The suggestions from members of the public, MPs and political parties for the current redistribution of federal electoral boundaries in New South Wales were released yesterday. Unfortunately I was a bit preoccupied on my way back from Malaysia so it’s taken some time to respond.
Antony Green has written a good summary of the major submissions from parties and MPs, so instead I’m going to go through the submissions by region, looking at how they differ in particular areas.
For this post I will sometimes refer to the enrolment projections – you can check out this post from late September which covered the official enrolment numbers used for the NSW redistribution. That post now has over 350 comments, but you can now move the conversation here.
This is quite a long post but if you’re only interested in one region you can scroll to that region.
I did find some general trends.
Understandably, parties generally left seats they hold alone and were more willing to chop and change in their opponents’ areas. There isn’t much common ground between the Liberals and the Nationals – they have their own agendas and don’t concern themselves too much with giving the other an advantage.
One of the most interesting elements was how independent seats were treated.
There was no choice on the north shore except for at least one teal seat to be pushed out of the teal heartland, and the general consensus is that Kylea Tink in North Sydney is that victim. But the differences come in what they do with what is left of her seat. Most of the major submissions generally support holding the remainder of North Sydney together and then adding some areas from Bradfield or Bennelong, but the Liberal submission instead dismembers her seat.
Labor likewise dramatically change Dai Le’s seat of Fowler. Their version of “Fowler” only contains a little of the old seat and shifts a long way south, while Le’s strongest areas are added to Chris Bowen’s McMahon.
And then the Liberal Party also dismembers Andrew Gee’s seat of Calare – the western end is added to the Blue Mountains in a likely Labor seat, while the town of Orange is bizarrely added to Riverina.
Northern Sydney
One of the key areas requiring change is the northern suburbs of Sydney, where seats are both significantly under quota, but also options for change are limited by the presence of major bodies of water to the east and south.
The three teal seats of Warringah, Mackellar and North Sydney are collectively about 40% short of the projected quota, and get no relief from neighbouring seats. The shortage adds up to 76% of a seat if you extend out to include Bradfield, Bennelong and Berowra.
For those three teal seats, the crucial decision is which direction you move to bring them up to quota – do you extend North Sydney north into Bradfield, west into Bennelong or do you extend Mackellar or Warringah west into Bradfield.
Labor and Liberal both suggest the same direction – they push Mackellar and Warringah south, with North Sydney most severely affected.
Indeed Labor and Liberal each draw a very similar seat overlapping the current seats of Warringah and North Sydney. The only difference seems to be on the border with Mackellar – Labor has moved areas on the eastern edge of the Mackellar-Warringah border, while the Liberal Party has moved areas on the western edge.
Labor calls this seat “Warringah”, while the Liberal Party calls it “North Sydney”. The Liberals suggest abolishing the name “Warringah”, since North Sydney is a federation seat name, but this seat looks more like Warringah than it does North Sydney.
The Liberal submission effectively dismembers the old North Sydney, with the seat split three ways between Bradfield, Bennelong and Warringah. While the news has focused on Warringah being abolished, I think it makes more sense to say that North Sydney was abolished and its name transferred to Warringah.
Labor does not abolish any seats on the north shore, so instead they have to continue pushing the seats further west. North Sydney pushes into Bradfield and Bennelong, pushing Bennelong further into Parramatta and Bradfield into Berowra, which pushes Bradfield right up to the Hawkesbury River. They then move Berowra into the Hawkesbury region.
The three teal independents all make submissions. They don’t generally provide full maps of suggestions, but their arguments imply a certain direction of travel.
Mackellar MP Sophie Scamps argues that Mackellar should remain contained in the Northern Beaches council, which implies an expansion south into Warringah, not west into Bradfield, and also makes it less likely that Warringah could expand to the north-west into Bradfield, and thus suggests that North Sydney should bear the brunt of the changes.
Warringah MP Zali Steggall provides two specific recommendations, both of which expand Warringah slightly into both Mackellar and North Sydney. She doesn’t suggest further changes, but this would force both of her teal colleagues to expand into Bradfield.
North Sydney MP Kylea Tink instead suggests minimal change to North Sydney, expanding it slightly north and east into Bradfield and North Sydney. This would imply more dramatic changes to Mackellar, but it’s not said explicitly.
It’s worth noting that clearly identified “teals” ran in Warringah, North Sydney, Mackellar and Bradfield in 2022.
Steggall held her seat by a much larger margin in 2022, while both Scamps and Tink were elected with margins between 2.5% and 3%, although to be fair they were new candidates defeating sitting MPs, so you’d expect that difference to shrink in 2025. Fellow independent Nicolette Boele managed to cut Paul Fletcher’s margin to 4.2%. So you’d assume that expanding Mackellar or North Sydney into Bradfield would add less friendly areas for the independent MPs, but not completely hostile areas. It’s hard to see where Boele could run again, despite her continuing to campaign as the “shadow member for Bradfield”.
The Greens recommended abolishing Bradfield, with Warringah expanding both east into North Sydney and north into Mackellar, with North Sydney, Mackellar, Bradfield and Bennelong expanding to take in parts of the abolished Bradfield. They also suggest renaming North Sydney to “Cammeraygal”.
The Nationals also suggest abolishing North Sydney, with Bennelong, Warringah and Bradfield expanding to fill the space. Their proposal is relatively similar to the Liberals, but they maintain the name of Warringah.
