Why I remain a New England New Stater 8 - the electricity asset grab

Note to readers: This post is one in a series using personal examples to illustrate why I continue to support both agitation for New England self-government and self-government itself. Agitation, because its very existence forces forces the Sydney Government to consider New England interests. Self-government, because there are some things that we cannot achieve without this.

The Sydney media has been full of the Sydney Government's plans to privatise the NSW electricity system. I have very mixed feelings on this one. I suspect that it is both inevitable and desirable. But it also rubs raw a past wound.

Back in the nineteen nineties, electricity distribution was controlled by country councils, some of whom also had generation capacity. The Sydney Government put forward a reform program for the electricity sector.

At the time I was running a consulting business out of Armidale. I was also chair of Tourism Armidale. In the first role, I was interested in the electricity sector as a possible consulting marketplace. In the second, I was interested in the New England County Council as a source of tourism funding.

As part of market scoping I looked at the official Government material on the proposed reforms. Essentially these involved folding the distributors into larger corporatised entities. Two justifications were advanced.

The first lay in the national restructuring of the sector, including introduction of competition and the creation of a national electricity marketplace. This, it was argued, required larger entities. Smaller entities could not compete.

The second justification lay in enhanced efficiency. According to the NSW Treasury, the existing country councils were not subject to proper disciplines to earn returns on the assets they held. So consolidation and corporatisation would increase revenues while benefiting consumers.

Now I had problems with these arguments at the time. The New England County Council was owned by local councils and was formed through the acquisition of Council assets. Its growth had been funded by surpluses plus borrowings. The State had controlled and guaranteed those borrowings, but to my knowledge had never contributed a dollar of funding.

As part of its development, the NECC had built its own small hydro power station. This had been funded by its consumers through higher electricity prices, significantly higher than the state average. This investment had reached pay-back time. The NECC was quite profitable, generating funds for local projects, while its electricity prices were some of the cheapest in NSW.

Local concerns across NSW about the plans, about the Sydney Government's grab for assets, were ignored. So what happened?

The first thing that the Sydney Government did was to increase borrowing against the assets, thus generating cash for its own purposes. The second thing was to strip money out through dividends, creating more cash for its own purposes.

In the drive for efficiency, many jobs were cut, in cases such as linemen over cut, creating later shortages that impeded efficiency. There was also underinvestment.

Did consumers benefit? This is hard work out accurately. Certainly bigger industrial users did.

Did the original local owners of the assets benefit? Almost certainly not in the case of NECC. The area lost higher level jobs, plus access to the surplus that had been available to fund local activities. I also suspect that local electricity prices have increased more than the state average simply because they were low to begin with.

Would self-government have prevented this asset grab? Perhaps not, because the Sydney Government's approach was in part part of a broader trend in public administration. But we would have had a much higher certainty of local benefit since funds would have been spent within New England, not sucked away to help fund the inefficiencies of the broader NSW system.

Return to introductory post

Federal Election 2015 - Final results for New England's seats

I am now in the process of uploading the final election results for the various New England seats on my election post. This will take a little while.

Once I have completed the task, I will prepare some consolidated tables to provide an overview.

Clarence Valley Protest, North Coast Voices, and the election results

I think that Judith Melville (A Clarence Valley Protest) is entitled to a degree of satisfaction from the Federal election results, as is the Labor team from North Coast Voices.

Dealing with Judith first, the ALP has promised not to dam the Clarence, so now with three North Coast ALP members the river appears safe. A warning to Judith, though, from a seasoned campaigner.

This issue won't go away. New England remains the wettest part of NSW. If the climate change projections are even in part right, expect further water fights within the next ten years, possibly within five or less years.

North Coast Voices campaigned hard for the ALP. Here I have been impressed by the way since the election that the blog has been prepared to take a critical view of specific actions of the new Government.

I have written a lot on New England problems. Many parts of coastal New England are caught in a poverty trap. I look forward to NCV campaigning on their behalf.

Githabul people win land title recognition

Back in January 2015 I reported on the agreement between the Githabul people and the NSW Government about a large native title land claim over a large portion of New England. Now the claim has moved another step forward. I was going to give you a link, but the story seems to have vanished into Fairfax's digital store, so I will just report the key facts.

In the first claim in ten years settled under the Commonwealth's Native Title Legislation and the first time that the Sydney Government and an indigenous community have jointly sought a decision, the Githabul people have won rights over an area of 112,000 hectares including nine national parks and thirteen state forests in the Kyogle and Tenterfield Shires.

The decision will afford traditional owners the right of access to the area for spiritual purposes; to camp, fish, hunt and gather animals, plants and water there for non-commercial needs and to lawfully protect places of importance to them.

One thing that made me sad, though, was a comment from Trevor Close, the successful applicant of the claim. He said:

You will never see this again in NSW. Too many elders have passed away who
hold the information and language necessary to pass the evidence test.

In the midst of all the macro Australian argument about things like reconciliation and saying sorry, my concern has been much more local. Recording and preserving what we have now, while meeting the needs of New England's indigenous peoples as they are today.

New England - Federal Election Eve 2015: and the next day

Note to readers: I am now uploading final numbers for each seat. This may take a little while, so those with feeds are likely to get multiple feeds. Final results added for:

• Charlton
• Cowper
• Shortland

Australia votes tomorrow. At this stage based on opinion poll averages, the most likely outcome is a Rudd Labor Government with a majority in the range 10-20. However, there is now some confusion in the polls, suggesting that the Howard Government may be clawing back some ground.

I will provide reports on the counting in New England seats. However, because electoral boundaries keep changing I thought that it might be helpful especially for New England expats if I provided a short seat by seat description. The material that follows is drawn from the ABC's Antony Green election guide.

Charlton. Safe Labor - present margin 8.4%

A Hunter Valley based seat covering 578 sq.km on the western side of Lake Macquarie. It includes the outer suburbs of Newcastle around Wallsend and Cardiff, as well as Toronto, Wangi Wangi, Morisset and Wyee further south. While the electorate contains some agricultural industries, the district's wealth is created by coal mining, electricity generation and heavy industry.

At the last redistribution, lost areas around Warners Bay to Shortland while gaining Wallsend and Maryland from Newcastle. The Labor margin rose from 7.9% to 8.4% as a consequence.

