The first round of public submissions for the Queensland state redistribution were published last week – about three weeks after they were submitted to the Commission. So I thought it would be useful to examine what they say, with a particular focus on the major party submissions.
There are four rounds of submissions:
- Suggestions
- Comments on suggestions
- Objections to the draft redistribution
- Commons on objections
Just over one hundred suggestions were lodged. The major parties typically make detailed submissions covering the whole state, while many others focus on a particular element of the state, sometimes with a large number of submissions making the same case.
This time around, there was a number of others who made quite thorough suggestions, with Tally Room commenters well represented.
The Liberal National Party made a full statewide submission, with their own boundary maps. The QRC originally did not publish any shapefiles that had been submitted with suggestions, but thanks to Tally Room member Travis making a request, these were published later. The LNP submission did not include any statistics on the population numbers in each of their proposed seats, but with the shapefiles it is possible to make estimates on the number of voters moved, and the estimated margin in the new seats.
The Labor submission was unfortunately short on details. It does not include any maps, and the suggestions are vague and not specific. They will sometimes suggest a general direction a seat should move in, or that a particular seat need not be changed significantly. Labor did not provide maps, and did not even provide enough detail to draw my own maps. So I can’t calculate precise numbers for them.
Both submissions seemed to aim for minimal change. The Labor submission, for example, argues that the seats of northern Brisbane don’t require any changes beyond what can be done within the area, despite most seats in the area being overquota. The LNP submission leaves 17 seats in northern Brisbane collectively 41.3% of a seat over quota (an average of 2.4% over quota). While that deviation for one seat would be reasonable, I don’t think it’s acceptable for a region to be half a quota over and just draw every seat as a bit bigger than average.
The LNP submission moves 16.4% of voters. That does seem high but I don’t have a great comparison to a neutral map. The last redistribution in 2016 moved 21.8% for voters, but that redistribution added five seats to the parliament. This one doesn’t involve a change in seat numbers. Overall it appears that the LNP were willing to draw unusual boundaries without making bigger systemic shifts, while Labor tried to keep changes to a minimum.
The LNP submission abolishes two seats – KAP-held Hill in the far north, and Labor-held in Toohey. They replace them with Labor-held Greenbank in the outer south-west of Brisbane, and LNP-held Caboolture on the northern edge of Brisbane. Labor does not abolish or create any seats.
The LNP has proposed twelve seats be renamed. Most of these seem to be responses to names implemented in 2016. Five changes are directly reversing decisions to rename seats in 2016. In one other, an old name (Sunnybank) was imposed on Stretton while Sunnybank’s successor Toohey was abolished. In four other cases (Cooper, Bonney, Macalister, Bancroft), a renamed or new seat from 2016 has been given a fresh name. Labor makes no name changes.
Now the most interesting bit: the partisan impact. Unfortunately I can’t do these calculations for Labor, although I expect they are less dramatic. The LNP submission flips six Labor seats to be notional LNP seats – Aspley, Bundaberg, Gaven, Ipswich West, Pine Rivers and Springwood. In addition, the replacement of Hill with Caboolture flips KAP’s third seat to a seventh LNP gain. Overall it increases the LNP’s numbers from 52 seats to 59 – increasing an eleven-seat majority to a 25-seat majority.
The uniform swing needed for the LNP to lose their majority would increase from 1.9% to 3.0%, while the swing needed for Labor to gain a majority increases from 3.7% to 4.6%.
Amongst other suggestions, there are quite a few dealing with one specific part of the state. There was clearly a campaign to put in submissions dealing with the towns or suburbs of Calliope, Mount Cotton and Cooroy. It is hard to say what the impact of such suggestions would be without knowing the broader knock-on effects.
This map compares the 2017-24 boundaries to the LNP’s submission.
There are also a number of submissions which deal with matters outside of the powers of the Queensland Redistribution Commission. There are a number of submissions which call for more malapportionment to allow for less populous rural seats compared to denser areas. The KAP submission argues that the “ghost electors” allowance for large electors double from 2% of square kilometres to 4%.
Quite possibly the most astounding submission comes from Western Downs Regional Council, who argue the ghost electors should increase to 5%, that this rule should apply to electorates half as big as the current rule, but also argue for a minimum electorate size of 75 square kilometres. This would affect a huge number of electorates – 39 out of 93 seats in the current Legislative Assembly have an area of less than 75 square kilometres. To implement such a change would severely reduce the power of urban Queensland and force severe malapportionent.
