The Victorian Electoral Commission has recommended that Darebin City Council be elected by proportional representation (PR) from three three-councillor wards at next year's elections. The final report, issued late Monday, affirms the preferred option of the Commission's preliminary report, but makes minor changes to ward boundaries to reflect concerns expressed during the public review process. The recommendation will now be considered by local government minister, Richard Wynne.
The final recommendation, which has dropped any alternative option retaining the current single-councillor structure, is a big win for local democracy in Darebin. The current councillors will now be open to challenge from strongly supported community candidates who, under the changes, will gain a realistic chance of election via the PR voting system that legislation requires for multi-councillor wards. As a result, there is some prospect that the Labor Unity factional monopoly on the current council will be broken, with fresh viewpoints and more open debate in the council chamber.
Though the final recommendation is yet to be approved by the minister, its rejection would risk a public perception of political interference given the care with which the VEC has made its case for change. The closely reasoned report has stated that case clearly while rejecting the case for retaining the current structure on transparent and robust grounds. One factor important to the decision was the ability of larger wards to capture well-supported communities of interest that could achieve the quota of votes necessary to elect a candidate under the PR system. This would result in a more representative council than under the current structure, which divides communities of interest, and therefore support for potential candidates, among a larger number of smaller wards.
Ultimately, the VEC's finding is an invitation for the residents of Darebin to participate in their local democracy, and that's a good thing in the opinion of this writer.
Showing posts with label Darebin representation review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darebin representation review. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Leader Needs to 'Shore Up' Review Coverage
Last week's edition of the Preston Leader ran with an item on the Darebin representation review under the headline 'Locals shore up support'. It described a 'tidal wave' of support for the current system, which has given the ALP's Labor Unity faction nine out of nine elected councillors in Darebin.
However, the Leader report failed to factor in the preliminary submissions when it said that only 16 out of 53 submissions supported change. While I actually have 18 of the response submissions down as supporting change, we shouldn't forget that only three of the 31 preliminary submissions supported the current system. In total, of the 84 submissions, 45 supported change, and 38 supported the status quo - one submission was unclear.
Three of the community groups supporting the current system are from the Lebanese community, of which two Darebin councillors are members. It should also be noted that councillor Stanley Chiang is president of another group submitting in support of no change - the Northern Melbourne Chinese Association.
While both these groups together represent only a combined 3.3 per cent of the Darebin population of about 128,000, they would in fact be better represented under the proportional representation system proposed by the VEC in its preliminary report.
PR reflects 75 per cent voter support in three-member wards, while the current system reflects just over 50 per cent. And while it is true that council currently includes a relatively diverse membership, they also represent a political monopoly at odds with the diversity of views held by Darebin's communities.
The Leader report also failed to note the submission by the Preston Reservoir Progress Association, choosing instead to promote a petition submitted to the VEC by a Darebin councillor. This despite the fact that council would have done better to promote actual submissions rather than collect signatures no doubt responding to an ALP pitch. Instead of doing almost nothing to promote the review process, council could have encouraged participation - especially by referring our various ethnic communities to multilingual information offered by the VEC.
Instead, council opted to mobilise support informally among those it could count on, thereby undermining the formal consultation carried out by the VEC. Unfortunately for council, so far it hasn't quite worked. In my presentation to the VEC's public hearing, I urged the VEC to maintain its stated commitment to the reasoning of submissions, and reject what it had earlier called a 'straw poll' comprising merely of numbers for and against. It is the strength of the arguments that should win the day, and that's where the ALP has fallen down.
However, the Leader report failed to factor in the preliminary submissions when it said that only 16 out of 53 submissions supported change. While I actually have 18 of the response submissions down as supporting change, we shouldn't forget that only three of the 31 preliminary submissions supported the current system. In total, of the 84 submissions, 45 supported change, and 38 supported the status quo - one submission was unclear.
Three of the community groups supporting the current system are from the Lebanese community, of which two Darebin councillors are members. It should also be noted that councillor Stanley Chiang is president of another group submitting in support of no change - the Northern Melbourne Chinese Association.
While both these groups together represent only a combined 3.3 per cent of the Darebin population of about 128,000, they would in fact be better represented under the proportional representation system proposed by the VEC in its preliminary report.
PR reflects 75 per cent voter support in three-member wards, while the current system reflects just over 50 per cent. And while it is true that council currently includes a relatively diverse membership, they also represent a political monopoly at odds with the diversity of views held by Darebin's communities.
