Federal redistributions have recently commenced in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.
The AEC yesterday published the enrolment data to be used to draw New South Wales federal electorates.
There are two sets of data – enrolment data as of August 2023, and projected enrolments as of April 2028. This data has been published at the level of SA1, but for this post I’m just looking at it at the electorate and regional level.
Electorates must be drawn within 10% of the average as of August 2023, but just 3.5% of the average as of April 2028. That latter number is thus more important, and there are some notable differences.
I’ve previously written about possible enrolment trends twice, but that was only based on current enrolments.
This next table groups electorates into nine regions, and shows how much each region falls short or exceeds the quota. So if a region currently has six electorates, but is projected to only have 5.2251 quotas, that is written as -77.49.
When you compare the two sets of numbers, you see that the projections are expected to increase Sydney’s population relative to regional NSW by about half a seat between now and early 2028.
That growth is entirely within the north-west and south-west of Sydney. Those areas collectively have about the right number of voters at the moment for their eleven seats (impressive considering NSW is losing one seat), but by April 2028 are projected to have 80% of an extra seat’s population.
The north coast and the Hunter regions are just slightly over quota. When you look at the map, most of that surplus is in Paterson, which is 11.7% over quota.
Western NSW is quite a long way under quota, but about a third of that can be sorted by taking in some extra voters from the Hunter.
In Sydney, there is a very stark difference between the east and west. The six electorates in northern Sydney, stretching as far west as Bennelong and Berowra, fall 78% of a seat short of a quota. I can’t see how they avoid abolishing one seat in this area.
In central and southern Sydney, these ten seats are also almost 80% of a seat short of a quota, so again I suspect a seat could be abolished in that area. The seat of Wentworth is more than 20% under quota, but it won’t be abolished because it fits neatly into its corner. It’s more likely a seat like Blaxland would be abolished, as the deficits of all the seat further east accumulate.
But NSW only needs to lose one seat! So this frees up one seat to be created somewhere else, and the obvious choice would be straddling the north-west and south-west. Just two seats in the south-west (Macarthur and Werriwa) are projected to have more than 2.5 seats worth of enrolment by April 2028.
There’s also about a half quota of surplus enrolment projected to join Lindsay, Greenway, Chifley and Mitchell between them. Plus if the northern suburbs lose one seat, they’ll have about 1/5th of surplus voters to be added to Mitchell or Parramatta.
Antony Green pointed out on my podcast, and again in his excellent blog post from yesterday, that it’s likely that this will force the commissioners to draw a seat crossing Windsor Road, which currently separates Mitchell from Greenway, and is usually a strong electoral boundary.
Once they have sorted out all the internal changes within Sydney, losing one electorate, Sydney will collectively have about one quarter of a seat of surplus population. Meanwhile there will be about a quarter of a seat’s deficit in western NSW electorates.
The easiest way to resolve this imbalance is through the seat of Hume, which has a bizarre set of boundaries which include Goulburn and the Wollondilly and Camden areas, but skip over much of the Southern Highlands in between. Shifting Hume further into Sydney would resolve that imbalance.
That’s it for now. If you want to see the quotas for each seat, check out the map below. Antony’s blog post also has some nice maps with the same data.
Parkes – Current Enrollment 117550 – Projected enrollment 117407
After redistribution – Enrollment 130346 – Projected enrollment 129431
One interesting question is how the bellow quota status of Sydney, Wentworth and Kingsford-Smith will be resolved?
Through moving Sydney out through Grayndler or extending Kingsford-Smith out into the western part of the Bayside LGA (it already contains the eastern part)?
I think moving Sydney out to the Inner West is a better option compared to having Kingsford Smith absorb all of Bayside Council. Whilst it does cleave/divide LGA’s, I feel the LGA boundaries in inner Sydney do not really represent best community of interest, with Rockdale being separate from Botany and not having many transport connections between the two.
