The following comment appeared on our blog. We repeat it here for the benefit of a wider readership:
Today's Progress Leader, the local Murdoch giveaway in Boroondara, has two letters to the editor relating to the VEC Representation Review.
Neither letter supports any particular voting system, but both are critical of the Boroondara Council.
The Council, according to the letter writers, has spent large sums of money supporting its preferred option, has not recognises any alternatives, is one sided in its propaganda, and is lobbying residents and ratepayers to make a submission for single councillor wards and even provides a template and tells them how to write it.
It seems Boroondara Council doesn't think highly about the intelligence of Boroondara residents. They clearly, in the Council's view, lack the ability to make up their own mind on this issue.
Sound reasons to support a change to proportional represntation.
Interestingly the Council doesn't think proportional representation is a consideration in the current review process. We clearly need more intelligent councillors, not party hacks for one or other of the Liberal Party factions, or in one case of a Labor Party faction. Seems all agree. Mutual self interest.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
We are cited by anti-Baillieu Blog
The anti-Baillieu blog www.hewhostandsfornothing.blogspot.com refers to us in a recent posting.
We are not able to comment on the factional squabbles in the Victorian Liberal Party, but there appears to be quite strong friction within the Liberal Party in Boroondara. We do not endorse the anti-Baillieu blog, and suspect it could be an ALP trick to de-stabilise the Liberal Party. Nevertheless we are honoured to be cited in that blog. Read on:
An intriguing comment appears on the blog www.boroondaravotereform.blogspot.com
Boroondara is the local council whose area includes all of Red Ted's Hawthorn state electorate. The comment suggests the Kroger faction of the Liberal Party is behind the Boroondara Council supporting single councillor wards in the current Victorian Electoral Commission representation review. Presumably so all of Red Ted's supporters can be annihilated at this years November Council elections. The comment, in reference to an earlier comment that blue rinse set ladies were behind the Kroger Costello faction, said:
My dictionary tells me the blue rinse set are well-groomed older women. In Boroondara they are well off and went to the best schools, like Melbourne Girls Grammar. They tend to be Krogerites in the Liberal Party factional squabble. They want single councillor wards in Boroondara because it will keep out the supporters of Red Ted.
The comment must be read between the lines. It suggests the power brokers in the Kroger-Costello faction do not think much of Red Ted's supporters on the Boroondara Council, and that the continuance of single councillor wards will ensure the defeat of all of Red Ted's supporters on the Boroondara Council.
One councillor, who opposed Red Ted in his original preselection contest, is the Boroondara Councillor who most strongly favours single councillor wards. No doubt this councillor wants to knife Red Ted.
The alternative to single councillor wards is multi councillor wards elected by proportional representation (PR). That would ensure that at least some of Red Ted's supporters get back.
Some supporters of the status quo of ten single councillor wards in Boroondara claim that PR is a Labor plot. Here they are in league with the ALP themselves, for Labor in Port Phillip, Banyule, Maribyrnong, Darebin, Hobsons Bay and Latrobe was the strongest supporter of single councillor wards.
That argument is false. The Kennett government, not the ALP, was the first government to pass legislation providing for proportional representation in Victorian local government.
Where does Red Ted stand? His opponents are all in league with the ALP on this issue.
We are not able to comment on the factional squabbles in the Victorian Liberal Party, but there appears to be quite strong friction within the Liberal Party in Boroondara. We do not endorse the anti-Baillieu blog, and suspect it could be an ALP trick to de-stabilise the Liberal Party. Nevertheless we are honoured to be cited in that blog. Read on:
An intriguing comment appears on the blog www.boroondaravotereform.blogspot.com
Boroondara is the local council whose area includes all of Red Ted's Hawthorn state electorate. The comment suggests the Kroger faction of the Liberal Party is behind the Boroondara Council supporting single councillor wards in the current Victorian Electoral Commission representation review. Presumably so all of Red Ted's supporters can be annihilated at this years November Council elections. The comment, in reference to an earlier comment that blue rinse set ladies were behind the Kroger Costello faction, said:
My dictionary tells me the blue rinse set are well-groomed older women. In Boroondara they are well off and went to the best schools, like Melbourne Girls Grammar. They tend to be Krogerites in the Liberal Party factional squabble. They want single councillor wards in Boroondara because it will keep out the supporters of Red Ted.
The comment must be read between the lines. It suggests the power brokers in the Kroger-Costello faction do not think much of Red Ted's supporters on the Boroondara Council, and that the continuance of single councillor wards will ensure the defeat of all of Red Ted's supporters on the Boroondara Council.
One councillor, who opposed Red Ted in his original preselection contest, is the Boroondara Councillor who most strongly favours single councillor wards. No doubt this councillor wants to knife Red Ted.
The alternative to single councillor wards is multi councillor wards elected by proportional representation (PR). That would ensure that at least some of Red Ted's supporters get back.
Some supporters of the status quo of ten single councillor wards in Boroondara claim that PR is a Labor plot. Here they are in league with the ALP themselves, for Labor in Port Phillip, Banyule, Maribyrnong, Darebin, Hobsons Bay and Latrobe was the strongest supporter of single councillor wards.
That argument is false. The Kennett government, not the ALP, was the first government to pass legislation providing for proportional representation in Victorian local government.
Where does Red Ted stand? His opponents are all in league with the ALP on this issue.
