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.
@angas I think Berowra and Bradfield will be retained. As per my proposal Hornsby moves on Berowra fixing that up. Bradfield gains the majority of Willoughby lga from NS and what Warringah doesn’t need goes the Bennelong and then Bennelong sheds it’s parts of Parramatta city lga to Parramatta. That’s why I think NS is the one to chop. It’s the only one remaining from the nsew versions of Sydney. I renamed Warringah Sydney Harbour or the aboriginal equivalent to reflect the amount of change there
@Yoh An
Thank you for the feedback.
One alternative might be to swap Lane Cove for Northbridge/Castlecrag as I believe @Peter has advocated for. But then again, putting both Lane Cove and St Ives in an elongated Bradfield as per many of the submissions has its own issues, as @Paladin has pointed out. If we have to draw a line somewhere in the Lower North Shore, I think Epping Road is pretty neat.
Forest District definitely feels distinct from the coastal parts of the Northern Beaches and with some similarities to Ku-ring-gai, so I’m happy to break the strong Middle Harbour boundary if it improves other divisions.
I agree with your previous comment about amalgamating some of these small council areas as per the Brisbane model. Funny how the NSW government left Hunters Hill/Lane Cove/Mosman/North Sydney/Willoughby alone, but formed Baysdie/Canterbury-Bankstown/Northern Beaches/Parramatta/etc.
@John
Yeah North Sydney is definitely not a Federation name worth keeping, but I’d be happy to see Berowra retired as well since it is a geographical name.
@angas Berowra can be left alone for now as the namesake is still well within the division. I thought about changing it but didn’t for the above reason. That and I couldn’t think of anything good enough to change it to but will look at it next redistribution
Thanks to @Peter and @Angas for the kind words and plugging my suggestions. The map of what I suggested to the AEC is still here — https://josh-lucock.github.io/2023_NSW_Fed-Redistribution_Suggestion/ — I mostly like what I came up with, but it was honestly made in a rush and there are some little tweaks I’d probably make if I were doing it again. The hardest areas for me were not in the North Shore at all, but instead in areas like Goulburn and the Upper Lachlan Shire, and keeping the southwestern Sydney seats within the allowed range. It’s those areas to the south and west where the really big, consequential decisions will be made.
As @Angas remarked earlier, once you conclude that Mackellar and Warringah are shifting south and southwest respectively, then the next important choices are what to do with Bennelong and Berowra, rather than North Sydney and Bradfield. For me, I viewed Bennelong as a division with a spine down the Northern Line through Epping, Eastwood, West Ryde, and Meadowbank. I viewed those suburbs as having less in common with the lower North Shore and more in common with the more highly CALD suburbs to the west in Carlingford, Ermington, Dundas Valley, Telopea, and Rydalmere.
Having chosen to not move Bennelong into the lower North Shore and that I didn’t want to pull Mitchell and Parramatta north, it became practically impossible to abolish North Sydney without creating a 55%-of-a-division hole in the northern Hills. It also created an opportunity to unite Gladesville in a single division and split the North Shore into two relatively compact upper and lower North Shore divisions. The Labor submission did a version of this without changing any division names, such that their division of North Sydney would no longer contain North Sydney and their division of Berowra would no longer contain Berwora. That situation wasn’t acceptable to me, so I abolished the name North Sydney and shuffled the names of Bradfield and Berowra to their now more appropriate neighbouring divisions. It means my proposed lower North Shore/Bradfield doesn’t need to take any of St Ives, and my upper North Shore/Berowra doesn’t need to take any of the Hills or the rural areas west of the Berowra Valley.
The 55% of a division hole needed filling either with parts of Greenway across Windsor Road or the Hawkesbury towns from Macquarie. I preferred the latter to create a compact exurban division in the outer north. Labor called this Berowra, the Liberals called it Reibey, and I called it Dyarubbin. I could just as easily have called it Macquarie since it contains the “Macquarie-era” towns of Richmond, Windsor, Wilberforce and Pitt Town; then called my Blue Mountains/northern Penrith seat Lindsay since Norman Lindsay was from the Blue Mountains anyway; and then adopted the Liberals’ proposed Bird Walton for my southern Penrith/Badgerys Creek division.
