Receipt of additional donations by candidates and membership of interested organisations (including political parties) could be required to be declared prior to commencement of voting.

There could be the establishment of a widely publicised Local Government Ombudsperson or Complaints Commission with power to address complaints and failure of due process not already covered by legal avenues.  This body could act by both negotiation and direction.

As to matters transcending boundaries and the adequacy of Council resources, these could relate partly to to the size of Councils.  However I believe further amalgamation of Councils should only be considered after compulsory voting has been introduced.  Although small Councils can be more responsive to concerns, they can also be dominated by particular interests and personalities.   The latter may reflect current voting levels and the property-based vote.  On the other hand, big Councils can be dominated by staff at the expense of elected members.  This may reflect the increased scale or complexity of matters, but the poor democratic legitimacy of current elected members could be undermining their ability to deal with staff.

I have just skimmed interim report and would comment on one aspect of “increasing the range and diversity of candidates” which applies particularly to small rural councils that is not addressed.  The meeting time for such councils is usually during the day, which tends to prevent “9 til 5” workers participating as elected representatives. It also tends to result in a more narrowly experienced and focused council made up mainly of farmers and local business people. Greater and broader participation can be achieved by mandating that council meetings must start no earlier than 6.00 pm. Simple but I’m sure that it would be effective. Also current meeting times could be seen as disenfranchising a considerable proportion of the community.

My final comment relates to an issue which was raised but dismissed by your reviewer.  The number of terms a councillor can remain is not limited and by my estimations a sitting councillor/Mayor has at least a 50% better chance of being re elected than a newcomer.  Therefore to encourage new candidates a limit on the number of times one can re contest would help considerably.  Also as a consequence, long standing Councillors tend to form partnerships, groups or associations which tend to lock them into a decision-making process from which they can not break free.

Unlike political parties their association is not completely understood by the electorate.  Putting a limit on the length of time in Local government would be very unpalatable to a large number of current serving members and therefore unlikely to succeed at least for the time being.

I must emphasize the above views are are entirely mine and not necessarily of the council I represent.

 1. We need to ensure that the highly-politicised voting systems employed at both State and Commonwealth elections (which have been modified, tweaked, re-jigged, and tampered with in recent years to ensure that every formal vote (and by virtue of the voting ticket system even certain informal votes) will flow to a major political party regardless of the wish of the elector) are not forced on the currently apolitical Local Government sphere.

Those voting systems cannot seriously be portrayed as truly democratic when one of the 2 major parties is essentially assured of receiving a preferential vote to the disadvantage (and disenfranchisement?) of minority candidates and political parties!

Many Local Government voters bemoan the need to indicate preferences for a candidate or candidates for whom they do not wish to vote.  What is wrong with electors being able to cast votes that will become “exhausted” before preferences equal to the number of vacancies have been indicated?  All too often the result is that the elector either does not vote, or their vote is rendered informal if they stick to their principles by not indicating full preferences.

Such a system at State or Commonwealth elections would presumably be a revelation!  If those spheres of Government would like to trial the effectiveness of such a system, let it be through Local Government.  It certainly worked very effectively for Local Government prior to 1997.

The benefits would be threefold :-

• a more democratic system of voting;
• increased voter participation rates because they are not forced to vote for candidates they do not want;
• election results that truly reflect the will of the constituency.

2. The current system of full postal voting, together with the existing options regarding the conduct of elections (in-house, collaboratively with the State Electoral Office, or wholly conducted by the State Electoral Office) is supported.

The Council suggests that the State Government enables leave provisions for Local Government Elected Members from their normal employment in line with those provided to CFS volunteers or considers additional remuneration, through an increase in the allowance, to Elected Members to compensate for loss of work time or use of Annual and other leave to undertake official Council duties.

The Council would also like to comment again on the very short consultation period provided for both the Issues Papers and Interim Report especially on such a complex range of issues.  Given any Council feedback requires a resolution of Council the provision of only six weeks consultation makes it very difficult to prepare a detailed report, workshop the matters and seek a resolution on Council's response.