Victorian Electoral Commission Representation Reviews. Monash University Academic Paper Supports Multi-Councillor Wards
A paper presented at an academic Conference at Monash University in 2005 presents the case for multi-councillor wards. The paper was published as a comment on this blog, and we reproduce it below as a service to our loyal readers.
The author, Lyle Allan, states that he used to teach at Victoria University of Technology. He is now retired. Please enjoy.
Victorian Electoral Commission Representation Reviews
Paper presented by Lyle Allan to Monash University School of Political and Social Inquiry Postgraduate Symposium, Clayton Campus, 24 October 2005.
Abstract
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations.
The change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
The Kennett Liberal government in 1994 dramatically changed Victorian local government. Previously the state comprised 210 local councils, but this was reduced to 78. When in opposition the Liberal Party in Victoria opposed Council amalgamations under the Cain and Kirner governments, yet on attaining office in 1992 did precisely this itself. Councillors were sacked, and commissioners were appointed to run the new councils, apart from the tiny Borough of Queenscliffe, which continued to be the only local council in Victoria to be elected by residents and ratepayers during the Commissioner period. Under Commissioner rule councils were placed under considerable financial restraint. The introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of council services and the deployment of staff were features of that period local government historians generally write about, but usually neglected is the structure of the new councils themselves.
Prior to the Kennett reforms local councils, apart from the City of Melbourne, usually comprised a number of councillors that was divisible by three, a factor that resulted from an earlier law providing for annual elections, with one third of the council retiring at an election every year. Local politics was normally about local issues, except in the Labor heartland of inner Melbourne, and only the ALP, the Communist Party, and for a time the Democratic Labor Party endorsed candidates in local government elections. Liberal Party and National Party members frequently contest local council elections, but they never do so as representatives of their party, but sometimes will reveal their poltical affiliations in local newspapers and if they get elected as biographical information on their Council’s web site.
The commissioners decided the form of local government boundaries for the first council elections at the end of their rule. In many country councils they provided for an unsubdivided council, with all councillors elected at large. Mildura, Warrnambool and Greater Shepparton are in this category. In others they provided for a mixture of councillor numbers per ward, the name of local government electorates (the term riding used to be used for rural shires but to avoid confusion the term ward is now used universally in Victoria). All wards were given names, not the Queensland practice of numbers. By Commissioner edict Darebin Council, elected after 1996, consisted of nine single councillor wards. In Bendigo this was seven single councillor wards. In Hobsons Bay there were four wards comprising two councillors each. In Glen Eira three three councillor wards. There was no consistency. Diversity in council electoral structure depended on Commissioner whim., except in the City of Melbourne and the City of Greater Geelong, where legislation initially provided for a dual electoral system of at large or “district” councillors and single councillor wards.
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations. The Local Government Act provides for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 councillors in any municipality, whereas in the pre-Kennett period this was between nine and fifteen.
Representation reviews are conducted at council expense by the VEC and represent the decision of an “independent umpire,” the VEC commissioner. The final reports have been mixed. The structure put in place by commissioners has often been adopted, and there is a considerable mix, not always adopting best electoral practice.
A factor that needs to be considered by the VEC is the adoption of the quota preferential voting system. The fact that the this voting system is now used in multi member wards means that the number of councillors per ward rather than voters can sometimes be a crucial factor in the composition of a council, not necessarily party control of a council. Ideally even number wards under PR are not desirable, as a majority by a particular group in such a ward is not necessarily translated into a majority of seats won.
In some councils the VEC final report is nonsensical. The best example of this is the Shire of Moorabool. There is one four councillor ward, based on the Bacchus Marsh, and three single member wards based on the rural areas of the shire. A particular group could conceivably win all three of the single member wards with small overall majorities and around fifty five percent of the total vote in each ward, and obtain about twenty per cent of the vote (or one quota) in the Bacchus Marsh ward. A minority of around 35 per cent can gain control of the Moorabool Shire Council with four of the seven councillors. A majority of 65 per cent would win only three councillors.
Another example is the Shire of Cardinia, with a similar position to that in the Shire of Moorabool. The Cardinia ward boundaries could result in a particular group winning the two single councillor wards (based on Nar Nar Goon in one case and the asparagus centre of Koo Wee Rup and the town of Lang Lang in the case of the other, one councillor in the two councillor ward based on Emerald and Gembrook, and one councillor out of three in the ward based on Pakenham. Here, assuming a consistent fifty five percent in the single councillor wards, and a quota in each of the multi member wards of thirty-three and twenty five percent respectively, a minority of around 36 per cent could gain a majority with four of the seven members of the Cardinia Shire Council.
In many Councils the VEC can be commended on its final report. These include Stonnington, Wyndham, Glen Eira, Wellington, Whittlesea and Yarra. Here the final report recommendations approved by Minister Candy Broad (who has never rejected any final report) are sensible and comply with best practice under quota preferential proportional representation voting and have an odd number of councillors (3) in each of three multi-councillor wards.
Councils where Representation Reviews have supported all single councillor wards are in the minority, but they represent the three largest provincial cities of Greater Ballarat, Greater Bendigo and Greater Geelong, the Mornington Peninsula Shire, as well as the metropolitan councils of Hobsons Bay, and Maribyrnong. It is possible political party heavies in several of these cases have influenced the VEC Commissioner. These include former Bendigo Liberal MP Daryl McLure and local Mayor Rod Fyffe in Greater Bendigo, federal Labor MHR Nicola Roxon in the case of Maribyrnong, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Victorian Liberal Minister Alan Hunt and the council CEO in the case of Mornington Peninsula, and former ALP apparatchik and Municipal Association of Victoria President Brad Matheson in the case of Hobsons Bay.