There are two main political implications here:
- Those who suggest Mackellar expands south and thus forces North Sydney to push north are likely drawing a safer seat for Sophie Scamps than Kylea Tink, and potentially result in Tink having to run in a notional Liberal seat.
- The Liberal and Nationals proposals pull Bennelong east and make it easier for the Liberal Party, while Labor, the Greens expand Bennelong in other directions.
Central and Eastern Sydney
All of the submissions start from Wentworth, with a choice of changing it either on its western boundary with Sydney or its southern boundary with Kingsford Smith.
The Liberal and Greens submissions expand Wentworth in both directions, while the Labor and Nationals submissions shift Wentworth into Kingsford Smith and actually loses a small area to Sydney.
Allegra Spender considers both an expansion west into Sydney (as far as Hyde Park) or south into Kingsford Smith but doesn’t endorse either option. She does specifically argue against Kingsford Smith expanding north into Wentworth, but no-one else suggests such a change.
Pretty much everyone has recommended Kingsford Smith take in part of the City of Sydney from the seat of Sydney, but Labor and the Nationals go further, moving Erskineville in to Kingsford Smith, while Liberal and Greens are more modest, moving Rosebery, Beaconsfield and Zetland.
This becomes relevant when we look at the seat of Sydney. Pretty much everyone agrees that Sydney has to expand west to take in suburbs from Grayndler.
At the moment the Greens’ best areas in Sydney are split between the seats of Sydney and Grayndler, and I think most versions of Sydney become stronger for the Greens. Cutting out Erskineville takes a very strong Greens area and neutralises it by combining it with a very weak Greens area, as in the state seat of Heffron.
Labor and the Greens both move Balmain, Annandale and Newtown into Sydney. The Nationals focus on adding Balmain and Leichhardt, while the Liberal Party doesn’t add Balmain, but instead adds in Newtown and Marrickville.
Every party then pushes seats further west. The Greens recommend abolishing Watson, while the Liberal Party does a similar move as they did in North Sydney, by applying the name Watson to a seat that more resembles Blaxland. The Nationals recommend abolishing Grayndler. Labor manages to avoid abolishing a seat until much further out.
Southern Sydney
The Labor and Liberal submissions take quite different approaches to the seats in the St George and Sutherland area. The Liberal seats experience little change – Banks expands a little towards Kogarah, while Cook becomes a Botany Bay-based seat, taking in the Botany Bay shoreline all the way to edge of their airport along with the Cronulla area.
Labor meanwhile still has to abolish a seat, and they’ve chosen Hughes. Cook retreats to the south side of the Georges River and takes in more of the Shire. Barton is based entirely in the eastern parts of the St George area, losing the southern parts of Marrickville. Banks takes in western parts of the Sutherland Shire.
Those parts of Hughes in the Liverpool council area are moved into Fowler. Labor’s proposal dismembers Fowler into four parts, moving Fowler quite a long way south to take in parts of Campbelltown and Liverpool council areas from Werriwa, Macarthur and Hughes. Such a change would be very inconvenient for Dai Le.
Western Sydney
Labor’s proposed changes to Fowler then trigger flow-on effects across the western suburbs. Parramatta shifts west, pushed that way by the population deficit on the north shore. Changes to Greenway and Chifley are relatively minor, but Lindsay shifts quite a long way east due to changes to Macquarie, which I’ll address next.
The Liberal proposal seems to make some choices about which marginal seats they make more competitive and which ones are lost. They move Parramatta south, with Mitchell gaining parts of Parramatta which would undoubtedly make Mitchell less safe, but still safe enough. Greenway, on the other hand, is pushed into the fast-growing northern suburbs of the City of Blacktown which would likely make it more competitive for the Liberals.
Fowler is still substantially changed in the Liberal proposal, but Dai Le’s best areas stay in the seat.
The Liberals had already abolished two seats – Blaxland and Warringah – so they now have a spare seat to create, which they do by creating Bird Walton as a new south-western seat covering the new airport and high-growth suburbs previously contained in Hume, Macarthur, Werriwa, Lindsay and McMahon.
Macquarie
The seat of Macquarie is a critical linchpin which is worth mentioning on its own.
The seat currently is about 9% under the projected quota, and is made up of two distinct parts: the entire Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury council areas. To bring it up to quota, you’ve gotta branch out to another area.
Labor has chosen to split the Penrith area, giving about a third of the council to Macquarie and thus pushes Lindsay further into the Blacktown council area. Labor also takes the Richmond and Windsor urban fringe suburbs and puts them in Berowra. Bizarrely the Labor proposal still leaves the vast rural parts of the Hawkesbury council area paired with the Blue Mountains and western Penrith.
The Liberal proposal is very different. They split the Mountains away from the Hawkesbury, instead pairing the Blue Mountains with the central west of NSW. This arrangement has been true multiple times in history. Ben Chifley represented Macquarie when it covered Bathurst, and was also the case at the 2007 election, when Bob Debus won the seat. Macquarie then reverted to covering the Hawkesbury in 2010.
The Liberal Party drew a new Macquarie covering the Blue Mountains as well as Blayney, Bathurst, Lithgow and Mudgee. This seat is a replacement for Calare, which they’ve abolished, while they created a new seat called Reibey out of the Hawkesbury and northern parts of the Hills Shire.
The Nationals opt for a much more modest change than Labor or Liberal, transferring those parts of Penrith west of the Nepean River to Macquarie and otherwise leaving the current borders intact. I’m a fan of this simple approach. The Greens don’t make a specific suggestion, beyond saying that they propose leaving Macquarie alone and expanding it slightly into either Lindsay or Berowra.
