Federal redistributions will commence this year in three states. Victoria will lose a seat, Western Australia will gain a seat, and New South Wales will also have a redistribution. A redistribution will commence next month for New South Wales with its current 47 seats, but that redistribution may end up being superseded in the middle of the year if New South Wales loses a seat, which is quite possible.
In this post and tomorrow’s post, I’m analysing the intra-state enrolment data to get some sense of how electorates might shift, and which areas might gain or lose a seat, in the upcoming redistributions. I’ve produced maps of all three states, along with tables showing breakdowns of enrolment trends by region.
Today’s post is focused on New South Wales, and specifically explores how such a large gap has emerged between enrolments in Sydney electorates and those in the remainder of the state.
New South Wales hasn’t had a redistribution for seven years, while Victoria and Western Australia were last redrawn prior to the recent election (indeed the change in seat numbers for those two seats simply reverse the changes at the 2020 entitlement). You can see the length of time since the last redistribution in the intra-state statistics – there is much greater intra-state variety in enrolment in New South Wales.
All the maps and tables in this post use the monthly enrolment statistics as of December 2022, but the clickable maps also show you the same statistics as of September, so you can see a bit of a trend.
We don’t know whether the NSW redistribution will be drawing 46 or 47 seats, so we need to analyse both. The 46-seat map will have higher quotas, so each seat will need to include more voters than the 47-seat map.
This chart has divided the state into eight regions, four in Sydney and four outside. I have added up how much the seats in those regions deviate from the 46-seat and 47-seat quota.
| Region | Seats | Deviation (46) | Deviation (47) |
| Hunter & Central Coast | 6 | 12.98 | 26.3 |
| Northern NSW | 4 | 17.22 | 26.3 |
| Southern NSW | 5 | 11.46 | 22.6 |
| Western NSW | 5 | -12.56 | -2.0 |
| Regional NSW | 20 | 29.10 | 73.2 |
| Central Sydney | 7 | -40.33 | -25.9 |
| Northern Sydney | 6 | -50.23 | -38.2 |
| Southern Sydney | 3 | -28.18 | -22.3 |
| Western Sydney | 11 | -10.38 | 13.3 |
| Sydney | 27 | -129.12 | -73.1 |
Overall Sydney is currently over-represented relative to regional NSW. If NSW doesn’t lose any seats, Sydney’s 27 seats only have about 26.27 quotas.
This map can be toggled between showing the 46-seat and 47-seat quotas.
Most of Sydney is currently under quota even if NSW doesn’t lose a seat. The only exceptions are in the outer south-west and north-west.
Macarthur and Werriwa in the south-west are about 27% over quota between them, and are still growing fast. Lindsay, Chifley, Greenway and Mitchell in the north-west are about 23% over quota. That’s half a seat worth of surplus voters in that region.
Across the whole of Sydney, there is a deficit of 73% of a seat, but if you subtract those six outer suburban seats, the rest of the city has a deficit of 1.2 seat quotas.
The most severe deficit is the six seats of northern Sydney, which are 38% of a seat under, with Warringah particularly underpopulated.
No one region is far enough under deficit to abolish a seat just in that area. I suspect a seat around the middle of Sydney (such as Blaxland) could be abolished. Seats in northern Sydney and eastern Sydney will then expand towards the west to fill that gap.
The seats along the regional NSW coast, including the Hunter and Central Coast, are mostly over quota. The Hunter, Central Coast, North Coast and New England are collectively about half a seat over quota, with Hunter and Paterson particularly over quota.
If NSW can maintain its 47 seats, it seems likely that a new seat will need to be created somewhere around the Hunter, pushing seats in Western NSW further south and towards Sydney.
If NSW loses its 47th seat, the higher quota absorbs most of the surplus in regional NSW. The Hunter-Central Coast-North region is only about 0.3 of a seat over now, rather than 0.5. In this case you’d expect to see these seats contract.
The reduction in seats worsens the deficits in established parts of Sydney and reduces the surpluses on the outer edge of Sydney. At this point there is no doubt that a seat in Sydney will have to be lost, probably one in the middle suburban ring.
The sixteen seats in the eastern half of Sydney are collectively 118% under quota, which means you could abolish a seat and absorb its population entirely within the remaining 15 seats and still have too few people to justify those 15 seats.
