ELECTOR REPRESENTATION REVIEW - yorke.sa.gov.au

ELECTOR REPRESENTATION REVIEW

REPRESENTATION REVIEW REPORT (SECTION 12(8a) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1999)

Disclaimer

The information, opinions and estimates presented herein or otherwise in relation hereto are made by C L Rowe and

Associates Pty Ltd in their best judgement, in good faith and as far as possible based on data or sources which are believed to be reliable. With the exception of the party to whom this document is specifically addressed, C L Rowe and Associates Pty

Ltd, its directors, employees and agents expressly disclaim any liability and responsibility to any person whether a reader of

this document or not in respect of anything and of the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance whether wholly or partially upon the whole or any part of the contents of this document.

Copyright

No part of this document may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the Yorke Peninsula Council or C L Rowe and Associates Pty Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2 3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................... 4 4. PROPOSAL .......................................................................................................................................... 6 5. PROPOSAL RATIONALE .................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Principal Member .................................................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Wards/No Wards ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.3 Area Councillors (in addition to Ward Councillors) .................................................................................. 8 5.4 Ward Names ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 5.5 Number of Councillors .......................................................................................................................................... 9

6. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Quota ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Communities of Interest and Population ..................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Topography ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 6.4 Feasibility of Communication ........................................................................................................................... 13 6.5 Demographic Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 13 6.6 Adequate and Fair Representation ............................................................................................................... 15 6.7 Section 26, Local Government Action 1999 ................................................................................................ 15

7. CURRENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION .............................................................................................. 17

Page | 1

REPRES ENTATI ON REVIEW REP OR T

1. INTRODUCTION

Section 12(4) of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act) requires each Council to undertake a review of all aspects of its composition and the division (or potential division) of the council area into wards, with the view to determining whether the local community would benefit from an alteration to the current composition and/or structure of Council.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government has specified that Council is required to undertake and complete a review during the period October 2020 – October 2021.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 12(8a) of the Act. It:

• provides information on the initial public consultation undertaken by Council;

• sets out the proposal that Council believes should be carried into effect; and

• presents an analysis of how Council’s proposal relates to the relevant provisions and principles of the Act.

The key issues that need to be addressed during the review include:

• the principal member of Council, more specifically whether it should be a Mayor elected by the community or a Chairperson chosen by (and from amongst) the elected members;

• the need for area councillors in addition to ward councillors (if a ward structure is to be retained);

• the division of the council area into wards, or alternatively the abolition of wards;

• the number of elected members required to provide fair and adequate representation to the community; and

• if applicable, the level of ward representation and the name of any proposed future wards (if required).

2. BACKGROUND

The Yorke Peninsula Council covers approximately 5,834km² and had an estimated resident population of 11,324 as at the 30th June 2019. In March 2021 there were 8,782 eligible electors within

Page | 2


the council area, this equating to an elector ratio (i.e. the average number of electors represented by a councillor) of 1:798.

The council area is currently divided into three wards (refer Map 1, page 3), with the Kalkabury and Innes/Penton Vale wards each being represented by four ward councillors; and the Gum Flat ward being represented by three ward councillors (i.e. a total of eleven councillors). The Mayor is the twelfth and principal member of Council. The current structure, which was adopted by Council at the previous elector representation review in 2012/2013, came into effect at the periodic Local Government elections in November 2014.

Table 1 provides data pertaining to the number of electors within each of the current wards, and demonstrates the variance between the elector ratios in the wards.

Table 1: Current ward structure - elector numbers and elector ratios

Ward Crs H of A Roll

Council Roll

Electors Elector Ratio

% Variance

Kalkabury 4 3,138 12 3,150 1:788 - 1.26 Gum Flat 3 2,482 33 2,515 1:838 +5.11

Innes/Penton Vale 4 3,083 25 3,108 1:777 - 2.58

Total 11 8,703 70 8,773 Average 1:798

Source: Electoral Commission SA (March 2021)

Council commenced its current elector representation review in August 2020; and completed the prescribed initial six (6) week public consultation stage of the review process on Friday 12th February 2021. Three (3) submissions were received by Council.