The Leader report also failed to note the submission by the Preston Reservoir Progress Association, choosing instead to promote a petition submitted to the VEC by a Darebin councillor. This despite the fact that council would have done better to promote actual submissions rather than collect signatures no doubt responding to an ALP pitch. Instead of doing almost nothing to promote the review process, council could have encouraged participation - especially by referring our various ethnic communities to multilingual information offered by the VEC.
Instead, council opted to mobilise support informally among those it could count on, thereby undermining the formal consultation carried out by the VEC. Unfortunately for council, so far it hasn't quite worked. In my presentation to the VEC's public hearing, I urged the VEC to maintain its stated commitment to the reasoning of submissions, and reject what it had earlier called a 'straw poll' comprising merely of numbers for and against. It is the strength of the arguments that should win the day, and that's where the ALP has fallen down.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
VEC public hearing on Darebin council
Well, it was a bit of a marathon but well worth sitting through the 18 presentations made at the hearing on the Darebin representation review held last night (Thursday 3 May). A lot of arguments were made, among them the false claim that data from the 2005 Brimbank election supports the case against a change of council structure in Darebin. To read why that case is fundamentally flawed, take a look at the following media release and my presentation.
Preston MLA to speak tonight on flawed Darebin voting submission
My speaking notes for the presentation
Preston MLA to speak tonight on flawed Darebin voting submission
My speaking notes for the presentation
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
So what's the real balance of political submissions?
The likes of Preston MLA, Robin Scott, his predecessor Michael Leighton, and Councillor Peter Stephenson have put forward views that submissions to the Darebin representation review seeking a change in council structure can be variously attributed to 'failed candidates' or 'political activists'. Yet actual analysis of the submissions tells a different story.
With more than half of the submissions from the total whose political alignment is known, the weight of politically motivated submissions falls decidedly with the ALP. Indeed, of the submitters of unknown political alignment who were unelected candidates, four out of six supported the ALP position of retaining the current council structure, despite the fact that it makes the election of even well supported alternative candidates very unlikely.
Four Greens submissions, one Independent and one Liberal submission supported change consistent with the VEC's preferred preliminary option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.
With the bulk of political submissions coming from the ALP supporting a system that has delivered nine Labor Unity councillors, and political opposition coming from diverse political viewpoints, just where does the bias really lie?
Of further interest was the submission from the North East Melbourne Chinese Association (NEMCA). This was submitted by the NEMCA Secretary, but a look at NEMCA's website reveals that its president is none other than Councillor Stanley Chiang.
The review enters the public hearing phase on Thursday night, when submitters will appear from 6.30pm at the council chambers (Cnr Gower and High Streets, Preston) to make their final arguments before the VEC issues its final report to the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, on 21 May. Approximately 18 submitters are expected to present, including council, Robin Scott, Michael Leighton, and myself.
Further analysis of the submissions is available as a PDF download
With more than half of the submissions from the total whose political alignment is known, the weight of politically motivated submissions falls decidedly with the ALP. Indeed, of the submitters of unknown political alignment who were unelected candidates, four out of six supported the ALP position of retaining the current council structure, despite the fact that it makes the election of even well supported alternative candidates very unlikely.
Four Greens submissions, one Independent and one Liberal submission supported change consistent with the VEC's preferred preliminary option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.
With the bulk of political submissions coming from the ALP supporting a system that has delivered nine Labor Unity councillors, and political opposition coming from diverse political viewpoints, just where does the bias really lie?
Of further interest was the submission from the North East Melbourne Chinese Association (NEMCA). This was submitted by the NEMCA Secretary, but a look at NEMCA's website reveals that its president is none other than Councillor Stanley Chiang.
The review enters the public hearing phase on Thursday night, when submitters will appear from 6.30pm at the council chambers (Cnr Gower and High Streets, Preston) to make their final arguments before the VEC issues its final report to the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, on 21 May. Approximately 18 submitters are expected to present, including council, Robin Scott, Michael Leighton, and myself.
Further analysis of the submissions is available as a PDF download
Friday, April 27, 2007
Darebin media release shows timing is everything
Like the only other media release issued this year regarding the council representation review, the City of Darebin's latest appears to have been published on council's website well after the claimed date of its distribution to the media. The web page states that it was last updated on 27 April, but it is hard not conclude that it was in fact first published there on that date, even if it was actually forwarded to the media as stated under the headline, on 24 April.