Re: the split of Penrith – I agree there aren’t many great ways to split it. Macquarie contained the Blue Mountains and northern Penrith for most of its history, along with either the Hawkesbury or Bathurst, until Lindsay was created in 1984. I feel there still are just enough decent natural boundaries, suburb boundaries, and major arterial roads and rail lines in the Penrith LGA to enable it to be split up. My suggestions split the Penrith LGA into northern/western, southern, and eastern parts. The Council’s ward boundaries and the state electorates of Penrith, Londonderry, and Badgerys Creek are split in similar ways. Ultimately I felt the Blue Mountains needed to be in a greater Sydney electorate and that I needed to keep Bathurst in Calare, so a Blue Mountains-northern Penrith alignment feels like the best option to me to achieve a sustainable set of boundaries that won’t require radical changes with each future redistribution.
Unless the seat to be abolished is further west,it would seem that one of the teal members will lose their seat.
@sabena the only teal that can possibly lose a seat is kylea tink in north sydney as the others are all in corner seats. and i think she knows it as shes been causing problems for zali stegall in warringah and boele (the self proclaimed shadow member for bradfield) shes also move her residence into what will probably be bennelong. so i think she knows shes on the chopping block
John,I agree.
If this redistribution had occurred prior to 2022,it would have caused problems for the LP.But now thanks to 2022 it causes problems for their opponents.
As they say revenge is a dish best tasted cold.
@sabena not only that but it will help them retake Bennelong. Although it could them a problem in Bradfield
The only thing I’d change about the Liberal Party’s Cowper is move the rest of Port Macquarie into Lyne where the outer suburbs already are and then move Wooloolga (just north of Coffs) into Cowper.
The Liberal Party’s Lyne is a bit odd though. It makes zero sense that it goes southwest all the way past Singleton. It makes no sense at all, so that should be fixed.
The Liberal Party’s Paterson obviously gives them a better chance of winning.
Paterson will shed either kurri Kurri or cessnock. And gain southern parts of line easygoing further liberals
Cessnock is in Hunter
@ Nether Portal
I agree that the Liberal party’s Paterson makes it better for them. However, it would seem Hunter will become stronger for Labor. Even the Nats have submitted a proposal that would make Hunter more Labor friendly.
@nimalan any version of hunter will work favourably for the libs. As for hunter I’ve done a territoryswap with shorthand to reduce hunter and increase shorthand in addition to getting the remainder of cessnock from Paterson. Paterson keeps kurri Kurri though
Any version of Paterson sry
I am especially interested in North Sydney
@max most likely getting abolished
I think Bennelong will shift east and merge with North Sydney and take up Hunters Hill and Lane Cove. This would make it more Liberal-friendly. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dominic Perrottet seeks preselection or at least gets a tap on the shoulder, though I wouldn’t bet on it.
Regarding the likely or imminenet spat between the teals over North Shore seats, someone previously mentioned in this thread about setting up a Senate candidacy. It might work if it’s an above-the-line group as there are teal supporters both inside and outside teal seats.
@votanye they would crash and burn on the senate they are only popular on the north shor.e
Even if we assume North Sydney as the most likely candidate to be abolished, I don’t think the committee will want to bring Bennelong back into Lane Cove. It will create more problems for them than it would solve.
To do so would draw a lot of objection from supporters of Kylea Tink arguing that the natural Lower North Shore community-of-interest should retain at least some continuity instead of being dismembered between a Northern Beaches, an Upper North Shore, and a Ryde based seat.
It would also mean that Epping will have to be cut loose from Ryde and will either have to be put into Parramatta or Berowra. Either of these options would leave Parramatta or Hornsby at the periphery of the division, with Epping at the other end.
On the other hand, no one will shed a tear if Berowra gives up areas like Glenhaven, Kenthurst and Galston, or if it is abolished entirely.
If we assume the committee is relatively risk-averse, they’ll have a far easier sell if they leave the Lane Cove River boundary and just shift boundaries clockwise from Mackellar. In this scenario, you’d end up with division that is 50% Bradfield and 50% North Sydney. Perhaps they’ll keep both names in that instance and get rid of Berowra instead.
So we could quite possibly see a contest between 2 incumbents and a ‘shadow member’ with Fletcher vs. Tink vs. Boele, which will certainly be interesting to watch.
@angas unfortunately the commision isn’t partisan to kylea Tink’s supporters. I think she will contest either Bennelong or Bradfield well see where she goes.
Angas
Once the draft boundaries are out – the general public can squeal long and loud – but it is likely to make no difference. They are especially impervious to any discussion that raises issues of political advantage.
@redistributedagreed unfortunately almost every redistribution will favour someone over the other and parties will always make suggestions and complain about anything that disadvantages them the commission does what it believes is the bestsolution
@John @Redistributed
I agree that political advantage shouldn’t be taken into consideration, however I believe there are reasonably strong non-partisan arguments to retain a broadly Lower North Shore community of interest.
