Boroondara Council employees received a document advocating the Council's position on single-councillor wards with their pay slips last week. Is the implication that employees who oppose the Council's stand on single-councillor wards are in danger of losing their jobs?
We have no objection to the Council providing employees with information about the VEC representation review. Our objection is to the Boroondara Council taking a partisan stand.
Imagine an outcry from employees if the Council prior to the last state election issued a pamphlet telling employees the virtues of Andrew McIntosh or Ted Baillieu. They wouldn't tolerate it and neither would most Victorians. Of course we couldn't see the Council issuing a pamphlet supporting Bob Stensholt, whose electorate also includes part of Boroondara. Only one Councillor, who represents the Ashburton area, is likely to support him. That Councillor does, however, support the Council views on single-councillor wards, and that is her personal choice.
We think the Council should provide a balanced pamphlet to its employees with arguments for and against both alternatives. The VEC does so. Why not Boroondara?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Proportional representation (PR) for Boroondara is not party political. The Boroondara Council is in company with the Labor Party in Banyule, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Port Phillip, Maribyrnong, Latrobe and Nillimbik. Work that one out!
Some Boroondara Councillors believe PR to be a Labor Party plot. The facts are that the ALP supports PR when it suits them, and opposes it when it doesn't. In fact the Liberal candidate for Northcote at the 2006 state election made a submission to the Darebin representation review supporting PR for Darebin. That Council is held nine out of nine by the ALP. Single concillor wards help the ALP. PR will give opponents of the ALP a chance at representation and that is to the good.
PR is unlikely to help the ALP in Boroondara, for the quota for election will be too high and ALP candidates, if endorsed by the party and that is unlikely, would get very few votes outside of the Ashburton area. Liberals will retain control of Boroondara, but one Liberal faction would not get all the Council seats. I don't think it would happen, but it is a possibility. Remember the Liberal Party could decide to endorse candidates like the ALP used to. It has decided to on the Gold Coast in Queensland, and Independent Mayor Ron Clarke is threatened. If the Liberal Party endorsed candidates in Boroondara under a single councillor ward system it would get all or almost all seats. I don't think that's good for democracy. Nor do I think it good for democracy that the ALP under the same single councillor ward system has got nine out of nine councillors in Darebin at every election since the creation of that City.
I hope sanity prevails in Boroondara.
A disgraceful act on the part of the Boroondara Council.
Andrew McIntosh, Liberal MP for Kew, Robert Clark, Liberal MP for Box Hill, and Andrea Coote, Liberal upper house MP, have all made preliminary submissions to the VEC, and this is their demcratic right.
All they do is restate the Council's position. Then there's a submission from Judith Voce, the Mayor of Boroondara who lost her seat to Phillip Healey, a vocal advocate of the Council's view. Surprise surprise Judith agrees with Cr Healey. What a choice the voters of Studley ward had at the last Council election!
Then a submission came out of the blue from the Glen Iris Branch of the Liberal Party. The Boroondara Council have been telling us they don't want party politics in Boroondara. We know they are in bed with the ALP, but now the Glen Iris Liberal Branch is in bed with the ALP too.
This submission is, like the Boroondara Council submission, full of misrepresentations, and perhaps Gabriele you could comment on this blog about this incredible submission.
All this is so hard to follow. I wouldn't trust the Boroondara Council and certainly not the council officers who are overpaid, overweight and run rings over our councillors.
Someone's sent me the URL for this Boroondara Vote Reform blog and, curious as I am, I had to have a look. I am utterly amazed at the blatant nonsense and degree of ignorance displayed in some of the entries. What's worse, some contributors are hiding behind a veil of anonymity which I find quite unacceptable. I am certainly interested in informed debate and sharing differences in opinion, but these should be based on informed and well-reasoned arguments, not the political agendas of limpid liberals, laconic labour, grovelling greens or bleating bloggers.
My contribution to the VEC review can be accessed on the VEC website at http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/boroondararrPreSub.html
I'm happy to have a debate about some of the underlying premises of the review and the inherent tensions arising form being part of a governing body and diverging personal views.
But first things first. Who's the nutcase who thinks that some people want Boroondara to be a 'white Australian', wog-free zone? The current council is composed of
1 Dutch guy
1 German guy (me)
2 Greeks (Maranoa and Solway Wards)
1 Woman of English descent.
If I'm not a wog then who is?
Secondly, there are a lot of biased and untested assumptions about proportional representation in the submissions, and non- or poorly defined terms such as 'wasted votes', 'value of votes' etc.
PR is being sold as THE voting system which can remedy an imperfect democracy. Nothing's ever perfect, and the current system isn't either. But, as far as PR is concerned, what about the following:
PROPORTIONALITY
It is claimed that PR better reflects the Popular Vote. I think this is correct, because PV systems are more likely to produce legislatures which more closely reflect the popular vote across a province -- or a state or a country -- than our current system. Like all changes, however, changing the voting system will have other consequences (smaller parties, less stability, confusion of those who lobby and those who govern, minority governments, single issue-based representation by fringe groups, lack of long-term vision...). The PV systems will not only increase the number of political parties, these new parties will tend to be more focussed on particular issues or causes. Yes, the number of parties can be controlled (e.g. in Germany where you have a 5% hurdle requirement), but this does not seem to have entered the local debate. Once some lobby groups obtain a taste of real power and influence, it will be very difficult to convince other such groups that they too cannot enjoy a seat at this table.