Adjusting for boundary changes, the 2004 primary votes were:

• Labor 46.6%
• Liberal 35.2%
• Greens 8.8%
• Family First 3.7%
• One Nation 2.8%
• Australian Democrats 1.9%
• Others 1.0%

After distribution of preferences, Labor won with 58.4% to the Liberals 41.6%.

Since the, sitting Labor MP Kelly Hoare, the daughter of the previous member, lost Labor Party endorsement after representing the seat since 1998. Her place was taken by Trade Union boss Greg Combet. The whole process caused local resentment, but is unlikely to affect the outcome.

Candidates this time are:

• Ulrich, Stuart Independent
• Pritchard, Suzanne Green
• Stow, David Citizens Electoral Council
• Cook, Terry Socialist Equality Party
• Combet, Greg Labor
• Paterson, Lindsay Liberal
• Barry, Patrick Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group).

Forecast: Labor to retain with increased margin.

Update: as at 8.17 pm:

• Greg Combet, ALP, 20,998, 54.6%, up 6.6%
• Lindsay Paterson, LIB, 11,669, 30.4%, down -3.2%
• Suzanne Pritchard, GRN, 3,131, 8.1% down -0.8%

Final Results

Enrolment 91,129, turnout 95.74%

Results by candidate:

• Ulrich, Stuart: Independent - 2,008 votes, 2.41%, swing +2.41%
• Pritchard, Suzanne: Greens - 6,708 votes, 8.06%, swing -o.71%
• Stow, David: Citizens Electoral Council - 294 votes, 0.35%, swing -0.23%
• Cook, Terry: Socialist Equality Party - 404 votes, 0.49%, swing +0.49%
• Combet, Greg: Labor (elected) - 44,156 votes, 53.08%, swing +6.47%
• Paterson, Lindsay: Liberal - 26,353 votes, 31.68%, swing -3.49%
• Barry, Patrick: Independent - 1,253 votes, 1.51%, swing +1.51%
• Kendall, Jim: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) - 2,007 votes, 2.41%, swing +2.41%

Two Candidate Preferred Vote:

• Combet, Greg, Labor, 52,298, 62.87%, swing +4.47%
• Paterson, Lindsay, Liberal, 30,885, 37.13%, swing -4.47%

Cowper. Notionally safe National - present margin 6.7%

Once a Clarence Valley electorate centered on Grafton and held by Earle Page for 42 years, progressive boundary changes have moved the electorate's focus south. Today the seat covers 7,911 sq.km between the Macleay and Clarence Rivers.

In the north, the seat covers a relatively small proportion of the Clarence Valley on the south side of the river including Maclean. Moving south, the first main centres are the coastal resorts of Woolgoolga and then Coffs Harbour, the biggest centre in the electorate with a population of over 60,000.

This is followed by a number of river valleys: the Bellinger (Urunga, Bellingen), the Nambucca (Nambucca Heads, Macksville) and the majority of the Macleay (Kempsey, South West Rocks).

At the Bellinger, the electorate bulges inland to include the Tablelands around Dorrigo, once part of the New England electorate.

Adjusting for boundary changes (loss of Yamba, addition of Kempsey), the 2004 primary votes were:

• National 50.5%
• Labor 31.7%
• Greens 8.9%
• One Nation 4.2%
• Lower Excise Party 2.3%
• Australian Democrats 1.9%
• Others 0.6%

So the Nats won on the primary vote.

There are slightly fewer candidates this time:

• Hartsuykey, Luke, sitting member, Nationals
• Sekfy, Paul, Labor
• Carty, John, Greens
• Arapi-Nunez, Flavia, Family First
• Belgrave, Leon, LDP
• Lions, Deborah, Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

On 2004 results, Luke Hartsuykey should hold the seat. However, there were signs that the National position was weaker than appeared.

As a consequence, Labor dumped its originally chosen candidate John Fitzroy in September. The reported reason in newspaper stories was that Labor internal polling indicated that Cowper could fall, and Labor wanted a more experienced and better known candidate in the seat.

This is a seat where the indigenous vote is important. At 5 per cent, Cowper has the twelfth highest indigenous proportion of the population of all Australian electorates. The indigenous proportion is especially high in Kempsey and the Macleay Valley, also areas of limited employment opportunities, especially for the unskilled.

Forecast: Based on the very latest opinion polls - these do not include specific figures for this seat, however - the Nats should hold. I classify it is a possible Nationals loss.

Update as at 8.26pm

• Luke Hartsuyker, NAT, 22,378, 46.0%, -4.6%
• Paul Sekfy, ALP, 18,976, 39.0%, +6.%
• John Carty, GRN, 5,322, 10.9%, +2.5%

Final Results

Enrolment 92,767, turnout 95.15%

Results by candidate:

• Hartsuykey, Luke: sitting member, Nationals, elected - 39,444 votes, 46.54%, swing -3.92%
• Sekfy, Paul:Labor - 32,276 votes, 38.08%, swing +6.43%
• Carty, John: Greens - 9,359 votes, 11.04%, swing +2.15%
• Arapi-Nunez, Flavia: Family First - 759 votes, 0.9%, swing +0.70%
• Belgrave, Leon: LDP - 491 votes, 0.58%, swing +0.58%
• Lions, Deborah: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) - 2,428 votes, 2.86%, swing +2.86%

Two Candidate Preferred Vote:

• Hartsukyer, Luke, Nationals 43,423 votes, 51.23%, swing -5.52%
• Sefky, Paul, Labor 41,334 votes, 48.77, swing +5%

Hunter. Safe Labor - margin 11.1%

Starting in the Hunter Valley around Cessnock, Maitland and Kurri Kurri, Hunter covers 10,593 sq km and extends west and north up the New England Highway to include Singleton and Muswellbrook. The electorate's economic base is a mix of agriculture and heavy industry, being dominated by coal mining, aluminium smelting and electricity generation, but also possessing some of the country's best vineyards and richest beef cattle grazing areas.

This is Labor heartland country, with Joel Fitzgibbon holding the seat since 1996. On the adjusted boundaries, the 2004 vote was:

• Greens 6.3%
• One Nation 3.3%
• Fox, Independent 3.3%
• Citizens Electoral Council 2.9%
• Chrstian Democrats 1.7%
• Family First 1.3%.

Candidates this time are:

• Albury, Daniel, Citizens Electoral Council
• Davis, Jan, Greens
• Black, Beth, nationals
• Harvey, John Climate Change Coalition
• Fitzgibbon, Joel, Labor
• Neville, Bernie Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group).

