Now that the Parliament has officially opened for its first sitting after the federal election, we’re off to the races with redrawing the electoral map for the next federal election, expected in 2028. No rest for the wicked.
The redistributions in this parliamentary term are expected to be much less dramatic than those seen in the previous term. It seems unlikely that any state will see a change in their entitlement of seats in the House of Representatives. If so, the only redistributions will be the four triggered due to seven years passing since the previous redistribution. Conveniently, this will mean that the four states and territories that did not redraw their boundaries will get a new map in this term, while the other four will be left alone.
In this post I will run through the timing of these processes, and the data we now have to give us a hint about how these redistributions will play out.
Under Australian law, the federal electoral boundaries for a state or territory will be redrawn for one of three reasons:
- A change in that state’s entitlement to seats in the House of Representatives
- Seven years has passed since the conclusion of the last redistribution.
- The number of electors in at least one third of divisions deviates from the average enrolment by more than 10% for at least two months.
The third criteria has never been triggered, thanks to the AEC’s strict rules on drawing boundaries (more on that later).
Under the second rule, there are four jurisdictions due to commence redistributions this year. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory all completed their last redistributions in 2018. The seven-year mark was reached earlier this year for Queensland and Tasmania, but those redistributions were deferred until after the federal election. South Australia and the ACT have both reached the seven year mark this month. So they should all start very soon.
The other question is whether the entitlement of seats per state will change at all. This calculation will be conducted one year after the first sitting of Parliament (July 2026) using the latest ABS population estimates at the time, which will be the December 2025 data. This data is published every three months, so we can track the trajectory.
This chart shows the quarterly ABS population estimates from March 2020 to December 2024 (the latest currently available). It shows how much each state’s population is above or below their current seat count.
There is no state in any danger of currently losing a seat. New South Wales is on a downward trajectory that could cost the most populous state its 46th seat prior to the 2031 election, but not in the next year. South Australia is also on a downward trend.
Queensland is getting relatively close to gaining a 31st seat, but it doesn’t look like it will be enough. Queensland currently has 30.36 quotas of population, so needs another 0.14 quotas. It has taken over two years for Queensland’s population to grow by 0.14 quotas.
If there is any doubt about whether Queensland’s seat entitlement will change, the AEC has the option of deferring Queensland’s redistribution until the decision is clear. I don’t think Queensland will gain a 31st seat, but I don’t know if that deferral will happen.
All the same, that means that it’s just these four jurisdictions (most of them relatively small ones) being redrawn.
While in 2022-25 there were redistributions affecting 102 electorates (with 100 in states where the seat count changed), in this parliament that number will likely be just 48 (and none where the state’s count changes).
This parliamentary term would thus be only the second term since at least the 1993-96 team where there was no change to the seat entitlement for a state or territory.
This should mean that the scale of the changes will be reduced. It will also allow me to prepare my election guides for the unredistributed two thirds of the country much earlier than for the redistributed parts.
So, what is likely to happen in these four jurisdictions? For this next section I will post the current (June 2025) enrolment statistics for seats in each state.
Federal redistributions require divisions to be drawn within 10% of the average as of the current day, but more importantly they must be drawn within 3.5% of the average based on projected enrolments three-and-a-half years in the future. We don’t yet have projections, so I can only do analysis on current enrolment data.
Let’s start with Queensland, with its 30 electorates. This should not be confused with the redrawing of Queensland’s 93 state electorates, which has just recently commenced.
This map shows how much each seat deviates from the average: red for under-average seats, blue for over-average.
The most distinctive feature is a band of seats around South-East Queensland that are well over quota: Wright, Blair, Longman and Fisher are all over 10% over quota. Fadden and Forde, which border each other on the edge of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, are not far behind.
To simplify the story, this table shows how much each region of the state deviates from the average.
