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