Forecast: Labor to win with increased majority.

Update 8.34 pm

• Joel Fitzgibbon, ALP, 30,043, 59.9%, up 8.8%
• Beth Black, NAT, 13,490, 26.9%, down 3.5%
• Jan Davis, GRN, 3,277, 6.5%, up 0.1%

Lyne. Safe National - margin 13.4%

This seat is held by Mark Vaile, Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Nationals.

The seat covers 9,039 sq.km on the Mid North Coast and includes Taree and Port Macquarie. Taree in the Manning River valley is a traditional rural service town that has been re-inventing itself since the Pacific Highway by-pass was built, while Port Macquarie has seen huge growth as a retirement haven and holiday resort.

At the last redistribution, Lyne lost Kempsey to Cowper, causing the National Party margin to rise slightly from 13.0% to 13.4%.

Based on the adjusted boundaries, the 2004 vote was:

• National 56.7%
• Labor 26.6%
• Greens 4.8%
• New Country Party 3.6%
• One Nation 3.4%
• Australian Democrats 1.6%
• Family First 1.4%
• Others 2.0%

The candidates this time are:

• Wright, Barry, Independent
• Russell, Susie, Greens
• Vaile, Mark, Nationals
• Langley, James, Labor
• Scott-Irving, Stewart, Independent
• Harrison, James, Independent
• Riach, Rodger, Independent.
• Muldoon, Graeme, Citizens Electoral Council,
• Waldron, Robert Christina Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Forecast: Nats to retain with a slightly reduced majority.

Update 8.50pm

• Mark Vaile, NAT, 29,349, 51.9%, swing -4.4%
• James Langley, ALP, 18,543, 32.8%, swing +5.9%
• Susie Russell, GRN, 4,009, 7.1%, swing +2.4%

New England. Safe Independent - margin 13.6%

My own home seat, a traditional National Party seat that was held by my grandfather (David Drummond) from 1949 to 1963. Now a safe independent seat held by Tony Windsor.

Covering an area of 58,463 sq.km the seat covers much of the New England Tablelands and Western Slopes. Main towns from south to north include Quirindi, Tamworth, Armidale, Glen Innes, Inverell and Tenterfield. At the last redistribution, gained Quirindi, Werris Creek and the Liverpool Plains Council area from the abolished seat of Gwydir.

Based on the redistributed boundaries, the 2004 vote was:

• Independent 55%
• National 20.8%
• Liberal 9.6%
• Labor 9.2%
• Greens 3.3%
• One Nation 1.5%
• Citizens Electoral Council 0.6%.

The candidates this time are:

• Detman, Brian, One Nation
• Windsor, Tony, Independent
• Witten, Richard Innes, Citizens Electoral Council
• Betts, Phil, Nationals
• Brand, Luke, Country Labor
• Taylor, Bruce, Greens

Forecast: Tony to retain with a very comfortable majority.

Update 9.01 pm

• Tony Windsor, IND, 40,943, 62.2% swing + 7.%
• Phil Betts, NAT, 15,201, 23.1% swing +2.3%
• Bruce Taylor, GRN, 2,122, 3.2% swing -0.1%

Newcastle. Safe labor - margin 9.1%

Newcastle covers 335 sq.km. and lies at the mouth of the Hunter River, taking in the port district and Newcastle CBD, as well as surrounding suburbs including Merewether, Adamstown, Lambton and Waratah on the southern side of the Hunter Rover, and Stockton and Williamstown on the northern side.

Following the redistribution, the electorate lost areas around Wallsend to Charlton and now extends west towards Maitland, taking in Thornton, Woodberry, Beresfield and Tarro. Even with the closure several years ago of the BHP steel plant, the electorate retains a substantial heavy industry base, including the major coal export facility for the Hunter Valley's mines.

On the adjusted boundaries, the primary votes in 2004 were:

• Labor 45.6%
• Liberal 36.3%
• Greens 11.3%
• Australian Democrats 2.3%
• Progressive Labor Party 2.1%
• Citziens Electoral Council 1.0%
• Socialist 0.5%
• Other 1.0%.

The candidates this time are:

• East, Malcolm, Family First
• Johnson, Aaron, Democrats
• Payne, Geoff, Socialist Alliance
• Buman, Aaron, Independent
• Grierson, Sharon, Labor
• Holt, Neil, Socialist Equality Party
• Eckersley, Charmian, Greens
• Curry, Joel, Independent
• Caine, Milton, Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile group)
• Walker, Krysia, Liberal

Forecast: Labor to retain with increased margin.

Update 9.08 pm

• Sharon Grierson, ALP, 30,067, 51.6%, swing +4%
• Krysia Walker, LIB, 14,116, 24.2%, swing -10.1%
• Charmian Eckersley, GRN, 6,132, 10.5%, swing -1.4%

Page. Moderately safe National - margin 5.5%

Covering 16,091 sq.km, Page includes Grafton and those parts of the Clarence River valley on the northern side of the river, as well as Casino, Lismore and Ballina in the Richmond River valley. For those who know New England well, this is actually a very strange electorate, for it includes Grafton, one the heart of Cowper, and Lismore, the heart of Richmond. Now both Cowper and Richmond lie elsewhere.

At the last redistribution, Page gained Wollongbar and Alstonville from Richmond in exchange for the loss of Nimbin and rural northern parts of Lismore City Council. Also gained Yamba from Cowper.

On the adjusted boundaries, the 2004 primary votes were:

• National 49.7%
• Labor 33.1%
• Greens 9.6%
• Liberals for Forests 2.6%
• Outdoor Recreation Party 1.4%
• Behn 1.4%
• Citizens Electoral Council 0.9%
• Others 1.4%.

The candidates this time are:

• Behn, Doug, Independent
• Vega, Mirio, Family First
• Culverwell, John, Citizens Electoral Council
• Melland, Julia, Democrats
• Jongen, Theo, Greens
• Saffin, Janelle Labor
• Kane, Tony, Independent
• Avasalu, Rhonda, Christian Democratic Party (Fred nile Group)
• Beatty, Ben LDP
• Gulaptis, Chis, Nationals.

According to the ALP blog, North Coast Voices, this is very much a seat to watch. With the retirement of Ian Causley, the National Party has selected 52 year-old Chris Gulaptis who has lived in the Clarence Valley for the past 27 years. He is a qualified surveyor, has run his own small business, is a former Mayor of Maclean and currently serves as a Clarence Valley Councillor.