The 20 seats of south-east Queensland are collectively about one third of a seat over quota, but this is not evenly distributed. Indeed six seats in the outer south-east (which includes Ipswich, the Sunshine Coast and some other areas) is more than half a seat over. The Gold Coast is roughly in line, while Brisbane is almost a third of a seat under population.
This points towards Brisbane seats having to expand outwards to absorb that surplus population in those outer suburban seats. In the Brisbane area proper, the seat of Brisbane is slightly over quota, and Petrie is substantially over quota, but every other seat is below average. Moreton is particularly below average.
Outside of the south-east, just Hinkler has an above-average population. No seat has a particularly large shortfall, but it just adds up over the ten seats.
The same outer-suburban trend can be seen in South Australia.
Spence, in outer northern Adelaide, is 6.6% over quota, while Mayo is 6.3% over.
Hindmarsh is pretty spot on the average, while the other seven seats are all under quota. Makin is particularly under quota, by 5.8%.
The seven seats in urban Adelaide bounded by Spence and Mayo are pretty much exactly 10% under quota, so they should be able to absorb most of the surplus population in Mayo and Spence, although they are likely to be projected to grow faster than the two regional seats of Grey and Barker.
Tasmania’s new electoral map will apply to state and federal elections, following the recent Tasmanian state election.
The main story in Tasmania is the significant population shortfall in Clark, where enrolment is 9.9% below the average.
Braddon is slightly over quota and Bass is slightly under, but the two cancel each other out. Franklin is slightly over quota, but Lyons is significantly over quota.
It seems likely that this imbalance can be solved by Clark expanding further into the Hobart suburbs, in particular taking in parts of the southern end of Lyons.
The options get simpler for states with a smaller number of electorates. The ACT has just three seats.
The southern electorate of Bean is substantially over quota. Canberra has the biggest shortfall of voters, while Fenner is also slightly under. The exact changes would be dictated by the projections, but it’s likely Canberra will need to expand towards Woden to restore the balance.
Ben
In your table, it should say Western Qld not Western NSW
Ah thanks.
@angas can we expect a tool here
I am on the train right now hence cant check in detail but I wonder if there are any serious inconsistencies between the qld state and fed redistribution projection figures.
(I have given up on doing something for qld state)
That Brisbane and Griffith figures look suss based on my memory of the huge McConnel and South Brisbane projections.
Nvm ignore that last message – fed projections were not on here yet (excuse: long day)
id say those surplusesis whats keeping them close to quota. the neighbourng seats are al underquota
they havet officially started yet have they?
Oddly enough the at quota seats (Brisbane, Griffith and Wide Bay) are in the middle of the surplusses and deficits. Avoiding them would create some weord looking seats so it looks like we have to go through them.
My guess is that both wa and qld will gain a seat in 2029. Assuming there is no expansion to the parliament.
Given the deficit in Makin and surplus in Spence this would be a good opportunity to make Salisbury into a single seat.
In regards to qld depending on projections.
Kennedy, Leichardt and Herbert to remain unchanged, Herbert to take the rest of whisundays and maybe move further into mackay, capricornia could move further into Rockhampton however I’d ve tempted just to move the whole central highlands region into it instead. Fro. Flynn. I’d adjust hinkler by simply moving Flynn to the Burnett River. Flynn could also take the rest of Fraser Coast from wide Bay. Wide Bay and Flynn would drop south Burnett to maranoa. Petrie would drop all of bcc to the under quota brisbane seat plus what ever extra they need. Longman tops up petrie and Dickson then the surplus pushes north through Fisher and Fairfax to fix up wide Bay.
South of the River.
McPherson takes some of the gc hinterland from wright to avoid tampering with the at quota moncrieff. Forde moves further into gc into Fadden. Wright and Logan take parts of Forde north of the Logan River by my calculations. Bowman remains unchanged with redlands city. Bonner moves into Griffith to avoid turning into a weird shape which strip’s off parts of Moreton which takes the parts of Brisbane from Logan. And then moes into oxley. With oxleyim gonna try and united greater sprinfield and the moves out the other parts of Ipswich already in the seat. Move maranoa further into the more rural parts of Toowoomba and Then remove lockyer valley from wright and split it between groom and Blair.
