The Australian Electoral Commission yesterday published the official statistics that will be used for federal redistributions in South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. This gives us a bit more insight into what is likely to happen in those redistributions.
Electorates must be drawn so each seat is within 10% of average enrolment at the start of the process (in this case, August 2025), but also so that seats are within 3.5% of the average for a projected enrolment three-and-a-half years after the end of the process (in this case, April 2030). That second rule is much stricter, and thus ends up being more important in the drawing of new seats.
In a previous post, I looked at the population patterns based on June enrolment data. But we didn’t have projected data until yesterday afternoon. So for this post I will look at that second set of datapoints.
Not one seat deviates from the first quota by more than 10%. Nine seats deviate from the projected quota by more than 3.5%: Barker, Bass, Bean, Canberra, Clark, Lyons, Makin, Mayo and Spence.
Firstly, South Australia.
The biggest deviations are in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. Spence is projected to be 12% over quota, while the neighbouring seat of Makin is almost 8% under quota. Mayo is also about 8% over, while Barker is almost 4% under quota. Pretty much every other seat is slightly under quota.
It seems most likely that Spence will shrink, and the surplus voters will mostly go into Makin. Mayo will also need to shrink, likely giving some of those surplus voters to Barker.
In Tasmania, the Hobart-area seat of Clark is projected to be 10% under quota. So Clark will need to grow. Franklin is 3.2% over quota, so can absorb some of that growth, but it will be necessary for Clark to expand north into parts of northern Hobart that are currently contained in Lyons. That central seat is almost 10% over the projected quota. Bass is also 4.4% under quota, so will also need to take more voters from Lyons.
Right now Lyons includes outer suburban areas in both the Hobart and Launceston areas, and they will be the first to be cut, making Lyons more of a rural seat. It’s hard to see any scenario that doesn’t make Lyons more favourable for the Liberal Party.
There just aren’t that many different ways to shift populations in these small jurisdictions with a small number of electorates, and that is particularly true of the ACT. The growth in the ACT has been fastest in the south, with the southern electorate of Bean 7.6% over quota. While the northern seat of Fenner is slightly under quota, it’s the central seat of Canberra which is most under. So I expect we’ll see Canberra expand south, probably taking in parts of Woden or Weston Creek. Fenner can be mostly left alone, but it could gain some more of the Belconnen area to produce more equal numbers.
I think there will be some sort of political will to do it. However I’m not sure aec will be willing to do it in full. I’m hoping they at least go for a partial solution but I’d prefer they just rip the band aid off and fix it up fully.
It is one of those things that will cause disruption once – and after that will never need to do it again and all future changes will be minimal.
If Clark was to go up the Derwent Valley how far would it go? There is a lot of valley above New Norfolk – only including New Norfolk would strand them without that community of interest.
@Redistributed if it was to move only up the Derwent Valley, it’d need to include all of that LGA. Not just New Norfolk.
Theoretically, Clark should move south to include Kingston.
If they want to leave it split then, Clark can move slightly south and pick up all of Kingston and Kingston Beach from Franklin. Then Franklin can pick up Old Beach, Gagebrook and Herdsman from Lyons . That and the move of Prospect Vale is the bare minimalist version.
If you want a more coherent one, then keep the Prospect Vale and Old Beach, Gagebrook and Herdsman changes, then it’s just a matter of reoganising the split between Clark and Franklin between them. I’m adding everything east of the Brooker Hwy into Franklin to maintain the link of both sides with the Derwent Bridge and making it a Derwent River focussed division. That means some of Moonah and Moonah West stay in Clark using Springfield Ave as a straight (we actually curved) single road through the area.
I’m also proposing to retire the name Franklin due to it’s significant change. I’m proposing West after Aunty Ida West.
I’ll probably have the reports and maps up on my website https://divs.au/ sometime next week.
