Victorian Electoral Commission

Report of local government electoral representation reviews and subdivision reviews conducted by the VEC in 2011 and 2012

Contents

Foreword by the Acting Electoral Commissioner .................................................................................................... i Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... ii Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ iv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 The first electoral representation reviews 2004-2008 ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Departmental consultation ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Legislation changes ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Commencement of the 2011-2012 representation reviews .................................................................... 4 2.5 The VEC’s involvement ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.6 Costs for conducting the reviews ............................................................................................................ 5 3. The VEC’s recommendations ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Recommended structures ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Numbers of councillors recommended.................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Changes to the electoral structure .......................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Options recommended ............................................................................................................................ 8 4. How the VEC conducted the reviews ..................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Interpreting the legislation ................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Main principles ...................................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Ensuring that the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10 per cent of the average number of voters per councillor for the municipality .......................................................................................... 13 4.4 A Statewide approach to the total number of councillors .................................................................... 15 4.5 Ensuring that communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible ........................................ 18 4.6 Other factors affecting the VEC’s recommendations ............................................................................ 21 4.7 Ward names .......................................................................................................................................... 23 5. The public consultation process ............................................................................................................ 25 5.1 VEC communications ............................................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Consultation: submissions and public hearings .................................................................................... 25 5.3 Feedback surveys .................................................................................................................................. 28 6. Subdivision reviews ............................................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Purpose of subdivision reviews ............................................................................................................. 34 6.2 The VEC’s approach ............................................................................................................................... 34 6.3 Outcomes of the reviews ....................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 1: The VEC’s recommendations ........................................................................................................... 38 Appendix 2: Ward variations from the average number of voters per councillor ............................................... 40 Appendix 3: Population and geographic sizes of Victoria’s municipalities by type ............................................. 47 Appendix 4: Number of participants in electoral representation reviews ........................................................... 51 Appendix 5: Electoral representation review and subdivision review timetable ................................................. 53 Appendix 6: Amounts charged to councils for conducting electoral representation reviews and subdivision reviews ................................................................................................................................................................ 55

i

Foreword by the Acting Electoral Commissioner I am pleased to present the Victorian Electoral Commission’s (VEC’s) report on local government electoral representation reviews and subdivision reviews conducted by the VEC in 2011 and 2012.

These reviews affected more than a third of the State, with electoral representation reviews taking place in 28 municipalities and subdivision reviews of ward boundaries in three municipalities. For all but two municipalities, this was the second time that they had undergone an electoral representation review. The VEC heeded its previous recommendations and applied the same principles as it had in 2004-2008, but population shifts and feedback from the community led to the VEC recommending a considerable number of changes in the 2011-2012 reviews.

Representation reviews involve all parts of the VEC, and are probably the VEC’s third-largest electoral exercise (after State parliamentary elections and local government elections). I thank VEC staff for their dedicated work on the reviews. The VEC is well prepared for the next round of representation reviews, to be held in 2015-2016.

Acting Electoral Commissioner

ii

Summary Between January 2011 and April 2012, the VEC conducted electoral representation reviews for 28 councils. For most councils, this was the second time they had been reviewed.

There were some legislative changes between the 2004-2008 reviews and the 2011-2012 reviews:

• the default timing for electoral representation reviews has been extended from every second election cycle to every third cycle;

• an earlier representation review is now required if a municipality has undergone a subdivision review in the first term after a representation review, and ward enrolments are likely to deviate beyond the 10 per cent tolerance before the next election;

• the VEC is now the reviewer for all reviews; and

• the time to lodge submissions has been extended to at least 28 days.

In conducting the reviews, the VEC applied the same principles as in the 2004-2008 reviews:

• to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10 per cent of the average number of voters per councillor for that municipality. This is a legislative requirement. The VEC considers not only voter numbers at the time of the review but also likely voter numbers in the period leading up to the next scheduled review. The longer interval between representation reviews has increased the challenge for the VEC to create ward boundaries that will last;

• to take a consistent, State-wide approach to the total number of councillors, while taking account of the particular circumstances of each municipality; and

• to ensure that communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible. There are varying valid conceptions of community of interest. Devising ward boundaries to fit communities of interest is constrained by the numbers requirement of legislation.

The VEC’s starting point for each review was the recommendation it had made in the previous review, and the VEC did not lightly overturn that structure.

Where possible, the VEC recommended wards with clear, readily identifiable boundaries. The VEC also considered the consequences of the compulsory preferential voting system in council elections, and in several cases did not recommend an unsubdivided structure because of the risk that a plethora of candidates would lead to an increased informal vote.

The VEC needed to weigh all the above factors in each review. In many cases, the VEC recommended multi-councillor wards. Such a structure had the potential to avoid both too many candidates and too few. It was also more likely to encourage diversity of representation and fit broad communities of interest while complying with the numbers requirements of the Local Government Act.

The VEC received feedback from the public through submissions, public hearings and feedback surveys. A total of 1,628 submissions was received, ranging from five in Whittlesea to 899 in Latrobe. The VEC did not rely on a “straw poll” of the numbers of submissions favouring particular structures, but instead assessed the arguments and evidence presented in submissions. The information contained in submissions deepened the VEC’s understanding of the municipalities under review, and in a number of cases influenced the VEC to change from its original preferred option. Responses to the survey were generally very positive

iii

about the review process, including the initial information session, the VEC’s Guide for Submissions, the Preliminary Report and the public hearing.

The VEC recommended multi-councillor wards in 17 reviews, a combination of single- and multi-councillor wards in eight reviews, single-councillor wards for two councils, and an unsubdivided structure in one review.

In most reviews, the VEC left the number of councillors unchanged, but in five reviews (all of large, fast-growing councils) the VEC recommended an increase.

For 12 councils, the VEC recommended major changes to the electoral structure, such as a shift from single-councillor wards to multi-councillor wards, or an increase in the number of councillors per ward.

In 12 reviews, the VEC’s final recommendation differed from its original preferred option – largely through taking account of public feedback.

The VEC also conducted subdivision reviews of the ward boundaries of three municipalities. The reviews were conducted in much the same way as representation reviews, and according to similar principles. One important difference is that the VEC followed a principle of minimal change for subdivision reviews – of transferring as few electors as possible from one ward to another. The VEC also aimed to ensure that ward enrolments would be within the 10 per cent tolerance not only for the coming election but for the one after that, in order to avoid an early electoral representation review.

iv

Recommendations As a result of the reviews, the VEC has two recommendations for the Government to consider.

Options in Preliminary Report

Section 219F(6) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires the reviewer to:

prepare a preliminary report containing

(a) a preferred option (including a map) as to the number of Councillors and the electoral structure ...; and

(b) if the reviewer considers it to be appropriate, alternative options (including maps) to the preferred option.

This requirement to provide a preferred option caused some trouble during the reviews, as it had during the 2004-2008 reviews. Several submitters and survey respondents criticised the inclusion of a preferred option, as it seemed to show that the process was biased and that the VEC had already made up its mind. The VEC considers all the options it puts forward in its preliminary reports as capable of providing for fair and equitable representation, and wants the public to regard the options on an equal footing.

The VEC recommends that the Act be amended to repeal the requirement for the preliminary report to include a preferred option, replacing it with the ability to include a range of options.

Maximum number of councillors

Section 5B of the Act provides that councils must consist of not fewer than 5 councillors and not more than 12 councillors. The allowable range was originally (in 1989) between 9 and 15 councillors, but the numbers were reduced in 1995 to a range of 5 to 12. The maximum is lower than that in any other Australian State or Territory except Tasmania.1

The VEC approach to the number of councillors is that the larger a municipality is, the more councillors it should have. The City of Casey (11 councillors) has the largest population of any municipality in Victoria, and is growing rapidly. The voter to councillor ratio is already the highest in the State, and will rise even higher as the population expands. There was some concern that councillors would have difficulties sustaining their workload. Therefore the VEC’s preferred option was to increase the number of councillors to the maximum of 12. In the end the VEC reverted to 11 councillors for other reasons, but noted strong support at the public hearing for an increase in the maximum allowable number of councillors.

The VEC recommended an increase to 11 councillors for three other fast growing outer suburban municipalities (Hume, Whittlesea and Wyndham). By the next round of reviews, there are likely to be an increasing number of municipalities bumping against the legislated ceiling, and their voters will be arguably under-represented.

The VEC recommends that the Government consider amending the Act to increase the maximum allowable number of councillors.

1 The ranges are: New South Wales 5-15; Queensland 5-16 (and 27 for Brisbane); Western Australia 6-15; South Australia 6-16; Tasmania 7-12; Northern Territory 6-14.

1

1. Introduction Between January 2011 and April 2012, the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) conducted electoral representation reviews for 28 of Victoria’s 79 local councils, plus subdivision reviews (that look only at ward boundaries) of three more councils. The purpose of an electoral representation review is to recommend the number of councillors and the electoral structure that provide fair and equitable representation for the voters of the municipality.

The Minister for Local Government selected the one-third of councils to be reviewed over 2011-2012. For most councils, this was the second time that they had been reviewed. It was the first electoral representation review for the City of Melbourne, which until recently did not have legislative provision for reviews, and for Surf Coast Shire, which had not been formally reviewed under the current legislation. The councils reviewed ranged from Melbourne, to fast-growing outer suburban municipalities such as Wyndham, to smaller rural shires such as Loddon and Pyrenees.

With 31 individual reviews taking place, it can be hard to gain an overall picture. This report summarises the outcomes of the reviews, explains the principles and methods used by the VEC to come to its recommendations, and analyses the public reaction to the reviews as expressed in submissions, public hearings and survey responses.

2

2. Background

2.1 The first electoral representation reviews 2004-2008 Before 2004, councils conducted their own electoral reviews, using a range of approaches. The only limitations provided by the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) were:

• “A Council must consist of not fewer than 5 Councillors and not more than 12 Councillors” (s. 5B(1)); and

• If the municipal district is divided into wards, the number of voters represented by each councillor must be within 10% of the average number of voters represented by all councillors in the municipality (s.219D).

As a result, a wide variety of structures was established across Victoria, with similar municipalities often having quite different structures and different numbers of councillors.

The Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003 provided for “independent reviews of electoral representation by all Councils on a regular basis to provide for fair and equitable representation” (s.219A).

The purpose of an electoral representation review as defined by the Act is to recommend an electoral structure that provides fair and equitable representation for the persons who are entitled to vote at a general election of the council. Matters to be considered by the review are (s.219D):

• the number of councillors; • the electoral structure of the municipality (whether the municipality should be

unsubdivided or divided into wards; and, if the municipality is to be subdivided, the number of wards and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward); and

• if the recommendation is for the municipality to be divided into wards, boundaries for the wards that will:

• provide for a fair and equitable division of the municipality; and • ensure equality of representation, through the number of voters represented by

each councillor being within 10% of the average number of voters represented by all councillors.

The Act makes clear that the reviews are to be conducted independently of the council under review. It specifies that the council “cannot specify how the review is to be conducted” (s.219E) and that “subject to this section [219F], the reviewer may conduct the review in any manner that the reviewer considers appropriate”. The reviewer must make a recommendation to the Minister for Local Government, who may then implement it.

The VEC conducted electoral representation reviews of 77 of Victoria’s 79 councils over 2004-2008. The VEC adopted a consistent, statewide approach to the reviews, though it also took account of public feedback and the particular circumstances of each council. In all cases, the Minister implemented the recommendation of the review.

In its general report on the 2004-2008 reviews, the VEC made a number of recommendations for the Government to consider, including:

• indicating in legislation which model of representation is most appropriate for local councils;

3

• prescribing the VEC as the only body able to conduct electoral representation reviews;

• indicating in legislation the principles for determining the number of councillors and electoral structures;

• consideration of introducing optional preferential voting in council elections; and

• allowing the VEC to publish more than one preferred option in its preliminary reports.2

2.2 Departmental consultation In 2009-10, after a number of councils and peak bodies expressed concerns about aspects of the 2004-2008 reviews, the Department of Planning and Community Development conducted a consultation on electoral representation reviews, releasing a discussion paper and seeking feedback on the following matters:

• the need for legislated criteria for electoral representation reviews when considering the number of councillors, the electoral structure and the location of ward boundaries;

• the timing between reviews;

• whether there should be a separate process to determine councillor numbers;

• whether there should be separate reviews to determine the electoral structure and the location of boundaries;

• the use of independent panels to conduct reviews; and

• the formal role of councils.3

The Department received 55 submissions in response to the discussion paper, including 35 submissions from councils.4 Many of the matters raised during the consultation process were reflected in subsequent legislation.

2.3 Legislation changes The Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) made significant changes to the legislation governing electoral representation reviews:

• The default timing for electoral representation reviews has changed from every second election cycle to every third election cycle. Therefore, the longest period between reviews has increased from eight years to twelve years;

• An earlier review is required if a municipality has undergone a subdivision review in the first term after a representation review, and the VEC has notified the Minister that the number of voters in each ward is unlikely to be within the 10 per cent tolerance at the next general election;

2 Victorian Electoral Commission: Report of local government electoral activity 2008-09, Part III Report of local government electoral representation reviews conducted by the VEC between 2004 and 2008, pp. vii-viii. 3 Department of Planning and Community Development: Electoral Representation Reviews Consultation Paper, November 2009. 4 Department of Planning and Community Development: Local Government Legislation Reform 2010. Summary of proposed amendments, July 2010.

4

• The VEC is now the reviewer for all representation reviews, instead of councils being obliged to appoint an electoral commission for each review. The VEC must notify a council at least 60 days before commencing a review;

• The time available to lodge submissions about a review has increased to at least 28 days after a notice about the review.

