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.
There are transportation links between Glenorchy and Clarence and Brighton. That said, I simply don’t think there is a configuration of these two seats that isn’t at least somewhat messy.
Bianca there too much population for that to work
and thats not entirely true you can get from Geeveston to Strathgordon without going through Clark.
and even if theres a problem simply put all of Houn Valley and and Kingborough into Clark and then transfer Glenorchy to Lyons and then move Tasman, Sorell and possibly the rest of Clarence to Franklin.
PROBLEM SOLVED
John
With regards to Bianca’s suggestion, the Clark proposal may struggle to reach quota whereas the Franklin would be over quota. I have looked into this as a scenario. Depends of course on the projections when they come out.
yes thats why you put Glenorchy into Lyons and then move Tasman and Sorell and if needed the rest of Clarence into Franklin from Lyons
ok il correct that.
at very least transfer all of Kingborough and Houn Vallet to Clary then just put whatever excess from Glenorchy into Lyons.
If you just transferred Huon Council and the Channel to Clark, could you then leave all of Glenorchy in Clark? It would not be ideal to still have Kingston in Clark but at least it is an already existing issue and could be fazed out at a future redistribution.
Sorry, I meant all of Kingston in Franklin.*
@Lurking Westie
I’m still working QGIS out mostly, I used to manually manipulate kml coordinates in text and Excel and the put them in Google Earth.
With QGIS, I get the SA1, SA2, Suburb, LGA, and State shp file datasets from ABS. I add them to my project as separate layers.
I then get the existing electoral divisions shp file dataset from AEC.
I use the vector tools, dissolve, union, clip, intersection, subtract etc to add and remove SA1s (or LGA or Suburbs etc) to the elecotral divisions. I just do the map manipulation there, I don’t calculate the numbers using QGIS, because I haven’t really tried it, and manually doing it in Excel work for me.
If my border doesn’t align with an SA1, or LGA or Suburb boundary, then you can manually add notes and points – it’s easier if this is just over a short distance though.
I then merge the scratch layers of the new shapes together.
Optionally – I adjust the AEC divisions to remove the sea/ocean/waterway areas by aligning them with the State boundaries from the ABS. Just because I don’t like the divisions includng arbitrary lines in Sydney Harbour, Botany Bay, the Swan River, Western Port Bay and the Great Barrier Reef. But that’s just me.
In the past I’ve uploaded them to Mapbox, and then screenshotted to get the maps for my report. I’ll probably upload them to my own website and use leaflet this time round.
Last time my queensland suggestion (https://aec.gov.au/redistributions/2017/qld/files/suggestions/qld17-s0013-darren-mcsweeney.pdf) includined Leichhardt became solely focused on Cairns, Kennedy took all of Cape York. Herbert became most of Townsville, with the northern parts the edge of Kennedy. Dawson stretched from Giru to include all of Mackay, while all of Rockhampton was in Capricornia and all of Gladstone was in Flynn, and all of Bundaberg was in Hinkler. The compromise became Charters Towers moving into Capricornia with Rockhampton and Mt Isa moved into Maranoa. So it’s doable, but it does make a lot of wider changes.
I was also criticised for then excluding Cape York from Leichhardt, Palm Islands from Townsville and in Tasmania Flinders Islands from Bass because it meant people that had to fly to get to their member would then also have to drive out of the city the flight landed in to get to their member.
I don’t know if that particualr circumstance is compelling enough to me to justify people living within the same city not being in the same city, while those more remote are included. But then I guess that’s their argument to make.
@Darren McSweeney
Sounds like we have similar workflows, at least for producing the maps, although I haven’t bothered with MapBox.
I think at present there is just too much pushback against moving Cape York into Kennedy and Mount Isa into Maranoa, even though it allows for better boundaries on the coast.
Will be interesting to see if at least some of the awkward splitting of suburbs and satellites of regional cities (Edmonton in Kennedy, Annandale in Dawson, Ooralea in Capricornia, Mount Morgan in Flynn, and Moore Park Beach in Flynn) can be fixed this time without radical changes to Maranoa or Kennedy.