@Tom
I went with moving former Leichhardt LGA into Sydney as was the case in 1977 when Kingsford Smith, Wentworth and Phillip had to expand.
The only other alternative that makes sense in shape is moving Tempe and St Peters into Kingsford Smith, making it a South Sydney seat instead of a beachside seat (this was also done in 1977). This is done in State Heffron. That said, it may be difficult given Kingsford Smith will still contain decent number of beach suburbs, hence ruining the community of interests (this wasn’t an issue in 1977 as Phillip took all these areas. Also not an issue with Heffron as it contains no Randwick LGA)
in regards to sydney wentworth and KS. i have moved Wentworth south in coogee, sydney taking in the remaining parts of the Sydney LGA from wentworth and KS moving west into Barton
i madea an error on Parkes on the starting numbers heres the updated version
Parkes – Current Enrollment 110690 – Projected enrollment 109528
After redistribution – Enrollment 127231 – Projected enrollment 125633
I just can’t imagine Kingsford Smith crossing over the Cooks River. It wouldn’t surprise me if it had to shift west of the Alexandria Canal, to end up taking in some of the territory of Heffron at a state level, but I doubt the electoral commission would find a Maroubra and Rockdale seat to be the best option.
As I have stated elsewhere, it should be Sydney that is forced to move west, not Kingsford Smith. The reality is that one or both of Wentworth and Kingsford Smith will need to take territory from Sydney.
In my ideal scenario, Wentworth would take in the Sydney CBD and the areas to the east of it, including the entirety of Woollahra and Waverley LGAs. That would allow Kingsford Smith to remain very similar to its current alignment and avoid messy issues with where to place its south-west boundary if not the Alexandria Canal. Sydney and Grayndler would need to be radically redrawn in such a scenario, potentially seeing one of them abolished. This is not so much of an issue, as the various parts of the Inner West and Inner South are not so dissimilar unlike the Eastern Suburbs and St George area.
On the Northern Side, North Sydney seems to be the logical and widely expected abolition. All of North Sydney and Mosman LGAs should fit into Warringah, with the border between Warringah and Mackellar moving south of Dee Why. Bradfield moves south to take in all of Willoughby LGA and Bennelong moves east to take in all of Lane Cove LGA.
Does anyone know which seat in Inner/southern sydney would be abolished?
Sydney, Kingsford Smith and Wentworth are too close to the corner
Hughes, Reid, Watson and Barton are PM names
Really only leaves Banks, Blaxland and Grayndler.
Based on my calculations, I think I would propose to abolish Grayndler because even if it gains parts of Barton north of Cook’s river it looks like it has to go to Burwood unless Grayndler crosses Cooks River. But if it does cross the river, it is basically Watson or Barton.
Consequentially Banks loses all of Revesby area, while Reid loses all of Lidcombe and Sydney Olympic Park area.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1zjp8bTN7_lxMspLIqQIucxa7OtVwvzU&usp=sharing
One of either Grayndler, Watson, Blaxland or Banks will be axed if there’s one in southern Sydney to be axed due to their centrality and all being under-quota and surrounded by under-quota electorates. It’s interesting as southern Sydney is home to many ministers and the Prime Minister.
Even though Banks is bounded by a river, it is surrounded by hugely under-quota electorates. Banks has the potential to be sliced up and ceded to its neighbours – Blaxland, Watson and Barton. If it survives then it will expand and take up strong Labor-voting areas north of the M5 and/or east of King Georges Rd.
Grayndler is the smallest electorate in the country and is well short of the quota. Abolishing it would be quite easy but the dilemma is that many electorates will then have to shift eastward or northward.
Watson could be abolished and carved up but since it’s the surname of a former PM, a neighbouring electorate will have to be renamed to Wason.
@conor the reason why I chose not to move Sydney was because it can be contained entirely within the Sydney lga. The reason why I chose not to abolish grayndlwr was because it’s albos seat and you know they are just gonna get flooded with objections. The best one is Barton which can be carved up between grayndlwr Watson banks and ks.