Why should this matter? Timing, as they say, is everything. The release was likely published online too late to alert website visitors of the deadline for response submissions to the Victorian Electoral Commission's preliminary report [3MB download, PDF] - as it happens, 5.00pm Tuesday 24 April. Council spin doctors also know that any actual media coverage will only appear next week.
It was a similar story with council's 9 March release, likely to have been published on council's website on the 'last updated' date of 15 March, conveniently after the VEC's deadline for preliminary submissions from the public on Tuesday 13 March. In that case, any media coverage generated in local papers was unlikely to influence public submissions, as local papers tend not to appear until at least ... you guessed it, Tuesday.
If that isn't bad enough, both releases focused not on the opportunity for the public to participate, which their timing in any case precluded, but on council propaganda for retaining the voting system that has seen council totally dominated by the Labor Unity faction of the ALP - namely majority preferential voting for nine single-councillor wards, a system prone to dummy candidates.
Now, in a submission recently published on the VEC website, Councillor Peter Stephenson has argued that there was insufficient time for consultation. It's really a bit rich when council has gone out of its way to keep the lid on the review process for fear of submissions arguing for democratic change to the council's structure - change that has been endorsed in the VEC's preliminary report as its preferred option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.
Not to be outdone, Councillor Chris Kelly has forwarded a submission including a petition of more than 1000 signatures of people supposedly against the VEC's recommendation for change and for the retention of the unrepresentative status quo. Given the Councillor's vested interest in retaining that status quo and the opportunity squandered by council to promote more actual submissions from the community, the VEC should reject such petitions out of hand as undermining the legitimate consultation process.
The VEC and the public can never be assured of what the signatories understood about the process or what was presented to them in that regard, and we will never be able to see the reasons they might have put forward had they made written submissions to the review. This is exactly the kind of 'straw poll' that the VEC stated it would not undertake in conducting the review, further stating that it would examine the arguments and reasoning of the positions put forward. I trust it will stick to that commitment, despite heavy pressure from the likes of former Preston MLA, Michael Leighton, and current MP, Robin Scott.
Why should this matter? Timing, as they say, is everything. The release was likely published online too late to alert website visitors of the deadline for response submissions to the Victorian Electoral Commission's preliminary report [3MB download, PDF] - as it happens, 5.00pm Tuesday 24 April. Council spin doctors also know that any actual media coverage will only appear next week.
It was a similar story with council's 9 March release, likely to have been published on council's website on the 'last updated' date of 15 March, conveniently after the VEC's deadline for preliminary submissions from the public on Tuesday 13 March. In that case, any media coverage generated in local papers was unlikely to influence public submissions, as local papers tend not to appear until at least ... you guessed it, Tuesday.
If that isn't bad enough, both releases focused not on the opportunity for the public to participate, which their timing in any case precluded, but on council propaganda for retaining the voting system that has seen council totally dominated by the Labor Unity faction of the ALP - namely majority preferential voting for nine single-councillor wards, a system prone to dummy candidates.
Now, in a submission recently published on the VEC website, Councillor Peter Stephenson has argued that there was insufficient time for consultation. It's really a bit rich when council has gone out of its way to keep the lid on the review process for fear of submissions arguing for democratic change to the council's structure - change that has been endorsed in the VEC's preliminary report as its preferred option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.
Not to be outdone, Councillor Chris Kelly has forwarded a submission including a petition of more than 1000 signatures of people supposedly against the VEC's recommendation for change and for the retention of the unrepresentative status quo. Given the Councillor's vested interest in retaining that status quo and the opportunity squandered by council to promote more actual submissions from the community, the VEC should reject such petitions out of hand as undermining the legitimate consultation process.
The VEC and the public can never be assured of what the signatories understood about the process or what was presented to them in that regard, and we will never be able to see the reasons they might have put forward had they made written submissions to the review. This is exactly the kind of 'straw poll' that the VEC stated it would not undertake in conducting the review, further stating that it would examine the arguments and reasoning of the positions put forward. I trust it will stick to that commitment, despite heavy pressure from the likes of former Preston MLA, Michael Leighton, and current MP, Robin Scott.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
VEC persuaded by reasoning, not just numbers
Response submissions are now being published on the VEC website following the VEC's preliminary report on proposed council changes for Darebin issued on 3 April. Overall numbers, including preliminary submissions, thus far continue to strongly favour the the VEC's preferred preliminary option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation, but the tally will not be fully known until later this week.
Despite the ultimate count for and against, the VEC has stated that it is not conducting a 'straw poll' and, though it recognises the number of submissions favouring the preferred option, has so far also found the reasoning of submissions favouring PR to be 'persuasive'.