At its meeting on the 14th April 2021, Council considered all matters relevant to the review, including the public submissions; made some "in principle" agreements in respect to its future composition and structure; and resolved to initiate the second of the prescribed public consultation stages (including the preparation of this Representation Review Report).

Map 1: Current ward structure

Page | 3


Page | 4


3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The initial public consultation relating to the elector representation review was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Sections 12(7) and 12(8) of the Act.

Public consultation commenced on Tuesday 15th December 2020 with the publishing of a public notice in the "Yorke Peninsula Country Times” newspaper. A subsequent notice was published in the Government Gazette on Thursday 17th December 2020; and notices were sent via Facebook on the 14th December and 26th December 2020, as well as on the 30th January 2021. A notice was also posted on the Council website with a link to the Representation Options Paper and the response form.

In addition, a copy of the Representation Options Paper was made available for viewing and/or purchase at all council offices.

At the expiration of the public consultation period (i.e. close of business on Friday 12th February 2021) Council had received three (3) submissions, a summary of which is provided hereinafter. For privacy sake the details of the respondents have been withheld.

Respondent

Preferences and comments

Respondent 1 (email)

• Option 5 (Three wards, three councillors per ward) • Ward councillors should reside in the ward that they

represent. • Councillors should look at the “big picture”

Respondent 2 (website)

• Mayor • Wards • Ten (10) councillors • Option 3 (Three wards, two wards with three councillors per

ward; one ward with four councillors) • Retain existing ward names

Respondent 3 (response form)

• Chairperson • Wards • Nine (9) councillors • Option 5 (Three wards, three councillors per ward) • Retain existing ward names • Cost saving while retaining representation

Page | 5


The receipt of only three submissions is considered to be a poor but not unexpected response, given that at the same stage of the previous elector representation reviews Council received two submissions (2019) and no submissions (2013). Notwithstanding this, the submissions received provided some insight in respect to several specific issues being addressed during the representation review.

It should be noted that, at this stage of the review process, it is not a requirement that the individuals who made written submissions be afforded the opportunity to address the Council.

Page | 6


4. PROPOSAL

Having duly considered all relevant provisions of the Act; the information and alternatives contained within the Representation Options Paper; the submissions received during the initial public consultation; and the potential ramifications of the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020 (the Bill), Council proposes the following in respect to its future composition and structure.

• The principal member of Council continue to be a Mayor elected by the community.

• The current three ward structure be retained (refer Map 1, page 3).

• The existing ward names of Kalkabury, Gum Flat and Innes/Penton Vale be retained.

• Council continue to comprise the Mayor and eleven (11) ward councillors.

• The Kalkabury Ward and the Innes/Penton Vale Ward each be represented by four (4) councillors; and the Gum Flat Ward be represented by three (3) councillors.

It should be noted that, in reaching the decision to retain its current composition and ward structure, Council was mindful of the fact that the Bill, which is currently before state parliament, seeks (in part) to cap the number of elected members in a council at twelve (12). If this proposed legislative amendment is passed, the proposed composition and structure (as outlined herein) will make the Yorke Peninsula Council one of the largest councils (in terms of elected members) in the state.

As the fate of the Bill is unknown, Council can only conduct its current review in accordance with the relevant provisions and requirements of the existing Act at this time.

The reasons for Council's decision are provided hereinafter under key issue headings. Analysis of further relevant provisions and requirements of the Act also follow.

Page | 7


5. PROPOSAL RATIONALE

5.1 Principal Member

The principal member of Yorke Peninsula Council has always been a Mayor who is elected by the community.