His Labor opponent is 52 year-old Janelle Saffin who comes from the opposite end of the elctorate. Janelle was a member of the NSW Legislative Council from 1995 to 2003. She was a lawyer before entering parliament, and has worked actively in the past on human rights issues. She was involved in East Timor's transition to self government, and has worked as an advisor to new President Jose Ramos Horta. She is a long-time resident of Lismore, and contested that seat at the 1991 state election.

So in the two main candidates we have the north and south of it.

Forecast: Chancing my arm, a Labor win.

Update 9.13 pm

• Janelle Saffin, ALP, 27,691, 42.3%, swing +8.8%
• Chris Gulapti. NAT, 27,94, 42.7%, swing -7.3%
• Theo Jonge, GRN, 5,185, 7.9%, swing -1.2%

Parkes. Very safe National - margin 17.5%

Parkes is really the old and now abolished Gwydir. The locals were up in arms about the abolition of Gwydir, and so was I.

Parkes now covers 107,108 sq.km. along a north-south axis covering the agricultural districts of the north western and central western slopes. From north to south it includes the major centres of Moree, Walgett, Narrabri, Gunnedah, Coonabarabran, Coonamble, Gilgandra, Dubbo, Wellington and Mudgee.

This means that the majority of the seat is in New England, but with a major southern extension.

On the new boundaries, the 2004 vote was:

• National 61.8%
• Labor 24.6%
• Independent 4.8%
• Greens 4.3%
• One Nation 3.3%
• Citizens Electoral Council 1.1%

The candidates this time are:

• Horan, Tim Independent
• Keily, Michael, Climate Change Coalition. I suspect that this is the same Michael Keily whose blog is on my regular read list.
• Haigh, Bruce, Independent
• Coulton, Mark, Nationals
• Stringer Richard, Citizens Electoral Council
• Patriarca, Margaret, Country labor
• Parmeter, Matt, Greens

Nationals candidate Mark Coulton was raised in Warialda before attending Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School in Tamworth as a boarding student. Coulton has been Mayor of Gwydir Shire Council since 2004 and has been a member of a wide variety of community organisations.

His Labor opponent is Dubbo businesswoman, Margaret Patriarca. After starting her career as a teacher, Patriarca became actively involved in community work and subsequently left teaching and worked for 25 years in social welfare including as Community Social Worker in Local Government; as a child protection caseworker and in disability, adolescent, child and family services. She moved to Dubbo with her two daughters in 1990 and currently works with her husband as Director of a family owned and operated construction company.

Again, in electoral terms, we have the north and south of it.

Forecast: Nationals to retain, but with a reduced majority. I say reduced majority only because I expect the Labor candidate to have stronger pulling power in Dubbo.

Update 9.19 pm

• Mark Coulton, NAT, 21,828, 46.2%, swing -15.5%
• Margaret Patriarca, Country Labor, 11,893, 25.2%, swing + 0.4%
• Tim Horan, IND, 10,338, 21.%
• Matt Parmeter, GR, 1,353, 2.9%, swing -1.%

Paterson. Apparently safe Liberal - margin 6.3%

Based in the lower Hunter Valley and lower New England North Coast, Paterson covers 9,373 sq.km, including the Hunter River centres of Raymond Terrace and parts of East Maitland, the resort towns around Port Stephens, agricultural districts between Dungog and Gloucester, and the holiday and retirement havens of Forster and Tuncurry.

In the last redistribution, the seat lost Thornton, Woodberry, Beresfield, Tarro and Williamstown to Newcastle, while gaining Metford, Morpeth and parts of East Maitland from Hunter. Thsi reduced the Liberal majority from 7.0% to 6.3%.

On the new boundaries the 2004 vote was:

• Liberal 46.5%
• Labor 36.3%
• Greens 4.5%
• National 4.2%
• One Nation 2.0%
• Citizens Electoral Council 1.3%
• Veterans Party 1.0%
• Family First 0.9%
• Fishing Party o.8%
• Australian Democrats 0.6%
• Others 1.9%

The candidates this time are:

• Arneman, Jim, Labor
• Hennelly, Paul, The Fishing Party
• Donnelly, Judy, The Greens
• Stokes, Christopher, Family First
• King, Tony, Citizens Electoral Council
• Haynes, Heather, Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
• Hamberger, John, One Nation
• Baldwin, Bob, Liberal

Forecast: possible Labor win.

Update 9.29 pm

• Bob Baldwin, LIB, 27,206, 47.4%, swing 0.5%
• Jim Arneman, ALP, 24,614, 42.9%, swing + 6.4%
• Judy Donnelly, GRN, 2,98, 5.2%, swing + 0.7%

Richmond. Marginal Labor - margin 1.4%

Once centerd on Lismore, this is a 2,756 sq.km at the north-east tip of New Engaalnd, including Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah in the Tweed Valley, Byron Bay and Byron Shire, some rural parts of Ballina Council north of Ballina itself, as well Nimbin and the rural northern parts of Lismore City Council.

In the redistribution, Richmond lost around 7,000 voters near Wollongbar and Alstonville to Page in exchange for Nimbin and approximately 6,000 voters in the rural northern parts of Lismore City Council. The Labor margin rose from a narrow 0.2% to a slightly more comfortable 1.4%.

On the new boundaries, the 2004 primary vote was:

• National 44.5%
• Labor 35.7%
• Greens 13.6%
• Gamily First 1.9%
• Liberals for Forests 1.9%
• Australian Democrats 1.1%
• Others 1.4%,

Despite the high National primary vote, the Nationals went down on Green preferences.

This time the candidates are:

• Farmilo, Daniel LDP
• Elliot, Justine, Labor
• Ebono, Giovanni, Greens
• Page, Sue, Nationals
• McCallum, Graham Citizens Electoral council
• Sledge, Scott, Democrats
• Raymond, Barbara, Christian Democratic Party

Forecast: Labor to hold with increased majority.

Update 10.25 am

• Justine Elliot, ALP, 27,651. 44.0%, swing + 7.8
• Sue Page, NAT, 22,744, 36.2%, swing -7.0%
• Giovanni Ebono, GRN, 9,967, 15.8%, swing + 1.3%

Shortland. Safe Labor - margin 9.2%

Shortland

Shortland covers 182 sq.km, squeezed between Lake Macquarie and the Pacific Ocean, stretching from the southern suburbs of Newcastle to the Central Coast, from Redhead to Budgewoi. Main population centres are Charlestown, Belmont, Swansea and Budgewoi.

