Historical Boundaries & Elections
Within this section
Municipal Beginnings | In Search of a Town Hall | The Struggle for Power | Boundaries and Elections | What Council Does, or 'Vanishing Functions' | Further Reading
The 'City of Sydney' of 1842 was little more than an unruly village of dusty poorly lit lanes and unhygienic dwellings. There was no water or sanitation system. Cattle were routinely driven through the streets. The Corporation Act defined the boundaries, which took in present-day Woolloomooloo, Surry Hills, Chippendale, and Pyrmont, an area of 11.65 sq. km. Six wards were marked by boundary posts, one of which survives at the front of Sydney Square.
Since 1900, the boundaries of the City of Sydney have been fairly elastic. In 1909, the Municipality of Camperdown was amalgamated with the city and in 1949 Alexandria, Darlington, Erskineville, Newtown, Redfern, Waterloo, Paddington and Glebe were included. Most of these were shed again in 1968. The majority of them made up a new municipality of South Sydney. In 1982, South Sydney was brought back into the city but became independent again under the City of Sydney Act of 1988. The City Council area contracted to 6.19 sq. km, smaller than its original size. The State government has the power to remove whole districts from Council, as it did with the creation of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority in 1968 and the Darling Harbour Authority in 1984.
|
|
Sydney City Boundary changes 1842 - 1992 |
At the first 1842 Council election, voters had to occupy property with an annual value of £25 for at least one year. This low property qualification alarmed conservatives who warned of the dangers of democracy. In 1879, the vote was given to those who paid the rates, whether they were owners or renters. By 1900, even lodgers and women could vote (but they had to be property-holders) until 1941 when all resident adults were entitled to vote in Council elections. Since then there have been numerous tinkerings with the franchise, so that sometimes it favours property owners more than at other times. The party in power in the State government is able to slant the vote in the direction that favours its own interests.
