Note: * indicates electorate which, on the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. Changes were proposed to the boundaries of these electorates as a consequence of changes proposed to the boundaries of adjoining electorates.

Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electorates can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix M of the Redistribution Committee’s report of May 2024.

Maps of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electorates are also available.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusion on objections

An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the majority of issues raised in objections to the proposed redistribution is presented on this page. A number of objections were unable to be implemented by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 46 electorates in New South Wales meet the two numerical constraints arising from the Electoral Act.

Objections and comments on objections which have not been discussed below will be outlined in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission. Given the large number of objections received, not all have been referenced in the commentary below on specific conclusions.

• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the names of electorates, and
• the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the placement of electorates and divisional boundaries

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the names of electoral divisions

Objections discussed in this section are concerned with:

• retiring the name ‘North Sydney’

Retiring the name ‘North Sydney’

Objections referring to this matter: More than 490 objections received were concerned with the proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney and retiring the name ‘North Sydney’. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 135 comments on objections received were concerned with the proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney and retiring the name ‘North Sydney’. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the Division of North Sydney and retiring the name ‘North Sydney’. This decision was made after the Redistribution Committee considered whether it would be appropriate to rename another electorate ‘North Sydney’; deciding that, based on the naming guidelines, there was no compelling reason to do so.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• support for the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to retire the name ‘North Sydney’,
• retaining the name ‘North Sydney’, or
• renaming another electorate to ‘North Sydney’, with a preponderance of those advocating for that change proposing that the Division of Warringah should be renamed ‘North Sydney’.

Many objections to the proposed redistribution and comments in favour of retaining the name ‘North Sydney’ focused on the name being a Federation name in use since the first Federal election in 1901.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission accepted that the name ‘North Sydney’ has been in use since 1901, and retaining it would be consistent with the naming guideline to retain the names of original federation electorates.

The augmented Electoral Commission also noted that ‘North Sydney’ is a locality name and the name of a local government area. The augmented Electoral Commission consequently observed that retiring the name would address the guideline that stipulates locality or place names should generally be avoided. This approach is consistent with the previous retirement of the Federation names of ’South Sydney’ (retired in 1934), ‘East Sydney’ (1968), and ‘West Sydney’ (1968).

With respect to renaming the Division of Warringah to ‘North Sydney’, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that:

• 'Warringah' is believed to be an Aboriginal word meaning 'sign of rain', 'across the waves' or 'sea'. The naming guidelines support the retention of existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electorate names as far as possible, and
• less than 30 per cent of the proposed Division of Warringah will include electors transferred from the existing Division of North Sydney. The naming guidelines note that when two or more electorates are partially combined, as far as possible the name of the new electorate should be that of the old electorate which had the greatest number of electors within the new boundaries. Accordingly, renaming the proposed Division of Warringah would not accord with that guideline.

The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments offered in support of retaining the name ‘North Sydney’ were not sufficiently persuasive to depart from the Redistribution Committee’s proposal.

Noting that the naming guidelines indicated that the names of electorates should not be transferred to new areas without very strong reasons, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound and followed the naming guidelines for federal electoral divisions, and
• accordingly, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

In consequence, the name ‘North Sydney’ will be retired.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections relating to the placement of electorates and divisional boundaries

Objections discussed in this section concern the:

• abolition of the Division of North Sydney,
• electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Carlingford, Epping and North Epping are located,
• electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Dee Why and North Curl Curl are located,
• electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Forestville, Frenchs Forest and Killarney Heights are located,
• electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay are located,
• electorate(s) in which the suburbs of St Ives and St Ives Chase are located,
• boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Greenway, McMahon, Mitchell and Parramatta, and
• the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Barton, Grayndler, Kingsford Smith, Sydney and Wentworth.

The proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney

Objections referring to this matter: More than 475 objections received were concerned with the proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 130 comments on objections received were concerned with the proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: New South Wales is undergoing a redistribution because the number of members of the House of Representatives to which it is entitled has decreased from 47 to 46 as a result of a determination made by the Electoral Commissioner on Thursday 27 July 2023. The Redistribution Committee proposed abolishing the Division of North Sydney, with electors to be transferred to the proposed Divisions of Bennelong, Bradfield, and Warringah.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• support for the abolition of the Division of North Sydney, or
• that the Division of North Sydney should not be abolished.

