The Australian Electoral Commission made it official last week: the House of Representatives will shrink by one seat. New South Wales and Victoria will each lose one seat, while Western Australia will regain one seat.
None of this was a surprise. We’ve known for months that it was the likely outcome, and in June it was made certain when the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their latest quarterly population estimates. The AEC’s role is to exactly apply a formula to those population numbers.
I hadn’t been planning to do a blog post, since I covered this topic at length in January. I might return to this topic later this year when the first rounds of submissions are released. In late January and early February I did three blog posts on the topic.
Unusually, those blog posts have still had active comments sections, but have now closed due to the amount of time passing. So I’m setting up this post to continue those conversations.
The previous posts were:
- Prospects for changes in federal seat numbers
- Closing the gap in federal seat enrolments in NSW
- What might happen at the Victorian and WA federal redistributions?
Can someone tell me where the starting point geographically is in each state whose numbers are adjusted.
Take NSW-is the starting point the GPO,South Head,North Head etc etc.Its logical to start with a water boundary as otherwise you presumable run into trouble.
From what I understand for NSW, the three starting points are Mackellar, Wentworth and Cook.
I will be starting with Richmond.
The North Coast is over-enrolled, even with a reduction to 46 Divisions. There are around 35,000 electors (based on current numbers) that need to be transferred out of the North Coast.
Both Northern Metro & Southern Metro Divisions are each around 1/2 a Division short. Pretty much every Division is going to be affected.
Either the projected enrolment numbers are going to be “manipulated” as I believe they were at the previous redistribution to allow for a “neat” abolition of Charlton, or most metropolitan Divisions are going to look dramatically different from the current configuration.
It will be a metro Division that is abolished
For NSW, the North Coast over quota issue can be addressed by transferring some more Hunter Valley towns (Muswellbrook and possibly Singleton) into New England. This is necessary because New England will likely need to cede some of its rural territory into Parkes.
Subsequently, Hunter can then absorb more of Maitland and surrounds from Paterson, with Paterson extending north to include towns like Dungog and Bulahdelah. The remaining North Coast seats all shuffle northwards, similar to their pre 2016 configuration.
It is my understanding that in Victoria the starting points are Wannon, Mallee, Indi, Gippsland, Melbourne, McNamara and Kooyong.
The last seat drawn has usually been McEwan, however this year might be different as either Victoria will lose one seat or 2 seats could be abolished with a new one being created
In Sydney, it seems that many people see Berrowa and Bradfield effectively being merged, with the name being retained to be decided – perhaps there will be a new name. But many also see a downside to shifting Greenway and Mitchell to far west to take up the numbers from Berrowa. The solution therefore seems to be to push Mackellar or North Sydney as far into Bradfield as possible, squeezing Bradfield north (you could argue that this therefore is no longer a merger of Berrowa and Bradfield but rather an abolition of Bradfield). To do this, Bennelong may have to take territory from North Sydney, which it needs to from somewhere as it is under quota as well.
It seems also likely that a repeat of the last NSW State redistribution will occur and a seat will be lost in the medium distance south west ring to be replaced with a new one further south and further west – thus more easily solving the Hume conundrum.
Is the Hunter Growth enough to justify reestablishing Charlton?
Also, I wonder if Robertson can go into Cowan and Brooklyn (but DEFINITELY NO FURTHER). I know the AEC asks submissions to not cross the Hawkesbury at that section but only Intercity trains travel beyond Berowra, meaning there are no arguments based on transport to say the minimum.
How many voters in Cowan and Brooklyn and would it make a difference? Might make the size of the seat based around Hornsby look less big but not sure voter wise if its worth it??
@Jeff Waddell, @Yoh An, I’ll also be starting with the North Coast because I think the solution for Cowper has significant implications elsewhere. There is no way that Cowper will be able to continue to contain both Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, but excising each of them has challenges.