We’ve seen that proposed changes have been overturned in the past by well coordinated community objection, so it’s true that the committee can be swayed if presented with the right arguments, loudly enough. The Higgins-Macnamara swap comes to mind, as does the proposed abolishment of Murray.
Noting that the majority of comments were from residents of North Sydney and Warringah wanting to keep their divisions largely as-is, the committee may feel like it is easier to just delete Berowra and shuffle the names northwards. Even if this is more technically just a merger of old Bradfield and old North Sydney, it’d be hard to object to.
Anyway, we’ll have to see what they come up with. There’ll be a few surprises no doubt. I believe we should be getting the proposed boundaries just after Easter?
@angas it says q2 2024 so that’s april-june
@John.
All the states say Q2 2024 I think. Given NSW started first, I reckon it will be related in April, which as Angas states, is just after Easter.
And what the hell have you got against North Sydney? Your first comment to every question is North Sydney will be abolished. Angas twice above puts sensible arguments why North Sydney could be retained or merged about 50/50 with the current Bradfield. The latter would be no more an abolition of North Sydney as it is of Bradfield.
The Labor proposal is the one that most aligns with a full clockwise rotation with Berrowa getting dumped, as Angas states. The Commission, as many on here do, may see Labor has having no direct interest in how the North Shore 4 are drawn (as they apparently can’t win, or even come 2nd) and adopt their suggestion for that area.
@high street it seems the most sensible to abolish. Actually Labor does have a vested interest in keeping them as they are held by their teal allies and Berowra is a safe liberal seat. The commision has always moved Mackellar south and there is no reason to believe they will alter that approach.
Labor’s proposal doesn’t “keep them as they are” – it proposes some significant changes – it just doesn’t align with group think that North Sydney should be dissected 3 ways.
Labor actually does call the new most northern seat – the one that contains a lot of the existing Berrowa – “Berrowa”, but states that the Commissioners should probably look into a new name for it. It’s just the most changed seat of the existing northern Sydney seats.
I really don’t think the Commissioners will or should concern themselves with the political machinations that derive scenarios where the “teals” are Labor “allies”. Where would one stop in such assumptions? Are the Greens and the Liberal’s “allies” too?
And Angas’ suggestion of rotating the seats clockwise with Berrowa being pushed the furthest away from its current centre, does align with Mackellar being pushed south. He is not suggesting funky scenarios of moving Mackellar westwards or even Bradfield eastwards (I do not think on the latter).
You keep saying North Sydney seems the most sensible to abolish, without giving much reasoning, especially considering Warringah and Bradfield, and I think Berrowa are more under quota.
@high street Labor’s proposal is designed to hurt its political opponents the liberals. Just as the they direct Fowler to hurt dai le. The same way libs dissect calare
@high street once mackellar takes from warringah and warringah from north sydney since that is the only choice. north sydney is already 40% under quota. so if berowra gains its 15% from bradfield that leaves bradfield 30% under quota which i can get from north sydney. then the remaining 30% goes to bennelong. how is that not a clockwise rotation then?
Ah – because Bradfield is moving anti-clockwise???
And what you describe above is NOT the only choice. Have you looked at the wide range of full Submissions??
@high street no it isn’t? I just can’t see any other logical choice then north Sydney.
And yes I’m aware but I doubt the tribunal will endorse any proposal in full
This is my proposal for the North Coast seats:
* Cowper gains Woolgoolga from Page (no question about it, it should be in the same seat as Coffs Harbour instead of being in a seat based on Grafton and Lismore).
* Lyne gains Port Macquarie, Kundabung and Telegraph Point from Cowper (I’ve said this a lot but I’ll say it again: I will put forward an objection to the boundaries if Port Macquarie is still in Cowper as there are much more relations between Port and the rest of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council than there is with Coffs and even Kempsey. A potential problem would be the candidate for the new Lyne since Lyne MP David Gillespie lives in Sancrox (a western suburb of Port that is in Lyne) while Cowper MP Pat Conaghan lives on the eastern side of Port which is in Cowper, and they’re both great local members. However, this is a problem that can be solved.)
* Page needs to lose some towns to New England. I would move Kyogle into New England but leave Casino in Page and move Nimbin to Richmond.
