The augmented Electoral Commission for Queensland’s public announcement of final names and boundaries of federal electoral divisions in Queensland was made on Friday 5 January 2018. Read the augmented Electoral Commission's public announcement.

The augmented Electoral Commission's reasoning behind the names and boundaries of electoral divisions will be contained in its report.

The numerical constraints of the redistribution process

The augmented Electoral Commission was required to consider all objections made to the Redistribution Committee's proposal in the context of the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). For the augmented Electoral Commission, the primary requirements contained within sub-section 73(4) are:

• the number of electors in each electoral division shall, as far as practicable, not deviate from the projected enrolment quota at the projection time of Monday 27 September 2021 of 110,124 by more than plus or minus 3.5 per cent. As far as practicable, the number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in Queensland at the projection time of Monday 27 September 2021 must therefore be between 106,270 and 113,978, and
• the number of electors in each electoral division shall not deviate from the current enrolment quota of 103,203 by more than plus or minus 10 per cent. The number of electors enrolled in each electoral division in Queensland must be between 92,883 and 113,523.

Objections that resulted in the number of electors in an electoral division or divisions being outside either of these ranges could not be considered for implementation.

Augmented Electoral Commission's proposed electoral divisions

Detailed information about the make-up of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix J of the Redistribution Committee’s report of 29 September 2017.

Maps of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed electoral divisions are also available.

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on objections

An overview of the augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions on the main themes raised in objections is presented on this page. A number of objections were unable to be accepted by the augmented Electoral Commission because of the requirement that the number of electors in the 30 federal electoral divisions in Queensland meet the two numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The name of the proposed Division of Wide Bay

Objections referring to this matter: OB1 – Michael Hedger, OB9 – Liberal National Party, OB10 – Bob Richardson and OB21 – Mark Yore

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney, COB2 – Liberal National Party, COB3 – Bob Richardson and COB6 – Mark Yore

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the name of the Division of Wide Bay.  One objection to the proposed redistribution and one comment on objections advocated altering the name of the proposed Division of Wide Bay while three objections to the proposed redistribution and three comments on objections advocated retaining the names of all electoral divisions in Queensland. 

The augmented Electoral Commission noted that no alternative names were advanced by those wishing to change the name of the proposed Division of Wide Bay.  Further, as the name ‘Wide Bay’ was used for the 1901 federal election, the augmented Electoral Commission observed that retaining the name is consistent with  the guideline for naming federal electoral divisions that every effort should be made to retain the names of original federation electoral divisions.

After concluding the Redistribution Committee's proposed names were sound and should stand unchanged, the augmented Electoral Commission proposes the electoral division will continue to be known as the Division of Wide Bay.

The location of the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Blair and Ryan

Objections referring to this matter: OB2 – Helen Keenan, OB3 – Michael Whipps, OB6 – Darren McSweeney, OB7 – Sarah Warner, OB11 – Dean Ashley, OB12 – Anthony Rossiter, OB13 – Tania Synak, OB19 – Kate Townsend, OB22 – Simone Karandrews (petition of 150 signatures) and OB23 – Barbara Synak

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney, COB2 – Liberal National Party, COB4 – Kate Townsend and COB6 – Mark Yore

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed altering the boundaries of the Divisions of Ryan and Blair as a consequence of ensuring adjoining electoral divisions would meet the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.   The boundary in the south-western corner of the Division of Ryan is proposed to follow the north and north-eastern locality boundaries of Kholo and the eastern locality boundary of Mount Crosby to transfer electors in the localities of Kholo, Mount Crosby, Karana Downs and part of the locality of Chuwar from the Division of Ryan to the proposed Division of Blair.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections advocated:

• some or all of the localities of Chuwar, Karana Downs, Kholo and Mount Crosby be retained in the proposed Division of Ryan and not be transferred to the proposed Division of Blair based on maintaining communities of interest, including links with Brisbane City Council, and retaining the Brisbane River as a strong and readily identifiable boundary,
• some or all of the localities of Chuwar, Karana Downs, Kholo and Mount Crosby be located in the proposed Division of Blair based on the strong historical connection these areas have with Ipswich and maintaining communities of interest, and
• the transfer of three electors in the Lake Manchester – England Creek SA2 from the proposed Division of Ryan to the proposed Division of Blair based on uniting suburbs in one proposed electoral division.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that much of the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundary between the proposed Divisions of Blair and Ryan is aligned to the Brisbane City Council boundary, with departures from this boundary aligned to the Lake Manchester, Upper Brookfield, Pullenvale and Anstead locality boundaries.  While the Brisbane River provides a strong and readily identifiable boundary, the primacy of the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act means that it is not possible to align to the Brisbane City Council boundary, or the Brisbane River without exceeding the permissible projected elector numerical requirement of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission further observed that adjustments to the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee would necessitate changes to adjoining electoral divisions which could result in additional community of interest concerns and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act. 

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The location of the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Brisbane and Ryan

Objections referring to this matter: OB5 – Jeff Waddell, OB6 – Darren McSweeney, OB8 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB11 – Dean Ashley, OB12 – Anthony Rossiter, OB14 – Michelle Lawson, OB15 – Luke Smith, OB16 – Narelle Metcalfe, OB17 – Joanne Hagenson, OB19 – Kate Townsend, OB20 – Sylvia Richmond and OB21 – Mark Yore

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney, COB2 – Liberal National Party, COB4 – Kate Townsend, COB5 – Andy and Ursula Russell and COB6 – Mark Yore

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee observed that alterations to the boundaries of the Division of Brisbane were required as the projected enrolment at Monday 27 September 2021 for the electoral division is more than the maximum number of projected electors permitted by the Electoral Act, with the Division of Ryan identified as the most suitable location to receive electors from the Division of Brisbane.  The Redistribution Committee therefore proposed altering the boundary in the north‑western corner of the Division of Brisbane so that it followed Wardell Street from Kedron Brook in the north to Frasers Road in the south, then west on Frasers Road to meet the boundary which existed at the commencement of the redistribution. As a result, the Redistribution Committee proposed transferring electors in the areas of Ashgrove and Enoggera in the Brisbane City Council local government area from the proposed Division of Brisbane to the proposed Division of Ryan.   The Redistribution Committee proposed no change to the section of boundary which existed at the commencement of the redistribution that utilised Yoku Road and Otonga Road in Ashgrove.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections:

• supported the Redistribution Committee’s boundary between the proposed Division of Brisbane and the proposed Division of Ryan,
• advocated the Dorrington area in its entirety should be located in the Division of Brisbane and not be split between the proposed Division of Brisbane and the proposed Division of Ryan, and
• advocated the boundary between the proposed Division of Brisbane and the proposed Division of Ryan follow Breakfast Creek in the Ashgrove area.

Those advocating these changes did so on the basis of using clearer, more logical and more readily identifiable boundaries, enabling the residents of a street to be located in the same proposed electoral division, and maintaining communities of interest and means of transport within the proposed electoral division.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed that adjustments to the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee would necessitate changes to adjoining electoral divisions which could result in additional community of interest concerns and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.  Further, roads generally provide stronger and more certain boundaries over time as they are less susceptible to the impact of natural events than minor waterways are.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The location of the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Brisbane and Lilley

Objections referring to this matter: OB11 – Dean Ashley, OB18 – David Stormont and OB19 – Kate Townsend

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney and COB4 – Kate Townsend

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee did not propose alterations to the boundary between the proposed Divisions of Brisbane and Lilley.

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections:

• observed that the Stafford area was split across the proposed Division of Brisbane and the proposed Division of Lilley and should be located in its entirety in the proposed Division of Brisbane,
• advocated that part of Everton Park located in the proposed Division of Brisbane be transferred to the proposed Division of Lilley which would result in Everton Park in its entirety being located in the proposed Division of Lilley,
• advocated the area north of Kedron Brook and west of Webster Road be transferred from the proposed Division of Brisbane to the proposed Division of Lilley, and
• advocated the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundary be extended such that Cabbage Tree Creek is the boundary from its intersection with Lemke Road to Hamilton Road, resulting in the locality of Aspley in its entirety being located in the proposed Division of Lilley.