Many submissions made to representation reviews by individuals supporting single councillor wards do so under a misunderstanding of the voting system to be used. In the case of Mornington Peninsula a former Councillor opposed multi-member wards not realising that the voting system had been changed. She had earlier lost an election under the majority-preferential system in a multi-member ward in that municipality. She would probably have been re-elected under a quota preferential proportional representation system.
Sitting councillors and sometimes ex councillors often see as their major concern the number of councillors rather than identifying the possible consequences. In Greater Bendigo for example the number of councillors seemed the primary concern, not the type of ward division. Even groups involved in local government make this mistake, with disastrous consequences. Hobsons Bay Community First in its original representation review submission recommended eleven single councillor wards. This helped local ALP heavies, who wanted single member wards believing the party might win almost all of them. Realising too late the consequences of their original submission, that the VEC would not be prepared to have a council of this size and the fact that the local Community Labor organisation would be the major beneficiary, their second submission, written by Tony Briffa, recommended three wards electing three councillors each.
The most common reason for support for single councillor wards by political apparatchiks, who tend to write the most professional submissions, is to support community of interest and the closeness of a single councillor to their residents and ratepayers. Some submissions even compare the use of a different type of proportional representation in parliamentary elections in Europe, which is totally irrelevant to Victorian local government. In fact they are writing from self interest. In Mornington Peninsula, where persons associated with the Liberal Party were behind the bulk of submissions made, favour a voting system that at the previous council election ensured councillors allied with their party won all seats on the council. In Maribyrnong the local ALP organisation favours a voting system that frequently will give the ALP almost all seats on the council. In Darebin there has so far been no representation review, but it can be expected Preston MP Michael Leighton and high profile local ALP heavy Cr Peter Stephenson will support single councillor wards. At present all members of the Darebin council are members of the ALP, and a change of voting system would see Greens and non-party independents elected for the first time. Single councillor wards also maximise the benefits of dummy candidates, candidates who run solely to funnel preferences to a preferred candidate. Nillimbik and Darebin have been councils with particular dummy problems. Proportional representation does not eliminate dummy candidates, but it will reduce their influence, as the aim is to get a quota of votes and not an absolute majority. In aiming to get a quota of voters candidates will in most cases seek a direct appeal to voters, not an appeal through dummies. Deals are of course still done for preference purposes in a proportional representation election, and they must be where there is a compulsory numbering of preferences, but they will influence a smaller number of councillors seeking election and not a whole council where a proportional voting system is not used.
In summary, the change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
Reforms that could be adopted to make the system more workable are an increase in the number of councillors per council to a maximum of 15 rather than 12. This would enable five three-member wards in the bigger councils and this would meet general approval. There should also be an optional marking of preferences. Compulsory marking of preferences aids those who run dummy candidates, for most voters will comply with such recommendations. There should also be a ban on the recommendation of preference marking on candidate information statements. This will force voters to make their own judgments about marking of preferences. There should also be uniformity as to the structure of each council. The VEC should be concerned only with the ward boundaries, not the number of councillors per ward which should be prescribed by legislation.
The Kennett Liberal government in 1994 dramatically changed Victorian local government. Previously the state comprised 210 local councils, but this was reduced to 78. When in opposition the Liberal Party in Victoria opposed Council amalgamations under the Cain and Kirner governments, yet on attaining office in 1992 did precisely this itself. Councillors were sacked, and commissioners were appointed to run the new councils, apart from the tiny Borough of Queenscliffe, which continued to be the only local council in Victoria to be elected by residents and ratepayers during the Commissioner period. Under Commissioner rule councils were placed under considerable financial restraint. The introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of council services and the deployment of staff were features of that period local government historians generally write about, but usually neglected is the structure of the new councils themselves.
Prior to the Kennett reforms local councils, apart from the City of Melbourne, usually comprised a number of councillors that was divisible by three, a factor that resulted from an earlier law providing for annual elections, with one third of the council retiring at an election every year. Local politics was normally about local issues, except in the Labor heartland of inner Melbourne, and only the ALP, the Communist Party, and for a time the Democratic Labor Party endorsed candidates in local government elections. Liberal Party and National Party members frequently contest local council elections, but they never do so as representatives of their party, but sometimes will reveal their poltical affiliations in local newspapers and if they get elected as biographical information on their Council’s web site.
The commissioners decided the form of local government boundaries for the first council elections at the end of their rule. In many country councils they provided for an unsubdivided council, with all councillors elected at large. Mildura, Warrnambool and Greater Shepparton are in this category. In others they provided for a mixture of councillor numbers per ward, the name of local government electorates (the term riding used to be used for rural shires but to avoid confusion the term ward is now used universally in Victoria). All wards were given names, not the Queensland practice of numbers. By Commissioner edict Darebin Council, elected after 1996, consisted of nine single councillor wards. In Bendigo this was seven single councillor wards. In Hobsons Bay there were four wards comprising two councillors each. In Glen Eira three three councillor wards. There was no consistency. Diversity in council electoral structure depended on Commissioner whim., except in the City of Melbourne and the City of Greater Geelong, where legislation initially provided for a dual electoral system of at large or “district” councillors and single councillor wards.
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations. The Local Government Act provides for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 councillors in any municipality, whereas in the pre-Kennett period this was between nine and fifteen.
