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.
@rb are you talking north or south of the river? South of the river but north of the river they are about 1/3 quota short of 10.seats and I’ve done something similar and drawn tmoggill across the river into ipswich
Everton is not a purely Brisbane seat is actually in Moreton Bay as well.
Correction after removing all the Moreton Bay from ferny and Everton Brisbane north of the river makes up 10 quotas and 9.74 on projection
RB:P Yep, the majority of submissions that deal with Moggill do it that way because it’s the most obvious resolution.There’s a fairly natural stopping point at Coonan Street, Indooroopilly. The problem with Moggill is that it’s constrained by the BCC border to the north-west past Lake Manchester, the Ennogera Reservoir to the north and the Brisbane River to the south, so you just follow Moggill Road until the population adds up. The real problem with Moggill is the lack of developable land there, so the population remains stable and goes backwards relative to the rest of Queensland. The residents of Moggill have spent the past 70 years blocking any plans for a bridge from Ipswich and thats why they still have a car ferry that mostly works.
FYI, my Maiwar follows Ashgrove Road and my Ferny Grove follows Samford Road.
@Real Talk Just to satisfy my own curiousity I redid Mulgrave to include Babinda, which pushed Barron River further north and west into Cook to make sure the three Cairns-based seats (with extensions) were doable. One of the odd consequences of that was the numbers for merging Cook and Traegar became a lot easier, and it stopped Gregory moving east as it could now take the leftover bits of Traegar. The other consequence of that is that it gave Hill, Burdekin and Mirani a bit more breathing space. I’m probably going to include it as an option because it really only affects nine seats. And it will annoy the people who don’t want any changes to Traegar.
Both Kholo road and mount Crosby road cross from moggill into Ipswich
This allows s you to put that hangoverover part of Ipswich between the Brisbane and Bremer rivers into moggill and i have put indooroopily along with chapel hill into maiwar. And have suggesthey put the remainder of mount cootha in as well
Mark, with respect, you must be looking at different numbers to me.
Using the existing map as a starting point, it’s quite straightforward to put Babinda into Mulgrave, make a small adjustment around Toogood Road with Cairns, and leave Barron River and Cook untouched. This leaves the three Cairns electorates at 4.48%, 3.53% and -0.37% in regards to the 2025 quota, and 0.65%, 1.42% and 2.35% on 2032 projections. Hill dips slightly south to take in the hamlets north of the Tully River.
Shifting 2060 electors should not in itself result in an avalanche of consequences across the entire state, given there is ultimately a lawful variance of 20% (-10% to 10%) that we can draw a district.
@real I’ve done that but I’ve taken Mareeba Shire out of Hill opand put it into cook
My Hill then takes the remainder of Cassowary Coast lga from Hinchinbrook including its namesake island
There’s only around 900 electors from Mareeba Shire in Hill, that’s an easy change to make without any effect on Hill.
Now that my mundingburra has extended all the way into rural Townsville next redistribution it should be easier to balance out the 3 seats. Plus whatever excess is in ninchbrook that may grow and prop up the others
@Real Talk Just tried that – that’ll work too! Thanks.
What do we think is gonna get the most comments?
I think the labor submission for the federal redistribution will be alot more complex given how they could benefit from it. I won’t post how because I don’t want to help them.
@Darth Vader Probably the LNP one. For the for the last 3 redistributions the standard play for the ALP has been to put out a submission that doesn’t have enough detail to be commented on, then look at other submissions and generate a lot of responses against them. There’s lots of social media from various ALP and related accounts urging people to lodge complaints about various parts of submissions. Chris Whiting had one urging people to keep the Bancroft name in his electorate, instead of Deception Bay. The goal is to flood the QRC with what looks like a tidal wave of opposition.
Having said that, the LNP and Greens submissions have some absolute disasters in them. In particular the LNP submission for Springwood and the Greens submission for Chatsworth/Capalaba, both of which contain factual errors.
Of the major party submissions The Greens has been the most neutral. The kindest response to the KAP proposal is that it’s unhinged and well on the way to deranged.
So basically they just stand there and complain about things rather then offer any actual alternative? Look how that went for wa where over 50% over the suggestion and comments were don’t abolish a regional seat. ” a copy and pasted template.
If they can’t offer anything as an alternative the qlec should just go with the lnps suggestion. To be fair the greens have no seats and no hoe of benefiting from it. KAP are just bob katters rednecks. Wanting to descend back to the days where you can just run your farm like it’s own country.
