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.