@leon most likely the grayndlwr name will be abolished and just be taken over by one of the PM’s similar to how they preserved hunter.
@votante see above.
Sometimes a seat fits perfectly into a spot, but you can’t do that because there are needs elsewhere that force it to move. Sydney is a perfect example. The Leichhardt area has far far more in common with the City of Sydney than Rockdale does with Botany, regardless of LGA borders. And Sydney used to cover the Balmain peninsula. It would be insane to push Kingsford-Smith into Inner West or Rockdale instead of pushing Sydney into Inner West.
@Leon – Sydney is the same distance from the coast/corner as North Sydney (and directly opposite on the harbour), yet plenty here are suggesting North Sydney should be abolished, so perhaps your starting point assumption about Sydney above is not well founded.
There’s been an assumption that it won’t be untill as far out as Watson or Blaxland, but given ho much Wentworth and K-S need to expand, it might be Sydney on the chopping block, or Grayndler – it really is hard to see all 4 of these seats staying, especially if K-S can’t go into Barton (and therefore Barton would likely go)
@Conor – I think if you were to look back over all the posts with comments on this topic, there would be a slight majority in favour of abolishing Berrowa, or effectively combining it with Bradfield – they are a combined 31% under quota – mainly because Berrowa is such an ill-defined seat and the border between them splits the Hornsby area in two.
Your logic is built on the immediate assumption that Mackellar can only move south – it can move west. There is no inviolate community of interest barrier between the northern beaches and the upper north shore – indeed, placing Newport, Bayview, and Whale Beach in the same electorate as St. Ives Chase and North Wahroonga would be perfect communities of interest on many levels.
I will use your LGA logic in an alternative way. Most of North Sydney LGA is currently in North Sydney (Warringah has had to progressively encroach on Neutral Bay) so return all of North Sydney LGA to North Sydney and combine it with Lane Cove and Willoughby LGA’s – Hunters Hill alone goes to Bennelong. Ku-ring-gai LGA is large and unwieldy but not large enough for an electorate alone, I do not think. Therefore, split it between North Sydney, Mackellar and a new, more northern Bradfield.
I prefer having geographical barriers as boundaries where possible, followed by major infrastructure such as motorways, railway lines and major arterial roads. I’m not a fan of it cutting through quiet suburban streets.
Wentworth, Sydney and Kingsford Smith will survive the cull but will expand westward.
Wentworth will either: 1. Expand westward and regaining Darlinghurst and Potts Point with a remote chance of reaching Hyde Park 2. Expand south to Coogee and Randwick.
Kingsford-Smith takes up the very densely-populated Rosebery and Zetland. It can do so whilst staying east of Alexandra Canal. Sydney takes up Enmore and St Peters. There’s a possibility of taking up Annandale.
@Ben, I agree that Bayside Council LGA is a bad amalgamation with the airport creating a physical, psychological and social divide in between Rockdale and Botany. I can’t see Kingsford-Smith so far west into the Inner West. As I mentioned, Rosebery and Zetland are super high-density and there’s a lot of electors it can pick up.
I live in Greenway, right near Windsor Rd. A newly drawn seat that crosses this political boundary would create a highly competitive electorate, taking votes from the Labor voting Greenway and the liberal voting Mitchell.
Potentially could see 2 well known political identities going against each other: Michelle Rowland and Alex Hawke.
@High St
You are forgetting that Sydney has areas in the southern parts of Sydney LGA that can get moved into Kingsford Smith (as per my proposal) before Wentworth or Kingsford Smith goes into Sydney CBD.
Meanwhile North Sydney proper is right on the southeastern edge of North Sydney electorate. Also, both Mackellar and Warringah are below quota, while Kingsford Smith isn’t as bad (though Wentworth is very below average).