2.4 Commencement of the 2011-2012 representation reviews The process of transition from two to three terms between representation reviews required the Minister to select a number of councils to be the first to undergo reviews under the new schedule. On 29 September 2010, the Minister gave notice of electoral representation reviews for 26 councils, to be completed by 24 May 2012.5

On 29 April 2011, the Minister added Latrobe City Council to the list of councils to be reviewed.6 This followed a petition to the Minister about the perceived disadvantages suffered by Traralgon within the City of Latrobe and calling for a review of the Council’s internal and external boundaries.

Melbourne City Council was another addition. Until recently, Melbourne City Council has not been subject to electoral representation reviews, as the number of councillors and electoral structure was set by the City of Melbourne Act 2001. However, on 30 June 2011, Melbourne City Council resolved to have an electoral representation review under the terms offered by the Minister for Local Government. On 4 July, the Minster wrote to the Electoral Commissioner requesting that he conduct a review of the Melbourne City Council’s electoral structure using the same framework for conduct of electoral representation reviews that applies to other councils. On 19 July, the Electoral Commissioner replied to the Minister, offering to conduct the review. The Local Government Amendment (Electoral Matters) Act 2011 made the City of Melbourne subject to regular electoral representation reviews. The City of Melbourne Amendment Act 2011 allowed for the recommendations of the representation review to be implemented by order in council.

2.5 The VEC’s involvement The representation reviews involved all areas of the VEC: enrolment, mapping, communications, research and administration. The councils to be reviewed were broken into groups of three, with rolling deadlines. For instance, the reviews for the first group (Glen Eira, Stonnington and Yarra) began in the week commencing 31 January 2011 and concluded in the week commencing 16 May 2011; the second group (Greater Bendigo, Loddon and Mount Alexander) began and finished a week later; and so on. This arrangement ensured that the workload was manageable for the VEC while devoting sufficient attention to each council. Appendix 5 shows the timetable for all councils.

Mapping capacity was essential for conducting the reviews. In working on the 2004-2008 representation reviews (as well as State redivisions and earlier work on municipal ward boundaries), the VEC has developed expertise in the use of sophisticated mapping software, conducting field research and preparing electoral boundaries that both comply with legislative approximate equality requirements and respect communities of interest. The VEC improved its mapping capacity for the 2011-2012 reviews, developing Boundary Maker 5 Victoria Government Gazette, 7 October 2010, pp. 2367-2368. The notice also listed 14 councils whose reviews had to be completed by 26 May 2016. 6 Victoria Government Gazette, 19 May 2011, p. 1071.

5

software that is more flexible, based on individual elector points on the earth rather than areas, and able to process data from a variety of sources. The VEC also engaged ID Consulting to provide expert advice on projected housing developments (and thus population changes) in metropolitan municipalities.

Knowledge of local government was also indispensible for the reviews. The VEC engaged three consultants with extensive experience in local government to provide advice – Messrs Terry Maher, Jeremy Wood and Michael Ulbrick.

Mr Maher commenced his career in local government in 1963. Mr Maher has extensive municipal experience, having been employed by the Melbourne City Council and the former Ringwood and Essendon Councils. He held the position of Chief Executive Officer at Knox City Council from 1995-2001, Croydon City Council from 1986-1994, and was the interim Chief Executive of the Monash City Council at the time of municipal restructure. Mr Maher worked with the VEC on the 2004-2008 representation reviews, and currently provides consulting services to a number of municipalities.

Mr Wood has had more than 25 years experience in senior management positions in local government in Victoria and New South Wales. His roles have covered a wide spectrum of council activities, including planning, the environment, economic development, amenity services and building control. Mr Wood was responsible for finance, governance and community services functions during his eight years at Manly City Council.

Mr Ulbrick’s background in local government dates to the 1980s, when he was Executive Manager for the Office of Local Government. He has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Darebin City Council, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Surf Coast Shire Council, and has also held senior executive positions with the Ballarat and Moonee Valley City Councils.

2.6 Costs for conducting the reviews The VEC charges councils marginal costs for conducting the electoral representation reviews and the subdivision reviews. These included direct costs (those incurred for advertising, printing, external consultants, travel and accommodation) and a portion of VEC staff costs. Advertising costs varied between councils according to the newspapers circulating in the municipality. All funds received by the VEC for conducting the reviews were paid into consolidated revenue.

Appendix 6 lists the amounts charged to individual councils.

6

7

3. The VEC’s recommendations The VEC’s recommendations for each review are listed in Appendix 1. This chapter summarises these recommendations across all reviews. Chapter 4 explains how the VEC reached these recommendations.

3.1 Recommended structures A range of structures was recommended by the VEC, dependant on the characteristics of the various municipalities.

Figure 1: Types of structure recommended

Multi-councillor wards were by far the most common recommendation (recommended for 17 of the 28 councils), followed by combinations of single-councillor and multi-councillor wards (recommended for eight councils), two recommendations for single-councillor wards and one recommendation for an unsubdivided structure.

3.2 Numbers of councillors recommended The VEC recommended an increase in the number of councillors in five cases (18% of the total) and no change for the other 23 councils. There were no recommendations to reduce the number of councillors.

Overall, as a result of the reviews, the number of councillors in Victoria increased by 10 from 631 to 641. Of the legislatively-permitted range of councillor numbers (5 to 12 inclusive), the VEC recommended uneven numbers of councillors in every case, with nine recommendations for 11 councillors, 11 recommendations for nine councillors, six recommendations for seven councillors, and two recommendations for five councillors.

8

Figure 2: Number of councillors recommended

3.3 Changes to the electoral structure The types of changes that the VEC recommended varied greatly. In four cases, the VEC recommended no changes. For one council, the only recommended change was to the name of a ward. In one case, the VEC recommended a change to the number of councillors; in six councils, only the ward boundaries were changed; and in four cases, both the boundaries and names of wards were changed. For 12 councils the VEC recommended major changes to the electoral structure, such as a shift from single-councillor wards to multi-councillor wards, or an increase in the number of councillors per ward.

See further details in Appendix 2.

3.4 Options recommended The Act requires the VEC to put forward a preferred option (Option A) in its preliminary report on a review.7 As well, the VEC proposes at least one other alternative option that it considers has the capacity to provide fair and equitable representation. The VEC then recommends one of these options in its final report to the Minister.

Although the VEC’s recommendation was the same as its preferred option in 16 cases, the VEC recommended another option for 12 councils (43% of the total) – largely through taking account of public feedback. Figure 3 shows which options were recommended.8

7 Local Government Act 1989, s. 219F(6). 8 Minor variations are not counted here. For example, Pyrenees is counted as an Option A recommendation, even though some ward names were changed and there was a very small change to a ward boundary.

9

Figure 3: Options recommended

10

4. How the VEC conducted the reviews

4.1 Interpreting the legislation The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides that the purpose of an electoral representation review is to recommend “the number of Councillors and the electoral structure that provides fair and equitable representation for the persons who are entitled to vote at a general election of the Council” (s.219D(1)(a)). If the municipal district is to be divided into wards, the number of voters represented by each councillor must be within 10% of the average number of voters represented by all councillors in the municipality (s.219D(1)(b) and (c)). Section 219F specifies how the reviewer must advertise the review, receive submissions from the public and prepare reports, but states that otherwise “the reviewer may conduct the review in any manner that the reviewer considers appropriate”.

Apart from the numbers criterion, the legislation provides little guidance as to what criteria the reviewer should use in order to make its recommendations. The Act provides that there can be between five and 12 councillors9, but does not say how the number should be chosen. The phrase “fair and equitable representation” is open to a wide variety of interpretations. For example, Adrian Blau lists five common different interpretations of “fairness” with reference to electoral matters.10

Conceptions of representation also vary widely. At the parliamentary level, it is possible to distinguish three broad models of representation: the Burkean trustee model, under which representatives act primarily in terms of their own conscience, of what they think is in the best interests of the public, and answering to the voters at election time; the delegate model, under which representatives act in accordance with the wishes of their constituents; and the partisan model, under which the party line predominates.11 Political parties are not officially recognised in Victorian local government elections (except in the City of Melbourne), and are active in only a minority of councils, so a different set of models is appropriate. Neil Burgess and Kevin O’Toole have put forward three different models of representation that apply in the Victorian local government context:12

Interest representation

In this model, elected representatives are seen as the personal advocates of their constituents. Voters expect their representatives to pursue the constituents’ particular interests and hold them responsible for activities that hinder their interests. With this sort of model, in a subdivided municipality, voters take ownership of the particular councillor(s) that they voted for, expecting them to represent the particular interests of the ward.

Corporate representation

With corporate representation, the representative body (i.e. the council) is seen as authorised to act for the electorate as a whole and to deliberate and make decisions

9 Local Government Act 1989 s. 5B(1). 10Adrian Blau: “Fairness and Electoral Reform”, Political Studies Association, 2004, pp. 167f. and n. 1, p. 179. 11 See Dean Jaensch: the Politics of Australia, Macmillan Education Australia, South Melbourne, 1997 (second edition), p. 133. 12 Neil Burdess and Kevin O’Toole: “Elections and representation in local government: A Victorian case study”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(2), 2004, pp. 66-78.

11

on behalf of the voters. This is seen more often in levels of government with political parties, where a party as a team seeks authorisation from voters across electorates for a policy framework.

Mirror representation

Mirror representation seeks to create a representative body whose make-up reflects the make-up of the constituents. That is, specific groups are represented on the council in proportions reflecting their proportions in the electorate by people who reflect those groups. With this model, voters would take ownership of the councillor that reflects their group most closely.

Each model of representation has different implications for what is the most appropriate electoral system. Thus, for interest representation the best model may be single-councillor wards, as each councillor clearly represents one area and is accountable to the voters of that area. The most suitable model for mirror representation would be an unsubdivided structure with proportional representation to most closely reflect the groups within a municipality. Unsubdivided municipalities, where all voters vote for all councillors, may best suit corporate representation.

Submitters’ disagreements about structures have often been based on different models of representation. Many of those submitters who believe that only single-councillor wards can ever be effective do so because they expect to be represented through interest representation, whereas many of those arguing for multi-councillor wards or unsubdivided structures in all situations do so because they believe that mirror representation is appropriate.

Similarly, submitters arguing for larger numbers of councillors sometimes do so based on a belief in mirror representation, believing that the variety of different groups within the municipality requires a similar variety of councillors. On the other hand, submitters arguing for smaller numbers often conceive of the council as operating with corporate representation.

In Victoria, there is no framework mandating which model of representation is most appropriate for local councils. Different models have been favoured by various governments over time. For example, during and after the council amalgamations of the mid-1990s, the predominant government view was that councillors should act like a board of directors, determining policy, setting objectives and establishing the strategic direction of the council.13 Individual councils have adopted a variety of models, and even within a municipality, there may be a range of expectations between different groups and individuals.

The VEC does not consider it to be within its role to decide which model of representation is the most appropriate. The expectation within each municipality has been one factor among the many taken into account when making recommendations.

Some of the participants in the reviews argued that a particular electoral structure was inherently superior, and that the VEC should not consider any other structure. The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council’s “Ten Tests of Effective Local Government” carried the implicit assumption that single-councillor wards were superior. In contrast, the Proportional Representation Society, which made submissions for all the reviews,

13 Burdess and O’Toole, pp. 71-72.

12

considered that the only acceptable structure was one in which proportional representation applied – either an unsubdivided municipality or multi-councillor wards. There should be an odd number of councillors overall, an odd number of councillors per ward, and preferably the same number of councillors in each ward. The Proportional Representation Society contended that only such a structure would result in the election of a council that best represented the range of views in the electorate, while minimising wasted votes and ensuring that majority opinion was reflected in the election results.

The VEC notes that the Local Government Act 1989 does not privilege any particular electoral structure. The Act provides for an unsubdivided municipality, single-councillor wards, multi-councillor wards, and a mixture of single and multi-councillor wards, and the VEC considers each of these structures as valid, depending on the circumstances of individual municipalities.

In the absence of legal criteria, the VEC needed during the first round of representation reviews to develop a set of principles and a practical method for applying these principles to particular municipalities which it believed best achieved the requirement of providing “fair and equitable representation”. In developing these principles and methods, the VEC relied on its Victorian experience, and also had an eye to how similar reviews were conducted interstate and overseas.

4.2 Main principles The VEC conducted the 2011-2012 representation reviews on the basis of the same three main principles that it had adopted for the 2004-2008 reviews:

1: to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10% of the average number of voters per councillor for that municipality

Populations are continually changing – they grow in some areas and decline in others. Over time, these changes can lead to some wards having larger or smaller numbers of voters. As part of a representation review, the VEC needs to correct any imbalances that have come about. The VEC also tries to make sure that the boundaries it sets will continue to provide equitable representation until the next review is due, by taking account of likely future changes.

2: to take a consistent, State-wide approach to the total number of councillors

Regarding the number of councillors, the VEC has adopted as a guide the numbers of councillors in similar-sized municipalities of similar categories within Victoria. In addition, the VEC considers any special circumstances that warrant the municipality having more or fewer councillors than similar municipalities.

3: to ensure that communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible

Every municipality contains a number of communities of interest. The electoral structure should be designed to take these into account where practicable. This is important for assisting the elected councillors to be effective representatives of the people in their particular municipality.

While the VEC adopted these as its major principles, it also accepted that there were a number of pragmatic considerations that should also be taken into account, in line with general practice in these matters. These include issues such as creating readily identifiable

13

boundaries and designing wards that are of a practical size for candidates and elected councillors.