Council believes that:

• a Mayor elected by the community is in accord with a fundamental principle of democracy – choice;

• the election of a Mayor affords all eligible members of the community the opportunity to express faith in a candidate, should they choose to do so, and provides Council with an identifiable principal member who is directly accountable to the community;

• the office of Mayor has served the Yorke Peninsula Council well over the years;

• little practical benefit will likely be achieved by changing to a Chairperson at this time;

• the retention of an elected Mayor as the principal member is consistent with the structure of the majority of councils within the state, and brings stability and continuity to the Council, given the four year term of office; and

• there was little support expressed by the local community for changing the principal member of Council to a Chairperson.

Whilst there was one submission that favoured a change to a Chairperson, Council considers that, on balance, such a change would provide only a few benefits, including a likely reduction in the number of elected members (with associated cost savings); flexibility in the tenure of the principal member; the opportunity for a number of elected members to gain experience as the principal member during the four year term of the Council (and to bring their particular skill set and opinions to the position); and avoidance of the potential loss of high calibre candidates through the mayoral election process. On the downside, a Chairperson is chosen by the elected members, thereby depriving all of the electors the opportunity to vote for the principal member of Council.

Further, Council is mindful of the potential ramifications of the Bill which is presently being considered by state parliament, the provisions of which seek to abolish the office of Chairperson.

As previously stated, Council can only conduct its current review in accordance with the relevant provisions and requirements of the existing Act at this time. This being the case, should it have been Councils’ desire to change to a Chairperson, a poll of the community would have had to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 12 (11a-d) of the Act; and the result thereof would have had to clearly support the proposed change.

Page | 8


Such a poll would have to be conducted by the Electoral Commission SA at a cost to Council. This course of action is considered to be superfluous, given the intent and likely ramifications of the Bill.

Having duly considered all relevant matters, Council believes that the principal member should continue to be a Mayor elected by the community.

5.2 Wards/No Wards

The Yorke Peninsula Council has always been divided into wards.

Council believes that wards provide for direct representation of all areas and communities within the council area; ensure local interests and/or issues are not overlooked in favour of the bigger “council-wide” picture; and provide recognizable lines of communication with Council through the ward councillors. It is also considered that ward councillors should have some empathy for, and an affiliation with, all of the communities within their ward.

Further, the proposed/existing ward structure is known to the local community, and it exhibits ward elector ratios which lay well within the specified quota tolerance limits. The latter indicates that the current/proposed ward structure should be capable of sustaining reasonable fluctuations in elector numbers in future years.

Council is of the opinion that the aforementioned present sound reasons for supporting the retention of the current ward structure.

Whilst the “no wards” alternative affords electors the opportunity to vote for all of the vacant positions on Council; allows for the most supported candidates from across the council area to be elected; and enables the elected members to be free of parochial ward attitudes, Council is concerned that the “no wards” alternative:

• does not guarantee direct representation of all communities across the council area;

• may make it easier for single interest candidates and/or groups to gain support (than does the existing ward based system);

• has the potential to make the task and expense of contesting council-wide elections difficult and excessive; and

• has the potential to increase the cost of conducting elections and supplementary elections, given that all contested elections must be conducted on a council-wide basis.

5.3 Area Councillors (in addition to ward councillors)

Council is aware that area councillors (in addition to ward councillors) are unique to the City of Adelaide; and considers that this form of elected member/representation affords few advantages.

Page | 9


Under a ward structure area councillors hold no greater status than a ward councillor; have no greater responsibilities than a ward councillor; nor need comply with any extraordinary or additional eligibility requirements. In addition, ward councillors generally consider themselves to represent not only the ward in which they were elected, but the council area as a whole.

Further, the introduction of area councillors (in addition to the existing number of ward councillors) would be a difficult proposition to support, given the likely additional cost to the community and the provisions of the Act which speak against over-representation.

It is also noted that there was no support expressed by the community (during the initial public consultation) for the introduction of area councillors in addition to ward councillors.

For the reasons espoused herein it is considered that the introduction of area councillors (in addition to ward councillors) is unwarranted; unnecessary; and could potentially be a costly additional tier of representation.

5.4 Ward Names

The existing ward names, which have been in existence for many years, are considered to be appropriate and acceptable, and it is likely that they are recognised and accepted by the local community.

