Speculation about an early federal election never goes away, and I’ve noticed more recently in relation to the possibility of a federal election later this year.
While you can debate the political merits of such a decision, the current redistribution processes make it pretty much impossible to call an election in 2024, without triggering special mini-redistribution procedures which would produce severe inequity in electoral populations between seats.
In this post I will try to understand what is going on. Is this just the normal process, or is this redistribution actually taking a long time? Yes, in short, this year’s procedures have been taking longer. I’m going to look at the time frames for past redistributions and how the timing of redistribution procedures interact withe election time rules imposed by the constitution.
First, let’s try and understand some basic rules of Australian election timing.
The House of Representatives and the Senate technically follow two different schedules. The Senate has a fixed term, with terms ending every three years at the end of June. The current Senate terms expire on 30 June 2025 and 30 June 2028. A half-Senate election can be held at any time in the last year of the Senate’s term, but the new Senate doesn’t take over until the new term.
The House, on the other hand, does not have a fixed term. Theoretically it can be dissolved at any time, but expires three years after the first sitting of the House after the last election.
In practice we always hold these elections at the same time – the last time the elections were held apart was in 1972 – so the range of possible election dates is dictated by the overlap of the two schedules.
A half-Senate election can be held from any time in early August 2024, with the final dates in May 2025. A House election can be held up until 27 September 2025. Because the election is due to be held in the early part of the year, close to the end of the Senate term, there is a wider range of potential dates.
When elections were held in the August-November window from 1998 until 2013, the end of the House term imposed a much tighter window. This schedule was reset by the double dissolution in 2016.
But the other constraint is the process of redrawing electoral boundaries.
One year after the first sitting of the House, the entitlement of seats in the House for each state is determined. Once the determination has been made, it is no longer possible to hold a House election using the previous number of seats.
In the case of a House election called prior to the completion of the redistribution process, a mini-redistribution is required. If a state loses an electorate, the two contiguous electorates with the smallest number of enrolled voters is merged. If a state gains an electorate, the two contiguous electorates with the greatest number of enrolled voters are split into three seats.
Such an outcome would be very much a stop-gap measure and would leave the voters of one or two communities with a far less powerful vote than others.
This is a dramatic process and is far from ideal. I wouldn’t rule out a government calling an election at a time that would cause a mini-redistribution, but it would be quite unusual.
So if we think about what might be different this year, one thing that stands out is the scale of the change.
For this post, I have settled on a new way to divide up redistributions. When a redistribution has been triggered by a change in the state’s seat entitlement, that’s a major redistribution. They tend to be more dramatic, and you can’t proceed with an election until it was resolved. Other redistributions I’m calling minor redistributions. In 2010, a redistribution in Victoria was paused during the holding of a federal election, but it wasn’t a problem because it didn’t involve a change in Victoria’s seat entitlement.
This year’s redistribution is the most dramatic since 1984 (when every state was redrawn at the same time). 100 of the 150 seats to be used at the next election are currently being redrawn in major redistributions (plus 2 NT seats undergoing a minor redistribution).
The number of seats being redrawn has varied significantly over the last quarter century. At the last three elections, about a third of the House was effected by major redistributions. No major redistributions were conducted prior to the 2013 election, while about half of all seats were affected by major redistributions in 2007 and 2010.
So before we consider the issue of timing, we should acknowledge that there are an unusually large number of seats where we still don’t know what the boundaries will be for the next election, despite many preselections having already been concluded.
Next up, I wanted to understand how long redistribution processes have been taking, and how that interacts with the date of the election, and the earliest possible date for a standard election (which is always in early August one year before the Senate term ends). For this chart, I’m only looking at major redistributions.
There is some variation in how long it takes before the redistribution process commences, but it’s usually at least 400 days after the previous election. The only exception was in 1996, when it took 366 days to start the redistribution. It took longer following the 2001 and 2007 elections, which were both held in November. In both years the parliament didn’t sit until the following year, which added time before the start of the process.