* Paterson loses anywhere west of Duckenfield and Millers Forest (both eastern suburbs in Maitland) to Hunter, but gains Bundabah, Carrington, Hawks Nest, Karuah, North Pindimah, Pindimah, Tea Gardens and Winda Woppa from Lyne, as well as Hexham from Newcastle. This seat might be a little bit under quota but I tried my best to keep it reasonable whilst retaining its unique shape and a community of interest area (i.e northern Newcastle and Port Stephens).
* Richmond remains mostly unchanged but takes Nimbin from Page.
More to come.
Seat statuses for the North Coast with my proposed boundaries:
* Cowper: marginal National (vs independent; loses the Nationals-voting areas in the south to Lyne, but this isn’t enough for it to be notionally independent-held especially with Cowper gaining Woolgoolga)
* Lyne: very safe National (gains Nationals-voting parts of Cowper but more importantly (margin-wise) it loses the marginal Labor booths in northern Maitland to Hunter; I would estimate a margin of about 15%)
* Page: safe National (loses the hippie town of Nimbin to Richmond but loses Kyogle to New England and Woolgoolga to Cowper; slightly under quota but still reasonable, I considered moving Lismore into Richmond but that would be really over quota and Richmond’s already a bit over quota)
* Paterson: marginal Liberal (state Labor had a big swing in Port Stephens because the conservative vote was split between a Liberal candidate who was endorsed in the last week of nominations and a One Nation candidate who was already endorsed, but it’s still a key seat as it’s usually a marginal Labor seat, but the federal Liberals did well in Port Stephens which is why they had a swing to them in Paterson: because they gained booths in Port Stephens; Paterson loses the Labor-voting town of Kurri Kurri as well as almost 85% of Maitland, plus it gains some rural towns from Lyne that voted heavily for the Nationals in 2022, but gains the suburb of Hexham from Newcastle which didn’t have a booth in 2022 but I would say Labor would’ve won that booth if it existed; so all of this means it becomes notionally Liberal)
Overall seat totals (North Coast):
National: 3 (no change)
Liberal: 1 (+1)
COALITION TOTAL: 4 (+1)
Labor: 1 (-1)
TOTAL SEATS: 5 (no change)
However, it is likely that the new Cowper would be contested by the Liberal Party instead of the National Party should it lose the city of Port and some rural towns in the south. And if Gurmesh Singh (Nationals MP for Coffs Harbour) retires on the state level, a Liberal candidate will run in the state seat of Coffs Harbour (Port Macquarie MP Leslie Williams is a member of the Liberal Party after she defected from the Nationals in 2020 and was comfortably re-elected over the Nationals candidate (Port Macquarie Mayor Peta Pinson) in 2023). I also think the Liberals could contest Richmond instead of the Nationals.
The North Coast boundaries I’ve proposed combined with the fact that I’m a Liberal member may bring up accusations of bias, and while it may naturally be that the boundaries end up favouring the Coalition, I should note that my proposal for Hunter will be stronger for Labor.
@np as am I but I did my proposal without looking at voting areas I did it purely based on logic and reason. I have no idea how my proposal will effect the 2pp except Paterson as it has been mentioned by others after the fact that the areas I proposed moving were Labor areas
Newcastle/Central Coast/Hawkesbury proposals:
* Dobell: mostly unchanged but loses some southeastern suburbs to Robertson (see Robertson for more info)
* Macquarie: this one’s a hard seat since it kinda has to be under quota per community of interest (the Hawkesbury shouldn’t be in the same seat as the Blue Mountains; the Hawkesbury stretches from the far northwest of Sydney up to small rural towns in the bush). I’ve decided to create a new seat that goes from Somersby (a rural Central Coast suburb on the Pacific Motorway best known for being home to the Australian Reptile Park) and going northwest all the way up to the current northwestern boundary of Macquarie and then down to the small town of Grose Wold (located just northwest of Londonderry in Western Sydney). This seat could be named Kurrajong (a Sydney suburb in the Hawkesbury Region and in this electorate that has an Aboriginal name). Then for the remainder (i.e the Blue Mountains), I’ve decided to create a new Macquarie that goes all the way from Grose Wold to Camden Park in the Macarthur Region of Sydney. And since Macarthur is heavily over quota, I’ve moved Leppington into this new seat.
* Newcastle: unchanged except Hexham is transferred to Paterson
* Paterson: see above
* Robertson: loses places west of Somersby to the new seat of Kurrajong and gains Forresters Beach, Holgate, Lisarow, Matcham and Wyoming from Dobell.
* Shortland: gains anywhere west of (and including) Morisset from Hunter.
@John yeah same here. I looked at where each suburb currently is and put them within areas based on similarities.