I admit the lnp have a few good ideas once you get through the partisan parts and obvious attempts at gerrymandered although wrapped in some good bs
As I pointed out in my opinion giving seats geographic names helps identify its location.and the people who are being represented, the exception to this is the larger seats where a specific geographic location isn’t identifiable to the whole seat. For my proposal only 1 seat maintains a name of a persona d that Traegar. In my proposal Gregory becomes less vast and more centre on a specific area in this case the Thomson River. But to preserve the seats bame which has hpwxisted for 150ish years I transferred that to Traegar along with 3 Shires and about 200k sqkm of territory. Cook along with being the same name and namesake as a federal seat can be identified by the Cape York peninsula and as such I’ve renamed it York.
In regard to north Brisbane it currently has quota for 10 seats and as such there is no point in having both Ferny Grove and Everton in both Moreton Bay city and Brisbane. It’s Projected quota is 9.74 seats I’d say that in the next redistribution it might be justifiable to abolish one of them. In this case it would probably be Cooper, maiwar or Aspley.
@John Honestly, some of the community suggestion are more sensible than the major parties. They might be missing some details – I’d have liked maps with Jeff Waddell’s submission but it’s still miles above any partisan approach. While I mostly like the LNP one there are moments – Moggill, Maiwar and Springwood for a start – when it just doesn’t work.
There’s also a couple of proposals that have a starting population outside the 10 percent variance. I won’t name and shame them but this is not an optional compliance.
Some of the Greens proposals are sensible i.e. they align with mine. And then every so often there’s something completely … odd, like their proposal for Chatsworth which seems to think that running electorates along Logan Government boundaries shouldn’t be a thing – “The current district of Chatsworth is a very odd shape because it follows local government boundaries and fills the gap between Brisbane City and the Redlands” as well as suggesting that people in Gumdale and Chandler would prefer to shop in Capalaba instead of Westfield at Carindale. The problem with the Greens version of Chatsworth is that they don’t really care about it. However they do care quite a bit about Bulimba and taking that seat from Labor, and Chatsworth is just caught in the crossfire.
Another example is moving Macalister back across the Logan River so you don’t create an exclave. Sensible suggestion all around and most of those commenting on this agree. And then they go and name it Dugulumba, because Macalister wasn’t confusing enough.
Lytton, a seat which almost everyone agrees should be left alone, is actually made worse by the Greens submission. My observation is that the further the Greens are away from their core areas, the less they know about the area.
Il agree on macallister I didn’t do it this time around though because I went for minimal change where possible. And the majority of macalister is actually south of the river. Although under my proposal it’s moves that being more north. Mine gains tanah maerah and smaller park while losing Eden’s landing holmview the rest of Waterford bars Scrub Bannockburn windproof and half of Beenleigh to waterofds successor using the railwailline and Warren Park as th eboundary
If John thinks “the qlec should just go with the lnps suggestion”, then we’ve all wasted a monumental amount of time.
I meant in regarssto Labor. If all they do is co plain without an alternative plan they can’t complain if the qlec goes with the lnp plan it’s the same as an opposition complaining about a govt without offering an lternative
They did submit an alternative plan, just one tepid on maps and data. In the meanwhile they are doing what oppositions do best: opposing.
The ALP didn’t submit maps in the 2017 redistribution either.
Yea but it wasn’t very detailed and didn’t include much information just a general plan and “the vibe”
That’s exactly what I said.
Im aware ofthat but that’s why the lnp plan should be given more weight because they actually proposed a more detailed plan with maps and evidence of what would happen in the flow on effect. Complaining about your opposition’s plan and just getting your supporters to mass protest it because you don’t agree with shouldn’t be given any weight. Look at wa they basically just had people mass ubmit a opposition template saying abolishing a regional seat would reduce representation without offering an alternative. Atheist the wants showed a detailed alternation.
Submissions don’t need maps to count. All submissions were published, even short ones. The ECQ isn’t a high school marking rubric where effort boosts your grade.
You argue the LNP deserves more weight because they proposed a “detailed plan.” But the detail itself contains errors which Mark Yore and others have already pointed out. Detail is meaningless if it’s wrong.
You’ve admitted the LNP plan has “obvious attempts at gerrymandered” maps… but then insists it should outweigh alternatives because at least they tried. That’s like praising a chef for serving raw chicken because, hey, at least they plated it with some parsley.
Finally, your dismissal of objections as “mass protest” misses the point entirely: a redistribution ought to reflect public input, positive and negative and in between.
FYI, this time around I’m going to call out the non-compliant submissions and those which contain errors of fact. A lot of the major submissions are relying on outlandish claims being made in this part of the process BEFORE the QRC draws the maps, so by the time the maps are done the next round of public submissions will just be tinkering around the edges. This is one of the reasons why the 2017 redistribution was so bad.
One of the issues last time was that the QRC inserted themselves into the process after the public submissions, making significant changes not requested in any of the submissions but generated within the QRC. This is why new seat names popped up with the release of the first maps. This time around the QRC has identified that and called for comments in the original guidelines.