For the 2001-2016 elections, the previous election had been held in the second half of the year, and thus there was a shorter window between the first and last potential dates for a standard election, and thus there was a significant gap (usually around half a year) between the finalisation of the redistribution and the first possible date for an election.
The 2015-16 redistributions took longer, and that year’s election was a double dissolution was called for a date about a month before the earliest date for a standard election.
In 2019 and 2022, thanks to the reset of the 2016 DD, the earliest possible date for a standard election was quite a long time before the three years runs out, and thus the redistributions were only finalised very close to the earliest date for a half-Senate election, around July-August two years after the previous election. But as long as the election was held in May, this wasn’t an issue.
That dynamic should also play out again in 2025, but with the redistribution taking substantially longer, the time between redistribution finishing and the election is quite a lot less. The AEC’s timetables now say that the redistributions will be finalised on October 24, compared to August 2 in 2021. That’s about 10 less weeks between redistribution and election, assuming the election is held again in mid-May.
So the 2024 process is taking longer than most other years, but it is similar to 2016. Now I wanted to understand what is taking so much time. This next chart dates back to 2005, and shows how much of the time was spent in different parts of the process – public submissions, time for deliberation and map-drawing, and administrative procedures at the start and end of the process.
The AEC’s website currently says that the draft boundaries for New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia are due in late May or early June. They always publish on Fridays, so the chart is based on all three being released this Friday, May 24. In reality it’s unlikely they’d all be released on the same day.
UPDATE: The AEC announced today that the WA boundaries will be released on May 31, so that suggests that NSW and Victoria will be in early June.
The length of time for consultation is very consistent, about six weeks for the first two rounds of consultation, and another six weeks after the boundaries are released.
The amount of time spent deciding on the final boundaries after the consultation has also been relatively consistent, although it was longer in 2021 than in the past.
There is always a gap after the announcement of the final boundaries before they are formally implemented, but this gap has been getting smaller. It was over two months in 2006 and 2009 but it was closer to a month in 2021. This period is relevant to the formal implementation of the boundaries and would limit the ability to call an election, but during this time it will be possible for candidates, parties, media and analysts to use the final boundaries in the meantime.
The 2015 processes took a lot longer because the process commenced in December 2014, and the consultation process didn’t commence until March of the following year. That’s not the same as this year. Instead, this year’s redistribution is taking longer because the committee is taking longer to decide on the draft boundaries.
So why might that be? I don’t want to assume this is a failure on the part of the AEC, they may have good reasons.
One likely issue is that the original population projections provided to the AEC by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for Victoria and Western Australia turned out to be wrong, and new data needed to be provided. The AEC would have needed to start over the map-drawing process, and are also less able to rely on submissions that were based on the false information.
It’s also possible that the scale of the task is slowing things down, with two thirds of seats around the country needing to be redrawn. It might be worth asking some questions at the next JSCEM inquiry into why the process takes so long.
Whatever is happening, it does seem to be the reality that this process is taking longer than previous elections. Unless the government is willing to trigger three mini-redistributions, they really don’t have the ability to call an election until late October, which would involve an election at the end of November.
If they were to do that, they would be going to an election with boundaries only just published, with very little time to prepare to campaign. It would also be a big administrative burden to be ready to go on the new boundaries.
So while an election later this year could seem plausible for other reasons, I think the long redistribution process is a very strong reason to rule out an election in 2024.
@ John, the recent figures do not support your assertion
The last determination Queensland was at 30.30915 of a determination, based on the latest figures (which are around a year later) Qld is 30.322 of a quota
The equivalent for WA in the same period is 15.92122 and now 16.0356
The equivalent for Vic is 37.7818 and now 37.885
the other 3 states are going backwards, so I think the next determination that will matter will be in 2029 and I’m not sure that QLD will gain an extra seat short of an increase in parliament
While I accept more people move to Queensland it does have a slightly higher death rate 5.6 per 1000 in 2022 compared to Victoria of 5.2 and WA of 5
we will find out soon enough
I had a look at how the seats would be allocated under an expanded parliament with both 14 senators per state and 16 per state, I assume the territories would also gain senators either 4 or 6 each although that does not alter the process as stipulated by the constitution.