The Victorian Electoral Commission is a permanent body. Its recommendations for the 2011-2012 reviews have been based on the same principles that it used for the 2004-2008 reviews. Therefore, the VEC did not lightly overturn its recommendations for the first reviews. For the 2011-2012 reviews, the VEC has recommended changes to the current structure only where circumstances have changed through population shifts, or where it appears that the current structure is not functioning satisfactorily. For example, for the Stonnington City Council review the two leading options were the current “horizontal” division of the municipality along Malvern Road, or a “vertical” division down Williams Road. Although the “vertical” split arguably collected communities of interest slightly more effectively than the current boundaries, the VEC considered that this argument did not outweigh the advantage of maintaining familiar boundaries put in place for the 2004 elections.14

It is important to observe how each of the three main principles was put into practice in the 2011-2012 reviews.

4.3 Ensuring that the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10 per cent of the average number of voters per councillor for the municipality

In the Maribyrnong City Council representation review, several submitters accused the VEC of only being interested in balancing the number of voters per ward instead of considering communities of interest. To some extent those submitters were correct. The Act provides that the review must recommend a structure in which the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10 per cent of the average, and this legal requirement overrides other considerations. In councils where enrolments for wards had diverged beyond the 10 per cent threshold, the VEC redrew the ward boundaries to bring them back to approximate equality. This meant, for instance, in the Cardinia Shire review, that part of the urban growth corridor had to be included in the Ranges Ward, even though that area had much more in common with the rest of the growth corridor than with the hills district. In councils where all the wards were within the 10 per cent margin and were not likely to stray beyond it, such as Mount Alexander and Monash, the VEC did not change the ward boundaries.

The VEC derived the number of voters in each municipality by combining the State electors as at the start of the review with a list prepared by the Council of other voters – non-resident property owners, representatives of corporations, commercial tenants and non-citizen resident ratepayers. In most reviews the VEC recommended wards whose enrolments were within the 10 per cent tolerance. However, for three councils (Casey, Hume and Whittlesea), the VEC recommended wards that were slightly outside the 10 per cent margin. Section 219D(2) of the Act provides that compliance with the 10 per cent tolerance requirement “may be determined by reference to the number of voters at the time of the review or by reference to the number of voters projected to be voters on the entitlement date for the next general election”. Casey, Hume and Whittlesea are growing very fast, and the VEC was confident that enrolments for the four wards concerned would be within the 10 margin by the time of the 2012 Council elections. In fact, enrolments for all four wards

14 The VEC also considered the current boundaries superior on numbers grounds, and valid in terms of community of interest.

14

were within tolerance for the elections, as were those for all wards in the councils reviewed by the VEC.

In preparing ward boundaries, the VEC takes account not only of voter numbers at the time of the review, but of likely voter numbers in the period leading up to the next scheduled representation review. The VEC aims to keep wards within tolerance as long as possible, both to accord with the principle of one vote one value, and because of the consequences of a failure to keep within the tolerance. The Act requires a subdivision review of ward boundaries to be undertaken if a ward falls outside the 10 per cent threshold before the next representation review is due. Subdivision reviews can be disruptive and expensive for councils and voters, and are to be avoided if possible.

The 2010 Act increased the interval between representation reviews from every second election cycle to every third election cycle – that is, from a maximum of eight years to a maximum of 12 years. This has increased the challenge for the VEC to devise ward boundaries that will last. The aim of longevity can reduce the viable options for electoral structure. Single-councillor wards are more vulnerable to population shifts than multi-councillor wards, and in many cases a single-councillor ward structure had to be ruled out because enrolments would soon fall outside the threshold. Municipalities that are growing rapidly and unevenly are particularly difficult. For example, in the City of Melbourne review Cr Jackie Watts proposed a ward model that fitted communities of interest and complied with the numbers requirements at the time of the review. However, explosive growth in parts of the City meant that enrolments for two of the five wards would be outside the 10 per cent margin by 2016, and so the model could not be considered. The VEC’s own ward-based options for Melbourne would have stayed within the 10 per cent threshold at least up to 2016, but a subdivision review may have been required before the 2020 election, and each option cut across local geographic communities of interest. In general, the need for longevity impelled the VEC to favour a small number of multi-councillor wards in growing municipalities.

The VEC’s enrolment projections were based on information from the councils, the Department of Planning and Community Development and ID Consulting. Some submitters who disagreed with the models on offer cast doubt on the VEC’s methodology and projections. There are many uncertainties in population projections; assumptions have to be made about population flows, occupancy rates and the scale and timing of developments. However, these uncertainties do not mean that one guess is as good as another. The VEC used the best sources available to make its projections, and is confident that they indicated trends accurately.

Eleven of the 28 councils had unequally sized wards at the outset (such as Central Goldfields, which had one four-councillor ward and three single-councillor wards), and following the reviews 17 councils were in this position. This inequality was criticised from two directions.

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA) observed that a consequence of unequally sized wards was that the quotas required for election varied. To take a theoretical example, in a municipality with five councillors and 10,000 voters, the quota required for election for a single-councillor ward of 2,000 votes would be 1,001; for a two-councillor ward of 4,000 votes the quota would be 1,334; and for a three-councillor ward of 6,000 votes the quota would be 1,501. The PRSA argued that this disparity was undesirable, because it meant that voters and candidates were not in the same position across the municipality. The PRSA’s point is mathematically undeniable.

15

Some submitters maintained that the voters in smaller wards were disadvantaged because they had fewer representatives. For example, the Keilor Residents and Ratepayers Association argued that Brimbank’s electoral structure, under which the Horseshoe Bend Ward had only two councillors while the other wards had three, had been disastrous for their region: “It was disproportionate in respect to ward sizes and in councillor numbers”.

The VEC’s function in representation reviews is to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the municipality, and a structure with differing numbers of councillors in wards can still achieve this and thus provide equality of representation. The VEC recommends such structures because they can be a useful way of capturing communities of interest.

4.4 A Statewide approach to the total number of councillors Three major factors affected the VEC’s consideration of the appropriate number of councillors:

• The diversity of the population Broadly, the larger a municipality is, the more likely it is to be diverse (both in the nature of the community and in issues of representation) and so the more councillors it will need;

• Councillors’ workloads Workloads are affected by the number of voters, the type of municipality, its geographic size and topography, population growth and associated planning issues, social diversity, and the presence of high-needs or low needs groups;

• The desirability of preventing tied votes To reduce the likelihood of tied votes, the VEC generally recommends an uneven number of councillors. Ties are resolved through the mayor using a casting vote, which effectively gives one councillor twice the voting power of the others. Some submitters argued that the total number of councillors was irrelevant, because absences can lead to an even number of councillors voting in a council meeting. However, an even number of councillors does increase the likelihood of tied votes, and this would be particularly important where the council is divided.

The VEC recognises that the type of municipality affects the demands on councillors. In rural shires, councillors’ interaction with the community is generally closer and more personal than in metropolitan cities. The combination of expectations of voters and councillors, the greater distances to be covered in the country and rural councils’ more limited staff resources generally mean that a rural municipality needs more councillors per voter than a metropolitan municipality. A municipality with both rural and urban areas will have different needs again.

As in 2004-2008, the VEC divided municipalities into bands according to their type (metropolitan, metropolitan-rural fringe, regional urban and rural) and number of voters. These bands gave a clear indication of the appropriate number of councillors for a municipality. The table below shows the bands for the 2011-2012 reviews.

16

Expected number of councillors

Range of voters

Metropolitan Fringe Regional urban Rural

5 - - - < 8,000

7 < 70,000 <70,000 < 45,000 8,000-22,000

9 70,000-110,000 70,000-110,000 45,000-80,000 >22,000

10-12 >110,000 >110,000 >100,000

Table 1: Expected number of councillors by type and size of municipality

The Brimbank Greens rejected the VEC’s principle of Statewide consistency, contending that the VEC should consider fairness within each council: “Our view is that equality of voters per councillor between councils is neither desirable nor achievable nor significant, but equality of representation within each council is of fundamental significance”. Similarly, in the Maribyrnong City Council review Mr Andrew Gunter argued against the VEC taking a consistent Statewide approach, pointing to the fact that this was not a requirement set out in legislation. The VEC considers that a consistent approach makes logical sense. Feedback since 2004 suggests that this approach is generally accepted.

During each review, the VEC first established the prima facie number of councillors using the approach above, and then considered any special factors that might justify a greater or lesser number. There is scope for legitimate differences on the number of councillors, and, as Table 2 shows, in 12 reviews the VEC’s options included varying numbers of councillors.

Council Options

A B C D E F

Brimbank 11* 11 12

Cardinia 7 7 9* (+2) 9

Casey 12 11* 11 11

Central Goldfields 7* 7 7

Frankston 9 9* 9

Glen Eira 9* 9

Greater Bendigo 9 9 9 9* 9

Hobsons Bay 7 7* 7 7

Hume 11* (+2) 9 11

Latrobe 9 9 9* 11

Loddon 5 5* 5

Macedon Ranges 9* 9

Maribyrnong 7 7* 9

Melbourne 11* (+2) 9 11 11 11 9

Mitchell 9* 9 9

Monash 11* 11 11

17

Council Options

A B C D E F

Moorabool 7 9 7* 8

Moreland 11* 11 11

Mornington Peninsula 11 11* 11 11

Mount Alexander 7* 7

Pyrenees 5* 5

South Gippsland 9* 9

Stonnington 9* 9 7 7

Strathbogie 5 7 7*

Surf Coast 9 9* 9

Whittlesea 11* (+2) 11 9

Wyndham 11* (+2) 9 9

Yarra 9* 7

Table 2: Number of councillors in VEC options (* indicates the VEC’s recommended option)

In its preliminary reports, the VEC put forward a range of options that appeared to offer fair and equitable representation for the voters of the municipality. It then considered the particular circumstances of the municipality, as revealed through submissions and the VEC’s own research, before recommending a number in the final report.

In three reviews (Brimbank, Casey and Moorabool), the VEC’s options included an even number of councillors. As Mr Brian Hetherton pointed out at the Casey public hearing, this was inconsistent with the VEC’s normal preference for an odd number of councillors, but features of these councils prompted the VEC to put aside its usual rule. As Casey is Victoria’s most populous municipality, with the demands of rapid growth and the highest number of voters per councillor, it seemed logical to give it the largest possible number of councillors (12), and this was the VEC’s preferred option in the Preliminary Report. In Moorabool’s case, where Option D was for an increase from seven to eight councillors, the municipality was at the top of the seven-councillor band and was growing fast, and the ward boundaries in this option fitted communities of interest well. In the event the VEC decided against these options, for reasons including the risk of deadlocked votes, and all the VEC’s recommendations were for odd numbers of councillors.

In three reviews (Stonnington, Strathbogie and Yarra), the options included a reduction in the number of councillors, mainly because their voter numbers were at the bottom end of their respective bands. In the Strathbogie Shire Council review, the VEC’s preferred option was to reduce the number of councillors from seven to five, which seemed the most appropriate number for a small municipality with a stable, homogeneous population. However, in all these cases the VEC decided that the features of the municipality justified maintaining the current number of councillors.

In 15 reviews, all of the VEC’s options were to leave the number of councillors unchanged. Each review required study of the municipality. In Mount Alexander Shire, for example, the VEC decided to stick with seven councillors because the Shire fitted in the middle of the seven-councillor band, it was not particularly large geographically, and the population was growing evenly and gradually across the municipality, without major developments. In the Hobsons Bay review, several submitters argued that the City’s population growth, its high proportion of residents who were not proficient in English and its areas of social

18

disadvantage justified an increase to nine councillors. The VEC acknowledged that each of these factors existed in Hobsons Bay, but, after comparing Hobsons Bay with similar municipalities, considered that the magnitude of these factors was not sufficient to merit an increase in the number of councillors.

The VEC’s options included an increase in the number of councillors in ten reviews. In five cases the VEC recommended an increase of two councillors. Each of these councils had a rapidly growing population, increasing the demands on councillors. In Hume, Whittlesea and Wyndham significant numbers of residents who were not fluent in English and areas of social disadvantage were additional reasons for more councillors, while in the City of Melbourne councillors faced the particular challenge of managing its capital city functions.

4.5 Ensuring that communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible Community of interest is one of the standard criteria used in the drawing of electoral boundaries. If the voters in a constituency share a community of interest, they are more likely to feel properly represented and it will facilitate the task of representing them. But what is a community of interest; how can it be identified; and how did the VEC deal with communities of interest in the representation reviews?

There are many conceptions of community of interest. Community of interest can be objective – distinguished by boundary lines and statistics – or subjective – the expression of residents’ sense of identification with place. Communities can be geographic or can cut across geographic lines. Communities of interest can overlap; they can have links in different directions; and they can be stronger or weaker in different places. The VEC adopted an expansive definition of community of interest, explained in the Guide for Submissions it provided for each review:

Communities of interest are groups of people who share a range of common concerns or aspirations. They are different from ‘interest groups’ or ‘pressure groups’, which identify on a limited number of issues.

Communities of interest may occur where people are linked with each other geographically (e.g. a town or valley) or economically (e.g. people work in similar industries or mutually-dependent industries. Communities of interest may also appear where people share a number of special needs because of similar circumstances, such as new immigrants (who may have little English, and require assistance with housing and finding employment), particular ethnic groups, retired people and the unemployed.

The VEC undertook fieldwork and used its mapping resources to identify possible community boundaries such as watercourses, railways and freeways, and features tying communities together including service centres, transport routes, housing types and land use. ABS census statistics enabled the VEC to learn about the differences between communities. Suburb and locality boundaries were clear markers of communities. Some Council websites gave a broader picture by grouping localities into zones. For instance, the Casey City Council website divided the City into five regions:

• the semi-rural Dandenong Ranges foothills (Lysterfield South, Narre Warren North, Harkaway);

• the established residential and commercial heart (Endeavour Hills, Doveton, Eumemmerring, Hallam, Hampton Park, Narre Warren);

19

• the urban growth area (Narre Warren South, Berwick, Cranbourne, Lynbrook, Lyndhurst);

• the farm belt (Devon Meadows, Clyde, Clyde North, Junction Village, Pearcedale); and

• the coastal villages (Tooradin, Blind Bight, Warneet, Cannons Creek).