This would make blair alot more competitive for the lnp. However they would be worse off in Bonner.
That should of read Dawson takes in the Whitsu days
Based on ACT Government projections, forecasting growth in Canberra (Kurrajong) and decline in Bean (Brindabella), the ACT redistribution may not need any changes at all.
Blast, whilst you are correct with about inner Canberra suburbs growing and the relative decline in some outer suburbs (Tuggeranong) – the federal seat of Bean also includes the rapidly growing Molonglo district so that may be a reason why it is still growing in both population and enrolment terms.
First I’m wondering if it’s worth putting the effort into realigining Queensland rural seats to refocus them on their major centres. That was my strategy last time, and I still think it makes sense, rather than having Dawson include part of both Mackay and Townsville but not all of either. Unfortunately last time the committee decided not to bother with that which was very frustrating. Similarly in Tasmania, whether we should try to unite Franklin or keep it two separate disjointed parts. It sometimes seems like these battles are not worth it with the committee’s minimal change approach. Otherwise Tasmania is relatively straightforward with Clark taking part of Lyons in the northern suburbs.
South Australia looks straightforward, move whatever needs to be shed from Spence into Makin. Maybe take a bit off Mayo into Kingston or Boothby. Ideally I’d put some into Barker to shore the numbers up there, but the council boundaries as division boundary curse strikes again, and I wouldn’t know which part of Adelaide Hills or Mount Barker to put into Barker.
ACT again might be straightforward, I’m looking at pushing more of Woden into Canberra, and maybe some of Molonglo Valley north of the river into Fenner. I’d like to try to get rid of the split of Belconnen, but it doesn’t look like the numbers are going to work this time around.
No new names, unless I decide to scrap the terrible Franklin. I’ll argue a case that Franklin wasn’t ever an Australian and should probably be renamed in time anyway.
Agree Darren, the AEC prefers to use the minimal change approach when doing the minor redistributions which do not involve changes to seat numbers.
Even when they do add/remove seats like in the recent NSW, Victoria and WA redistributions they still end up making some questionable decisions to leave some boundaries in a ‘messy’ configuration and not properly make the wholesale changes needed to improve community of interest.
For the ACT, Belconnen being split isn’t that much of a problem. The district is also split at the territory level, with some suburbs (Giralang and Kaleen) being part of the Gungahlin based Yerrabi seat instead of the main Ginninderra seat where the town centre is located.
Leon, McConnel and South Brisbane projections were large because their boundaries were solely fixed on uniquely high-density precincts of Brisbane that have a lot of new builds being delivered. But in a Federal context, these pockets share their division with static, low-density character neighbourhoods. This counterbalances them and softens their deviation from average.
Crucially, this disconnect between high-density pockets and their low-density fringes is reinforced by Brisbane City Planning itself. The City Plan 2014 (and its updates) largely maintains stringent low-density residential zoning (typically R1) and extensive character overlay protections across vast swathes of established suburbs immediately neighbouring the CBD and South Bank.
The emphasis on preserving detached housing character creates a hard boundary, effectively excluding the kind of gentle density increases that could organically transition between the intense cores of McConnell/South Brisbane and the surrounding lower-density neighbourhoods. Consequently, the planning system perpetuates the stark contrast, funnelling most new density into specific high-growth precincts or pushing development further out to greenfield sites, rather than allowing a more organic, incremental intensification of the middle-ring suburbs that already possess diverse dwelling types and infrastructure.
With all that being said, I am a bit skeptical of the Queensland population projections. They seemed considerably pessimistic about any population increase in the middle-ring suburbs. The projection seemed to significantly overstate the anticipated growth within planned greenfield estates and designated high-density precincts, while simultaneously underestimating the potential for organic, incremental population increases in established middle-ring suburbs.
