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.
@John Political representation is one of the things the ECQ explicitly ignores. And yet I can guarantee about 25% of the comments on the proposals will be from people who got upset because they’re losing their local Member. That’s not even including the inevitable astroturfing. 🙂
Townsville is the big problem up north because of the relative population drop. I only got 3 seats there by taking Mundingburra out to the bush and adding Charters Towers.
Since the AEC announced the delay to the QLD Federal redistribution it’s lineball about whether we’ll make it to the 30.5 mark and another seat. And yes, 93/31 works out nicely, except for the Large state seats.
My thoughts at the moment are to add the new seat on the Sunshine Coast, chop the northern section of Blair off and then take the four coastal seats (including Noosa) laterally so they all contain a bit of coastal growth and a bit of stable hinterland. That bends the community of interest but it should dilute the growth.
However I’m very concerned about what the Maroochydore projections are going to say.
@mark it wont get a 31st seat. the curent arrangement makes a 3:1 arrangement (mostly) goven about .7 of the current seats is ghost voters you can easily dividie that 2.3 seats of extra voters over 30 seats. Thats about 2000 voters extra. The problem is that some qld seats are gonna get drawn 15%+ over on projected enrollment. Which federally they just cant do. Ive put townsville into 4 seats as opposed to the current 5. Hinchinbrook maimtains its current parts of townsville. Townsville remains the same. Mundingbhrra gains the rest of townsville from Bjrdekim and shares a couple bloxks to Thuringowa. Ive left Charters towers in Traegar but i think it cn possibly be moved at the next redistribution. There wont be an extra seat this time around but it will definately happen in 2029 along with a probable 17th wa seat. Though given it will be redistribhted this time on 30 seats there will be less work to do. The deferal actually is ok because it goves us more time to concentrate on the smaller sates. Im probably not gonna bother with the act though but il leave that incase i need something to do after ive done the other 3. Ive managed to work up quite a proposal for the qld state as i spent my plane ride finishing my proposal and putting in quite a detailed summary. Im looking forward to the wa and vic state redistributions too.
@Darth Vader You’re doing it the hard way. 🙂
Population quota = Ascertained total population of the six states / (Number of Senators for the states x 2) or Total population of the six states / 144.
Estimated Resident Population for Australia (as at 31 December 2024) is 26,651,151, so the quota is 185,077 rounded down.
Queensland’s population was 5,618,765 at that point, so the entitlement then was 30.3590 seats. However Queensland was growing at roughly 100,000 per year, twice the total Australian growth rate. So the figures that need to go in are the full dataset for 2025 plus the first six (or seven) months of 2026 – a year after the first sitting of the new Parliament. I’m a bit iffy if they’re going to count from that date or the lead up to it.
My view is that if the AEC is saying “it is of the opinion that the Electoral Commissioner’s determination may change the number of members of the House of Representatives to be elected in Queensland at the next election” then there is sufficient concern to delay the process.
There’s also the likelihood that the AEC may slow walk the process if a further small delay may tip the numbers over the threshold. If we’re looking at 30.48 seats and the trend is upward then the AEC may think that another couple of months delay may be viable if they can have the paperwork finished in time for the next election.
Also large overquotas at the State level due to pockets of massive growth tend to even themselves out at the Federal level. The smaller the sample size, the greater the impact of changes.
FYI, my versions of Warrego and Kennedy will probably be the only oversized electorates, with Warrego moving north and east and Kennedy taking in the northern part of Queensland and losing a lot of the suburban areas and coastal communities it has. The goal is to centre everything north of Noosa back into whole urban communities and not split the regional cities.
Mark yore no they wont the wil make tg determination on the date it is required to happen. Thats the law it says the determination is to be be made 1 year on from the first sitting of parliamanrt. Thats when it will happen. Thats just like saying they will make it early to stop a statr losin b a sdat its not going to happen. Im gojng by qhat raurle has stated in his post that qld has taken 2 years to increase by .14 so it wil likely not icrease.
Would it kill you to take a minute to spellcheck your own posts?
Can’t tell if I’m reading Darth Vader, john, or having a stroke.
I wrote that at 5am in the morning.
@Darth Vader Copypasted from the AEC media release…
When will the redistribution come into effect?
More information will be provided following the commencement of the redistribution.