Hunter and the North Coast
Labor makes no changes to Page, Richmond or Cowper. The Liberal Party also don’t change Page or Richmond but make a very slight change to the Cowper-Lyne border.
Labor also leaves Lyne alone, while the Liberals extend Lyne to take in parts of the Upper Hunter previously contained in the seat of Hunter. This then frees up part of Lyne to take in the rural areas on the north side of Port Stephens, which begins a cascade of changes through the Hunter.
Labor’s map of the Hunter shows minimal changes. Dobell, Robertson and Shortland appear to be unchanged. Hunter loses its most rural fringe to New England, but is otherwise left alone. Newcastle needs to expand so stretches north and takes a chunk out of Paterson, which is otherwise untouched. This leaves Paterson as quite elongated and strange, connecting Kurri Kurri and Maitland to the Port Stephens peninsula through Raymond Terrace.
The Liberal proposal doesn’t have anywhere near as much respect for the existing boundaries in this area. Robertson is mostly left alone, while Dobell shrinks to the urban parts of the seat along the coast. Newcastle expands south into Shortland, pushing Shortland to take in rural fringe areas of the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast regions from Dobell and Hunter. The seat of Hunter is then pushed to take in more urban areas from Paterson and Newcastle. Paterson would be much stronger for the Liberals, having lost Kurri Kurri and big parts of Maitland.
The Nationals proposal for the area actually looks more like Labor’s proposal than the Liberal proposal. The Greens don’t give specific proposals, except to recommend no changes to Richmond and Page.
Illawarra and the south-east
The Liberal proposal is much less dramatic in this area. Cunningham, Gilmore, Eden-Monaro and Whitlam are left mostly intact – there are small changes on the Cunningham-Whitlam and Gilmore-Eden-Monaro boundaries.
Hume does shift further out of Sydney, losing the newer parts of Camden Council (although it still definitely contains parts of the Sydney urban fringe). To compensate, Hume gains Yass from Eden-Monaro and Cowra and Young from Riverina.
Labor makes more dramatic changes. We already discussed Labor’s abolition of Hughes, which pulls Cunningham up to take in a few developed suburbs in the Sutherland Shire. This triggers a cascade where Whitlam and Gilmore also shift north, and eventually Eden-Monaro takes in the remainder of the Eurobodalla council area from Gilmore. Eden-Monaro thus needs to lose the areas west of the great dividing range to Riverina – specifically the Yass Valley and Snowy Valleys council areas.
Labor also takes some of the Camden council area out of Hume around Narellan, but also then swaps that for some newly-developing areas further north which switch from Werriwa to Hume, which still leaves Hume with quite a substantial part of the urban fringe.
The Nationals are the only party to actually deal with the split nature of Hume, pushing it towards Sydney and taking away Goulburn and the areas further west.
The Nationals (like the Liberals) largely leave the Illawarra untouched, but like Labor they take out the western parts of Eden-Monaro and give them to Riverina. Instead of compensating Eden-Monaro with coastal areas, they stretch Eden-Monaro north to take in Goulburn. Hume becomes a seat composed of south-western Sydney suburbs and the northern end of the Southern Highlands, but that’s it. The other rural parts of Hume go into Riverina.
Western NSW
New England is mostly left alone by Labor and Liberal. Both parties add the Muswellbrook council area from the seat of Hunter, and the Liberal proposal also adds in the remainder of the Gwydir council area from Parkes (Labor just adds a small part of it).
The Nationals make more dramatic changes. New England loses the remainder of the Gwydir council area and northern parts of the Inverell council area (but not Inverell itself) to Parkes. At the southern end, New England gains Muswellbrook council area as well as part of the Singleton council area from Hunter. It appears the boundary ends at the Hunter River, with Singleton just narrowly left inside Hunter.
Labor is much less dramatic in western NSW. They leave Farrer entirely alone, and simply add Parkes and Forbes council areas to Parkes which makes Riverina much more compact. Calare appears to be entirely untouched. Riverina, having lost parkes and Forbes, gains the remainder of the Hilltops council area from Hume and Yass Valley and Snowy Valleys council areas from Eden-Monaro.
The Liberal Party effectively abolishes Calare, leaving the central west completely changed. Macquarie stretches as far as Mudgee and Blayney. The seat of Parkes gains the Parkes council area from Riverina, the remainder of Dubbo council area and part of the Cabonne council area from Calare, and part of Carrathool from Farrer.
Farrer loses part of Carrathool and gains Lockhart from Riverina.
The Liberal Party really messes around with Riverina. Having lost Parkes to Parkes and lost Young and Cowra to Hume, it stretches up and just manages to take in Orange.
The Nationals add Lockhart to Farrer. Parkes (in addition to the gains from New England) loses part of the Lachlan council area to Riverina and gains the former Wellington council area from Calare.
While the Liberals carve up Calare, the Nationals mostly leave it alone – it just loses the former Wellington council area to Parkes and gains Cowra from Riverina.
Even the Nationals have to make some significant changes to Riverina but the core is left alone. It expands to the ACT border, taking in the western edge of Eden-Monaro (including Yass and Tumut) along with the rural western end of Hume. It loses Lockhart and Cowra and gains the southern part of the Lachlan council area.
@Josh – your Bradfield is a half way house between Labor’s east to west North Sydney and the Liberal’s elongated Bradfield. It is mostly the current North Sydney, but Tink would lose some very good areas for her in North Sydney LGA and gain all of Chatswood, which was her weakest area. She’d have to in introduce herself to a lot of new voters though.