Coffs Harbour because there is nowhere for it to go, with Page and Richmond both over-quota. You’d probably need to extend New England as far as Casino to take enough electors out of Page to allow it to absorb Coffs Harbour.
Moving Port Macquarie may also be problematic in that it is more electors than you’d ideally want to move, but I think it might be the better solution, even if Page then ends up needing to gain electors from New England to bring the trio of Richmond-Page-Cowper up to a collective three quotas.
With 46 seats the North Coast – from the Hawkesbury up to the border is about 1/3 of a seat over quota. It may be easy to accept that all of these seats will be over but to have them evened up. Robertson is quite under quota so can move north. Richmond and Page may not need much change at all. The problem is that Cowper, Lyne, Paterson and Hunter – the seats in the middle are all well over quota.
Is it agreed that the North Coast seats will flex only into or out of New England at either the upper Hunter or Casino end, in order to get the desired balance, and not across the Hawkesbury? If so yo can start at Cowper and Mackellar/Warringah simultaneously. Hume will be affected more by what happens on the North Coast than northern Sydney seats will….
Would love someone to throw up some Mackellar/Warringah options that capture 2 quota’s, then we can start talking about North Sydney and the new Bradfield/Berrowa
I know I keep going on about this, But what is stopping the government from increasing the seat count and re-appeal Section 24 (nexus division) so that there can be a different number of seats than the current by law? (twice the number as the senate). I agree the senate shouldn’t expand to 150 members if the house goes to 300, that is why this provision should be re-appealed. as far as I’m aware, the Canadian, USA and UK upper houses (2 of which aren’t elected at all) are not half the size of the lower house, with one being LARGER than the lower chamber (In that case my birth country of UK)
The average number of aussies in a seat has gone up even if it’s small since the last election under the new allocation. and that isn’t including the population growth since and that will continue until the next election.
Are we still going to be having this discussion in 2030 when our population could reach over 30 million people? We are long overdue for a parliament expansion and it’s time for a parliamentary committee was formed (perhaps in the federation chamber) to explore this issue.
I know constitutional change is complex. but I believe most of us would favour increasing the number of house seats on the rationale of growing population. yes allot of us hate our politicians, but we want to be better represented in parliament and have our voices heard. but the more people per electorate, the more workload for an MP meaning the harder it is to get in touch with an MP as it would take longer for them to get back to you, and more letters they will receive and send out.
I am really passionate about this issue, and while I could write to my Greens Federal MP, I am not sure if that would get anywhere, I don’t even know the Greens position on this is, despite the left traditionally supporting ”Bigger government”
@Dean Ashley thank you! I 100% agree with you on Cowper and I finally have found someone who agrees!
The easy solution would be to put Port Macquarie back into the seat of Lyne, which lessens the seat by 50,000 voters (I know this will work because I actually grew up in Port Macquarie and I still visit family there).
Cowper will be my main complaint to the AEC. Also, why is it that the AEC is reverting the seat total back to 150 like it was pre-2019 if the population is growing not declining? And why in 2022 was a WA seat abolished and a Victorian seat created if in 2025 a WA seat will be created and both a NSW seat and a Victorian seat will be abolished?
@High St
My predicted Mackellar and Warringah are as follows:
Warringah:
Gains the rest of Forestville
Gains more parts of Dee Why (Everything south of Pittwater Rd)
Gains the rest of Cremorne and Neutral Bay
Gains Roseville Chase, Castle Cove, Middle Cove, Lindfield East, Killara East
Mostly 2007 boundaries + Neutral Bay and Cremorne
Mackellar:
Loses all of Forestville and parts of Dee Why (as mentioned above)
Gains all of St Ives
Mostly 2007 boundaries + St Ives
Oh god, North Sydney is going to be a nightmare… i don’t want it going up to Lindfield… I believe it should NOT lose Hunters Hill LGA to Bennelong by the way.
Leon – the answer – abolish Warringah. Have North Sydney take in Manly. Bradfield includes Frenchs Forest and Belrose. Berowra takes in Wahroonga. Bennelong moves back into Lane Cove.