Changes to federal electoral divisions as a result of this redistribution will apply from the day on which a notice of determination is published in the Commonwealth Notices Government Gazette.
Information on when this redistribution will be determined will be published once the redistribution has commenced. Commencement is expected in mid-2026 following the Electoral Commissioner’s next entitlement determination.
Electoral events will not be contested on these new federal electoral divisions until a writ is issued for a general election following the expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives.
@Real Talk … 🙂
@Darth Vader
Under s.59 of the Electoral Act, “A redistribution of a state or territory may be deferred if:
the redistribution is required due to the time requirements in the legislation (the last redistribution for that state or territory was determined seven years ago), and
the three-person Electoral Commission’s formal direction to start the redistribution is due within 13 months after the first sitting day of the House of Representatives, and
the Electoral Commissioner’s determination of the number of members of the House of Representatives has not yet been made. During the 13th month of a new Parliament, the Electoral Commissioner is required to determine the number of members of the House of Representatives for each state and territory using population data supplied by the Australian Statistician and in accordance with procedures set out by the Electoral Act, and
the three-person Electoral Commission is of the opinion the Electoral Commissioner’s next determination of the number of members of the House of Representatives for each state and territory may or will change the number of members in the House of Representatives for the specific state or territory.
If a redistribution was deferred due to this scenario, it is then required to start after the Electoral Commissioner’s determination has been published. This determination may or may not cause a change to the number of members for the state or territory at the next general election.”
So the seat count as as December 2024 was 30.36. We have roughly 19 months before the determinations start – 0.14 quotas in 2 years will put it just under the line IF the growth stays linear.
That’s a bit hard to determine at the moment because we’re relying on growth estimates and not actual data.
HOWEVER, and it’s a big however, the AEC is dependent on the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They can ask, but the ABS might be a little busy in the middle of the 2026 Census. The advantage of the ABS delaying it’s response until the first results are through means the numbers will be as accurate as they can be, and the ABS can simple shoot the raw population numbers through to the AEC ahead of the release of the full Census.
The determination will be made 1 year from the date of the first sitting of the new parliament that being July 22nd 2025 meaning the determination will be made on the 22nd of July 2026 and that wil be numbers released in June 2026 based on December 2025 numbers. So we have 12 months. Not 19.
Also when can we expect the QEC to release the suggestions?
This is a thread about state redistributions. Discussion about federal redistributions should be put in the right place.
John, my understanding is they won’t be releasing the suggestions until September 1, when the next round of comments opens.
@Raue thanks.
@Ben Raue Sorry Ben, I’m very easily distracted. 🙂
@mark yore to be clear I wasn’t proposing they take into account political representation I was simply stating what the lnp could do
So i got to around 11000 words for my completed proposal. Initially it was at 34000 but then I realised I c + p about half of it several times…..
Submissions are now live as are comments.
Honestly wish I knew how to calculate the projected margins of the suggested redistributions :/ I want to see how significantly effective the LNP’s submission would stack and crack labor voters
@RB all parties do it to their opponents. most peoples submision are very brief and are effectively saying i want whats best for me and not taking into acount any flow on effects or how it causes problems in other seats. i have to say both the LNP and the Greens have overlap with mine.
i think they will before the federal election it was a fair margin not ultra safe. libs will want an early win against labor and with the retirement of a long standing member it might be a good oppurtunity to score some points ahead of the vic state election
https://redistribution.ecq.qld.gov.au/public-consultation/suggestions/suggestions-about-the-redistribution
for anyone interested
Lot of people saying how Calliope should be in gladstone not callide. Which is true but callide cant afford to lose any more voters.
Dragons that will happen. Gladstone need voters too. Collide will probably move into Rockhampton.
If it were not for Mirani being a bigger problem I would have abolished Callide. Mirani was a problem because it was essentially made up of the parts of 4 different lgas. My suggestion removes Rockhampton entirely and unites Livingstone shire. Though it still has mirnais parts of Isaac shire and a bit of Mackay. Next time I hope to be able to fix this further as well as fixing up Callide.