Further, it is noted that both of the submissions received during the pubic consultation which provided feedback specifically on the issue of ward names favoured the retention of the existing ward names.

Given the above, Council considers the current ward names may be the most appropriate and acceptable means of ward identification.

5.5 Number of Councillors

Council is aware that the provisions of Sections 26 and 33 of the Act stipulate the need for adequate and fair representation, while at the same time avoiding over-representation in comparison to other councils of a similar size and type (at least in the longer term).

Table 2 presents, for comparison purposes only, information pertaining to the composition, size and elector ratio of a number of councils which are considered to be similar in size (i.e. elector numbers) and type (i.e. regional councils) to the Yorke Peninsula Council. This data indicates that Council currently comprises the equal highest number of elected members of the cited councils; and exhibits a low elector ratio as a consequence of the relatively low number of eligible electors within the council area.

Page | 10


Table 2: Elector data and representation (Regional councils with similar elector numbers)

Council Councillors Electors Elector Ratio

Wattle Range (3,923.5 km²) 11 8,512 1: 774 Yorke Peninsula (5,834 km²) 11 8,773 1: 798 Loxton Waikerie (7,957 km²) 10 8,226 1: 823 Berri Barmera (508 km²) 8 7,283 1: 910 Light (1,278km²) 10 10,519 1:1,052 Port Augusta (1,153.1 km²) 9 9,479 1:1,053 Port Lincoln (30.4 km²) 9 10,716 1:1,191

Source: Electoral Commission SA (March 2021)

When determining the appropriate level of representation for the council area, Council took into account the fact that:

• the council area is significant in size (i.e. 5,834km² which is the eighth largest council area in the state);

• the council area incorporates twelve (12) larger towns and thirty-three (33) smaller townships/settlements (including thirty-three community progress or similar residents associations), with all of the residents/members therein likely to expect a suitable level and standard of representation;

• the estimated population of the council area is generally around 11,300 people, except during holiday periods when the number of residents can increase considerably as a consequence of the short-term occupation of an estimated 6,000 or more holiday homes which are located across the council area;

• population projections prepared by the then Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure in 2020 indicate that the population of the council area is anticipated to increase by 587 (5.2%) during the period 2016 – 2036; and

• two (2) of the submissions received during the initial public consultation stage of the review supported a reduction in the number of councillors to nine (9), whilst one submission favoured a reduction to ten (10) councillors.

In addition, Council has been mindful that:

• sufficient elected members must be available to manage the affairs of Council;

• the elected member’s workloads should not become excessive;

• there is an appropriate level of elector representation;

Page | 11


• the potential for diversity in member's skill sets, experience, expertise, opinions and backgrounds should be maintained to ensure robust discussion amongst the elected members;

• adequate lines of communication must exist between the community and Council; and

• allowances should be made for any anticipated future fluctuations in population (elector numbers).

Further, whilst Council is aware that a reduction in the number of councillors would obviously result in some financial benefit to Council and the community, it desires to maintain the level and quality of representation that has long been experienced and expected by the local community.

Given all of the aforementioned, Council believes that, in order to provide fair and adequate elector representation across the whole of the council area, a total of eleven councillors is considered to be both necessary and appropriate at this time.

Page | 12


6. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

The provisions of Sections 26(1)(c) and 33(1) of the Act require Council take into account, as far as practicable, the following when developing a proposal that relates to its composition and structure.

6.1 Quota

Section 33(2) of the Act indicates that a proposal which relates to the formation or alteration of wards of a council must also observe the principle that the number of electors represented by a councillor must not, as at the relevant date (assuming that the proposal were in operation), vary from the ward quota by more than 10%.

According to Section 33(2a)(b) of the Act, ward quota is determined to be: “the number of electors for the area (as at the relevant date) divided by the number of councillors for the area who represent wards (assuming that the proposal were in operation and ignoring any fractions resulting from the division).”