So what comes next?
The next round of submissions, making comments on the suggestions, closes in two weeks, on Monday 22 September. Anyone can make a comment. After comments are published the Commission will take its time to prepare the draft redistribution map. It is expected that the Commission will publish this map in early 2026.
Oh dear… that Greenbank district is awful.
It was great reading quite a few submissions from fellow TallyRoom readers. A lot of details provided with clearly thought out suggestions.
My submission outlined a consistent naming process rather then the randomised approach by the QRC at the last redistribution. After looking through each of the submissions I am going to change my approach for the Capalaba/Oodgeroo/Redlands area as an acceptance of the approach of other submissions. There’s a few other examples where I’ll be arguing for elements of other submissions over my own.
However moving Moreton Island from Redcliffe to Lytton is correct, as is moving Macalister to the other side of the Logan River. For that last one it’s just me and The Greens. 🙂
The abolition of Toohey had more supporters than the alternatives – abolishing Mansfield or Stretton or doing nothing.
There’s no such thing as a right submission, but there’s lots of examples of wrong submissions!
Of the major party submissions the KAP one was appalling; The Greens didn’t step outside the Greater Brisbane Area except to say that a Townsville seat should be abolished (without any data to support it); the ALP submission required a Delphic oracle to discern what they actually wanted to do; and the LNP submission was missing any actual data. From a quick look some of the proposed seats may not meet the quota requirements.
While it doesn’t form part of my response I’m also going to suggest a few changes for the QRC to consider before they go to the Estimates hearings next year. The first it to consider whether the time period for members of the public to lodge submissions is adequate given the increase in the number of seats and the complexity required to calculate the quota. I would also like to suggest that the QRC update the tools required to make it easier to generate submissions. I’m also going to suggest removing the weighting for Large Areas entirely and increasing the resources available to those Members. This will hopefully inform the QRC post-redistribution.
With the growth of AI it would be worthwhile for the QRC and Parliament to look at pre-qualifying submissions to determine their validity. The option to still submit, or the opportunity to amend, submissions that are incorrect should be preserved but where possible people should be made aware of why their submission way not be valid. The fact that three out of four Local Government submissions were non-compliant was concerning.
A 75 km2 area based on the Brisbane CBD would go from Ashgrove to Clayfield to Coorparoo and across to Indooroopilly. There were even worse suggestions though – S.95 suggested “Grossly unfair as there needs to be other considerations for issues other than the old process “one vote one value””. S.70 suggested that the Queensland Redistribution Commission review be halted until it can assure the Queensland public that the electoral roll is accurate. S.60 requested that “Boundaries not to be redrawn purely on population density.” and S.71 suggested to “Keep old boundaries held by non-major party candidates”.
I was a big fan of your naming conventions Mark – very clear, and would be nice to have consistent approach.
If I were a ratepayer in the Western Downs, I would be severely questioning the collective wisdom of my civic leaders.
FYI, the first of the emails from elected Members on the redistribution – https://mailchi.mp/nikkiboyd/nikki-boyd?e=d759692339
Lnp rort
Idk if anyone else has discovered this but Maryborough in the LNP’s Submission is actually overquota 😛
Mick
Has any party ever put in a redistribution that did not actively favour their own interests? … No. There have been some shockers from the Labor Party over the years. From what I could see, most of the over quota seats were LNP held and the low enrolment seats Labor held so there will be an adjustment – just as in Victoria the over quota seats tend to be Labor and the under quota Coalition. When the redistribution happens there is an adjustment upwards for whoever is in that over quota position.
all parties use the redistribuion to try and carve out their political opposition. if labor and the greens cant be bothered putting in an effort thats on them. i do agree with some parts of the lnp and some of the greens. my proposal is done with prioritising CoI and natural boundaries.
i suspect the submissions outside the tribunal are aware they are but are simply using this as a platform to have their position heard publicly and on the record.
@John to be fair the Greens don’t really have interests outside of SEQ, and even most of that is very long-term. I suppose if they really wanted to they could try and shepherd future results into a hung parliament, but that would be very difficult to predict accurately, especially so far out.