@Up the dragons I think it’s neccessary. Calliope should be in Gladstone electorate, and if thats too much of a loss for Callide, I reckon Callide should take in the rural western parts of the Gladstone electorate. But no matter what, Calliope really needs to be in Gladstone (im surprised the LNP didnt suggest this since it would help them in Gladstone in the future)
Yea they’re not winning Gladstone. I think however adding the rural parts of Ipswich from Scenic Rim to Ipswich West could help them there. Which is now a marginal.seat for the first time in 20 years
agreed i cant see the LNP winning Gladstone. they would have to have a really good year to topple labor and porbly without an incumbnt member. another strong independent candiate might be their best bet
Collide in its current for is a problem. I t needs to be broken up and recreated with better communities of interest. While there should be a seat there it needs a better form. One possibility would be north and south Burnett with possibly western downs.
According to most of the major submissions there’s pretty much a consensus that toohey is the seat thats gonna go with a greenbank seat being created. And Springfield to form from Jordan.
The MP for Toohey being almost 70 could be the reason why Toohey is abolished in a lot of submissions
No it just happens to be in. That sweet spot of the deficits and given stretton borders the BCC boundary it makes sense to abolish toohey instead. It wouldn’t be too hard for the mps to just shuffle across. I.e toohey -> sunnybank. Stretton -> greenbank Jordan -> springfield
The libs abolishing hill would eliminate a political opponent. However if Katter retires and Robbie takes his seat they could just move into traegar
While I’m working on my submission, I’d just like to point out the professional groups that have provided submissions that do not comply with the fairly basic rules that the QRC and legislation require.
Specifically #49 Western Downs Regional Council, who asked for amendments to the Electoral Act 1992.
#70 Rexit Australia who asked for the redistribution to be halted until they can be satisfied that the electoral roll is accurate.
#92 Burdekin Regional Council who requested that the boundaries of the current Burdekin Electorate remain unchanged.
#105 Katter’s Australian Party who had a laundry list of systemic changes, including – Increase the Area Allowance weight from 2% to 4%. Ensure the geographic footprint of Queensland’s four largest electorates does not significantly expand. Address under-quota seats in the Townsville region by adjusting the Hill–Hinchinbrook boundary southward; Move Babinda to Mulgrave; Expand Hinchinbrook’s boundary further into northern Townsville; Allow Traeger to move marginally eastward if required, but restrict significant eastward expansion; Ensure the seat of Cook is focussed on Cape York, to ensure a socially and economically cohesive electorate; Apply weighted enrolments for each Indigenous Council in an electorate.
#118 Charters Towers Regional Council – no increase to the size of the State electorate of Traegar.
That’s ignoring the various random individual submissions that don’t understand the purpose of a redistribution, such as one submission that complained that the redistribution was “Grossly unfair as there needs to be other considerations for issues other than the old process “one vote one value”.”
On the plus side the amount of astroturfing at this redistribution seems to have diminished, with only five identified themes with similar language. Six if you count the KAP push towards increased weighting for Large electorates.
My thoughts on the Large Area allowance are that it should be removed. At this redistribution I have detached Warrego from the border and at the next one I’m inclined to join the regional areas of Traegar and Cook together to leave two enormous electorates of Gregory and Traegar/Cook.
Given the difficulty already of servicing the current Large Area electorates I suggest providing additional resources and increasing the number of electorate staff, offices and transport budgets for the two remaining seats, abolishing the anti-democratic weighted allowances entirely.
@mark yore as in your first post that is a question for parliament. those changes can only be done by legislative cha ge. is upport the LDA becuase those electorates are what is basically the driving force behind the queensland economy and thats the reson why they are so sparesly populated. they dont have any effect on other districts in any great detail. im laregly satisfied with my proposal and do have some things i wanted to do but couldnt with the current numbers available. for example i think callide should be broken up and a new seat put in its place but that would create far more problems this time around so ive gone with minor changes. i.e removing bundaberg and gladstone regional councils. i think the next redistribution will allow me to complete what i had in mind. i abolished mirnai and toohey in order to create another logan seat and another moreton bay seat. i think next time around a new gold coast, ipswich and sunshine coast seat will be possible likely at the expense of 2 brisbane seats and another regional seat.
@john Burdekin, Callide and Mirani were … difficult. There was no real way to keep their community of interest intact without shredding many of the coastal seats. The problem was the population of the Townsville seats.
This is very much a transitional referendum, based on incomplete and probably inaccurate projections. Jeff Waddell did a far better job of demolishing the projections of the last redistribution than I could possibly do. The post-Olympics redistribution should be a bit more settled as the available land supply in SEQ shrinks dramatically.
