was re-elected three times.
O’Dwyer retired in 2019, and was succeeded by Liberal candidate Katie Allen.
- Matthew Ford (Liberal Democrats)
- Ingram Spencer (United Australia)
- Alicia Walker (Animal Justice)
- Katie Allen (Liberal)
- Andrew Johnson (Reason)
- Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Labor)
- Suzie Menoudakis (Federation)
- Sonya Semmens (Greens)
Assessment
Higgins has a long history as a solid Liberal seat but it has been trending towards the left over the last few decades. The swing in 2019 moved it into the marginal seat category for the first time. Both Labor and Greens hold ambitions here and either could have a chance here.
What is unknown is whether the 2019 result was an outlier, or the extension of a long-running trend as seats like this shift to the left. It seems that the Coalition is in trouble in seats like Higgins at the moment, which may create enough space for either Labor or the Greens to win.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Katie Allen | Liberal | 48,091 | 47.9 | -3.7 | 47.6 |
| Fiona McLeod | Labor | 25,498 | 25.4 | +8.9 | 25.2 |
| Jason Ball | Greens | 22,573 | 22.5 | -1.7 | 22.9 |
| Alicia Walker | Animal Justice | 1,729 | 1.7 | +0.2 | 1.7 |
| Michaela Moran | Sustainable Australia | 1,338 | 1.3 | +1.3 | 1.3 |
| Tim Ryan | United Australia Party | 1,249 | 1.2 | +1.2 | 1.2 |
| Others | 0.1 | ||||
| Informal | 2,063 | 2.0 | -1.7 |
2019 two-party-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Katie Allen | Liberal | 54,139 | 53.9 | -6.1 | 53.7 |
| Fiona McLeod | Labor | 46,339 | 46.1 | +6.1 | 46.3 |
Booths have been divided into four areas: central, north-east, south-east and west.
The Liberal Party won a majority of the two-party-preferred vote in the centre (58%) and the north-east (53.3%). Labor won 51.1% in the west and 56.0% in the south-east.
The centre and north-east of the electorate is best for the Liberal Party, while the south-east is stronger for Labor and the west is the best part of the Greens, who outpolled Labor there.
| Voter group | GRN prim | ALP prim | LIB 2PP | Total votes | % of votes |
| West | 30.2 | 23.5 | 48.8 | 15,369 | 15.8 |
| South-East | 22.6 | 34.2 | 44.0 | 12,306 | 12.7 |
| Central | 21.9 | 22.4 | 58.0 | 12,176 | 12.5 |
| North-East | 22.0 | 26.6 | 53.3 | 7,825 | 8.1 |
| Pre-poll | 21.4 | 23.6 | 56.7 | 32,181 | 33.2 |
| Other votes | 20.5 | 24.3 | 56.4 | 17,999 | 18.5 |
Election results in Higgins at the 2019 federal election
Toggle between two-party-preferred votes and primary votes for the Liberal Party, Labor and the Greens.
@Trent
Whilst i agree that Higgins is not a realistic target for the Greens for the reasons you mentioned. A couple of points
1. 2016 was a high water mark for the Greens. However, i dont feel that is a good comparison as Labor ran dead then and many Labor voters voted tactically for the Greens especially in the middle class areas. When Labor started to campaign hard again from 2019 the Labor PV rose. In 2016 the Greens just took votes from Labor without really making a dent into the Liberal PV
2. The boundaries are more Pro-Labor and includes more middle class territory compared to the Costello years . Having said that despite the Labor party throwing the kitchen sink at the seat the Labor PV even with pro-labor boundaries is much lower than during the Costello years when Labor would not have bothered.
3. I think my point above highlights the long term trend is for Labor to decline and the Greens to rise the inner city and affluent core. The middle class parts are a different story.
4. I feel there is some demographic trends that are hurting Labor and helping the Greens on the current boundaries. The public housing housing vote has been diluted with new private apartments. I also feel suburbs such as Ashburton and the area around Chadstone SC are moving from Middle Class to Upper Class as they found in Elite LGAs so will become more Tealish over time. The Greens should aim to outpoll Labor in the affluent core as well and restrict Labor to the middle class parts.
Still think Greens are in with a chance if they can convince voters that Liberals won’t get the seat back and therefore vote Green to send messages on the environment, refugees etc. You’d want voters from both major parties to think it’s a Labor vs Green seat, not a 3 corner contest.
@Nimalan, Labor performed poorly in Higgins in 2016 were due to the Skyrail Project around Carnegie in 2016 (even though it was a state project, Fed and State Libs managed to wedge on this) but the issue faded away once it was built explaining why much of the 2019 swings in Higgins were correction votes for Labor.
@ Marh
I agree the Skyrail would have been an issue in 2016 and Kelly O’Dwyer actually led anti-skyrail protests. The Skyrail later ended up being a positive for State Labor and like the Metro Tunnel and increased the brand equity for Labor especially around Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale. It was the very strong performance in the overlapping state seats in 2018 which led Federal Labor to seriously try for Higgins in 2019 and 2022. I would also say the strong performance for State Labor in the Knox area in Nov 2022 which led Federal Labor to seriously consider contesting the Aston by-election as well.
It is interesting to note that both Michelle Ananda-Rajah and Josh Burns came out quick smart criticising the Feds gas decision. Both seats of course have a high Green vote but is there a possible Climate 200 backed Teal in the offing? A Teal in one or both seats would eat into both the Labor and Green vote. Both seats would seem to be a viable Teal target.