Representation reviews are conducted at council expense by the VEC and represent the decision of an “independent umpire,” the VEC commissioner. The final reports have been mixed. The structure put in place by commissioners has often been adopted, and there is a considerable mix, not always adopting best electoral practice.
A factor that needs to be considered by the VEC is the adoption of the quota preferential voting system. The fact that the this voting system is now used in multi member wards means that the number of councillors per ward rather than voters can sometimes be a crucial factor in the composition of a council, not necessarily party control of a council. Ideally even number wards under PR are not desirable, as a majority by a particular group in such a ward is not necessarily translated into a majority of seats won.
In some councils the VEC final report is nonsensical. The best example of this is the Shire of Moorabool. There is one four councillor ward, based on the Bacchus Marsh, and three single member wards based on the rural areas of the shire. A particular group could conceivably win all three of the single member wards with small overall majorities and around fifty five percent of the total vote in each ward, and obtain about twenty per cent of the vote (or one quota) in the Bacchus Marsh ward. A minority of around 35 per cent can gain control of the Moorabool Shire Council with four of the seven councillors. A majority of 65 per cent would win only three councillors.
Another example is the Shire of Cardinia, with a similar position to that in the Shire of Moorabool. The Cardinia ward boundaries could result in a particular group winning the two single councillor wards (based on Nar Nar Goon in one case and the asparagus centre of Koo Wee Rup and the town of Lang Lang in the case of the other, one councillor in the two councillor ward based on Emerald and Gembrook, and one councillor out of three in the ward based on Pakenham. Here, assuming a consistent fifty five percent in the single councillor wards, and a quota in each of the multi member wards of thirty-three and twenty five percent respectively, a minority of around 36 per cent could gain a majority with four of the seven members of the Cardinia Shire Council.
In many Councils the VEC can be commended on its final report. These include Stonnington, Wyndham, Glen Eira, Wellington, Whittlesea and Yarra. Here the final report recommendations approved by Minister Candy Broad (who has never rejected any final report) are sensible and comply with best practice under quota preferential proportional representation voting and have an odd number of councillors (3) in each of three multi-councillor wards.
Councils where Representation Reviews have supported all single councillor wards are in the minority, but they represent the three largest provincial cities of Greater Ballarat, Greater Bendigo and Greater Geelong, the Mornington Peninsula Shire, as well as the metropolitan councils of Hobsons Bay, and Maribyrnong. It is possible political party heavies in several of these cases have influenced the VEC Commissioner. These include former Bendigo Liberal MP Daryl McLure and local Mayor Rod Fyffe in Greater Bendigo, federal Labor MHR Nicola Roxon in the case of Maribyrnong, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Victorian Liberal Minister Alan Hunt and the council CEO in the case of Mornington Peninsula, and former ALP apparatchik and Municipal Association of Victoria President Brad Matheson in the case of Hobsons Bay.
Many submissions made to representation reviews by individuals supporting single councillor wards do so under a misunderstanding of the voting system to be used. In the case of Mornington Peninsula a former Councillor opposed multi-member wards not realising that the voting system had been changed. She had earlier lost an election under the majority-preferential system in a multi-member ward in that municipality. She would probably have been re-elected under a quota preferential proportional representation system.
Sitting councillors and sometimes ex councillors often see as their major concern the number of councillors rather than identifying the possible consequences. In Greater Bendigo for example the number of councillors seemed the primary concern, not the type of ward division. Even groups involved in local government make this mistake, with disastrous consequences. Hobsons Bay Community First in its original representation review submission recommended eleven single councillor wards. This helped local ALP heavies, who wanted single member wards believing the party might win almost all of them. Realising too late the consequences of their original submission, that the VEC would not be prepared to have a council of this size and the fact that the local Community Labor organisation would be the major beneficiary, their second submission, written by Tony Briffa, recommended three wards electing three councillors each.
The most common reason for support for single councillor wards by political apparatchiks, who tend to write the most professional submissions, is to support community of interest and the closeness of a single councillor to their residents and ratepayers. Some submissions even compare the use of a different type of proportional representation in parliamentary elections in Europe, which is totally irrelevant to Victorian local government. In fact they are writing from self interest. In Mornington Peninsula, where persons associated with the Liberal Party were behind the bulk of submissions made, favour a voting system that at the previous council election ensured councillors allied with their party won all seats on the council. In Maribyrnong the local ALP organisation favours a voting system that frequently will give the ALP almost all seats on the council. In Darebin there has so far been no representation review, but it can be expected Preston MP Michael Leighton and high profile local ALP heavy Cr Peter Stephenson will support single councillor wards. At present all members of the Darebin council are members of the ALP, and a change of voting system would see Greens and non-party independents elected for the first time. Single councillor wards also maximise the benefits of dummy candidates, candidates who run solely to funnel preferences to a preferred candidate. Nillimbik and Darebin have been councils with particular dummy problems. Proportional representation does not eliminate dummy candidates, but it will reduce their influence, as the aim is to get a quota of votes and not an absolute majority. In aiming to get a quota of voters candidates will in most cases seek a direct appeal to voters, not an appeal through dummies. Deals are of course still done for preference purposes in a proportional representation election, and they must be where there is a compulsory numbering of preferences, but they will influence a smaller number of councillors seeking election and not a whole council where a proportional voting system is not used.