14 senators per state would result in a house size of 174,
NSW 54.06 (54)
Vic 44.16 (44)
Old 35.39 (35)
WA 18.66 (19)
SA 12.00 (12)
Tas 3.71 (5)
ACT 3.02 (3)
NT 1.63 (2)
16 senators per state would result in a house size of 197,
NSW 61.78 (62)
Vic 50.47 (50)
Old 40.44 (40)
WA 21.32 (21)
SA 13.71 (14)
Tas 4.24 (5)
ACT 3.45 (3)
NT 1.87 (2)
This is just a quick calculation on current numbers and would change over time.
I am curious to see the name for the new WA division. Darren McSweeney had a great suggestion for Bates for the new seat. Court and Farmer aren’t bad either. There were a number of other names but I again am very curious about the seat’s name and reasoning.
Trying to increase to 16 senators per state is probably not politically possible. 14 could be justified.
Does anybody know if Parliament House can accommodate a larger parliament? i.e offices etc.?
@redistributed
Within our system these are the only two realistic options, I would prefer 14 per state and 7 being elected every three years. However the point you bring up about space is important, an influx of 40ish additional MPs and Senators as well as staff could be complicated.
I also wonder whether an expansion will coincide with a referendum on fixed terms, and what implications that may have for the length of senate terms.
Why do senate chambers (USA, Canada, Australia) etc, always have to have the same number of senators per region? I understand historically senators was about giving equal representation to each state/province. But is this fair?
Land doesn’t vote, people do. Time to make senators proportional. Tasmania and New South Wales have way different populations just like Wyoming and California do in the USA.
I don’t think any country can claim to be a democracy if they don’t have equal representation. The constitution was written to be amended and I think if my argument was put to the people (if a government put it) then I think it would get majority support.
If not, lets just draw new Australian states, what about Central Australia? This was also floated in the USA, but for political reasons obviously.
@Daniel T
No referendum would ever get up on that matter. Ironically because you need to win a majority of states as well as the popular vote and SA, WA and TAS who are all overrepresented would all vote no because its in their best interest.
@Daniel T
That’s the whole point of the House, that each electorate contains roughly that same amount of voters. There are many ways to elect a legislative body such as a national list elected proportionally or just another version of the house with larger divisions similar to Italy.
@KT1 Italy and Spain have multi-member constituencies in both houses of their parliaments.
@Nether Portal Both of Italy’s houses use multi member regions and single member constituencies to elect each chamber.
Also Germany is quite interesting due to the fact the Bundesrat, its upper house, is comprised of members of each state government and each state has a proportion of seats depending on population.
If you wanted to pass Senate reform to abolish the state representation, you wouldn’t just need one of the three small states to vote for it, you’d need all three. I guess in theory it might be able to pass without one of the big states but in practice you’d need a 6-0 victory.
My understanding is that APH was designed to have the capacity for quite a significant increase in membership. There is quite a bit of office space taken up by non-MPs that could potentially be shifted elsewhere and the actual chamber still has quite a bit of room.
@Ben Raue why would you need all 3 of the small states? It would pass with 4/6 states and I assume NSW, Vic and Qld would all vote yes because they are underrepresented in the senate.
It is my understanding that if a state’s representation was to be negatively impacted then it must approve any change. I am not a home and have limited time to confirm this.
Yes that’s right.
Second last paragraph of section 128:
“No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.”
Pretty much cut and dry.
I’m replying to an old post, but KT1 yesterday estimated that the ACT would have 3.45 quotas if each state had 16 senators. You said that would result in the ACT keeping 3 seats but I actually think they would get 4 under the new rules for territory entitlements that use the harmonic mean. If you divide 3.45 by 3 you get 1.15, if you divide 3.45 by 4 you get 0.8625. 0.15 is more than 0.1375, so 4 is closer to the national quota.
Ben – I read the legislation for the Harmonic mean, and I believe it only applies for quotients under 3. For values over 3, the normal arithmetic mean rounding applies.
