Everything you need to know about Grayndler, a tiny but mighty jewel in Labor's crown
The Greens candidate has been publicly critical of Albanese-led Labor's approach to climate and the environment, and their handling of the conflict in Gaza, which saw many protesters camp outside the prime minister's electorate office in Marrickville for months on end, forcing staff to abandon the site in mid-2024 over safety concerns.
Thomas is second on Albanese's how-to-vote card, though she has put him third, behind two-time Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker David Bradbury, who is running as an independent. Other candidates include Liberal's David Smallbone, Pauline Hanson's One Nation's Rodney Smith, and Trumpet of Patriots' Cheri Rae Burrell.
What were the results for Grayndler in 2022?
You can take a look at the interactive below, or search this interactive map for more information on electorates and candidates.
To summarise, Albanese won Grayndler in 2022 with 53.63 per cent of votes, followed by Greens candidate Rachael Jacobs at 22.04 per cent.
Loading
What suburbs are in Grayndler?
The Australian Electoral Commission's recent redrawing of boundaries has meant Grayndler has gone from being Australia's smallest electorate – it was previously 32 square kilometres – to the country's second-smallest electorate at 34 square kilometres.
Covering most of Sydney's Inner West Council area, Grayndler includes Annandale, Ashfield, Enmore, Haberfield, Leichardt, Marrickville, parts of Newtown, Petersham, Rozelle, Stanmore, Summer Hill, and Tempe. The recent redistribution of boundaries means the Sydney electorate has gained the Balmain peninsula north of the City West Link at Grayndler's loss, though areas south of Marrickville Road has been added to the portfolio at Barton's loss.
Grayndler also picked up territory that was formerly Watson's, including Ashbury, Croydon Park and Enfield. This has helped the Labor versus the Greens margin to increase to 17.3 per cent from 17.1 per cent.
Is Albanese likely to retain Grayndler?
To put a long story short, it's assumed he will, but Albanese is not immune to criticism from Grayndler residents and political rivals, including the Greens.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
7 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Tony Burke bans Israeli politician from Australia as senior MP Simcha Rothman slapped with three-year ban
An Israeli politician has had his visa cancelled by the Albanese Government, just a day before he was set to arrive for events with the Jewish community. Current Israeli politician, Simcha Rothman, who is part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Coalition, has been banned for three years from visiting Australia. Rothman, who holds the senior position of Chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, applied for a visa which was approved about two weeks ago. He was set to speak at synagogues, in Jewish schools and hold meetings with the Jewish Community. The Australian Jewish Association's chief executive, Robert Gregory, said this now a pattern of behaviour where guests invited by Jewish organisations are having their visas cancelled at late notice. 'The purpose of his tour was to show solidarity with the Australian Jewish community that has been experiencing a wave of antisemitism,' he said. 'We'd organised visit to see the burnt synagogue of Addis in Melbourne. 'People in Israel are very worried about the situation for Jews in Australia, that's why he wanted to come.' Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke's office was contacted for comment.
Perth Now
7 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘Be careful': Barnaby's stern warning on WFH
Nationals maverick Barnaby Joyce is warning artificial intelligence is 'coming' for workers, and that those who work from home are most at risk. It comes as governments and businesses around the world scramble to figure out guardrails on AI while reaping its economic benefits. Decision makers flocking to Canberra for Labor's Economic Reform Roundtable have already flagged the challenge as a hot topic in the productivity-centric talks. Amid a flare up in debate over flexible employment arrangements, sparked by union demands for a four-day work week, Mr Joyce on Monday took aim at recent changes giving employees the right to ask to work from home. He said it was 'encouraging people not to employ people'. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce says 'AI is coming' for clerical workers. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'You can't just say you're going to work from home today or you won't have a job,' the former deputy prime minister told Seven. 'I think you've got to be careful. 'If your job is a keyboard, yourself and a computer, AI is coming.' He said if he were a clerical worker, he would 'be doing everything to keep your jobs because if people can prove they don't need to come to the office then (they) can prove (you) can be replaced by AI'. Asked if he had an idea how to protect jobs, Mr Joyce said he did not know if it was possible. But he did welcome the idea of getting more Australians into trades. 'They should because I can assure you from my accountancy days, electricians overwhelmingly earn more money than people who have graduated with arts degrees or junior degrees,' he said. 'Doctors can go and make good money, but AI won't be able to turn itself into a plumber or itself into an electrician or a chippy so trades are a place where you can sustain a good level of employment.' In a report released this month, the Productivity Commission warned against taking a 'heavy-handed' approach to AI regulation, saying to do so could stifle innovation and cause Australia to fall behind other countries. Instead, it recommended making existing regulations fit-for-purpose. That included plugging gaps around consumer protection, privacy, and copyright. The commission said AI-specific regulation should only be considered as a 'last resort' for specific use cases where existing laws were clearly insufficient to mitigate harms. It also called for a pause on mandatory 'guardrails' for high-risk AI until the reviews of existing regulations were complete.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Distasteful': Growing calls to tax the family home