Darren, I think the argument of air connectivity links from remote (island) communities to the mainland is strong enough to override other community of interest concerns.
I believe the commission used this point to argue for the placement of Lord Howe Island in the federal seat of Sydney instead of the Port Macquarie based Cowper due to better air connections between the island and Sydney.
In remote areas air routes are very important. It makes sense for Cape York to be included in Leichhardt as all of the air routes comes out of Cairns. It can be argued that the ‘milk run’ air routes in Western Queensland all end in Mount Isa but start in various places and traverse what is now in Maranoa. Hence, I don’t have a big issue with Mount Isa going into Maranoa. And it does free up enough electors that can be released to try and clean up the coast. Whatever happens, it is probably impossible to have a Kennedy that does not touch both Cairns and Townsville.
Had a crack at rebuilding the federal divisions using the state redistribution numbers and it looks like it might be possible to clean up most of Northern Queensland without having to make major changes to Kennedy or Maranoa.
If the projected deficit in Townsville persists in the federal figures, then Herbert should be able to gain the balance of Townsville Council from Dawson.
And then down the coast:
– Dawson = Burdekin + Whitsunday + Mackay
– Capricornia = Isaac + Livingstone + Rockhampton + Central Highlands + Banana
– Flynn = Gladstone + Bundaberg + North Burnett
– Hinkler = ABOLISHED
– Wide Bay = Fraser Coast + Gympie
Noosa is where things start to get messy but given the strong growth around Caboolture and the Sunshine Coast, it might provide enough electors to create a new division to make up for the removal of Hinkler.
They won’t be abolishing Hinkler its at quota and will need to shed vofers ao they wont abolish it. or any other seat for that matter. There will be a shift north but thats it. Im sensing what labor will want to do in south brisbane but i wont post it as im not wanting to give them any ideas.
On the boundaries suggested by @Angas, you could say that any one of Flynn, Hinkler, or Wide Bay is abolished. Or keep all three, with Wide Bay becoming a Sunshine Coast seat. As changes become more extensive, the notion of which electorate is “abolished” becomes less meaningful.
Exactly Nicholas.
Why is it hard to believe that a seat currently in quota could be abolished?
Small changes to seats far away become larger and more meaningful changes further down the map.
I had to abolish two regional Qld seats in the state redistribution because of changes elsewhere, where numerically only one needed to go.
Ironically, if my state map and Angas’s federal scenario comes to fruition, that part of Queensland might gain a state seat but lose a federal seat.
Id bet my left arm they wont
@Yoh An you can fly from Port to Lord Howe.
Labor is probably regretting not expanding the house at the 2025 election. I wonder if it makes sense to do it in 2028?
Agree Real Talk and Nicholas, looking at the NSW federal boundaries post redistribution – not only is North Sydney abolished but you have an effective amalgamation of Watson and Blaxland, with the ‘leftover’ bits then used to top up all the surrounding seats.
@Real Talk is there any precedence of abolishing an in quota seat? at the previous redistribution in VIC and NSW they went with the most under quota seat (that wasnt a corner seat) despite everyone here on tallyroom advocating for Hotham to be abolished they still went with Higgins and that was only because VIC needed to lose a seat. Is there any precedence of them abolishing a seat at a redistribution where there wasnt at least a full seats worth of deficit?
Yes but what are the chnaces the Qec will abolish 2 regional seats? surely there would be mass objections.
Darth Vader, the 2010 NSW redistribution which amalgamated Reid and Lowe together was one that made a questionable decision. Reid was the only inner Sydney seat above quota at the time and yet it was still abolished.
@yoh an but in 2010 NSW was losing a seat so thats part of the reason. QLD isnt losing or gaining any seats so its different circumstances
i think some changes are in order for Spence and Makin. hence im gonna rename Spence Holder after Lady Julia Maria Holder and rename Makin Williams after R.M Williams.