Indeed across the whole of Sydney the region is 129% under quota, and once you factor in the surplus growth in the six outer suburban seats, the remainder of Sydney is about 1.6 quotas in deficit.
So I think in a 46-seat map we will see a mid-suburban seat such as Blaxland abolished, and despite that we will still see the seats to the west of the abolished seat move further west to absorb the surpluses in outer suburban Sydney, ultimately shifting the south-western Sydney seats further south-west to absorb the surplus in regional NSW.
I was planning now to move on to Victoria and Western Australia but I’ll leave them for another post because I want to answer another question: why is there such a huge divergence between enrolments in Sydney and regional NSW?
My first thought was that this is explain by differential rates of growth since 2016, but that isn’t true.
The final redistribution was based on enrolment data as of December 2014. The election rules require seats to fit within the quota as of the time of the redistribution, but also within a quota based on projected estimates 3.5 years after the conclusion of the redistribution. In this case, projections were created for the population as of August 2019.
On the December 2014 data, the 20 seats in regional NSW had an average enrolment of 106,473, while the 27 in Sydney had 101,264: a gap of 5.1%.
The projections suggested an average enrolment of 110,245 in regional NSW and 110,762 in Sydney in August 2019, a gap the other way of 0.5%. Instead regional NSW had already cracked 110,000 by the time the enrolment statistics began to be reported on the new boundaries in February 2016.
The redistribution had been based on projections of 3.5% in regional NSW and 9.4% in Sydney, but the reality was 10.1% in regional NSW and 8% in Sydney.
So it’s not a story about COVID-19 shifting population away from Sydney – indeed all of these incorrect projections cover a period before the pandemic. This next chart shows how the gap in enrolment shifted over the last seven years.
The gap between regional and Sydney enrolments actually peaked in early 2019, and since then has slightly shrunk, although it is still above the levels in 2016, let alone the projected trends expected at the time.
I'm not sure I fully understand why things went wrong, but the simplest explanation seems to be that Sydney had been growing faster in the years leading up to the redistribution, and the redistribution expected those trends to continue. They did not, and thus the numbers have fallen quite far out of line.
Finally, this chart shows every seat in NSW. Seats are colour-coded according to whether they are in Sydney, and the chart shows how much the seat grew in excess of the projection leading up to August 2019 (negative numbers indicate that actual growth fell short of the projection).
Agree Commonwonbat – it would be far better for the northern boundary of North Sydney to be the LGA boundary (Boundary street, ironically) than for it to be Victoria Ave as it is now, but there is nothing different about the northern side of Boundary street than the southern side, except for the LGA change, and this is of very low relevance to a Federal electorate if the numbers don’t work. prior to the last redistribution the border was Ashley street (which is actually the border of the Chatswood suburb) and we all expected the border to move north but it was moved south instead – leaving Bradfield with a few more voters than otherwise (which obviously must have helped at the other end of Bradfield, given it couldn’t move east or west.
Using the major cross roads off the highway would seem the obvious solutions. Either:
– include Roseville only and make the border Grosvenor road, then Clanvile road and then Moore’s creek; or
– include Lindfield as well, with the border being Fidden’s wharf road and Stanhope road.
This decision will also be impacted by how far Mackellar need to come down Eastern Arterial road in order to get its numbers up (in turn affected by the its boundary with Warringah and Warringah boundary with North Sydney (refer below). Bajoc draws the boundary so that East Gordon is in Mackellar along with St. Ives, but ensures East Killara is not. This would seem a very sensible boundary and one by which all the other boundaries can be worked off. So if East Killara is not in an expanded North Sydney, it would be in the new Bradfield/Berrowa.
As to Neutral Bay and Cremorne, what we have now seems to be the least ideal of the three options available (though the state commissioners just reconfirmed it as a state boundary – perhaps that will change if a new redistribution is needed. It would be preferable if either all of North Sydney Council LGA was in the North Sydney, all none of the area east of the Expressway and (what’s left of the) Cammeray GC).
Perhaps someone with the SA1 numbers can tell us – if you take Bajoc’s boundary for Mackellar and Bradfield/Berrowa, where does the North Sydney/Warringah boundary have to be in order to get two quotas for ‘northern beaches’ seats (assuming 46 NSW seats)? If you take Hunters Hill out of North Sydney, then where does the North Sydney – Bradfield/Berrowa boundary need to be to get North Sydney to quota?
