The Case Against Wards

The following is the case, as prepared by Council, against the division of Palerang into wards.

• Councillors should be responsible for the interests of the LGA as a whole, as well as interests of their local area.
• Electing councillors from the whole of the shire, rather than just one area encourages their involvement in all local issues and those impacting on the whole of the LGA.
• An undivided Council enables more strategic, whole-of-LGA planning, essential to ensure coordinated services and facilities for all residents.
• Wards could be divisive for Palerang, when much time has been spent working to unify “the east” and “the west” after amalgamation.
• Constituents may feel they can only deal with their specific ward councillors, resulting in conflicts or pressure on those ward elected representatives.
• Ward boundaries may need adjustment frequently to ensure the prescribed 10% population variation is not exceeded. In areas with faster population growth, frequent boundary changes could lead to confusion.
• Rates revenue goes into a pool to provide facilities and services for the whole LGA whereas wards may encourage parochialism.
• Voters have a greater choice of quality candidates in an undivided council.
• It is more likely that councillors who are elected from the whole LGA will be involved in and informed about all local issues and those affecting all the LGA.

Original document >

The following are the cases against the establishment or retention of a ward system, prepared by the three councils that held referenda on the subject at the 2008 LGA elections.

Case presented by Cabonne Council

In an all-of-area system:

• All Councillors represent all rate payers
• Councillors may have a more strategic approach
• Councillors may think more broadly about issues
• Councillors will be less likely to be accused of bias to a particular area
• There would be no ward boundary confusion issues i.e. where the boundary should be or when the boundary needs to be moved to ensure an equality of voters in each ward
• Ward boundaries are becoming distorted and failing to reflect communities of interest
• No confusion in relation to Ward Boundaries or Ward Boundary changes

Original document >

Case presented by Sydney City Council

1. Electing Councillors from the whole of the City area helps ensure they are involved in all local issues and all issues which affect the whole city area.
2. An undivided Council enables whole of City planning. This is essential to ensure strong links and connections, effective traffic management and coordinated services and facilities for the whole City and its diverse villages.
3. Expectations of local neighbourhood representation will be difficult to meet under a ward system because the three wards will each cover a large area, and will be much larger than the wards of previous councils.
4. Mechanisms other than ward representation can ensure local community interests are heard.
5. Councillors elected from the whole of the City area approach local issues in a fair, equitable and balanced way, free of conflicts which may face Councillors elected from wards.
6. Voters have a greater choice of candidates and councillors to represent them in an undivided council. With wards, voters can only choose from their ward candidates and may feel obliged to deal only with their specific ward councillors.
7. In an undivided Council everyone has an equal vote, regardless of where they live. This is not guaranteed in a ward system, as the number of voters in each ward may become unequal over time.

Original document >

Case presented by Weddin Council

1. Advantages of open voting (no wards):
1. Every elector gets to vote on every candidate, which is more democratic.
2. Every councillor would be required to take an interest in the whole shire, not just a section of it.
3. Decisions should be made for the overall good of the shire rather than the good of a ward.
4. Because the town and rural populations are approximately equal, the town vote should not dominate the rural vote as has happened in other shires.
5. The total number of councillors may be subsequently decreased without the need for another referendum, (with the Minister’s consent).
2. Disadvantages of the ward system:
1. An elector only gets to vote for two of the ten councillors.
2. Voting may be influenced by ward factors, rather than what is best for the shire as a whole.
3. The boundaries will have to be continually adjusted (at considerable cost) so that their populations remain within the prescribed 10% variation.
4. The 2008 wards will not give the same level of representation as the previous wards did.
5. Both Quandialla and Caragabal are now included in the same ward, and it is possible that only one area will be represented.
6. The three “town” wards each contain large areas of rural land, so these councillors will have to represent both urban and rural areas.
7. Funding allocations for road works etc on a ward basis are no longer permissible, and works programmes are now determined on a merit basis. In essence, wards have become irrelevant to Council’s business.
8. The number of councillors must remain at ten unless there is another referendum to decrease the number of wards (to, say, 4).

Original document >