Katter’s could also have tried to angle for a hung parliament, or try and coalesce the most pro-KAP parts of Townsville into one seat, but instead they just raged that they don’t like the rules.
clarinet the current arrangement is probably better for them their votes is probably in Hinchinbrook. theyve already got taht seat theres no way they could rig it to win anything else.
outside that their best chances are probably in mirani or cook. in cook they would only need to boost their vote by scarping some off labor and the lnp to get over one of them on onp preferences then they would probably win vs labor or lnp. miranin this was probably their best chance depedning on ifs abolished or not. even if its not they will lose the personal vote from ANdrew next time.
My submission is number 19 for those interested.
Currently watching the Socceroos so I can’t be bothered to read all the submissions at the moment bur are there any joke ones or does the ECQ discard them (which the AEC doesn’t, meaning they have online and printed copies of some very weird submissions).
I know some joker has cut off Burnett Heads from the rest of the Burnett electorate in their submission.
As for the others, you’ll have to read them yourself I guess…
Really I breezed through the whole lot in about 2 hours on the 1st of September.
@np yes I gathered that since it says Netther Portal @ tallyroom
The lnps Bundaberg is a clearattempt to gain favourable boundaries to flip the seat. But as is labors attempt to maintain the donut. Some of the lnps suggestion is reasonable though like transferring out north Bundaberg to use the river as anatural boundary and then extend to Burnett Heads. Which is what I’ve done and I think that my suggestion is more middle ground.
I’m inclined to agree with about 1/2 Of the LNP proposal while I can see Bundaberg gaven and Ipswich West being flipped by the redistribution I don’t think they’ll get the changes they want in Aspley pine rivers and springwood. Also they won’t be abolishing hill they can expect minor changes at best for that one
I applaud the lnp on a good attempt at a subtle gerrymandering. They have to at least try right? I’m surprised they didn’t try and crack the green vote in maiwar or abolish it all together. But to their credit and labors dismal proposal they at least put in a full proposal and tried to justify it.
In regards to Mount Cotton, Cooroy and Calliope I’ve done all 3 of those so the people making those requests can be justified in their opinions as I’ve shown it can be done.
I can also forsee a lot of objections from residents of Hill and the labor seats that would be flipped.
It will be interesting to see what rising ALP star Tom Smith does if the LNP’s boundary changes to Bundaberg are accepted. My guess is he will return to his former home of Hervey Bay or take a stab at Maryborough if Bruce Saunders does not recontest. Not sure what the proposed change to the Hervey Bay boundary is intended to achieve. They have cut off some of the more sparsely populated part of the seat which is currently over-quota. I am interested in Ben’s thoughts about the ALP submission as I think you may have mentioned they had someone working on it for some time. It seems quite underwhelming.
@greg yea they wont be accepted at least not in full but its gonna flip but not as much as the lnp want it to. Harvey Bay is way too safe for the LNP. the only seat i cant see labor winning back in 2028 is Rockhampton
Greg – even if Bundaberg becomes a notional LNP seat (not sure what the margin would be), Tom Smith has shown he has the personal vote to overcome any LNP statewide swing so he could still have a chance of being re-elected similar to other MP’s who successfully retained seats despite being drawn against their favour during redistributions (key examples being Peter Watson in Albany, WA and Leon Bignell in Mawson, SA who were both re-elected in unfavourable years even as their seats became notionally Liberal held).
@yoh doubtful in this case it would involve losing alp voting booths in excahnge for lnp voting booths. i believe thats why theyve drawn it this way
Fair point John, are you implying that with the proposed changes the notional LNP margin would be quite high (at least 5% and possibly up to 10%)? If that was the case, then I agree with you that Tom Smith would have almost zero chance of retaining the seat and would probably just decide to retire at the end of his term.
i dont have the figures but it would definately flip the seat. my proposal is similar but not as agressive as the LNPs. i have removed North Bundaberg citing suing the river as a boundary and including everything north of the windemere road ad remiving everything south of silky oak street
I have been very disappointed with the ALP and KAP submissions. The KAP one is just nonsense, the ALP submission doesn’t really say anything. The last couple of Labor submissions have been relatively content free – this one goes even further by saying as long as the seat is within the 10 percent quota then there’s no need to change it.
From my reckoning the LNP has put “politically weighted” submissions forward in Pine Rivers, Springwood and Bundaberg and potentially Gaven. Springwood is particularly problematic because it crosses a long-term boundary between Brisbane and Logan.
In a lot of cases The Greens submissions are more defensible if a little timid – it would have been better if they had gone outside their comfort zone of SEQ. And at least The Greens had maps AND numbers.