@high street 46 seats is all but guaranteed at this point
Yeah – that’s why I said “assuming 46 NSW seats”. No matter how likely you think it is, it still qualifies as an assumption until the ABS figures and AEC determination comes out.
@high street so we can assume i can fly until its proven i cant? in regards to areas i reckon mackellar should go south and warringah west. that way eventually given the shortfall of electors on that side of the harbour and the inevitable need to increase them mackelllar in one form or the other can occupy the north shore of the harbour. otherwise youve got a problem in warringah and mackellar given the geography of that particualr area i think they need to change a few names i did post a list of what i wanted to do but it hasnt been published yet. Admin?
Sure you can, potatoes – knock yourself out – literally if you want to take any action based on your assumption. But I am able to make my own assumptions in regards to your ability to fly.
It was assumed on election night by a lot of people that NSW Labor would get to a majority, being 47 seats, but they didn’t did they? So on election night was reaching 47 seats an assumption or a fact? – no one felt it was necessary to prove something couldn’t happen before they were allowed to assume the opposite could.
Regardless, look forward to seeing your list, and you may well be right in mackellar should go south and warringah west, but that doesn’t prevent mackellar from going west as well, as many posters on here suggest would be part of the best good outcome. I don’t see how the locality of North Sydney being part of Warringah is part of the best outcome on any level, which is what would happen if Warringah goes beyond its current most westward boundary
Assuming a seat is lost then Warringah and Mackellar are going to be about 20% down on two quotas. With the projection, that is likely to be higher. Originally, I too thought Berowra would be the northern Sydney seat to go. Though thinking more, I am now of the view (and always subject to change!) that Warringah is the seat to get the chop. It is not Federation and if it remains it can only go west – and that means into North Sydney. If Warringah was to go, then Mackellar can come down the coast to Harbord. Belrose and Forestville would go into Bradfield and Berowra come down the North Shore line into Wahroonga and Turramurra. North Sydney takes on Mosman and Manly. Bennelong would move back east into Hunters Hill and Lane Cove. The North Sydney Federation seat name would be preserved and be more geographically correct as most (if not all) of the municipality would stay in North Sydney.
High Street,
My thought is that Boundary Street/Warringah Road could serve as the southwest boundary for Mackellar. Castle Cove is currently part of Bradfield but boundary would see it added to North Sydney where it does have a greater community of interest. You echo my thoughts regarding possible dividing lines for Bradfield and North Sydney.
Warringah IS, to my mind, the “fiddliest” when it comes to boosting numbers and playing with boundaries. My preference is that Neutral Bay/Cremorne go to North Sydney BUT I acknowledge the numbers issue and can accept there is a valid argument for the territory east of Eastern Valley Way (western shore of Middle Harbour) becoming part of Warringah (including Castle Cove from Bradfield). Thus Boundary St also becomes a boundary between Mackellar & Warringah
Commonwonbat,
are are putting parts of Roseville, East Lindfield and East Killara in Mackellar?
I can see the Warringah problems both you and redistributed are trying to deal with but I don’t think separately Manly from the rest of a northern beaches seat or putting the western shore of Middle Harbour into Warringah (despite it happening before) pass the pub test.
Almost anything is possible depending on how far you spin the centre of the current seats. Why not full on bite the bullet and acknowledge that there is basically only 3 quota’s east of the Lane Cove river (can someone check this?) and make a Manly based seat called Warringah, a North Sydney based seat called North Sydney and a bar bell shaped seat capturing everything north of Narrabeen Lagoon, Wakehurst Parkway, Warringah Road and then going up Middle Harbour to a point where the boundary between North Sydney and this new bar bell shaped seat make the numbers work (as per earlier discussion above) or perhaps it doesn’t go north of Warringah road at all – depending on numbers. .
@Commonwombat
I have changed my mind about parts of my previous suggestion.
Yes, Warringah is really fiddly. I am now thinking it should expand significantly to cover East Killara to Castlecrag because the seat is already straddling 2 significantly different parts of Northern Beaches. I would say Mosman is more similar to Manly and East Killara to Castlecrag is more similar to Forestville. Previously I felt like Warringah should NOT cross Middle Harbour twice, but I decided that my point about St Ives in the next paragraph prevails.
