This weekend’s Tasmanian state election is likely to be the last major election in 2025, barely halfway through the year, but that means the rest of this year will be redistribution season.
Two federal redistributions, in Queensland and Tasmania, are set to resume later this month when Parliament returns. Federal redistributions in South Australia and the ACT are also due soon. I will return to this topic in the next few weeks.
But the first redistribution of 2025 is the state redistribution of Queensland. The last redistribution took place prior to the 2017 election, and those boundaries have now been used for three state elections – no other state holds redistributions so infrequently.
Submissions from the public are now open. They will close on August 6. The Commission has not set out precise dates for the rest of the process, but they expect the draft boundaries to be published in early 2026.
For this post, I am going to run through the current population statistics and what that suggests for where seats may shift. There has also been a lot of comments about this redistribution in the comments sections of Queensland 2024 seat guides – you can bring the conversation to this post.
The Queensland Redistribution Commission (QRC) has published their own helpful discussion paper that covers a lot of the same data I will be analysing here. It’s worth examining because it also runs through the criteria the Commission will need to consider.
In short, each electorate needs to fall within 10% of the average enrolment (or ‘quota’) as of May 2025. There is also a ‘large district number’ which means that electorates with a land mass of over 100,000 square kilometres are granted ‘notional electors’ equivalent to 2% of the square kilometres in their electorate.
Right now four seats benefit from these notional electors, and they make up the equivalent of 70% of an electorate. Three of these four seats are currently below the average quota even with those notional electors, with one of them more than 10% under. All three of those seats are projecting to be more than 10% under the quota by 2032. So it is likely that the land mass of these seats will grow. There are two other seats with a land mass of 70-80,000 square kilometres, so it’s possible another seat could benefit from this rule.
This produces a conundrum when it comes to calculating how big a seat should be. The ‘average’ is based on a total population divided by 93 seats. But the actual number of electors that can contribute to a seat’s enrolment is actually about 93.7 seats, likely to go up slightly more. So the average seat should be drawn to be slightly above the average.
The QRC has also published enrolment projections for June 2032. These don’t appear to carry the same weight as the current figures. Unlike in a federal redistribution, there is no requirement that every seat fall withins a certain range, but a sensible Commission would aim to draw the faster-growing districts with a smaller starting population. Mapmakers are often conservative and thus do the opposite, making minimalistic changes which leave the faster-growing areas with above-average enrolments, but they shouldn’t.
Further down in this post, I’ve posted a map showing how much each seat varies from the 2025 and 2032 quotas. But I’ve also summed up the totals for each geographical region of Queensland.
Where one seat is under quota and its neighbour is over quota, it is relatively easy to adjust the border without making more dramatic changes. But when whole regions are well under- or over-quota, that is when more significant shifts are required, and potentially could see seats abolished or new seats created.
The first two columns of data reflect how much each seat varies from the actual quotas. Those quotas do not factor in the notional electors in the large districts, although those notional electors are included in those seats’ fulfillment of the quotas. That explains why these numbers don’t add up to zero. The last two columns adjust the quota upwards to include the existing notional electors, but can’t take account of new notional electors created if those seats are made larger. They do add up to zero.
The seats of urban south-east Queensland are significantly over quota. If it weren’t for the large district allowance, I’d argue that we’d see a seat in the regions abolished and one created in the city, but that may not happen. By 2032, the 61 seats in this area are expected to contain almost 63 quotas of electors.
When we look at a closer level, we can see that Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast have grown the fastest, with Ipswich expected to have a lot more growth over the next seven years.
The southern half of Brisbane is a third of a seat under quota. One difference between my analysis and that of the QRC is that they have split out the suburbs on the southern fringe and northern fringe of Brisbane, and merged Brisbane City into one area. There are a handful of seats in southern Brisbane that are well over quota: Logan is particularly over quota, as is the neighbouring Jordan (included in Ipswich) and Coomera (included in Gold Coast). But more established southern suburbs are consistently under quota. Those seats will likely have to expand south to absorb the surplus population in Coomera, Jordan and Logan.