Why replace the name Spence (named after Catherine Spence) with another name?
DV
In 1977, the seat of Lang in south west Sydney was abolished and Dundas created in north west Sydney. If it was now they would probably do a big shuffle.
because i plan to seriously alter both seats
Darth, you don’t really need to rename seats if they undergo a major change. The recent federal redistribution for NSW radically altered the seat of Watson (losing almost 50% of its original territory) yet the name remained in place. There are other examples at the state level where a seat undergoes major changes but does not change its name.
@ Darth, in 1989 Victoria lost 2 Federal seats and one created, the seats abolished were Streeton and Henty, the latter might of had a quota at abolition
In the NSW 2010 redistribution, the original proposal was to merge Lowe and Reid (abolishing both names) into “McMahon”. The objection was obvious – “Reid” is a former Prime Minister. In the end, “Reid” was kept for the Lowe-Reid merger, and Prospect (a place name, not of Aboriginal origin, and not a federation name) was renamed to “McMahon”.
Because Watson us named for a PM
@Angas As you’ve noted, from Noosa north the boundaries are really messy. It’s half a regional city, blank space and then half another regional city. My Dawson will be Mackay and Whitsunday, also putting Collinsville (part of Whitsunday Regional Council) there instead of a four hour drive to Capricornia where it currently is.
@Darren McSweeney I’m probably going to pull the pin on Cape York this time as well. The population numbers aren’t there to justify it and accessibility can be covered by increasing electorate office funding and the transport allowance for oversized seats. I’m probably going to be left with only Kennedy and Maranoa in the Far North and Far West. For the state redistribution I’ve disconnected Warrego from the border by six SA1s – about 400km for less than 500 people. Leichardt had an electorate office on Thursday Island that covered the far northern area, it’s just as easy to maintain one there for Kennedy.
@Blue Not John You can’t expand the House without expanding the Senate – S.24 says the house shall have “as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators”. The plus side is that Tasmania would still be capped at their five HOR members with additional Senators. I think there’d also be a pretty firm push from the ACT to increase their representation. Assuming the number of Senators went up by two per state and an extra one for Canberra you’d end with (6*14) or 84, then adding the Territory Senators – 3 ACT, 2 NT, or 89. Which would make the HOR around 168 +3 +2, plus or minus roundings. So somewhere around 173. It would be hard to justify the ACT only having 2 Senators when Tasmania has 12 and the populations are the same. That’s assuming the NT population doesn’t drop to 1 Senator.
A house expansion won’t be happening by 2028. You need first a proposal then s edcondly an agreement and and sort of investigation by the parliament committee will take longer the year and a 9 months the redistribution would have to commence by as any redistribution would need to begin 12 months pr i or to the next election and assuming the waits until next may it would need to conclude before the election is initiated. So we can probably hope by the 2031 election maybe other then that an increase by 2034 is pretty likely
There’s no way they will be expanding Kennedy and maranoa to super sized seats. Leichardt will probably be at quota and Kennedy somewhat close. No way they are gonna seriously alter leichardt. They go for minimal change where required to avoid moving mass amounts of voters.
@MArk how is Collinsville a 4 hour drive to Capricornia when its in Capricornia?
but agreed Dawson can probably be fixed by adding the rest of Whitsunday region from Capricornia. ifits too muhc then just adjust capricornia by moving further into Mackay. Leichardt should be fine but kennedy may require a bit more to fix up a shortfall on projected numbers. same with herbert. Herbert could be fixed by taking in more of townsville from Dawson and Kennedy either Hinchinbrook or Burdekin shire. fix up Capricornia by taking in central highlands. Flynn can take te rest of Bundaberg. I reckon Hinkler and Wide Bay are gonna be over the 3.5% quota on projections based on the qld from Maryborough and Harvery Bay. Hinkler can be the fraser coast wide bay would be gympie noosa and maybe somerset? as it might be easier to push it there rather then have to cross into the sunshine coast