@Real Talk – major party submissions should be expected to contain maps, numbers and a rationale for the choices made. That should actually be the minimum standard, and that’s why many of the personal submissions are far better. All parties try to tilt the board – the LNP is just more obvious about it. The Greens Bulimba and the ALPs Ferny Grove are great examples of that.
However, one of the major issues is the timeline, which is a legislative problem. If the government wants the public to contribute then they have to give them time to do so. So many of the submissions this time had variations on the theme of “I would have liked to complete it but I ran out of time”… While it is outside the scope of the QRC, the QRC is also able to comment on the conduct of the redistribution during Estimates Committee Hearings as well as their final report.
@real talk. I’ve said it’s an all round attempt at a good proposal but their were some things that were clearly designed to favour themselves. That’s like saying they’ve overcooked the chicken and served it with parsley. Labors attempt is basically handing you a live chicken and saying here you go here’s your chicken.
Also the people objecting aren’t objecting because they disagree with it they disagreeing because they’ve been told to disagree with it. That’s like me sending protesters to the cbd not because they disagree with something because I’m paying them to disagree with it.
@mark il admit I was one of those although I did complete it I didn’t get the detail done on parts of it but I finished it and am submitting it as a comment on my own suggestion
My friend John, your claim that objections are manufactured misses a fundamental point: many ordinary people are only engaging with this redistribution because their local MP has communicated with them about hypothetical changes. You seem to think that’s a terrible idea. Maybe in Pyongyang your ideas would hold water, but not in a robust democracy where people have the right to be informed and to disagree. That’s how consultation works. Dismissing public input as “mass protest” is insulting to the entire consultation process. The whole point of this stage is to invite feedback—positive, negative, or in between. If hundreds of Queenslanders lodge objections, that isn’t a glitch in the system; that IS the system.
You can’t complain about bias, admit bias exists, and then claim the biased submission should be given more weight because it put in “effort.”
Once again, submissions don’t need maps to count—the ECQ explicitly published every single one, from one-page notes, gerrymandered Joh fan fiction, reasonable submissions from pundits like you and Mark, and hundred-page tributes to Excel. If adding maps were a requirement, three quarters of submissions would be inadmissible and the reputation of the Western Downs council would be intact.
And let’s be honest here. The LNP’s maps were hardly a sparkling example of the genre. Their fascination with the washout effect rendered all geographical features—especially for large electorates—virtually useless. If this is your gold standard, then you’re measuring cartography by who can use the thickest highlighter.
You’ve already admitted the LNP’s submission contained “obvious attempts at gerrymandered” maps. Yet you continue to argue it deserves more weight because they tried. That’s grading on vibes, something Dennis Denuto would be proud of.
Your not getting what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that people are effectively complaining about something because they are being told to specifically complain about it by their local mp and are probably bias in their own way. Labors attempt to protest the lnps position is in itself a gerrymander because they want to keep the boundaries that benefit them. Are some objections real and legitimate yes. But some people are simply gonna object to it simply become their local mp who doesn’t like the changes is telling them too.
No it doesn’t but if I put in a detailed map system and flow on effects is my submission better then someone’s who just put in a plan in crayon saying do this don’t do that. Absolutely. Especially if all they do is complain about mine without providing a valuable alternative.
The commission is non partisan and will see through the lnps attempt to draw the best boundaries for itself. I for one as a lnp supporter can see that they won’t get up. It’s every parties duty to draw the most favourable boundaries for itself fortunately we have a system that draws the best boundaries based on the available data without taking in how it effects one party otpr the other.
I for one drew boundaries that aligned with using natural boundaries where possible to draw seats. I.e local government boundaries, Rivers, major roads, etc there were afew seats where I just had to draw them so they fit with in quota notably the Townsville seats which I would have preferred to do different but there just wasn’t the available numbers to do it this time around. I do agree in principle with a majority of the libs proposals but some I do not. For example the abolition of a north Queensland seat obviously the lnp isn’t gonna abolish it’s own seatbut given Labor only has 3 that can’t be abolished they went with a kap seat. And then tried to massive repwkr Bundaberg which I agree should have been somewhat done but not as by what they’ve proposed.
In regards to prospects for the kap I think they will eventually win Cook as voters become dissatisfied with both major parties it will not be long before they win that seat too.
I think we’re going around in circles, so I respect your right to express your view even if I disagree with the granular detail.
I will say this though. Gerrymandering is when boundaries are deliberately drawn to entrench one party’s advantage. That’s manipulation done in the back room. By contrast, a local MP telling their constituents “these changes may affect you, here’s how to have your say” is just democracy doing its thing. People have the right to be informed and to object. You might not like the motives, but objections—mass or individual—are the whole point of this consultation. Dismissing them as manufactured is missing the forest for the trees: gerrymandering locks voters out; consultation invites them in.