Understandably, a few councillors have thrown their hats into the ring, with submissions from councillors Peterson, Chiang, Fontana and Kelly arguing for the status quo. Their arguments appear to focus on the accountability benefits of having a single councillor, but what happens if representation is poor? I can only surmise their answer is 'wait another four years until you can vote someone else in'. With multi-member wards, residents would have more than one councillor to go to, and it's likely that a more diverse council would better represent diverse community interests in the chamber.
My submission is not yet up on the VEC website, but is available here. Some of the points I make are:
Under the proposal councillors would need more support to be elected than was needed in either the 2002 or 2004 council polls. Nor under the proposal would the preferences of minor candidates play nearly as big a role in helping them to reach the required quota. Dummy candidates would be far less effective under PR.
In its preliminary submission, council sought to justify its argument for retaining nine single-councillor wards by harking back to the mid-1990s recommendation by political scientist Dr Brian Costar to the Darebin Commissioners. What they don't say is that multi-councillor wards under PR were not then an option for Dr Costar under the legislation. He confirms this is in an email I have included with his permission in my response submission.
Despite councillor Peter Stephenson's protest in his response submission that the VEC allowed insufficient time for consultation, council did almost nothing to promote the review process. Its actions have shown that, rather than seeking to promote broad engagement, it has been more concerned to keep the lid on the review for fear of dissenting views.
My response submission also points out that the City of Darebin's own submission supports the VEC's position because the City concedes that we have non-geographic communities of interest. These are better represented by larger wards under PR because they capture support over wider areas and allow it to be represented by an elected candidate.
Stay tuned for further reflections on the response submissions, and remember there will be a public hearing for submitters at council's Gower Street Preston offices on Thursday 3 May from 6.30pm.
Despite the ultimate count for and against, the VEC has stated that it is not conducting a 'straw poll' and, though it recognises the number of submissions favouring the preferred option, has so far also found the reasoning of submissions favouring PR to be 'persuasive'.
Understandably, a few councillors have thrown their hats into the ring, with submissions from councillors Peterson, Chiang, Fontana and Kelly arguing for the status quo. Their arguments appear to focus on the accountability benefits of having a single councillor, but what happens if representation is poor? I can only surmise their answer is 'wait another four years until you can vote someone else in'. With multi-member wards, residents would have more than one councillor to go to, and it's likely that a more diverse council would better represent diverse community interests in the chamber.
My submission is not yet up on the VEC website, but is available here. Some of the points I make are:
Under the proposal councillors would need more support to be elected than was needed in either the 2002 or 2004 council polls. Nor under the proposal would the preferences of minor candidates play nearly as big a role in helping them to reach the required quota. Dummy candidates would be far less effective under PR.
In its preliminary submission, council sought to justify its argument for retaining nine single-councillor wards by harking back to the mid-1990s recommendation by political scientist Dr Brian Costar to the Darebin Commissioners. What they don't say is that multi-councillor wards under PR were not then an option for Dr Costar under the legislation. He confirms this is in an email I have included with his permission in my response submission.
Despite councillor Peter Stephenson's protest in his response submission that the VEC allowed insufficient time for consultation, council did almost nothing to promote the review process. Its actions have shown that, rather than seeking to promote broad engagement, it has been more concerned to keep the lid on the review for fear of dissenting views.
My response submission also points out that the City of Darebin's own submission supports the VEC's position because the City concedes that we have non-geographic communities of interest. These are better represented by larger wards under PR because they capture support over wider areas and allow it to be represented by an elected candidate.
Stay tuned for further reflections on the response submissions, and remember there will be a public hearing for submitters at council's Gower Street Preston offices on Thursday 3 May from 6.30pm.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Why proportional representation is better
As I have written here in other posts, the Victorian Electoral Commission has made a preliminary recommendation of three three-councillor wards for Darebin from the 2008 council elections onwards. You can write a submission supporting this recommendation (deadline 24 April), but why are multi-councillor wards better than the current single-councillor ones?
One of the big advantages of moving to multi-councillor wards is the voting system that comes with it – proportional representation. So, how is that different from the current system of majority preferential voting? Under the current system, in which we have one councillor per ward, a candidate must either gain a majority of votes, either from first preferences or from these together with the preferences directed to him/her from other candidates. In this system, running dummy candidates to direct their preferences to you is a tried and tested way of gaining the crucial majority – especially, it seems, if you are a candidate belonging to the Labor Unity faction of the ALP, which currently holds all nine council positions.