Paul Fletcher would not have much of a sitting MP benefit in such a seat, and I reckon you’d find a young female liberal turk win pre-selection in such a scenario, possibly from the Right. It might actually be a close run thing for 2nd on preferences between Labor and IND, witrh a depressed Liberal vote as well. Other than Northbridge and Hunters Hill, it’s fairly evenly split.
Can we all just agreed the major parties and members submissions are onvious attempts at gerrymandering. Labor want a westward shift because they cant win the north shore and libs want an east shift to unseat tink and some Labor MPs.
Labor’s attempt is to save all their seats south of the Parramatta River. It’s home to many cabinet ministers and first-termers on the rise (Sally Sitou, Reid and Andrew Charlton, Parramatta). All of their seats are under-quota and one of them risks abolition. Their proposal of extending Banks to the Sutherland Shire and abolition of Hughes is just odd. It just won’t happen.
The Liberals are trying to pit Labor against Kylea Tink by moving Bennelong eastwards and chopping North Sydney. It seems there’s general sentiment here is: Bradfield should merge with North Sydney and then shrink; all of Chatswood should be in one electorate.
I think the name North Sydney will be gone. The AEC got rid of Port Adelaide and Melbourne Ports a few years ago because they both contained the name of another electorate. Besides, North Sydney CBD will probably end up in Warringah.
@Josh Lucock, very interesting. I’m not too sure if AEC will accept too many new names in one go for existing electorates – Illawarra, Murrumbidgee, Woronora, which itself is a suburb name, and Warrane.
I think the name Grayndler should go due to being the least important. However the division as it stands should remain. For this reason Ive abolished Barron and transferred the name in much the same way hunter was transferred to Charlton
The think about this “general sentiment that Bradfield should merge with North Sydney” is that it does very little for the other end of Bradfield. It still leaves an unweildy Berowra and split communities along the Pacific Hwy around Hornsby. The Liberals create a new seat in north western Sydney – why retain Berrowa as well? You can see what this does to Mitchell.
The drawing of a seat based on the remaining part of North Sydney, that can also unit Chatswood (a more southern Bradfield is not the only option here) allows a better seat to the north and to the west. Get rid of the name North Sydney is you want to, call the bulk of the old North Sydney, Bennelong, as much of it used to be and has historically been, with the next seat across around Ryde being Wallumedegal.
I also think the name Grayndler will go. Reid, Barton and Watson are ex-PMs. Grayndler will probably get renamed to Watson or Barton and then shift Southwest, still remaining a mainly Inner West centred seat.
Grayndler, the electorate, should remain and not get axed. Banks, Fowler, Parramatta, McMahon and Blaxland are two electorates away and they are also hugely under quota. Grayndler is too east and axing it will make many electorates shift north or east. Axing Watson or Banks makes more sense.
Agree Votante and John, the result may be like the recent NSW state redistribution which amalgamated Bankstown and Lakemba into a single seat called Bankstown, then created a new seat Leppington in South-west Sydney.
Abolishing a middle ring Western Sydney seat near Bankstown (one of either Blaxland, Watson or Banks) is more sensible than trying to abolish an inner West seat.
If one of the senior Cabinet ministers is left without a ‘home’ seat to contest, they could always transfer to the new Southwest Sydney seat or replace one of the backbenchers in the existing seats of Werriwa or Macarthur (Anne Stanley and Mike Freelander)
Burney won’t be running again, so that won’t be a problem.
After Sydney, Wentworth and Kingsford-Smith move west there is not a lot of Grayndler left. Easier then for Barton to move north and take in all of Marrickville. As for the name, Ted Grayndler did not seem very notable in 1948 – it is a name that has definitely past its ‘use by’ date.
@redistributed ive been saying that for months
in fact if it werent the pms seat it would almost be unanimous to get rid of it
How late would be too late for government to expand the house and senate ahead of the next election? If any teal seats get abolished I can see the calls for it intensifying.
@john it would be too late now the redistribution is underway and by the time the law is enacted it would be completed. no way they would have time for another.
If they expand the size of the parliament you would need to conduct redistributions in the five biggest states, each of which would be far more dramatic than the redistributions we’re having now. You’d need at least a year. It’s not going to happen this term.
The should look at doing that eventually as elector numbers grow they should grow the parliament to reduce the amount of electors per member it’s been nearly 40 years since it was last expanded
@yph an the new sw Sydney seat will probably be notionally liberal and dropping someone in from a hard left division would be a db idea. I think Burney will most likely retire or try and take on Coleman
@John “in fact if it werent the pms seat it would almost be unanimous to get rid of it.”
I don’t think so. It’s a safe Labor seat and so Labor will try to save it, just like the LNP would to their own safe seats. I have my own reasons not to abolish Grayndler as it’s so far east.
The Greens want to shift Grayndler to Burwood and Croydon. They want all of Newtown, Annandale and Balmain moved into Sydney. If it does happen, this makes it more competitve for the Greens when Plibersek retires as the Newtown and Balmain are state Greens seats.
@Yoh An, “Abolishing a middle ring Western Sydney seat near Bankstown (one of either Blaxland, Watson or Banks) is more sensible than trying to abolish an inner West seat.”.
Exactly. Grayndler’s neighbours are all under-quota but so are all electorates south of the Parramatta River. Blaxland, Banks, Fowler, Parramatta, Cook, Hughes are two or three electorates away from Grayndler and are all well under-quota. If a new seat is created in western Sydney, it means all these seats will have to shift north or east.