The data presented in Table 1 (Current ward structure – elector numbers and elector ratios, page 2) indicates that the existing/proposed wards exhibit elector ratios which lay well within the specified quota tolerance limits and, as such, should be capable of sustaining reasonable future fluctuations in elector numbers.

6.2 Communities of Interest and Population

The Act speaks of the desirability of reflecting communities of interest of an economic, social, regional or other kind.

“Communities of interest” have previously been defined “as aspects of the physical, economic and social systems which are central to the interactions of communities in their living environment”, and are generally identified by considering factors relevant thereto, including neighbourhood communities; history and heritage communities; sporting facilities; community support services; recreation and leisure communities; retail and shopping centres; work communities; industrial and economic development clusters; and environmental and geographic interests.

The obvious existing communities of interest within the council area include (but are not limited to) the main townships of Ardrossan, Edithburgh, Maitland, Minlaton, Port Vincent, Stansbury, Warooka and Yorketown; the many smaller towns and settlements; and the large but relatively sparsely populated rural areas.

Unfortunately, the size of the council area and the distribution of electors throughout the council area (i.e. the concentration of population/elector numbers in and about the townships and settlements; and the relatively sparsely populated but expansive rural area) makes it somewhat difficult to divide the council area into wards on a rational and/or equitable basis without dividing some existing communities.

Page | 13


Council believes that the retention of the existing ward structure, as proposed, minimizes the division of existing perceived “communities of interest”, with any existing divisions of districts/communities being minor in nature and likely to have been accepted by the local community over the past six or more years since the current ward structure came into effect (November 2014).

6.3 Topography

The Yorke Peninsula Council is 5,384km² in area; is approximately 175 kilometres long (north – south) and approximately 30 kilometres wide (east – west); primarily exhibits gently undulating terrain; is bordered by sea on three sides (approximately 485 kilometres of coastline); and primarily has a rural based economy (grain and grazing).

Council believes that the size and topography of the council area have little impact upon the elected members’ ability to attend to the requirements and/or demands of the community. In addition, it is considered that the topography of the council area should not affect Council’s existing/proposed ward structure, given the fact that the proposed ward boundaries generally align with long defined Hundred and/or district boundaries, and do not conflict with any significant topographical features.

6.4 Feasibility of Communication

Council believes that the proposed level of representation (i.e. the Mayor and eleven ward councillors) will continue to provide adequate lines of communication between the elected members of Council and the community, as it has done since the Local Government elections in 2003. In addition, the ability to communicate between the elected members of Council and the community continues to improve as a consequence of the on-going developments in the fields of communication and information technology.

In brief, it is Council’s opinion that the retention of the existing ward structure and levels of ward representation, as proposed, will maintain a tried and tested communication network between the community and the elected members of Council.

6.5 Demographic Trends

Council believes that there may be a small increase in elector numbers throughout the council area in the foreseeable future.

During the process of identifying its preferred future composition and structure, Council took into account the following information.

Page | 14


6.5.1 Elector Numbers

According to data provided by the Electoral Commission SA, the total number of electors eligible to vote within the council area decreased by 698 (i.e. 9,480 to 8,782) or -7.36% over the period September 2013 – March 2021. The decrease occurred across all three wards; albeit at varying rates (refer Table 3).

It is considered that the decrease in elector numbers over the years can be attributed, in the main, to the significant decline in the number of enrolments on Council's Supplementary Voters Roll. Since September 2013 enrolments on this roll have decreased by 497 or -87.5% (i.e. from 568 down to 71).

Table 3: Eligible electors (September 2013 - July 2020)

Ward Electors September 2013

Electors March 2021

Variation % Variance

Kalkabury 3,257 3,150 -107 -3.29 Gum Flat 2,736 2,482 -254 -9.28

Innes/Penton Vale 3,487 3,083 -404 -11.59

Total 9,480 8,773 -765 -7.46

6.5.2 Residential Development

The following development opportunities (land division projects) were identified in the previous elector representation review (2012/2013) as having the potential to generate increased population (elector numbers) in the council area. These residential development opportunities have progressed slowly and, as such, there is still a considerable number of allotments available.