In some Darebin council elections, as many as 18 candidates have run in a single ward. It is understandable if voters ask whether any of these candidates might be running as dummies for no other reason than to direct their preferences to another (usually ALP) candidate. Such preferences are directed upwards from candidates who are eliminated at each stage of the counting because they have the least number of first-preference votes. Dummy candidates can therefore be relative unknowns, but as each dummy is eliminated from the count and their preferences are distributed upwards, they can together add up to give a significant advantage to the candidate for whom they are really running.
In proportional representation, however, preferences play a much smaller role and the PR system lessens the impact of dummy candidates. It also lowers the percentage of votes needed for a candidate to be elected from a majority (above 50 per cent) to a quota that depends on the number of vacancies and the total number of formal votes in the ward being contested – 25 per cent under the VEC's preferred preliminary option. For example, in a multi-councillor ward with three vacancies and 30,000 formal votes, a candidate would need a quota of 7,500 votes to get one of the three places on council for that ward - much less than a majority of 15,001. The actual formula and steps are explained in the VEC's proportional representation slide show
As a result, candidates with strong but not majority community support stand a good chance of being elected, whereas under the current majority system they have little chance. If Darebin moves to such a system, we are likely to see more diverse voices on council that have strong support and are more representative of our diverse community.
Dummies have far less influence in such a system because preferences are initially distributed downwards from candidates who have already achieved a quota (and therefore a spot on council) to those who don't. The preferences distributed are the votes the candidate has gained above the quota and are known as a surplus. Surplus votes are distributed at a diminished value worked out according to a formula. Again, this is explained in the VEC's slide show
It is clear from this that, under proportional representation, candidates with substantial community support will have more of a say in the ultimate outcome than do dummy candidates with poor support under the present system, in which their collective preferences may accumulate to get another candidate over the line.
So, be sure to have your say and get your submission into the VEC by 5.00pm on Tuesday 24 April. To find out more, go to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/darebinrr.html
One of the big advantages of moving to multi-councillor wards is the voting system that comes with it – proportional representation. So, how is that different from the current system of majority preferential voting? Under the current system, in which we have one councillor per ward, a candidate must either gain a majority of votes, either from first preferences or from these together with the preferences directed to him/her from other candidates. In this system, running dummy candidates to direct their preferences to you is a tried and tested way of gaining the crucial majority – especially, it seems, if you are a candidate belonging to the Labor Unity faction of the ALP, which currently holds all nine council positions.
In some Darebin council elections, as many as 18 candidates have run in a single ward. It is understandable if voters ask whether any of these candidates might be running as dummies for no other reason than to direct their preferences to another (usually ALP) candidate. Such preferences are directed upwards from candidates who are eliminated at each stage of the counting because they have the least number of first-preference votes. Dummy candidates can therefore be relative unknowns, but as each dummy is eliminated from the count and their preferences are distributed upwards, they can together add up to give a significant advantage to the candidate for whom they are really running.
In proportional representation, however, preferences play a much smaller role and the PR system lessens the impact of dummy candidates. It also lowers the percentage of votes needed for a candidate to be elected from a majority (above 50 per cent) to a quota that depends on the number of vacancies and the total number of formal votes in the ward being contested – 25 per cent under the VEC's preferred preliminary option. For example, in a multi-councillor ward with three vacancies and 30,000 formal votes, a candidate would need a quota of 7,500 votes to get one of the three places on council for that ward - much less than a majority of 15,001. The actual formula and steps are explained in the VEC's proportional representation slide show
As a result, candidates with strong but not majority community support stand a good chance of being elected, whereas under the current majority system they have little chance. If Darebin moves to such a system, we are likely to see more diverse voices on council that have strong support and are more representative of our diverse community.
Dummies have far less influence in such a system because preferences are initially distributed downwards from candidates who have already achieved a quota (and therefore a spot on council) to those who don't. The preferences distributed are the votes the candidate has gained above the quota and are known as a surplus. Surplus votes are distributed at a diminished value worked out according to a formula. Again, this is explained in the VEC's slide show
It is clear from this that, under proportional representation, candidates with substantial community support will have more of a say in the ultimate outcome than do dummy candidates with poor support under the present system, in which their collective preferences may accumulate to get another candidate over the line.