Based on the new boundaries, the 2004 votes were:

• ALP 49.3%
• Liberal 35.8%
• Greens 8.2%
• One Nation 2.6%
• Family First 2.4%
• Australian Democrats 1.6%
• Others 0.1%

Forecast: Labour to hold with increased margin

Update 11.12 pm

• Jill Hall, ALP, 39,723, 57.1%, swing + 7.2%
• Jon Kealy, LIB, 21,328, 30.7% swing -4.9%
• Keith Parsons, GRN, 5,799, 8.3%, swing 0.4%

Final Results

Enrolment 93,192, turnout 95.78%

Results by candidate:

• Parsons, Keith: Greens - 7,097 votes, +0.15% swing
• Hall, Jill: Labor (elected) - 48,525 votes, +7.40% swing
• Kealy, Jon: Liberal - 26,620 votes, -4.69% swing
• Reeves, Mathew: Family First - 1,644 votes, -0.49% swing
• Wallace, Les: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) - 1,655 votes, +1.93% swing

Two candidate preferred vote:

• Hall, Jill, Labor, 55,379 votes, 64.74%, swing +5.50%
• Kealy, John, Liberal, 30,162 votes, 35.26%, swing -5.50%

Election 2015 Worrying times for New England's Nationals

As we enter the last week of the Federal election campaign, the New England scene is now looking decidedly difficult for the coalition in general and the Nationals in particular.

There are eleven Federal seats in New England, broken up into Labor 5, Nats 4, Liberal Party and independents one each. The latest Galaxy poll in the Telegraph shows an average swing to the ALP across the NSW marginals including the New England seats of of 7.5%.

On this swing, the Liberals could lose Paterson, the Nationals Page and Cowper. New England would then be Labor 8, Nats 2, independent one.

I have continued to read North Coast Voices, the ALP supporters blog. Given that it seems very likely that Mr Rudd will win the election, it will be interesting to see if Federal ALP can effectively represent both Northern Rivers and broader New England interests. While experience with state Labor is far from encouraging, the Federal Party is a different beast.

Postscript

I see from later information that the poll in question did not include any New England seats, so that leaves the whole thing even more up in the air.

New England's Federal Electorates - Cowper

This, the first of a series of reports on New England's federal electorates, examines Cowper.

Location

Once a Clarence Valley electorate centered on Grafton and held by Earle Page for 42 years, progressive boundary changes have moved the electorate's focus south. Today the seat covers 7,911 sq.km between the Macleay and Clarence Rivers.

In the north, the seat covers a relatively small proportion of the Clarence Valley on the south side of the river including Maclean. Moving south, the first main centres are the coastal resorts of Woolgoolga and then Coffs Harbour, the biggest centre in the electorate with a population of over 60,000.

This is followed by a number of river valleys: the Bellinger (Urunga, Bellingen), the Nambucca (Nambucca Heads, Macksville) and the majority of the Macleay (Kempsey, South West Rocks). At the Bellinger, the electorate bulges inland to include the Tablelands around Dorrigo, once part of the New England electorate.

Economic and Demographic Change

Cowper is the poorest electorate in Australia.

According to the 2006 Census, Cowper has the nation's lowest median family income ($799), the highest proportion earning less than $650 per week (36.9%) and the lowest proportion earning more than $2,000 per week (7.0%). On official measures, unemployment is over 10 per cent. Real unemployment is significantly higher.

The raw economic data reflects an electorate undergoing fundamental change. The traditional rural industries of timber and dairying have declined in importance, being replaced by lower income generating activities of tourism and retirement. Attracted by the area's beauty, pockets of counter culture and alternative life style, especially Bellingen and Dorrigo, sit side by side with traditional activities.

At 5 per cent, Cowper has the twelfth highest indigenous proportion of the population of all Australian electorates. The indigenous proportion is especially high in Kempsey and the Macleay Valley, also areas of limited employment opportunities, especially for the unskilled.

Demographic Details

By way of background to the following, there are 150 Federal electorates in all.

129,465 people live in Cowper, nearly half now in Coffs Harbour. While I have not checked the demographics in detail, I would expect this dominance to increase both through tourism and because of the location of Government activities in Coffs.

This is an ageing electorate.

Nationally, it is the 12th oldest in the 65+ age bracket, with 18.2% of the population aged 65 or over. The proportion of those under 5 (5.5%) is the 23rd lowest, the proportion (50.5%) in the key working 25 to 64 years group is the 20th lowest. Only in the 5-14 year group (14.6%) does Cowper score better, coming in at 96th.

On another measure, at 30.2%, Cowper has the tenth lowest proportion in the country of couples with dependent children. On the other hand, at 14.7% it has the 5th highest proportion of one parent families with dependant children in the country.

Overall, Cowper's median age of 43 makes it the third oldest electorate in the country.

Turning to other indicators.

At 9.9%, Cowper has the 26th lowest proportion of overseas born, the 17th lowest (just 2.6%) born in non-English speaking countries. With a Christian proportion of 68.7%, it is the 42nd most Christian electorate in the country.

Compared to the national average, Cowper kids are more likely to be attending a Government school (72.5 per cent, 28th highest in the country), while the population as a whole has significantly less formal education: the proportion of the population completing year 10 or below is 55.8%, the eighth highest proportion in the country.

Cowper people are also less likely to have an Iiternet connection; 53% of households have some form of internet connection, the 22nd lowest proportion in the country. Only 27.5% have broadband.

On the other hand, Cowper residents are far more likely to won their own home outright than the national average, with 41.1% of all dwellings fully owned the 12th highest proportion in the country.

Those buying in the process of buying their own home face lower repayments: the median monthly housing loan repayment in Cowper was $1,031, the 32nd lowest figure in the country. At $168, median weekly rents are lower, with Cowper coming in at 41.

Past Voting Patterns

This has been traditional Country or National Party territory for many years, although there has been some erosive effect because of economic and demographic change.

On the seat's new boundaries, the primary vote at the last election was Nationals 50.5%, ALP 31.7% and Greens 8.9%. The higher than average Green vote is a measure of the presence of alternative counter culture views.

The sitting National member, Luke Hartsuyker, is contesting the seat again. This should make the seat a safe National seat. However, the seat is still one to watch.