You mention St Ives in Mackellar, but that isn’t enough. North Turramurra, East Killara, East Lindfield, Roseville Chase, Castle Cove and Middle Cove all have to be moved into one of the Northern Beaches seats if North Sydney were to stay in North Sydney. Making such a move would stretch North Sydney from North Sydney to all of Gordon (even if Hunters Hill is retained), at which point it becomes stupid because nothing about Hunters Hill justifies it being in the same seat as Gordon. Remove Hunters Hill and it goes to Pymble at which point it basically becomes a Ku-Ring-Gai seat, at which point it shouldn’t be North Sydney.
Hi all,
Can anyone please suggest how to get a NSW SA1 shapefile that isn’t locked?
I’ve been updating my ideas for the redistribution using the electoral data. Using rough methods (excel and maps) I can draw several good divisions, but I need to move into QGIS to do it properly.
I’ve downloaded SA1 shapefiles from the ABS at the link below and opened them in QGIS, but the data appears to be locked, so I haven’t worked out how to start editing the existing SA1s into new divisions.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/access-and-downloads/digital-boundary-files
For those who are working in GIS / QGIS, what spatial data did you start with please?
@Leon
There is always a contrary view. How about moving Mascot out of K-S or at least moving the boundary with Wentworth north, thus making Wentworth 28% under quota. It takes all of this from Sydney, as it then must. Sydney is then 34% under quota, and therefore gets combined with Grayndler. There really is no strong community of interest distinctions between these areas.
As to your other points. I can drive from Gordon to Hunters Hill in 19 minutes. Guess what? That’s exactly the same at from North Willoughby to Hunters Hill, which are already in the same North Sydney seat – 19 minutes to cross a federal electorate! Very few other places in the nation would be able to do that. (I do agree though that Hunters Hill just looks on all measures better placed in Bennelong – you basically have to cross a water body from the rest of North Sydney to get to it).
If Mackellar needs all those suburbs you mention to get to quota, why can’t it take everything east of the Pacific Highway around Gordon and Killara? Why come so far south to Middle Cove?
Another option is to consider a seat like Davisdon at a State level. How much does Mackellar have to lose so that Warringah loses Mosman and becomes only a Northern beaches seat – thus combining Mackellar and Warringah into a single seat?
Whitlam has to be fixed up. It looks completely gerrymandered with population centres in the east and the west and very little in between. Wingecarribee or the Southern Highlands part (Mittagong, Bowral, Moss Vale) is linked to Shellharbour by a single road, and it’s not even a wide one.
Some possibilities for Whitlam:
1. Wingecarribee should go to Hume. It has more in common with Wollondilly as they are linked by the M31 and minor roads. Since Hume is already over-quota, it should lose parts of its north, west and south to neighbouring, under-quota electorates.
2. Whitlam should also lose its northern parts e.g. Berkely, Cringila and this’ll help Cunningham achieve its quota.
3. Expand southwards to Kiama if one or both of the above happen.
The problem with abolishing grayndlwr and Sydney is you can guarantee about 10,000 objections
@high street because Mackellar is pretty close to quota now and effectively becomes par by taking only Killarney heights no way you can make just one seat there
@leon has at least seen things my way when I proposed abolishing na months ago and has now seen the light of my reasoning
@High Street
In such a scenario as you propose with Kingsford Smith moving north into Wentworth and Wentworth moving west into Sydney, Grayndler and Sydney need not be merged into each other.
Sydney could take in all of Annandale, Balmain, Lilyfield-Rozelle, Leichhardt and Newtown from Grayndler. This would offset the losses of the Sydney CBD itself and everything to the immediate east to Wentworth. Grayndler would then be shifted to the south west, becoming focused on Ashfield, Canterbury, Earlwood and Marrickville.
The likely outcome here is that Banks is abolished, as the south-west shifts push Barton and Watson to the Georges River.
It is my opinion that the cleanest outcome for Inner Sydney sees Kingsford Smith remaining as a Botany and Randwick LGA based seat. Such moves would allow it to do so.