So, be sure to have your say and get your submission into the VEC by 5.00pm on Tuesday 24 April. To find out more, go to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/darebinrr.html
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Darebin council review flies under radar
Despite a healthy number of submissions from the politically engaged, the Darebin council representation review is flying under the radar with regard to the broader community. The result could be that, despite a positive preliminary recommendation from the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), the community doesn't mobilise to ensure fairer and more diverse representation of its views. The community response to the VEC's preliminary report will play a key part in shaping the VEC's final recommendations to the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne.
The VEC has so far recommended three three-councillor wards for Darebin from the 2008 elections onwards. This welcome but preliminary recommendation would bring with it a legal requirement for proportional representation. A key outcome would be that, given substantial community support, diverse voices would stand a chance of election to council and therefore broaden the representation of the community.
In contrast, the current preferential majority voting system has delivered Darebin nine councillors who are all members of the ALP's Labor Unity faction. Such a result is too often achieved with the support of 'dummies' – candidates who run only to direct their preferences to another – the more dummies you can muster, the greater your chances of election. A big benefit of the VEC's recommendation is that the role of dummies would be very much diminished, and clear community support for alternative candidates would not be undermined by the preference game.
The bad news is that the VEC's second alternative recommendation leaves open the door to retaining the present unrepresentative council structure, depending on responses to its preliminary report. The ALP's Labor Unity faction and the Darebin council will resist tooth and nail the VEC's recommended shake-up of council. Residents who value more inclusive local democracy are urged to read the VEC's preliminary report and respond by 24 April. The report and preliminary submissions can be found at the VEC's website, http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/darebinrr.html
Community questions and discussion are also invited here.
The VEC has so far recommended three three-councillor wards for Darebin from the 2008 elections onwards. This welcome but preliminary recommendation would bring with it a legal requirement for proportional representation. A key outcome would be that, given substantial community support, diverse voices would stand a chance of election to council and therefore broaden the representation of the community.
In contrast, the current preferential majority voting system has delivered Darebin nine councillors who are all members of the ALP's Labor Unity faction. Such a result is too often achieved with the support of 'dummies' – candidates who run only to direct their preferences to another – the more dummies you can muster, the greater your chances of election. A big benefit of the VEC's recommendation is that the role of dummies would be very much diminished, and clear community support for alternative candidates would not be undermined by the preference game.
The bad news is that the VEC's second alternative recommendation leaves open the door to retaining the present unrepresentative council structure, depending on responses to its preliminary report. The ALP's Labor Unity faction and the Darebin council will resist tooth and nail the VEC's recommended shake-up of council. Residents who value more inclusive local democracy are urged to read the VEC's preliminary report and respond by 24 April. The report and preliminary submissions can be found at the VEC's website, http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/darebinrr.html
Community questions and discussion are also invited here.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
VEC's preferred option a good start
Released yesterday by the Victorian Electoral Commission, the preliminary report for the Darebin representation review has put forward three three-councillor wards as its preferred preliminary option for Darebin council. Its first alternative option is also for three three-councillor wards, but with different ward boundaries. Of more concern is a second alternative option that provides for nine single-councillor wards, but with ward boundaries amended from the current structure.
While the preferred option is welcome news for local democracy, the second alternative option for single-councillor wards would retain the problems with the current structure and means the door is still open for an ALP factional campaign attempting to reverse the VEC's preliminary findings. For this reason it is very important that concerned members of the community read the preliminary report and respond in support of the preferred option for three three-councillor wards.
The deadline for submissions is 24 April. Submitters also have the option of speaking to their response at a public hearing on 3 May (details at the VEC website).
The preliminary submissions that informed the VEC's preliminary report overwhelmingly argued for change. Few submissions argued for retention of single-councillor wards, with key support for this position unsurprisingly coming from the City of Darebin itself. Council's submission was adopted in March by the very councillors who stand to be directly affected by any move to multi-councillor wards. Currently the nine council positions are held by nine members of the ALP's Labor Unity faction.
Please watch this site for updates and further analysis of the preliminary report. Feel free to leave your comments using the link below. Comments are moderated, but open debate is most welcome. Alternatively, send me an email
While the preferred option is welcome news for local democracy, the second alternative option for single-councillor wards would retain the problems with the current structure and means the door is still open for an ALP factional campaign attempting to reverse the VEC's preliminary findings. For this reason it is very important that concerned members of the community read the preliminary report and respond in support of the preferred option for three three-councillor wards.
The deadline for submissions is 24 April. Submitters also have the option of speaking to their response at a public hearing on 3 May (details at the VEC website).
