Tax cuts by electorate

by Matt Grudnoff

Read the full report: 2018 tax cuts by electorate.

Table of electorates

Rank Electorate Percentage
  of average
Party
1 Wentworth 192% LIB
2 North Sydney 180% LIB
3 Warringah 172% LIB
4 Sydney 167% ALP
5 Melbourne Ports 160% ALP
6 Higgins 159% LIB
7 Bradfield 158% LIB
8 Kooyong 156% LIB
9 Grayndler 154% ALP
10 Goldstein 150% LIB
11 Curtin 150% LIB
12 Brisbane 146% LIB
13 Melbourne 143% GRN
14 Canberra 140% ALP
15 Griffith 133% ALP
16 Mackellar 132% LIB
17 Kingsford Smith 131% ALP
18 Berowra 130% LIB
19 Ryan 129% LIB
20 Fenner 128% ALP
21 Perth 126% ALP
22 Reid 125% LIB
23 Cook 121% LIB
24 Mitchell 121% LIB
25 Jagajaga 118% ALP
26 Stirling 117% LIB
27 Bennelong 117% LIB
28 Hughes 116% LIB
29 Tangney 116% LIB
30 Moore 115% LIB
31 Menzies 114% LIB
32 Swan 112% LIB
33 Fremantle 111% ALP
34 Adelaide 110% ALP
35 Batman 108% ALP
36 Lilley 108% ALP
37 Bonner 107% LIB
38 Wills 107% ALP
39 Gellibrand 106% ALP
40 Deakin 105% LIB
41 Moreton 104% ALP
42 Chisholm 104% LIB
43 Maribyrnong 102% ALP
44 Eden-Monaro 102% ALP
45 Macquarie 101% ALP
46 Newcastle 101% ALP
47 Sturt 101% LIB
48 Boothby 100% LIB
49 Banks 100% LIB
50 Isaacs 99% ALP
51 Dunkley 98% LIB
52 Dickson 98% LIB
53 Aston 98% LIB
54 Cunningham 98% ALP
55 Hasluck 98% LIB
56 Robertson 97% LIB
57 La Trobe 97% LIB
58 Barton 97% ALP
59 Hotham 97% ALP
60 Hume 97% LIB
61 Moncrieff 96% LIB
62 Hindmarsh 96% ALP
63 Greenway 96% ALP
64 Bowman 96% LIB
65 Parramatta 94% ALP
66 Pearce 94% LIB
67 Flinders 94% LIB
68 Canning 93% LIB
69 Cowan 93% ALP
70 McPherson 93% LIB
71 Brand 93% ALP
73 Dawson 93% NAT
73 Casey 93% LIB
74 Fadden 93% LIB
75 Corangamite 93% LIB
76 Lindsay 92% ALP
77 Bruce 91% ALP
78 Herbert 91% ALP
79 Forrest 91% LIB
80 Denison 91% IND
81 Flynn 90% NAT
82 Shortland 90% ALP
83 Capricornia 90% NAT
84 McEwen 90% ALP
85 Leichhardt 90% LIB
86 Burt 90% ALP
87 Fairfax 90% LIB
88 Oxley 90% ALP
89 Mayo 89% CA
90 Clare 89% NAT
91 Hunter 89% ALP
92 Petrie 88% LIB
93 Whitlam 88% ALP
94 Groom 88% LIB
95 Parkes 86% NAT
96 Franklin 86% ALP
97 Bendigo 86% ALP
98 Lalor 86% ALP
99 Farrer 86% LIB
100 Ballarat 86% ALP
101 Riverina 85% NAT
102 Dobell 85% ALP
103 Macarthur 85% ALP
104 Fisher 85% LIB
105 Corio 85% ALP
106 Scullin 84% ALP
107 Indi 84% IND
108 Forde 84% LIB
109 Richmond 84% ALP
110 Makin 84% ALP
111 Paterson 83% ALP
112 Kennedy 83% KAP
113 Wright 83% LIB
114 Gippsland 83% NAT
115 New England 83% NAT
116 Gilmore 82% LIB
117 Wannon 82% LIB
118 Werriwa 81% ALP
119 McMillan 81% LIB
120 Gorton 81% ALP
121 McMahon 80% ALP
122 Mallee 80% NAT
123 Rankin 80% ALP
124 Murray 80% NAT
125 Grey 79% LIB
126 Barker 79% LIB
127 Holt 79% ALP
128 Calwell 78% ALP
129 Blair 78% ALP
130 Bass 78% ALP
131 Kingston 78% ALP
132 Chifley 78% ALP
133 Watson 78% ALP
134 Maranoa 78% ALP
135 Page 77% NAT
136 Longman 77% ALP
137 Cowper 77% NAT
138 Port Adelaide 76% ALP
139 Lyne 76% NAT
140 Wide Bay 76% NAT
141 Wakefield 73% ALP
142 Braddon 72% ALP
143 Lyons 72% ALP
144 Hinkler 71% NAT
145 Blaxland 70% ALP

Methodology

The analysis looks at the average change in disposable household income compared to the average change for the whole of Australia in 2024–25, which is the first year the income tax cuts would be fully implemented. 

While the analysis covers all budget impacts, the tax cut makes up the overwhelming majority of the changes. By way of comparison, the second largest impact on household disposable income is the Pension Work Bonus, which is estimated to cost the budget $230 million over four years. The income tax cuts are estimated to cost the budget $13.4 billion over four years and $144 billion over 10 years. Because the impact of other policy changes are so small in comparison to the tax cuts, for ease of explanation this paper will treat change in disposable income as equivalent to the impact of the tax cuts. 

The analysis was conducted by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling – NATSEM’s STINMOD+ Tax/Transfer model and SpatialMSM18 spatial microsimulation model. The models use Australian Bureau of Statistics data including data from the 2016 Census and the 2015-16 Survey of Income and Housing.  

Some electorates are excluded because they fail validation tests: both Northern Territory electorates (Lingiari and Solomon), two large rural electorates in Western Australia (O’Connor and Durack) and the Western Sydney seat of Fowler.  

Failing validation means that households within the seat were sufficiently unusual that NATSEM judged the possible error in results to be too high to produce useful results.

Related research

General Enquiries

Tanya Martin Executive Assistant

02 6130 0530

mail@australiainstitute.org.au

Media Enquiries

Jake Wishart Senior Media Adviser

0413 208 134

jake@australiainstitute.org.au

RSS Feed

All news