Daniel
Repealing the nexus requires a referendum. It was tried in 1967 and failed. The smaller states relish that power of equal senate representation. There is little enough will to increase the overall number -with or without the nexus – let alone go for wholesale increase. Or as in NSW, fiddling with the numbers led to a decrease. In 1950, NSW had 94 MPs, now there are 93. In 1904, they had 90 – that is a better argument for increasing numbers. An increase to 84 and 168 would at least be an achievable start without trying for constitutional change.
My other thoughts – besides abolishing Warringah – is to abolish Cunningham making Whitlam a totally Illawarra seat and taking Hughes back down into northern Wollongong. The balance is a new seat based on Camden. Can’t do much though until the projections come out.
@Redistributed
When I did calculations based on 2021 NSW State Redistribution figures, I got almost exactly 2 seats (of 46) with the following (within 2%):
Sutherland Shire
Part of Liverpool LGA (South of Georges River)
Part of Bankstown LGA (South of Milperra Rd)
I believe the latter fits with Hughes as it is relatively rich and white compared to Bankstown proper, (just like Moorebank is relative to Liverpool proper) and also helps gives a transport link between Moorebank/Holsworthy and the Sutherland Shire. It also fixed Banks’ split of communities of interests by abolishing it.
The problem I think is that if enrolment in that area (relative to the state) falls any shorter, one of the following has to happen (all bad on community of interest):
Hughes goes into Liverpool proper
Cook still crosses the Georges River
Hughes takes in a bit of Northern Illawarra (thus forcing Moorebank and Revesby with Helensburgh or further south)
———————————
Regarding Warringah, Mackellar and North Sydney,
Never mind, North Sydney going into Manly is worse.
Warringah should NOT be abolished anyway until either:
1 seat can be drawn with all of Northern Beaches other than the the Forest District (i.e. remove All of former Warringah LGA to the west of Wakehurst Pkwy, including Terrey Hills, Belrose and Forestville), OR
Mackellar+Warringah has to cross the Freeway, East Arterial Rd/Archibold Rd or Eastern Valley Way, or take in any of Cammeray, Castlecrag or Turramurra/Gordon (North Turramurra is fine)
I seriously hope though that the Prime Minister expands the parliament though. It is becoming difficult to draw seats with communities of interest.
@ Leon.
I don’t see what is so precious about Hunters Hill.
North Sydney can easily move up the highway/train line – what’s the problem with Lindfield? I’d rather see that then Willoughby East cut in half by Eastern Valley Way – the Middle harbour headlands might have been in Warringah in 2007 (that was before I lived where I do now) but it was stupid then and would be stupid now.
@High Street
The School catchments for Killarney Heights High school suggest some common amenities are there.
Also, Mackellar into Gordon/Turramurra proper (St Ives is acceptable) is MORE stupid (and all other less stupid options were already added)
As for hunters hills, it demographically fits, geographically unideal but nowhere near as bad as some of the other options, and prevents North Sydney going too North. North Sydney should be a Lower North Shore seat. I consider Lindfield to be the maximum it can go up to based on some train services from Chatswood ending there. By removing Hunters Hill from it, it may cause North Sydney to go into Killara and that is simply too far up based on the reason I mentioned above.
Never mind, I realised I made an error in my Excel.
On 2021 NSW State figures (which projected enrolment for 2023), the following made up 3 quotas:
Lindfield and Lindfield East
Roseville and Roseville Chase
St Ives and St Ives Chase
All of Willoughby, Mosman, North Sydney, Lane Cove and Northern Beaches LGA
North Sydney does not need to go into Killara it looks like.
Adding Hunters Hill and Woolwich (But not Huntleys Cove, Huntleys Point, Henley or the Hunters Hill LGA parts of Gladesville) will push it up to 3.06 seats (which may be viable anyway depending on future projections).
Adding the rest of Hunters Hill LGA makes it about 3.09 seats.
