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.
@nether portal
If lyne were to take back port macquarie (which it should), then the following must happen:
– page takes glen innes and tenterfield lga from new england
– cowper takes wauchope sa2 from lyne
– richmond, page and cowper all have to be drawn in the lower end of the permissible range, totalling to 2.92 quota ish
@Leon no Wauchope would need to be in Lyne because it’s the same COI as Port. But yeah Glen Innes should probably move into Page.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that one of either Coffs Harbour or Port Macquarie need to be split across two electorates as they bookend Cowper. I have had to give some of Port Macquarie to Lyne – just trying to make it as organic as possible. Dawson and Capricornia have the same problem. The problem is going to be there until either demographically it works itself out or the parliament is enlarged – when it may occur somewhere else.
There is no point eating into New England – northern coastal NSW needs to lose voters – not gain them. And then you make a problem for inland NSW which is finely balanced anyway.
New England’s problem is it can’t expand west as Parkes is already underquota south will create a weirdly shaped division so east is the only choice. I think port Macquarie will be the divided lga as Coffs Harbour should be able to be fit into Cowper that way. And any Shortall inpage can be solved by taking in Tenterfield I also think Richmond’s aotluthern border should be the river
Some of you love to overcomplicate what is actually very simple. The reduction in seats has saved the north coast configuration. Of the four electorates, three are within tolerance and Cowper only barely outside. The solution? Move Korora from Cowper to Page. Job done.
John
New England can take Muswellbrook and its surrounds and get to quota. It will have more Upper Hunter community of interest. And Barnaby Joyce would love to have seat with more coal mines …….
@ridistributed
On that logic, chuck Singleton into New England at the same time! XD
Though I think that will require Page to take in Glen Innes and Tenterfield
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1zjp8bTN7_lxMspLIqQIucxa7OtVwvzU&ll=-34.952313679043726%2C149.77200285&z=6
I hope I was able to justify abolishing Grayndler. And i hope my Barton makes enough sense that I do not need to change Reid and Banks from here…
@redistributwd the problem there is it elongates the division and shape of the division is one thing that is take into account. That’s why I’m removing Liverpool plains and upper hunter in order to stop it expanding into a division that looks like some weird perversion of the country of Italy
@leon I understand the reasoning but given its the PM’s electorate I bet you anything they would get thousands of complaints saying it’s politically motivated forghe AEC to do it. I just can’t see it happening.
The only real other option I can imagine is half of Burwood into Grayndler which is frankly idiotic (especially knowing what Reid would look like after knock on effects) That would probably get just as many complaints. And Labor probably will eventually find a way to finish off the musical chairs if need be (my assumption is Albanese goes Barton, Burney goes Banks and hope she can beat Coleman (or he retires). I think my Banks would be notionally Labor though I havent done much calculation.
@leon yea but youll get the rusted on hardcore albo voters complaining anyway. burney is more likely to retire. shell be 68 at the next election and would have just lost the unlosable referendum. her electorate is on track to vote no even though she got in on primary votes. my grayndler will be renamed barton to compensate for that being abolished and will take in the remainder of marickville and ashville.
I don’t think Burney will be running again.
@raue agreed and that would solve the musical chairs problem for Labor. In central Sydney the other problem they’ll have is I think Kyle’s tink is planning on running against their guy in Bennelong.
@John that doesn’t make sense since (1) if North Sydney is abolished, the largest part of it would end up in Bradfield; (2) Hunters Hill, the only part that might go into Bennelong, was her worst performed area; and (3) a Labor-Liberal marginal is a poor choice for an independent.
@david she has moved to Lane cove which would most likely go Bennelong as ns will go to Warringah and Willoughby would go to bradfrield
@David Walsh
I note that in 2022, North Sydney is more marginal than Bass or Lindsay on a Lib vs Labor 2pp terms.
Admittedly:
1. Tink ran when the Lib vs Labor margin from the last election was 9%
2. Labor ran someone unusually strong in 2022
3. Libs suffered in Bennelong due to China-related issues, Libs suffered in Warringah/Wentworth/Mackellar due to Trans/Deves-related issues. Libs got buffeted by both at the same time in North Sydney – possibly making it the worst Lib-held non-WA seat for 2022 Morrison on demographics
To be honest a 3 way contest in Bennelong that would probly shed the Labor votif Parramatta area would more then likely fall to tink or back to the libs. And given she has a choice of contesting Warringah against stegall which won’t happen. Bradfield against a liberal or Bennelong against Labor she might do better in an election where people are voting against the govt.
