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.
I think that Berowra is very quickly becoming ripe for a tea independent. Especially considering the abolition of a north shore seat – likely either Bradfield or North Sydney – would mean its expansion south into Ku-Ring-Gai council area. And if the seat loses the rural areas in Hornsby and Hills Shires west of Berowra Creek, there is certainly a chance in Hornsby, but maybe less so in Cherrybrook. The strong voice support in Berowra may also help fuel a Teal’s confidence, not only around Hornsby but into more leafy areas in Beecroft, Cheltenham and Pennant Hills, as well as Ku-Ring-Gai. I don’t think all is lost of Boele. She is obviously best to run in a safe, leafy Liberal seat and Berowra, while probably lest desirable, is shaping up to be a good alternative for her, especially considering its likely southward movement.
100% agree, @Bajoc. The Liberals performed abysmally along the Pennant Hills to Berowra corridor in 2022. A Teal just needs a high enough primary vote (which the addition of the Upper North Shore will help with) and then Labor and Greens preferences will do the rest.
@Bajoc
I am not sure if it is possible for Berowra to not cross Berowra Creek given the figures but I hope that gets fixed eventually.
Boele has been branding herself the shadow member for bradfield. Tink is going be left without a chair and will have to challenge another independent run for bennelong or retire.
@Hawkeye_au.
Good to see your comments again, but I think your “geographic channel” theory is a total load of nonsense. You need to go and look at some of the better Suggestions, as were discussed on here a few weeks ago. Even if Warringah is drawn as both major parties (and Steggall) propose it (and that’s far from a given), the next step in the jigsaw is not automatically as you describe it (and anyway, 70% of the current North Sydney is not in that seat).
There are many sound reasons for drawing each of North Sydney, Bennelong and Bradfield further to the north and west with Berrowa eventually being effectively abolished – we will have to see what the Commissioners come up with.
Steggall would be the only one with a realistic shot at a Senate spot, but I think she’d go close. The Greens senate vote would take a hit but the L/NP ticket could be dragged down to only just over 2 quota’s and be excluded before securing a third seat.
Sry been slow to upload my maps here they are
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qngxl0O-0WCfmu_wN2wGjW7GafIDO1An
Hi @High Street,
Yeah I’ve been flat chat with work. Sometimes, life just catches up.
With regards to your comment, given that there is a bit more consensus with the idea around Mackellar expanding south, pushing Warringah towards North Sydney, I’d be putting my money on the merger of Warringah and North Sydney as the location for the seat abolishment to occur. The naming of this seat depends on how much the seats merge. North Sydney is a Federation Seat, but I don’t mind the use of the name Cammeraygal as a suggestion.
The reason for the idea around Bennelong is that the seat has historically also taken Lane Cove and Hunters Hill so the shift back there has precedence.
From there, the Geographical and Community divides through there are significant. I think you and I will have to disagree on points here.
@high Street stegallwould be no chance in the senate remember its from all nsw votewhy she’s popular on the north shore with the well off white folk she wouldn’t get near the required vote
@John,
you may well be right. But I think she’d grab a lot of the Green senate vote. It looks to me that only half the green vote is actually anything like rusted on – the rest runs for the hills as soon as there is an alternative that isn’t Labor.
A senate vote is pot luck sometime – as happened in Victoria last time. If both Majors get only just over 2 quota’s – and whilst LNP vote is stronger in NSW, a Moderate Liberal voter rebellion led by a well funded Steggall (she’d have plenty of VERY well heeled backers) could just bring the LNP vote down from 2.6 quotas to 2.2) – then the last spot is up for gaps with no one having more than 1/2 a quota left (if that)
High Street
A reasonably high profile or not, Zali Steggall would have no chance running for the senate. How could she run a campaign without having people on the ground at almost voting centre in the state. In any state bar Tasmania, you need a lower house party and unattainable amounts of back up machinery.
Now that the redistributions are finished taking submissions will have to find something to do
When can we expect first draft boundaries for the 3?
@ Redistributed (from Dunkley by-election thread)
I take your point. I want to see if there is another option of Warringah moving northwards etc first or Bennelong move westwards into Parramatta LGA to allow for parts of Ryde LGA to be included in North Sydney. I do accept that we cant always separate suburbs socio-economically when creating seats but where possible i would recommend that be considered. For the same reason some including commentators on this seat have proposed that Keilor be included in Maribiyoung. The Greens and Labor have both made submissions that will allow for North Sydney and Warringah to be retained with amended boundaries (links below). In the case of Prahran/Toorak there are in the same LGA and even then some have proposed that Prahran fits better with Macnamara instead. I do feel that the Lower North Shore is a community of interest and would benefit from a distinct seat. My preference would be for Bradfield to be abolished and Berowra to be renamed Bradfield.
https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2023/nsw/files/suggestions/nsw24-s0048-NSW-labor.pdf
https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2023/nsw/files/suggestions/nsw24-s0046-the-greens-NSW.pdf
Nimalan the general consensus is Mackellar will move south
@John – That is a sweeping interpretation of the general consensus. There are options put forward where Mackellar doesn’t move south – some where it basically merges with Warringah. All options are on the table and have been put forward by various Suggestions, as discussed above in this thread.