Thanks for that Leon, I’ve been wondering, assuming Mackellar takes in St Ives and St Ives Chase, how far Warringah and then North Sydney would have to come ‘around the clock’ to make up 3 quotas.
If Hunters Hill LGA is about 9% of a quota then that would solve Bennelong’s shortfall plus a little bit. It seems like they could go either way.
I would have thought Ryde Road / Mona Vale Road was the maximum feasible extent of North Sydney before it becomes illogical – its better to take in a decent chunk of Kuringai LGA than just a small slice
@high street the most likely option is mackellar moving into warringah
Nether Portal:
> Also, why is it that the AEC is reverting the seat total back to 150 like it was pre-2019 if the population is growing not declining? And why in 2022 was a WA seat abolished and a Victorian seat created if in 2025 a WA seat will be created and both a NSW seat and a Victorian seat will be abolished?
To summarise Ben’s previous article:
* The 151 vs 150 thing is mostly down to rounding
* It’s not about national population growth. Just if one state grows faster (slower) than the others, it gets a bigger (smaller) share of the national population and therefore a bigger (smaller) share of the seats.
* The 2021 Census update said WA was bigger than we thought, and Vic and NSW smaller. But the seat numbers for the 2022 election were set in 2020, just as the numbers for the 2025 election have been set now.
Agree Alex J, the way apportionment works in Australia is very similar to the way the US House apportions seats for its 50 states after every decennial census. Except with the US all states undergo redistricting simultaneously after the census, even if their apportionment does not change.
As a result, the US sees states with slow population growth below the national average losing seats at each census apportionment (mostly in the Midwest), even though their population continues to increase over time.
Looking for over-quota seats in NSW that could be better drawn around communities of interest, the leading candidates appear to be Berowra, Parramatta, Banks, and Hughes. Adjustments between those and surrounding seats look the most feasible.
One such change could be to abolish Banks and divide it and surrounding areas into surrounding seats, for example:
1. Extend Hughes to the north-west by adding Chipping Norton from Fowler (Chipping Norton goes with Moorebank which is already in Hughes)
2. Extend Blaxland south by adding Padstow and Panania from Banks (they go with Blaxland’s core centred upon Bankstown, and Salt Pan Creek makes a very neat boundary through what was previously the centre of Banks).
3. Option to extend Watson south by adding Riverwood from Banks (Watson could extend south to say Forest Road), or otherwise leave Watson as-is and instead add Riverwood into Barton in the next adjustment below…
4. Extend Barton south-west by adding Mortdale and Oatley from Banks (also with the option to extend Grayndler south to the Cooks River to take all of Marrickville and Tempe from Barton – the Cooks River being another very appropriate boundary).
5. Extend Cook north by adding Kogarah and Carlton from Barton (this avoids splitting this major centre of Kogarah down the middle).
These kinds of adjustments in central southern or northern Sydney suburbs would be much more feasible than some of the suggestions above that ignore some very significant geographic boundaries in the North Shore and Northern Beaches.
For example, the current boundary between Mackellar and Bradfield along Cowan Creek and Middle Harbour Creek (past St Ives Showground) is excellently drawn through National Parks. This is a logical divide between separate communities of interest. Putting any of St Ives in Mackellar would be ridiculous.
The quota issues in north-east Sydney are mostly around Warringah, where a westward creep into Cremorne and Cammeray (taken from North Sydney) is the most logical first step, along with moving North Sydney’s northern boundary northwards into Bradfield.
I also agree with the suggestions that we should be expanding parliament to get better representation. The problem is that our politics continues to be so divided and divisive, and this is not a good platform for expanding parliament.
At the moment, there’s just so little trust in parliament. It seems a lot of voters would argue that the fewer politicians we have, the better!
So I conclude that we need to reform parliamentary practices (better and clearer parliamentary standards, political donations transparency, truth in political advertising, etc.) to improve people’s trust in parliaments before we can realistically achieve an expansion of parliament.
Comments are closed.