In summary, the change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
Reforms that could be adopted to make the system more workable are an increase in the number of councillors per council to a maximum of 15 rather than 12. This would enable five three-member wards in the bigger councils and this would meet general approval. There should also be an optional marking of preferences. Compulsory marking of preferences aids those who run dummy candidates, for most voters will comply with such recommendations. There should also be a ban on the recommendation of preference marking on candidate information statements. This will force voters to make their own judgments about marking of preferences. There should also be uniformity as to the structure of each council. The VEC should be concerned only with the ward boundaries, not the number of councillors per ward which should be prescribed by legislation.
The author, Lyle Allan, states that he used to teach at Victoria University of Technology. He is now retired. Please enjoy.
Victorian Electoral Commission Representation Reviews
Paper presented by Lyle Allan to Monash University School of Political and Social Inquiry Postgraduate Symposium, Clayton Campus, 24 October 2005.
Abstract
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations.
The change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
The Kennett Liberal government in 1994 dramatically changed Victorian local government. Previously the state comprised 210 local councils, but this was reduced to 78. When in opposition the Liberal Party in Victoria opposed Council amalgamations under the Cain and Kirner governments, yet on attaining office in 1992 did precisely this itself. Councillors were sacked, and commissioners were appointed to run the new councils, apart from the tiny Borough of Queenscliffe, which continued to be the only local council in Victoria to be elected by residents and ratepayers during the Commissioner period. Under Commissioner rule councils were placed under considerable financial restraint. The introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of council services and the deployment of staff were features of that period local government historians generally write about, but usually neglected is the structure of the new councils themselves.
Prior to the Kennett reforms local councils, apart from the City of Melbourne, usually comprised a number of councillors that was divisible by three, a factor that resulted from an earlier law providing for annual elections, with one third of the council retiring at an election every year. Local politics was normally about local issues, except in the Labor heartland of inner Melbourne, and only the ALP, the Communist Party, and for a time the Democratic Labor Party endorsed candidates in local government elections. Liberal Party and National Party members frequently contest local council elections, but they never do so as representatives of their party, but sometimes will reveal their poltical affiliations in local newspapers and if they get elected as biographical information on their Council’s web site.
The commissioners decided the form of local government boundaries for the first council elections at the end of their rule. In many country councils they provided for an unsubdivided council, with all councillors elected at large. Mildura, Warrnambool and Greater Shepparton are in this category. In others they provided for a mixture of councillor numbers per ward, the name of local government electorates (the term riding used to be used for rural shires but to avoid confusion the term ward is now used universally in Victoria). All wards were given names, not the Queensland practice of numbers. By Commissioner edict Darebin Council, elected after 1996, consisted of nine single councillor wards. In Bendigo this was seven single councillor wards. In Hobsons Bay there were four wards comprising two councillors each. In Glen Eira three three councillor wards. There was no consistency. Diversity in council electoral structure depended on Commissioner whim., except in the City of Melbourne and the City of Greater Geelong, where legislation initially provided for a dual electoral system of at large or “district” councillors and single councillor wards.
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations. The Local Government Act provides for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 councillors in any municipality, whereas in the pre-Kennett period this was between nine and fifteen.
Representation reviews are conducted at council expense by the VEC and represent the decision of an “independent umpire,” the VEC commissioner. The final reports have been mixed. The structure put in place by commissioners has often been adopted, and there is a considerable mix, not always adopting best electoral practice.
A factor that needs to be considered by the VEC is the adoption of the quota preferential voting system. The fact that the this voting system is now used in multi member wards means that the number of councillors per ward rather than voters can sometimes be a crucial factor in the composition of a council, not necessarily party control of a council. Ideally even number wards under PR are not desirable, as a majority by a particular group in such a ward is not necessarily translated into a majority of seats won.
In some councils the VEC final report is nonsensical. The best example of this is the Shire of Moorabool. There is one four councillor ward, based on the Bacchus Marsh, and three single member wards based on the rural areas of the shire. A particular group could conceivably win all three of the single member wards with small overall majorities and around fifty five percent of the total vote in each ward, and obtain about twenty per cent of the vote (or one quota) in the Bacchus Marsh ward. A minority of around 35 per cent can gain control of the Moorabool Shire Council with four of the seven councillors. A majority of 65 per cent would win only three councillors.
Another example is the Shire of Cardinia, with a similar position to that in the Shire of Moorabool. The Cardinia ward boundaries could result in a particular group winning the two single councillor wards (based on Nar Nar Goon in one case and the asparagus centre of Koo Wee Rup and the town of Lang Lang in the case of the other, one councillor in the two councillor ward based on Emerald and Gembrook, and one councillor out of three in the ward based on Pakenham. Here, assuming a consistent fifty five percent in the single councillor wards, and a quota in each of the multi member wards of thirty-three and twenty five percent respectively, a minority of around 36 per cent could gain a majority with four of the seven members of the Cardinia Shire Council.
In many Councils the VEC can be commended on its final report. These include Stonnington, Wyndham, Glen Eira, Wellington, Whittlesea and Yarra. Here the final report recommendations approved by Minister Candy Broad (who has never rejected any final report) are sensible and comply with best practice under quota preferential proportional representation voting and have an odd number of councillors (3) in each of three multi-councillor wards.