Most seats on the north Shore are more under quota than N-S, so there’s a lot of logic for a seat (Bradfield or Berrowa) to be “abolished” rather than N-S. In the end it all really doesn;t matter much – the voters are still in the same spot and that’s what matters.
High street but given past patterns they will move Mackellar south. While yes they are once you take the 6% off Warringah for Mackellar that means Warringah will Ned 25% from NS
All the attention has been on North Sydney & Warringah, but when it comes to the North Shore divisions, I actually think the most consequential and primary decision is what to do with Bennelong.
The submissions seem to be split roughly 50-50 between 2 camps:
1. Given that North Sydney is to be abolished, shift Bennelong eastward across Lane Cove River (as it was before the 1993 election)
2. Leave it largely as is (as it has been since the 2007 election)
Labor’s proposal was more unique, as they suggested to shift North Sydney westwards into Bennelong, which I actually don’t think is an awful solution.
Even if they don’t adjust their boundary, there is a link between what happens to Bennelong and what happens to Berowra. The more Bennelong shifts to the east, the more Berowra needs to be aligned westward, and vice-versa.
If we take the starting point of 5.23 quotas for the 6 North Shore divisions, then some fat needs to be trimmed from the western ends of Bennelong and Berowra. Ermington and Glenhaven would appear to be the obvious areas to move, but Berowra certainly has more areas which it could stand to lose.
Overall, I’d have no issues with Hunters Hill being transferred to Bennelong, but my personal opinion is that Bennelong crossing the Lane Cove River would provide little benefit:
– It would split the Lower North Shore community across 3 divisions, which would ideally be represented by a division like the one proposed by Kylea Tink.
– It would require Berowra to retain parts of Parramatta (Carlingford) and The Hills (Glenhaven) that aren’t a natural fit.
– It would mean that Epping needs to be transferred to Parramatta or to Berowra instead of paired with Ryde.
I’m more familiar with the Northern Beaches, so is Epping more suited to be in Bennelong or Berowra or Parramatta?
Whatever happens, once Bennelong’s position is decided, Berowra will also be locked into place, and then it’s just a matter of haggling over how to best rotate Bradfield, Mackellar and Warringah (which is still an unenviable task).
@Angas, I’m with you on the Lane Cove River boundary suggestion given the communities of interest and the geographical separation with two bridge crossings between the Bennelong part and North Sydney part. I think Hunters Hill, despite its affluence and low-density, should join with Ryde. I also agree that Ryde should be paired with Epping.
The proposals of Bennelong I’ve seen involve combining Macquarie Park and Chatswood. This means two of Australia’s largest CBDs will be put together. Kylea Tink suggested that Chatswood in its entirety put into one electorate. It’s a good point as I’m not a fan of dividing up large CBDs or town centres.
@nimalan of course the greens and Labor want them both to be retained because it benefits both them anfpd there allies. Politicalpartiessuggestions are always 9artisan more stock should be put I independent suggestions of course some parts of theirs are reasonable but whe. It comes to abolishing divisions it’s usually bias
Bennelong is actually very well drawn in its current form. I also agree that Epping fits well with Ryde.
But some change is inevitable… There are reasonable arguments each way for Hunters Hill to go into Bennelong or into North Sydney. Moving Bennelong into Lane Cove is a bridge too far though.
I don’t think Epping fits with Parramatta – they’re too far apart. Moving Parramatta far north enough to include Epping makes the Parramatta CBD too peripheral, compromising this division. The beauty of Parramatta’s “river city” location at the head of the navigable waterway is that the city is central to the land on both sides of the river. Parramatta CBD’s essential places include North Parramatta, Westmead, Merrylands, and Granville.
Of the submissions that proposed abolishing a seat in the northern Sydney region, this often led to Parramatta getting pulled too far northwards into the resulting void. Or, one submission even suggested that Reid gets pulled north into Bennelong, taking all the riverside suburbs of Tennyson Point, Putney, Meadowbank, and Melrose Park!