Since the “corner” zones of Northern Sydney and Eastern Sydney are proving to be contentious, I’ve been working on Regional NSW first and hoping that that helps simplify options in Metropolitan Sydney.
The 10 North Coast seats seem to only need minimal changes. Cowper is probably on the verge of needing to lose all or part of Port Macquarie back to Lyne, but I think the most sensible option is just to move the Northern border with Page a little bit further South to take in Korora or maybe the Dorrigo area.
Does everyone agree that Hunter needs to send Muswellbrook and Singleton to one of the Western NSW divisions?
That would put the 5 Western NSW divisions at 4.80 quotas. Gaining Snowy Valleys and Yass from Eden-Monaro would fix this shortfall and would improve Eden-Monaro too. But has anyone made changes to the Calare-Macquarie border that they think work better here?
In terms of arranging these 5 divisions:
– Parkes moves East and gains Wellington and Mudgee from Calare, Scone from New England, and Muswellbrook and Singleton from Hunter
– New England becomes a more compact Northeastern seat by gaining Moree, Narrabri and Gunnedah from Parkes
– Calare gains Parkes, Forbes and Cowra from Riverina
– Riverina gains Snowy Valleys and Yass from Eden-Monaro, and Leeton from Farrer
– Farrer gains Broken Hill and Central Darling from Parkes
Not a huge fan of my Farrer, but one of the seats has to take in Broken Hill. Maybe it’s time to pair Albury and Wagga together and see how that plays out.
@angas my Parkes takes Parkes and forbes from Riverina and Liverpool plains from New England
Riverina takes Yass valley from Eden Monaro
Calare sheds Oberon and Lithgow to the blue mountains seat and takes upper hunter from New England and Muswellbrook from hunter
New England takes Moree plains and Gwydir from Parkes and moves east to absorb excess from the northern shore.
So far I’ve done Parkes and it measures up to quota still working on the rest
My Farrer remains unchanged
@Angas
I don’t want Albury and Broken Hill in the same seat (I struggle to see a connection) and I seriously believe pairing Albury and Wagga in the same seat to be in the same seat is sensible. I struggled to understand why residents of both cities always push back against this suggestion.
I consider making a new seat in SW Sydney and pushing both Macarthur and Hume very far out, then abolishing Riverina to be a viable option. (I am abolishing 3 seats (Nsyd, Riverina, Grayndler) and making 2 seats (1 each in NW and SW Sydney). This makes me start to worry that I am insane tbh)
@leon I’m abolishing 4 and creating 3 essentially by splitting Macquarie in two and creating a new and sw seat
We are in agreement on ns and while Im abolishing grayndlwr too this is the name only in reality Barton gets the chop and simply takes over grayndlwr territory I just don’t feel the commision will be brave enough to abolish the seat of a sitting prime minister especially once they mobilise enough people to complain
If talking about names, then I agree Barton should be retained over Grayndler. In terms of configuration, it will still be more ‘Albo’s seat’ and he would have the rights to contest it, as this new seat will be >50% of the old Grayndler and <50% of the old Barton.
Similar to the SA redistribution which abolished Port Adelaide, but the new ‘Hindmarsh’ district was geographically closer to Port Adelaide’s configuration and thus Mark Butler had the right to contest it, with then Hindmarsh MP Steve Georganas forced to contest Adelaide instead.
@John
I was earlier thinking of also abolishing Cunningham. In such case, Hughes would lose all of Liverpool LGA, Blaxland shifts south to take Revesby, then the vacuum around Auburn, Granville and Lidcombe becomes a new seat that is very similar to the old (pre-2009) Reid.
(Both Banks and Reid would move east to lose all of (former) Bankstown and Auburn LGAs respectively regardless of what happens due to abolishing Grayndler. Just needed to clarify this to make sure everything retains sense)
@John
That seems pretty good. Won’t ruffle any feathers I reckon. Might need to push Riverina a bit further East to boost the numbers a bit more.