Policy changes, such as relocating government departments out of SEQ where possible, may resuscitate some of those regions but as you noted that’s outside the reach of the redistribution.
Burdekin and Mirani were easy. Callide was just a fix. My Burdekin is now just Burdekin and Whitsunday councils. Though its under on projected electors that a problem for 2032. What il hope to do is transfer Charters Towers into it. I looked into it this time but it created problems for Traegar which next time i want to move into Mareeeba Shire and Tablelands Council. Mirani is abolised so no problem there. Callide is probably gonna be my choice for reworking aor abolition if necessary. I will probably move Banana Shire into Gregory and create a seat using North & South Burnett and probably western downs. For Townsville i just expanded Mundingburra into the regional parts from burdekin, did a slight boundary change with thuringowa and removed cassowary coast from Hinchinbrook. townsville i reluctantly left unchanged but hopefully the numbers will be better next time around
what seats do you think might flip (notionally)?
and my traegar is fixed in the long term as on current numbers its 3.6 % over quota and on projected numbers is only 5.32% under quota in 2032.
The LNP’s submission seems to have completely stuffed up the electorate of Logan.
It says that the electorate of Logan is “retaining its civic and hospital precinct at Logan Central”, which makes no sense. Firstly, Logan Central is in the electorate of Woodridge. Secondly, the hospital is in Loganlea, in the electorate of Waterford.
Then when you look at the map, the electorate of Logan seems to be centred around Jimboomba, which makes more sense. However, the electorate shown on the map does not match the written part of the submission. It would also be way under quota, as it seems to only include the acreages around the Jimboomba town centre.
It also looks like they’ve left the suburbs of Logan Village and Yarrabilba (a growth area with 10000+ residents) out of any electorate.
haha. my logan is basically everything between the mount lindsay highway and the waterford-tamborine highway up to logan village (not included) then up along the logan river taking in logan reserve from waterford and heritage and regents park from woodrige and then hillcrst and browns plains from algester. they probably meant to say logan village.
@AA There’s a problem with Logan … and Ipswich and Caloundra. That’s the oversized SA1s, where you’re calmly selecting a block to add and wondering why your numbers just jumped up by 2,000 and projected population by 7,000.
In terms of the LNP and Logan, I get the impression that their reference is to the centre of the current Logan electorate without realising that there is actually a suburb called Logan Central. It would have generated less confusion to refer to it as Meadowbrook.
That’s one of the reasons why my redrawn Logan was named Stockleigh, Macalister became Beenleigh and the new seat was Greenbank. There’s Logan Village, Loganlea, Logan Central, Loganholme, the Logan River, Logan City Council, the Logan electorate and Logan Road (which spends the majority of its time outside Logan).
I’ve called my new seat Flagstone. I think the numbers will solidify behind that area first and want to save the rename.
It’s a bad mistake by the LNP submission, no matter how you cut it, and one that really shouldn’t slip through from a professional organisation. A A, you should definitely raise that in the official comments.
The bad news? It’s still one of the better party submissions. The Greens and KAP kept strictly to their own patch (if not strictly to the rules), and the ALP — unless I’ve completely misread them — didn’t abolish a single seat.
But the real circus act, aside from Wayne Window’s “Great Artesia” and Western Downs’ attempt to legislate a minimum electorate size of 75 square kilometres, a plan that even Sir Joh would consider probably a bit too much, is the LNP’s plan to abolish Hill.
Their reasoning? “The Atherton Tablelands communities are better represented when split along their natural economic gravity…” Elsewhere, in their write-up for Hinchinbrook: “The addition of the towns linked by the Palmerston Highway and Milla Milla Malanda Road within the Tablelands provides a link for those areas that look towards Cairns for specialised services.”
Five problems with that:
1. These communities are better served as the core of their own seat, as they are now, and the seat is one of five in just about the only part of Queensland that doesn’t require any changes due to quota.
2. Atherton has far more in common with Malanda (20 km away) than with Mount Isa (1,045 km away).
3. Their “look towards Cairns” plan throws Malanda into a Hinchinbrook seat with Ingham and Townsville suburbs — a map that would make Eldridge Gerry blush.
4. They spelt Millaa Millaa two different ways, not a good sign for a party that hasn’t won this seat since 1995.
5. Abolishing Hill conveniently kneecaps a KAP MP. A belated thank you card for their 2024 election campaign.
Overall? A sloppy, nakedly political piece of work from the LNP. Which, of course, means it’s probably what we’ll end up with.