The projections seemed to be narrowly focussed on the dwellings that are being planned and built today, but this might look different in the future.
With greenfield estates, the state government tends to overestimate the interest in planned communities they explicitly plan for growth in. And then are blindsided by other emergent greenfield sites. The last decade’s population boom in Coomera-Pimpama in spite of slower than anticipated growth in Greater-Springfield comes to mind. Likewise, the growth expected by the Queensland government in the Yarrabilba-Kairabah and Caboolture-West corridors might be over-egged.
SEQ Observer, I wonder if the BCC council need to be less ‘risk averse’ when it comes to high rise developments in the inner to middle ring suburbs. Where I come from in Sydney has large scale development of high-rise residential dwellings in large commercial centres like Macquarie Park and Rhodes, which would be akin to places such as Chermside, Mt Gravatt and Toowong/Indooroopilly which already serve as major commercial and business hubs to some extent.
These developments in established transport and commercial hubs, especially with the use of the new bus rapid transit network (Brisbane Metro) to Mt Gravatt could help alleviate the rapid urban sprawl into greenfield corridors that lack transport and commercial activities.
Darren
I agree with comments above. With the Queensland Regional seats, if it was just one that overlaps cities it might be OK but it goes right down the coast. Townsville is actually covered by three electorates – Herbert, Dawson and Kennedy. Then as you go down the coast, Mackay is mainly Dawson but Capricornia comes right up into it. Flynn takes in part of Rockhampton and Bundaberg sits right on the Hinkler boundary. Methinks there is a way to clean it up but it will all depend on the projections. In SE Queensland there will need to be some major changes as there are quite a high number of divisions that need to shed electors and quite a few that need to gain – and in both these cases there will be knock ons as there are contiguous high seats and contiguous low seats. As much as the AEC would like to do minimal, they might not just be able to do so. They used to be less timid – in days of old they would abolish seats and create new ones more readily even if the overall number was not changing. If this was the case now, then Moreton would be a prime candidate for abolition and a new seat created possibly north of Brisbane near Longman somewhere.
Since the last redistribution, I have collected data all the way back to the 1994 redistributions on the numbers of enrolled voters who were moved between seats in each redistribution. The last round was particularly minimalistic – I think there’s reason to think the AEC made a particular effort to move as few voters as possible in 2023-24. You could possibly argue that redistributions that involve more seats actually motivate the AEC to keep the changes minimal to reduce their burden.
I will be doing a blog post about that at some point later this year.
I know I’ve raised this before, but it would be interesting to see a new post on the seat allocation by State/Territory if the House of Reps (& Senate obviously) were to expand to accommodate the growing population.
What would your preferred number of seats be by 2030 for instance?
2nd preference/3rd preference on expansion?
I personally think they should do it with perhaps a total of around 300 seats in Federal Parliament (approximately 200 Reps & 100 Senators) split across the two houses.
One thing it would do is lead to substantial redrawings of the maps – and some interesting contests in new seats in either 2028 or 2031 (likely elections).
in regard to the redistribution im sure the comision would need to consider tat the non contiguous seat of frnaklin cant go on forever. my plan is to move clark into kingston then have frankling take some of lyons on the eatern ore where the majority o its electors are
What resources do you use when creating a proposal? As far as I understand there is no tool, so I’m curious about how people go about it.
Darcy, I use the spreadsheet the AEC gives out, add an extra column (Proposed Division) apply some conditional formatting, and sumifs and pivot tables (if I’m looking at formatting it nicely).
I then use maps.abs.gov.au (for the SA1 data) and downloaded SA1, LGA, Suburb, and electoral division .shp files in Google Earth and QGIS to work out what areas I should to move around.
I change the SA1 entries in the spreadsheet for the new division, and it sums the new numbers.
I use conditional formatting to show the numbers in green for in threshold, red for over and yellow for under.
Once every division is in green, and I’m happy with the outcome I start working on the maps.