Arguments in support of the abolition of North Sydney included that the transfer of electors out of the existing Division of North Sydney to neighbouring electorates would strengthen communities of interests in those neighbouring electorates.

Arguments made by those in favour of retaining the Division of North Sydney included:

• the electorate has existed since the first Federal election in 1901,
• abolishing the electorate would cause the loss of the special community of interest which exists in the existing Division of North Sydney,
• the existence of a strong economic community of interest, including Sydney’s and/or Australia’s third largest CBD,
• future population growth as the result of anticipated high-rise developments,
• the population projections used by the Redistribution Committee gave an incomplete picture of expected population growth in the lower North Shore area,
• appreciation of the representation provided by the current Member for North Sydney, and
• the political history of the electorate, including having elected two independent members, a former Treasurer and a former Prime Minister.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission acknowledged that the Redistribution Committee’s identification of North Sydney as the electorate for abolition in this redistribution was significantly affected by the numerical constraints arising from the Electoral Act discussed above. The augmented Electoral Commission also acknowledged that, concerning the Division of North Sydney, the Redistribution Committee also had careful regard to its obligation under the Electoral Act to consider other matters, including communities of interest, social, economic, regional or otherwise. The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that no better alternative to the Redistribution Committee’s proposal had been identified, whether in objections, comments on objections, in presentations at public inquiry or otherwise.

In particular, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that:

• some of the advocated changes resulted in a proposed electorate within six electors of the maximum permitted under the Electoral Act. Making such a change would raise a real possibility of triggering an earlier than expected redistribution. The augmented Electoral Commission considered that such a possibility should be avoided.
• population growth is not the same as growth in the number of electors. Electors are a particular sub-set of the entirety of a division’s population. Electors are those who are on the Commonwealth electoral roll. To be on the electoral roll, a person must be: an Australian citizen, or eligible British subject; aged 18 years of age or over; and have lived at their address for at least one month. An electorate’s growth in population does not always translate into an equivalent growth in its electors.
• the projection period used for this redistribution, which the augmented Electoral Commission is required by the Electoral Act to comply with, is three and a half years from the determination date. As such, only limited regard can be paid to data reflecting enrolment and population movements outside this time period which may or may not occur.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• concerns about the quality of representation, or any potential change in representation, fall outside of the scope of the augmented Electoral Commission’s consideration,
• abolishing an alternative electorate, along with the adjustments necessary to accommodate this change, would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

Accordingly, the augmented Electoral Commission decided that the Division of North Sydney would be abolished.

The electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Carlingford, Epping and North Epping are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 110 objections received were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Carlingford, Epping and North Epping are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB3 – Brian and Orma Downs, COB4 – Samuel Chu, COB25 – Anonymous 32, COB26 – Anonymous 33 and COB129 – Mathew Tse

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: Prior to the commencement of the redistribution, the localities of Epping and North Epping were located in the Division of Bennelong, and the locality of Carlingford was located in the Divisions of Bennelong, Berowra and Parramatta.

Because making adjustments to ensure that all electorates in New South Wales would meet the two numerical constraints imposed by the Electoral Act, the Redistribution Committee proposed transferring:

• the locality of North Epping and that part of the locality of the Epping located to the east of Midson Road from the Division of Bennelong to the proposed Division of Berowra, and
• the part of the locality of Carlingford located to the east of Pennant Hills Road and Marsden Road from the Division of Bennelong to the proposed Division of Parramatta.

As a result of the Redistribution Committee’s proposal:

• the locality of North Epping, in its entirety, was located in the proposed Division of Berowra,
• the locality of Epping was split between the proposed Divisions of Berowra and Parramatta, and
• the locality of Carlingford was split between the proposed Divisions of Berowra, Mitchell and Parramatta, with all electors in the locality sited in the proposed Division of Parramatta.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• the localities of Epping and North Epping, as well as the parts of the localities of Beecroft and Carlingford in the existing Division of Bennelong, be united in one electorate, and
• the localities of Epping and North Epping, as well as the parts of the localities of Beecroft and Carlingford in the existing Division of Bennelong, be retained in the proposed Division of Bennelong.