@John It’s very unlikely that Bennelong would jump the Lane Cove River.
@Leon Focusing on 2PP misses the point. It’s primary/3PP that matters. Running ahead of the Labor candidate in Bennelong is much more challenging than in Bradfield or North Sydney.
@david is does right now with hunters Hill in North sydney
@Leon
I for one don’t have a problem with abolishing any particular seat, including Grayndler. The AEC shouldn’t be influenced by fear of controversy. (That said, I’m personally looking at keeping it and removing Banks). Anyway, I think your proposal does justify that move with Grayndler. That area makes sense.
Sydney losing East Sydney is tough. It would be nice for our state capital city to be more central in its own seat, but that requires tough moves elsewhere…
For Blaxland, given that you’re drawing a new boundary in Homebush Bay, is there an opportunity to give Olympic Park a better fit with Parramatta? That’s what the “GPOP” planning strategy is all about after all. Could Parramatta shift eastwards a little?
And for the same reason as Sydney, I also think it’s better if North Sydney is in its own seat. That also avoids your Berowra being split into two quite different and poorly connected halves.
I like your Ruse. A small comment there; why not draw the boundary between Mt Wilson and Bell?
Parkes should lose Gunnedah and Narrabri to New England. Gunnedah is almost 1000 km way from Broken Hill. Gunnedah should be united with Tamworth. It has more in common with the North Coast than say, the far west.
Parkes should expand southward and possibly take up Forbes, Parkes and Wellington. Forbes and Parkes are part of the Riverina electorate but aren’t so much in the Riverina region.
@Peter
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1zjp8bTN7_lxMspLIqQIucxa7OtVwvzU&ll=-33.91217094722384%2C151.01804117332517&z=10
I updated my map a bit further after deciding Cunningham could also get the chop. That caused changes with Blaxland, McMahon and also created a new seat that is EXACTLY Reid 2000-2006 (I called it Lang for now).
I am still considering whether olympic park area goes Lang or Parramatta, which definitely means changes in other parts of the Lang-Parramatta border.
I am also thinking whether the Lang-McMahon border should stay the way it is or be made more horizontal at the channel thingy between WoodPark and Merrylands West.
As for Ruse, regarding the Bell/Mt Wilson area, my intent (that may not have been drawn well) was just to go with the LGA boundaries
@Volante There’s an opportunity to match New England perfectly with the New England region by adding Narrabri, Gunnedah, Gwydir and Moree Plains LGAs whilst subtracting Upper Hunter LGA.
Parkes can take Wellington along with Mid Western, Upper Hunter and Muswellbrook LGAs.
Parkes and Forbes LGAs are a better fit with Calare.
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/53479#comment-794091
Kingsford Smith expanding west into the western part of Bayside LGA could be a way of helping avoid pushing Sydney too far west and/or avoiding abolishing Grayndler.
@David Walsh
Assuming Glen Innes and Tenterfield LGAs stays in New England as per that proposal, the 9 North Coast seats (Richmond to Robertson) plus Hunter would only go up to half of Singleton LGA. This means the other half of Singleton, as well as all of Muswellbrook and Upper Hunter LGAs must find a different electorate (and I cannot readily find a suitable alternative)
Can’t we just put ALL of Port Macquarie into Lyne? That would make more sense and it would make it easier for voters in a city of 50,000 people.
Lyne should extend up to Telegraph Point (a town just north of Port Macquarie, home to Stoney Aqua Park).
@nether portal that would push 40000+ out of Cowper good luck filling that void. Lyne should extend to the Hastings river in my opinion. At the moment it’s simply too big to be in one division. Given other population on the north shore.
@Leon There is no need to cross the Dividing Range.
The ten seats of the North Coast/Hunter/Central Coast region only need to shed Muswellbrook LGA. When Muswellbrook is taken out, they add to 10.19 quotas and project to 10.08 quotas, which is easy enough to spread around under the numerical criteria.
@David Walsh
Fair. And what happens to Muswellbrook LGA?