I use Google Earth or more recently QGIS to draw the new maps and upload them in the report.
I usually end up going back half way through to try some other options as I’m usually not 100% happy. SOmetimes it works, other times I have to revert to the original boundaries.
For my reports, I sought the images (I like to add some CC or free licenced photos of scenery). I re-use the same text in sections of my reports (sometimes with minor tweaks) and start preparing them well before the cycle starts. I’ve written half of the Qld and Tas ones already. The SA and ACT ones I’ve started.
An online map tool from the AEC would be *really* helpful.
In my contributions to redistributions, I’ve used QGIS. I load in both the shapefile data for SA1s provided by the ABS, and also the enrolment data provided by the AEC, and then I join them on the SA1 ID. There’s a panel in QGIS that will show you aggregates (sums, averages, etc.) of columns of all selected features. This lets me select SA1s on the map and see the current and projected enrolment for what I have selected.
There’s also a QGIS plugin for redistributions (it was intended to help with redistricting in the United States) that lets you assign features (SA1s) to districts (so you don’t have to keep reselecting everything), but I’ve found it a bit fiddly.
To produce maps, I select the SA1s I want to include – or meshblocks if my boundaries split SA1s – and dissolve them into a single polygon. (If my desired boundaries don’t even follow meshblocks, I can adjust them manually.) Then I just take a screenshot.
Our good friend angas was able to create a tool for the qld state redistribution so hopefully he’s able to replicate it
I too was wondering about the ACT redistribution – at the Legislative Assembly level the latest redistribution shifted Brindabella – the bottom half of Bean back north with the next redistribution likely to shift it further north into Woden Valley.
@John
Yeah the idea is to make the app work for all the different datasets (including the NSW/VIC/WA/NT ones from the last round of redistributions) when they are finally released.
Haven’t had a proper chance to respond to go through the Queensland thread, but I hope you found the tool useful for trying out different scenarios. I’ve been working on removing some of the more obvious bugs, but if you have any suggestions you’d like to see included before the federal redistributions just let me know!
@Darcy @Darren @Nichloas
I don’t know if the approach I’ve taken will allow for maps as good as the ones you guys do, but potentially my tool might help reduce the reliance on QGIS (although it’d be fun to learn this one day as it seems pretty powerful). As mentioned above, it’s still a work in progress, but feel free to check it out:
https://auredistribution.neocities.org/
Yes agreed Yoh An,
Brisbane City Council (and Gold Coast City Council) tend to align their planning with Westfield site-selection.
They have generally only permitted medium and high-density development in areas adjacent to major shopping-centres. Like Mount Gravatt and Chermside. One of the issues with this being the urban structure of major shopping centres. With their fortress of carparks and surrounding network of very busy roads. These typically don’t make very good integrated, walkable neighbourhoods for the permitted towers. The benefit though is the guarantee of economic activity and transport-infrastructure that tends to organically flourish with these shopping centres.
The neighbourhoods that have been neglected by this approach to planning are traditional main-streets & high-streets; and old tram corridors. Which work well as integrated walkable communities conducive to mid-rise development. The risk that council had been averse to with this approach is lack of economic-activity (which major shopping centres support) and impacts on motor-vehicle access and congestion.
Alternatively, Victoria has been more eager to rollout transport infrastructure that warrants the approval high and midrise development throughout Melbourne. It also helps that they have an established tram network that pairs well with midrise density. Sydney has also taken more risks in permitting development without being as concerned with the typical constraints of car-oriented development ie. carpark minimums. It helps though that Sydney has a widely-dispersed established network of transport nodes to build adjacent to (unlike South East Queensland).
On Queensland, the state has effectively had the same boundaries for the 6 elections since 2010 (when Wright was added), as the 17/18 redistribution managed to get away with moving only 1.09% of electors.