Objections and comments on objections supported the argument that there was a strong community of interest between Epping, North Epping and the part of Carlingford located in the existing Division of Bennelong and the proposed Division of Bennelong. Connections with nearby localities, such as Eastwood, Ryde, and Macquarie Park, including similar demographic profiles, were highlighted and contrasted with the purported weak connections with localities north of the M2 Motorway.

There was also a significant focus on ensuring Epping is not split amongst multiple electorates, as many submissions spoke to the efforts made to have Epping united in the one electorate at all three levels of Government.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission considered the community of interest shared between Epping and localities such as Eastwood and Ryde but observed that those advocating the transfer of Epping to the proposed Division of Bennelong created splits in other communities of interest. Other unsatisfactory alternatives included splitting the locality of Epping between three electoral divisions instead of two, or placing the locality of North Epping in the proposed Division of Berowra where it would be geographically isolated from the rest of the proposed electorate.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound;
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution; and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand substantially unchanged.

The locality of North Epping and that part of the locality of Epping located to the east of Midson Road will be transferred from the Division of Bennelong to the proposed Division of Berowra.

The part of the locality of Carlingford located to the east of Pennant Hills Road and Marsden Road, and that part of the locality of Epping located to the west of Midson Road will be transferred from the Division of Bennelong to the proposed Division of Parramatta.

The electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Dee Why and North Curl Curl are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 80 objections received were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Dee Why and North Curl Curl are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 100 comments on objections received were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Dee Why and North Curl Curl are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: At the start of the redistribution:

• the locality of Dee Why was split between the Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah, and
• the locality of North Curl Curl was located in the Division of Warringah.

As the Division of Mackellar needed to gain electors if it was to meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act, the Redistribution Committee proposed that the majority of the localities of North Curl Curl and of Dee Why, together with some small segments of Curl Curl should be located in the proposed Division of Mackellar.

This proposed change would unite the majority of the locality of Dee Why in a single electorate, establishing a strong and readily identifiable boundary along Curl Curl Lagoon and Greendale Creek.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• retaining the parts of the localities of Dee Why and North Curl Curl in the proposed Division of Warringah,
• transferring parts of the locality of Dee Why to the proposed Division of Warringah, and/or
• transferring the localities of Dee Why and North Curl Curl to the proposed Division of Mackellar.

Submissions were split on this issue. Some argued that Dee Why has a stronger community of interest to its south, and the boundary between the existing Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah should be retained or even moved northward so that more of Dee Why would be located in the proposed Division of Warringah. These arguments were generally a subset of broader ideas that argued for the Division of Mackellar to gain electors from St Ives, which negated the requirement for the proposed Division of Warringah to gain electors from the North Sydney CBD, thereby supporting the retention of the Division of North Sydney.

Other submissions supported the proposed Division of Mackellar gaining a larger portion of Dee Why as:

• a substantial portion of Dee Why is in the existing Division of Mackellar, and
• Dee Why shares a stronger community of interest with the proposed Division of Mackellar, as a Northern Beaches-focused electorate, than do electors from the upper North Shore.

Many of the submissions which supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal for the location of the suburbs of Dee Why and North Curl Curl also opposed those who advocated moving St Ives to the proposed Division of Mackellar.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission found insufficient substantive reasons were given for a reconsideration of this proposed change and considered the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to unite almost all of Dee Why within one proposed electorate and the provision of a clear boundary at the Curl Curl Lagoon provided a more satisfactory outcome than any alternative proposal.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore decided to retain the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries between the proposed Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah, with the majority of the localities of North Curl Curl and of Dee Why and some small segments of Curl Curl to be located in the proposed Division of Mackellar.

The electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Forestville, Frenchs Forest and Killarney Heights are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 85 objections received were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Forestville, Frenchs Forest and Killarney Heights are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 100 comments on objections received were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Forestville, Frenchs Forest and Killarney Heights are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: At the start of the redistribution, the Division of Mackellar needed to gain electors if it was to meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. The Redistribution Committee considered that the part of the Division of Warringah within the Forest District to the west of Wakehurst Parkway, encompassing the localities of Forestville, Killarney Heights and part of the locality of Frenchs Forest, should be transferred to the proposed Division of Mackellar.

Prior to the commencement of the redistribution:

• the majority of the locality of Frenchs Forest was located in the Division of Mackellar with a portion located in the Division of Warringah,
• the locality of Forestville was split between the Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah, and
• the majority of the locality of Killarney Heights was located in the Division of Warringah with a very small portion located in the Division of Mackellar.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• retaining the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electorate boundaries, with the locality of Forestville and the majority of the localities of Frenchs Forest and Killarney Heights located in the proposed Division of Mackellar, or
• retaining the boundary between the Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah existing at the start of the redistribution

Those in favour of retaining the Redistribution Committee’s proposal argued the changes united these split localities and strengthened the community of interest in the region.

Those in favour of retaining the electorate boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution considered the relevant localities were tied to the rest of the Division of Warringah. They pointed to a shared history and the use of economic centres.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission considered that the arguments for reconsideration of the proposed change were insufficiently persuasive; and that the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to unite Forestville within one electorate, with provision for a clear boundary at Wakehurst Parkway provided the most satisfactory outcome.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should be adopted.

The augmented Electoral Commission therefore proposed retaining the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries between the proposed Divisions of Mackellar and Warringah.

The electorate(s) in which the suburbs of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay are located

Objections referring to this matter: OB88 – Phillip Youngman, OB104 – Grant Camphuisen, OB106 – Nola Simmonds, OB107 – Tania McGarry, OB108 – Sean Maher, OB156 – Andrew King, OB482 – Andrew King, OB668 – Anonymous 29, OB691 – Lesley Rothwell

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB119 – Anonymous 1, COB231 – Anonymous 29

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: At the commencement of the redistribution, the Divisions of Lindsay and Macquarie did not meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. Consequently, the boundaries of both electorates needed to be altered such that electors were required to be transferred from one or more other electorates.

Several suggestions to the redistribution and comments on suggestions argued that the proposed Division of Macquarie should gain all or part of the localities of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay from the Division of Lindsay. The Redistribution Committee noted that while there are significant community of interest links between these localities and the Division of Lindsay, transferring the localities of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay from the existing Division of Lindsay to the proposed Division of Macquarie would satisfy the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. This would also mean that no further changes to the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Lindsay or Macquarie were required.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated retaining some or all of the localities of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay in the proposed Division of Lindsay.

Those arguing for this retention did so on the basis of:

• the strong connection these localities share with Penrith, and therefore they should be located in the same electorate;
• means of communication and transport links for these localities are Penrith focused; and
• communities of interests, by way of provision of services, shopping and schools, are Penrith focused.

Some objections to the redistribution advanced an alternative proposal in which the locality of Box Hill was transferred from the Division of Greenway to the proposed Division of Macquarie.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission observed that those arguing against the proposed boundary change did not present substantive arguments addressing the numerical constraints imposed by the Electoral Act. As neither the Division of Lindsay nor the Division of Macquarie met the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act on the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound;
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution; and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The localities of Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay will be located in the proposed Division of Macquarie.

The electorate(s) in which the suburbs of St Ives and St Ives Chase are located

Objections referring to this matter: More than 75 objections to the proposed redistribution were concerned with the electorate(s) in which the suburbs of St Ives and St Ives Chase are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 90 comments on objections were concerned with the electoral division(s) in which the suburbs of St Ives and St Ives Chase are located. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: Several suggestions to the redistribution and comments on suggestions were in favour of the Division of Mackellar gaining electors to the west of the electoral division. To make this change, at least the locality of St Ives would be required to transfer from the Division of Bradfield to the proposed Division of Mackellar.

The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase in the proposed Division of Bradfield. As a result of other proposed changes, the movement of these two localities was not needed to ensure the proposed Division of Mackellar met the two numerical parameters of the Electoral Act.

