The NSW upper house is elected to represent the whole state, proportionally. I have been wondering for a little while – in the absence of any geographical divisions, where do these members tend to come from? Are certain parts of the state under-represented or over-represented?
What I found was consistent with research into electoral systems overseas where the entire parliament is elected as a single electorate: the areas closest to the city centre are over-represented, while rural NSW is also over-represented, at the expense of Western Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra.
I first began to ponder this question when I was arguing that Victoria should switch from electing its upper house through regions to electing it at large. I realised that such a reform would face resistance from those concerned about their area being under-represented. I suspect that concern would most come from rural areas and the Nationals, worrying about the house being dominated by the big city.
In theory this shouldn’t be a problem under proportional representation. Approximately 4.5% of the vote gets you a seat, so voters have the choice, if they care about local representation, to vote for a local candidate.
But in practice voters don’t get to directly choose candidates. All of the significant groups on the ballot run statewide. You can’t even cast a vote for the Nationals, since they run on a ticket with the Liberal Party. In practice below-the-line voting never changes a party’s list, so voters have to take or leave a party’s ticket as is. If an area is under-represented that could potentially lose them support in that area – but I suspect some areas are more politically aware of their potential under-representation than others.
This is a bit different to the situation in local councils such as Dubbo. At the 2021 council election, there was a referendum to abolish wards for Dubbo council, which was successful despite the opposition of councillors representing the smaller town of Wellington, and indeed the voters of Wellington. Party groups are not so dominant in Dubbo, so Wellington voters have a realistic option of concentrating their votes behind Wellington candidates. As long as they preference the Wellington candidates first, they would win their fair share of seats. But it is left up to the voters if they prioritise this local geography over other voting considerations.
Before conducting this analysis, I read a 2004 journal article by Michael Latner analysing this question in Israel and the Netherlands. These countries have no local electorates for their national parliaments – every member represents the whole country.
Latner’s first two hypotheses are of particular interest to me:
We can derive five hypotheses about the expected patterns of geographical representation under national proportional representation. Firstly, there is likely to be some capital city bias. Given that the legislature meets in the capital city, there will be a tendency for candidates (and particularly party leaders) to live there for practical reasons. However this capital city bias is likely to be constrained by the need to be politically appealing across the country. Secondly, regions where regional identity is salient are likely to be more strongly represented than regions that are less distinctive. This follows from parties maximizing votes. We would expect a region where voters will only vote for a party with many local candidates to receive more representation than a region where voters do not care about which region party candidates come from. If it is the case that regional identity is stronger and more salient in peripheral regions, then we may see a pattern where both the capital city and the most outlying regions are over-represented, whereas the regions close to the capital are under-represented.
Latner found this pattern in the Israeli and Dutch data – the capital city is usually over-represented, but the the ‘periphery’ is also usually well represented. It’s the areas in between that fall short.
I found the same trend in data for the NSW Legislative Council. I looked at the NSW Parliament disclosure of interests from the 2018-2019 financial year and the 2021-22 financial year. Most MPs list the suburb of their principal place of residence. Where those were lacking, I used other public information to pinpoint their residence as best as I could.
I wanted to analyse a longer time frame but the NSW Parliament doesn’t publish these interests online prior to 2018-19. I did go back to the membership of the Legislative Council immediately following the 2015 election and filled in the place of residence of those members as best as I could. In this post I’m primarily looking at the location of current members as of 2022.
First up, this table breaks down members into twelve smaller regions. I’ve added up the number of MLCs living in each area compared to the number of lower house seats as of the 2015-2019 electoral boundaries. Legislative Assembly seats are drawn to achieve equal population so they are a useful proxy for a fair share of the population.
| Region | LC seats (’22) | LC % (’22) | LA seats | LA % | Difference |
| Central Coast | 2 | 4.8% | 4 | 4.3% | 0.5% |
| Hunter | 1 | 2.4% | 10 | 10.8% | -8.4% |
| Illawarra | 1 | 2.4% | 4 | 4.3% | -1.9% |
| Provincial | 4 | 9.5% | 18 | 19.4% | -9.8% |
| North Coast | 2 | 4.8% | 7 | 7.5% | -2.8% |
| South Coast | 1 | 2.4% | 2 | 2.2% | 0.2% |
| Southern NSW | 7 | 16.7% | 4 | 4.3% | 12.4% |
| Western NSW | 2 | 4.8% | 6 | 6.5% | -1.7% |
| New England | 2 | 4.8% | 2 | 2.2% | 2.6% |
| Regional NSW | 14 | 33.3% | 21 | 22.6% | 10.8% |
| Central/Eastn/Sthn Sydney | 14 | 33.3% | 17 | 18.3% | 15.1% |
| Northern Sydney | 7 | 16.7% | 11 | 11.8% | 4.8% |
| Western Sydney | 1 | 2.4% | 23 | 24.7% | -22.4% |
| Western Sydney Fringe | 2 | 4.8% | 3 | 3.2% | 1.5% |
| Sydney | 24 | 57.1% | 54 | 58.1% | -0.9% |
Sydney overall is fairly represented, with 57% of MLCs and 58% of MLAs. But within Sydney there are massive disparities. A third of the Legislative Council (14) live in central, eastern and southern Sydney, but only 18% of the state lives in this area. Northern Sydney is also slightly over-represented.