Agree Real Talk, but I would say it can be rather annoying (especially so for the electoral commissioners having to receive and process all the submissions and objections) seeing the same sort of argument appear over and over again.
Especially when it is based on a wider ‘template’ like what John referred to (examples such as the questionable arguments against abolishing North Sydney and Higgins federal districts).
the mp is effectively saying “the party we hate is proposing these changes, oppose them because i say so because they are obviously up to no good and i say they’re bad” people then oppose them simply becuse their mp tells them too
Alright Princess Elsa. Time to let it go.
okay orignally i did a complete remodel on Southport and Bonney tranferring all of South port and Labrador to Southport. while tranferring Ashmore, Benowa and Molendinnar to Bonney. along with everything east of the pacific motorway thats north of neilsens road from Gaven. now im thinking i should have just transferred Molendinar to Bonney and put the stuff from Gaven into Southport. which do you think is better?
@Real Talk Technically Gerrymandering requires two elements – maps drawn in a partisan way AND the ability to deliver those partisan maps. It’s the second element that’s mostly missing in Australia, because the party in power has no real way to direct those maps be drawn in that way.
In the US where maps are proposed by the party in power and then passed in that form then gerrymandering is a real thing.
As I mentioned before there is no such thing as a best redistribution submission, but there are lots of examples of bad ones. My definition of bad are submissions that end up with a variation more than 10 percent over the quota, maps that create areas that are not physically connected, argue to increase or decrease the number of electorates, or incorporating “political balance”. In other words if it’s not specifically excluded then it’s a legitimate submission.
Having said that there are less demonstrably dumb submissions this time, but the dumb ones are dumb in new and interesting ways.
@john I put Gaven on the western side of the Bruce Highway because I really hate not using major roadways as boundaries in significant urban areas. There’s not really a lot of problems on the Gold Coast except for Bonney and Surfers Paradise, so there’s lots of options to minimise the numbers of seats straddling the highway. If you start at the boundary seats – Currumbin and Broadwater on the Gold Coast – then you can move their boundaries until you come to a seat that has to cross the highway. There are currently five Gold Coast seats that cross and I reduced it to one. I mostly did the same on the Sunshine Coast, but dealing with the SA1s that crossed there was painful.
@mark yes I understand that as I did the same however my question was which version of bonney/Southport I should go with??? I’m leaning with the new one because it involves less changes
@John If there are no compelling reasons either way then go with the one that balances the best defined boundaries and the smallest number of people moved.
yea i was leaning toward that too. although the first one had really good boundaries i dont think the commitee will go with major changes so im gonna stick with the second version.
@john The QRC will take on board significant changes if the arguments are solid. Even better if you can find other submissions that support the direction you’re going.
I might just submit both arguments because there aren’t any knock on effects since it’s the same suburbs just divided differently so it’s aclosed loop argument in that it doesn’t effect any other seats
Looking forward to the comments section
using @angas tool i played around with the tool to get an idea of what the seats could be changed into at the next redistribution obviously it doesn show future projections from that date bate using the 2032 projections i reckon Nanango will be abolished in favour of a Lnadsborough/Coloundra Hinterland seat. all the other seats can simply cross bboundaries since surpluses in one area such as ipswich are offset by defeciets in neighbouring brisbane nrth of the river. given the suplus wont be enough to form another seat and the defeceit not enough to justify aboloshig one a boundary crossing would b the only way to go. i also predict that there wil be a crossing between gold coast and logan similar to the old Albert
my Redcliffe is exactly -10% under quota on redistributed numbers. cutting it pretty fine.
Got my comments in. Gonna stay up all night finishing gg my maps. Hopefully th we’ll get in
When can we expect the comments to be released
Mine was lodged last night with a whole hour to spare. I reviewed all of the submissions and will probably upset some people. 🙂
I included changes I made to my submission based on other submissions because they made great points. Oddly enough the three submissions from State Members were all more reasonable than I was expecting.
I added an endnote on matters outside the guidelines for the QRC to consider post-redistribution.
HAVe they released comments?
@Darth Vader No, not for a couple of weeks. I did a review of each of the original submissions.
Im just going through the overview of the submissions and it seem there was a common theme to some areas. A) calliope be moved in Gladstone noting objections from 2017. B) sheldon and Mount cotton be moved into redlands noting objections from 2017. C) Cooroy be moved into Noosa noting 2017 objections but this time the fact they were unable to accommodate it last time. D) parts of the City of Cairns be moved from Hill to mulgrave e) a greater number if submissions stressed seats should be named after geographic locations not significant persons.