Proportional
Representation Society of Australia
Victoria-Tasmania Branch
Local Government Act
Update
Submission
|
Submitter and Contact
Details |
|
|
Submission from: |
Proportional
Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) |
|
Contact Person: |
Mr Geoffrey Goode |
|
Title: |
National Vice-President,
PRSA (See www.prsa.org.au) |
|
Address: |
18 Anita Street |
|
Telephone: |
0429176725 |
|
E-mail: |
|
|
Submission Date: |
24/08/2001 |
|
Part 4 - Elections 15. Voting systems 15.1 That the proportional representation
system be available for use in unsubdivided municipalities and wards where
more than one councillor is being elected. Agree Comments: PR Should be the Only System
for Multi-member Electorates: Not surprisingly, the Proportional
Representation Society of Australia agrees with this direction. Furthermore
it considers that the multiple majority-preferential system is as
inappropriate and undemocratic for any municipal council as it was for the Senate
from 1919 to 1948, and that its inadequacy has been well described in the
consultation paper. A frequent dissatisfaction with that
inadequate system was not mentioned in the paper. Many citizens, beyond just
the unsuccessful candidates and those that voted for them, express great
concern and bewilderment about the validity of an almost standard pattern of
the results. That is where the last-elected candidates frequently gain a seat
with only 2 or 3% of first preference votes yet the strongest polling of the
unsuccessful candidates might have gained at least 48% of the first
preference votes. It is submitted that the
quota-preferential form of proportional representation (PR) should not only
be available as suggested, but that it be the only electoral system available
for use for unsubdivided municipalities and the above wards. It is noted that:
PR Should be Trialed before
Multiple Majority-preferential Applies by Default: If the position is taken that the multiple
majority-preferential system should still also continue to be available, the
Society considers that it should only be allowed to be in force for a Council
Fairness would require
that any subsequent reversion to a PR arrangement from a future possible
non-PR system would also have similar conditions apply. Terminology: The term ‘Exhaustive preferential’
should not be used, as it has been in the consultation paper, to describe the
multiple majority-preferential system. That is because ‘Exhaustive
preferential’ is the proper, and only, description of elections of a
group at a meeting where the positions are filled seriatim by majority-preferential
counting, but where candidates may change after each individual separate
ballot for each position. The term ‘Exhaustive preferential’ was
widely, and correctly, used when the former Hamer Government cabinet members
were largely elected that way by the Liberal Party Room. The multiple
majority-preferential system used at a public election is a telescoped
version of that exhaustive system, and it does not allow fresh voting,
and candidates, at each iteration. PR Needs Certain Safeguards
for its Optimum Operation and Survival: Group Voting Tickets Should not be
Provided For: PR should NOT be
operated as a Group Voting Ticket system. That quasi-Party List device, as
the 2001 Melbourne City Council poll showed, encourages a proliferation of
groups often with confusingly similar titles. Under an ostensible guise of providing a
less demanding method for voters to mark ballot-papers, it strongly
discourages voters from deciding between individual candidates in groups.
Good candidates realize that they stand little chance of election by being
part of a group where they do not gain a high position on the Group Voting
Ticket, and accordingly they readily tend to form a new Group. No Grouping Without Robson Rotation: It is appropriate for candidates to be grouped by
mutual consent on the ballot-paper, but only if Robson Rotation applies, as
in the Australian Capital Territory, whose polls are of a similar scale to
large Melbourne municipalities. If Robson Rotation is not to be used, the
listing of candidates’ names on ballot-papers should not be shown by
groups, and should be determined by lot. There is no objection to group names
appearing alongside candidates’ names on the ballot-paper. Countback Needed for Filling Casual
Vacancies: The countback system
specified in the existing Local
Government Act 1989 should be retained, and be the only method of filling
PR vacancies apart from a default procedure for cases where it might be
impracticable. Formality of Ballot-papers: Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system has
demonstrated for nearly 100 years that there is no significant justification
for providing that ballot-papers that are marked with a number of consecutive
preferences beginning at 1, and at least equal in number to the number of
vacancies to be filled, should be deemed to be informal. The instructions on
the ballot-paper can still instruct voters to mark all squares, but a vote
should be able to be counted for as many consecutive preferences as appear. Need for No. to be Elected to be an Odd
No.: To ensure that an absolute
majority of voters of a particular persuasion is able to elect an absolute
majority of councillors with corresponding viewpoints and that the percentage
of voters is similar to the percentage of those councillors elected, it is necessary
to avoid having an even number of vacancies to be filled as a group by PR.