Councils where Representation Reviews have supported all single councillor wards are in the minority, but they represent the three largest provincial cities of Greater Ballarat, Greater Bendigo and Greater Geelong, the Mornington Peninsula Shire, as well as the metropolitan councils of Hobsons Bay, and Maribyrnong. It is possible political party heavies in several of these cases have influenced the VEC Commissioner. These include former Bendigo Liberal MP Daryl McLure and local Mayor Rod Fyffe in Greater Bendigo, federal Labor MHR Nicola Roxon in the case of Maribyrnong, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Victorian Liberal Minister Alan Hunt and the council CEO in the case of Mornington Peninsula, and former ALP apparatchik and Municipal Association of Victoria President Brad Matheson in the case of Hobsons Bay.
Many submissions made to representation reviews by individuals supporting single councillor wards do so under a misunderstanding of the voting system to be used. In the case of Mornington Peninsula a former Councillor opposed multi-member wards not realising that the voting system had been changed. She had earlier lost an election under the majority-preferential system in a multi-member ward in that municipality. She would probably have been re-elected under a quota preferential proportional representation system.
Sitting councillors and sometimes ex councillors often see as their major concern the number of councillors rather than identifying the possible consequences. In Greater Bendigo for example the number of councillors seemed the primary concern, not the type of ward division. Even groups involved in local government make this mistake, with disastrous consequences. Hobsons Bay Community First in its original representation review submission recommended eleven single councillor wards. This helped local ALP heavies, who wanted single member wards believing the party might win almost all of them. Realising too late the consequences of their original submission, that the VEC would not be prepared to have a council of this size and the fact that the local Community Labor organisation would be the major beneficiary, their second submission, written by Tony Briffa, recommended three wards electing three councillors each.
The most common reason for support for single councillor wards by political apparatchiks, who tend to write the most professional submissions, is to support community of interest and the closeness of a single councillor to their residents and ratepayers. Some submissions even compare the use of a different type of proportional representation in parliamentary elections in Europe, which is totally irrelevant to Victorian local government. In fact they are writing from self interest. In Mornington Peninsula, where persons associated with the Liberal Party were behind the bulk of submissions made, favour a voting system that at the previous council election ensured councillors allied with their party won all seats on the council. In Maribyrnong the local ALP organisation favours a voting system that frequently will give the ALP almost all seats on the council. In Darebin there has so far been no representation review, but it can be expected Preston MP Michael Leighton and high profile local ALP heavy Cr Peter Stephenson will support single councillor wards. At present all members of the Darebin council are members of the ALP, and a change of voting system would see Greens and non-party independents elected for the first time. Single councillor wards also maximise the benefits of dummy candidates, candidates who run solely to funnel preferences to a preferred candidate. Nillimbik and Darebin have been councils with particular dummy problems. Proportional representation does not eliminate dummy candidates, but it will reduce their influence, as the aim is to get a quota of votes and not an absolute majority. In aiming to get a quota of voters candidates will in most cases seek a direct appeal to voters, not an appeal through dummies. Deals are of course still done for preference purposes in a proportional representation election, and they must be where there is a compulsory numbering of preferences, but they will influence a smaller number of councillors seeking election and not a whole council where a proportional voting system is not used.
In summary, the change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
Reforms that could be adopted to make the system more workable are an increase in the number of councillors per council to a maximum of 15 rather than 12. This would enable five three-member wards in the bigger councils and this would meet general approval. There should also be an optional marking of preferences. Compulsory marking of preferences aids those who run dummy candidates, for most voters will comply with such recommendations. There should also be a ban on the recommendation of preference marking on candidate information statements. This will force voters to make their own judgments about marking of preferences. There should also be uniformity as to the structure of each council. The VEC should be concerned only with the ward boundaries, not the number of councillors per ward which should be prescribed by legislation.
The Kennett Liberal government in 1994 dramatically changed Victorian local government. Previously the state comprised 210 local councils, but this was reduced to 78. When in opposition the Liberal Party in Victoria opposed Council amalgamations under the Cain and Kirner governments, yet on attaining office in 1992 did precisely this itself. Councillors were sacked, and commissioners were appointed to run the new councils, apart from the tiny Borough of Queenscliffe, which continued to be the only local council in Victoria to be elected by residents and ratepayers during the Commissioner period. Under Commissioner rule councils were placed under considerable financial restraint. The introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of council services and the deployment of staff were features of that period local government historians generally write about, but usually neglected is the structure of the new councils themselves.
Prior to the Kennett reforms local councils, apart from the City of Melbourne, usually comprised a number of councillors that was divisible by three, a factor that resulted from an earlier law providing for annual elections, with one third of the council retiring at an election every year. Local politics was normally about local issues, except in the Labor heartland of inner Melbourne, and only the ALP, the Communist Party, and for a time the Democratic Labor Party endorsed candidates in local government elections. Liberal Party and National Party members frequently contest local council elections, but they never do so as representatives of their party, but sometimes will reveal their poltical affiliations in local newspapers and if they get elected as biographical information on their Council’s web site.
The commissioners decided the form of local government boundaries for the first council elections at the end of their rule. In many country councils they provided for an unsubdivided council, with all councillors elected at large. Mildura, Warrnambool and Greater Shepparton are in this category. In others they provided for a mixture of councillor numbers per ward, the name of local government electorates (the term riding used to be used for rural shires but to avoid confusion the term ward is now used universally in Victoria). All wards were given names, not the Queensland practice of numbers. By Commissioner edict Darebin Council, elected after 1996, consisted of nine single councillor wards. In Bendigo this was seven single councillor wards. In Hobsons Bay there were four wards comprising two councillors each. In Glen Eira three three councillor wards. There was no consistency. Diversity in council electoral structure depended on Commissioner whim., except in the City of Melbourne and the City of Greater Geelong, where legislation initially provided for a dual electoral system of at large or “district” councillors and single councillor wards.