With Boele wanting to run for Bradfield again you’d think tink would have to run for Bennelong as running against each other will split the vote.
High Street, Votante, and Nicholas all commented that LGA boundaries aren’t always ideal for federal divisional boundaries, and I would agree.
One of the areas where this issue is most relevant is North Sydney, where several major parties suggest dividing this area along or nearby the LGA boundaries. This is strange, because there are three major city centres within ~2km of one another (North Sydney CBD + Crows Nest + St Leonards). All of these centres have skycscrapers, significant employment, and high density housing. Crows Nest in particular is prioritised for rapid development.
These centres should all be in the same division due to their closeness and common interests.
Chatswood is also a very similar major centre, and is only ~3km further north. It could ideally be included in North Sydney, or not, depending on various arguments about which ways the north shore area should be redistributed, and what these divisions should be named. Either way, Chatswood shouldn’t be split directly through it’s centre as it is at the moment.
Drawing the boundary to Warringah at the Warringah Expressway enables the North Sydney CBD + Crows Nest + St Leonards centres to remain united with one another, with the comparatively small compromise of that expressway boundary continuing north into the Willoughby area.
This argument for close major centres to be kept together would also apply to Sydney + Central + Redfern (~3.5km apart in total) and Parramatta + Westmead (~2km apart) for the same reasons, but it seems that many suggestions already retain these links in the same division.
John’s comment inspired me to try redistributing NSW into 54 electorates. And wow, it was liberating! It didn’t feel like I was pulling my hair out trying to find merely defensible boundaries.
@Peter
I agree with your reasoning here.
Despite strong arguments for other arrangements, I’m still leaning towards the Kylea Tink proposal of retaining all of North Sydney, Lane Cove and Willoughby LGAs in a single division. I think you can argue there is a strong community of interest between the 3 “high-density” LGAs, in comparison to “low-density” Ku-ring-gai LGA.
On a similar note, putting Waverton and Brookvale in a single division is pushing things, and all just to keep the Bradfield-Mackellar border intact. I also think that pulling Bennelong eastwards to split the lower North Short into 3 parts isn’t suitable.
I think one thing that will lead to a better redistribution of the Northern Sydney area is recognising the linkage between the Forest District of the Northern Beaches and the Ku-ring-gai Council Area. There’s an LGA and relatively strong physical barrier, but there’s affinity in demographics, density, environment and political leaning. In short, I don’t think the Forest District should automatically be in the same division as the rest of the Northern Beaches simply because it shares the same council.
Break that Bradfield-Mackellar barrier and you gain more room to manoeuvre things. It’s something that might help.
@Angas,
submission #43 is the one you need to look at. But even then Artarmon and Manly are in the one seat. But that’s really the whole issue – these seats are getting very big and the only way to solve that is to expand the Parliament.
I don’t think Tink’s submission has a hope of getting up as it would mean a decent Warringah but a bastardised Mackellar.
@Peter, I obviously agree with your general point on LGA’s bit not so much on the specific example. I think a made up boundary running north into the Willoughby LGA – presumably Miller street northwards into Northbridge, is not a great idea. The two best boundaries in this area both run generally east-west. Firstly, Falcon street, with River road down into Berry’s creek in the west and Park Ave into Willoughby creek at the other end. This is a bit similar to the State boundary. If you have to go further north, then the next best boundary is Mowbray road (not The Gore Hill fwy, which the Nationals presume must be a major barrier), which submission 43 uses for part of the way before jumping up to Victoria Ave once clear of the majority of Chatswood (I don’t mind that, even though it looks a bit odd – but that’s what a bit of local knowledge does).
@Nicholas, yes, it would be much better if we could draw smaller divisions.
@Angus, thanks. I agree that putting Waverton and Brookvale (or, to phrase it in another way) North Sydney CBD and of the Northern Beaches into the same division is beyond a reasonable amount of common interest.
I also agree that Tink’s suggestion makes for a nice-looking division… but only in isolation. I don’t think it works in the whole northern Sydney context, because the Mackellar-Bradfield boundary is one of the strongest boundaries in this area, and therefore shouldn’t be substituted for a weaker boundary either west or east. Besides, Tink’s use of the LGA boundary in the east isn’t kind to the centre of Cremorne.
What does work well:
1. The many suggestions expand Mackellar a little bit southwards (with minor differences in how this is done).
2. The Nationals’ drawing of Warringah is a realistic example of a boundary using the Warringah Expressway (with various minor ways to divide Willoughby).
3. A North Sydney-based seat that includes the CBD, Crows Nest, and St Leonards (with various minor options that expand or contract north and / or west)
4. A Hornsby-Berowra based seat as drawn by Joshua Lucock (he calls it “Berowra”) or Labor (“Bradfield”).
Y’all North Shore people be like, “But Brookvale and Waverton are in the same seat!” while unperturbed by divisions that unite Katoomba and Pitt Town, or St Clair and Guildford, or Cherrybrook and Richmond!
(Please don’t be mad, just making a joke about how we talk so much about the North Shore here!)
@High Street, yes, bigger seats are challenging, but when there are unreasonably big contrasts within a suggested division, then perhaps we can find a better way?