I separated out the fringe of Western Sydney – there are two MLCs who live in the Blue Mountains and Wollondilly council areas. Once you take those out, there is only one MLC living in Western Sydney proper – Anthony D’Adam lives in Lidcombe, on the eastern edge of the region. Almost a quarter of the Assembly represents this area. A fair share of seats would see ten MLCs represent this area.
There are also significant disparities amongst the non-Sydney representatives. There are only two MLCs representing the Hunter and Illawarra – one from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and one from Animal Justice. The Central Coast is well-represented.
Regional areas outside of Sydney and the major provincial cities are significantly over-represented. Less than a quarter of the state’s population lives in this area, but a third of the Legislative Council lives in these areas. There are a particularly large number who live in inland southern NSW. Two live in Queanbeyan, along with one each in Goulburn, Wingecarribee, Wagga Wagga, Tumut and Snowy-Monaro.
You can see these trends on this map. You can click on an LGA to see the number of MLCs living in that area as of 2015 and 2019.
There are about 15 MLCs (over a third of the chamber) who live within about 10 kilometres of the parliament. But there isn’t a single member living within the Blacktown, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Liverpool, Parramatta and Penrith council areas. This area contains about a fifth of the state’s population. If you add in Sutherland, Georges River and the Bankstown part of the Canterbury-Bankstown LGA, that’s more than a quarter of the state’s population without upper house local representation.
Why is this the case? I think the Latner theory explains it well. A lot of members live close to the city because it’s convenient, and an appealing place to live. Members of the upper house are paid pretty well, and without a specific motivation to live in a less attractive part of the city it makes sense they’d concentrate in the east.
This tendency is countered by a strong desire from regional voters to be directly represented. Obviously the Nationals tend to choose candidates from the regions (although some like Ben Franklin have spent a lot of time living in Sydney), but the Liberal and Labor parties both have preselection systems that ensure regional representation.
On the other hand, there isn’t that same clear political ask from Western Sydney. So parties don’t make a special effort to ensure these areas are represented.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything particularly problematic about the electoral system producing this outcome. Voters from Western Sydney can choose what they prioritise, and up until now they haven’t prioritised someone who lives in the area. Although it would be easier for voters to express this view if we had a system which made it a bit easier to influence the individual candidates elected.
Below-the-line voting has shown in practice to set too high a threshold, but a different form of list PR could potentially make it possible for groups of voters to modify the party’s list and elect a local, if that is their priority.
I suppose this depends on what you think an “Upper” House is for, Ben. If it’s to represent all shades of opinion in a more fine-grained way than the Assembly, State-wide election is fine. If it’s to provide every voter with another chance of getting a somewhat local representative more aligned to his/her beliefs (though not quite as local as the MLAs), then a smaller “district number” is better – but in that case the MLCs should have offices, as well as residences, out in the districts they represent. I gather that at present their offices are all in Macquarie St – which in theory could mean that all Bills get a lot of detailed discussion even when the House is not sitting but is also a fine way of ensuring that those in the major parties answer only to their party leaders, except for very occasional outbursts of conscience.
The over representation of inner city and rural districts at the expense of outer suburbs is understandable. Community activity occurs inversely to the size of the community. The P&C in a one teacher school is often larger and more active than that in a 100 teacher school.
In fact with all the hoo ha about the voice there is no chance that the outer suburbs will be over represented in the voice. In fact it will end up as a talk fest for left wing subversives with aborigines who lead a traditional tribal life and working class employed aborigines grossly under-represented and those with 1/16 th Aboriginal blood grossly
Over represented. Those whose colour gets darker with each TV appearance are the one who will dominate the Voice.
Vote No to Albanese’s Apartheid.
Ben, your text says two MLCs live in Queanbeyan, but the graph shows none.
Have you looked at how many MLAs live in the same region as their electorate? One regularly hears of Labor MLAs who live in inner suburbs while representing outer ones. At the 2016 election in the ACT, the Greens’ lead candidates for the five electorates all lived in Canberra’s inner north.