The northern Sydney region may get 5 or 6 divisions, but either way, they need to find a successful way to contract or expand this region to fit the requirements without too many big compromises.
Agree Peter, having lived there in the past I feel that Epping doesn’t really fit in well with Parramatta or its namesake council and probably should be combined with Eastwood in Ryde Council. Hunters Hill despite being an ‘affluent’ suburb fits well with the eastern parts of Ryde Council in Bennelong – being very similar demographically to Gladesville and Putney.
Having moved to Brisbane, I feel that the ideal configuration of local councils in Northern Sydney is for many of the smaller ones to be merged together, with the preferred arrangements being:
Merger of Willoughby and Lane Cove
Hunters Hill combined with Ryde Council, whilst also including Epping.
Merger of Mosman and North Sydney
Merger of Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby, with Cherrybrook and WPH being transferred to Hills Shire Council.
ive put epping in Parramatta because its aprat of the Parramatta City LGA
Anyone know how I can visually represent these boundaries? I really wish there was a tool where you could make your own redistributions.
Without a tool to help me here it’s hard to visualise which seats would notionally be held by another party, but I’ve been able to work that Gilmore and Paterson will be notionally Liberal.
ALL
As a willoughby council and N Sydney resident, iv’e been redistributed 4 times and had 7 different federal MP’s in 30 years. I’m profoundly sick of being used as a convenience of the AEC. Willoughby council is usually split between 2 or 3 electorates. Very sub optimal. The entire Willoughby LGA SHOULD BE in ONE Federal Electorate – Bradfield END OF STORY.
ONE seat is likely to be abolished on the North Shore. I’m with “@High Street” in that McKellar should be it. However it seems that the consensus is that NS is most likely (abolished). It is the easiest to “carve up”. I deeply loathe Kylea Tink even though i put Zimmerman last. N Sydney LGA is essentially like an inner city seat Whereas Willoughby LGA is suburban, mid to outer. Being “de -coupled” from N S LGA will be as much a relief as losing a lazy posturing fool like Tink.
There has been a lot of comment about the carve up . The cleanest outcome is basically NS LGA to Warringah
HH & Lane Cove to Bennelong , Willoughby LGA to Bradfield. As the AEC are lazy stupid, and staid i’d expect them to take the path of least resistance.
Whilst Bennelong actually works as is, to leave it such would cause awkward distortions to its west and north. Better to move it BACK TO WHERE IT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN. ie under JWH. WRT to Lane Cove it is at least AS connected to HH, Gladesville, Ryde etc as it is to Chatswood. Trust me iv’e lived close enough and campaigned all over the NS.
For those not convinced, consider this:: a new Bradfield will still go to Hornsby. What community of interest would Lane Cove share with the Upper N Shore ? A – none at all. Confirmation is in the booth results of the referendum.
I (and others) have made this point before – Commentary here seems to be hyperfixated on the North Shore.
What community of interest does Lane Cove have with the Upper North Shore? A stronger one than between Katoomba and Pitt Town. Or Erskine Park and Guildford. Or Oran Park and Airds. Or Ashfield and Punchbowl. I could go on.
@paladin neither warringah or mackellar will be abolished as they are corner seats. whilst i agree with you on willoughby i dont think it will be possible to put it into one seat atm in my proposal almost all of it is in bradfiedl with the parts west of the pacific highway in bennelong
@Paladin
While my proposal put all of Lane Cove and Willoughby in Bradfield, in hindsight I should have moved the more marginal (on Labor vs Liberal 2pp) Lane Cove into Bennelong.
I wonder if Bradfield can move a bit into the forest district so that Warringah can move further into the lower north shore, not stopping at North Sydney LGA but including things like Naremburn, Greenwich, the rest of St Leonards and possibly Artarmon (these all have a higher Green vote at senate level than the rest of Willoughby/Lane Cove LGA I think, and hence is closer in line with North Sydney LGA booths). This should unite Postcode 2065 (Wollstonecraft, Greenwich, Crows Nest and St Leonards) into 1 seat (I lived in St Leonards for 12 years since birth.
Continuing from Hornsby 2024 thread, I want to go on a rant about LGA boundaries, this time about St Leonards being chopped into 3 LGAs (pretty cleanly at that). Personally I find Crows Nest and Naremburn inseparable as well but that could be just me.
Other areas with crap communities of interest should be sorted too though. I sorted out St Clair, Erskine Park and Minchinbury (currently in McMahon, I found a way to chuck it into Chifley). Macquarie was difficult but I really hope it eventually gets rectified.