There’s a few detailed submissions that have cheerfully put up seats that exceed the 10 percent variance or make the boundaries impossible. The majority of the LGA submissions were just an opportunity to push a particular view and avoid making a compliant submission – Longreach was the only one to actually read the guidelines.
On the plus side there’s some consistent agreements across the submissions so it makes it easier to comment.
@John I’ve reworked my submission for Capalaba and Redlands based on some really good submissions that made more sense than mine. I’ve tweaked a few other seats so far based on that and I’ll be including those changes as a comment on my submission. I already had Calliope in Gladstone, but I’m going to have a look to see if it’s possible to fit Cooroy and Babinda in to Noosa and Cairns and what would have to come out.
@mark algester already crosses the Brisbane Logan boundary but yes it’s politically weighted but that’s what parties do they have to at least try and do it. The lnp suggestions are about half right in their suggestions to move the boundaries but tobviously theu want more favourable boundaries what party wouldn’t? I left pine rivers as is despite wanting to make changes it would have knock on effects. I think they will get bundaberg gaven and Ipswich west flipped but not as much as they want. They will probably get their wish in an extra seat around the colabooltuee area but they wont get hill abolished. It will be an under quota seat and the 2 most unser quaot that could be reasonably be abolished are Callide and mirani
In regards to the lnp well Labor put in a dismal effort of a redistribution so it’s not up to the QRC to do their jobs for them.
Which submissions were really good?
I noticed the one submission has malware cross the Brisbane river
Lnp*
@Darth Vader Submission #20 wanted to put the Bay Islands and Redland Bay into Springwood. This was from a Redlands councillor…
@John Jeff Waddell’s submission #20 was excellent and made me rethink a few things in my submission. Dropping a bucket on the projected numbers from the 2017 redistribution almost made up for not having maps. Brendan Andrews #99 was well thought out but needed a rationale and REALLY needed an index – trying to work out what electorate by examining the shapes was tricky. Jonathon Pont’s #77 was also solid, even though there were a few times when I disagreed with him. All of those submissions were better than the major party and local government efforts.
I did note the number of people who simply ran out of time, and my submission was right up to deadline as the second last one – actual last if you didn’t count the one accepted after the deadline. Having 93 state electorates to work on is a lot harder than the 30 Queensland federal electorates and the length of time allowed hasn’t changed with the jump in seats.
My submission was #114 it was incomplete but as promised it will be finished by end of comments on submissions
Ive drawn a few seats under quota that I would have preferred to not but I prioritised natural boundaries and as to not upset balance in other seats Namely: Townsville, Thuringowa, Mundingburra, Burdekin and Maryborough but they satisfy the range required for the redistribution so they can be fixed up next time similarly a few seat were drawn over quota due to large sa1s and against boundaries i didn’t want to disturbed so hopefully they can be fixed up next time.
My new version of Keppel which I’ve called Shoalwater would probably be lnp vs either or kap seat as it removes all of rockhampton and all of Mackay north of Alligator creek and thats the stronger labor booths in Rockhampton and outer Mackay gone so the labor vote would crash. However this would probably make Rockhampton easy for labor to win back. A by product of abolishing Mirani.
What are the notional margins for each seat under the LNP submission?
According to raues podcast Bundaberg would be 3% LNP and gaven would be 6.5% LNP
i think re the alp submission, that there will have to be some changes in se qld where they hold most seats and dont wont to suggest changes that put one of their sitting members in a losing position. it seems pretty clear stretton or toohey may be abolished, but no way alp will put a submission suggesting that
Honestly I agree the LNP submission is partisan. That is expected, but some of the suggestions are geographically sensible especially under the community of interest.
Ending the Bundaberg donut is a must. Whatever you did would make it Bundaberg a LNP marginal and Burnett slightly less safe. Though Avoca was among the best booths for The LNP in Bundaberg, so Smith loses a particular hard area for him.
It is natural to take the river a boundary and add the Burnett Heads to Elliott Heads booths, both of which are ok for Labor and sometimes won by them. The trade off is the Bargara and other coastal booths plus the farming, outer Bundaberg booths that are switched to Bundaberg are super strong LNP booths.
If the coastal councillors are LNP aligned they become possibly candidates with this change.
The Springwood and Pine Rivers changes are interesting as well. I think it’s not as clear to defend.
Don’t sleep on some of the other proposed changes like the Nicklin and Glasshouse boundaries.