The Bracks government has, under the Local Government Act, provided for Representation Reviews as the means by which local government boundaries and the number of councillors per ward is determined. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducts these representation reviews after community consultation and its own investigations. The Local Government Act provides for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 councillors in any municipality, whereas in the pre-Kennett period this was between nine and fifteen.
Representation reviews are conducted at council expense by the VEC and represent the decision of an “independent umpire,” the VEC commissioner. The final reports have been mixed. The structure put in place by commissioners has often been adopted, and there is a considerable mix, not always adopting best electoral practice.
A factor that needs to be considered by the VEC is the adoption of the quota preferential voting system. The fact that the this voting system is now used in multi member wards means that the number of councillors per ward rather than voters can sometimes be a crucial factor in the composition of a council, not necessarily party control of a council. Ideally even number wards under PR are not desirable, as a majority by a particular group in such a ward is not necessarily translated into a majority of seats won.
In some councils the VEC final report is nonsensical. The best example of this is the Shire of Moorabool. There is one four councillor ward, based on the Bacchus Marsh, and three single member wards based on the rural areas of the shire. A particular group could conceivably win all three of the single member wards with small overall majorities and around fifty five percent of the total vote in each ward, and obtain about twenty per cent of the vote (or one quota) in the Bacchus Marsh ward. A minority of around 35 per cent can gain control of the Moorabool Shire Council with four of the seven councillors. A majority of 65 per cent would win only three councillors.
Another example is the Shire of Cardinia, with a similar position to that in the Shire of Moorabool. The Cardinia ward boundaries could result in a particular group winning the two single councillor wards (based on Nar Nar Goon in one case and the asparagus centre of Koo Wee Rup and the town of Lang Lang in the case of the other, one councillor in the two councillor ward based on Emerald and Gembrook, and one councillor out of three in the ward based on Pakenham. Here, assuming a consistent fifty five percent in the single councillor wards, and a quota in each of the multi member wards of thirty-three and twenty five percent respectively, a minority of around 36 per cent could gain a majority with four of the seven members of the Cardinia Shire Council.
In many Councils the VEC can be commended on its final report. These include Stonnington, Wyndham, Glen Eira, Wellington, Whittlesea and Yarra. Here the final report recommendations approved by Minister Candy Broad (who has never rejected any final report) are sensible and comply with best practice under quota preferential proportional representation voting and have an odd number of councillors (3) in each of three multi-councillor wards.
Councils where Representation Reviews have supported all single councillor wards are in the minority, but they represent the three largest provincial cities of Greater Ballarat, Greater Bendigo and Greater Geelong, the Mornington Peninsula Shire, as well as the metropolitan councils of Hobsons Bay, and Maribyrnong. It is possible political party heavies in several of these cases have influenced the VEC Commissioner. These include former Bendigo Liberal MP Daryl McLure and local Mayor Rod Fyffe in Greater Bendigo, federal Labor MHR Nicola Roxon in the case of Maribyrnong, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Victorian Liberal Minister Alan Hunt and the council CEO in the case of Mornington Peninsula, and former ALP apparatchik and Municipal Association of Victoria President Brad Matheson in the case of Hobsons Bay.
Many submissions made to representation reviews by individuals supporting single councillor wards do so under a misunderstanding of the voting system to be used. In the case of Mornington Peninsula a former Councillor opposed multi-member wards not realising that the voting system had been changed. She had earlier lost an election under the majority-preferential system in a multi-member ward in that municipality. She would probably have been re-elected under a quota preferential proportional representation system.
Sitting councillors and sometimes ex councillors often see as their major concern the number of councillors rather than identifying the possible consequences. In Greater Bendigo for example the number of councillors seemed the primary concern, not the type of ward division. Even groups involved in local government make this mistake, with disastrous consequences. Hobsons Bay Community First in its original representation review submission recommended eleven single councillor wards. This helped local ALP heavies, who wanted single member wards believing the party might win almost all of them. Realising too late the consequences of their original submission, that the VEC would not be prepared to have a council of this size and the fact that the local Community Labor organisation would be the major beneficiary, their second submission, written by Tony Briffa, recommended three wards electing three councillors each.
The most common reason for support for single councillor wards by political apparatchiks, who tend to write the most professional submissions, is to support community of interest and the closeness of a single councillor to their residents and ratepayers. Some submissions even compare the use of a different type of proportional representation in parliamentary elections in Europe, which is totally irrelevant to Victorian local government. In fact they are writing from self interest. In Mornington Peninsula, where persons associated with the Liberal Party were behind the bulk of submissions made, favour a voting system that at the previous council election ensured councillors allied with their party won all seats on the council. In Maribyrnong the local ALP organisation favours a voting system that frequently will give the ALP almost all seats on the council. In Darebin there has so far been no representation review, but it can be expected Preston MP Michael Leighton and high profile local ALP heavy Cr Peter Stephenson will support single councillor wards. At present all members of the Darebin council are members of the ALP, and a change of voting system would see Greens and non-party independents elected for the first time. Single councillor wards also maximise the benefits of dummy candidates, candidates who run solely to funnel preferences to a preferred candidate. Nillimbik and Darebin have been councils with particular dummy problems. Proportional representation does not eliminate dummy candidates, but it will reduce their influence, as the aim is to get a quota of votes and not an absolute majority. In aiming to get a quota of voters candidates will in most cases seek a direct appeal to voters, not an appeal through dummies. Deals are of course still done for preference purposes in a proportional representation election, and they must be where there is a compulsory numbering of preferences, but they will influence a smaller number of councillors seeking election and not a whole council where a proportional voting system is not used.