With New England, does that mean you are pushing it over the divide to take in parts of Page, to help with the excess in Cowper?
@Leon
I agree on Broken Hill. I’d prefer to keep it with Parkes, but it’s really a case of an 8 hour drive to Dubbo versus a 9 hour drive to Albury or Griffith with very few electors in between. It doesn’t really fit with either of these divisions being the only ALP-voting mining industry town in the West, so I think it’s fine to move it if it helps elsewhere.
An division combining the state divisions of Albury and Wagga Wagga would be decent. Two equally sized cities plus the surrounding areas. Is the opposition because the residents of these cities prefer to have an outsized vote over the other smaller towns contained? That would support a redrawing to make things more fair for the voters outside of these cities.
I’m with both of you in abolishing multiple seats. Even with the obvious deletion of a Northern Sydney and a Southern/Eastern Sydney seat, he numbers have drifted far enough that many of the other seats will barely resemble previous boundaries. Might be value in starting with a clean slate in some parts of the state.
@yoh an my “Barton” will be about 75% grayndlwr, 10% Barton and 15% Reid
@leon yes Cunningham is one of my 4 I’m also abolishing Shortland.
@angas I havent worked out exactly how much of page but I imagine after page will take in Coffs Harbour and then Cowper will take port Macquarie in whole terms.
Lyne will then push further south
That should read 70 grayndlwr 15 Reid 10 Barton 5 Sydney
Angas
To pick up on some of your points:
-Broken Hill has a much stronger community of interest with Dubbo rather than Albury or Wagga. The health services between Broken Hill and Dubbo are linked and Rex run regular air services.
-I looked at combining Albury and Wagga in a return to a pre 1984 version of Farrer. It ended up hugging Wagga in particular so areas close to the city were in a different seat. Farrer is one of the few seats I can see leaving alone.
– I am up for abolishing two seats – Warringah and Cunningham are on my hit list.
– The new seat likely to be somewhere round Camden but I have not ruled out a North West / Hawkesbury seat yet.
@redistributwd I can’t see Warringah being abolished it’s a corner seat and any new seat would just replace the old one. I agree on Farrer I don’t intend on any changes. The other I don’t anticipate any changes on is newcastle
I’ve finally finished running my numbers, after a few stalled efforts.
I have abolished Blaxland and merged Bradfield with North Sydney taking Bradfield as the name. I have a whole speil lined up for not needing to preserve federation names anymore – using the Committees past examples of abolishing Gywder, Kalgoorlie, Melbourne Ports, Dennison and Wakefield as examples of them happily abolishing federation names.
I’ve moved the Southern Highlands into Hume, and as a result have pushed Hughes into Liverpool, and Cunningham into Sutherland. I also merged Goulburn and Wagga Wagga into Riverina – which may be controversial.
I made McMahon into a Cumberland based seat, Fowler now takes on most of Fairfield, and as above, Liverpool (everything south of Cabramatta Creek and the Georges River) goes into Hughes. I had some trouble balancing Macarthur and Werriwa – I had lots of attempts where Werriwa was way under on current but still over on projected. Eventually I moved Mulgoa and Horsley Park in to counteract some of the growth in Camden.
Mackellar takes on Forestville and Killarney Heights and pushes Warringah into North Sydney. Berowra takes the northern part of Bradfield, which then merges into North Sydney. There are a lot of changes to the boundaries of Parramatta, but it basically is along the M2 and Great Western Hwy/Parramatta Rd. Mitchell does not need to cross Windsor Rd, but Box Hill moves into Macquarie.
A new division is in the west of Sydney, south of the Penrith railway line and stretching across Horsley Park to Bossley Park. As I mentioned in another comment somewhere earlier, my new division is called Bellear after Sol and Bob Bellear.
My report is pretty much typed, now I’ve just gotta draw some maps. I’m thinking I might just end up drawing them manually as vectors on a map with Illustrator rather than trying to wrangle .shp, .kml and .json files.