@Darren I agree the name Franklin would need to be retired due to the scale of such a change, but I’m not sure the name West is a great name for the new seat, as it’s way too ambiguous.
Then again I don’t know what would be a good name for this new seat.
As much as I’d like contiguity from an aesthetic sense, I don’t think this redistribution is where it will happen.
The numbers just don’t quite stack up for the Hobart area. No matter how we slice things, I believe there will be at least 2 of the following:
– Franklin retains its awkward split into two halves
– Clark crosses the Derwent River
– Lyons takes in the disconnected (but environmentally similar) Huon Valley
– Kingston is split down the middle
An argument to keep the current arrangement of Franklin, however awkward it is, is that it is evenly balanced between two equal halves (0.48 of a quota in the western half and 0.55 of a quota in the eastern half). Think of it as a combination of discrete two sub-divisions (perhaps similar to Macquarie or even something like Corangamite) that share a commonality of proximity to a more inner-urban division.
So my read is, leave Franklin as is, while Clark just takes Bridgewater, Gagebrook, Herdsmans Cove and Old Beach. Next redistribution, we can look to move those into Franklin while Clark takes in all of Kingston.
I am unconvinced of it being a problem that Franklin is technically not contiguous. There isn’t another seat in between the two of them – just a river. Arguably the two halves of Macquarie are less connected than the two halves of Franklin.
@CJ October 24, 2025 at 4:16 pm
If Franklin has to be renamed, maybe it could be named in honour of Peter Dombrovskis, a photographer whose ‘Morning Mist, Rock Island Bend’ photo played a significant role in the campaign against the Franklin Dam.
Even though his most famous contribution to the country is more tied to another electorate (as the Franklin River is more located in Braddon iirc), Dombrovskis was closely tied to the Southwestern regions of TAS which makes the name suitable for the area which Franklin represents.
@Ben Raue The big issue is that, while there is a river between the two halves of Franklin, there’s no ferry link between either half. At least with Macquarie you can argue that both sections are connected with both the Bells Line of Road and Springwood Road, which connects the Blue Mountains side to the Hawkesbury side.
Though that’s not to say the Macquarie arrangement should continue. When Parliament is inevitably expanded I believe there should be a new seat in the Hawkesbury and Macquarie is honed in on solely the Blue Mountains. Maybe at worst it can cover Lithgow too. If I recall correctly too, in the Liberals’ NSW redistribution proposal two years ago, they wanted a new seat in the Hawkesbury I think named Reibey (yes the lady on the $20 note), with Macquarie extending west to abolish Calare, as well as Warringah.
@raue yes and we have argued against the Macquarie arrangement too. I tried but the numbers simply weren’t available to split that. Howsoever this is a problem that can be fixed
I agree with Angas. I looked at the map of Tasmania: the island has only five seats, and metropolitan Hobart will be split between Franklin and Lyons. Take your pick. Franklin is physically big, but most of the booths are on the fringes of Hobart. An expansion of parliament giving Tas an extra seat would solve that, as they could draw a seat around the city’s central core and call it a day. Tas is unique in that its population is small and, most importantly, it has set boundaries being an island. So some of the egalitarian views of boundaries can be relaxed ever so slightly. Has anyone from the Southern Arm on any redistribution proposal complained about being in Franklin?
News flash. Australia is an island too
Craig – Tasmania is already overrepresented with 5 seats that is set in the constitution – they aren’t going to get any more seats.
@Doug not unless Parliament is expanded by enough seats
Co parliament would need to nearly double for it to increase. It’s current got five seats and is really only entitle to 3. Its so underpopulated that canberra is probably gonna outstrip it at a on point. The only thing that would result in increased seats is a zombie outbreak.
Right now, for Tasmania to gain a 6th House of Representatives seat, you’d have to expand parliament to 22 senators per state, which it’d promptly lose due to slow population growth.
So for a 6th seat to have any longevity you’d have to fully double the size of parliament to 24 senators per state. Maybe in another 50 years time?