On the Willoughby area, I think it depends on how you define a “best boundary”. In northern Sydney, obviously the boldest boundaries are the deep creek valleys. Within urban areas, you might prefer to use the most distinctive streets, whereas I’m seeking to find the gap between one kind of community and another. For this reason, I’m satisfied that the eastern edges of Willoughby – which are less connected to the north shore ridgeline major centres and train line than the majority of Willoughby proper – have similar characteristics to Warringah. Arguably, it’s more important that each community has a clearer common interest than it is to find a singular linear street for a boundary.
On submission 43, I’ve only looked at the maps for northern Sydney so far, but my first impressions aren’t positive at all. It appears to prioritise keeping Bradfield relatively static at the expense of neighbouring divisions. It also uses some jagged boundaries, including the Lane Cove LGA boundary, which I think is an example of where LGAs are less useful for drawing divisions. That version of Bennelong is especially weird. All up, while divisions do have to be drawn somewhere, I don’t think those suggestions achieve many good outcomes in this area.
@Nicholas, yeah, that’s a fair point. Drawing divisions east to west probably makes options in the west more varied, making them harder to discuss as definitively. There’s also inescapably controversy around suggested abolitions, and ultimately these proposals need to be justified by well-resolved suggestions.
Yes, I think the Katoomba should be split from Pitt Town, St Clair from Guildford, and Cherrybrook from Richmond. I’m not mad, I’m furious… in agreement!
Agree about the large size (both in area and population) of federal seats causing trouble in terms of getting the right community of interest/balance.
Smaller states like Queensland amplify these issues, to the point where you have a district (Ryan) that stretches all the way from the CBD edge into semi-rural areas. That district would be like trying to contain Newtown with far-fetched St Ives or Dural close to the edge of the Sydney metropolitan area.
Even my home district of Brisbane covers three distinct types of communities – the CBD itself, inner suburban industrial areas like Bowen Hills and then the affluent riverside suburbs such as Hamilton, New Farm and Teneriffe. It would be like trying to squeeze the federal districts of Sydney, Grayndler and Wentworth all into one.
Which I feel is an apt description, given that Brisbane district (Federal) was essentially a 3-way tie at the last election.
Drawing boundaries to group together similar communities of interest is quite tricky, as Yoh An alluded to. It is difficult to put Chatswood and North Sydney CBD in the one electorate and yet address the quota shortage in all seats east of Parramatta.
Warringah is projected to have the second lowest number of enrolments and I can’t see it getting axed. It will have to expand. Warringah will likely absorb North Sydney CBD and much of the LGA. AEC may surprise us by making Mackeller the one that expands westward to the Upper North Shore. Who knows.
There’s a possibility of putting North Sydney CBD and St Leonards together. St Leonards is split into three LGAs and state seats so it would be unfortunate if it happened federally too.
It doesn’t make sense for Bennelong to shift half an electorate away to North Sydney CBD and St Leonards. Bennelong already contains economically important CBDs and high-rise concrete jungles and a major university in North Ryde and Macquarie Park. Add to that, there aren’t many Lane Cove River crossings.
My hunter and Shortland essentially swap some lgas. Shortland expands north with the boundary being the Swansea channel and an entirely lake Macquarie based seat. And hunter takes in the territory south of the channel
@Peter
I continue to be baffled by this view that different people live on one side of Eastern Valley Way in Willoughby, to the other. I’d be interested to know where you live! What are these characteristics similar to Warringah you speak of?
There really aren’t any real dividing lines between different types of people, as every area has a mix. I’d simply suggest that at some point up the north shore train line, people consider themselves living in a lower north shore suburb or in an upper north shore suburb. The people aren’t really any different or better – it’s just a mindset that’s fairly broadly held. I’d suggest it’s somewhere around Chatswood and Roseville. We all expected the northern edge of of North Sydney to be moved to Boundary street in 2016, but they moved it south to Victoria Ave, thus splitting Chatswood – rather than moving to north. That was a surprise, and in retrospect with subsequent population growth, I would suggest was a mistake.
@Peter,
further to above I don’t mean to be a prick, but I really would like to explore what you don’t like about submission 43 (no, it’s not mine). I think the author has had a red hot go at an innovative way of drawing seats on the north shore and would like to tease out any legitimate positions against it.
You say the Lane Cove LGA boundary is jagged, and not a good example of a useful LGA boundary. The highway doesn’t run in a straight line! Few major roads in Sydney do, unlike Melbourne and Adelaide. I would say it is a very good boundary to use – it’s an LGA and state electorate boundary, but more importantly it has Lane Cove clearly on one side and industrial and a health precinct on the other, with no residential. There are few clearer distinctions in the area.
As to the proposed Bennelong, if you use this new blog
https://antonygreen.com.au/bennelong-map-illustrates-changing-map-technology/
it can be seen that it is largely the north, east and south boundaries used from 1977 to 1998, plus in the west the area around Eastwood and West Ryde that was added in 1993. Yes, since 2001, Bennelong has been further west, but this is very much the Bennlong of the many John Howard eras.
The general idea of moving Bradfield into the Forest District I don’t mind at all. There’s a lot of other ideas in S43 I really do like. But… those North Shore boundaries… isn’t that a three-way split of Chatswood?
As an occasional viewer of this site and the author of S43, it is interesting to see my suggestion receive so much attention (I’m glad you like it @High Street). I should say that I’m from Melbourne and whilst I am reasonably familiar with various parts of Sydney and New South Wales in general, I don’t claim to have an intricate knowledge of the area (I made the boundaries for my own interest, and only decided to submit and write a brief report at the last minute).