It’ll ultimately come down to what the projections are, but given the expected deficit in Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn, that should at least help to somewhat consolidate the Mackay and Rockhampton areas as these divisions shift southward. Fixing Cairns and especially Townsville would probably require some pretty extensive changes to Maranoa and Kennedy which is probably a harder sell. But, if the numbers work, then maybe the commission could be convinced.
The problem is, that once Queensland gains its 31st seat, it’ll apply pressure to those divisions to shift northward again, probably back to where they are currently. So maybe the commission will stick to its minimalist strategy again.
With regards to Townsville, I thought there were more electors in the LGA than is needed for a single federal district, which means the only options for that city are:
1. One division exclusively focused on Townsville, with the outer urban remainders split between a division to the north and a division to the south (the status quo)
2. One division exclusively focused on Townsville, with the rest going into a second division that wraps around the urban district, not unlike Solomon and Lingiari.
3. Two divisions dividing Townsville more or less in half, with one division extending almost all the way to Cairns, and the other probably either all the way to the NT border along the Flinders Highway, or otherwise south to Mackay’s doorstep.
I recall a submission – I forget by whom – in the last redistribution which redrew Kennedy, Leichhardt and Herbert in such a way that the later two seats were confined to the Cairns and Townsville urban area, and Kennedy took everything from Bowen to Charters Towers to Karumba that wasnt in those divisions. If I recall correctly, Maranoa took the entire western half of the state, from Burketown to Emerald to Stanthorpe.
Anyway, the purpose of sharing that is to highlight that even a small move like “fixing” Herbert could have bigger, unintended consequences elsewhere.
@Real Talk
Great summary of the crux of the problem regarding Townsville. Unless there’s a relatively hefty deficit projected for the 3 northernmost divisions (somewhat unlikely given relatively strong growth rates in this part of Queensland) or Mount Isa gets moved into Maranoa (likely to be unpopular), Dawson is probably going to need to extend into the Townsville urban area for the forseeable future.
Regardless, there’s definitely scope to improve the handling of Mackay through to the Wide Bay area, particularly if they elect to expand Maranoa northward to take in some of the inland parts of Capricornia and Flynn.
Will be very interested to see what the numbers allow for.
They intentionally split the urban centres in the more remote areas to reduce the seat sizes. Otherwise we would probably have a seat the size of cook traegar and Gregory all combinedassuming there isn’t some out of whack projections the analysis I provided yesterday should apply. In regards to act it will be a quick and easy fix if it needs one at all so I’m probably not gonna bother with that one. Sa there’s a good opportunity to unite Salisbury into a single seat.in Tasmania they probably need to do a more complex shake up for example push braddon to the river near Launceston push bass into Lyons and Lyons to take in the coast from braddon and Franklin. Clark can absorb all of Kingston and Franklin can be become a contiguous seat not separated by the sea.
Whose interest does this idea of reducing the area of rural electorates by throwing in suburban areas serve? Certainly it does not serve the interests of suburban voters to be shoehorned into a rural and remote electorate. Nor do I see how it serves the interests of rural communities to have their vote diluted.
@John
That’s a good point regarding seat sizes where if we want to have a lot of smaller urban seats, then that neccesitates a number of rural seats to grow even larger.
I agree with Tassie that it’d be good to have a proper look at the Hobart area:
– Easiest option would be to just put Brighton into Clark (but then Clark crosses the Derwent River)
– Or Brighton/Richmond into Franklin, and Kingston into Clark as you suggest
– Huon Valley seems to be the most difficult part to handle but maybe it’s best suited to being in ‘regional’ Lyons which covers all the other ‘Hobart Hinterland’ councils
@Nicholas
That’s an excellent point. I think it’s reasonable to want to avoid creating very vast electorates that are hard for a single MP to represent, but as you say, this would surely create a better community of interest for both rural and urban voters which would no longer need to coexist in a hybrid division.
Take Durack for example the biggest seat in the country. It covers the area of Pilbara Kimberley mid west Geraldton
It’s the unfortunate reality of having vast empty swaths of land in the regions because that’s where all the food that fills our tables comes from. Urban voters should be so lucky to have them as part of the electorate.