A sign of this was Labor's decision in September to dump its originally chosen candidate John Fitzroy for Paul Sekfy. According to Antony Green, the reported reason in newspaper stories was that Labor internal polling indicated that Cowper could fall, and Labor wanted a more experienced and better known candidate in the seat.

References

Paul Nelson, Electoral division rankings: Census 2006 first release (2006 electoral boundaries), Parliamentary Library, Canberra October 2015.

Antony Green's election guide

Why I remain a New England New Stater 5 - the case of Tasmania

Note to readers: This post is one in a series using personal examples to illustrate why I continue to support both agitation for New England self-government and self-government itself. Agitation, because its very existence forces forces the Sydney Government to consider New England interests. Self-government, because there are some things that we cannot achieve without this.

As I write the Federal election is raging. As always, Tasmania is receiving a fair bit of attention. And cash. Senator Harradine showed what could be done to extract benefits for a state from a position of power

New England is far bigger than Tasmania, yet receives almost no attention. Not for us the Harradine largess .

This is a very clear case where statehood would improve our position through increased bargaining power.

Now one could argue - I have often heard this argument - that Tasmania should not receive these benefits. That is small consolation to those concerned with New England and its neglect.

Return to introductory post

New England's Federal Electorates - Welcome Visitor 8,000

Welcome to visitor 8,000 who came to visit via a Google Australia search on government electorates, New England NSW.

Looking at his visit, I realised that while I have previously listed state seats, I have not provided a complete Federal list. So, for the record, a list of Federal seats follows in alphabetical order. A full list of all seats by state can be found here.

• Charlton. Safe Labor - margin 8.4.
• Cowper Safe National - margin 6.6.
• Hunter. Safe Labor - margin 11.1.
• Lyne. Safe National - margin 13.4
• New England. Safe Independent - margin 13.6
• Newcastle. Safe Labor - margin 9.1
• Page. On paper, moderately safe National - margin 5.5.
• Parkes (most). Safe National - margin 17.5.
• Paterson. Safe Liberal - margin 6.3.
• Richmond. Marginal Labor - margin 1.4.
• Shortland. Safe Labor - margin 9.2.

Why I remain a New England New Stater 4 - Cockington Green

Note to readers: This post is one in a series using personal examples to illustrate why I continue to support both agitation for New England self-government and self-government itself. Agitation, because its very existence forces forces the Sydney Government to consider New England interests. Self-government, because there are some things that we cannot achieve without this.

When I was chair of Tourism Armidale, we set ourselves the target of doubling visitor spend to the city and surrounding regions. To do this, we needed to increase visitor numbers and the amount that people spent while visiting. Increasing the average length of stay was critical to the second.

During my time as chair there were a number of examples that I could use as illustrations in this series. This post deals with one, visitor statistics.

Effective planning starts with data about the current position. While out core focus was on the domestic Australian marketplace, we were also interested in international visitors. Here we found almost no usable information at all. The only New England data available was aggregated data on the Hunter and Coffs Habour.

When we investigated this, we found that the international visitor data was based on surveys and that, as part of this, each state or territory was allowed to nominate (from memory) twelve attractions for inclusion in the survey. New England got two of the twelve.

By contrast, Cockington Green (a miniature village in the ACT) was identified as an attraction in its own right. So we had very little information for an entire region, while the ACT obtained information on a relatively small local attraction.

There was no way to overcome this problem other than paying for our own survey, something that we could not afford as a community organisation. Any additional New England inclusions in the exiting system required a Sydney attraction to be dropped, and that was not going to happen.

This type of problem was replicated time and time again during my time as chair and still holds today. Clearly this is a case where self-government would have been a major help since the state of New England would have had its own section in the survey, including twelve attractions.

Return to introductory post

Why I remain a New England New Stater 3 - the conservation laboratory case

More than twenty years ago I was involved in moves to establish a conservation laboratory in Armidale.

I thought that this was a pretty good idea. New England records were rotting away. It was expensive to send them to Sydney. Why not create some local infrastructure?

To make this work, we had to get some economies of scale. Not a problem, I thought. We will treat it as a New England lab servicing the broader New England area including the Hunter, North Coast and Western Slopes and Plains. Those in Newcastle might still prefer to use Sydney because it was closer than Armidale, but overall we should get sufficient scale.

The then conservationist at the New England Regional Art Museum carefully explained that the existing labs in Sydney were underutilised. There was no way the NSW Government would fund an extra lab in those circumstances.

But, I said, New England people are not using this service because of cost and distance. That does not matter, I was told. Looking at it from a state perspective, you cannot justify a new facility when existing ones are underutilised. The idea ultimately died.

Would a New England New State Movement have helped? Probably, because it would have given us additional political strength to overcome the Sydney problem.

Return to introductory post.

Why I remain a New England New Stater 2- Industry Representation

All Government's use advisory bodies of one type or another to provide external input. While the strength of those bodies varies, collectively they have a significant impact on the development of policy.

Recognising that economic activity across NSW varies, one might expect that New Englanders would have membership of those bodies roughly proportional to population. However, it does not work that way.

A number of years ago I was asked by the national president of an industry association to put forward some names for consideration by the NSW Government for membership of a particular body. The aim was to get broader representation.

I deliberately put forward some names from regional NSW, including a New Englander. The New Englander was head of a firm in a new industry area that had been developing an international reputation.

All the names were rejected by the NSW Government Department on the simple, practical grounds that selection of people from outside Sydney would create greater administrative difficulties and also increase costs through payments for travel and accommodation.

Fair enough, perhaps. But this decision had two effects. First, it meant that there was no regional input at all into what was meant to be a body advising on the state as a whole. Secondly, it cost those I nominated the chance to build a broader reputation.

In broad terms, Governments appoint those that they know. Yes, there are now all sorts of policies and procedures intended to ensure fair and representative treatment in appointments. Yet the reality is that the really hard part is to get that first appointment.

This is an example of a systemic weakness, one that compounds with time.

Would New State agitation help? Yes, because it would force Governments to look at ways of accommodating New England representation.

Back to introductory post.

Why I remain a New England New Stater 1 - Introduction

I was asked the other day why I still pursued the dream for New England Statehood. I know that time has moved against me. But I still think that this is the only way to control our future in a meaningful sense.
Let me take a simple, practical, if disguised example.