This would enable Mackellar to be contained within the Northern Beaches instead of having to take in St Ives. I feel like St Ives won’t go with Pittwater now because of communities of interest. Their only commonality is proximity to Terry Hills, which is too small to make it the “centre” of the seat.
I don’t want North Sydney to go past the end of Willoughby LGA.
I also prefer if Hunters Hill remains with North Sydney (I am less dogmatic about Southeast Gladesville).
I don’t want Mosman to be in North Sydney.
I prefer if North Sydney takes all of Cremorne and Neutral Bay, but I can accept it losing the area up to 2010-2013 boundaries.
On a separate note, I want to reference your past comment about Berowra (Seat) containing 3 disparate areas. The Semi-rural areas are quite clear, but the boundaries between Cherrybrook/WPH Sprawl and the Transport Corridor might have ambiguous boundaries at Pennant Hills. Also, I am not sure if Pennant Hills gravitate more towards Epping (like Cheltenham and Beecroft) or Hornsby (like Westleigh, Thornleigh and Normanhust). How would you split Pennnant Hills? BTW State Steats (2023) around Pennant Hills are like:
– Epping includes nothing, stops at the end of Beecroft
– Hornsby includes the Western bit, bounded by Boundary Rd and Pennant Hills Rd (Used to be in Epping till 2023)
– Wahroonga includes everything else (Used to be Hornsby till 2023)
Also on a separate note, how do we deal with Cook and Hughes? I was going to propose that Cook loses everything north of Georges River, and goes up to and including Sutherland itself, and then add Bundeena. I was also going to make Hughes the rest of The Shire, the Moorebank-Chipping Norton Area, and then add the Revesby area (East Hills, Milperra, Padstow, Panania). However looking at past proposal/objections, Thistlethwaite (and Labor) were apparently unhappy about 2009 Hughes (which is the closest thing to what I am proposing). I don’t know what other direction Hughes can go because Liverpool proper doesn’t belong with Hughes, while extending it any further south than Helensburgh/Stanwell will make it even more disparate. At least Revesby etc. has a train that travels to Moorebank and voting patterns aren’t *insanely* different (if it says anything about its links and demographics). What other ideas can be done (assume Cook fixes itself to keep it wholly in the Shire – I hate the current arrangement!)
@Leon
On Pennant Hills – Having lived in Beecroft, Carlingford, Castle Hill, and Cherrybrook, I would say that it is entirely acceptable for Pennant Hills to be in a division based on Castle Hill, Epping, or Hornsby. If I had to pick one, my impression is that it gravitates the most towards Hornsby, but I might be wrong there. It is at the intersection of those three communities of interest. The question is much easier to answer for all of its neighbours!
Leon
Until about 2000 Hughes extended into the northern suburbs of Wollongong. It was only when it contracted north that it became a comfortable Liberal seat. It and Lindsay were two of the big surprise Liberal wins in 1996. Until then it had been comfortably Labor since 1955 – with the exception of 1966 after which Cook was created. Extending back down south into Wollongong has precedent and it can be argued that the train line is the community of interest. The state seat of Heatchcote now also (again) extends down into Wollongong.
I still think Bajoc’s proposed boundary’s are far superior than any that puts any of the small headlands bordering the western shore of middle harbour/middle harbour creek into a seat that borders the Tasman Sea!
The worst thing a seat can do is have a relatively small area in with a big area that has a common interest within itself, but the link to the small area is tenuous/debatable. This is the problem with the current Eden-Monaro and Hume.
To have Castlecrag in a seat with Manly but have Middle Cove as its only other part of Willoughby LGA is very sub optimal.
It would be better to have a seat that spans right across the upper north shore and pittwater – two big areas where every voter has a common interest with approx half the other voters in the seat. To infer that St. Ives Chase, North Turramurra and North Wahroonga, collectively, along with St. Ives, and parts of Pymble and Gordon wouldn’t be suitable with Bayview, Church Point, Bilgola Plateau seems a very odd conclusion to make. Everything other crossing of a divide seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Admin could you put up my post about name changes when possible please?
All comments have been posted.
High Street, I’d very much prefer Warringah not extend any further west than it already does (ie NOT take in the likes of Castle Cove, Castlecrag, Northbridge) but merely acknowledge there is a plausible argument for doing so.
Leon, Pennant Hills and West Pennant Hills are two very different entitities. I think Nicholas summed Pennant Hills situation as being at a cross point between 3 seats quite aptly. As to where it gravitates to; I lean towards Hornsby.
