Winning the suburbs is the key to winning elections.

 

There’s a great line from the comedy show Kath & Kim, where the very suburban Kim expresses her desire to be like affluent city people. “I want to be effluent Mum," she says. "You ARE effluent, Kim," replies the equally suburban Kath.

The new political geography of affluent inner urban residents viewing life differently (and voting differently) to suburban and regional voters was proven again in the recent Australian Federal Election of 2025. The geographic pattern has previously been obvious in booth-by-booth results for recent State and Local Government elections, and the same happened for the Federal poll.

Inner city areas of our major urban areas are two things at the same time: they are much wealthier than suburban city dwellers, and more inclined to vote for far left/Green causes. The concentration of affluence in inner cities has been underway for many years, as inner urban areas were gentrified. Whether it is Sydney’s Balmain, Melbourne’s Richmond, or Brisbane’s New Farm, once working class/industrial areas are now home to the wealthiest people, living in the most expensive real estate, enjoying the highest levels of urban amenity and living the highest standards of living. They’re increasingly oblivious to the lives and issues of their fellow Australians.

This graph shows how it looks for Brisbane’s New Farm and West End, compared to middle and outer suburban areas. The same story is repeated across other cities in the country.

This level of income disparity also explains why voters in these areas view life differently to the suburbs. Worried about waiting lists for health care? Nope, they have the highest levels of private health cover. Worried about school class sizes or education generally? Nope, their kids attend the best private schools. Worried about the cost of groceries? Nope, they shop at Harris Farm markets in trendy areas. Worried about the cost of fuel? Nope, they probably have a taxpayer subsidised Tesla (soon to be traded in protest at Elon Musk’s MAGA conversion). Worried about crime and personal safety? Not really, they have private security or live in impenetrable apartments. Worried about being told you have to return to the office and can no longer work from home? Not really, the office for them is very close to home, plus they probably have managerial positions. Worried about immigration, housing shortages and the housing affordability issue? Not really, they can afford to live in high end areas and will outbid others if that’s what it takes. Worried about the cost of electricity? No, they can afford it - but are more worried about carbon emissions and climate change – so the very high cost of energy transition is worth it.

It's the irony of modern politics though that these affluent inner-city residents are also the ones most likely to vote for leftist/Green causes – many of which are anathema to their own interests. There would not be too many suburban superannuation accounts with over $3million that will be subject to an unrealised gains tax, for example.

The political reality is that the suburbs are different – they think differently and what appeals to the ‘big end of town’ interests associated with the inner-city set will not appeal to the suburbs. When Peter Dutton suggested Federal Government public servants must return to the office 5 days a week, he was talking like an entitled and clueless CBD building owner. He might have had privileged Canberra bureaucrats in mind, but the message had massive collateral damage in suburbia where congestion, commutes, school pick ups and drop offs and the cost of living are seeing quality of life go backwards. It did not go down well, especially with women.

Political parties and their leadership invariably gravitate toward the ‘big end of town’ - with major corporates, institutions, Universities, media organisations and others keen to associate with them and to press their arguments over fine meals in luxury boardrooms. But this could also be deadly for political leaders, whose time may in future be better spent in a suburban nail salon, coffee shop or gym where they will hear very different opinions on almost every topic. 

So detached have the views of the inner city set drifted from mainstream suburbia, that you wonder if a political party could actually grow on the basis of being the antithesis of the inner city zeitgeist. Like George Costanza in Seinfeld, just do the opposite?  

The maps below show Federal Election primary vote results by booth, based on Electoral Commission data, and reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.  The red dots are where Labor polled the most primary votes, the green are for greens, blue for Liberals, and grey for Independents (left leaning Teals in Sydney). The colours show the party with the largest primary vote – they do not take into account preferences or seat wins/losses.

I am just showing Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne – which combined account for two thirds of the Australian population. If you can’t win here, you can’t win.

(Above) The clustering of green votes in inner city booths of Brisbane closely aligns with the highest income areas of the city. Labor dominated across most suburbs.

(Above) A wider view of South East Queensland shows the greens strength is confined to inner Brisbane, and does not extend to the Gold or Sunshine Coasts. Just south of here however is Northern NSW – a very strong green voting area (and a very wealthy one also). Liberals won the primary vote counts in Gold and Sunshine Coasts which are arguably more likely to house retirees or working boomers. This map covers a population of around 4 million – 15% of the entire country.