 Received 22/11/2007
DC of Ceduna

 Council Executive Summary
Council has considered the Interim Report on the Independent Review of Local Government Elections, and considers that the report content and commentary is of a sub-standard quality and seemingly based on a minority of views obtained through questionable processes.

Whilst we understand that regional local government represent a small percentage of all eligible voters (5.6% as per page xii of the Executive Summary), it is not by accident or small voter base that regional local government obtains a higher voter participation. It is somewhat condescending that the report then focuses on what the larger metropolitan Councils need to do to increase voter participation rather than assess what regional local governments do that provides a higher participation rate.

Could it be that regional local government is much closer and aware of voters and community requirements?

Could it be that regional local government is much more accountable for their actions because elected members and Council staff all have a closer link to their communities?

Could it be that regional local government does not need to undertake expensive publicity campaigns for elections because local councils communicate with and are face to face with their elector base on a regular basis?

Additionally, Page 17 of the Interim Report suggests that "because of the weight of numbers, the Review is relatively well-equipped with public views on the six major issues posed in the 10-minute survey leaflet......". This Statement is somewhat bemusing as the total number of survey replies amounts to a total of 339 responses which can hardly be viewed as a 'weight of numbers'. That the Interim Report uses comments from these 339 responses as a basis for consideration and commentary provides for short sighted responses and basis of viable and/or necessary options.

We would suggest that changes that are made to processes, legislation, publicity requirements etc. should be targeted at the areas of need, and not enforced or implemented with a broad brush approach that places added impositions, costs, and pressures on Councils that already have a high level of participation.

 3.6.4   Should the Representation Review process be changed?

The Society in its previous submission suggested that the Representation Review process needed changing if ratepayers who made submissions and/or presentations were not to be disappointed and disheartened from getting involved with local government, including voting in local government elections.  We suggested that someone separate from the councils needed to make the final decision based on the findings and recommendations of the independent Representation Review process.

Disappointingly the Review has decided not to pursue this issue, even though this process can greatly effect voter participation and representation.

The Society wrote to the Minister for State/Local Government Relations on 20 April 2007 about this issue.  A reply has now been received from John Hanlon, Executive Director of the Office for State/Local Government Relations indicating that we make a further submission to the Independent Review.  We feel that we are going around in circles!

Based on Mr Hanlon's letter, we ask the Review to again consider if the Representation Review process should be changed.  What is the purpose of encouraging community consultation if this consultation is going to be ignored, as councils have already determined the structures they want?  This pretence at community consultation certainly does not give the community confidence in local government.  Any turnoff as a result will not improve voter turnout.

3.6.6 Reducing the effect of the donkey vote

It is pleasing that in this instance that the Review appears to have done some research, and the Society is willing to concede that at this stage it is probably not necessary to introduce the Robson Rotation.  With voting being voluntary and with optional preferential voting, the donkey vote is very low.  Those that want to vote are prepared to take care and vote the way they want regardless of the order of candidates on the ballot paper.

If compulsory voting and any changes in formality are introduced then the Robson Rotation will need to be re-considered.  Interestingly, Tasmania's local government uses the Robson rotation even though voting is voluntary and optional preferential as in South Australia.

Increasing voter participation

The State Strategic Plan has a modest target of increasing voter participation to 50%, and many of the proposals suggested would assist.

However there is a need to also consider the method of electing the councillors.  For voters to be encouraged to vote they need maximum choice of candidates and they need to see their votes actually electing candidates.

Since the Society's previous submission, the election for the Adelaide City Council has been held, and the figures we provided can now be updated.

(* after distribution of preferences to give "votes after final distribution").

We were disappointed that the Adelaide City Council changed from electing their councillors from across the whole area and introduced wards.  In addition to an increase in the wasted vote (votes that did not elect a councillor) and a reduced choice of candidates, it appears that this change has also had an effect on voter turnout.

An analysis is required on why less people voted in the 2007 elections.  This election received plenty of publicity, with supposedly a key issue (building a grandstand in the parklands at Victoria Park) and yet voter turnout dropped.  The Society did hear comments such as "I didn't vote as the candidate I wanted was standing in a different ward."  Perhaps having both area and ward elections also caused complications for voters.