@leon if th8ngs keep going that will probablyhappen next redistribution
@Leon
there are two submissions that suggest what you mention wrt adding more than North Sydney LGA to a new seat (lets call it Warringah though many retain the North Sydney name). Though they add other parts of Willoughby, not Greenwich. I see that it could be Greenwich, but that would hive Greenwich from the rest of Lane Cove, which would look odd.
I agree re Crows Nest and Naremburn. This is what I have said before about the boundary between North Sydney and Willoughby LGA being the most pointless LGA on the North Shore to be bound by – it looks and feels like an entirely arbitrary boundary for much of its length.
The problem with your idea is that it is very difficult to move a LITTLE bit into the Forest district – it’s really none of it or most/all of it. Once it’s most/all, then Mackellar almost reaches south to Manly and the next seat reaches almost to Chatswood – that’s just how big the quota’s are now.
@high street the only reason for maintaining the NS name is it’s a federation name. Otherwise it only contains about 27% of the voters from NS. Given this massive change Ive given it an entirely new name.
On your proposed seat John, I might/would agree. But above I was not talking about your proposed seat – I was talking about a seat that extends to Chatswood (but does not include it).
Plus, a decent portion of the current electorate of Warringah “feels”” like North Sydney to me. Its been in North Sydney recently, it is in North Sydney Council, and FWIW, it is in North Shore state electorate. I don’t think this % of voters are going to say “hey, you can’t call me North Sydney, because at the last two federal elections I have voted in Warringah”. Precise percentages from the existing seats is not really how the AEC decide new names. It’s just a game we all play and the media hops into, to say which seat has been abolished and which retained, (but changed).
@high street usually the seat contributing the highest % of voters wins out or if the seat with the greatest fit or special factors. that being after a federation, aboriginal or prime ministers name.
When two or more divisions are partially combined, as far as possible the name of the new division should be that of the old division which had the greatest number of electors within the new boundaries. However, where the socio-demographic nature of the division in question has changed significantly, this should override the numerical formula.
Why don’t we just move Pitt Town and Windsor be moved into either Berowra or Mitchell? Makes more sense for Sydney suburbs to be in Sydney seats, doesn’t it?
Nether Portal, Mitchell is already well over quota and needs to lose territory. As for Berowra, your option is sensible because once it loses all its suburbs close to Hornsby (Pennant Hills etc) to a revised Bradfield district, it can then absorb all semi-rural localities in the Hawkesbury Valley currently in Mitchell and Macquarie,
@nether portal i wanted to do that but the numbers for Macarthur just didnt add up without them. and the other seats are already over quota but its something i definitely want to do next time
@Yoh An – what are you talking about?! A revised Bradfield that includes Pennant Hills? Most people on this blog are adamant N-S will be abolished which will pull Bradfield much further south – not north and west!
(I’m not really having a shot at you, more so at people who think abolition of N-S is a certainty)
@High Street
To jump on your point, with the numbers we’ve got I can’t see any scenario where Bradfield gains more of Hornsby from Berowra.
For that to occur, Bennelong would need to gain either Chatswood or North Sydney CBD, not just Hunters Hill and Lane Cove. We’d have to go back to Howard’s first election in 1974 for a similar eastern boundary to exist.
I’m certain that Berowra will gain at least the remainder of Hornsby from Bradfield. If Lane Cove is stays with North Sydney/Bradfield, then Berowra will also need to gain Wahroonga and Turramurra. If Hunters Hill stays, then Berowra will also gain Pymble (which would allow for Ryde Rd to serve as nice boundary option).
With Berowra shifting eastwards it raises the question of where its more rural parts should go. Both Mitchell and Macquarie could take in parts, but I’ve found it hard to find any strong boundaries in this area.
I agree with everyone who thinks Blue Mountains and Hawkebury should be split, but there doesn’t seem to be a way to do so without heavily impacting the regional seats or splitting Penrith in half. It’s not the best pairing, but it’s effectively been like this since the last expansion of parliament (with the exception of 2007), so we’ll have to keep waiting until an expansion of the house shakes things up.
@angas ive put the remainder of hornsby into berowra as this brings berowra up to quota
@John Did you make any changes to Berowra’s border with Macquarie or Mitchell, or just left those as is?
@angas no just takes in the remainder of hornsby
@John and @Angas,
you both seem to be assuming N-S or Warringah get abolished. The obvious scenario of where Bradfield gains more (actually all) of Hornsby from Bradfield is where this does not happen. Berrowa is effectively abolished instead. Look at the ALP Submission for an example.
Please state your underlying assumptions before you state “I can’t see any scenario where …..”
@high street Labor’s proposal is bias since Berowra is liberal held. They won’t abolish anything because Bennelong idls Labor held and Bradfield on a knife edge
@High Street
I think I might have misunderstood the point you were trying to make earlier!