Also what happens to Upper Hunter LGA which I assume would be moved out of New England based on your suggestion?
I doubt placing them into Parkes/Calare is a wise idea…
@Leon Muswellbrook, Scone, Mudgee and Wellington go into Parkes, as I’ve already stated.
Dubbo to Muswellbrook/Scone is 3 hours by car. Closer than Dubbo to Moree (4 hrs) and no further than Dubbo to Narrabri/Gunnedah (3 hrs), so community of interest is not diminished here.
@Leon
Sounds reasonable.
Thinking further about the Parramatta + Olympic Park option. At the moment, there’s the LGA commonality, but not much of a physical link yet – the GPOP idea is still somewhat of a physically unrealised strategy at this point. But once the light rail and metro go in, the link between them will be much stronger. So it seems an open question for how much emphasis we place on the current circumstance verses the planned future of an area.
@ Tom
Yes, if Kingsford Smith circles westward around Botany Bay, then Sydney can stay centred on its CBD and LGA. I’m thinking that might be a worthwhile compromise, as the spatial integrity of the Sydney division is quite important. I don’t mind that it keeps Grayndler intact too.
Does the division name Sydney need to remain? It is not a federation division name and there is the potential that the seat of Sydney will no longer centered on the Sydney CBD, but rather have the CBD in the corner of the division.
In such a scenario, Sydney could well be renamed. If it was to take in Balmain and Leichhardt, why not Dalley, the federation name for the seat covering that area. There are plenty of other good names that the commission could pick from.
@Tom
Bayside LGA has abhorrent borders. It really shouldn’t exist in its current form. I can’t imagine it would be a good outcome for a seat to include all of Rockdale, Bexley, Maroubra and La Perouse. Taking Sydney out of Sydney would almost certainly be a better outcome than including Rockdale and Bexley in Kingsford Smith
I think you make a good case for abolishing the name Sydney, but I think you would either give it the name Grayndler, or you’d come up with a new name. We aren’t going to be naming more seats after 19th century white people in 2023.
Sydney will remain. And Grayndler will too. The case for removing the Olympic Park area from Reid is pretty weak, particularly given the problems it creates in the inner west; I don’t see it happening.
its named for the city of Sydney so the relevance still applies. hwever im of the opinion they capitals shoud be renameed federally given they exist at a state level too.in my personal opinion they should all be renamed after the people who founded them. so in Sydney case Philip should be revived
Calare– Current Enrollment 122798 – Projected enrollment 126537
After redistribution – Enrollment 125735 – Projected enrollment 128637
Disturbing to read @Ben Raue imposing racial and ageist criteria for seat naming in 2023.
The AEC will rightly consider diversity in choosing people to be honoured. White men who lived in the 19th century are strongly over-represented.
The number of divisions named after colonial white men in NSW alone outweighs the number named after women in the entire country, let alone the number indigenous Australians.
Most of those who have divisions named for them were ever only British. Not Australian. Why are we attached to naming divisions of Australia after British people from 200 years ago. There are plenty of other people that could be represented these days.
Old and retired division names should not be reused. There’s not a single former division name that I think warrants a return.
@ Darren McSweeny
i would really like Shortland, Gellibrand & Hotham renamed. We could have a seat named after Charles Perkins and the new WA seat named Yagan.
@darren im not sure if you noticed but the people who built this country and made it what it is today were colonial white men from Britain. without them you wouldnt be here to complain show respect
@niamlan il be abolishing shortland and renaming hotham due to major changes
New England – Current Enrollment 115732 – Projected enrollment 115345
After redistribution – Enrollment 126729 – Projected enrollment 126980
@david walsh i agree on how to solve cowper by moving the remainder of Korora – Emerald Beach SA2 in Page. Problem solved ive done this too
it appears i was mistaken this would put cowper over by 3 electors but im sure they can make a minor adjust to fix this
Cowper– Current Enrollment 131515 – Projected enrollment 135536
After redistribution – Enrollment 129116 – Projected enrollment 133115(max 133112)
Page– Current Enrollment 123633 – Projected enrollment 129995
After redistribution – Enrollment 126002 – Projected enrollment 132416
@John, I know that.
I’m not suggesting every division named for a colonial British explorer be abolished.