Eliminating your political opponents is what most parties do during a redistribution. It’s a poorly disguised attempt on the part of the LNP
@mark don’t forget Logan Reserve
@real talk Artesia could be a good name for Traegar
@John I think there should be a blanket ban on naming anything else Logan.
@Real Talk The Green’s submission only stepped outside SEQ to recommend abolishing a Townsville seat. No numbers, no rationale, no maps – just a random hand grenade thrown in there.
The KAP submission was completely non-compliant as most of their detail is specifically outside the purpose and direction of a redistribution. I’ve noted 13 submissions that are non-compliant including all of those from Local Government except one. One submission even stated “Grossly unfair as there needs to be other considerations for issues other than the old process “one vote one value”.”
For the seventh time the ALP submission doesn’t include seat numbers or maps. It mostly relies on “the vibe of the thing”. For goodness sake some of the submissions from random geeks out there have more detail.
The LNP submission doesn’t include numbers either. It does have maps, but there are a few instances where the numbers are iffy.
The best submission I’ve seen in the past couple of years from an organisation was one from the Pirate Party – which is a sad reflection on the ability of those doing this stuff.
There are some changes I made that were one-offs – I detached Warrego from the border to centre it on Roma; I put Moreton Island into Lytton and out of Redcliffe and there were a few consequential impacts of difficult decisions. In order to keep some consistency for the coastal seats I had to make significant changes to Hill, Burdekin, Mirani, Condamine and Lockyer. I hated taking Tully out of Hill, but it was the only small area with enough people to balance it.
In the end my submission only moved 20.07% of people to a different electorate. Part of that was due to the removal of Toohey but most of it was because of the patches of extreme growth. For the next redistribution I intend to reduce the significantly oversized electorates to just two – Traegar/Cook, and Gregory. And I’m going to suggest that the Large Area allowance should be removed entirely and those seats should be provided with additional resources because counting land as if it was people is profoundly anti-democratic.
I’m also going to suggest that the QRC should look at the time available to produce a submission. Even adding another two weeks would be helpful for those who take this seriously and were pressed for time. This is a legislative change but I think the QRC should get a little push to survey those who lodged submissions after this is complete.
They won’t extend the time. It’s a legal requirement to have it done properly. Just like they didn’t extend the way and Vic submissions when they submitted the wrong numbers. The ghost voters are extended because those areas are primarily used for wealth and food production and as such they are less inhabited. The vast farms could cover a small city yet you’d be lucky to get a few hundred voters there. This won’t change.
My submission also unites Livingstone shire into seat centralizes Mackay into seats plus some excess. Pushes Rockingham in to 2 seats along with Gladstone unites bundaberg into 2 seats and creates a Gregory that is based less on ghost voters. Issac council is still split but next time I’m hoping to push the rest into Gregory as well. Gympie looks like it will become the 3 rd Fraser coast seat and nanango would become the gympie seat. Nanango also loses the remainder of Toowoomba to condamine. Somerset is that one part that just seems like the leftover that goes whoever it will be needed. I got Noosa and sunshine coast in 8 seats and separated BCC from moreton Bay. GC stays within gccc and Logan no longer crosses into Ipswich Brisbane or Redlands. Redlands stays in 3 seats and Ipswich west takes in the remainder of Ipswich from scenic rim. I thought about consolidating Ripley sa1 into ipswichwest but decided to leave it spread across the 3 seats so it doesnt get too over quota by 2032. There will definitely be a seat needed to be created around Ripley in 2032. Probably GC too. I wanted to shave some of clay field excess but too keep the boundaries in a good ahape i leftt it this time around. In regards to moreton island I left it in redcliffe to keep redcliffe in quota but agree it should probably be moved next time. Assuming they havent gotten around to putting the ferry back in action.
Numerical considerations aside, why leave anything for “next time”?
If collapsing the outback divisions into two can be done now, why not do it now?
If moving Moreton Island can be done now, why not do it now?
If shifting Mareeba and Tablelands into Traeger can be done now, why not do it now?
If abolishing Callide can be done now, why not do it now?
With respect, I don’t see the point of spending months (or years) debating these changes, only to shrink back at the decisive moment and say, “next time.” If it’s the right thing to do, then the right time to do it is now.