Those advocating these changes did so on the basis of keeping localities together in a single proposed electoral division, thus enhancing communities of interest and using consistent boundaries.

As projected enrolment for the Division of Brisbane and the Division of Lilley on the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution was over the acceptable maximum for projected enrolment, adjustments to the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee would necessitate changes to adjoining electoral divisions which could result in additional community of interest concerns and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.  The augmented Electoral Commission further noted that Stafford Road provides a strong and readily identifiable boundary between the proposed Divisions of Brisbane and Lilley.  Further, roads generally provide stronger and more certain boundaries over time as they are less susceptible to the impact of natural events than minor waterways are.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The electoral division in which Boulia Shire Council is located

Objections referring to this matter: OB9 – Liberal National Party, OB10 – Bob Richardson and OB12 – Anthony Rossiter

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney, COB2 – Liberal National Party and COB3 – Bob Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining the Boulia Shire Council in the proposed Division of Kennedy. 

Objections to the proposed redistribution and comments on objections:

•  advocated the Boulia Shire in its entirety be transferred from the proposed Division of Kennedy to the proposed Division of Maranoa. 
• supported the Redistribution Committee’s proposal to leave the electoral division in which Boulia Shire Council is located unchanged. 

The arguments of those in favour of moving Boulia Shire Council were based on community of interest and locating all members of the Remote Area Planning and Development Board in the one federal electoral division.

No objections to the proposed electoral division in which Boulia Shire Council is located, or comments on objections referring to this topic, were received from residents of Boulia Shire Council.

The augmented Electoral Commission observed the remote location of Boulia Shire and noted that the adoption of alternative boundaries could prompt concerns about community of interest and means of travel and communication within the electoral division.  Further, as projected enrolment for the Division of Kennedy on the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution was close to being under the acceptable minimum for projected enrolment, adjustments to the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee would necessitate changes to adjoining electoral divisions which could result in additional community of interest concerns and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

The Boulia Shire Council will be located in the proposed Division of Kennedy.

The electoral division in which Burdekin Shire Council is located

Objections referring to this matter: OB8 – Dr Mark Mulcair, OB9 – Liberal National Party and OB12 – Anthony Rossiter

Comments on objections referring to this matter: COB1 – Darren McSweeney, COB2 – Liberal National Party and COB3 – Bob Richardson

Augmented Electoral Commission's conclusions: The Redistribution Committee proposed retaining part of the Burdekin Shire Council in the proposed Division of Dawson and part in the proposed Division of Kennedy.  Three objections to the proposed redistribution advocated the Burdekin Shire Council in its entirety be located in the proposed Division of Dawson instead of being split between the proposed Division of Dawson and the proposed Division of Kennedy.  Those advocating this change observed it would be in keeping with the Redistribution Committee’s guiding principles of uniting localities and local government areas where possible.

No objections to the proposed electoral division in which Burdekin Shire Council is located, or comments on objections referring to this topic, were received from residents of Burdekin Shire Council.

As projected enrolment for the Division of Kennedy on the boundaries in place at the commencement of the redistribution was close to being under the acceptable minimum for projected enrolment, adjustments to the boundaries proposed by the Redistribution Committee would necessitate changes to adjoining electoral divisions which could result in additional community of interest concerns and in some cases would be outside the numerical requirements of the Electoral Act.

The augmented Electoral Commission concluded that:

• the Redistribution Committee's proposal was sound,
• any alternatives proposed or other adjustments necessary to accommodate these changes within the requirements of the Electoral Act would not result in an improved outcome at this time, and
• for these reasons, the Redistribution Committee's proposal should stand unchanged.

Part of the Burdekin Shire Council will be located in the proposed Division of Dawson and part will be located in the proposed Division of Kennedy.