Submissions and public hearings were invaluable for learning about subjective views of communities of interest.

In one sense, an entire municipality constitutes a community of interest. Councils deal with issues affecting the municipality as a whole, and electors vote on those issues. Supporters of the corporate model of representation conceive of community of interest in this way. An unsubdivided municipality is the best electoral expression of a municipality-wide community of interest. Non-geographic communities of interest, spread across a municipality, may also be best represented by an unsubdivided structure. Municipalities that are homogeneous or are focussed on one centre have a strong case to be regarded as a single community of interest. The VEC considered this conception of community of interest in nearly every review.

The VEC also took smaller geographic communities into account. In country Victoria the VEC regarded towns as communities of interest, and tried to devise ward boundaries that did not divide them. Residents of towns share services and facilities and tend to have similar concerns, so creating boundaries that encompass entire towns allows councillors to become more effective representatives of the voters in their ward. This conception of towns as communities of interest was the main reason why the VEC recommended a structure of wards based on the four major towns in the Latrobe City Council review.

Individual suburbs and localities have definite boundaries, and residents identify with their own area. However, localities are nearly always too small to constitute a ward on their own. In Mornington Peninsula Shire, for example, there are 40 distinct towns and villages. Even with single-councillor wards, localities had to be grouped. The Red Hill Ward was composed of part or all of 18 localities which were quite varied, ranging from the beach town of Somers to rural Main Ridge to the fringes of Rye. What the ward had in common was a rural nature that was quite different from most of the Peninsula.

In smaller rural councils such as Loddon or Pyrenees or Strathbogie, it was possible to create single-councillor wards that were centred on distinct local communities. However, in most councils, the numbers requirements of the Act meant that single-councillor wards cut across communities of interest at many points. In Hobsons Bay, Newport and Altona North were split among three wards, and Williamstown, Altona Meadows and Laverton were divided between two wards. Grouping localities in multi-councillor wards offered scope to reduce the number of split localities, and so better fit communities of interest.

The question then arose of which grouping of localities best conformed with broad communities of interest. There was room for differing valid points of view. For example, for Hobsons Bay the VEC proposed a “vertical” split of the municipality, comprising a three-councillor eastern ward covering Williamstown, Newport and Spotswood, a two-councillor central ward covering Altona and Altona North, and a two-councillor western ward covering Altona Meadows, Seabrook and Laverton. Ms Linden Salter-Duke put forward a “horizontal” configuration, with a two-councillor North Ward stretching from Spotswood to Laverton, a three-councillor Coastal Ward covering Williamstown and Altona, and a two-councillor West

20

Ward. Under this proposal, Williamstown and Altona share coastal issues, and the North Ward has an industrial character. However, the VEC ultimately concluded that there are stronger connections and similarities between Williamstown, Newport and Spotswood than there are between Spotswood and points west, and so stuck with the north-south division of the City.

Even with multi-councillor wards, it was not always possible to get a perfect fit. In the City of Frankston each of the VEC’s three options complied broadly with communities of interest but each of them also split a suburb, and the VEC eventually decided on the one that was the least disruptive and that appeared marginally better on community of interest grounds. The VEC’s preferred option for Casey followed locality boundaries in most areas, but split Berwick down the middle along High Street. The outraged public reaction left the VEC in no doubt that Berwick was a cohesive community, and that residents felt that the division of the town would jeopardise its representation. Mainly on community of interest grounds, the VEC recommended another option that placed all of Berwick in one ward.

In councils containing both urban and rural elements, the issue arose of how rural areas should be represented. An example is the City of Casey, over half the area of which is rural, largely devoted to intensive farming such as market gardens, flowers and stud farms. Ms Kerril Burns among others argued that the rural area needed a dedicated representative:

The City of Casey has both an urban and a rural component and the rural needs are different to those of residential areas, and as a result a rural councillor should represent the rural residents. It is extremely difficult for somebody who has never lived or worked on the land to understand the day to day problems encountered because of rain a week earlier or later than needed that has ruined the asparagus crop, and resulted in only one cut of hay instead of three...Most of our heritage properties are in rural areas and it needs a person who understands the importance of these properties and the expenditure that is involved in running one of these properties to fight in the council chamber for their rights – a city person would have no understanding of this.

Three of the VEC’s four options combined the rural area with the neighbouring urban growth area, but the VEC’s final recommendation was for a single-councillor ward covering the rural area, to ensure representation for this community of interest.

The VEC’s recommendations for rural areas varied according to the circumstances of the municipality, though in all cases the VEC considered its community of interest. For Moorabool Shire the VEC recommended three single-councillor wards. In the City of Whittlesea the rural area takes up two thirds of the municipality, but population growth rates made it impossible to create a rural-based ward. The VEC took a somewhat different approach for the Latrobe review. There the Moe and District Residents Association and the Traralgon Community Development Association proposed a three-councillor Eastern Urban (Traralgon) Ward surrounded by a single-councillor Eastern Rural Ward. This is known as a “doughnut” ward. The VEC considered that this structure would cut off the town from the surrounding rural residents who obtained services from Traralgon and so had a community of interest with it. In the VEC’s view, this community of interest outweighed the desire to achieve a dedicated rural representative by creating a somewhat artificial ward. Therefore the VEC combined Traralgon with the rural area to establish a four-councillor East Ward.

In a couple of cases the VEC faced the issue of whether areas with marked socio-economic differences should be included in the same ward. The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council criticised the VEC’s proposed Nepean Ward because it combined Sorrento and Portsea with

21

Rye despite the differences between them. Although the VEC takes the socio-economic nature of areas into account, this does not necessarily determine where boundaries are placed. The VEC views the pattern of living – where people go for their shopping, education, recreation and government services – as more important indicators of community of interest.

Three municipalities where there were unsubdivided options illustrate the importance of community of interest in determining the VEC’s recommendations.

The City of Melbourne has been unsubdivided since 2001. During the review residents’ groups urged a return to a ward structure to ensure the representation of local communities. There are clear differences between suburbs such as Docklands and Carlton, and the VEC recognised the existence of local communities of interest in putting forward four ward-based options in its Preliminary Report. However, the need to consider growth projections meant that none of these options was perfect on community of interest grounds. More importantly, the 60 per cent of voters who did not live in the municipality appeared to have had no interest in a ward-based structure, and the many common issues and links for all voters suggested that the primary community of interest for Melbourne was a City-wide one.

Strathbogie Shire was unsubdivided until 2002, but since then has comprised (mainly) single-councillor wards. In its Preliminary Report the VEC’s preferred option was for an unsubdivided structure, based partly on the facts that the Shire was homogeneous and faced common issues. However, during the second stage of the review it became apparent that Strathbogie consists of a group of small communities that have comparatively little to do with each other, and the best way to represent these communities was through separate wards.

Surf Coast Shire has been unsubdivided since 2003, when a VEC review (before the introduction of formal electoral representation reviews) recommended this structure. During the 2011-2012 review there was a strong push for a return to a ward-based structure. Residents from the rural areas and Lorne complained that they felt disenfranchised, largely because all the councillors came from the coastal strip between Torquay and Aireys Inlet. These residents wanted their own representatives. It became clear that Surf Coast is not a typical candidate for an unsubdivided structure. The main town, Torquay, is at one end of the Shire, and is not a service centre for the whole Shire. The Shire lacks centralised media. The VEC recommended a structure of wards to cover the main communities: urban (Torquay), Anglesea, Lorne and the rural inland.

4.6 Other factors affecting the VEC’s recommendations The three main principles discussed above account for a large part of the VEC’s recommendations. The number of councillors determines the range of possible electoral structures; for example, in municipalities of five, seven or 11 councillors it is impossible to have equally sized multi-councillor wards. Community of interest was vitally important in deciding on electoral structures and ward boundaries, but was overridden by the numbers requirements in the Act. Several other factors also affected the VEC’s recommendations.

Where possible, the VEC recommended wards with clear, readily-identified boundaries. These made it easier for voters to know which wards they were in and therefore who their councillors were. The VEC chose the following features for ward boundaries:

• rivers;

22

• railways; • roads; • locality boundaries • park boundaries; • property boundaries; • transmission lines; and • road reserves.

However, the desirability of clear ward boundaries was subordinate to the numbers requirements in the Act and the capturing of communities of interest.

In all but five reviews the VEC considered an unsubdivided structure, and in 11 reviews an unsubdivided municipality was one of the VEC’s options. This structure suits the mirror model of representation, offering the most scope for representing the diversity of the municipality. It also enables all voters to choose all of their councillors, encourages a “whole of municipality” outlook, and does away with the possibility of subdivision reviews. However, the VEC rejected an unsubdivided structure in all but one case (the Melbourne City Council). One reason was the VEC’s recognition of the strength of local communities of interest. Another major reason was a consequence of the voting system. Compulsory preferential voting applies in Victorian local government elections; voters have to number every square on the ballot paper. There is a clear correlation between the number of candidates and the informal vote, which rises with the number of candidates, particularly where there are more than 15 candidates. In many councils, under an unsubdivided structure there would have been a plethora of candidates, and the informal vote would have risen dramatically. Voters who make numbering mistakes on their ballot papers do not contribute to the choice of their representatives. A structure that would inflate the informal vote would not be compatible with fair and equitable representation, and the VEC was unwilling to recommend it. In contrast, in the Melbourne review, the voting system offered no such obstacle to an unsubdivided structure; the Senate-style ballot paper for the councillor election meant that voters could simply vote above the line for their preferred party or group, no matter how many candidates there were.

While the likelihood of too many candidates was a barrier to adopting an unsubdivided structure, the possibility of too few candidates was a potential fault of single-councillor wards. Particularly in rural municipalities, small single-councillor wards can narrow the choice of candidates. In the 2008 Pyrenees Shire Council elections, there were only eight candidates for five positions, with one uncontested ward, and the election for Goldsmith Ward failing completely because there were no candidates at all. Incumbent councillors can establish such a hold on their ward that others are reluctant to challenge them. The great majority of uncontested elections (45 of 50 in 2008) are for single-councillor wards. A lack of choice for voters does not contribute to fair and equitable representation. In most cases the VEC considered community of interest as more important than this issue. However, in the review of Mornington Peninsula Shire, where six of eleven wards were uncontested in 2008, the VEC regarded the need to provide choice for voters as a reason to adopt a mixed structure with three multi-councillor wards.

In many cases, the VEC recommended multi-councillor wards. Such a structure had the potential to avoid both too many candidates and too few. It was also more likely to encourage diversity of representation and fit broad communities of interest while complying with the numbers requirements of the Act.

23

In a number of reviews some submitters claimed that a particular electoral structure would encourage dummy candidates – that is, candidates who are put forward by “real” candidates as a way of harvesting preferences for them rather than to be elected. There is no such thing as a dummy candidate within the meaning of the Local Government Act; any candidate who complies with the requirements for nomination is legally a real candidate. Media coverage of council elections indicates that there is no relationship between the electoral structure and perceived dummy candidate problems, and the VEC took no account of this matter in its work on the representation reviews.

In its submissions, the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA) opposed wards with even numbers of councillors, arguing that they prevented proportional representation from working properly. In the PRSA’s view, an odd number of councillors per ward was essential to ensure that a majority of votes was translated into a majority of seats for the ward. A ward with an even number of councillors risked becoming a “stalemate” ward, with equal numbers elected for two sides. If the municipality also had a single-councillor ward (as in Casey, which had five two-councillor wards and one single-councillor ward), this could become a “kingmaker” ward, holding the balance of power. The result would be that the outcome of the election would not properly express the will of the voters.

The PRSA’s analysis fits State and Federal elections, where political parties operate officially. Local government elections are more a matter of individuals, and there are rarely two clear sides. It is unlikely in practice that many elections and councils would operate in the way postulated by the PRSA. Therefore the VEC had no hesitation in recommending structures with even numbers of councillors per ward, provided these complied with the numbers requirements and were desirable on community of interest grounds. The VEC recommended such structures in 16 reviews.

4.7 Ward names Where the VEC recommended subdivided structures, it was required to name the wards. Its starting point was to use the existing ward names, as these had been approved after the previous representation review. Where there were major changes to the electoral structure, new names were required, and in these cases the VEC proposed using the names of important features within the wards. The VEC also tried to avoid duplication of existing municipal or State or Federal division names (for instance, changing Loddon Ward in Mount Alexander Shire to Loddon River Ward).

The VEC regarded the local view as decisive in the matter of ward names. The names put forward in options were suggestions rather than firm recommendations, and the VEC deferred to public feedback. In the Monash City Council review, for example, to avoid confusion with State district names, the VEC proposed using the names of parks and creeks in each ward. These names were strongly criticised in submissions, and the VEC reverted to the original names. In Macedon Ranges, the VEC noted that names of East, South and West wards did not reflect the Shire’s unique identity, and suggested the names of natural features and historic figures. The VEC received a variety of feedback on these names, and decided to keep the original, directional names. In the Pyrenees Shire review, the VEC took the advice of the Council to change the names of three of the wards to those of early pastoral runs.

If in doubt, the VEC left the original names unchanged and referred the matter to the Council. Councils are able to consult with their community about ward names and to

24

recommend changes to the Minister for Local Government. The wards in the City of Moonee Valley were renamed in 2010, following a representation review in 2008.

25

5. The public consultation process

5.1 VEC communications The Act requires the reviewer to publish two notices in newspapers generally circulating in the municipal district: the first to inform people about the purpose of the review and the deadline for preliminary submissions; and the second to inform people about the preliminary report and invite response submissions.15 The reviewer is obliged to consider submissions from the public in preparing its recommendations, and response submitters may request to meet with the reviewer to discuss their submission.