The additional comment that the Proportional Representation Society of Australia wishes to make is that where there are public processes for review of representation, ultimate decisions about whether councils are elected at large or in accordance with particular ward configurations ought to be made by an independent body such as the State Electoral Office, and not be left in the hands of those who have a vested interest in the adoption of particular arrangements. As a general principle, an odd number of vacancies is always desirable because then a majority of votes translates into a majority of council places.

While South Australia is ahead of Victoria in automatically setting proportional representation as the mode of election when there are two or more vacancies, the Victorian Electoral Commission makes the final decisions about future electoral arrangements, including ward structure if applicable, whenever there is a representation review.

 
It seems to me that there are a number of issues which should be uniform throughout the three tiers of government in Australia. Why should Local Government have special arrangements that do not also apply to State and Federal? If such uniformity were to be put in place, then many of the current problems would be solved.

For instance, all three tiers of government should have to run for their full term, with no calling of early elections to play political games. This would enable elections to be scheduled with certainty. It is interesting here though that in South Australia I believe the Electoral Commissioner has been fiddling around with election dates for a number of council terms now, seemingly unable to get things right. I wouldn't have thought it was so difficult.

In regard to a 50% voter turnout in Local Government elections, I believe it will never be possible, given the well-known Australian apathy. It seems only logical that either all three levels of government should have voluntary voting, or that all three levels should have compulsory voting. Make all three tiers either one or the other and be done with it. If all levels of government had voluntary voting, then it is fairly clear that the numbers voting at State and Federal level would probably drop to about the same level of Local Government.

The same principle applies to postal voting versus polling booths. Make the rule for one or another, but all the same.

Similarly, Candidates in all three tiers should have to abide by the same rules in regard to election posters.

Now to be more specific re certain sections of the Report. The recommendation at the bottom of issue 3.6.1, the concept of prior experience for mayoral candidates says, "The Review does not intend to pursue this matter". Clearly there is a major issue here. What council in its right mind would allow the possibility of a totally inexperienced or unsuitable person to be elected Mayor? This could happen and the results could be disastrous. But wait, this has already occurred in South Australia with a number of mayors without any Local Government experience being elected to office and going on to have public brawls with CEOs and councils, apparently due to their inability to cope. Is it any wonder that people do not bother to vote when local Government becomes a public joke in this way?

Following the very obvious push from political parties to control councils (and no doubt soon to openly run as party candidates), then allowing retiring politicians or unsuccessful party candidates in State or Federal elections could be slotted into a mayoral contest, thus ensuring political party control of a council/councils if successful.

Political parties should leave Local Government alone. This is what the community prefers, and they state it over and over again. Political party involvement will bring lack lustre performers who are simply selected by the party to fill a position, not because they have the 'fire in the belly' to stand up for communities or necessarily even want to be there. Of course it is common knowledge that political parties sometimes attract some very nasty little people who seem to want to control others. This will not be good for residents.

Issue 3.6.9 talks about council staff being involved in election counts. This issue does give cause for concern, as from personal experience there can be dislike of council members by staff for various reasons. The fact that they may be counting votes of candidates they know (and may hate), may be of concern to the candidates.

The recommendation states, "The Review does not intend to take this suggestion further". But why not, when there is a simple answer, which will demonstrate and ensure a fair process at the count?

The simple answer is to swap staff at "Council A", for staff at "Council B". That way, staff are still utilised, but not in their own council where they are employed and may know (or dislike) a candidate.

Issue 3.6.11 concerns campaigning methods.  Issue 4.8.16 is also relevant here. There seems to be a poor understanding by the Review of the logistical difficulties in getting candidates' messages to the community. There is obviously the cost factor which limits many candidates' ability to convey their message because paying for their brochures to be delivered to all households is often prohibitive. This is particularly relevant to mayoral candidates who need to letterbox a whole council area. Don't forget also that many candidates have already paid to have a brochure professionally printed.

It has been acknowledged in the Report that voters claimed they couldn't get enough information about candidates and their policies. This is because of the difficulties in distribution, either from the cost factor for professional delivery, or reliance upon volunteers who sometimes get it wrong for a variety of reasons.