Note to reader: Upon reflection, I have removed the example because I felt uncomfortable that it might be recognised even though disguised. I will use some other examples in later posts to make the point.

Still later: I have decided to use this post as an introductory post for a series of short posts using a range of examples to explain why I think that New England's future really depends upon the renewal of agitation for self government, the reactivation of the New England New State Movement.

At one level it does not matter whether we get self-government or not, although that remains my personal aspiration. In simple political terms, the very existence of new state agitation forces Governments to recognise and respond to New England needs in a way that does not presently happen.

The examples that I will use are all drawn from my own experience. They show the often unseen ways in which existing structures work against New England interests. Longer term reforms cannot be achieved without changing those structures. In the short term, political pressure can force responses from existing structures.

Some of the examples will seem small, even trivial. But it is the overall pattern that I want to draw out, because the cumulative effects are not trivial in the slightest.

Posts in the series:

• Why I remain a New England New Stater 2 - Industry Representation
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 3 - the conservation laboratory case
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 4 - Cockington Green
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 5 - the case of Tasmania
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 6 - conflicts in NSW tourism branding
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 7 - the case of the big river
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 8 - the electricity asset grab
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 9 - the price of neglect
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 10 - the sad case of Newcastle
• Why I Remain a New England New Stater 11 - capturing local talent
• Why I remain a New England Stater 12 - frustrations with New England tourism
• Why I remain a New England New Stater 13 - the fallacy of the NSW economy
• New States and Ontario
• Sydney's 1995 electricity heist

Lismore's CBD feels the pinch of dollar drain

Interesting story in the Lismore Northern Star about the challenges facing retailers in the Lismore CBD where retail sales are down. Part of the problem is apparently due to a revamped Lismore Shopping Square, but Lismore also faces a broader problem.

According to Lismore Unlimited president Phil Hanlon. Lismore shopper dollars are being lured away from its CBD not just by a revamped Lismore Shopping Square, but to a Gold Coast made more accessible by improved roads. “You can be at Robina or Pacific Fair in an hour and a half and shop all weekend – you can’t shop in Lismore all weekend,” he said.

Mr Hanlon suggests that the dollar drain was more dramatic than most people realised, estimating between $200 million and $300 million crossing the NSW/Queensland border from the Northern Rivers each year.

Pressure on Lismore has also also came from the coast where, over the past few years, retail business between Lennox Head and Byron Bay had doubled.

Lismore is fighting back, trying to reach the 750,000 people living just over the border in Queensland. But it's not easy.

I found the story interesting in its own right, but also because it illustrates some of the changes taking place in New England, changes that help explain New England's relatively poor economic performance together with the decline in its sense of self-identity.

Our problem is that New England is squeezed, cannibalised, between the growing Sydney and Brisbane conurbations.

In an earlier story I spoke of the way in which Newcastle in the south was now being treated by the Sydney Government as simply another part Greater Sydney. This story shows the fragmentation process in the north.

Like Mr Hanlon, when I was chair of Tourism Armidale I used to talk about the opportunities offered by the big population concentrations to the north and south of Armidale. But it's very hard to do anything meaningful to fight back when everything has to be done at an increasingly fragmented local level.

Why I remain a New England New Stater 10 - the sad case of Newcastle

Note to readers: This post is one in a series using personal examples to illustrate why I continue to support both agitation for New England self-government and self-government itself. Agitation, because its very existence forces forces the Sydney Government to consider New England interests. Self-government, because there are some things that we cannot achieve without this.

I was listening to a radio discussion on the way home from work. A southern commentator compared the favourable treatment (and publicity) that cities like Hobart or Adelaide obtained compared to Newcastle. The reason given was that they were state capitals, whereas Newcastle was treated simply as an extension of Sydney.

I think it true that Newcastle is much neglected.

From the time the Hawkesbury rail bridge was opened to Sydney with rail freight rates set so as to attract freight from elsewhere in New England to Sydney, the city has suffered as Sydney's much smaller and poorer second cousin.

Would Newcastle have benefited from New England statehood, given that it would not have been capital? It is hard to argue otherwise. As New England's major city, Newcastle would necessarily have attracted attention and promotion in a way not possible in NSW.

In 1967 Newcastle voted no to self-government out of loyalty to the then Labor Party who opposed separation. I think that I would challenge those in Newcastle who opposed self-government in 1967 to name a single thing that Newcastle has gained since that the city would not have gained as part of New England.

Since 1967 Newcastle has declined in relative terms. The city is no longer as important or relevant as it was. Some of the decline has been due to broader causes such as industrial change. However, part of it is due to the way that Newcastle has been increasingly sidelined within NSW.

Return to introductory post.

New England Australia - Newcastle's decline

I think that many Newcastle people would be surprised by the heading of this post. But it's true.

Growing up, those in country NSW used to refer to NSW as Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Now NSW should be written nSw.

Growing up, Newcastle was NSW's second city, the biggest city in New England. It had a unique and distinct place. That place is going.

The use of language by the NSW Government and the Sydney media shows this clearly.

I was surprised during the last elections to find that the Sydney Morning Herald included the Lower Hunter in its central coast election maps. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. But then I found a series of NSW Government maps that simply showed Newcastle as part of Greater Sydney.

We can see this in the NSW State Plan where Newcastle is treated as one of Sydney's ring cities.

Newcastle people really need to watch this or the place will become just another Sydney suburb.

The Clarence River and the Great Big Water Grab 2 - the issues

Photo: Clarence River near Ulmarra

In my last post I spoke of Mr Turnbull's grab for the waters of the Clarence River to provide water to the people of Brisbane and South East Queensland. In this post I want to spell out the issues as I see them as simply and as clearly as I can.

Any proposal of this type will generate opposition as well as a range of responses, especially from those with environmental concerns. These are important issues that need to be addressed. But I think that there is a broader set of principles involved.

As a statement of general principle, most if not all Government decisions over resources create a pattern of winners and losers.

In the case of the Big River, the immediate losers are the people of the Northern Tablelands and the Northern Rivers who lose access to a resource, the winners are the people of Brisbane and SE Queensland who gain water.

There are direct and indirect or longer term losses associated with the Clarence proposal. Direct losses include the potential affect on the livelihood of those who depend upon the river. Indirect losses include the opportunity costs associated with loss of alternative uses of the water.