The VEC wanted to ensure that everyone who was potentially interested in a representation review knew about it. The VEC took advice from each council about which local newspapers to advertise in, and supplemented formal advertising with media releases issued at the same time as the advertisements. Sizeable advertisements covering a group of reviews were also placed in The Age and the Herald Sun at the outset of each round of reviews, on 1 February, 5 July and 22 October 2011. An information brochure and poster was provided to the Council to be made available to residents through the Council’s network, such as in libraries and service centres, and the VEC contributed articles to Council newsletters on request.

To assist participants in the review, the VEC conducted a public information session (and in some cases more than one) in the municipality at the start of each review. A comprehensive Guide for Submissions was made available on the VEC website and in hard copy on request. The website also included enrolment information down to locality level, public submissions as they were received, and the VEC’s preliminary report.

Notwithstanding these efforts, there were complaints of insufficient publicity in some reviews. The VEC has to balance the cost of the reviews and the fact that only a minority of voters are likely to be interested with the need to inform that minority. It may be that the VEC advertised in insufficient local newspapers in some reviews, and that advertisements and small news items in suburban newspapers are not very effective at reaching residents. It is not clear how widely the VEC’s brochures were distributed. In some of the 2004-2008 reviews the VEC delivered its brochure to every household. Although household delivery is fairly expensive, it does seems to have had some effect in arousing awareness. The VEC may need to consider a household leaflet for future representation reviews.

5.2 Consultation: submissions and public hearings The VEC invited public submissions at two stages of the reviews: at the start, to learn the public’s general views about the electoral structure of the municipality (preliminary submissions); and after the VEC’s preliminary report had been released, to gain public feedback on the options in the report (response submissions). In one review (Mornington Peninsula), where opinion appeared to be polarised, the VEC issued an addendum report and sought further consultation on one of the options in the preliminary report. After the close of response submissions for each review, the VEC conducted a public hearing, at which people who had made a submission could speak further to their submission. The public hearings were not an occasion for debate, but for the VEC to learn more though listening to and questioning the speakers. At public hearings the VEC would occasionally put different points of view to speakers, as a way of teasing out all the issues. In the

15 Local Government Act 1989 s. 219F(4), (7).

26

interests of transparency, all submissions were public documents available on the VEC website, and there were no private meetings with participants in the reviews.

Appendix 4 summarises the number of submitters who participated in each representation review, and the number of submissions for each review received from councils, councillors, organisations (such as community groups, businesses, political parties and the Proportional Representation Society of Australia) and private individuals.

Across the 28 reviews conducted, a total of 1,628 submissions were received. The numbers varied considerably, ranging from 5 (in the City of Whittlesea) to 899 (in the City of Latrobe).

Figure 4: Sources of the submissions across all reviews

Overall, there were significantly more response submissions than preliminary submissions. Only in five reviews was the number of submissions lower at the second stage. People are more likely to react to the concrete proposals in the VEC’s preliminary reports than to write a submission from scratch.

Councils are entitled to contribute to the review process and all but eight councils lodged at least one submission. Most council submissions supported their existing structure, though recognising that boundaries might need to change as a result of population shifts. It is noteworthy that some councils that had opposed a change to multi-councillor wards during the previous review now endorsed this structure. For instance, Wyndham City Council considered that multi-councillor wards worked very well, permitting sharing of workloads and encouraging diversity of representation. Hobsons Bay City Council, which began the review with single-councillor wards, was unusual in proposing a change to “Multimember wards utilising proportional representation”. In stark contrast, the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council was a trenchant advocate for the retention of single-councillor wards, and encouraged community groups and individuals to write to the VEC in support of the status quo.

The figures are affected by the 848 form letters received in the Latrobe City Council review. There the Moe and District Residents Association and Traralgon Community District Association (MADRA-TCDA), stung by a comment from the VEC about a relative lack of submissions at the first stage of the review, was determined to demonstrate public support

27

for the MADRA-TCDA model. In accordance with its normal procedure, the VEC wrote to each submitter to acknowledge their submission. It became evident from phone calls that not every person who signed a form letter was fully aware of the representation review; some callers expressed confusion about the issue, did not recollect signing the form, or requested that their names be removed from the list on the VEC website. Even so, it was a remarkable achievement for MADRA-TCDA to obtain a record number of submissions for a representation review.16

The MADRA-TCDA form letters are an illustration of why the VEC did not rely on a “straw poll” of submissions to determine its recommendation for a review, but instead assessed the arguments and evidence presented in submissions. The fact that several hundred people have signed the same form does not necessarily make the case for a particular electoral structure any more compelling. Submissions that made a reasoned case for an electoral structure, or that provided information about communities of interest, were weighed more heavily than submissions that were simple expressions of opinion.

Nevertheless, the VEC did take some account of apparent public opinion. In the Mornington Peninsula review, for example, the trend of submissions over three stages revealed a public appetite for change that was not present to the same extent in the last review, and this was one of the factors impelling the VEC to recommend a changed electoral structure. In the Melbourne City Council review, on the other hand, the number of submissions was surprisingly small considering that the review had a high profile and was instituted partly in response to a public campaign for a review. The push for change was much weaker than might have been expected.

For the VEC, one of the main benefits of the submissions and public hearings was the information they provided about the municipalities under review, particularly about how residents regarded communities of interest. In the Strathbogie review, for example, information from submissions and the public hearing showed that the Shire was composed of a series of small separate communities, and that people identified primarily with their local community. This information was decisive in prompting the VEC to change from its original preferred option of an unsubdivided municipality. It was a similar story for the Surf Coast Shire review. In 12 of the 28 reviews (43 per cent), the VEC’s final recommendation differed from its initial preferred option, and these changes were very largely the result of the public consultation process.

The legal requirement to provide a preferred option in the preliminary report17 caused some trouble during the reviews. In the Moorabool Shire review, Cr Tom Sullivan’s response submission stated that:

It is unfortunate that the VEC has indicated a “preferred option” as I feel that the process from here on is tainted. You have favoured one option over others. It suggests that this process is a sham with the VEC already having made up its mind in this matter.

In fact the VEC had not made up its mind, and the option it recommended was not its original preferred one. The VEC regards all the options it puts forward in its preliminary reports as capable of providing for fair and equitable representation. To avoid such misconceptions in future reviews, the VEC recommends that the Act be amended to repeal

16 The previous record was 407 submissions for the Hobsons Bay review in 2004. 17 Local Government Act s. 219F(6).

28

the requirement for the VEC to include a preferred option, replacing it with the ability to provide a number of options.

In general, the 2011-2012 representation reviews were more peaceable than the first reviews in 2004-2008. Councils and other participants were more accustomed to the function of the VEC as an independent body conducting the reviews, and even if they disagreed with the VEC they regarded the VEC’s role as legitimate. The occasional accusations of bias were disturbing, as they could place the VEC in a false position: if it persisted with its original preferred option it might appear to be ignoring the public, while if it changed its recommendation it might appear to be caving in to pressure. The strongest challenge to the VEC’s conduct of a review occurred in the Mornington Peninsula review, when the Council’s legal representatives wrote to the Electoral Commissioner contending that the Commissioner’s conduct of the public hearing was biased and that “the reasonable apprehension of bias may taint the validity of anything now decided by the Commission”. In the interests of transparency, the VEC published the correspondence in its Addendum Report and Final Report. The VEC’s response was that:

The VEC is not and should not be immune to criticism, justified or not, and must be robust and tolerant of passion that is often involved with debate on electoral matters. Accordingly, the VEC is not disposed to do anything other than follow the law and the complementary principles it has developed over the past decade regarding issues of fair and equitable representation.

5.3 Feedback surveys The VEC conducted voluntary, anonymous, written surveys of participants in the reviews reviews. In total, 266 surveys were returned. Participants were surveyed at three stages of the process:

• if they attended an information session (45 responses); • if they sent in a submission in response to the Preliminary Report (161

responses); and • if they attended a public hearing (60 responses).

The surveys were designed to provide details about the process rather than the outcomes of the review, and therefore limited the scope of the questions to the review processes, rather than the respondents’ satisfaction as a whole. No feedback was sought from people regarding the Final Reports, as it was believed that people’s assessment of the reports might be distorted by their view of the outcome of the review.

29

Where did survey responses come from?

Table 3 shows the number of survey responses by council.

Council Number of responses Percentage of total

Brimbank 10 4

Cardinia 16 6

Casey 19 7

Frankston 8 3

Hobsons Bay 8 3

Hume 2 1

Latrobe 77 29

Maribyrnong 8 3

Melbourne 20 8

Mitchell 3 1

Monash 3 1

Moreland 5 2

Mornington Peninsula 36 14

South Gippsland 9 3

Strathbogie 9 3

Surf Coast 16 5

Whittlesea 12 4

Wyndham 5 2

TOTAL 266

Table 3: Survey responses by council

The number of survey responses varied enormously, from 2 for Hume to 77 for Latrobe. The response rates reflected local interest in the reviews rather than the size of the municipalities, and so the responses are not mathematically representative. However, when the responses are amalgamated, the responses do provide a meaningful picture of public feelings about the review process.

Sources of information about the reviews

The survey questions about the sources of information for the reviews provide some insight into the effectiveness of the VEC’s communications campaigns. Table 4 shows how respondents found out about the information session and the public hearing.

30

Source of information

Information session Public hearing

Number* Percentage Number Percentage

Newspaper 19 44 20 34

Radio 2 5 0 0

Leaflet 0 0 0 0

Council 15 35 10 17

VEC website 3 7 11 19

Word of mouth 7 16 12 20

Other 0 0 6 10

Total 43 59 * Numbers for the information session add up to more than the total because of multiple responses.

Table 4: Sources of information about the information sessions and the public hearing

Newspapers were a major source of information throughout the reviews. The Council was an important source at the start of the reviews, but less so later, when the reviews were more widely known. The VEC’s website appears to have been more widely used as the reviews progressed. It is noteworthy that no respondents mentioned learning about these events from the VEC’s leaflets, even though leaflets were made available at council centres. Many survey responses complained about lack of publicity for the reviews. The VEC may need to considers delivering leaflets to households in future reviews.

The advertisements, media releases and leaflets were designed to inform people that the review was happening and to encourage them to find out more and participate. In addition, the VEC prepared a Guide for Submissions for each review. The purpose of the Guide was to help people participate effectively in the process by providing full information about the municipality, the principles and considerations underpinning the review, and how to prepare a submission.

A surprisingly large number of submitters did not obtain a copy of the Guide. Of 155 respondents, 58 (37%) did not have the Guide before lodging their preliminary submission. Reasons given for not using the Guide varied, as shown below:

Reason for not obtaining Guide Number

Didn’t know about it 15

Unable to obtain it 6

Not necessary 11

Other 10

Total 42

Table 5: Reasons given for not obtaining the Guide for Submissions

The VEC will need to consider how best to promote use of the Guide.

The VEC’s Preliminary Report for each review set out the options for the municipality’s electoral structure, and the reasons why the VEC was putting forward those options. Any person writing a submission in response to the Preliminary Report would have been well

31

advised to have a copy of the Report. Of 142 survey respondents, 105 (74%) did obtain a copy of the Preliminary Report. As the table below shows, the VEC website was the primary source of the Report, and the Council was also important:

Source of Preliminary Report Number

VEC website 59

VEC 11

Council 22

Other 16

Total 108

Table 6: Sources of Preliminary Report

Feedback on the process and products

As the information session effectively kicked off each review, it was crucial that the session be helpful for potential participants. Respondents were very favourable about the information sessions, with 98% of respondents stating that the time and location of the session was convenient, and all respondents finding the session useful in understanding how to make a submission. Further comments were mostly positive, though one thought that there should be less jargon and a couple wanted more information.

Similarly high levels of satisfaction were recorded with the Guide for Submissions, with 83 of 93 respondents finding the Guide useful in understanding how to write a submission. Again, most comments about the guide were positive. One respondent suggested providing a sample format for a submission, and another wanted the Guide to make if clear how important growth projections would be.

The Preliminary Report was a critical point in each representation review. Overall, the Preliminary Reports were well received, as Table 7 shows:

Criterion Percentage response

Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor

Clarity and layout 35 22 32 7 4

Detail and length 32 22 27 11 6

Use of data and evidence

29 18 22 18 11

Analysis of submissions

25 18 24 19 11

Table 7: Assessment of Preliminary Report

For all criteria, the positive scores (good and very good) heavily outweighed the negative. This was particularly the case for the first two criteria - clarity and layout, and amount of detail and length. The second two criteria relate more to the arguments in the Reports, and responses may have been influenced by the respondents’ views on the options proposed.

32

Generally, the scores were similar to those in the 2004-2008 reviews, except that there were higher “Very good” scores in 2011-12.18

There was a wide variety of further comments on the Preliminary Reports. One suggestion was to put the maps of proposed options against the analysis for each option instead of at the end of the Report. Several respondents deplored the inclusion of a preferred option as it created a perception of bias. Some Latrobe respondents were highly critical of the Report, declaring the Report should have “Added numbers correctly Analysed submissions better Did more homework to develop better models Not foisted (or tried to) the same old onto us”. A number of respondents wanted more information, such as a breakdown of the types of voters by suburb and proposed wards. On the other hand, one respondent pleaded for the VEC to “Write report more clearly in every day language to help simple folks understand the process”.

The public hearing was the last point at which the public was involved in a representation review. Responses to questions about the public hearing were overwhelmingly positive, with 88% of respondents considering the amount of time allocated to each speaker (10 minutes) fair and 90% finding the public hearing helpful.