The proposed Division of Mackellar comprised part of the Northern Beaches Council and the proposed Division of Bradfield comprised the Ku-ring-gai Council in its entirety and part of the Willoughby City Council.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• the localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase be transferred from the Division of Bradfield to the proposed Division of Mackellar, or
• the localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase remain in the proposed Division of Bradfield.

Some argued a community of interest exists between St Ives and the proposed Division of Mackellar, particularly Mona Vale and the Forest District area (which stretches from Middle Harbour, north along Garigal National Park and up towards Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, including the localities of Forestville, Frenchs Forest, Duffys Forest, Terrey Hills, Davidson, Belrose and Killarney Heights).

Those who advocated retaining the two localities in the proposed Division of Bradfield argued:

• the localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase had no shared community of interest with the Northern Beaches-focused Division of Mackellar, pointing to different local government areas, sporting competitions, school catchment areas, commercial hubs, community groups, cultural centres and economic centres;
• the Northern Beaches are separated from the localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase by the Garigal and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Parks;
• there are poor transport links between St Ives and the rest of the proposed Division of Mackellar; and/or
• the proposed Division of Mackellar should be kept within the Northern Beaches Council area rather than being split across two local government areas.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission observed that the majority of those arguing for the inclusion of St Ives and St Ives Chase in the proposed Division of Mackellar did so as part of a larger argument to retain the Division of North Sydney. In the absence of this retention, the numerical constraints of the Electoral Act limit the feasibility of making this transfer.

When considering the other criteria in the Electoral Act, the strength of the community of interest St Ives and St Ives Chase share with the Upper North Shore areas was considered by the augmented Electoral Commission to be significantly stronger than that shared with the Northern Beaches area and the proposed Division of Mackellar. 

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound;
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution; and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The localities of St Ives and St Ives Chase will be located in the proposed Division of Bradfield.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Greenway, McMahon, Mitchell and Parramatta

Objections referring to this matter: More than 50 objections received were concerned with the electorates of Greenway, McMahon, Mitchell and Parramatta. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Comments on objections referring to this matter: More than 20 comments on objections were concerned with the electoral Divisions of Greenway, McMahon, Mitchell and Parramatta. These will be listed individually in the final report of the augmented Electoral Commission.

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the Divisions of Greenway and Mitchell exceeded the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. This required the Redistribution Committee to transfer electors to other electorates. This need to transfer electors was compounded by the changes made to adjacent electorates because of the proposed abolition of the Division of North Sydney.

As a result of the Redistribution Committee’s proposal:

• the locality of Blacktown would continue to be split between the proposed Divisions of Chifley, Greenway and McMahon;
• the locality of Rouse Hill would be split between the proposed Divisions of Greenway and Mitchell, but all electors in the locality would be united in the Division of Greenway; and
• the locality of Seven Hills would be split between the proposed Divisions of Greenway, McMahon and Parramatta instead of being contained with the boundaries of one electorate.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: Ideas advocated in objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections included:

• the locality of Blacktown should, in its entirety, be placed in one proposed electorate;
• transferring the portion of the Division of Mitchell south of the M2 Motorway to the proposed Division of Parramatta, increasing the proportion of the City of Parramatta Council located in the proposed electoral division;
• maintaining the use of Windsor Road as the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Greenway and Mitchell. This would retain the Rouse Hill town centre in the proposed Division of Mitchell. Alternatively, the part of the locality of Rouse Hill east of Windsor Road could be transferred to the proposed Division of Mitchell;
• placing all, or a greater portion, of the locality of Seven Hills in the proposed Division of Greenway due to a strong connection to the main CBD of Blacktown City; and
• centring the proposed Division of Parramatta on the City of Parramatta Council.

Some were in favour of well-established suburbs being placed in different electorates to newer suburbs which are projected to grow. Other community of interest arguments focused on similarity of socio-economic backgrounds and shared community resources such as council libraries, community halls and parks.

Other submissions raised the use of public transport, and the need or otherwise to use multiple services to travel between locations to support changes.