Had another look at the numbers and one option if you wanted to go for a more radical redistribution is:
– Franklin becomes all of Brighton, Clarence, Sorell and Tasman, however would need to include Bruny Island to meet tolerance
– Clark remains as all of Glenorchy and Hobart, plus the parts of Kingborough in the upper house district of Nelson
– Lyons takes in Huon Valley and the remainder of Kingborough
That would create two relatively neat Hobart divisions split by the Derwent River at the expense of Lyons which becomes the “everything else” division (which it already is to some extent).
Over time, you’d probably see Lyons regain Tasman Council while Clark expands to take in the remainder of Kingborough.
Huon Valley remains the difficult part but I think you could argue that it has similar “community of interest” needs to places like Derwent Valley and Southern Midlands despite having to travel through Hobart to reach them.
That’s why I put it in lyons
Can someone explain to me how the Huon Valley has any community of interest with Lyons. It just beggars belief – might as well leave a split Franklin.
We’re trying to end the split seat. We can solve that problem later.
If continuous seat matters more (must be connected by road or ferry), I wonder if it is actually possible to have a continuous seat assuming radical redistribution. I say Clark can go both sides of the Derwent River as long as it crosses at least one of the bridges l.
As it stands, there are three Federal seats that are functionally non-contiguous, that don’t need to be; Franklin Wide Bay, and Wright. Wide Bay technically isn’t contiguous as the main transport link to K’gari is only accessible from Hervey Bay, in Hinkler (K’gari itself is included in Wide Bay), but that’s a manageable fix, Hinkler can gain K’gari in the redistribution.
I do argue contiguity is important, as that’s basically the point of a federal electorate; a common community of interest.
I stand corrected, there is a ferry from K’gari to another part of Wide Bay. So there’s only two non-contiguous seats in that argument.
This correct its accessible from rainbow Beach hence i have put kgari into gympie in my state redistribution. Although putting it into Maryborough is another option as it gains the other option
@Redistributed @John @Marh @CJ
I suppose you could argue that contiguity, while generally a useful rule-of-thumb, is not the ultimate goal of the redistribution process. The main focus to ensure that divisions maximise their measure of “community of interest”.
You could also say that Huon Valley is not as urban as Clark and the majority of Franklin is. It has a connection to Hobart certainly, but it also maybe has more in common with places like Derwent Valley and Tasman which are currently in Lyons. Particularly at the national level, political concerns aren’t necessarily bound by proximity, but by shared demographics and environmental concerns.
And all of this needs to be weighed up holistically across all of the divisions, not just at the individual level. It may be preferable to put Huon Valley in the “wrong division” if it allows for an overall better treatment of the Hobart area more generally.
Interesting to note that the ABS includes does not include Huon Valley and Bruny Island in the Greater Hobart Statistical Area, but does include New Norfolk, Brighton, Richmond, Sorell and Dodges Ferry.
Overall, I don’t think it’s the strongest argument to make such a transfer but if you wanted to better arrange Hobart across 2 divisions instead of the current 3, then it might be worth considering.
eg.
Braddon = Burnie, Devonport and co.
Bass = Launceston and surrounds
Clark = Hobart West
Franklin = Hobart East
Lyons = Everything Else (but effectively the least urban/most regional parts of Tasmania)
Another thought, if Clark needs to keep expanding southwards, then should it eventually include the Huon Valley, or would it lose its identity as the “Hobart Core” division? Is it then more preferable to keep this small enclave in an increasingly Eastern Shore focused Franklin, or in the discontiguous Franklin?
Also, how did they manage to draw Franklin completely southwest of North West Bay River between 1977 and 1983?