See link: https://www.aec.gov.au/electorates/redistributions/calculating-entitlements.htm
What an appalling line that is in the constitution, and shame on those from the more populous colonies who screwed their future states out of fair democratic representation in the Senate by kowtowing to the less populous ones. The practical impossibility of ever achieving one person, one vote in the Senate reinforces my belief that the Australian constitution isn’t fit for purpose and should be completely rewritten at some point, though I doubt that will ever happen either, because not enough people care.
@daniel t because the constitution was framed so the smaller states couldnt be bullied by the bigger states and the only way to get the states into federation was to guarantee equal representation whereas in america they started with just 13 states and the rest were added on later
and to change it you would need the smaller states to agree to it and they arent going to vote for less representation. thats basically asking people to vote away their rights.
@james i have suggested Currie after Captain Mark John Currie RN (later Vice-Admiral) who played a significant role in the exploration of Australia and the foundation of the Swan River Colony later known as WA
Couldn’t the line in the constitution itself be changed without the approval of all states though?
I see no reason why it can’t because as it was said, you need all states to approve a change to the number of senators if it became proportional, but not if it simply is changing the rules around how the constitution works in writing.
I see no appetite at present for a change, but several years down the road it should be discussed along with a bigger parliament to meet the cube root law, and 4 year terms.
I can see the coalition supporting a proportional senate due to the left generally doing better in the smaller states while having 12 senators.
Labor would strongly oppose, why do you think they want the territories to have more senators? The Greens also want more senators in the ACT for obvious reasons.
@daniel no the constitution can only be changed by a referendum. noones gonna vote for less representation in states like tas, wa and sa. a bigger parliament doesnt need onstituional change only an act of parliament increasing the number of senators. 4 year terms is also a constitutional issue in regards to federal parlaiment. thats been proposed and defeated before. a proportional senate would likely benefit labor more then it would the coalition
@Daniel T, removing that clause would in itself be reducing the representation of the smaller states.
The equal representation in the Senate was a central piece of the deal that formed the Federation and we are all bound by it. If you wanted to unpick that you’d need to unpick the whole federal deal.
@Daniel T The territories representation in the senate is based on legislation and is not constrained by the Constitution, that would be the easiest change to increase representation at the present moment.
Whilst the government seems to support 4 year terms for the House, the biggest roadblock is terms for the Senate, do they maintain the current system whereby senators would serve 8 year terms or elect the whole of the Senate every 4 years.
@KT1 all representation in the senate is based on legislation.
Yes, but the constitution is clear that all states shall have equal representation:
“The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators
for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be
maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.”
So, unless and until there is a constitutional amendment, Tasmania will always have as many senators as New South Wales.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome is given all the public suggestions for WA and VIC are basically useless. My original suggestion for WA needs some tweaking with the updated numbers, but my Vic one is totally unworkable. It’s actually a pretty big blight on the whole process that members of the public end up being prevented from contributing to the overall outcome.
As far as represenation goes, I’d say we do need more seats and 14 Senators each would give us 7 at each election. I don’t have a problem with each state getting equal numbers, becuase the Senate isn’t designed as a representative body for each person. Thats what the House is for. Of course the whole idea of the Senate is that state senators would vote for their own state’s interest, and we know now how they actually just usually vote along party lines, but to some extent I’m ok with the idea.
@james The name Bates has been floated before and I thought it was worth making a pitch for it again. Not sure how successful it would be though. None of the comments on suggestions gave support for it, and the Liberals outright object to it calling it problematic.
Personally I’m against both Court and Farmer, for different reasons, moreso Court speaking of problematic. I don’t think he deserves a division name at all. Overall it’s time to move on from old state politicans and old colonial explorers. There are many other deserving peoplein modern fields that could be mentioned.
@john, If I recall, you suggested the name Currie but did not include any reference to who it was named after in your original suggestion. I know we’ve had this debate before, but I don’t agree with colonail British Navy officers getting recognised in modern Australia.