That’s true. If we accept that Durack (1,410,947 sq km), Lingiari (1,348,073 sq km) and O’Connor (1,093,790 sq km) and Grey (908,595 sq km) are acceptable divisions, then there shouldn’t be any problem with increasing the size of Maranoa (729,897 sq km) or Kennedy (567,377 sq km) if it makes the most sense from a community of interest perspective.
While I have no clue whether the State and Federal projections in QLD will be similar at all, I started doing some calculations for QLD Federal (helps that I have given up on State Redis) and I have got the following results in Central/Northern QLD:
Leichhardt: Gains Bentley Park from Kennedy (I also personally want minor boundary changes to unify Carpentaria and Mareeba LGAs (except Kuranda))
Kennedy: Still determining boundary with Herbert, will lose Bentley park to Leichhardt nevertheless, and no changes to Southern boundary
Herbert: Still determining boundary with Kennedy but southern/eastern boundary will match Townsville LGA boundaries
Dawson: Burdekin, Whitsunday, Mackay LGAs. No more, no less.
Capricornia: Isaacs, Livingstone, Rockhampton, Barcaldine, Blackall-Tambo, Longreach, Winton LGAs (I think everything fro Emerald to Winton should be in the same seat given the rail connection)
I have avoided going any further for now because I may want to try playing around with Noosa (I don’t want it in the same seat as Gympie) later.
A gas the difference is there is no other way to reduce those seats if we look at qld 1 federal seat is about 3 state seats. So you’re basically getting traegar cook and hill all rolled into one. That’s too big. I think the aim should be to reduce the size of seats where possible.
Gympie will probly end up in the same seat as noosa
@Darren McSweeney July 29, 2025 at 3:11 pm
@Nicholas July 29, 2025 at 3:51 pm
I’m new with the QGIS tool, so do you guys have any resources/videos/tutorials which can guide me in how to draw electorate maps?
Maranoa is already effectively Gregory, Warrego and the Southern Downs, and a big chunk of Nanango. Is that too big?
@Real Talk
I think all of Gregory will have to end up in Capricornia after this round of Fed/State Redistribution (Assuming State and Fed Projections are similar, and Gregory loses Barcoo/Diamantina/Boulia and gains most of Isaacs LGA)
That said, I don’t know if Maranoa should go into Somerset LGA so I am wondering what the alternatives are if it loses all of Gregory. Perhaps Maranoa going into Oakey and moving Groom into the Lockyer Valley is the best way to avoid it, if necessary.
Maranoa would be best going into the rural parts of groom. Somerset has better coi with Ipswich moreton Bay and wide bay and burnett. Not to mention the weirdly shaped seat it would create maranoa needs to increase voters while gaining as little territory as possible lockyer valley will probly need to be split between groom and Blair this time around
Maranoa is too big and pushing it into Somerset will just create a weirdly shaped seat.
I really don’t understand how Maranoa could possibly get any smaller and without being really under quota
Im not saying make it smaller just not increase its size by more then necessary. Though it would be feasible to remove some of those sparsely populated areas in west qld and push it into Toowoomba. But that would create problems down the line. I wanted to just remove kingaroy and South burnett but it looks like that won’t be working out this time either
Is anyone able to extrapolate the state redistribution data and apply it to the federal seats to get an idea of the projections. In regards to maranoa and kingaroy I’ might remove that and put in central Highlands which probably has better coi
@Angas
The problem with moving the Huon Valley into Lyons is that the only transportation connections go through Kingston and Hobart. It would be physically contiguous, but not in a practical sense.
Probably the ideal scenario for Clark and Franklin, is for Clark to consist of the Hobart, Kingborough and Huon Valley LGAs, while Franklin consists of Clarence, Glenorchy and Brighton
The proposed “fixes” to Franklin all seem to involve boundaries that may as well be incontiguous.