The preliminary submissions that informed the VEC's preliminary report overwhelmingly argued for change. Few submissions argued for retention of single-councillor wards, with key support for this position unsurprisingly coming from the City of Darebin itself. Council's submission was adopted in March by the very councillors who stand to be directly affected by any move to multi-councillor wards. Currently the nine council positions are held by nine members of the ALP's Labor Unity faction.
Please watch this site for updates and further analysis of the preliminary report. Feel free to leave your comments using the link below. Comments are moderated, but open debate is most welcome. Alternatively, send me an email
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Rep review preliminary findings due today
Darebin residents will today find out if the Victorian Electoral Commission has recommended multi-councillor wards, or a maintenance of the unrepresentative status quo in the form of continued council domination by the Labor Unity faction of the ALP.
Preliminary submissions to the Commission put a strong case for allowing more diverse representation on council by electing multiple councillors per ward via proportional representation, in which candidates achieving a minimum quota of votes derived by a formula are elected to council.
The adoption of proportional representation would likely mean that Greens, independents and other alternative voices with strong community support would be able to represent, and vote for, widely held community views in the council chamber.
Currently, preferential voting to establish a majority for a single councillor in each ward allows the ALP undue influence on the process via high numbers of candidates with an ALP alignment directing their preferences to the ALP's preferred councillor in any given ward. The number of candidates in a single ward has been as high as 18 in recent Darebin council elections.
The announcement of the VEC's preliminary findings will likely come via the media release page of the VEC website. Following release of the findings, responses must be submitted to the VEC by 24 April.
Watch this site for updates. Please use the comment link to this post (see below) to have your say, or send me an email
Preliminary submissions to the Commission put a strong case for allowing more diverse representation on council by electing multiple councillors per ward via proportional representation, in which candidates achieving a minimum quota of votes derived by a formula are elected to council.
The adoption of proportional representation would likely mean that Greens, independents and other alternative voices with strong community support would be able to represent, and vote for, widely held community views in the council chamber.
Currently, preferential voting to establish a majority for a single councillor in each ward allows the ALP undue influence on the process via high numbers of candidates with an ALP alignment directing their preferences to the ALP's preferred councillor in any given ward. The number of candidates in a single ward has been as high as 18 in recent Darebin council elections.
The announcement of the VEC's preliminary findings will likely come via the media release page of the VEC website. Following release of the findings, responses must be submitted to the VEC by 24 April.
Watch this site for updates. Please use the comment link to this post (see below) to have your say, or send me an email
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Darebin keeps lid on representation review
The City of Darebin has played down the current council representation review in its online and print communications with residents. This despite the fact that the council and the community have a massive stake in the outcome, which will determine the future number of councillors and wards in the municipality.
Late last week, I received the March issue of Darebin News in the mail. Despite a message from the Mayor, councillor Marlene Kairouz, touting the council's efforts to consult with residents, and a 'dates for your diary' page stretching through to October, twenty full-colour A4 pages contained not a single mention of the review.
Surprised by the newsletter, I searched the council's website and found only a single item about the review – a 9 March media release setting out Council's predictable quest to retain nine single-councillor wards occupied by nine ALP Labor Unity faction members. There was no link to the council submission [but it's been published by the VEC], or to the Victorian Electoral Commission's website for the review. Apart from that, there was no coverage of the issue I could find in Darebin's communications, even though the review will determine how residents are represented following the 2008 council elections.
If council can devote substantial resources to communicating with the community – from print newsletters, to the website and even podcasts – then it seems more than appropriate that the representation review, as a vital issue concerning all Darebin residents, should be covered in depth. When that doesn't happen, council is open to the accusation that it is seeking to play down the issue in an effort to protect the vested interests of its councillors, who would be challenged and quite possibly replaced if the review resulted in elections for multi-councillor wards in Darebin.
I can't wait for the April edition of Darebin News, which will no doubt land in my letter-box sometime around 24 April, the deadline for response submissions to the VEC's preliminary findings – judging by the March edition of Darebin's newsletter, it seems doubtful the review will receive much coverage as the last chance for public input quietly slips by.
Readers can keep track of the review at the Victorian Electoral Commission website, where they can also read all the preliminary submissions. The VEC's preliminary findings will be published on 3 April.
Watch this site for updates. Comments and questions are welcome here, or you can send me an email.
Late last week, I received the March issue of Darebin News in the mail. Despite a message from the Mayor, councillor Marlene Kairouz, touting the council's efforts to consult with residents, and a 'dates for your diary' page stretching through to October, twenty full-colour A4 pages contained not a single mention of the review.
