New South Wales federal redistribution proposal

Analysis of draft federal boundaries for New South Wales, which propose abolishing the seat of North Sydney.

The proposed federal redistribution for New South Wales, requiring the abolition of one of its 47 seats, is being published today. The boundaries will presumably be up on the Australian Electoral Commission site shortly, but for now there a gazetted notice informs us that the proposal abolishes North Sydney, held by teal independent Kylea Tink. The fact that no other electorate names are identified as having been abolished, and the revelation that More to follow.

UPDATE: Full boundaries now available on the AEC site, and here are my two-candidate and two-party preferred (the latter boiling it down to Labor and Coalition) estimates for the new margins. Teals are treated as a single entity so, for example, where Warringah gains territory from North Sydney, Kylea Tink’s votes there are transferred to Zali Steggall. In areas where there was no teal candidate last time though, it’s not possible to estimate how they would have gone.

UPDATE 2: I just unearthed an error in the code that was causing errors in a few places, notably Hume and Eden-Monaro. The numbers below should add up now.

UPDATE 3: My analysis of the new boundaries has just been published in Crikey.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

68 comments on “New South Wales federal redistribution proposal”

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2
  1. Re North Sydney, electors went as follows:
    43,189 Bennelong
    36,409 Warringah
    32,968 Bradfield
    (see Appendix H for details)

    so Bradfield gets the smallest number of Tink’s ex-voters. I don’t know in what part of the electorate Tink was strongest, but unless it was around Chatswood, I expect she’ll either run for the Senate or retire. Remember the other Teal did campaign last election, and has been active since, so she’s probably got a higher profile in most of the electorate.

  2. @Sandman

    Considering Boele hasn’t stopped campaigning in Bradfield since the last election I can’t see her simply stepping aside for Tink and you’re right, I can’t imagine the two of them going up against each other AND the incumbent – that wouldn’t work for either of them. I guess it leaves running in Bennelong as a realistic option for Tink and potentially sets up the first Labor VS Teal contest of the next election

  3. @Simon

    That’s interesting re: where Tink’s ex-voters have ended up. Surely running for the Senate as an ex-city based (north shore) indie in the largest state in the country would be a pointless endeavour though?

  4. @Sausage ands Steve 777.

    If you simply just vote Labor in the new Bradfield as you are inclined to do, Labor can win. The best way to ensure they don’t win, is to not vote for them. The margin is now 5.4%, down from 5.6%.
    The 2CP for the area of North Sydney added to Bradfield looks good for the Teals, but a large part of that is booths where Labor went very well and then preferences flowed to Tink.
    Chatswood and half Artarmon are better for Labor than Teal.
    Boele will have to win over all the strong Tink areas, or Tink will have to win over all the seat of Bradfield- it’s not obvious that and IND comes second, especially given Dutton as Leader.

  5. ‘aggmagpie says:
    Friday, June 14, 2024 at 10:42 pm


    Considering Boele hasn’t stopped campaigning in Bradfield since the last election I can’t see her simply stepping aside for Tink and you’re right, I can’t imagine the two of them going up against each other AND the incumbent – that wouldn’t work for either of them. I guess it leaves running in Bennelong as a realistic option for Tink and potentially sets up the first Labor VS Teal contest of the next election’
    While not finally decided, Teals are organizing to run in Canberra and Bean against sitting Labor members Payne and Smith. The likely outcome is that the sitting members will retain their seats. But such a contest would need additional resources and those resources would come from seats where Labor is up against the Liberals. This could only benefit Dutton.

  6. Liberals supporters celebrating the demise of a Teal seats is a little bit short sighted. North Sydney would never have been won by Labor. The net benefit for the LNP then would be either +1 (Liberal held) or 0 (teal held).

  7. The new Bennelong will presumably test the proposition is a Teal vote, a vote Labor would never have got and the proportions as well.

  8. MM

    “Run Katherine Deves in Macquarie or Parramatta, she might just win”

    Or the LNP could accept that the Australian people have rejected her twice, despite spending large sums promoting her, even in a once safe Liberal seat.

    Is there a belief in the LNP that Katherine Deves is entitled to be a Federal MP?

  9. Thanks for the summary and estimates.

    Re Grayndler, I think you’ve subtracted the Greens estimated 3CP (24.1%) from their 2022 2CP (32.95%). At least that’s how I think the -8.8% change was reached; apologies if I’m misreading.

  10. What’s happened there (and in several other places) is that an ALP-GRN TCP from Grayndler has been mashed together with ALP-LIB TCPs from the newly added parts of the electorate that didn’t have ALP-GRN results. So GRN gets zero votes from the bits that are added from Barton and Watson.

  11. Has anyone else twigged to the closeness of the 2PP in the new Warringah? In from 1.5% to 0.5% to Liberal…

    Please lets have no more references to it being a “Liberal heartland seat”. Its quite possible that Zali Steggall will be an IND MP in a Labor 2PP seat, after he next election.

  12. One thing that strikes me is that both seats that have been abolished are held by women who have had extensive careers outside parliament, who were in their first term.

    It seems a pity to lose them from parliament.

    I am guessing the reason is that the areas losing voters are wealthier, with very expensive real estate. These are also the people who care strongly about climate change and equality, and are not so concerned about the (perceived* effect to) bottom line to the family finances.

    * they are often wrong about the economics, but are not willing to take the risk if Murdoch etc. tell them that climate change will send their power bills through the roof.

  13. Re Hughes, I think the new margin of about 3.5% to the LIBs [which is about half the margin achieved at the 2022 election] is too generous. Hughes gains solidly Labor booths and electors from Werriwa [20,307] and Macarthur [13,104], totalling 33,411. But Hughes loses 25,731 strong LIB booths and electors to Cook. Depending on the issues at the next election [eg climate changes, tax changes, interest rates and cost of living more generally], Labor with the right candidate could pick up this seat.

    Re Bennelong, with the seat gaining 43,189 seats from North Sydney, I reckon Kylea Tink should contest the newly configured seat along with the current ALP member for Bennelong. One of them should win it, squeezing out the LIBs by campaigning on Dutton’s [virtually no] climate change policy. I should note that Bennelong loses 15,074 to Berowra and 23,134 to Parramatta.

    Notwithstanding these comments, I think Labor would not be too pleased with the overall distribution because many of its seats have reduced margins.

  14. I’m curious what methodology is used to calculate the new 2PP margins. Does it involve finding the average 2PP margin across the geographical precincts being moved to another Division, applying it to the projected incoming/outgoing number of electors from that region (adjusted for turnout?), and then combining lost and gained TPP votes with the 2022 numbers?

  15. The AEC publishes a file identifying how many people in each Statistical Area 1 (geographic precinct, if you will) voted at which polling booths, and another file recording the TPP in each polling booth. The principle here is to assume voters at each polling booth vote uniformly regardless of which SA1 they are enrolled in, on which basis you can calculate TPPs for each SA1 and group them together to produce totals at divisional level.

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *