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.
I’ve done all my seats however some seats the sa1s don’t entirely align with my proposal for example mundingburra/burdekin the sa1 crosses the townvilee/burdekin boundary. And in Gregory/Mirani where the sa1 is part in mirani part in Gregory where the boundary of mirani/burdekin share and sa1 in part of Isaacs council. I’m have too look at the official numbers to see if there’s a further breakdown.
@Real Talk Mine is sitting at 19.20% electors moved at the moment and it should stay under 20%. It’s minor changes to most of the electorates but significant changes to a few – like abolishing Toohey, creating a new seat between Coomera and Logan and some major changes to Nanango, mainly for a bit of future-proofing. I’ve ended up with 5 seats outside the 10% projections. There’s also a few historical corrections to changes that were introduced in previous redistributions. Right now I’m checking for transport access in the border SA1s.
My goal is to have seat numbers pass though a zero point before the next redistribution. So if they’re under now they’ll be over on projected and vice-versa.
@John My Pumicestone (renamed Bribie) uses the Caboolture River as the southern mainland boundary and Coochin Creek as the northern boundary. I’m tempted to take it to the Council boundary just north of that but that means splitting another SA1. I would love to get rid of everything west of the Bruce Highway but the numbers don’t work. However I’ve noted it for the next redistribution.
@Darth You can reference the mesh blocks but they won’t give you voter numbers. I’m going to do that in about 30 cases where I have to split SA1s and just make a note that the numbers are plus or minus for that seat. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/access-and-downloads/digital-boundary-files
I’ve got issues with a few of the Sunshine Coast seats, Pumicestone and Warrego.
I’ve tried to get them as close to 0 on projected numbers where possible other then that just realigning seat to natural boundaries. I’ve managed to confine Logan to Logan city except the small excess in scenic rim. Currently it crosses into Brisbane Ipswich and Redlands. Brisbane is confined within Brisbane as is the sunshine coast. Moreton bay does cross into Somerset. There are some future aspirations I’ve mentioned for example Callide should be split up at a future redistribution.
Il be updating my maps every 24 hours check back after 5pm every day for updates.
Il be making my formal submission to the commission shorty
Found that I had to submit a word document rather then form provided as 10000 characters didn’t seem enough to provide an in depth summary of my proposal.
Based on my redistribution abolishing Mirani, pushing Keppel up to the Alligator River and out of Rockhampton would favour One Nation or KAP (if they ran) to make the 2cp.
It would also make the most marginal seat of Aspley safer for Labor. Flip Bundaberg to the LNP. Make Macalister/Eagleby very competitive, along with Gaven. It would likely also flip South Brisbane to a GRN v LNP seat. Which the greens would win on Labor preferences.
I’m also gonna suggest Murrumbas namesake be changed to that of Murrumba Downs instead of an aboriginal word meaning good. I mean so what? What does that have to do with this seat? The most populous Kallungar gets split by my proposal as is Mango Hill. Griffin is the more populous suburb but that’s too similar to Griffith in the same way Bonney is too similar to Bonner. Hays is also an alternative name after the inlet the seat spans
My new Gympie spans almost the entire eastern shore of the Mary. River all the way from Coles Creek to the great Sandy Strait.
I’ve also decided to change my new seat of Caboolture to D’Aguilar after the mountain range that spans most of the seat given that Caboolture doesn’t represent the whole area that spans from Somerset to the moreton Bay parts of Glass House and then down to the Caboolture River.
In regards to the Callide naming conundrum and the Theodore naming conundrum having a seat named after him but not his name sake. Assuming that Theodore is renamed this time. A future redistribution can rename Callide to Theodore as there’s a town named after him about 120km south west of Callide. Thoughts?
@John Because of the issues with the name changes in the 2017 redistribution I’ve add the following to my introduction.
I propose the following process for naming of electorates.
• Electorates must be named exclusively after geographic locations.
• Electorates currently named for people or other reasons must be renamed during this redistribution process.
• Electorates should be named after the core locality of the electorate, ideally centrally located but in all cases should be a significant area. They should not need to renamed due to boundary changes at the next redistribution.
• Electorate names should be singular, brief and easy to spell.
• Signifiers such as Mount or Island may be omitted if the name is otherwise understood.
• Electorates should not be named after
o Federal electorates;
o Local Government regional areas, wards or divisions unless the electorate contains the entirety of the area.
• An exception will be proposed for the electorate containing Parliament House.
@Darth Vader There is substantial wiggle room for seats that aren’t exactly zero. In my introduction I’ve outlined this.
Quotas – Under and Over
My objective is that quotas should pass through a zero deviation point during the life of the current redistribution – over-quota seats should become under-quota seats and vice versa. In some cases that is not possible and I have gone into further details in those cases.
There is also the recognition that the growth rates are based on the 2021 Census(1), and the current population for individual areas is calculated off the May 2025 enrolment.
(1)The base population for these projections is the 2021 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) preliminary rebased estimated resident population (ERP). Data shown in this publication for 30 June 2021 are preliminary rebased ERP data.
The electorate boundaries for the 2028 election will be designed around growth rates from that are 7 years old and population information that will be 3 years old.
So while it is important to get representation that doesn’t exceed quotas, I have attempted to position approximate numbers that more properly represent equal representation for the 2028 election.
Of course growth rates may be deeply flawed and external factors may create a situation that is substantially different when the 2028 election comes around. I can only offer a qualified statement on the uncertainty of uncertainty – “… and then a meteor hits the area, wiping out all life and bringing the numbers back under quota…”.
@John I’m happy to keep Murrumba as a name because it aligns with my own naming guide.
However the electorate currently named Bancroft has no single word locations in it and the option to lose the geographic descriptors doesn’t work at all – you end up with Burpengary (incorrect), Deception (accurate but unacceptable); North or Mango. 🙂
I’m thinking of creating the singular name of Northlakes and then suggest to the Queensland Place Names Board that the suburb should be renamed.
@mark yore naming guide makes Murrumba unacceptable the namesake would need to be changed to the locality not the word. Also I think Gregory and Traegar would be the exception to that rule give the vastness of the seats no one location would be identifiable to all the residents. In my opinion a seats name should be a description of the area covered. In regards to Gregory and traegar there really isn’t anything that represents all the area. Also it isn’t necessary for a single word to be in the districts name. for example Barron river and Mount omanenay Scenic Rim Souther Downs Ipswich West. Harvey Bay Pine Rivers Ferny Grove
@mark yore again I seriously doubt the place names board is gonna do it just to suit you
I’ve also joined the call for Oodgeroo to renamed Cleveland it should be noted that both labor and the lnp opposed the renaming of Brisbane central and Cleveland respectively in 2017.
I never realised Bancroft was named after a person so I’ll be suggesting Deception Bay.
@John I didn’t realise the Place Names Board was disbanded – decisions are now made the Executive Council with powers delegated to the Minister. However places are renamed and suburb boundaries are changed semi-frequently – https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/title/place-names/proposals-decisions The same goes for new developments, they all have to be signed off first.
As outlined in my suggestion Murrumba, minus the Downs, would be acceptable. I’m also looking at renaming Traegar to Isa and Pumicestone to Bribie. I’m considering renaming Bancroft to Northlakes as a cojoint word. The names Northlakes and North Lakes are already used interchangeably.
• Electorate names should be singular, brief and easy to spell.
• Signifiers such as Mount or Island may be omitted if the name is otherwise understood.
Also no State electorate named Deception Bay will ever make it through the objections process. 🙂
For Oodgeroo, I’m torn between Ormiston and Cleveland. Both suburbs are going to be core parts of that electorate so it’s really just a matter of personal taste.
Many of the other electorates you mention have either undergone substantial change or their named suburbs are at risk of moving out in future redistributions. For example, I’ve currently renamed Ferny Grove as Samford due to my proposed boundary changes.
Two words are probably easier as it can give a more descriptive meaning. In regards to treager I’d say leave it because my isn’t really central to everything. Pumice stone should remain as is as is a significant feature of the seat.
What’s wrong with deception bay. The only people who care are usually the people who live there. Cleveland would be better as it’s the central location of the seat.
It doesn’t really matter if they are at risk of moving future they really only need to be in the current iteration of the seat.
just reposting the link so i can find it easier
https://auredistribution.neocities.org/
I’m almost finished typing up my report I’ve used a word document as opposed to the form because 10000 characters isn’t really enough to give an in detail submission. My maps profit won’t be finished in time but I’m hoping to submit the finished version as objections to com pplete my own report so it will still be able to be read as a complete report by the committee.