Anyway, seat statuses on my proposals for Newcastle/Central Coast/Hawkesbury:
* Dobell: fairly safe Labor
* Kurrajong: safe Liberal (maybe fairly safe, I’m not quite sure)
* Macquarie: fairly safe Labor (I think but I’m not 100% sure)
* Newcastle: very safe Labor
* Paterson: marginal Liberal
* Robertson: marginal Labor (still a bellwether seat)
* Shortland: safe Labor
Seat totals (Newcastle/Central Coast/Hawkesbury):
Labor: 5 (-1)
Liberal: 2 (+2)
Illawarra proposal:
Cunningham: everywhere north of (but not including) Thirroul will be moved into Hughes. The new Cunningham will stretch from Thirroul all the way down to Gerringong to create a seat based entirely around Wollongong and Kiama. I’ve carved the new Cunningham out of the old Cunningham as well as the eastern part of Whitlam and the northern part of Gilmore.
Hughes: I’ll be doing Sydney last but this one is an exception since Cunningham and Hughes are under quota. I’ve decided to move every suburb in Cunningham located north of Thirroul into Hughes. Adjustments for the Sydney part of Hughes will be done with Sydney.
Whitlam: loses the area around Dapto and Shellharbour to Cunningham and gain Picton from Hume to make a Southern Highlands based seat spilling over into the Macarthur Region of Sydney.
Seat statuses on my boundaries (excluding Hughes):
Cunningham: safe Labor (loses the rural towns around Helensburgh to Hughes to be mostly based around Wollongong and Kiama)
Whitlam: marginal Liberal (loses southern Wollongong to Cunningham)
Seat totals on my boundaries (Illawarra; excluding Hughes):
Labor: 1 (-1)
Liberal: 1 (+1)
South Coast proposals:
* Eden-Monaro: gains Breadalbane, Booroowa, Rye Park and Tirrannaville from Hume, forming a curved diagonal boundary passing through those towns.
* Hume: not a coastal seat but I’ll include it anyway. Loses some rural towns to Eden-Monaro, Gilmore, Macquarie and Whitlam.
* Gilmore: loses Kiama to Whitlam and gains the rural towns of Bundanoon and Exeter from Hume.
New seat statuses:
Eden-Monaro: fairly safe Labor
Gilmore: marginal Liberal
Hume: fairly safe Liberal
New seat totals:
Liberal: 2 (+1)
Labor: 1 (-1)
@nether portal im really excited tbh i only just started doing redistributions last year with the nt and then wa. i was hoping to do something with macquarie but the numbers elsewhere didnt allow it. so i just added oberon and emu plains to top it up.
Central and Western NSW proposals:
* Calare: loses Wellington to Parkes.
* Farrer: unchanged.
* Hunter: loses Muswellbrook and Singleton to New England but gains Kurri Kurri and most of Maitland from Paterson. Also loses Morisset to Shortland.
* New England: gains Muswellbrook and Singleton from Hunter and Kyogle from Page.
* Parkes: gains Wellington from Calare and Parkes from Riverina. Loses Condolbin and Lake Cargelligo to Riverina in exchange for Parkes.
Riverina: loses Parkes to Parkes in exchange for Condolbin and Lake Cargelligo.
New seat statuses:
Farrer: very safe Liberal
Hunter: safe Labor
New England: very safe National
Parkes: very safe National
Riverina: safe National
New seat totals:
National: 3
Liberal: 1
COALITION TOTAL: 4
Labor: 1
@John yeah it is pretty interesting.
Final seat totals with my proposal for NSW outside Sydney (I won’t say “regional NSW” because this includes Newcastle-Maitland, the Central Coast and Wollongong):
National: 6 (no change)
Liberal: 6 (+5)
COALITION TOTAL: 12 (+4)
Labor: 9 (-4)
TOTAL SEATS: 22 (+1)
So my Sydney proposal will involve two metropolitan seats being abolished in order to fit with the AEC requirement that NSW and Victoria must have a net loss of one seat each while WA must have a net gain of one seat.
@NP did you submit yours?
Nether Portal your suggestions have a very strong LNP bias to them.
@barney i noticed that too. i think that he partially right though the redstribution is being tipped by both sides as going to be beneficial to liberals in nsw and wa. i reckon hes right on gilmore and paterson though. kurrajong is something i wanted to do as well but went a different way. i dont think whitlam should be a southern highlands seat and should infact shed it.
Yeah but the suggested changes have an air of artificality about them. They feel “constructed” rather than evolved
@barney do you think the labor and liberal suggestions are not?
Comments are closed.