If I get time, I’m planning to upload a map to my website http://mcsw.ee.
@Darren McSweeney
Goulburn into Riverina would certainly be controversial. It would be better moved into Eden-Monaro, with Tumut, Tumbarumba and (Yass if need be) coming out of Eden-Monaro into Riverina. Boorowa certainly needs to be moved from Hume to Riverina.
@mcsweeney I think ns will get the chop. Kyle’s think has moved to Lane cove which would be probly. Included in Bennelong either way so she’s probly not gonna contest Bradfield either way.
Riverina – Current Enrollment 117550 – Projected enrollment 117407
After redistribution – Enrollment 122772 – Projected enrollment 125512
what are peoples thoughts on moving kempsey into new england. moving coffs harbour into cower and tenterfield in to page?
and obviously all port macquarie into lyne
Here’s a suggestion for how northern Sydney can be worked out.
It observes ‘hard’ geographic boundaries between different communities first, and then uses ‘soft’ boundaries to close-out each division around its main centres and communities of interest.
It also avoids splitting through urban centres. These should be places where a community is united rather than divided.
All divisions meet the actual and projected enrolment requirements.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ccUNuJta1CRj4qEMhq164Re9d1nSbasx/view?usp=sharing
1. Mona Vale & Dee Why
– Boundary moves south to include Dee Why and Curl Curl. Curl Curl Lagoon presents an obvious divide between divisions. The split through the centre of Dee Why is removed.
– This remains a northern Sydney coastal division. (The western boundary shouldn’t move westward since it has a strong geographic feature in Cowan Creek & Middle Harbour, an LGA boundary, a big distance between settlements, and few interests in common).
2. Manly & Mosman
– Boundary moves west to include Neutral Bay, Cammeray, Northbridge, Willoughby East, Castlecrag, and Castle Cove. The split through the centre of Neutral Bay is removed.
– This is arguably the most ‘like plus like’ expansion of this division. The common theme for all these additions are their primary road and bus-based connections south to the city – the same as the entirety of the Northern Beaches. (All suburbs to the west of Willoughby Road and the freeway have much easier access to the T1 train line).
3. North Sydney & Chatswood
– Boundary moves north to include Chatswood, Lindfield, Killara, and Gordon. The split through the centre of Chatswood is removed.
– This is a lower-North Shore ridgeline division, all linked by the T1 train line, except for Hunters Hill which retains the existing demographic link to North Sydney. North Sydney and Chatswood are both major CBDs, and arguably deserve to be the primary features in their division.
4. Hornsby & Berowra
– Galston Gorge is a massive barrier between different settlements, hence the ‘hard’ boundary of Berowra Creek. This division moves south to include Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Beecroft, and Cheltenham. The split through the centres of Hornsby and Asquith is removed.
– This is an upper-North Shore ridgeline division, all clustered around the T1 train line (and excluding the new metro line areas).
5. Ryde & Epping
– The boundary moves west slightly, adding Dundas Valley and Carlingford. The split through the centre of Carlingford is removed.
– This is a small change to the well-formed existing division.
6. Castle Hill & Dural
– This reinforces the a ‘hard’ boundary of Cattai Creek and the ‘soft’ boundaries of Old Windsor Road and Hunts Creek. The split through the centre of North Rocks is removed.
– This is an Old Northern Road ridgeline division, with Castle Hill as the most major centre.
Flow-on effects
– A new division can – and arguably should – straddle Old Windsor Road. Focused on the emerging major centres of Rouse Hill and Tallawong, this division will include similar suburbs such as Kellyville and Beaumont Hills in the east, and Kellyville Ridge and The Ponds in the west. The primary common interest for this division is its new suburban areas with metro access.
Nvm I just realised my numbers were way off
I’m sorry Peter, but that’s just bizarre logic. You are elevating an exisiting demographic connection between Hunters Hill and North Sydney (please expand on this) over the link between much of Willoughby and North/East Willoughby to Chatswood?