But when there’s a need to remove one, we should look to those before Fowler or Rankin.
There are still thousands of monuments, features, suburbs, roads and streets names (and other things) named after these people.
I don’t think we should be reinstating divisions named for them. They’ve had their time.
Let’s celebrate all the other modern Australians.
@Nimalan I’d be in favour of a division named Perkins. In WA I’m going to suggest Bates after Daisy Bates, but Yagan could be appropriate too.
@darren the one that gets abolished should be the one where most territory lost. As stated in the guidelines
I’ve gone pretty hard at this but let’s see where I end up.
1st Part – Warringah gets Abolished. This means big shifts in the Northern run of Sydney.
*Mackellar gets expanded south to Manly Lagoon and connects to Middle Harbour to take Killarney Heights
*North Sydney expands East to take Mosman and Manly, almost a combination of the two current state seats
*Bradfield gets pulled south to the Warringah Freeway
*Bennelong shifts east to the Pacific Highway, taking Lane Cove and Hunters Hill
*Berowra shifts South-East to Mona Vale Road, basically running along the Pacific Highway
*Parramatta shifts East, losing Toongabbie and Pendle Hill and gaining Epping, Eastwood and Denistone West
*Mitchell now stops at Terry Street up the top
*Greenway gets pulled into Toongabbie and Pendle Hill and cuts off at the top at Garfield Road East
*Chifley gets cut at the top at Garfield Road West/Abell Road
*Macquarie mops up these cut-offs from Mitchell, Greenway and Chifley, pulling it more within the Hawkesbury and loses Blackheath and Katoomba to Calare
*Calare loses Yeovel, Wellington and Gulgong to Parkes
Part 2 (this one is uber controversial): Sydney gets abolished
*Wentworth takes some of the Eastern Side of the old Sydney, definitely everything up to Crown Street (Potts Point, Darlinghurst). Wentworth also shifts South to take up all of Allison Road from Kingsford Smith
*Kingsford Smith takes Zetland up to Bourke Street/O’Riordan Street
*Grayndler loses Haberfield to Reid and swallows up the left-over pieces of Sydney, effectively cutting the CBD in two
*Barton gains Ramsgate from Cook, loses everything along the M5 up to Cooks River
*Watson loses Chullora, Mount Lewis and Punchbowl to Blaxland (whose boundary shifts from Rookwood Road to Roberts Road). Watson gains Lewisham, Earlwood and Wooli Creek
*Banks gains Blakehurst
*Cook takes everything up to the Woronora River from Hughes
*Hughes gains Chipping Norton from Fowler, loses Waterfall to Cunningham. Fowler’s south-east boundary is now the Georges River
*Whitlam loses the south part of the Southern Highlands to Hume, gains Port Kembla from Cunningham
*NEW SEAT in the South-west of Sydney, based around Leppington and Austral
*Hume loses Tarago to Eden Monaro, loses Crookwell to Calare and loses Boorowa to Riverina
*Eden Monaro loses Binalong, Yass and Murrumbateman to Riverina
*Riverina loses Trundle, Peaks Hill and Parkes to Parks
Other Corrections, around Paterson:
*Hunter gains Kurri Kurri from Paterson, loses Musswellbrook to New England. If further gains are needed, Lyne could take Maitland and allow New England to also take Gloucester
*Shortland takes Noraville from Dobell, with the southern boundary now Norah Head.
What is the political implications:
*Teals lose one seat (Warringah), meaning that you have a very spicy battle between Kylea Tink and Zali Steggall for the new North Sydney (On 2PP, this is a Liberal Seat)
*Labor loses one seat (Sydney), meaning that you have a difficult situation for Tanya Plibersek. On paper, this could be resolved by shifting members west.
*New Seat around Leppington/Austral becomes a marginal Labor Seat
*Parramatta becomes a very marginal seat
*Bennelong would end up notionally Liberal (cancelling out the 2PP Loss of Warringah)
*Macquarie becomes a very marginal seat
*Macarthur becomes safer for Labor
*Whitlam becomes safer for Labor
*Paterson becomes a very marginal seat
*Wentworth becomes an even bigger wildcard. Potts Point is a relatively good Liberal Area but Darlinghurst cancels that out
Oh this is going to be fun.
Comments are closed.