The LNP will get some of the wishes but not all. They will get some changes in Bundaberg but probably not all. I doubt they’ll get their pine rivers or springwood changes but they should be able to win those regardless. They won’t get hill abolished. They get enough changes in gave to flip it but not by as much and probably some changes in Ipswich West. Their proposal would make it a 1.5% LNP seat but it will probably be closer to a dead heat. And the changes in Aspley will probably favour labor but not by much. Certainties include a seat around Caboolture and greenbank/Gladstone and abolishing Stratton and toohey for sunnybank and a regional seat most likely.
I do agree with the Bundaberg changes. The city is too large to be contained within a single district, and it is better to split it roughly in half using the river rather than the current configuration (most of it in the centre with the fringes wrapped around it).
Yea but I think the lnps suggestion goes too far for their own benefit. It’s clear they are trti n g to crack the labor vote.
I’ve reread Submission 65 and I now agree with it. While it does make Moggill a little bit worse, the community-of-interest arguments are compelling and I’m just going to have to accept that the numerical result for either seat will not be optimal.
In a few cases the collected changes are so different that I can’t compare like for like – The Greens in Chatsworth/Capalaba and the LNP in Springwood/Mansfield come to mind. The ALP submission, where it actually makes a comment, is more subtle. For instance instead of adding the part of Macalister north of the Logan River to Springwood, they suggest Springwood cross over the M1 to Tanah Merah.
In each of those cases the arguments used to support those boundaries are questionable, if not downright deceptive.
@atrix The ALP submission ignores any electorates that are within a 10% variance, irrespective of the likely changes. Whether it’s intentional or not, it’s difficult to search their submission because some pages are saved to PDF as text and some pages are saved as graphics. Which means some text can be copied and pasted and some can’t. Whether this is an example of “security through obscurity” or not it is incredibly annoying.
@Darth Vader I just bowed to the inevitable and made Jordan an entirely Springfield based seat. For a couple of areas (Springfield and Mount Cotton) I just used the demographic tools on the OESR site to do a comparison between each of those SA2s and the LGA to see which way the demographics aligned.
@Yoh An I’m doing a quick check on whether it’s numerically possible to keep some of those requested areas within the major urban area. Mostly whether Babinda can fit within Cairns and whether Cooroy can fit into Noosa. If they can’t then it becomes a case of what areas would have to be removed.
What does sub 65 say?
Babinda would go into Mulgrave, not Cairns.
@Real Talk The Cairns Regional Council area. Which is bigger than I thought. However… The CRC is 2.313 quotas and projected to 2.279. Which is at the awkward level. The problem is that the LGA boundaries for Cairns are not good, creating a long, narrow strip.
If that was essential then you could merge Traegar and Cook, move the resultant seat well away from coastal population centres and make Hill a partly Cairns -based seat. That would drag up the non-coastal North Queensland seats and allow you to move the other western seat of Gregory further inland as well. That would create two huge seats instead of the current four, given that my Warrego is now centred on Roma and detached from the western border.
@Darth Vader Sub #65 wants to move Indooroopilly Woods out of Moggill and into Maiwar. I was mostly concerned about dealing with an under-quota Moggill and didn’t want it to lose any voters from anywhere, however Indooroopilly Woods has a small population that wouldn’t affect Moggill’s quota that much.
During the last redistribution the QRC added a fairly substantial block of Rochedale South to its stupid version of Meadowbrook, had a bunch of complaints and then said “Oh, guess we won’t put it there” but without rebalancing the numbers for Springwood or Waterford. So I’m assuming the QRC tolerance for population is fairly flexible.
The three Cairns seats aren’t exclusively made up of the Cairns Regional Council though. You’re forgetting Yarrabah and Kuranda, which supplement Mulgrave and Barron River. It’s quite easy to maintain the integral character of the existing seats, keep them in quota, and add Babinda to Mulgrave. Don’t overthink it.
I’ve left Barron River as is, added additional area to CAIRNS FROMmulgrave and then added the remainder of cairns to mulgrave from hill. Hill loses Mareeba Shire and CRC but gains the remainder of Cassowary Coast from Hinchinbrook. This balances Hinchinbrooks expected surplus. Which im hoping will continue to grow to bolster ypthe 3 Townsville seats
Frankly speaking, Maiwar should lose Fig Tree Pocket to Moggill and move upwards into Milton and/or Paddington. The north Brisbane electorates have exactly enough quota for 11 districts, and thus there is no reason for any of those districts to cross the river.