@Redistributed a teal could win Higgins but not Macnamara, but the thing is the teals only seem to want to target Liberal seats. That’s why the Coalition says a vote for the teals is a vote for Labor and the Greens, because there are plenty of Labor and Greens seats they could win such as Higgins in Melbourne or Ryan in Brisbane. On the state level they would have a good shot at Coogee which is a Labor seat in Sydney (the Liberals narrowly lost it in 2019 to Labor but in 2023 the margin increased a fair bit). Some may bring up that a teal contested Hawthorn in 2022 which was shockingly won by Labor in 2018 but the only reason they did that is because they knew the Liberals would win it back. They want to get rid of all the moderate MPs so the Liberals never win back those city seats. So Dutton becoming leader is all Monique Ryan’s fault. Macnamara on the other hand will likely be a Greens seat after 2025.
@ NP/Redistrubuted
IMHO i dont think a Teal can win either Higgins or Macnamara for this reason alone. The Teal vote is mostly tactical by Labor and Greens voters when neither of them actually win the seat. Higgins is different from Goldstein and Higgins in that it is a more mixed seat. As both Macnamara/Higgins is winnable for both Greens/Labor supporters of those parties have less need to move to a centrist Teal to defeat Libs. in fact, if a Teal ran in Higgins it will likely help Katie Allen win the seat as the Teal will only likely do well in the affluent core of Higgins around Malvern. Higgins etc and will take votes of Labor/Greens and some may leak back in preferences to the Libs. Hawthorn was a special case where the Labor party did not see them holding it longer term so it was in their strategic interest to loose it to Mel Lowe who they felt had she won would have had a better hold on the seat. What is more likely is that if Labor loses votes to the Greens due to the Gas Policy is that Labor will be knocked out of the 2CP in both Higgins and Macnamara and it become a LIB/GRN seat.
*Higgins different to Goldstein and Kooyong i mean.
* Malvern, Toorak, Glen Iris etc
@Nimalan I was accounting in for the redistribution in Higgins, assuming that Greens-voting areas like Prahran were removed and placed into Macnamara. As for Macnamara, for the Greens to win, Labor would need to finish third because the Liberal vote is too high. In Cooper, Melbourne and Wills the Liberals just run dead (like how Labor runs dead in most rural areas and some blue-ribbon seats in the major cities), but they don’t fully run dead in Macnamara and usually lose it due to preferences (just like its predecessor, Melbourne Ports). If Labor finishes second the Liberals would need to run dead for the Greens to win, because Liberal preferences would flow to Labor. But even then, Melbourne was Greens vs Labor in 2010, 2013 and 2022 but in 2016 and 2019 it was actually Greens vs Liberal, with the change in the party finishing second (Liberal to Labor) in 2022 being the sole reason for the TCP swing against the Greens.
As for Higgins it depends on the redistribution as to whether or not the Greens have a chance there. Caulfield has a high Jewish community which is already hostile to the Greens and is now increasingly hostile towards them and Caulfield is also a blue-ribbon state seat despite currently being marginal (Labor has never won Caulfield). The Caulfield-Prahran swap that many have proposed would see Higgins become better for the Liberals and Macnamara become better for the Greens. Overall, the redistribution in both seats will likely be worse for Labor.
@ Nether Portal
If Higgins was redistributed it will still be a marginal seat as areas like Carnegie, Murrumbeena and possibly Hughesdale, Glen Huntly and Ormond are good areas for Labor and more middle class. If the Prahran-Caulfield swap went ahead yes it would help the Libs in Higgins but will actually hurt the Greens in Macnamara as the Libs may drop to 3rd place and it will be a Greens Versus ALP seat and labor will likely win with Liberal preferences. Hence the Greens now want to keep Caulfield in Macnamara so it is more likely to be a GRN V LIB seat.
Nimalan, if the Greens now want to keep Caulfield in Macnamara then it would go against their past philosophy of wanting better ‘community of interest’. If their main goal is now to try and win the seat by having the best 2CP outcome, then they are probably no better than either Labor or the Coalition in advocating boundary changes purely for self-interest (pseudo gerrymandering in a way, even though they cannot directly influence the process).
@ yoh an
All parties act in self interest obviously they dont state it out loud.
Agree Nimalan, that is why having an independent commission for drawing boundaries is essential because that way all decisions are impartial. Political parties can only offer suggestions which the commission takes into account and will reject them if they do not meet the other criteria (mainly community of interest and connectivity).
I don’t know why anyone would expect a political party to not act in their own self interest. Is anyone else going to advocate for their interests?
Wilson, I know that all political parties do have an interest to remain viable/competitive as much as possible. But at the same time, by engaging in tactics that are in self-interest whilst simultaneously campaigning on and preaching about fair principles can be seen as hypocritical.
That is essentially the argument Republicans have used against Democrats in states who strongly campaigned for independent/non-partisan redistricting when they were in opposition but yet were happy to engage in gerrymandering tactics when they gained power instead.
The redistribution should favour te coalition here especially if they do the Caulfield prahan swap as many people have suggested
@Yoh An while American gerrymandering isn’t anything like, say, Russian gerrymandering, it is worth noting that in the US each state sets not only its state legislative district boundaries, but also the boundaries of its federal congressional districts. Usually these boundaries are partisan with redistricting almost always tending to favour the party winning the most seats in that state.