Ah yeah a bit of an issue with the use of a hyphen. There are two in that LGA. Will fix it later.
> One regularly hears of Labor MLAs who live in inner suburbs while representing outer ones.
In Victoria yes, not so much in NSW.
I can tell you from the Liberal Party Perspective that their MLC’s are divided up into two segments:
*Regional MLC
*At-large MLC
Generally speaking, the Regional MLC’s are listed higher in the Liberal Party Listing and are split according to the 8-year cycle. This upcoming election will be the South Representatives. As an example, Natasha MacLaren-Jones has shifted from the At-Large position in the “Northern Cycle” to now representing “South-West and Southern Highlands” in the South Cycle. The Other “South Regional” Liberal MLC’s are Lou Amato, Christopher Rath, Peter Poulos and Shayne Mallard, with Scott Farlow in the “At Large” position.
NSW National Party MPs usually live in the Eastern Suburbs.
Leon Punch was sometimes referred to as the member for Darling Point.
https://www.urban.com.au/news/craigholme-the-1856-darling-point-edmund-blacket-trophy-home-listed
A more recent NSW National Party leader resided in Rushcutters Bay.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/barilaro-says-ciao-to-rushcutters-bay-20211025-p5930j.html
Personal opinion, I think we should ditch the staggered 8-year terms and make all of LC be elected in 4-year terms like in VIC and WA. We could also split NSW into few but large electorates. The Victorian System of 8 electorates of 5 members wouldn’t usually (i.e. No GVT) help give a breadth of opinion (GVT means more minor parties gets in, but in the worst ways possible so we won’t go there).
I reckon we can have 3 electorates, each called “Regional NSW”, “Western/Outer Sydney” and “Eastern/Inner Sydney” to ensure the outer suburbs get their fair share. LA seats should be distributed between the 3 regions according to their location and characteristics. The number of members may not be the same across the 3 electorates but should be roughly proportional to the number of enrolled voters.
Of course some lower house MPs might live outside the electorate, but they still have a local link. I think MLCs do play a different role but when there are so many living in one area I do think that creates a skew. What does it say about the major parties that neither party has a single MLC from Wollongong or Newcastle? Sure Labor has a bunch of MLAs in those areas but the Liberals don’t.
I think we should move to a 4-year term, but I like the statewide nature of the body. I think three huge regions wouldn’t really provide any local representation. But moving to an M42 election would be very difficult with the current voting system – would be better to move to list PR, maybe even a form of flexible or open list.
I remember VERY few people get elected from below the line (Correct me if I am wrong, the only one I know is Federal Tasmania Senate 2016 with Lisa Singh ALP but that was Double dissolution M12 election and was in Tasmania). I doubt even a M42 election would change this in a large state like NSW so there shouldn’t be a real issue with a closed list. I personally am looking forward to putting Mark Latham dead last (Like many Tasmanians did with Abetz) but I highly doubt this will mean anything or would be widespread.
Makes sense that 3 huge regions may not do *that* much with local representation. I still think having an entire block for Western Sydney would do decently because that area is by far and large the most underrepresented. I personally like electorates with larger vacancies if proportional representation is assumed, so I want all electorates to be at least M7. Maybe 6 regions of M7 would be an alternative plan.
No-one gets elected BTL in NSW. My point is that open or flexible list could actually allow for some voter control of candidates that we don’t have in practice. But closed list would be a lot simpler without losing much.
I don’t like the idea of M7 for an upper house. There’s a lot of diversity in the NSW upper house that would be lost. Indeed I argued for Victoria to go in the opposite direction to achieve more diversity without GVTs. I think even M7 would create massive seats.
If you read to the end of my post I specifically say this is not a problem that needs a change to the electoral system to fix. I think Western Sydney should probably demand that parties address them when it comes to representation but the example of rural areas shows that’s possible. If westies don’t care about local representation then so be it.
Upper House MPs are often those Party insiders, factional warriors, big donors, ethnic identities, business leaders and union officials and that are not necessarily attractive to voters in local electorates. It can either be a pay off for services rendered or a lure to high profile candidates of a safe seat without geographical constraints or electoral uncertainty. The geographic disparity can be distasteful (especially for this Westie advocate) but they often have an important role to play (esp as aspiring Ministers) and it’s so hard to get quality candidates to put their hand up for elected office, so it is what it is. The good news is that Labor HQ boss, Bob Nanva who has been added to the Labor LC ticket replacing Bankstown Mayor Khal Asfour is a Penrith boy but sadly the Blue Mts-residing, Westie-promoting Liberal MLC, Shayne Mallard has been chopped from this year’s ticket.
Comments are closed.