Surprised by the newsletter, I searched the council's website and found only a single item about the review – a 9 March media release setting out Council's predictable quest to retain nine single-councillor wards occupied by nine ALP Labor Unity faction members. There was no link to the council submission [but it's been published by the VEC], or to the Victorian Electoral Commission's website for the review. Apart from that, there was no coverage of the issue I could find in Darebin's communications, even though the review will determine how residents are represented following the 2008 council elections.
If council can devote substantial resources to communicating with the community – from print newsletters, to the website and even podcasts – then it seems more than appropriate that the representation review, as a vital issue concerning all Darebin residents, should be covered in depth. When that doesn't happen, council is open to the accusation that it is seeking to play down the issue in an effort to protect the vested interests of its councillors, who would be challenged and quite possibly replaced if the review resulted in elections for multi-councillor wards in Darebin.
I can't wait for the April edition of Darebin News, which will no doubt land in my letter-box sometime around 24 April, the deadline for response submissions to the VEC's preliminary findings – judging by the March edition of Darebin's newsletter, it seems doubtful the review will receive much coverage as the last chance for public input quietly slips by.
Readers can keep track of the review at the Victorian Electoral Commission website, where they can also read all the preliminary submissions. The VEC's preliminary findings will be published on 3 April.
Watch this site for updates. Comments and questions are welcome here, or you can send me an email.
How do you want to be represented on council?
Residents of the City of Darebin and anyone interested in local democracy have been asked to make submissions on the future shape of the Darebin council. A representation review for the municipality is currently being carried out by the Victorian Electoral Commission, which will report on preliminary submissions on 3 April.
It's important to keep track of the review because there will be an opportunity to make further submissions on this report that will potentially shape your local council and influence just how well it represents your interests and those of the broader community.
Currently there are nine single-councillor wards in Darebin, each held by a member of the ALP's Labor Unity faction.
While the City of Darebin has understandably argued to keep this unrepresentative status quo, many of the preliminary submissions have instead argued for multi-councillor wards to more broadly represent the interests of Darebin residents.
If this were achieved, the result would be a council that included a range of views with strong support in the community. A popular suggested model has been to move to three wards each represented by three councillors. Councillors would be elected by proportional representation, which would mean election would come not via a majority, but through substantial support indicated by a minimum quota of votes.
Rucker ward's Councillor Steven Tsitas has voiced his opposition to this proposal, stating that proportional representation allows a role for 'marginal players in democracy'. This neglects the fact that some councillors, himself included, were elected not through an outright majority, but with the support of preferences from minor candidates. This has sometimes meant that candidates with the highest level of support from first-preference votes actually fail to get elected.
An additional problem with the current system is that, all too often, ALP candidates are supported by a string of factionally aligned candidates whose only role is to direct their preferences, not to be elected in their own right. In Darebin, there have been as many as 18 candidates contesting a single ward.
Further updates on the progress of the review will be published here, and I encourage you to participate in shaping local democracy.
Comments and questions are welcome here, or send me an email. If you are interested, you can also read my review submission.
It's important to keep track of the review because there will be an opportunity to make further submissions on this report that will potentially shape your local council and influence just how well it represents your interests and those of the broader community.
Currently there are nine single-councillor wards in Darebin, each held by a member of the ALP's Labor Unity faction.
While the City of Darebin has understandably argued to keep this unrepresentative status quo, many of the preliminary submissions have instead argued for multi-councillor wards to more broadly represent the interests of Darebin residents.
If this were achieved, the result would be a council that included a range of views with strong support in the community. A popular suggested model has been to move to three wards each represented by three councillors. Councillors would be elected by proportional representation, which would mean election would come not via a majority, but through substantial support indicated by a minimum quota of votes.
Rucker ward's Councillor Steven Tsitas has voiced his opposition to this proposal, stating that proportional representation allows a role for 'marginal players in democracy'. This neglects the fact that some councillors, himself included, were elected not through an outright majority, but with the support of preferences from minor candidates. This has sometimes meant that candidates with the highest level of support from first-preference votes actually fail to get elected.
An additional problem with the current system is that, all too often, ALP candidates are supported by a string of factionally aligned candidates whose only role is to direct their preferences, not to be elected in their own right. In Darebin, there have been as many as 18 candidates contesting a single ward.
Further updates on the progress of the review will be published here, and I encourage you to participate in shaping local democracy.
Comments and questions are welcome here, or send me an email. If you are interested, you can also read my review submission.
Subscribe to:
Posts