FEWER "WASTED" VOTES
Again, the term is not properly defined in the proponent's blogs, and it seems that the proponents consider a wasted vote to be a vote for an unsuccessful candidate. If so, we need to ask whether this is a problem deserving of a solution. An election is supposed to be a contest of ideas. Like any contest, it is intended to determine a winner. If our assumed definition is correct, the problem for the proponents seems to be that contests also produce losers. By permitting some of these 'losing' parties to 'win' seats in the legislature by means of a PV system, they claim that elections will be 'fairer' as a result.
VOTES OF MORE EQUAL VALUE
Proponents like to use tables showing the average number of votes required by each party to win a seat in certain past elections. They calculate this average by dividing the number of seats won by a party into the total number of votes that the party received. In the elections selected by those who prepared the tables, the party which won the most seats had less total votes per seat than the party (or parties) which lost. From these tables, the proponents conclude that some votes are more equal than others and, thus, the voting system which produced them (e.g preferential) must be unfair. Is this an appropriate calculation to use in determining the value of a vote or is it just a statistic chosen to support a position?
If we accept it as a valid measure, no election is fair. In almost any election, this calculation will yield similar results favouring the winning party and making it seems that the other parties have been wronged. This supposed unfairness will be especially pronounced in elections where the result is a majority government but where the overall popular vote is close. Should we be altering the voting system on the basis of such a questionable measure? The other point worth making is that the electorate gets 'socialised' into which ever the prevalent system is, and will use it in a way that maximises their personal and political leanings.
BETTER REPRESENTATION, GREATER LOCAL VOICE
PV systems appear to offer the same degree of local representation as preferential or 'first-past-the-post'. In the present case of the Boroondara review, those who claim PV systems provide greater local voice are without exception in favour of multiple member wards. This, of course means much larger wards of up to 50,000 residents. Clearly, any reduction in the total number of wards would be a direct reduction in the amount of local representation.
BETTER GOVERNANCE; LONG-TERM POLICY THINKING
Politicians are human beings and, as such, they are generally guided by their own self-interest. For many politicians, the primary self-interest is to be re-elected. This is not a criticism; it is simply recognition of reality. Politicians seeking re-election will only think long-term if they believe the voters will reward them for doing that. If voters prefer short-term quick fixes, they will elect those politicians who deliver. If voters express their preference for short-term solutions (E.G 'no-change agenda; let's deep-freeze Boroondara and not worry about long-term demographic trends'), should we be surprised if politicians promise more of the same? It seems very naive to expect a PV system to somehow transform politicians into seekers of long-term solutions -- if that is contrary to their own self-interests. That is akin to expecting a voting system to change human nature.
Anyway, I have probably given this blog more attention than it deserves and should get onto doing some real work. I only hope none of the inanities produced in this blog are from my students; I think I'd sent them back to school for another year.
Cheers
I disagree with you Heinz on your support for single councillor wards, but I am with you totally in your condemnation of the nutcase who says that the BRAG want a wog-free Boroondara.
That nutcase wrote on the anti Ted Baillieu blog www.hewhostandsfornothing.blogspot.com and this vote reform blog condemned the nutcase too.
We do have a point of agreement, and thank you for writing to this blog.
Richard Russell, who works for the Liberal Party, is having second thoughts about the job his party did last year for the representation review in Knox. He admits his party are doing the same thing this year in Boroondara. He wrote this comment today on the Landeryou blog:
The Victorian Electoral Commission originally recommended three three-councillor wards in their representation review last year for Knox Council. That would have meant proportional representation. We Liberals didn't want that in Knox so we got to work and put in a very large number of submissions, many from front groups we controlled, urging single councillor wards for Knox. We are doing the same thing now this year in Boroondara.
We got what we wanted. The Victorian Electoral Commission saw the light. They rejected the submissions from the Proportional Representation Society and their lackies and PR nuts like van der Craats, Lyle Allan and Andrew Gunter. Knox will have single councillor wards at this years elections.
Might not be a good thing though if the wrong faction wins all the seats. That is very likely.
Richard Russell
Congratulations Boroondara Vote Reform Blog. The Preliminary Recommendation is virtually the same as your recommendation.
Pity though that you did not make a submission. Somebody must read you though. Was it Red Ted?
The VEC are disgraceful. Boroondara Councillors fist found out about their proposed sacking from the Progress Leader. This is nothing but a Labor plot.
Keep single councillor wards in Boroondara.
Keep local government local.
BRAG want single wards and they are an org who care.
BRAG and Mary Drost are good for Boroondara.
The VEC should do as BRAG says.