Yes that’s my thoughts.it would be easier if Tasmania had 6 seats but alas it doesn’t. Hence why this problem exists
https://auredistribution.neocities.org/
If anyone is still working on their redistribution submissions and wants to double check numbers, I’ve just updated my tool to properly handle the split SA1s instead of forcing them into a single division. Shouldn’t be too impactful as no divisions were off target by more than 100 electors, with the exception being Clark and Lyons due to the the large SA1 (60103101303) covering Granton at the north end of Clark which is bisected by council and division boundaries and accounts for about 300 electors on either side.
After being laid up sick for the last week, I have finally submitted my reports for each of SA, Tas and the ACT.
If anyone wants a sneak peak, I’ve also uploaded the full reports, and the maps to my website https://divs.au/sa/ https://divs.au/tas/ and https://divs.au/act/
Tasmanian redistribution proposal is in!! Many thanks to Angas for his redistribution tool – much appreciated. I only just saw your note above – I don’t think it is a problem with any of my numbers.
Il be submitting a basic proposal as I’ve just been too busy to do anything lately. Il do a more substantive one in the comments phase
Darren, I read your reports and the changes to boundaries (particularly the larger ones for ACT and Tasmania) are good.
I would issue a minor rebuttal – whilst the name West certainly has a lot of merits considering its namesake being a notable female Indigenous person similar to Sadie Canning for WA, I think the AEC might be hesitant to accept it due to it being relatively simplistic and could cause confusion sharing its name with the principal cardinal direction.
Struggled to settle on my final arrangements until about 24 hours before the close of submissions, but whipped together some quick reports and maps for the 3 jurisdictions.
I went with a minimalist approach for both states, but suggested a more involed one for the ACT even though I’d probably rate the quick and easy option just as highly.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (21,238 electors or 6.60% of the total)
– A: Transfer Giralang, Lawson and the western part of Bruce from Canberra to Fenner
– B: Transfer Molonglo Valley District from Bean to Canberra
– C: Transfer the part of Woden Valley west of Yarra Glen from Canberra to Bean
TASMANIA (16,585 electors or 4.01% of the total)
– A: Transfer Prospect Vale from Lyons to Bass
– B: Transfer West Coast Council from Braddon to Lyons
– C: Transfer Bridgewater, Herdsmans Cove, Honeywood, Gagebrook and Old Beach from
Lyons to Clark
– D: Leave Franklin unchanged
SOUTH AUSTRALIA (23,023/27,870 electors or 1.76%/2.13% of the total)
– A: Transfer the balance of Barossa Council from Spence to Barker
– B: Transfer the area south of Little Para River from Spence to Makin
– C: Transfer the balance of Mitcham Council from Mayo to Boothby
– D: Transfer the remainder of Coromandel Valley from Mayo to Kingston
– E: (Optional) Transfer Gawler River and Ward Belt from Grey to Spence
– F: (Optional) Transfer the balance of Unley Council from Boothby to Adelaide
@Darren
Fantastic reports as always, and I like how you’ve explored some different avenues to fix up Clark/Franklin and Boothby/Kingston/Mayo. Love your flag designs too!
@Redistributed @John
Glad the tool has come in handy for people so far, and expecting it will get a real work out once Queensland finally rolls around. Looking forward to reading everyone’s submissions when they are released!
@Yoh An
I had similar thoughts on the name West. A deserving name no doubt, but does has the potential to cause confusion. That said, since Clark doesn’t have a long history itself, it could be shifted to the eastern shore based division to make room for West.
I only submitted for Tasmania.
My summary is:
– Braddon unchanged.
– Prospect Vale from Lyons to Bass.
For Southern Tasmania I presented three options:
– Minimal: Clark takes in more of Kingston from Franklin whilst Gagebrook and Old Beach move from Lyons to Franklin.
– Joining Franklin using the Tasman Bridge as the hinge. Hobart CBD, Battery Point, Sandy Bay and Taroona go from Clark to Franklin. Clark picks up Bridgewater and Gagebrook from Lyons and everything north of the Tasman Bridge from Franklin. Warrane and Mornington also in Clark. Cambridge and Seven Mile Beach go from Franklin to Lyons to join Midway Point and Sorell. Boundaries are clumsy and break up some communities whilst joining others. This is not ideal and was pointed out in the submission.