In summary, the change to proportional representation in multi member wards is a desirable change in Victorian local government, but this change has not been consistently adopted, and has been opposed by many local party apparatchiks. Many VEC reviews have been thorough and sensible. In others they have benefited particular constituencies rather than a community at large.
The use of dummy candidates is a feature of local government elections VEC representation reviews have often encouraged. Single member wards, especially but not always in the bigger urban councils, will see a continuation of this practice on a grand scale.
Reforms that could be adopted to make the system more workable are an increase in the number of councillors per council to a maximum of 15 rather than 12. This would enable five three-member wards in the bigger councils and this would meet general approval. There should also be an optional marking of preferences. Compulsory marking of preferences aids those who run dummy candidates, for most voters will comply with such recommendations. There should also be a ban on the recommendation of preference marking on candidate information statements. This will force voters to make their own judgments about marking of preferences. There should also be uniformity as to the structure of each council. The VEC should be concerned only with the ward boundaries, not the number of councillors per ward which should be prescribed by legislation.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Council Supports Single Councillor Wards. A Bad System.
Boroondara Vote Reform Blog has been created to advance the cause of proportional representation in Boroondara. This means the election of Boroondara City Council from Multi-Councillor Wards. It could also mean the election of the Boroondara City Council at large, from one big city-wide ward. This is not our preferred option. We would be happy with any of the following:
Option 1
A nine member council, with three wards electing three councillors each.
Option 2
An eleven member council with three wards electing three councillors each and one ward electing two councillors.
Option 3
A twelve member council with four wards electing three councillors each.
All of these comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act, under which a municipal council must have a minimum of five and a maximum of twelve councillors.
Our preference is Option 2 above.
We consider Option 1, a council of nine, as too small for such a populous municipality as Boroondara. While we prefer a higher number of councillors we would prefer that the council comprised an odd number of councillors, as this would allow for better decision making. An even number of councillors, as we have at present and would also have under Option 3 above, means the election of the Mayor might be decided by lot, and many council decisions on any matters before the council may be made on the Mayor's casting vote. This has happened a number of times in the present council.
The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) is currently conducting a Representation Review for the City of Boroondara. The VEC Review will determine the way in which the Boroondara City Council is elected for the following eight years. It is important that they get it correct.
This blog believes the present structure of ten single councillor wards does not allow for the election of the best quality councillors in our city. We support proportional representation in multi member wards.
The Boroondara City Council unanimously favours the present system, and is conducting a campaign with ratepayer money to support its retention. They are asking ratepayers and residents to make a submission to the VEC supporting their policy. Naturally we oppose this. Many people and one organisation have already done so, in ignorance in many cases that there exists a better system of election.
We urge Boroondara residents to make a submission supporting multi-member wards and proportional representation. Neighbouring councils elected by proportional representation include Monash, Glen Eira, Stonnington, Yarra, Melbourne and Manningham. Proportional representation will also apply in elections for the City of Darebin as from November 2008. Only Banyule, regrettably, will retain single councillor wards, and we hope this will not be the case in Boroondara.
This blog will comment on VEC submissions, and the attitude of the Council. In the coming weeks we will present the case for proportional representation, and we invite comments from all, including those who disagree with us.
Option 1
A nine member council, with three wards electing three councillors each.
Option 2
An eleven member council with three wards electing three councillors each and one ward electing two councillors.
Option 3
A twelve member council with four wards electing three councillors each.
All of these comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act, under which a municipal council must have a minimum of five and a maximum of twelve councillors.
Our preference is Option 2 above.
We consider Option 1, a council of nine, as too small for such a populous municipality as Boroondara. While we prefer a higher number of councillors we would prefer that the council comprised an odd number of councillors, as this would allow for better decision making. An even number of councillors, as we have at present and would also have under Option 3 above, means the election of the Mayor might be decided by lot, and many council decisions on any matters before the council may be made on the Mayor's casting vote. This has happened a number of times in the present council.
The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) is currently conducting a Representation Review for the City of Boroondara. The VEC Review will determine the way in which the Boroondara City Council is elected for the following eight years. It is important that they get it correct.
This blog believes the present structure of ten single councillor wards does not allow for the election of the best quality councillors in our city. We support proportional representation in multi member wards.
The Boroondara City Council unanimously favours the present system, and is conducting a campaign with ratepayer money to support its retention. They are asking ratepayers and residents to make a submission to the VEC supporting their policy. Naturally we oppose this. Many people and one organisation have already done so, in ignorance in many cases that there exists a better system of election.
We urge Boroondara residents to make a submission supporting multi-member wards and proportional representation. Neighbouring councils elected by proportional representation include Monash, Glen Eira, Stonnington, Yarra, Melbourne and Manningham. Proportional representation will also apply in elections for the City of Darebin as from November 2008. Only Banyule, regrettably, will retain single councillor wards, and we hope this will not be the case in Boroondara.
This blog will comment on VEC submissions, and the attitude of the Council. In the coming weeks we will present the case for proportional representation, and we invite comments from all, including those who disagree with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)