Some comments:
-@Peter I agree that it is unfortunate that Manly and North Sydney are in the same seat but this seems more or less unavoidable, without having bad flow on effects elsewhere (correct me if I’m wrong). Also, I completely agree that strong boundaries (eg. current Bradfield, Mackellar boundary) should be used as much as possible but I don’t think this should be the only consideration when drawing the boundaries (otherwise you can end up with a seat like the current Maribyrnong). As you observed, in trying to keep Bradfield as an Upper North Shore seat, I had to cross this barrier. I feel like this creates a better community of interest then a seat based on the north shore railway line.
– As @Nicholas seems to have demonstrated, it is impossible to make perfect boundaries (this of course doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try). My boundaries in the North Shore were definitely impacted by the boundaries I drew further west, but I hope they are still alright in and of themselves. Also, I would agree that the Chatswood area is a weak point of my suggestion (I believe its only a two way split, not that this makes it much better), and it was necessitated by the numbers. I’ve tried to keep as much of it as possible in Bradfield including all the high density areas, and the part of it I have transferred to Bennelong, I hope is not too dissimilar to Lane Cove.
Anyway, glad to hear there is so much discussion and I hope that the AEC settles on reasonable boundaries in the area.
David
@David – well done for drawing such sensible boundaries – from Melbourne!
I’m not boosting your Bradfield into Mackellar approach, but I just hate the thinking that “we must draw Mackellar like its always been drawn – no other option, blah, blah…” without recognising what limitations this places on the subsequent seats. The alternative approach you use neatly achieves the request of the current Mackellar MP to retain the seat as Northern Beaches only seat, without drawing the same seat! It also then makes the next seat a merger of Warringah and North Sydney, rather than a take over. (I wonder if something similar would work in the south, by drawing K-S first but entirely east of the airport, then merging Wentworth and Sydney as a harbour seat with the CBD in it???)
@Nicholas – yes, you have a point, but I can see what David has done to mitgate it and even achieve the objective of unifying the main part of Chatswood. He has Lane Cove North and Chatswood West below Fullers road (the current boundary) in Bennelong with Lane Cove, using the Pacific Hwy as the boundary all the way from St. Leonards. Then by going along Mowbray road but then up what looks to be Sydney Street to Victoria Ave, he is uniting Chatswood CBD and suburb in Bradfield, but nothing else – Leaving all the Willoughby’s (East, North and central) in the next seat along. (I think this is also a Council Ward boundary FWIW).
@David, one minor (and technical) comment I will make to your submission is that from Sydney Street, the boundary should continue North up (physically down the hill) Penshurst st until Scotts creek, then follow that to on its wondering route to Sugarloaf Bay – this is similar to the boundary pre 2016. The reason is, the area eaast of Penshurst street but b/w Scotts creek and Victoria Ave, whilst defined as Chatswood, is linked almost solely to North Willoughby. It is bounded by industrial areas on one side and has all No Through Roads on the other. It is a tiny enclave within the current Bradfield, but effectively cut off from it and much few communities on interest to the rest of Chatswood than to North Willougby.
@High Street, I agree with your lower and upper north shore designations. That boundary could be in several places, and I put it between Gordon and Pymble, very similar to Joshua Lucock.
For Willoughby, there’s 2 important ideas here:
1. A boundary in eastern Willoughby is justifiable based on forming two communities of interest:
– The Chatswood – Willoughby – North Willoughby area is a train and tram-based settlement. It has a dense grid of streets, multiple small local centres, and good access to heavy rail. This area belongs with its north shore train line neighbours, and I’ve not seen anyone dispute that.
– The Castle Cove – Middle Cove – Castlecrag areas are quite different. They have winding streets, few local centres, and poor access to heavy rail. They are quite similar to Killarney Heights and Seaforth.
Ideally, if we had smaller divisions, Middle Harbour would be the boundary. In reality, at least one division needs to span this waterway somewhere. I’m arguing that the ‘crags and coves’ (plus Mosman and Neutral Bay) form a Warringah that is clearly a grouping of coastal suburban settlements that have poor or no rail access. Is this not a distinct common interest relative the North Sydney – Chatswood areas?
2. A boundary in eastern Willoughby that, A. doesn’t cut through urban centres, and B. does find a gap between urban settlement types (see point #1) is arguably better than a boundary that cuts through the North Sydney CBD + Crows Nest + St Leonards group.
Why divide major city centres that are immediately adjacent and have a distinct common interest, when you could divide two areas based upon their contrasting geographic features and access to transport?
@David, welcome. At a glance, your central and western Sydney areas look decent. In fairness, I think northern Sydney is challenging for everyone, due to the more profound geography in these areas clashing with redistribution requirements. The same challenge applies in the areas south of the Georges River.
May I please respond to High Street’s questions in regards to your submission?
For Bennelong, despite its history further east, I think this division is in a good position right now, including Ryde and Epping. I retain Hunters Hill LGA in North Sydney for several reasons, but I acknowledge a contrasting argument to move the boundary east to the Lane Cove River. I disagree with Bennelong moving east over the river for 2 reasons:
– I don’t see enough common interests between Lane Cove and Ryde in current times.
– I don’t think the LGA boundary between Epping and Eastwood is ideal, as it severs the connectivity along this rail line, which is more important than Epping’s LGA connection to Parramatta. This also appears to have an unfortunate flow-on effect pulling the Parramatta division off its CBD centre. Is that a boundary through the centre of Westmead (I’m not sure if I’m readying your map correctly)? If so, Westmead is vitally important to Parramatta’s future, and massive development is planned, so I don’t think it should be split.
For Bradfield:
– The north shore ridgeline communities are fairly well defined by rail access, so I disagree with the inclusion of the Forest area, which shares the Northern Beaches’ connectivity flaws.
– I share your concerns about the jagged boundary around Chatswood. It’s good that it doesn’t cut through the centre directly, but it does skirt close to it, unfortunately cutting off the high school for example. I know the numbers need to be made up somehow, but given that Chatswood is close to your Warringah-Bradfield boundary, it seems hard to justify a small extra bulge in the boundary that tips Chatswood onto the northern side when it would fit better on the southern side along with North Sydney CBD + Crows Nest + St Leonards.
Peter I will issue a rebuttal of your point regarding castle Cove/castlecrag and its link to Chatswood.
Whilst loving in Sydney, I thought those areas are well linked to chatswood through public transport and not to places on the other side of the waterway.
@Yoh An, that’s correct, and that would make for an ideal outcome if not for the redistribution requirements.
However, in connectivity terms, all of Manly, Mosman, and the ‘crags and coves’ areas are better connected by buses travelling directly in and out of the city than they are to Chatswood and the rail line.
Meanwhile, North Sydney, Crows Nest, and St Leonards (and ideally with Chatswood too) are all oriented around the north shore rail line.
Peter, but I agree with High Street’s view that it is better to have a district with greater connectivity within it, even though it might split nearby commercial centers.
This is because people are more likely to make short, local trips and it doesn’t matter if their commuting patterns are different.
I have noticed this with Queensland state electoral districts, as these don’t really follow direct transport corridors and instead unite suburbs by proximity (as shown with the split of Chermside with its main centre in Stafford but its surroundings in neighboring Aspley).
I live in the North Willoughby style area of Chatswood. I picked up one of my children from a mates’s house in Middle Cove the other day, after they walked home from school together. The parent’s did not say that their child has school friends that live Manly and Mosman. Interestingly we did not talk about contrasts between the bus trip to the city vs the train trip…….
I do note however that many adults and school children travel from the Forest area to Chatswood every day. So it’s not like there are no links of movement between the two. It’s 5km as the crow flys from Forestville to Chatswwod and similar by road. Its also 5km to Brookvale, but longer by road.
Thanks @Peter, @High Street and @Nicholas for the suggestions. I wasn’t originally planning on touching New South Wales any more, but given the small changes that you pointed out which could make the boundaries better I had a go.
Here are maps for the relevant changed areas:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hM5I-wJnEYNRlngdFMKflfjYpcYU0XjL/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TTih79r5p7JhOAEvsXhXi4dmPujHFoDq/view?usp=sharing
In short:
– Chatswood reunited in Bradfield (except for that part of East Chatswood @High Street mentioned which is now in Warringah),
– All of St Leonards transferred to Warringah, and Epping/North Epping transferred to Bennelong
– Remainder of WPH moved to Berowra, Westmead to Parramatta, Wentworthville to McMahon
I hope this makes it better. Of course any other ideas which would further improve the boundaries are of course welcome.
Best,
David
Could my Western Sydney (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1B0i1L5gXb0CSX9JuQ-FY48dnf75F9LXq?usp=sharing) work out in conjunction with my submission (https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2023/nsw/files/suggestions/nsw24-s0018-leon-shinkai.pdf)? If so I am considering uploading these as comments to my own submission. I basically drew the new seat in a way to help resolve the community of interest issues in McMahon. The parts of Bankstown LGA not in Watson/Blaxland goes to Hughes BTW
@Yoh An, that sounds like a value judgment about the relative importance of proximity compared to common interest.
We have the opportunity to form one electoral division with excellent connectivity in common and another division with limited connectivity common, with the latter still having road-based access to one another and to all everyday destinations. Given the alternative is to split up a row of major and rapidly growing city centres (and all the trips, activities, and homes that they provide), I think that’s a reasonable argument for the common interest. I’ll agree to disagree if you like.
@High Street, that’s a nice place, with a nice High Street too!
@Peter, but it’s excellent connectivity in common… to a location OUTSIDE the electorate. That a minority of people go to on a daily basis. Yes, the buses and trains to the city are busy, but it’s still a minority of people on them, and even then it is not the most important thing in their day. No one talks to each other on a bus or train! And Federal Government doesn’t control public transport.
I think Yo An’s point is that proximity is a close proxy for common interest. I am not sure why in the urban areas, where you draw a compact electorate, one would look for a reason not too. That’s been my reason to argue against an elongated north shore seat running from Longuevile to St Ives – I don’t see why its necessary.
I also think calling Crows nest a City Centre is a stretch. It’s still a village really, that has some development going on at present because it was chosen for a Metro station site. North Sydney CBS is something entirely different to St. Leonards, let alone Crows Next. Anyway, most proposals to put them in the one seat, but if Falcon street had to be chosen, it wouldn’t concern me.
Peter, I agree that there is one crossing of Middle Harbour between Forestville and Castle Cove/Roseville Chase, but even so it doesn’t directly link major centers together. If you were to extend the current Warringah across this waterway to include Castle Cove and Castlecrag, it would entail a long and circuitous route to get from these suburbs to the other side and into Manly/Brookvale which are the main centers.
It would be better to do a crossing upstream, in the St Ives/Davidson area where there are far more connections.
Also agree High Street that comparing Crow’s Nest or even St Leonard’s as being equivalent to North Sydney is a stretch, in my area it would be like saying Greenslopes and South Bank are of equal importance when they are not.
Comments are closed.