@darren im sure i did. anyway ive defintely done it my revised redistribution. ive finihed both my revised vic and WA redistribution and im just waiting for objections to open to submit them. as its explained he help found the state and thats the reason for my suggestion.
also they do represent the constituents but instead of representing them as members of a division they represent them as constituents of a state
I’m not sure if my calculations are right on this so the easiest way to check is to throw raw meat to the lions. 🙂
Australia has 72 Senators for the States (and 2 for each of the Territories), which means that we’re supposed to have roughly 144 Members for the States and another number for the Territories (currently 4 but any legislation that defines numbers using the harmonic mean to calculate it is getting into the weeds pretty quickly). We currently have 151 MPs instead of 148 because the numbers are rounded up.
So taking that figure of 144 we divide it into the State eligible voting numbers to give us a quota – currently 122,559. For WA the redistribution quota was calculated at 113,508 and for Victoria it was 116,894. If we take Queensland’s current eligible voting population of 3,750,698 we end up with an entitlement to 30.60 electorates. Because of rounding up that means we can expect to add another seat, taking it to 31 ahead of the next redistribution.
@Ben Raue From a purely view, basing Senators on population would absolutely tip the scales towards NSW, Vic and the ACT, with 10,562,660 of the Australian total of 18,139,279 eligible voters.
At which point WA would walk, probably followed by Qld. Tasmania would be iffy, given that they would have trouble surviving on their own but if WA and Qld offered to underwrite them then I could see that as an option. That leaves SA and the NT.
Mark
The division of lectorates is based on population – not electors.
The formula is 144 for the states – as Tasmania would would get 3 but is gauranteed 5 then those are added on.
114+ 2=146 plus 3 for the ACT and 2 for the NT gives the 151. NSW and Victoria are overrepresented because there are more non citizens. South Australia underrepresented because of more citizens and an older demographic profile.
@Darren McSweeney I’m against the idea of having Federal seats named after State politicians and naming State seats after Federal pollies would be just as unacceptable.
In terms of the ABS blunder I’m in favour of having the AEC do the bare minimum to adjust seats at the boundaries and then call a immediate redistribution to have everything in place for the following election. Or just leave it alone for this election entirely.
Also the number of Senators per state should always be twice that of an odd number.
@Daniel T Adding an additional Senator in the ACT would almost certainly guarantee an extra Liberal spot.
I think the house should be expanded such that Tasmania earns its 5 lower house seats. Last time I did the maths I think that would be the house that forms of you had 9 senators per half election – well over 200 seats total. 9 senators is neat – a quota is 10% and it’s an odd number.
It would seem like a lot of politicians but in terms of politicians per capita it’s similar to the last time the house was expanded in the 80s. It would make the current redistribution look minor but we’d get used to it pretty quickly.
@redistributed That’s an interesting question – my understanding is that the Tasmanian quota is revised downwards to meet the minimum of five seats. s24 states “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.” By my understanding that means that a small percentage comes off the rest of the states, but probably not enough to affect the number of electorates (unless it’s very close to the halfway point).
I take your point regarding population vs voting population (again, “s24 (i) a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators”.
However, does that include non-citizens, permanent residents, tourists and those under 18? I’ll do a quick recalculation from the ABS data.
@mark to determine the number of seats you divide the 144 by the states population not the enrollment figure
@redistributed @Captain Moonlight Thanks for comments.
Well this is a fun rabbit hole to go down.
The AEC calculates a quota as
Population quota = Ascertained total population of the six states / (Number of Senators for the states x 2)
So the quota doesn’t take the Territories or the extra Tasmanian seats into account.
There’s a whole process for the 2020 redistribution at https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2020G00521/latest/text
So, recalculating …
Population quota is 26,094,900/144 = 181,214.
NSW is 8,394,700/181,214 = 46.32 or 46 seats rounded down. The estimated eligible population now is 5,657,004 or an actual quota of 123,196 voters.
Vic is 6,865,400/181,214 = 37.72 or 38 seats rounded up. The estimated eligible population now is 4,580,552 or an actual quota of 120,541 voters.