As for a boundary line between my Bradfield and Mitchell; I’m leaning to Boundary Road being the southern border with the western border starting from the bushland in the dip just past Pennant Hills HS. The areas south and east of Pennant Hills Road currently in Berowra go to Bennelong.
I am however open to some flexibility with regards to the Pennant Hills/WPH. Whilst I would retain Pennant Hills Rd as a border line with Bennelong; I can go along with moving my notional southern Bradfield boundary as far as Thompsons Corner with Castle Hill Rd/New Line Road & New Farm Rd forming a western boundary close to my intented border on Boundary Road. These are much older areas as against the later “sprawl”.
St Ives IS, I confess, a tricky customer as it is rather a sprawl and not entirely homogenous. Some older areas may perhaps gravitate to a degree to the “corridor” but in many ways it operates as its own hub. It has also evolved its own political characteristics and now votes somewhat differently to the bulk of the North Shore.
Given the state seat of Davidson now groups St Ives and parts of Lindfield and Roseville with the likes of Belrose/Frenchs Forest; I see this as some degree of “precedent’ for grouping this federally albeit I use Arterial Road south of St Ives as a western border rather going as far west as Davidson does.
I can agree that the Willoughby LGA northern boundary on Boundary Street would be the most ideal northern limit for North Sydney; and it was my starting point; but we have to acknowledge “the numbers” and Roseville and Lindfield DO gravitate more to Chatswood than northwards so there are at least some communities of interest arguments if you need to push North Sydney further north.
… i have no idea why it isnt here then I posted 3-4 things that havent appeared. ok guess il have to do it again
Potatoes, I saw you posted some name change recommendations in another post (Victoria and WA redistributions) so that may be the one you were thinking about.
name changes for NSW divisions il be suggesting or divisions of interest
Berowra ->the only thing wrong with this is it represents a place name however given Berowra is still inside the division this can be left alone for the time being
Calare -> Brock. renamed after racing legend Peter Brock as it contains mount panorama. the name calare is no longer relevant as it was the aboriginal word for the lachlan river which is no longer part of the division
Macquarie -> i will be looking to split the LGAs of Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. Blue mountains will combine with Lithgow, Wollondilly and Oberon to form Burragorang after the burragorang lake. the hawkesbury lga will probably carry the Macquarie name with it depending what i end up doing with it as at the moment im looking to add the excess from Lindsay, Mitchell and Chifley.
Newcastle -> King renamed after Philip Gidley King who governor of NSW and largely responsible for the prosperity of the hunter region and because the AEC says place names should be avoided and because a district of the same name already exists in the state of NSW state parliament
North Sydney -> Olsen renamed after John Henry Olsen AO OBE who was an Australian artist and winner of the 2005 Archibald Prize and because the AEC says place names should be avoided and because half of the North Sydney LGA is not even in the division and will probably lose more of at the redistribution in my proposal
Parramatta -> Pemulwuy renamed after aboriginal political leader and resistance fighter and because the AEC says place names should be avoided and because a district of the same name already exists in the state of NSW state parliament
Richmond -> Wollumbin renamed after aboriginal word for Mount Warning an extinct volcano in North eastern NSW and because the AEC says place names should be avoided especially since the Richmond region and most of the Richmond river for which it is named are now in the neighbouring division of Page and because a district of the same name already exists in the state of Victoria state parliament
Sydney -> Jaku renamed after holocaust survivor, author and peace activist Eddie Jaku and because the AEC says place names should be avoided and because a district of the same name already exists in the state of NSW state parliament
Warringah -> Sydney Harbour. renamed after the harbour it encircles and because the AEC says place names should be avoided and because half of the Warringah LGA is not even in the division and will probably lose more of at the redistriubtion in my proposal
Werriwa -> Bradman renamed after cricket legend Don Bradman. the name werriwa is no longer relevant as it was the aboriginal word for lake george which is now more then 200km away and which is no longer part of the division
I think most of those name change suggestions are good, although Pemulwuy is also used for the name of a suburb as well as the Aboriginal leader. I read somewhere that the name ‘Ngunnawal’ was not recommended as the name for an ACT federal district because it is also the name of a suburb.
@Potatoes
There is sometimes a delay between comments being submitted and them appearing on the site for established users. You can make certain that your comment has been posted by visiting the website on your phone, as the comments are always up to date there.