– The third option was abolishing Franklin – actually in all honesty it is abolishing Clark but the name was transferred. City of Hobart, Kingborough and Huon Valley joined in a new seat that I proposed be named after Palawa woman Trugenannah (ADB spelling). The ‘new’ Clark joins Glenorchy, Bridgewater/ Gagebrook and Eastern Shore Franklin in one seat. Cambridge and Seven Mile Beach go to Lyons as per the earlier option.
I considered the latter a sustainable solution though radical. Communties of interest work well too. Methinks the Commissioners will probably go minimal but lets wait and see.
Bit off topic but does anyone have any tips or resources for trying to draw potential expanded parliament maps?
Maxim see Angas and Wolfs tool. Just add additional seats.
@Maxim
I don’t think there’s any options right now, but its something that @JWood and I have been looking into and probably not too far off at this stage, so please keep an eye on this thread or at https://auredistribution.neocities.org/ where I’ll update the home page once solved
Or @JWood’s version at https://auredistribution.com/
Redistributed they would only transfer the name is a majority of electors from the old were in the new. I agree radical change is needed but don’t believe they will go for it and I’m not for minimal change in this case so I went for something in the middle. Not too radical that it wouldn’t get up but not too minimal that the status quo is maintained
@Redistributed
Your third option sounds quite similar to @Darren’s suggestion.
Personally, I’m not quite convinced that splitting City of Hobart from Glenorchy is significantly better than the current split of Franklin, given how close the two councils are to each other, but it is definitely worth consideration.
My sense is also that the Committee will opt for a minimalist change at this stage. I expect that a large scale change will draw a lot of objections given that Tasmanians also have 7 state members elected to each division and thus likely have a stronger attachment to their electoral divisions than mainlanders would.
Will be interesting to see how this one develops though.
@John
Yeah I think you’re on the right track with your suggestion. Probably too difficult to ask for a major realignment now, but there’s definitely scope to push Clark further into Kingston and hope that the remainder can be mopped up at the next redistribution.
Angas
The AEC commisioners seem hard wired for minimal change and my view is that it will be default position. It seems to be the same in every redistribution though there has been the occasional curve ball like Melbourne crossing the Yarra. It seemed that they were more open to change when there were paper rolls and it was harder to do.
Yes, my proposal was similar to Darren’s though my only criticism of his proposal is the new electorate taking in Queens Domain, Glebe and Wapping which have strong communties of interest with the Hobart CBD. This was because he maintained Bridgewater in Lyons and kept all of Clarence in the one seat.
Stil I hope they will consider proposals that end the only uncontigous seat.
@Yoh An & @Angus, I did consider if “West” was too plain and geographic, Honestly I wasn’t too fussed about who to name it after.
@John, @Angus, I too think they’ll keep Franklin as is, and to be honest, no one from within the division seems to care enough to ever bring it up in a submission.
But if we don’t suggest it, they’ll never use it.
@Angus thanks for the feedback on my US flags. I have a series of Australian ones too, but I hadn’t had a chance to upload them and do the whole website yet. Stay turned.I also plan to eventually have full maps of all historic divisions.
@Redistributed, my Clark + West/Franklin fits regardless of Bridgewater. I mentioned I moved Queens Domain and Glebe to keep the Tasman Bridge. So I don’t know it out makes it worse or better that it was a conscious decision to split them, rather then a numeric constraint.
Correct me if I’m wrong but by my reckoning we will have an active redistribution somewhere from now until at least 2030. Possibly even 2031.
The AEC have up loaded the SA and ACT submissions but not Tasmania so far
@John can you elaborate please?
There are also two non-contiguous seats; not just Franklin, but Wright too is functionally non-contiguous.