There are no benefits that I can see for the people of New England to offset these losses. All benefits flow to the people of Brisbane and SE Queensland. To add salt to the wound, to the degree that the Turnbull proposal involves tax payer money, then the people of New England will in fact be subsidising Brisbane.

This leads me to my first conclusion. If the dam is to proceed, the people using the water should pay the full cost of the water including any direct losses plus opportunity costs, the people of New England should be compensated for those losses and costs.

Two issues then arise. How do we place a value on the losses and opportunity costs? What mechanism might be used to distribute the payment for the losses and opportunity costs?

These are not easy questions to answer to begin with, with the difficulties increased by the absence of any form of New England Government.

To illustrate this last point, consider the difficulties facing the NSW Government in responding to this issue.

The NSW Government does not recognise the New England I am talking about as an entity in any sense what so ever. This makes it hard for it to deal with the issue.

The Iemma Government faces a second problem in that adoption of the approach I am talking about would in fact seriously constrain the future freedom of the NSW Government to do as it wills. Here we have already seen in the case of the proposed Tillegra dam that Sydney itself is quite prepared to play water politics, to override local interests, to gain immediate political advantage.

In all these circumstances, I think that the most that we can expect from the NSW Government is a political response determined by its judgement about the various political forces involved.

This leads me to my second conclusion. If we cannot rely on either the Federal Government or State Government to recognise, let alone respect, the New England interest, then it is up to the people of New England to discuss and present issues in a way that forces consideration of the New England interest. The starting point here needs to be a revived conversation about possible uses of the waters of the Clarence.

I say conversation because I do not think that there is any present agreement even on the issues themselves. I may be wrong, but I have the strong impression that the water grab took people by surprise even though it has been clear for some time that water politics would lead to such moves.

In the meantime, political forces are likely to stall the dam in the short term.

The Federal ALP has attacked the dam, while the Federal National Party itself is vulnerable in some New England electorates. However, the issue will not go away. For that reason, I think it important that the conversation be pursued.

The Clarence River and the great big water grab.

Map: Clarence River Valley

I am of course sorry that SE Queensland is suffering from water shortages. But if they want water, they can bloody well get it from elsewhere.

The point? The Federal Government says that Brisbane should solve its water problems via a dam on the Clarence River. This is a big New England River that rises in the New England Tablelands. It is totally within New England.

Leave aside environmental considerations. If Brisbane is to get water from a New England river then they should pay full price so that money can be used to build New England.

If this happens then there is at least a payback. But at this point there is no suggestion that there will be any payment.

NSW Elections 2015 - New England Outcomes

I have now had a chance to go through all the results for the New England seats in the recent elections for the NSW Parliament.

There are twenty New England seats in the Legislative Assembly including Barwon, a seat that is only part New England. It is too hard to go through on a booth by booth basis in Barwon to separate the New England booths, so I have treated Barwon as a New England seat.

I have a problem in presenting the results in that I have still to work out how to create a table in a blog post, so I still have to present the results in text form.

Labor (ALP plus Country Labor) ran candidates in all twenty seats, gaining 30 per cent of the vote (NSW average 39 per cent), winning six seats, down two. Labor seats are all in the Lower Hunter - Cessnock, Charlestown, Maitland, Newcastle, Swansea and Wallsend.

Country Labor is a strange beast. Registered as a separate party to give the ALP some country exposure, it remains a creature of its parent. Country Labor runs in inland seats only ( the coast is no longer classified as country) and garnered 3.1 per cent of the total vote.

While I have not calculated figures for the previous election, the combined Labor vote was down because, among other things, of the independent challenge.

The National Party contested thirteen of the twenty seats, gaining 28.78 per cent of the vote (NSW average 10.1 per cent), winning nine seats, up one. National Party seats are spread outside the Lower Hunter - Ballina, Barwon, Clarence, Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Myall Lakes, Oxley, Tweed and Upper Hunter.

The Liberal Party contested six of the twenty seats, gaining 8.53 per cent of the vote (NSW average 26.9 per cent), winning one seat - Port Stephens. This is the first time for a number of years that the Liberal Party has held a New England seat.

The combined coalition primary vote (Nationals plus Liberals) in New England totalled 37.31 per cent, slightly higher than the NSW average of 37 per cent.

Twenty three independents contested thirteen of the twenty seats, gathering a collective 21.17 per cent of the vote (NSW average 8.9 per cent), winning four seats - Lake Macquarie, Port Macquarie, Northern Tablelands and Tamworth. In addition to the headline independent candidates who attracted the core attention, independents in fact score quite well in a number of other seats.

The Greens contested all twenty seats, gained 8.3 per cent of the vote (NSW average 9 per cent), winning no seats. I had expected the Green percentage to be higher, above the state average, because of the higher Green vote in parts of the coastal strip and especially the far North East seats. However, this was offset be very low Green votes in inland seats.

Four other minor parties also contested the election:

• the Christian Democratic Party contested ten of the twenty seats, gaining 1.38 per cent of the vote (NSW average 2.5 per cent)
• Australians Against Further Immigration contested ten of the twenty seats gaining 0.89 per cent of the vote (NSW average 1.5 per cent). Here I looked especially at Tamworth where AAFI had high hopes of gaining votes from the refugee dispute. I was please to see that AAFI gained just 435 votes (0.98 per cent).
• The Fishing Party contested two seats, gaining 0.54 per cent of the vote (NSW average 0 per cent)
• The Australian Democrats contested four of the twenty seats, gaining o.38 per cent of the vote (NSW average 0.5 per cent).

Following the 2003 election, the New England party distribution was ALP 9, NP 8, independents 3. Accepting that a New England Assembly would have had more seats, the proportions would likely have been the same. On this basis, the most likely outcome in 2003 would have been an ALP minority Government kept in power with independent support.

This time, the Party composition of a New England Lower House would be National 9, Liberal 1, Labor 6, independent 4. The most likely outcome would have been a coalition or National Government, again kept in power with independent support.

Mind you, the dynamics in a self-governing New England would have been different. Freed of the tarnish of the NSW Labor Government, it seems quite likely that a New England ALP Government would have been able to retain power.

NSW Elections 2015 New England Seat Results

I will do a post on the election outcomes across New England a little later.

In the meantime, for members of the New England diaspora interested in the results, I have put up an overall post on my personal blog. This includes links to the Electoral Commission where you can find detailed results for seats of interest down to the individual booth level.

If you are not sure which seat you are interested in because of boundary changes, you can do a town or locality search that will tell you.