Port Vincent: Approximately 90 additional residential allotments (“Vincent Rise”).

Stansbury: Three (3) approved and/or partly constructed projects that collectively will realise an additional 85 allotments with the potential for an additional 200 allotments (approximately) to the south of the golf course.

Edithburgh: Approximately 90 additional allotments already approved, constructed or under construction.

Marion Bay: Two (2) approved developments that will create approximately 200 additional allotments (includes “Marion Rise”).

Point Turton: Approximately 100 additional allotments under construction.

In addition, the population of Ardrossan is anticipated to increase marginally in the foreseeable future due mainly to infill residential development.

Page | 15


6.5.3 Population Projections

Population projections prepared by the then Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure in 2020 indicate that the population of Yorke Peninsula Council is anticipated to increase by 587 (5.2%) during the period 2016 – 2036 (i.e. 11,291 to 11,878).

6.5.4 Census Data

Data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (refer 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia) indicate that the estimated population of Yorke Peninsula Council decreased every year during the period 2005 – 2015 (total of 572 or 4.45%) but then increased every year thereafter to June 2019 (total of 306 or +2.77%). Overall, during the period 2005 – 2019 the population decreased by 206 or 1.79% (i.e. from 11,530 to 11,324).

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Australian Bureau of Statistics “Quick Stats” indicates that the estimated population of the council area has fluctuated only slightly over the years, being 11,041 in 2001; 11,190 in 2006; 11,024 in 2011; and 11,056 in 2016. These figures equate to an increase of 15 people or 0.13% during the period 2001 - 2016.

6.6 Adequate and Fair Representation

For the reasons espoused earlier, Council is confident that its proposed future composition will provide the optimum number of elected members required to manage the affairs of Council; provide an appropriate level of elector representation; maintain an appropriate diversity in the skill set, experience and expertise amongst the elected members; and present adequate lines of communication between the community and Council.

6.7 Section 26, Local Government Act 1999

Section 26(1) of the Act requires that a number of broader Principles also be taken into account during the review process. These are similar in nature to those presented under Section 33 of the Act and include:

• the desirability of avoiding significant divisions within the community;

• proposed changes should, wherever practicable, benefit ratepayers;

• a Council having a sufficient resource base to fulfil its functions fairly, effectively and efficiently;

• a Council should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind, and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations; and

• residents should receive adequate and fair representation within the local government system, while over-representation in comparison with Councils of a similar size and type should be avoided (at least in the longer term).

Page | 16


The elector representation arrangement being proposed/maintained by Council is considered to comply with the cited legislative provisions, in that it will:

• incorporate sufficient elected members to undertake the various roles and responsibilities of Council (as has proved to be the case since the number of elected members was reduced to the current/proposed level of eleven (11) councillors at the 2003 Local Government elections);

• have little if any detrimental impact upon the ratepayers and/or existing communities of interest;

• continue to provide adequate and fair representation to all electors; and

• generally compare with the composition and elector ratios of other regional councils that are of a similar size (in terms of elector numbers) and type.

Page | 17


7. CURRENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with Section 12(9) of the Act, interested persons are invited to make a written submission to Council in respect to this report, and more specifically the composition and structure that Council proposes to bring into effect (retain) at the next Local Government elections in November 2022. Any person who makes a written submission at this time will be afforded the opportunity to address Council or a committee thereof, either in person or by a representative, in support of their submission.

Interested members of the community are invited to make a submission expressing their views on the future composition and structure of Council. Submissions can be made as follows, and will be accepted until 5.00pm on Friday 11th June 2021.

• Via Council’s website (www.yorke.sa.gov.au).

• Written submission addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, PO Box 57 Maitland 5573. • Emailed to [email protected]

Further information regarding the elector representation review can be obtained on Council’s website or by contacting the Governance Officer on telephone 8832 0000 or email [email protected].

Documents

ELECTOR REPRESENTATION REVIEW - yorke.sa.gov.au