@yoh an we can only suggest it. I’m also thinking about transferring Jaku to Berowra and suggesting Sydney be renamed Philip reviving that name after the founder of the city and plan to follow a similar pattern in both WA and victoria
@Potatoes, I’m not sure how successful some of those name changes will be.
Your justification for renaming a lot of them is to remove place names, but many of your proposed names are also place names.
I don’t think King would get up, naming after a colonial governor is very 20th century. I think unless they are someone extraordiary, naming a division for any white male from the 18th or 19th century is probably past its time.
Olson is probably fine – although he only just passed away.
I think Jaku is a really good suggestion (although may be more appropriate for Wentworth than Sydney).
Pemulwuy is probably good, but as Yoh An says, it’s also a geographic name now. It might need to be named for an area that is further removed from the suburb.
I don’t think Bradman is approrpiate in any way whatsoever though. I don’t believe he deserves a division named after him. He did nothing to contribute to society execpt hit a ball with a bit of wood. Sure he did that really, really well. But that in itself is not at all worthy of a division name. He’s also got tons of other monuments and legacies named for him.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and he was actually a benevolant philanthropist. Division names should be given to those that serve the community either as a prime minister, governor general, groundbreaking senator or member or within the community. Bradman did none of this. I will die on this hill.
Agree Darren, famous sportspeople and other professionals do warrant having certain features named after them, but electoral districts have traditionally been named after people who served in government/academic type roles (examples like Burt, the family who held high office in various government and executive roles).
@darren while they may be place names they are relevant place names where as the ones they are replacing are not.
from the AEC In the main, divisions should be named after deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their country. I think King did and as I stated the prosperity of that entire region owes alot if not everything to him for his vision. Olsen yes I agree as well but I ran out of names and thats the most fitting I could find. In regards to Jaku tanks i might look at doing that. That Pemulwuy is also named after him, I chose Parramatta because that was the area in which he lived and thought it most fitting an alternative i had for Parramatta was “The Crescent” being what it was originally called but I like Pemulwuy better. I think Bradman rendered pretty good service to his country. Has been named as one of the greatest sportspeople who ever lived and at the time was the greatest australian alive. It was proposed in 2016 that Werriwa should be renamed Bradman as well but ultimately didnt get up at that time.
In my view, far too much is made over the names of divisions. In any contribution I make to the redistribution, I will make it clear that I will be expressing no views whatsoever regarding the names of divisions – other than that the boundaries of divisions should not be influenced by naming considerations.
@Darren like it or not the people who built this country were predominately white males. if they had not did what they did people wouldnt be here to hate them
@potatoes,
The problems with geographical places are twofold:
1. the names are often duplicated in state districts or even councils and wards, which can lead to confusion
and,
2. they do tend to drift away from the location. I think replacing one geographic name with another simply kicks the can down the road so in a few decades we’d be debating whether this volcano no longer being in the electorate warrants the name being changed. Naming them after people keeps them much more fluid. I’d get rid of all geographic divisions if I could – maybe keeping the capital city names.
While I’m not dismissing King’s achievements, I think you’ll find the AEC are currently focussed on providing more diversity in the people represented by divisions.
I think the time for naming divisions for colonial governors or premiers has passed and the move is to actually renaming or abolishing divisions named for colonial politicians (think Wakefield, Batman, Stirling, Dennison). Especially those who would have only ever considered themselves British doing a job in Australia temporarily before going back home to Britan.
More women and indigenous persons are being represented or those who have made modern achievements, particularly in sciene, arts or social areas. Men are still being honoured, (besides PMs, Fenner, Bean, Monash, Burt) but their achievements are recent.
Bradman did nothing for the community, his only service was in cricket. He never used his fame or fortune (being a board member of 16 companies he earnt sizeable income) to help anyone in the community. From accounts he wasn’t a very generous or nice person. The only thing of note he seemed to do after his cricketing career was to stop the cricket team going to South Africa during Aparteid.
In 2016, two public submissions suggested the name Bradman for Macarthur or Riverina. I believe the Liberal Party also suggested it for Hume back in either 2009 or 2006.
The AEC never agreed with these suggestions or proposed to name a division after him. I objected to the suggestions back in 2016, and I’ll continue to object to any suggestions this time. I don’t believe that sportspeople deserve divisions, unless they have also done additional social, community or political work. I also objected to suggestions for Betty Cuthbert and Shirley Strickland for the same reason.