(Above) In Sydney, the independent/Teals votes are strongest in the wealthiest inner-city areas around the harbour. Labor did well everywhere else.

(Above) A wider view of Sydney, where Labor dominated the suburbs. This map covers roughly 5 million people – or around 20% (one in five) of all people in Australia.

(Above) Inner city Melbourne is another Greens stronghold, where the greens vote also closely follows the geography of urban wealth.

(Above) Greens in the centre city, and Labor in the suburbs. The liberal vote across suburban Melbourne was nowhere near enough to get it over the line. More than one in five Australians live in the area shown by this map.

Slow down!

Many in the development community cite population growth as a necessary ingredient for market health. To some extent, that’s true – except when it isn’t. Recent ABS data for population growth in Australia might have some cheering, while others will be worried.

In South East Queensland for example, Logan grew in one year by just a smidge under 4%. Ipswich grew by 3.5% in the same year. Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast all grew by around 2.5%. There are similar numbers being reported in high growth corridors of all our major cities.  

 

Developers may celebrate these numbers. Many real estate salespeople actively promote them as reasons to have confidence in further real estate price rises. But in a world which is allegedly worried about housing affordability, is that a good thing?

More than that, market boosters are typically not the ones left with responsibility for the social and other infrastructure that is needed to support that growth. Growing hospital wait lists and bed shortages, growing classroom and school sizes, crowded roads, repairs to roads, footpaths, parks, strained public transport – none of these are responsibilities of the boosters, but instead fall to State and Local Governments which are under increasing pressure to keep up with the growth, and which are generally not coping.

For context, the World Bank once declared that countries with population growth rates above 2% were risking third world conditions. We have places in Australia doing double that. Saying that growth is good irrespective of the rate of growth is a bit like saying that driving through a school zone doing 100kph during drop off or pick up hours isn’t a problem. There’s a difference between being responsible, where risks to the community are identified and mitigated, and reckless. We are verging on reckless.

Nearly all of Australia’s population growth is a direct result of Federal immigration policy. We’re having fewer and fewer children – our birth rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate of 2.0. Some argue this is because housing has become too expensive that young families are electing to have fewer or no children because affording them and a house in their younger years is no longer an option. So the Federal government can pump up the growth stats through immigration and accepts no responsibility for the impacts at ground zero – which is increasingly in our major capital cities.

“But it’s a good problem to have” some will say. I am starting to question that. The evidence all around us should be telling us we have serious issues. Our increasingly unresponsive, cumbersome and costly regulatory mechanisms are simply incapable of keeping up. The planning process seems to be slowing down at the same time as demand is accelerating. Costs are piling up at the very time we have an affordability problem – not just for houses, but for pretty much anything that requires building something – anything at all .

How many years of zero growth might we need just to catch up? It’s an interesting but moot point. Hardly likely to happen. More helpful is to think about how countries with falling populations are faring. Surely if growth is essential, these countries must be in a dire position with falling prices and collapsing standards of living.

Japan is one such country. Their population is shrinking, by around 0.5% per annum. They reached ‘peak Japan’ of 128 million back in 2008 – and have been shrinking since. But here’s a chart of the Japanese real estate index since 2015. 

No collapse here. In fact, prices rose by around 3.5% in the last year. Sure, they are down on the crazy peak of the early 1990s, but that was a speculative bubble that puts Bitcoin to shame. It burst as fast as it ballooned.

Japan’s standard of living, educational institutions, national GDP, employment and other indicators are all reasonably healthy. This despite a shrinking population since 2008.

Japan isn’t alone. Here’s a map of countries with declining populations. Yes, that’s China, Russia, and much of Europe including economic powerhouse Germany, in contraction mode.

 

According to Reuters, who predict a 3.5% growth in house prices for Germany this year, “Fuelled by years of low interest rates and strong demand, the property market in Europe's largest economy boomed until a post-pandemic surge in borrowing and construction costs quickly turned it into one of the hardest-hit markets in a global real estate slump.” No mention of shrinking population as the cause of the slump, which is now being shrugged off despite a falling population.

I’m not suggesting we throw ourselves into reverse gear. But it does seem pretty clear that rates of population growth of over 2% or 2.5% are very high by world standards when it comes to advanced economies, and are more typical of third world nations. They are not only detrimental to our ability to maintain our standards of living, but actively eroding them. Plus, if other nations can actually survive with stable or even shrinking populations, without immediate signs of real estate market collapse or dire economic circumstance, maybe it’s time the growth narrative in Australia was given some serious thought.