Several objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections supported some, or all, of the electoral divisions proposed by the Redistribution Committee, noting that some of these proposed electorates were more readily identifiable than existing electorate boundaries.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission observed that adopting some of the advocated changes would lead to the colocation of areas projected to have significant growth in electors. As this would raise the possibility of triggering an earlier than expected redistribution, the augmented Electoral Commission considered that these changes were best avoided.

Moreover, the augmented Electoral Commission was not persuaded that the suggested changes to readily identifiable proposed electorate boundaries, such as the use of the railway lines through Blacktown to split the Divisions of Chifley, Greenway and McMahon, were beneficial.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound;
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution; and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should be accepted, with the addition of a minor alignment to alter the boundaries of the proposed Divisions of McMahon and Parramatta to follow the M4 Motorway. This change to the proposed boundary would not require any movement of electors.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Barton, Grayndler, Kingsford Smith, Sydney and Wentworth

Objections referring to this matter: OB8 – Lara Lyons, OB9 – Jonathan Todd, OB26 – Martin Gordon, B40 – Benjamin Close, OB86 – John Smith, OB186 – Ni Ga, OB269 – Nicholas Peppercorn, OB375 – Ben Raue, OB504 – Leon Shinkai, OB515 – Ruixing Zhang, OB649 – Michael Ritchie, OB668 – Anonymous 29, OB687 – Hilde Risseeuw, OB705 – The Greens NSW, OB708 – Peter Mitchell, OB723 – Conor Magee

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB170 – NSW Labor, COB181 – Conor Magee, COB231 – Anonymous 29

Redistribution Committee’s proposed redistribution: On the boundaries in place at the start of the redistribution, the Divisions of Barton, Grayndler, Kingsford Smith, Sydney and Wentworth did not meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. All five of these electorates were required to gain electors. The proximity of these electorates to Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay limited the options from which electors could be transferred into some of these electorates.

To address these factors, and incorporate existing communities of interest between adjoining localities, the Redistribution Committee proposed a series of changes to the boundaries of these five electorates, including moving all or parts of the localities of Brighton-Le-Sands, Kyeemagh, Monterey, Ramsgate Beach and Rockdale from the existing Divisions of Barton and Cook to the proposed Division of Kingsford Smith, in recognition of their strong transport link along the Grand Parade.

Ideas in objections and comments on objections: The main focus in objections to the proposed redistribution was against:

• the inclusion of the localities of Brighton-Le-Sands, Kyeemagh, Monterey and Ramsgate Beach, and part of the locality of Rockdale, in the proposed Division of Kingsford Smith, and
• the proposed Division of Kingsford Smith crossing the Cooks River.

Submissions raised several arguments, including the perception that the location of the Cooks River, Botany Bay and Sydney Airport placed a geographical constraint on there being a cohesive electorate, and that the Bayside Council was not a strong indicator of a shared community of interest across these localities and electors. Submissions argued that these localities should instead be placed in the proposed Division of Barton, due to a shared community of interest with adjoining localities. To enable this, submissions tended to the view that the proposed Division of Kingsford Smith should instead gain electors from the Divisions of Sydney and/or Wentworth, with a series of compensatory changes made to one of more of the proposed Divisions of Barton, Grayndler, Sydney and Wentworth.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The augmented Electoral Commission observed that a variety of alternative electorate boundaries were proposed to accommodate the re-location of the localities of Kyeemagh, Brighton-Le-Sands, Monterey and Ramsgate Beach. Many of these alternatives did not meet the numerical constraints of the Electoral Act, or left the exact nature of the necessary changes to the augmented Electoral Commission to decide.

Some of the submissions that did result in meeting the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act only did so by advocating a series of consequential changes advancing as far west as the locality of Liverpool in the proposed Division of Fowler. Many submissions also split established and clear communities of interest across multiple proposed electorates, such as the Green Square precinct between the proposed Divisions of Kingsford Smith and Sydney.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound;
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time and would have significant consequential effects for the rest of the redistribution; and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should be adopted.

The boundaries of the proposed Divisions of Barton, Grayndler, Kingsford Smith, Sydney and Wentworth will be as proposed by the Redistribution Committee.