I’ll explain my comment in more detail, because I did gloss over some key assumptions there, and I think you’re making a good point about the ALP submission.
If we take the 4 North Shore/Northern Beaches divisions (Bradfield/Mackellar/North Sydney/Warringah), that’s only 3.44 quotas. So if we wanted to preserve all 4 divisions, we’d have to gain approximately 0.56 of a quota from Bennelong and/or Berowra. Otherwise the consensus view would be to lose 0.44 of a quota and abolish a division.
I don’t give division names any real consideration at this point in the time. We should draw divisions and then work out which name they inherit. But I’ll refer to them as they currently are.
My line of thinking was that if you take 0.56 of a quota from Berowra and give it to Bradfield, then it’s not really Bradfield anymore. That’s really more like Berowra gaining 0.44 of quota from Bradfield.
In theory you could take something like 0.28 of a quota from Bennelong and another 0.28 of a quota from Berowra, as per the ALP submission. I didn’t consider that as an option.
So to properly hedge my earlier claim, I’ll rephrase it as “I can’t see Bradfield gaining more of Hornsby LGA unless North Sydney also gains part of Ryde LGA.”
Since only the ALP has advanced this strategy I’m expecting the committee to go with the weight of numbers, to contract 4 divisions into 3, whether that’s the best option or not.
I definitely agree with you on challenging some of the more orthodox approaches to the redistribution. All ideas should be considered.
Personally, I think that it would be good to retain a Lower North Shore division similar to the current North Sydney, or as Kylea Tink has proposed. I quite like the idea of amalgamating Bradfield and Mackellar as in S58.
That’s probably not going to happen, and there’s no perfect solution here, but I think I’d be happy if we end up with the following 3 divisions:
– Bradfield (Upper North Shore): Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai & the Forest District
– Mackellar (The Beaches): Palm Beach to Manly Vale
– North Sydney (Lower North Shore): Manly, Mosman, North Sydney & Lane Cove
Please excuse the essay!
@angas more evidence Labor proposal is biased and won’t be adopted. Kyles thinks is also biased out of self preservation. History shows us mackellar will will most likely move into warringah. They will abolish either north Sydney or bradfoeld but I think northsydney is the better option
I thought Labor’s drawing of Bradfield in particular was very good. Joshua Lucock (and myself) had the same idea for that area, although he named it Berowra, and renamed Berowra as Dyarubbin. A single seat for the upper north shore – Berowra – Brooklyn areas makes a lot of sense – they’re a series of well-connected ridgeline communities. (IIRC, Lucock shared a link to his maps on this site previously, for anyone who wants another look).
Lucock’s proposal also shows that the westward expansion of the northern Sydney region enables the Hawkesbury River area to be split from the Blue Mountains. This could be a big improvement.
@peter whilst i agree hawkesbury and blue mountains should be split ijust couldnt find a way of doing it this time. this time i added oberon emu plains and half of the wollondilly lga to macquaire with the lake being the border.
This is something that I feel would be a good arrangement:
https://ibb.co/G2L6TwC
I think this utilises neat and relatively strong boundaries:
– Wakehurst Parkway
– Manly Creek
– Flat Rock Gully & Epping Road
– Lane Cove River
– Turramurra locality boundary
My goals:
– Keep Bennelong west of Lane Cove River
– Ensure that North Sydney CBD/Crows Nest/St Leonards/Naremburn remain connected
– Have a proper ‘Beaches’ division
The compromises:
– Breaches the strong Middle Harbour boundary between Bradfield and Mackellar
– Lane Cove is a bit disconnected still
Angas, your boundaries seem quite good. I agree with your last two compromise points, but they aren’t that bad.
I would say Lane Cove isn’t really a major centre unlike Chatswood or St Leonard’s, so it can afford to be split in two. Likewise, having a district that straddles the upper reaches of Middle Harbour is also not detrimental because suburbs on both sides share similar characteristics. Almost like the Tingalpa Creek boundary separating eastern suburbs of Brisbane City Council from Redland Council.
@John
Yeah I think the committee will most likely go with the straightforward option of working clockwise from Mackellar, but they may end up surprising us with something a bit more radical.
@Peter
I agree that a division centered around Hornsby and the Upper North Shore makes a lot of sense. Whether it’s called Berowra or Bradfield, I think we’re likely get at least some improvement in that area, given the numbers as I explained above.
I quite like Joshua’s proposed Dyarubbin, more so than Labor’s version of Berowra. However, I have reservations with the resulting Macquarie in both instances as there doesn’t seem to be a great way to split Penrith.
Comments are closed.