The northern half of Brisbane has grown faster, and this growth is more even, although Murrumba has grown very fast. While the Gold Coast is due to grow, the region currently has about the right number of voters for its eleven seats. Gaven is well under-quota, but Coomera has enough surplus voters to top it up.
The seats of regional Queensland are consistently under quota. The seats around Cairns are about in line with the quota, but seats further south will likely need to grow. The three Townsville seats are about a quarter of a seat short of the third quota, and are surrounded by other seats falling under quota.
Submissions will close in early August, and I am planning to make a podcast to discuss those submissions along with the federal redistributions. There are plenty of directions the Commission can go in, but it seems likely that seats in the urban areas surrounding Brisbane will get smaller, potentially with a new seat created on the southern or northern edge of Brisbane, and the regional seats will have to grow. But there are a range of options for how the map can be drawn.
Finally this map shows how much each seat deviates from the average, both in 2025 and the projected numbers for 2032.
ive also now adjusted it so that all of springfield remains in Jrdan jordan also takes in everythgin east of radbank plains road and queens street from Ipswich and ispwich keeps ripley instead of giving it to ipswich west.
macalister is abolished waterford becomes albert
jordan then sheds the parts of logan and the new seat is basically springfield and everythgin east of radbank plains road and queens street from Ipswich though it loses everything east of old logan road thats south of addison to get jordan over the line
the ipswich seat is called Springfield and the Logan seat is Greenbank
Based on these boundaries the libs would be competitive in Logan Eagleby maybe Albert and Greenvale but Marsden Slacks Creek would become safer for labor edlands 3 seats would be safer for the lnp. Crandon in coomera so he may choose to retire to help the lnp get anew member while they’re on top. Gaven or Nerang would be a notional lnp seat. Keppel would be lost to Labor however kapok onp might be able to win it. Rockingham would be safer in all but a bad year. Callide would go from being very safe to safe and Bundaberg would likely be notionally lnp. Caboolture would be won by the lnp. Labor would probably lose pine rivers and faced reduced margins in kurwong ah and murrumba but increase it in Morayfied. Aspley would not longer be aultra marginal seat but just marginal for labor. Everton and clayfield would be safer for the lnp and stsfford more competitive. The lnp would be good odds to win back maiwar.
I’d say dick would run in Marsden and fentimen would run in Slacks Creek given these would be the safest seats. de brani in eagleby and McMahon in Albert Mullen in springfield power in logan and if they were determined to keep all the current mps in a seat Enoch to greenbank martin to algester and Russo in the reformed sunnybank his old seat. Although he may retire given his age to make it easier on Labor.
The lnp would be alot more difficult since the abolished seat is in nq and the new one in Moreton Bay. Mirani mp would have glen Kelly would have to challenge either Amanda camm in pioneer river or Nigel hutton in Keppel or maybe even bryson head in callide depending on which voters he would choose to follow. Glass house mp Andrew powell could choose to stay in the Sunshine seat of Glass house or move to the new Moreton Bay seat of Caboolture
Out of interest John, and I assume you’re using Angus’s tool to calculate and configure your seats, how many electors have shifted seats?
You can find this at the very top of the left hand panel of the tool, under the heading ‘Queensland State Redistribution Tool’.
I’ve managed to shift 1,123,773 electors, or 30.01% of the state.
Just for giggles, I tried drawing a map with Gregory abolished. Traeger extends from Mount Isa to the NSW border, Callide sweeps from Emerald to Maryborough and is a large seat. The big surprise is Thuringowa, which is forced to expand rapidly to the west and take in Charters Towers. Of course I won’t be handing this in as a serious submission, but it’s a perfectly legal map.
By that argument I can put parts of caloundra and ispeic it on trader and Gregory to make them smaller. It’s perfectly legal
I’d have to redo it as I went through a full map at the library but it was around 25% i think
@Darth, so long as it’s contiguous.
Where does it say that?
It should also be noted sa1 31201133812 broadband-nebo is in both Burdekin and mirani