While some respondents praised the public hearings as well conducted and fair, others thought that the chair’s mind was already made up before their public hearing. Another thought that the chair’s approach was an attempt at Socratic dialogue. One respondent criticised the VEC allowing a person who turned up on the night to speak last at the hearing, as this person was able to make controversial allegations with no chance of a reply. The most common criticism was that the VEC had failed to adhere to the 10 minute speaking limit, which meant that proceedings ran over time. However, other respondents proposed that there be a period for public questions at the end of the hearing. This would change the nature of the public hearing, which is not meant to be an occasion for a debate but for submitters to expand on their submissions and for the VEC panel to question speakers and learn more about their views.

The VEC also asked people to give their views on what, if anything, the VEC could have done to improve the electoral representation process overall. There were 98 responses. The most scathing was that the VEC should “Probably (on the face of it) disband itself and start afresh with less public servants and more accountability”. A consistent theme was that more needed to be done to make the reviews more widely known and the opinions feeding into the reviews more representative. One respondent argued that as all ratepayers would be affected, they should all have been given a say via a referendum. Some respondents thought that the council had an undue influence in their review. One observed that:

Inputs were made by very few people leaving the way open for vocal minorities to press their case. Those who are satisfied with the current arrangement would not have the same urge to contribute as those who want change. A random representative sample of voters should be surveyed to get a truer picture. The last thing that should happen is that pressure groups get their way.

This comment reinforces the VEC’s approach of considering the strength of arguments in submissions rather than the number of submissions supporting a particular model. The VEC

18 Victorian Electoral Commission: Report of local government electoral activity 2008-09, Part III Report of local government electoral representation reviews conducted by the VEC between 2004 and 2008, pp. 62-66.

33

acknowledges the desirability of making reviews more widely known, and will focus on this area during the next round of representation reviews.

Several respondents commented on the technical aspects of the submission process. For example, one respondent thought that “the online submission format seems a bit messy and not particularly user friendly”, and a number of other respondents made similar comments. Another respondent wanted to “make the process more accessible to people with disabilities, especially those with communication impairements”. The VEC will consider how to improve its online submission process.

34

6. Subdivision reviews

6.1 Purpose of subdivision reviews A subdivision review is required where a municipality is not due for an electoral representation review, but where the numbers of voters enrolled for at least one of the wards in the municipality is likely to deviate beyond the legislated 10 per cent tolerance by time of the next general election. Subdivision reviews are effectively small-scale representation reviews. However, unlike representation reviews, they do not consider the number of councillors or the electoral structure of a municipality, but only how to return wards to approximate equality of enrolment.

Division 3 of Part 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides for subdivision reviews, setting out when they are required, how they are to be conducted, and the functions of the VEC and of the Minister for Local Government. The Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010 amended the legislation relating to subdivision reviews, requiring that the reviewer must be the VEC, and specifying the power of the Minister to require the VEC to conduct a subdivision review and to notify the affected council of the review.

6.2 The VEC’s approach In most areas the legislation is not prescriptive, leaving it to the VEC to decide how to conduct subdivision reviews. There are three main fields in which the VEC’s approach was demonstrated: the timing of the reviews, the principles underlying the reviews, and public consultation.

Timing of the reviews

Section 219J of the Act requires the VEC to notify the Minister - no later than two years before a general election - of the councils likely to need a subdivision review. Section 219N(3) requires the VEC to submit a copy of the subdivision review report to the Council and the Minister no later than six months before the election.

Drawing on information about population trends from the Department of Planning and Community Development and the company Forecast.id, the VEC identified the councils that would probably need a subdivision review and notified the Minister in April 2010. In January 2011, the VEC wrote to the new Minister, the Hon Jeanette Powell MP, informing her of the councils whose ward enrolments were unlikely to meet the equal enrolment criteria at the 2012 elections. There were five such councils: Greater Geelong, Knox, Latrobe, Port Phillip and Yarra Ranges.

Although the VEC identified councils likely to undergo subdivision reviews well in advance, it did not begin to conduct the reviews until the start of 2012. Mr Francis Smith, the speaker at the Yarra Ranges public hearing on 15 March 2012, criticised the decision to hold the review six months from a general election. The reason for the apparent delay was to allow time for enrolment trends to become clearer. As in the previous reviews in 2008, not all the councils that had been initially marked for review in fact needed one. All the wards in the City of Greater Geelong turned out to be within the 10 per cent tolerance, while the City of Latrobe was transferred to the councils having a full electoral representation review. Of the three remaining councils, the wards in the City of Port Phillip all turned out to be (narrowly) within the 10 per cent threshold. Thus the VEC was required

35

to redraw ward boundaries for only two municipalities – the City of Knox and Yarra Ranges Shire.

The VEC scheduled some three months to conduct each review, with the final report due on 26 March 2012 – well ahead of the deadline of 27 April. This margin meant that the VEC was able to incorporate an unexpected third stage in the Yarra Ranges Shire review and still produce the final report on time.

Principles underlying the reviews

The key principle, superseding all others, is that of equality of representation. The Act requires that the number of voters represented by each councillor must vary by no more than 10 per cent from the average number of voters for all councillors. The VEC redrew ward boundaries in Knox and Yarra Ranges to satisfy this requirement, transferring voters from wards that were above the 10 per cent threshold to neighbouring wards that were below the average, so that all affected wards were closer to the average. In its calculations, the reviewer can use the number of voters at the time of the review or the predicted number of voters at the entitlement date for the next election. The VEC’s recommended wards were within the 10 per cent tolerance for both times.

The VEC tries to ensure longevity for the ward boundaries – that they stay within the 10 per cent tolerance as long as possible. This is because a deviation before the 2016 election would trigger an early full-scale representation review (which is much more costly to councils) rather than a second subdivision review. For all three subdivision reviews in 2012, the VEC’s projections indicated that all wards would be within the 10 per cent margin at the 2016 elections.

Some submitters cast doubt on the VEC’s projections, querying whether the VEC knew of developments in the area. Obtaining data from the Department of Planning and Community Development and Forecast.id, the VEC is aware of all planned developments in the municipalities under review, and factors them into its projections.

The second major principle underlying the subdivision reviews is that of minimal change, of aiming for ward boundary changes to affect as few voters as possible. Changes to wards can be disruptive and confusing for voters. The purpose of a subdivision review is to restore wards to approximate equality for the coming election and the one after that - not to make further changes, even if they are desirable in themselves. This was why the VEC decided not to adopt a Yarra Ranges submitter’s suggestion to change a boundary outside the area under review. In the Yarra Ranges review, the VEC recommended transferring 1,347 voters (1.24 per cent of the total) to different wards, and in the Knox review the number to be transferred to another ward was only 832 (0.73 per cent of the total).

In the Yarra Ranges review, only Melba Ward was outside the 10 per cent tolerance. The VEC decided to change the boundaries of Billanook Ward as well, even though enrolment for this ward was predicted to be within the legislated margin at the 2012 election. This may appear to contravene the VEC’s minimal change principle. However, enrolment trends showed that Billanook Ward would have deviated beyond the 10 per cent margin by October 2016, which would have triggered an electoral representation review. The VEC therefore altered the boundaries of Billanook Ward to prevent an early representation review.

The VEC also aims to ensure that ward boundaries fit communities of interest, and that the boundaries are clear and readily identified. These factors are important, but they are subordinate to the legal requirement for equality of representation, and to the VEC minimal

36

change principle. So, for example, in the Yarra Ranges review the VEC was obliged to split the community of Mount Evelyn, to ensure that enrolment numbers would not stray beyond the 10 per cent margin.

Public consultation

Section 219N(1) and (2) of the Act provides that “the reviewer may conduct the subdivision review in any manner that the reviewer considers appropriate” and that “The reviewer may engage in community consultation in conducting the subdivision review”. The VEC is not obliged to consult with the public, nor to advertise the subdivision review. However, the VEC believes that people have a right to know about possible changes to their own area, and that information gained through the consultation process strengthens reviews.

For subdivision reviews, the VEC adopted an abbreviated version of the consultation process it used in electoral representation reviews.

• Firstly, the VEC prepared draft boundaries and released them in a Proposed Ward Boundaries Report. The VEC advertised the proposed boundaries in the local newspapers and invited public feedback.

• The public had 28 days to lodge submissions about the review.

• If any submitters asked to speak, a public hearing was held.

• The VEC took account of this feedback and prepared a Subdivision Review Report containing recommended boundaries, which was lodged with the Minister for Local Government and provided to the Council.

As the subdivision reviews concerned a narrower subject than the electoral representation reviews, there was less public interest. The VEC received a total of nine submissions for the two reviews in which it sought public feedback. The submitters can be classified as follows:

Review Council Organisations Private individuals

Total

Knox 1 1 2

Yarra Ranges 1 3 3 7

Total 2 3 4 9

Table 8: Sources of submissions to subdivision reviews

The VEC took account of the evidence revealed in submissions and at the public hearing. In the Yarra Ranges review, the Mount Evelyn Environment Protection and Progress Association (MEEPPA) explained the special characteristics of Mount Evelyn and its strong sense of community, arguing against the splitting of Mount Evelyn entailed in the proposed boundary change to Billanook Ward. The VEC was persuaded that Mount Evelyn was a unique community of interest, and put forward a revised boundary that minimised the impact on the community, reducing the number of electors transferred from 523 to 291 and keeping the Melba Centre and Mount Evelyn Primary School within Billanook Ward.

The Yarra Ranges review illustrates how seriously the VEC treats public consultation. In February 2012, the VEC advertised the proposed boundaries in seven newspapers, but failed to include the Mount Evelyn Mail. To help ensure that all affected voters were aware of the review and to allow them to comment on the revised boundary in Mount Evelyn, the VEC published an Addendum Report on 26 March 2012. Members of the public had until 18 April

37

(15 days after notices about the Addendum Report appeared in local newspapers) to lodge submissions about the revised boundaries.

Submissions by MEEPPA and the Friends of Mount Evelyn Aqueduct claimed that the time allowed for submissions on the Addendum Report did not comply with section 219F(7)(d) of the Act, which requires a 28-day period for submission. A 28-day submission period would put the deadline for submissions after the six-month deadline for a report to the Minister. Accordingly, the organisations requested that the subdivision review be adjourned until after the October 2012 general election.

The 28-day submission period applies to electoral representation reviews, not to subdivision reviews. In fact, there are no legislated periods covering submissions to subdivision reviews. The VEC considers that the process it adopted gave every reasonable chance for public input into the review, and that the boundaries it recommended incorporated that public input as far as possible within the constraints of the legislation.

6.3 Outcomes of the reviews

Port Phillip

In 2010, Port Phillip City Council was included in the list of councils subject to the subdivision review because at that time it appeared that enrolments for Carlisle and Emerald Hill wards would deviate beyond the 10 per cent tolerance by the 2012 election. However, in early 2012 it became clear that the wards would remain within the 10 per cent margin, and that this trend was set to continue until 2016. As there was no need to alter ward boundaries, a public consultation process would have served no purpose. On 20 February 2012, the VEC submitted a report to the Minister recommending that no changes be made to the current ward boundaries.

Knox

At the time of the review, enrolment for Taylor Ward was 13.7 per cent above the average. To bring the wards into balance, on 19 March 2012 the VEC recommended transferring 832 voters from Taylor Ward to Tirhatuan Ward, where enrolment was below average. The area transferred was a small part of Rowville between Wellington Road and a drainage reserve. It was a discrete area with clear boundaries, and the change had no significant effect on communities of interest.

Yarra Ranges

In Yarra Ranges Shire, enrolment for Melba Ward was 11.73 per cent above average, and enrolment for Billanook Ward was predicted to deviate beyond the 10 per cent tolerance by October 2016. The VEC proposed to remedy this by transferring 1,056 electors in Mooroolbark from Melba Ward to Walling Ward, and 523 electors in Mount Evelyn from Billanook Ward to Chandler Ward. Following objections to the splitting of Mount Evelyn, the VEC released an Addendum Report which proposed to transfer a smaller part of Mount Evelyn to Chandler Ward (while retaining the Melba Ward change). This was what the VEC recommended to the Minister on 26 April 2012.