A radical proposal to tax the family home has been described as a 'distasteful' but necessary measure to reduce 'inequality'. Ahead of Labor's three-day Economic Reform Roundtable in Canberra this week, economists from the University of Technology Sydney and Melbourne University have put forward their own 'bold' proposal, arguing it's time to 'time to consider taxing the family home' by ending the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption. 'This may seem distasteful, but there are some strong arguments for doing so,' Peter Siminski and Roger Wilkins wrote in The Conversation on Wednesday. Australia's capital gains tax, introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1986, applies to the increase in value between when an asset was bought and sold. The family home, or technically the 'main residence', has always been exempt from CGT. Treasury estimates it forgoes around $50 billion a year in revenue by exempting family homes from CGT. In 1999, the Howard government also introduced a 50 per cent CGT discount if the asset is owned for at least 12 months. The CGT discount equates to around $19 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Scrapping the CGT discount, along with negative gearing — allowing property investors to deduct losses from their from taxable income — has long been called for by critics who argue the tax concessions help drive up house prices and fuel inequality. But touching the family home CGT exemption would be far more controversial. Neither major party has proposed scrapping the CGT exemption. As of the 2021 Census, 67 per cent of Australian's 9.8 million households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage, while 31 per cent were renters. The overall rate of home ownership has remained steady at between 67 per cent to 70 per cent since the early '70s, but has dropped sharply among younger age groups who face greater barriers to ownership including rising prices and stagnant wage growth. Home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 64 per cent in 1971 to 50 per cent in 2021, and from 50 per cent to 36 per cent among 25- to 29-year-olds. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue 'owner-occupied housing exacerbates inequality'. In a draft research paper, the economists have modelled what they argue is the true picture of Australia's income inequality by taking into account the 'income' that owner-occupiers derive from their family home — by including the 'imputed rental income', or what a homeowner would pay in rent, and unrealised gains on the value of the property. 'When these are included in the income measure, inequality is higher, and it increases more strongly over time,' they wrote. 'The effect is large enough to shift Australia's inequality from 16th to 10th highest amongst OECD countries. Unsurprisingly, outright homeowners are much better off than renters when income from the home is counted. They have an average income 86 per cent higher than the average income of renters — compared with 34 per cent higher if housing income is ignored, as it usually is.' They argue that in when viewed this way, Australia's progressive tax system, which reduces inequality by charging higher tax rates for people with higher incomes, is 'largely a mirage'. 'The income tax system reduces inequality by a lot less (about 40.5 per cent less) if we include such housing income,' they wrote. 'Because this income is tax-free, the average tax rate for the rich is much lower than it seems.' Similarly they found for that the pension, which excludes 'housing wealth' from the assets test, the effect of pensions and benefits on inequality was 18.9 per cent smaller 'when housing income is included'. 'Overall, the combined impact of income taxes and pensions/benefits on inequality is 26.7 per cent lower when we include income from the family home,' they wrote. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue that, overall, these tax concessions may increase house prices and encourage 'inefficient allocation of resources'. They suggest that this 'tax-free income from investing in owner-occupied housing' — which is not actual cash but 'imputed' rent and unrealised gains — could instead be invested into private businesses, 'stimulating entrepreneurial activity and lifting productivity, wages and profits'. 'We know of no recent studies that have estimated the size of this effect, but it is likely to be large and therefore make the move into home ownership more difficult,' they write. 'The absence of recent studies may be because taxing owner-occupied housing is not seen as a politically viable option.' Reducing the incentive to invest in housing would benefit the 'Australian community as a whole' due to 'increased investment in productive activities', but renters would stand to benefit the most 'since the tax burden would shift towards homeowners'. The economists put forward several possible options for 'more fairly incorporating owner-occupied housing in the tax system', such as a broadbased land tax — supported by many economists — an explicit tax on owner-occupied housing wealth, or even a broader wealth tax. 'We should have a national conversation on whether the current tax treatment of owner-occupied housing is sensible,' they wrote. 'Moving away from complete exemption would open up opportunities for reduced reliance on income taxes and more food on the table for renters, and owners of modest homes.' Glenn Davies and Chris Evans from the UNSW School of Accounting have also argued that it is time to rethink the main residence exemption, saying both the underlying policy rationale and complex legislation are no longer 'fit for purpose'. 'Australia, like many other countries, is plagued by rising housing unaffordability and significant intergenerational wealth inequality, and the tax shelter provided by the MRE not only does nothing to alleviate these problems, it exacerbates them considerably,' they wrote in a paper for the eJournal of Tax Research last year. But the proposal has sparked backlash on social media. 'First government stopped you from getting on the property ladder by removing the bottom rungs (cheap housing),' Libertarian commentator Topher Field wrote on X. 'Now government is being urged to shackle everyone on to their existing rung of the ladder, by making it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you sell the family home. If you have to pay capital gains tax when you sell the family home then it will be nearly impossible to save enough money to be able to sell your house and move into a different house of the same value, let alone one of higher value.' 'Disgusting,' another user wrote. 'And confusingly, didn't they want empty nesters to downsize to make bigger homes available? This just discourages that.' Meanwhile the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, has also called for scrapping the CGT discount as one of 'three ways Australia can tax wealth better' in a discussion paper ahead of this week's roundtable. 'Australia is a low tax country, with increasing demands for government spending,' the Australia Institute's David Richardson and Matt Grudnoff wrote in the paper released on Monday. 'Australia has a long history of taxing wealth lightly: it taxes capital gains concessionally; it does not have a wealth tax; nor does it have an inheritance tax.' They propose scrapping the CGT discount, imposing a 2 per cent wealth tax on those with net assets over $5 million, and introducing inheritance taxes on large estates. The three measures combined would raise an estimated $70 billion a year — $19 billion by fully taxing capital gains, $41 billion from a wealth tax, and $10 billion from death taxes, which were abolished in the '70s. An inheritance tax 'would need to be supplemented by a gift tax to reduce the tax avoidance that would otherwise occur if asset-holders could make large tax-free gifts in the years prior to their demise'. 'Targeted wealth taxes have the advantage of raising large amounts of revenue while only impacting the very wealthy,' they wrote. 'This is a group with the greatest capacity to pay. They are also a group that have been largely ignored by Australia's current tax system.'