That is because a slight majority of voters could elect half the councillors
and the smaller remainder of voters would also have the same degree of
representation. The Act should prohibit even numbers for PR elections. 15.2 Comments are invited on the option of
allowing electoral systems to vary between councils, and the method that
should be used to determine the most appropriate system for each council. Comments:
Victoria Should Apply PR as
the Default System: The Proportional Representation Society of
Australia would certainly approve of legislation like Tasmania’s Local
Government Act, which applies PR as the sole system for the State. As we realize that this might not be
politically practicable, we have suggested the processes above as a
reasonable way of dealing with multiple majority-preferential systems,
which are probably the worst form of Winner-Take-All electoral arrangements
to be part of Victoria’s Local Government Act since the demise of first-past-the-post voting. Single-member Ward Systems: To many people, the system of
single-member wards makes it less obvious than is the case with the multiple
majority-preferential system, that the Winner-Take-All approach applies to
all the State’s councils, except those few with a PR component. It is therefore suggested that PR should
be prescribed in the Act as the default system, for new councils, or councils
where no other determination was made. The choice of a ward structure or an
unsubdivided structure could be decided by the Council, but with an odd
number of councillors being required per ward with a minimum number of three
per ward. Referendum on Single-Member versus
Multi-member: It is also suggested
that the choice of single-member wards versus multi-member wards, which has
never been given to voters, should be made a requirement for a referendum.
Such referendums would be cheap and convenient if required to be held in
conjunction with the next general election of councillors after the first
anniversary of the proclamation of the necessary legislative change. The Act
should specify that the outcome of that referendum would take effect at the
subsequent general municipal election. For future reconsideration of the
question after that, the same requirements as suggested above under the
heading ‘PR Should be Trialed before Multiple Majority-preferential
Applies by Default’ should apply. 17. Conduct of elections 17.1 Comment is invited on whether the
ultimate accountability for local government elections (client role) should
remain with councils or be transferred to the Victorian Electoral Commission.
Comments: The Victorian Electoral Commission should
be a more suitable body than the individual councils concerned. The Tasmanian
Electoral Office has performed this function for Tasmanian councils very
well. The last US presidential election was certainly not an impressive
example of the virtues of local, and fragmented and inconsistent procedures.
The more sophisticated processes such as countback and Robson Rotation are
better handled by a well-established specialized organization. An additional reason for preferring the
VEC is their likely much more coherent and standardized presentation of
results on a single Web site, which is a most important and useful aspect of
modern elections. Nevertheless mention should be made of a
report of poor performance at a municipal election by the VEC that appeared
in the following Letter to the Editor in the June 2000 issue of our quarterly
newsletter Quota Notes, which also appears on our Web site www.prsa.org.au "Scrutineers Vindicated On 18th March 2000 I was a scrutineer for
a ward of Bayside City Council. The triennial general election was
administered by the Victorian Electoral Commission. Each of the nine wards
has its single councillor elected under a preferential system. Separate VEC
teams counted several wards concurrently. In another ward, Clayton Ward,
where there were seven candidates, the team leader of the count decided,
after the exclusion of two of the candidates, to next exclude the candidate
that had the third lowest first preference vote, even though that candidate
did not have the lowest vote in the progressive count at that point. When a scrutineer initially challenged
that, the team leader rejected the challenge. The matter was then referred to
the Returning Officer, who consulted several others and eventually conceded
that the candidate that had the lowest vote at this point in the progressive
count should be the next excluded. The most disturbing aspect of this was
that I was told that the method of exclusion used by the team leader of the
count was the method taught by the VEC. I have since written to the VEC about
this. They have assured me the correct procedure is taught to all staff. I am reassured by this, but the case does
show how important it is for scrutineers to know correct procedures, to stay
vigilant, and to take action promptly. Stephen Morey, Member of PRSA
(Victoria-Tasmania)" 17.2 Comments are invited in regard to
which organisations should be entitled to conduct local government elections
in Victoria (provider role). Comments: It is suggested that the Victorian
Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission are the most
appropriate bodies. Having the choice of two bodies enables competition in
costs and other aspects of the election, yet both bodies are reputable,
experienced and are likely to continue to be in existence indefinitely. ********* |
|