Qld is 5,495,500/181,214 = 30.32 or 30 seats rounded down. The estimated eligible population now is 3,750,698 or an actual quota of 125,023 voters.
WA is 2,905,900/181,214 = 16.03 or 16 seats rounded down. The estimated eligible population now is 1,926,081 or an actual quota of 120,380 voters.
SA is 1,860,100/181,214 = 10.26 or 10 seats rounded down. The estimated eligible population now is 1,318,988 or an actual quota of 131,899 voters.
Tas is 573,300/181,214 = 3.16 or 5 seats due to Constitution. The estimated eligible population now is 415,111 or an actual quota of 83,022 voters.
ACT and NT have 2 seats due to Territory status.
This is based on the Australian population as at September 2023 and the electoral roll as at 31 March 2024. https://www.aec.gov.au/enrolling_to_vote/enrolment_stats/national/2024.htm
Given that the redistribution process starts a year after the first sitting of the next Parliament and Queensland had the highest increase in population YTD I’m confident that Qld will pick up an extra seat. (Qld and WA mostly through interstate migration). https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/sep-2023#2021-census-update-of-the-net-interstate-migration-model
When’s the NSW redistribution?
friday
While we’re eagerly awaiting tomorrow’s release of the New South Wales boundaries, I thought I’d share a map I put together a few weeks ago:
https://ibb.co/RHYGk3p
I think this does a reasonably good job at maximising the number of strong boundaries used. Many of the original submissions did things that I feel are unneccessary like:
– Crossing Lane Cove River
– Crossing the M5/Wolli Creek
– Crossing Prospect Creek
– Combining parts of Penrith with parts of Liverpool
In particular, I’m pretty certain that this is the neatest possible way to handle the northern half of Greater Sydney (with the exception of my proposed McMahon which combines Blacktown and Merrylands, although still better than its current incarnation).
In the south, Werriwa/Hughes/Banks are a bit of a compromise but I think broadly consistent. This section could be improved by rotating those divisions counter-clockwise after a transfer of Engadine to Cunningham, but I think its better for the South Coast divisions to retain the current Illawarra-Sutherland boundary. With that boundary, it’s possible to draw exactly 3 neat divisions along the coast by redrawing Eden-Monaro as a completely inland seat including Goulburn and the Southern Highlands. Hume becomes a seat comprising Camden and Wollondilly only. I no longer think it’s tenable for it to include Goulburn. Whatever happens, both Southern Sydney and the South Coast are going to need to undergo quite a bit of change.
I’d personally prefer to rotate Bradfield/Mackellar/Warringah and Sydney/Wentworth/Kingsford Smith more clockwise, but I’ve tried to balance my preferences against what a committee is more likely to go with. I’m definitely against the inclusion of Surry Hills in Wentworth.
This is just one of the many ways in which it the redistribution could be done. I hope the committee gets close to this, but if Victoria is any indication, there’s going to be a quite a few surprises and disappointments.
im hoping the AEc is courageous and abolishes grayndler. im kinda regretting not doing it tbh
I can see why Grayndler would be considered given its shortfall (especially after Sydney takes in Balmain), but I think there’s less of an argument for Barton/Watson to shift into that empty space as there was for Kooyong/Chisholm/Hotham to shift into an abolished Higgins.
Hughes on the other hand… Lots of ways for it to be naturally carved up by Werriwa/Fowler/Banks/Cook/Cunningham, so we’ll have to see what happens there.
It’s going to be really interesting to see what they came up with.
@Angas you forgot North Sydney. That’s a Federation seat so it needs to stay.
Also your Greenway and Mitchell boundaries look kinda weird. So used to everything in the Hills being a similar shape (the electorates, the Hills Shire LGA and even the suburbs are mostly a similar shape).
@Nether Portal
Even though it’s a Federation seat, North Sydney unfortunately seems to be the most likely North Shore name to be abolished (unless they chose to expand it westwards into Bennelong). It falls into an awkward category like with Port Adelaide and Melbourne Ports in that it appears to be subordinate to another division name. I’d expect the committee to retain both Bradfield (who was a real visionary for Sydney and further afield) and Warringah (an indigenous name). My personal preference would probably be to retain all 3 of those names and abolish Berowra instead but that involves a bit of a shuffle.