As stated in my submission, (also covered in Issue 4.8.18) I believe the fairest way to help each candidate to tell voters what they stand for would be to allow them to provide one double sided A4 sheet which could be mailed in one envelope (containing all candidates' material). This could either be with voting papers or separate, but whatever, it must be clearly distinguishable from junk mail. These brochures could replace the current 150 word profile which is more or less useless, as only those with little to say could be satisfied that their message is 'out there' via this method.

It has been claimed that candidates' brochures couldn't be included because they may contain controversial statements. So what? Is sanitising and censoring candidates' views in the interests of the community? Provided that brochures are not defamatory, or contain offensive language, why try to stop candidates saying what they mean. This is what people want to hear, particularly in relation to possible mismanagement or poor decisions of the council. I draw a parallel between a candidate for Local Government's material that could be slightly (and locally) "controversial" and material that we have all received in our letter-boxes over the last months which was highly controversial, (sometimes bordering on what some might categorise as outrageous) as well as being distributed by the Federal Government with tax payer funds. Why are there two sets of standards here?

I have been told that there are "plenty of ways to get your policies to the community". Please tell me how, and how this can be done in a timely manner (which is critical with postal voting). Candidates can only letterbox, put up posters, or pay ridiculous (prohibitive) prices for space in newspapers. How else can this happen? Community radio or web sites can have only limited success.

During my campaign for Mayor in the City of Mitcham, I was the subject of a smear campaign which was reported by the local printed media. I wrote a letter to the Editor in the Messenger Newspaper in order to state the facts, but was told it would "not be printed because the Letters to the Editor were for readers to use, not for candidates to run a campaign". I was also told (once again) that there were "plenty of ways to reach the voters" but when I asked how, they were unable to suggest any.

As an aside, it was interesting to note that Liberal Candidate for Adelaide Tracy Marsh was apparently able to get a letter printed in the Messenger during the Federal election campaign period. Perhaps the Messenger Press has realised the inappropriateness of their policy, or perhaps there is one policy for Local Government and another policy for others? Issue 4.5.7 confirms that the local newspaper is a valuable way of informing voters about the elections, but if the candidates have no right of reply to a story, than this can be misused to destroy a candidate.

So how does any candidate get his/her message across to the community in a timely manner? I am convinced that the only realistic way is via letter boxing, but as previously stated, this can be problematical and expensive.

I would urge the review to reconsider my suggestion of the Government distributing candidates' own material in a paid, addressed envelope. This is the ONLY way that voters will get all the information they need and the State Government MUST help candidates by doing this if the want to increase voter participation.

Unfortunately it is apparent that the State Electoral office officials who have provided information for the Independent Review have misunderstood the submission and have then produced information not relevant to the argument put forward.  This is unfortunate.  I have now spent a few hours producing a written copy of relevant information.
 
A usual donkey vote is voting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 straight down the page.  With voluntary voting this naturally will be almost non-existent.  The votes I am focussing on are ones which go 1 - 2 - - 3 4 - - 5 etc or  - 1 - 2 3 - - 4 etc or similar down the page.
 
These occur when people dont understand preferential voting.  They select their chosen candidates, and then just record "preferences" down the page like they were putting in 10 crosses of identical value.  My observations from scutineering is that up to 10% of people do this.  The result is a significant bias towards candidates at the top of the ballot paper. 
 
The attached Excel sheet shows an analysis of the 2006 (plus Adelaide CC 2007) results.  Random selection should mean that no position on ballot paper affects the result.  In fact the Excel sheets show that about 10% of candidates who drew higher spots in the multi candidate elections were elected than would be expected.  Mostly caused by the voting I have noted.  Of course there are random factors of popular and unpopular candidates which also apply but with the bigger numbers the problem is clear.  I dont think a complex randomisation of ballot papers is required like the Robson method discussed.  The maximum number of ballot papers required is the number of candidates in field.  Eg with 12 candidates a selection can occur so that each candidate appears once in each position on ballot paper.