Appendix 1: The VEC’s recommendations Municipality Structure before review Structure after review Option recommended

Brimbank 3 three-councillor wards + 1 two-councillor ward 3 three-councillor wards + 1 two-councillor ward A

Cardinia 1 three-councillor ward + 1 two-councillor ward + 2 single-councillor wards

1 four-councillor ward + 1 three-councillor ward + 1 two-councillor ward C

Casey† 5 two-councillor wards + 1 single-councillor ward 5 two-councillor wards + 1 single-councillor ward B

Central Goldfields† 1 four-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards 1 four-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards A

Frankston† 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards B

Glen Eira† 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

Greater Bendigo 9 single-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards D

Hobsons Bay 7 single-councillor wards 1 three-councillor ward + 2 two-councillor wards B

Hume 1 three-councillor ward + 3 two-councillor wards 2 four-councillor wards + 1 three-councillor ward A

Latrobe 9 single-councillor wards 1 four-councillor ward + 2 two-councillor wards + 1 single-councillor ward

C

Loddon 1 two-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards 5 single-councillor wards B

Macedon Ranges 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

Maribyrnong 7 single-councillor wards 1 three-councillor ward + 2 two-councillor wards B

Melbourne Unsubdivided – 9 councillors (including Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor)

Unsubdivided – 11 councillors (including Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor) A

Mitchell† 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

Monash 3 three-councillor wards + 1 two-councillor ward 3 three-councillor wards + 1 two-councillor ward A

Moorabool† 1 four-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards 1 four-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards C

Moreland† 2 four-councillor wards + 1 three-councillor ward 2 four-councillor wards + 1 three-councillor ward A

Mornington Peninsula 11 single-councillor wards

2 three-councillor wards + 1 two-councillor ward + 3 single-councillor wards B

Mount Alexander 1 three-councillor ward + 4 single-councillor wards 1 three-councillor ward + 4 single-councillor wards A

Pyrenees† 5 single-councillor wards 5 single-councillor wards A

South Gippsland† 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

Stonnington 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

39

Municipality Structure before review Structure after review Option recommended

Strathbogie 1 two-councillor ward + 5 single-councillor wards 2 two-councillor wards + 3 single-councillor wards C

Surf Coast Unsubdivided – 9 councillors 1 four-councillor ward + 2 two-councillor wards + 1 single-councillor ward

B

Whittlesea 3 three-councillor wards 2 four-councillor wards + 1 three-councillor ward A

Wyndham 3 three-councillor wards 2 four-councillor wards + 1 three-councillor ward A

Yarra† 3 three-councillor wards 3 three-councillor wards A

† same structure, but with different boundaries

40

Appendix 2: Ward variations from the average number of voters per councillor

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

City of Brimbank

Grasslands 3 34,971 +0.56% Grasslands 3 34,971 +0.56%

Harvester 3 33,858 -2.64% Harvester 3 33,858 -2.64%

Horseshoe Bend

2 22,857 -1.41% Horseshoe Bend

2 22,857 -1.41%

Taylors 3 35,831 +3.03% Taylors 3 35,831 +3.03%

Total 11 127,517 Total 11 127,517

Average 11,592 Average 11,592

Voter statistics as at 6-May-2011

Cardinia Shire

Bunyip 1 6,437 -16.34% Central 4 23,178 -3.06%

Central 3 27,135 +17.70% Port 2 11,224 -6.11%

Port 1 7,123 -7.31% Ranges 3 19,392 +8.15%

Ranges 2 13,099 -14.77% Total 9 53,794

Total 7 53,794 Average 5,977

Average 7,685

Voter statistics as at 31-Oct-2011

City of Casey

Balla Balla 1 16,590 +10.56% Balla Balla 1 13,405 -10.66%

Edrington 2 29,938 -0.24% Edrington 2 30,095 +0.28%

Four Oaks 2 27,814 -7.32% Four Oaks 2 32,627 +8.72%

Mayfield 2 31,344 +4.44% Mayfield 2 29,383 -2.09%

River Gum 2 28,029 -6.60% River Gum 2 32,079 +6.89%

Springfield 2 31,342 +4.44% Springfield 2 27,468 -8.47%

Total 11 165,057 Total 11 165,057

Average 15,005 Average 15,005

Voter statistics as at 1-Aug-2011

Central Goldfields Shire

Daisy Hill 1 1,575 -0.44% Flynn 1 1,695 +7.70%

Flynn 1 1,643 +3.86% Maryborough 4 6,061 -3.72%

Maryborough 4 6,081 -3.90% Paddys Ranges 1 1,655 +5.16%

Tullaroop 1 1,778 +12.39% Tullaroop 1 1,606 +2.04%

Total 7 11,017 Total 7 11,017

Average 1,573 Average 1,573

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

City of Frankston

East 3 36,301 +13.47% North-East 3 31,976 -0.05%

North-West 3 30,931 -3.32% North-West 3 30,931 -3.32%

South-West 3 28,747 -10.15% South 3 33,072 +3.37%

Total 9 95,979 Total 9 95,979

41

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Average 10,664 Average 10,664

Voter statistics as at 12-May-2011

City of Glen Eira

Camden 3 30,731 -5.52% Camden 3 31,417 -3.41%

Rosstown 3 33,819 +3.97% Rosstown 3 33,133 +1.87%

Tucker 3 33,032 +1.56% Tucker 3 33,032 +1.56%

Total 9 97,582 Total 9 97,582

Average 10,842 Average 10,842

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

City of Greater Bendigo

Eaglehawk 1 9,112 +5.55% Eppalock 3 25,065 -4.09%

Eppalock 1 8,676 +0.50% Lockwood 3 26,401 +1.03

Epsom 1 8,887 +2.94% Whipstick 3 26,933 +3.06

Flora Hill 1 8,129 -5.84% Total 9 78,399

Golden Square 1 8,860 +2.63% Average 8,711

Kangaroo Flat 1 8,825 +2.22%

North West Plains

1 8,623 -0.12%

Sandhurst 1 7,500 -13.12%

Strathfieldsaye 1 9,085 +5.24%

Total 9 78,399

Average 8,711

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

City of Hobsons Bay

Altona 1 9,670 +6.83% Cherry Lake 2 18,018 -0.47%

Altona Meadows

1 8,630 -4.66% Strand 3 25,580 -5.80%

Altona North 1 8,585 -5.16% Wetlands 2 19,765 +9.18%

Seabrook 1 9,292 +2.65% Total 7 63,363

Spotswood 1 8,815 -2.62% Average 9,051

Williamstown 1 9,120 +0.75%

Williamstown North 1 9,251 +2.20%

Total 7 63,363

Average 9,051

Voter statistics as at 1-Aug-2011

City of Hume Airport 2 21,643 -13.16% Aitken 4 36,550 -10.38%

Aitken 3 42,124 +12.67% Jacksons Creek

3 31,933 +4.40%

42

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Jacksons Creek 2 26,527 +6.43% Meadow Valley 4 43,674 +7.09%

Merri 2 21,863 -12.28% Total 11 112,157

Total 9 112,157 Average 11,013

Average 12,462

Voter statistics as at 1-Aug-2011

City of Latrobe

Burnet 1 6,647 +11.16% Central 2 12,136 +1.48%

Dunbar 1 5,835 -2.42% East 4 22,554 -5.71%

Farley 1 6,044 +1.08% South 1 6,329 +5.84%

Firmin 1 5,842 -2.30% West 2 12,798 +7.01%

Galbraith 1 5,657 -5.40% Total 9 53,817

Gunyah 1 5,782 -3.31% Average 5,979

Merton 1 6,088 +1.81%

Rintoull 1 5,997 +0.29%

Tanjil 1 5,925 -0.91%

Total 9 53,817

Average 5,979

Voter statistics as at 31-Jul-2011

Loddon Shire

Boort 1 1,422 -8.32% Boort 1 1,602 +4.43%

Kooyoora 2 3,178 +2.45% Inglewood 1 1,553 +1.24%

Terrick 1 1,528 -1.48% Tarnagulla 1 1,482 -3.39%

Wedderburn 1 1,628 +4.96% Terrick 1 1,524 -0.65%

Total 5 7,756 Wedderburn 1 1,508 -1.69%

Average 1,551 Total 5 7,669

Average 1,533

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

Macedon Ranges Shire

East 3 10,795 -2.38% East 3 9,840 -1.45%

South 3 11,217 +1.43% South 3 9,857 -1.28%

West 3 11,163 +0.95% West 3 10,258 +2.73%

Total 9 33,175 Total 9 33,175

Average 3,686 Average 3,686

Voter statistics as at 6-May-2011

City of Maribyrnong

Bluestone 1 7,050 -6.08% River 2 15,010 -0.02%

Ironbark 1 7,268 -3.17% Stony Creek 2 15,734 +4.81%

River 1 7,388 -1.57% Yarraville 3 21,799 -3.19%

Saltwater 1 8,499 +13.23% Total 7 52,543

Sheoak 1 8,000 +6.58% Average 7,506

43

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Stony Creek 1 6,969 -7.16%

Wattle 1 7,369 -1.83%

Total 7 52,543

Average 7,506

Voter statistics as at 6-May-2011

City of Melbourne (including Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor)

Unsubdivided 9 104,929 Unsubdivided 11 104,929 -0.02%

Total 9 104,929 Total 11 104,929

Average 11,659 Average 9,539

Voter statistics as at 1-Sep-2011

Mitchell Shire

Central 3 9,093 +4.69% Central 3 9,233 +6.30%

North 3 8,320 -4.21% North 3 8,769 +0.96%

South 3 8,644 -0.48% South 3 8,055 -7.26%

Total 9 26,057 Total 9 26,057

Average 2,895 Average 2,895

Voter statistics as at 6-May-2011

City of Monash

Glen Waverley 2 20,856 -5.03% Glen Waverley 2 20,856 -5.03%

Mount Waverley

3 35,264 +7.06% Mount Waverley

3 35,264 +7.06%

Mulgrave 3 30,677 -6.87% Mulgrave 3 30,677 -6.87%

Oakleigh 3 33,982 +3.16% Oakleigh 3 33,982 +3.16%

Total 11 120,779 Total 11 120,779

Average 10,979 Average 10,979

Voter statistics as at 13-May-2011

Moorabool Shire

Bungal 1 3,233 +3.66% Central Moorabool 1 3,138 +2.23%

East Moorabool

4 12,773 +2.38% East Moorabool

4 11,924 -2.89%

West Moorabool

1 2,780 -10.87% West Moorabool

1 3,259 +6.17%

Woodlands 1 3,047 -2.31% Woodlands 1 3,166 +3.14%

Total 7 21,487 Total 7 21,487

Average 3,069 Average 3,069

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

City of Moreland

North-East 4 37,517 -5.99% North-East 4 40,651 +1.86%

North-West 4 38,858 -2.63% North-West 4 40,755 +2.13%

South 3 33,369 +11.49% South 3 28,338 -5.32%

44

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Total 11 109,744 Total 11 109,744

Average 9,976 Average 9,976

Voter statistics as at 6-May-2011

Mornington Peninsula Shire

Balcombe 1 14,675 +11.53% Briars 3 42,741 +8.28%

Cerberus 1 13,597 +3.34% Cerberus 1 12,271 -6.74%

Kangerong 1 13,430 +2.07% Nepean 2 24,750 -5.95%

Mornington 1 14,086 +7.06% Red Hill 1 12,318 -6.38%

Mount Eliza 1 13,467 +2.35% Seawinds 3 39,943 +1.19

Point Nepean 1 12,473 -5.20% Watson 1 12,710 -3.40%

Red Hill 1 12,318 -6.38% Total 11 144,733

Rosebud 1 14,065 +6.90% Average 13,157

Rye 1 12,277 -6.69%

Truemans 1 12,072 -8.25%

Watson 1 12,273 -6.72%

Total 11 144,733

Average 13,157

Voter statistics as at 10-May-2011

Mount Alexander Shire

Calder 1 2,086 -5.22% Calder 1 2,086 -5.22%

Castlemaine 3 6,956 +5.35% Castlemaine 3 6,956 +5.35%

Coliban 1 2,125 -3.45% Coliban 1 2,125 -3.45%

Loddon 1 2,178 -1.04% Loddon River 1 2,178 -1.04%

Tarrengower 1 2,065 -6.18% Tarrengower 1 2,065 -6.18%

Total 7 15,410 Total 7 15,410

Average 2,201 Average 2,201

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

Pyrenees Shire

Avoca 1 1,412 -0.42% Avoca 1 1,442 +1.26%

Beaufort 1 1,480 +4.37% Beaufort 1 1,433 +0.63%

Goldsmith 1 1,410 -0.56% De Cameron 1 1,416 -0.56%

Mitchell 1 1,360 -4.09% Ercildoune 1 1,426 0.14%

Warrenmang 1 1,428 +0.71% Mount Emu 1 1,403 -1.47%

Total 5 7,120 Total 5 7,120

Average 1,424 Average 1,424

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

South Gippsland Shire

Coastal-Promontory

3 8,987 -2.51% Coastal-Promontory

3 9,243 +0.27%

Strzelecki 3 9,373 +1.68% Strzelecki 3 8,595 -1.47%

45

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Tarwin Valley 3 9,294 +0.82% Tarwin Valley 3 9,038 -1.95%

Total 9 27,654 Total 9 27,654

Average 3,072 Average 3,072

Voter statistics as at 9-Aug-2011

City of Stonnington

East 3 26,354 +2.02% East 3 26,354 +2.02%

North 3 26,467 +2.47% North 3 26,467 +2.47%

South 3 24,673 -4.48% South 3 24,673 -4.48%

Total 9 77,494 Total 9 77,494

Average 8,610 Average 8,610

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

Strathbogie Shire

Goulburn Weir 1 1,323 -0.08% Honeysuckle Creek

1 1,357 +2.49%

Honeysuckle Creek

1 1,225 -7.48% Hughes Creek 1 1,268 -4.23%

Hughes Creek 1 1,473 +11.25% Lake Nagambie

2 2,547 -3.81%

Lake Nagambie

1 1,411 +6.57% Mount Wombat

1 1,368 +3.32%

Mount Wombat 1 1,352 -6.19% Seven Creeks 2 2,728 +3.02%

Seven Creeks 2 2,484 -6.19% Total 7 9,268

Total 7 9,268 Average 1,324

Average 1,324

Voter statistics as at 10-May-2011

Surf Coast Shire

Unsubdivided 9 29,535 Anglesea 2 6,908 +5.25%

Total 9 29,535 Lorne 1 3,458 +5.37%

Average 3,281 Torquay 4 12,791 -2.56%

Winchelsea 2 6,378 -2.82%

Total 9 29,535

Average 3,281

Voter statistics as at 9-Aug-2011

City of Whittlesea

East 3 31,813 -13.25% North 3 26,276 -12.42

North 3 42,204 +15.09% South East 4 44,457 +11.13%

West 3 35,994 -1.84% South West 4 39,278 -1.81%

Total 9 110,011 Total 11 110,011

Average 12,223 Average 10,001

Voter statistics as at 1-Aug-2011

46

Municipality Name

Statistics prior to representation review Statistics after review

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

Ward Name

Coun

cillo

rs

Tota

l Vo

ters

Devi

atio

n fr

om t

he

aver

age

City of Wyndham

Chaffey 3 33,668 -3.14% Chaffey 4 39,980 +5.43%

Iramoo 3 29,874 -14.05% Harrison 4 34,424 -9.22%

Truganina 3 40,736 +17.19% Iramoo 3 29,874 +5.04%

Total 9 104,278 Total 11 104,278

Average 11,586 Average 9,479

Voter statistics as at 31-Oct-2011

City of Yarra

Langridge 3 21,222 -2.82% Langridge 3 20,775 -4.86%

Melba 3 23,843 +9.18% Melba 3 22,532 +3.18%

Nicholls 3 20,447 -6.37% Nicholls 3 22,205 +1.69%

Total 9 65,512 Total 9 65,512

Average 7,279 Average 7,279

Voter statistics as at 1-Jan-2011

47

Appendix 3: Population and geographic sizes of Victoria’s municipalities by type

Metropolitan Municipalities

Municipality Area (km2)