I agree on Greenway being a bit awkward, but there’s not reall any other good ways to handle the fast-growing Northern Blacktown area without forcing weird boundaries onto Chifley or Mitchell. Capturing everything between Richmond Road and Windsor Road seemed clear enough to me.
With Mitchell, I’m quite pleased with how I’ve drawn it. It’s definitely a lot more compact than it has been, but now effectively matches the state districts of Castle Hill and Kellyville and captures the area of The Hills Shire almost perfectly (except for Box Hill/Nelson and the rural areas in Berowra). Transferring Glenhaven/West Pennant Hills into Mitchell also helps Berowra become more centred on Hornsby which I think is a good outcome.
@angas given the shortfall is in central Sydney it will be something around that area they won’t abolish something so far out like Vic they abolishes the most under qupta seat but given Wentworth is not a corner seat and a federation name it will most likely be grayndper/Sydney/Barton where the main problem is. I also think Fowler should be abolishes as it will probably get carved up given its centred between the defeceit areas and the surplus areas. And I don’t see why it should survive given shes not someone of major significance and there will be another dvision named after a woman(most likely) to offset it.
@np given north Sydney won’t be in north Sydney most likely the only reason the name will survive is if it replaces warringah as the libs have proposed. I personally abolishes both names and renamed it Sydney harbour. We will know soon enough
@John
Reasonable assessment I think. There’s a clear deficit centred roughly on Canterbury/Marrickville and that’s going to put Barton/Grayndler right in the firing line.
Interesting point about Fowler getting abolished. I’d expect them to retain the division, but it’s quite likely it could be 50% new territory whichever way it has to flow. Dai Le is in an interesting position as she’d like it to lose Liverpool, but not gain Fairfield. An expansion to the southwest would probably be best for her.
There ought to be a few nervous MPs across Sydney waiting to see what is proposed.
@Angas
Good proposal! I had a go with NSW and found it extremely hard. Made the Victorian redistribution feel like a piece of cake. Not only go you have to deal with getting certain outer suburb seats being both in current and projected quota, there was also a few times you’d get a seat that was too high on current quota but too low on projected quota.
After seeing what they did with the Vic redistribution I actually don’t think they’ll abolish two seats. It seems the AEC will also try and do as little as possible and I think they’ll end up just dragging Hughes and Werriwa further west. I really don’t see the argument for abolishing Grayndler. There is parts of Barton, Reid and Watson that naturally belong in Grayndler. There is always going to be a seat mainly based around Inner West council, it’s a pretty clear community that can’t easily be divided into other seats.
I actually think they might just abolish Bradfield. You could draw the exact same boundary as Angas and call it North Sydney. I think the projected numbers being so diseven in NSW is going to make the AEC draw a lot of weird boundaries in the west. I’m excited for the weird monstrosities the AEC has to come up with the western Sydney seats. I just hope they can fix up McMahon and try and turn it into a Blacktown based seat.
Unlike Victoria where the safe Labor and Liberal booths tend to get lumped together, their is a much bigger mix of Labor and Lib booths right next too each other + a lot of marginals, meaning a lot of seats could notionally change hands.
@Angas – I viewed your map. It looks excellent.
I think that by far North Sydney is the best to abolish. It’s under-quota and the name is just Sydney but with a geographic qualifier. You’ve drawn the North Shore electorates in a great way: Bennelong gets the Hunters Hill area (probably making it notionally Liberal), which something which I believe is geographically well-connected.
I do have some criticism for Werriwa. It reminds me of Leppington, a state electorate which was seen as a ‘bits-and-pieces electorate’. That’s what Werriwa feels like, though I feel it has also become more of a Cumberland Plains seat than a Liverpool seat. Guess that
Overall, in my opinion, very impressive. Well made, well justified, and strong geographical boundaries used. Let’s see what happens tomorrow!
Guess that is good*