And since when have we drawn electorates based on if people travelling to the city catch the train or the bus??? They still work in the city – so what’s the difference? (they all pay by Opal card).
You use the LGA boundary as a reason to not move Mackellar west yet then cleave Willoughby LGA dn North Sydney LGA clean down the middle, when these are much easier to retain in a single seat
@High street
Thanks for your comments, they’re interesting to hear. I hope my explanations here help.
1.
I’m drawing Warringah before North Sydney. The eastern part of Willoughby is moved to Warringah (see #2 for reasoning), so when drawing North Sydney, the only question is whether Hunters Hill LGA better fits with its Lane Cove neighbours to its east or with Ryde to its west?
Hunters Hill LGA is already in North Sydney. I chose to retain this existing link – “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”. Retaining this boundary also reduces flow-on changes in divisions drawn later.
I’ve tested moving Hunters Hill to Bennelong. These are the impacts:
– North Sydney’s northern boundary moves north to an arbitrary mid-suburban boundary between Pymble and Turramurra, which is slightly worse than the relatively obvious boundary that I proposed along Ryde Road.
– Bennelong moves south into Epping and Carlingford, with the most likely boundary through the centre of Epping along Epping Road and Carlingford Road. That’s much worse than the proposed boundary along the M2, because Epping is an important centre that I don’t think should be split.
– Bennelong also has to push further west into Parramatta. I think Bennelong is better drawn as it is at the moment, with minor changes as I proposed.
2.
The transport difference between eastern and western Willoughby reveals underlying urban form and location differences: different levels of proximity and access to major CBDs like North Sydney and Sydney. So, when drawing divisions, the eastern side of Willoughby is identified as sharing a similar circumstance with the Mosman peninsula and southern-Northern Beaches areas. The western side has relatively higher proximity and access to the train line, in common with the North Shore ridgeline areas.
Based on this justification, I would argue that this proposed boundary is better than a more arbitrary boundary though a suburb, such as the existing North Sydney – Bradfield boundary that cleaves directly through the centre of Chatswood, or the existing Warringah – North Sydney boundary that cleaves through the centre of Neutral Bay.
3.
The Middle Harbour boundary (Mackellar’s west) is a relatively big geographic gap between different areas. The LGA boundary through there is 1 of 4 reasons I suggested it not be moved.
In more urban areas, shouldn’t significant geographic features still be preferred for division boundaries than LGA boundaries? For example, St Leonards has 3 LGA boundaries running directly through its centre. To keep this important urban centre in one single division, I’ve chosen the freeway as a boundary since that’s a big geographic barrier.
@peter if north sydney moves to warringah and willoughby goes to bradfield lane cove and hunters hill can go to bennelong. solved.
so far my new england is as follows
New England – Current Enrollment 115732 – Projected enrollment 115345
After redistribution – Enrollment 124090 – Projected enrollment 124039
this leaves it about 1000 voters short of the required minimum on projected numbers il finsih it off tomorrow
@ John,
That option slices and dices with 3 divisions running through the centre of St Leonards. Sure, it’s a simple plan, but it’s a coarse outcome to divide very similar neighbourhoods just by their LGA. Neighbouring people share far more common interests than just their local council.
@ High street,
Based on your feedback, if the freeway boundary is extended all the way to the harbour (putting Kirribilli in Warringah), then the north-south boundary in eastern Willoughby can be moved further east. That draws the boundary much more clearly between North Shore ridgetop and the ‘crags and coves’ suburbs on the slopes.
It’s more complex plan than what John is suggesting, but it’s a clearer outcome.
@john don’t move Kempsey into New England. It messes up the electorate. Keep it in Cowper or maybe move it to Lyne, ideally the former. I say this because Kempsey isn’t in the New England region, it’s on the Mid North Coast. Coffs is already in Cowper and that’s where it will stay. Port Macquarie should definitely move back into Lyne. Tenterfield could be moved to Page but IDK.
Comments are closed.