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.
@John I summarised that in my comments together with my response. I didn’t name the authors though.
Review of group geographic locality issues
There were a number of group submissions arguing that certain areas should be put into particular electorates, generally using restatements of the same argument. While I am inclined to accommodate those requests I am also aware of the need to follow the Quota guidelines as well as the Additional Considerations outlined by both the QRC and the Electoral Act.
Mulgrave/Hill S-087, S-102, S-103, S-111
There were four submissions arguing that Babinda should return to Mulgrave and not remain in Hill. The difficulty is that the Cairns LGA currently has 2.313 quotas and is projected to fall to 2.279.The Cairns seats are Cairns, Barron River and Mulgrave. The argument that the Cairns LGA should be split amongst three electorates instead of four is a valid consideration. My submission left Babinda in Hill as the communities in the southern part of the electorate have large gaps between them. However it is certainly possible to share the Cairns LGA amongst the three electorates by incorporating parts of other adjoining electorates to fill three quotas; or more simply by stretching the tolerance for the existing electorate of Mulgrave.
Toowomba South/Condamine S-013, S-023 Westbrook should stay in Condamine electorate and not get moved to Toowoomba South. This is a reasonable submission based on community of interest considerations and I avoided moving this area in my submission. Both North and South Toowoomba are reasonably balanced and simply require internal adjustments.
Gladstone/Callide S-002, S-004, S-005, S-006, S-007, S-009, S-010, S-011, S-012, S-034, S-035, S-038, S-039
Multiple submissions stated that “Calliope should be included in the Gladstone electorate, not Callide”. One submission argued against including Calliope in Gladstone (S-008) and specifically states “I have a good relationship with my MP”, a factor outside the allowable considerations.
It is an easy adjustment and I made the choice to include Calliope within the electorate of Gladstone.
Noosa/Ninderry/Nicklin S-050, S-073, S-088, S-044, S-045, S-046, S-047, S-051, S-053, S-054, S-055, S-058, S-059, S-063, S-064, S-066, S-067
The majority of submissions argued for the inclusion of Cooroy within the electorate of Noosa. Additional submissions also included Peregian Springs and Peregian Beach; Eumundi; Doonan and Verrierdale. There was also a submission to exclude Rainbow Beach, not currently within the Noosa electorate. The estimated population of the Noosa Shire Council is 59,274 with an annual growth rate steady at 1.1 percent. Noosa’s planning decisions also mean that it will continue to grow at a slower rate than adjoining LGAs or Queensland as a whole. The entirety of the Noosa LGA cannot be contained within the State electorate, consequently the choice is centred around which bits to leave out. Eumundi, Doonan, Verrierdale and Peregian Springs are not within the Noosa LGA. I am in favour of continuing to use the Bruce Highway as a natural boundary and, if needed, removing Peregian Beach from Noosa and including it with Peregian Springs in Ninderry.
Kawana/Caloundra S-083, S-082, S-084, S-098
These submissions argued for the inclusion of Kawana Forest within the electorate of Kawana instead of Caloundra. With the extreme growth in Caloundra’s population this change will happen naturally and I’ve included that in my submission. It also means that all of the areas named Kawana will be within the Kawana electorate, reducing confusion.
Redlands/Springwood S-104, S-024, S-025, S-026, S-027, S-028, S-029, S-031
These submissions argue that the suburb of Mount Cotton should be in the Redlands electorate and not Springwood. The Springwood electorate stretches across the Logan and Redlands LGA while the Redlands LGA can quite comfortably contain the entirety of Capalaba, Oodgeroo and Redlands within its border. My original submission had Mount Cotton in Capalaba but I have amended the three Redlands electorates to move it into the Redlands electorate. Submission S-024 argued for Sheldon to be moved from Springwood and it is relatively easy to place it within Capalaba, a more suitable fit for both community-of-interest and transport benefits. Submission S-020 urged that the Bay Islands be included within Springwood; not only impossible within the numerical jump required to do so, but also disappointing to see coming from an elected Councillor.
Mount Ommaney/Miller/Inala S-043, S-052, S-056, S-057
Mount Ommaney’s population, much like Moggill on the other side of the river, has continued to shrink relative to the rest of Queensland. S-052 and S-057 argue that the expansion should grow further into Sherwood, while submissions S-43 and S-056 argue that it should incorporate Wacol. My view is that neither of these submissions go far enough. I have argued that the electorate should include the entirety of Graceville, Chelmer and Sherwood, contained within the Oxley SA2 and bounded by the Walter-Taylor Bridge crossing. Adding Wacol and the remainder of Darra breaks the existing community of interest as well as historical links for Inala and the history of “Servicetown” – https://eprints.qut.edu.au/4995/ .