Current estimate of

voters+

Number of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Population

(2006 Census)

Maribyrnong* 31 52,543 7 7,506 63,141 Hobsons Bay* 65 63,363 7 9,051 81,459

Yarra* 20 65,512 9 7,279 69,330

Bayside 37 70,390 7 10,056 87,936

Port Phillip 21 76,288 7 10,898 85,096

Stonnington* 26 77,494 9 8,610 89,883

Maroondah 61 78,961 9 8,773 99,200

Moonee Valley 43 82,435 9 9,159 107,090

Manningham 113 86,514 9 9,613 109,915

Greater Dandenong

129 91,524 11 8,320 125,520

Banyule 63 92,351 7 13,193 114,866

Frankston* 129 95,979 9 10,664 117,801

Glen Eira* 39 97,582 9 10,842 124,083

Darebin 53 99,639 9 11,071 128,067

Melbourne* 38 104,929 11 9,539 71,380

Moreland* 51 109,744 11 9,976 135,764

Whitehorse 64 110,717 10 11,072 144,768

Kingston 92 111,117 9 12,346 134,626

Knox 114 112,975 9 12,553 146,740

Monash* 81 120,779 11 10,979 161,241

Boroondara 60 121,988 10 12,199 154,450

Brimbank* 123 127,517 11 11,592 168,215

48

Metropolitan/Rural Fringe Municipalities

Municipality Area (km2)

Current estimate

of +

Number of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Population (2006 Census)

Nillumbik 432 46,197 7 6,600 59,792

Cardinia* 1,282 53,794 9 5,977 57,115

Melton 528 72,067 7 10,295 78,912

Wyndham* 542 104,278 11 9,479 112,695

Yarra Ranges 2,466 108,197 9 12,022 140,217

Whittlesea* 490 110,011 11 10,001 124,647

Hume* 503 112,157 11 11,013 147,781

Mornington Peninsula*

726 144,733 11 13,157 136,482

Casey* 397 165,057 11 15,005 214,960

Regional Municipalities with Urban Areas

Municipality Area (km2)

Current estimate

of t +

Number of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Population (2006 Census)

Ararat 4,208 8,975 7 1,282 11,255 Benalla 2,350 11,291 7 1,613 13,523

Swan Hill 6,114 14,386 7 2,055 20,633

Horsham 4,264 15,150 7 2,164 18,492

Wangaratta 3,646 21,267 7 3,038 26,390

Warrnambool 120 24,451 7 3,493 30,392

Wodonga 434 26,067 7 3,724 33,010

Mildura 22,084 37,217 9 4,135 49,815

Greater Shepparton 2,421 42,193 7 6,028 57,089

Latrobe* 1,425 53,817 9 5,979 69,329

Ballarat 739 69,956 9 7,773 85,196

Greater Bendigo* 2,999 78,399 9 8,711 93,252

Greater Geelong 1,279 167,034 12 13,920 197,479

49

Rural Municipalities

Municipality Area (km2)

Current estimate of

voters+

Number of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Population (2006 Census)

West Wimmera 9,108 3,995 5 799 4,475

Queenscliffe 11 4,241 5 848 3,018

Hindmarsh 7,521 4,993 6 832 6,039

Towong 6,661 5,410 5 1,082 6,019

Buloke 7,998 6,013 7 859 6,853

Yarriambiack 7,324 6,286 7 898 7,520

Pyrenees* 3,433 7,120 5 1,424 6,558

Loddon* 6,695 7,669 5 1,533 7,836

Gannawarra 3,735 8,779 7 1,254 11,296

Strathbogie* 3,302 9,268 7 1,324 9,295

Mansfield 3,841 9,866 5 1,973 7,191

Northern Grampians

5,728 10,760 7 1,537 11,912

Central Goldfields*

1,533 11,017 7 1,573 12,323

Alpine 4,790 11,234 7 1,605 12,001

Indigo 2,042 12,359 7 1,766 14,798

Southern Grampians

6,653 13,202 7 1,886 16,638

Corangamite 4,403 13,245 7 1,892 16,616

Murrindindi 3,880 13,615 7 1,945 13,672

Moyne 5,479 13,775 7 1,968 15,453

Hepburn 1,472 14,115 7 2,016 13,732

Swan Hill 6,114 14,335 7 2,048 20,633

Mount Alexander*

1,529 15,410 7 2,201 17,066

Golden Plains 2,702 15,625 7 2,232 16,450

Glenelg 6,213 16,459 7 2,351 19,759

Colac Otway 3,434 19,296 7 2,757 20,295

Moorabool* 2,110 21,487 7 3,069 25,474

Moira 4,044 22,805 9 2,534 27,087

Mitchell* 2,861 26,057 9 2,895 30,928

South Gippsland* 3,309 27,654 9 3,072 25,737

Campaspe 4,518 28,341 9 3,149 36,209

Surf Coast* 1,552 29,535 9 3,281 21,771

Macedon Ranges* 1,747 33,175 9 3,686 38,360

Baw Baw 4,026 33,514 9 3,724 37,179

50

Rural Municipalities

Municipality Area (km2)

Current estimate of

voters+

Number of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Population (2006 Census)

East Gippsland 20,930 38,647 9 4,294 40,037

Bass Coast 865 39,586 7 5,655 26,548

Wellington 11,002 42,295 9 4,699 40,080

* reviewed 2011-2012 + Voter estimate calculated after the merge of State electors within the municipality and the most recently provided list of non-resident municipal voters

51

Appendix 4: Number of participants in electoral representation reviews

Municipality

Preliminary submissions

Response submissions

Submissions submitted by Form letters

council councillors community

groups/businesses private

individuals Brimbank 10 5 - - 6 9 - Cardinia 13 18 2 3 9 17 -

Casey 5 36 1 4 3 33 -

Central Goldfields 7 3 2 3 3 2 -

Frankston 2 20 1 3 5 13 -

Glen Eira 4 7 - 2 3 6 -

Greater Bendigo 9 11 2 1 2 15 -

Hobsons Bay 8 11 2 - 7 10 -

Hume 5 10 2 2 4 7 -

Latrobe 12 887 - 5 10 884 848

Loddon 7 8 2 2 3 8 -

Macedon Ranges 7 3 2 2 3 3 -

Maribyrnong 4 23 1 2 10 14 -

Melbourne 21 28 - 3 24 22 -

Mitchell 4 4 2 1 2 3

Monash 6 7 2 - 2 9 -

Moorabool 6 10 2 2 2 10 -

Moreland 3 11 - 1 3 10 -

Mornington Peninsula 42 204* 3 13 47 183 -

Mount Alexander 4 5 2 - 3 4 -

Pyrenees 3 3 2 - 2 2 -

South Gippsland 6 4 1 - 3 6 -

Stonnington 10 17 - - 4 23 -

52

Municipality

Preliminary submissions

Response submissions

Submissions submitted by Form letters

council councillors community

groups/businesses private

individuals Strathbogie 17 14 2 4 3 22 -

Surf Coast 14 22 - 1 8 27 -

Whittlesea 1 4 - 1 4 - -

Wyndham 3 8 2 - 4 5 -

Yarra 6 6 1 - 4 7 -

Total 239 1,389 36 55 183 1,354 848 Proportion of total submissions: 14.7% 85.3% 2.2% 3.4% 11.2% 83.2% 52.1%

* Includes addendum submissions

53

Appendix 5: Electoral representation review and subdivision review timetable

Municipality Notice of review Public information

session

Close of preliminary submissions

Release of preliminary

report

Close of response

submissions Public hearing

Release of final report

Glen Eira 26 January 2011 14 February 2011 1 March 2011 22 March 2011 20 April 2011 2 May 2011 17 May 2011

Stonnington 26 January 2011 16 February 2011 1 March 2011 22 March 2011 20 April 2011 28 April 2011 17 May 2011

Yarra 31 January 2011 17 February 2011 2 March 2011 21 March 2011 20 April 2011 27 April 2011 18 May 2011

Greater Bendigo 2 February 2011 22 February 2011 8 March 2011 30 March 2011 29 April 2011 3 May 2011 24 May 2011

Loddon 9 February 2011 21 February 2011 9 March 2011 30 March 2011 29 April 2011 4 May 2011 25 May 2011

Mount Alexander 4 February 2011 23 February 2011 8 March 2011 29 March 2011 29 April 2011 5 May 2011 24 May 2011

Central Goldfields 11 February2011 28 February 2011 14 March 2011 7 April 2011 6 May 2011 9 May 2011 31 May 2011

Moorabool 15 February 2011 1, 3 March 2011 15 March 2011 5 April 2011 3 May 2011 12 May 2011 31 May 2011

Pyrenees 11 February2011 2 March 2011 15 March 2011 5 April 2011 6 May 2011 11 May 2011 31 May 2011

Macedon Ranges 5 July 2011 20 July 2011 2 August 2011 23 August 2011 20 Sept 2011 26 Sept 2011 19 October 2011

Mitchell 5 July 2011 19 July 2011 5 August 2011 23 August 2011 23 Sept 2011 27 Sept 2011 19 October 2011

Strathbogie 5 July 2011 18 July 2011 5 August 2011 23 August 2011 23 Sept 2011 28 Sept 2011 19 October 2011

Brimbank 12 July 2011 25 July 2011 9 August 2011 30 August 2011 27 Sept 2011 3 October 2011 26 October 2011

Maribyrnong 12 July 2011 27 July 2011 10 August 2011 30 August 2011 28 Sept 2011 5 October 2011 26 October 2011

Moreland 11 July 2011 26 July 2011 8 August 2011 29 August 2011 26 Sept 2011 6 October 2011 26 October 2011

Frankston 18 July 2011 2 August 2011 15 August 2011 5 Sept 2011 3 October 2011 11 October 2011 3 November 2011

Monash 18 July 2011 1 August 2011 16 August 2011 5 Sept 2011 4 October 2011 10 October 2011 3 November 2011

Mornington Peninsula* 18 July 2011 3 August 2011 17 August 2011 5 Sept 2011 5 October 2011 12 October 2011 11 January 2012

Melbourne 24 October 2011 7, 9, 10 Nov 2011 24 Nov 2011 23 January 2012 23 February 2012 29 February 2012 21 March 2012

Latrobe 31 October 2011 15 November 2011 28 Nov 2011 30 January 2012 27 February 2012 6 March 2012 28 March 2012

Cardinia 1 November 2011 17 November 2011 30 Nov 2011 31 January 2012 29 February 2012 8 March 2012 28 March 2012

Casey 3 November 2011 14 November 2011 1 December 2011 2 February 2012 1 March 2012 5 March 2012 28 March 2012

Surf Coast 8 November 2011 21 November 2011 8 December 2011 7 February 2012 8 March 2012 13 March 2012 4 April 2012

54

Municipality Notice of review Public information

session

Close of preliminary submissions

Release of preliminary

report

Close of response

submissions Public hearing

Release of final report

Whittlesea 8 November 2011 24 November 2011 6 December 2012 7 February 2012 6 March 2012 15 March 2012 4 April 2012

Wyndham 8 November 2011 22 November 2011 7 December 2011 7 February 2012 7 March 2012 14 March 2012 4 April 2012

Hobsons Bay 15 Nov 2011 1 December 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 February 2012 14 March 2012 22 March 2012 11 April 2012

Hume 15 Nov 2011 30 November 2011 13 Dec 2011 14 February 2012 13 March 2012 21 March 2012 11 April 2012

South Gippsland 15 Nov 2011 28 November 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 February 2012 14 March 2012 19 March 2012 11 April 2012

* In the Mornington Peninsula review, an Addendum report was released on 3 November 2011. The closing date for submissions in response to the Addendum report was 7 December 2011.

Subdivision reviews

Municipality

Release of proposed ward boundaries

report

Close of submissions

Public hearing Release of addendum report

Close of response submissions

Release of subdivision review report

Knox 30 January 2012 29 February 2012 19 March 2012

Port Phillip 20 February 2012

Yarra Ranges 6 February 2012 7 March 2012 15 March 2012 26 March 2012 18 April 2012 26 April 2012

55

Appendix 6: Amounts charged to councils for conducting electoral representation reviews and subdivision reviews

Electoral representation reviews

Council Amount ($)

Brimbank 36,831

Cardinia 30,803

Casey 30,351

Central Goldfields 28,239

Frankston 27,101

Glen Eira 32,578

Greater Bendigo 39,609

Hobsons Bay 34,853

Hume 36,317

Latrobe 30,909

Loddon 29,004

Macedon Ranges 30,948

Maribyrnong 39,622

Melbourne 90,666

Mitchell 32,130

Monash 30,069

Moorabool 26,832

Moreland 27,697

Mornington Peninsula 51,187

Mount Alexander 28,995

Pyrenees 30,212

South Gippsland 31,934

Stonnington 37,623

Strathbogie 33,769

Surf Coast 31,580

Whittlesea 27,830

Wyndham 32,252

Yarra 34,702

Total 974, 640

Average 34,809

56

Subdivision reviews

Council Amount ($)

Knox 4,989

Port Phillip 2,871

Yarra Ranges 11,043

Total 18,903

Average 6,301

57

58