Keep local govt local.
The VEC are to be congratulated on the preliminary report for Boroondara. The preliminary preferred option is well argued, and I'm sure will enable the election of good councillors.
The council supporters on this blog are mouthing slogans. Local government will be more local under the VEC proposal. Under proportional representation and multi-member wards ratepayers will have a choice of councillors to lobby about their problems. Under the present arrangement there is only one councillor per ward. It is difficult to get a councillor interested in a problem outside his or her ward under the present system. Proportional representation will force councillors to become interested in matters that affect the wider community.
What is Mayor Coral up to? Below is Coral on the Council web site:
Community Ignored on Electoral Representation Review
The VEC has ignored the overwhelming community support for the retention of 10 single, ward Councillors in its preliminary report on the Electoral Representation Review.
The VEC’s report, which was formally released on Tuesday 8 April, presents a preferred option that goes against the clear opinion voiced by 172 of 213 submissions (78 per cent) made by Boroondara residents, workers and students in February and March. The VEC has recommended an electoral structure comprising multi-member wards and 11 Councillors, which was only supported by 41 submitters (19 percent).
The Mayor of Boroondara, Councillor Coral Ross said an initial analysis of the preliminary report had shown the VEC’s argument was flawed and inconsistent.
“The VEC received the highest number ever of public submissions for the Boroondara review and our community presented well-reasoned arguments that focused on local interests - the VEC has simply ignored this community,” Cr Ross said.
“That the community’s preferred option is the VEC’s last choice speaks volumes.
“Surely if the local community responds in record numbers and makes their preference known, the VEC needs to be mindful of that. Otherwise this exercise has been a farce.”
The preferred option of submitters and Council – the retention of the current structure of single members representing 10 wards – was presented by the VEC in the report as the final of four options. Council believes the current structure ensures Councillors have a greater understanding of the local area and are more accountable to their constituents.
Council has called on the community to voice its strong opposition to the VEC’s failure to listen and recognise their communities of interest and local neighbourhoods.
“This preliminary report reveals the VEC’s prejudice towards the proportional representation voting system, however, the VEC’s brief from the State Government is not to determine voting systems but to determine structures – the voting system should flow from the structure,” Cr Ross said.
“The VEC report points out that former Councils of Kew, Hawthorn and Camberwell had multi-members but fail to acknowledge that back then there were smaller wards, annual Council elections and no proportional representation.
“We challenge VEC’s findings in this report and call on our community to voice in the strongest possible way its opposition to this report.”
Cr Ross encouraged the community to maintain the momentum as this critical stage.
The VEC will accept public responses to its preliminary report between Tuesday 8 April and Wednesday 30 April. Submitters must also nominate in their submission whether they want to present their case at a public hearing on Wednesday 7 May.
Boroondara is currently under review with Bass, Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Maroondah, Melton Shire, Moonee Valley, Nillumbick, Queenscliffe councils. The VEC’s preferred option for all but one of the councils currently under review has been a multi-member ward structure.
“The VEC’s track record clearly favours multi-member wards and we firmly believe that had the community not spoken out, it was likely that the third alternative option would not have seen light of day,” Cr Ross said.
“If there are changes to the current structure, this will have a major impact on the way people’s communities are administered. So have your say on the Electoral Representation Review.”
No Coral.
The residents and ratepayers of Boroondara are not in sympathy with you on this issue. They simply have not had the issues involved explained to them.
The VEC report is a good one. It answers most of the points you make Coral. Boroondara residents and ratepayers should read it before listening to Council propaganda.
You have one important fact wrong Coral. The VEC recommended a multi-ward structure in seven of the nine councils, not all but one.
Your point about proportional representation flowing from the structure is false and misleading. How many people who followed the Council advice were misled?
This representation review is all about proportional representation Coral. If residents are to make a reasoned judgment they must know what it is. Council propaganda explains only the Council position. The VEC information guide is even handed.
Boroondara residents should read the VEC report before making their response submissions. The Council propaganda is one sided.
8.28 is wrong also. Not only Coral. The VEC has recommended a multi-ward structure in only six of the nine municipalities being reviewed.
Get your facts right 8.28 as well as Coral Ross
Elements of the Boroondara ALP, including I believe one councillor, are mad at the VEC. They claim about 80% of people in Boroondara support the council, and claim the VEC has ignored them. The Mayor, who I believe is anti-ALP, is of the same view as certain ALP members and claims in the local paper she was gobsmacked at the VEC decision.
The ALP were happy the VEC ignored the overwhelming majority of residents in Hobsons Bay (over 92%) who wanted Proportional Representation, by choosing the ALP’s preferred 7 single member ward option. This was despite the desperate antics of the ALP which included them lodging bogus submissions (some under the names of 10 year old school kids and names of residents that don’t even exist). This inevitably cost one prominent ALP Councillor (the disgraced Brad Matheson) to lose his spot on the Council and Municipal Association of Victoria.”
How many bodgie submissions were lodged in Boroondara that make up that 80% or so.
Post a Comment