Of course you are free to make whatever suggestions you want. I hope you do, as I’d like to see many more considered whole state submissions. Good luck.
also in regards to the place names I have suggested
from the AEC Locality or place names should generally be avoided, but in certain areas the use of geographical features may be appropriate
Agree Darren, I think sportspeople are already recognised by having their names adorned onto other features.
These can be things like roads such as Sir Don Bradman Drive in Adelaide and Peter Brock Drive, a local road into Oran Park near the former raceway he competed on. Even Sydney has named a whole fleet of ferries after former sportspeople, both living and deceased. I would say these features are better than district names for famous people’s names to be attached to because they are used by community frequently, rather than just exposure every election cycle.
What are the colonial names remaining?
I remember Tim Watts wanted Gellibrand renamed.
Would Wentworth, Lyne or Franklin count?
I am reasonably sure Macquarie will be retained though.
After using ChatGPT for consultation (because I am lazy), I am considering renaming Wentworth to Ritchie after Don Ritchie, who was known for stopping around 180 suicides at The Gap (which is in Wentworth).
Also, North Sydney should be renamed (more important than Parramatta or Newcastle) because the word Sydney is included elsewhere (See Melbourne Ports —> Macnamara). I drew a map earlier, which renames it to Mack.
In NSW I would consider colonial names to be:
Banks
Blaxland
Cook (although not if it was rededicated to include PM Joseph Cook)
Cowper
Cunningham
Greenway
Hume
Hunter
Macarthur
Macquarie
Mitchell
Robertson
Shortland
Wentworth and Paterson could be considerd but have enough merit that they are not counted.
Of the colonial ones, I think Cook, Hunter, Macquarie and Macarthur are safe. Cowper, Hume and Robertson are Federation names, so they’re safe too probably. Preserving Federation names is a whole other story that I’m also not in favour of.
I think when the determination shows 46 divisions, one of these will be the name to be abolished.
@ darren then perhaps we should rename half the cities in this country too since theyre all named after colonial era white men. Sydney, Melbure. Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin, Brisbane. and Queensland, NSW, and Victoria while we’re at it.
the volcano is in the the north east corner of nsw right near the border with queensland the cchances of that happening are next to none at least this century anyway.
I could argue half the people who have divisions named after them did nothing for their community. hell Albos division of Grayndler is named after a union rep. it says people who have given serivce to their country and I believe someone who did so much for the game of cricket deserves to be honoured.
@leon to be honest im in favour of colonial names as the people who built this country deserved to be honoured and not have their names removed just because people have now decided they want to rewrite history they dont agree with. its not like we are removing them because of scandals they commited like a certain now deceased entertainer.
@leon the problem with Mack or North Sydney is its right next to and sounds similar to Mackellar and would probably be rejected due to potential confusion.
the other division Im wanting to fix is Shortland. its effectively a thin coastal strip with two bulges either side of lake macquarie. im wanting to have Dobell take in the reaminder of Wyong LGA and then have shortland take some territory from Hunter given thats over quota.
@ Leon,
Some other colonial names Hotham and Shortland. I personally feel that seats that date back to Federation like Macquarie/Wentworth would be retained in terms of naming. I feel Hotham is the next to go.
Some other names i hope will be added are Yagan, Perkins (Charles Perkins) and Bandler (Faith Bandler)
@Potatoes, I’m not suggesting – and never have – that we should remove all instances of these people’s names. I’m not advocating for “cancelling” them. I just think there are more appropriate, relevant and deserving people to be honoured with a division name.
Keep naming roads, suburbs, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, hosptials, universities, parks, hotels and all manner of things after these people. Just don’t use the names of people whose only claim to fame in Australia was that they found a mountain that had been there for millenia or had a temporary assignment here in their British military career. There are only so many divisions to go round.
Potatoes, Darren and others are only talking about renaming electoral districts. Many of these colonial names are still in use for other purposes (Macquarie, Macarthur, Hunter and Hume are all used as names for certain localities whilst Cunningham and Mitchell are used as names for major interstate highways). No-one is talking about removing these colonial names completely, just to minimise the amount of duplication.
@Potatoes – to demonstrate that I’m not just arguing with you for the sake of it:
I do completely agree with your assessment of Shortland. In fact in 2016, I proposed Shortland be abolished with Dobell and Charlton taking up the excess.
@Nimalan – If a division needs to be abolished in Vic, I’ll probably suggest Hotham. To be honest, Chisholm is probably a better candidate, but I don’t see them removing the name Chisholm.
I have seen Bandler suggested a couple of times, in Victoria and WA I think, but I believe it would be more approriate to have a division named after her in NSW. Although I was looking at a rename of a division to Bellear after brothers Sol and Bob. I might add So was a rugby league player, but he did much more than just play football.
Agree Darren, many of the figures named for electoral districts performed actions that advanced public life in some extent and their work was appreciated by the community. This includes union officials like Grayndler who advocated for worker’s rights that are still in use today.
Sportspeople like Don Bradman who were generally only known for their profession and didn’t really contribute to the community unlike other academic/governmental figures. Sol Bellear like ex NT MP Maurice Rioli were sportspeople that later contributed to public life through working with community organisations.
@Darren still they dont need to be renamed just because someone else came along who wasnt a old white man who helped found and build this country. once they expand the parliament whihc is inevitable with a growing population these new names can be added and at current there are still divisions not named after people that can be renamed first.
in regards to abolished divisions in NSw it will probably be in western Sydney as together theres a deficiet of close to a whole quota and given most are named after former PMs the obvious choice is Blaxland. given the geography it can easily be carved up and spread in different directions. In vic id say it would be either Chisholm or Hotham as well but i think Chisholm is more likely. due to being more in the centre of the shortfall.
Im also gonna find some alternative name for Grayndler as I dont think a being a union rep qualifies one for a division named after them even if they were a politician. otherwise we’ll end up having three quarters of the labor party having divisions named after them. I might shift the Jaku suggestion there.
Potatoes, I am not arguing that every union official should deserve something being named after them, only those from past history who contributed to the community through advancing significant worker’s rights. I would say today’s union officials have no need to contribute much since a lot of the work has already been achieved.
I think that is why Charlton as a name was removed because Matthew Charlton as unionist wasn’t that well known and didn’t contribute as much as the other officials from his time period.
Reading this conversation makes me wish we did what the US does and just number our electorates!
@yoh an Charlton was removed because Hunter was on the chopping block due to being in the area where the deficit was and rather then abolish a federation name they decided to move it eastwards and abolish Charlton
@Nicholas
I’m the opposite – I love how we give distinct names to our electorates down here, unlike say the US/UK/Canada/NZ
Based on what I’m looking at doing two will be abolished and a new one created. As there is a deficit in both western and northern Sydney. So abolishing one in each and then creating another in GWS is probably gonna be what happens
Bring back Gwydir. It should never have been abolished in the first place.
John Andersons old seat during the Howard years.
Why was it abolished in the 2006 redistribution? It ended a young man’s political career who was seen as a rising star.
I am not aware of any population declines in regional NSW, unless Sydney is growing faster? But Sydney has slowed down in recent years compared to other east coast cities.
Where was gwydir?
@ Darren
Agree Chisholm will likely be abolished in practice with the seat divided between neighboring seats. However, i think they we will keep the name Chisholm and apply it to a redrawn Hotham. It will likely mean that both Carina Garland and Claire O’neil will compete for preselection to the redrawn Chisholm. However, given O’Neil is senior she will prevail and Carina will contest a redrawn Menzies or Deakin depending on which one on the new boundaries is more favorable to Labor.
@Potatoes
Between New England and Parkes
@ Daniel T It doesn’t matter that the population of most of the regional seats isn’t declining, they’re stagnant and/or growing slower in proportion to the entire state due to Sydney, and therefore they lose representation. Just because Sydney is growing slower than say Melbourne or Brisbane doesn’t mean it’s not growing at all.
I don’t see how you could bring back a division such as Gwydir without creating some very strange boundaries. If parliament were expanded perhaps it would be possible, but I doubt that’s happening anytime soon, and by then it may not even be suitable either.
My recollection is that John Anderson announced his retirement before the draft redistribution abolished Gwydir. Moreover, by the time the redistribution was final Parkes was basically just Gwydir renamed. (Only in a subsequent redistribution did Parkes revert to its old form.) John Cobb switched from Parkes to Calare at that time, so Anderson was free to run in Parkes had he so wanted.
Comments are closed.