Senate voting reforms make preferencing easier and safer

With a federal election on 2 July now looking pretty much inevitable, voters will need to know about recent changes to the Senate voting system.

These changes don’t affect voting for our local federal parliamentarians in the House of Representatives (the smaller, usually green, ballot paper).

However, Senate voting (on the larger, usually white, ballot paper) will now be quite different. Instead of having to number a single box above the line, or many boxes below the line, voters will now be asked to number at least six boxes above the line, or 12 boxes below it.

These changes replace the previous registered ticket system, where parties and groups with above-the-line boxes determined the distribution of Senate preferences, usually as a result of complex negotiations between them.

Due to gaming of the registered ticket system, which often produced odd preference flows that would surprise many voters, micro parties could get elected to the Senate with a tiny primary vote.

In the last Senate election, for example, the No.1 candidate on the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party’s Victorian Senate ticket, which achieved only 0.51% of the primary vote, was elected in this way.

Under the recent changes, voters themselves will directly control their Senate preferences, just as they do in House of Representative elections.

In practical terms, this means that instead of numbering a single box above the line on the Senate ballot paper, voters will indicate their own above-the-line preferences by numbering at least six such boxes in their order of preference.

If you vote above-the-line, when your ballot paper is counted your preferences will be allocated down each of the relevant groups in the order you indicate.

So, if the group to which you give your first above-the-line preference has six candidates, your preferences will be allocated in order down that group as though you had numbered it one to six below-the-line.

Then, the group to which you gave your second above-the-line preference will receive your next preferences. 

If your first preference group had six candidates, the candidate heading the group to which you gave your second above-the-line preference would actually receive your seventh preference, and so on, proceeding down each group in the order you’ve indicated above-the-line.

In past Senate elections, the vast majority of voters have voted above-the-line, and this is still likely to be the case in the forthcoming election.

However, if you don’t want your preferences to be allocated to candidates in the order that they appear in their groups on the Senate ballot paper, you can instead vote below-the-line, where you will be asked to number at least 12 boxes. 

If you do this, you can number candidates in any order you want, and your preferences will flow to the individual candidates in exactly the order you indicate.

In previous Senate elections, below-the-line voting carried some risk of inadvertent informality (which means the ballot paper couldn’t be counted), due to the high minimum number of candidates that a voter had to indicate, and the consequent risk of making an unintended error.

Under the new system, voting below-the-line will be much easier and less risky. It will be interesting to see how many more voters take up the below-the-line option in the coming election.

However you intend to vote, preferences often determine the outcome of elections, especially in the Senate, so if you want your vote to be fully effective, you should use the preference power you have.

Information on the new Senate voting system is available from the Australian Electoral Commission website, at http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/files/senate-how-to-vote-2016.pdf.

Will this council's legacy be scandal and broken promises?

At its February meeting, Newcastle Council drove the final nail into the coffin of election commitments aimed at making the council more democratic, open, transparent and accountable.

Regular readers of this column may recall that democracy and open government was a key issue in the two council by-election campaigns in late 2014 and early 2015, which stripped the former McCloyal conservative bloc of its council majority.

During those campaigns, Labor and The Greens agreed to mutual preference recommendations on the basis of a 10 point “Open GovernmentReform Package”, with a list of structural and procedural changes “intended to restore community confidence in the council and the office of Lord Mayor, and to establish systems that ensure the highest level of transparency, accountability and probity in our City’s governance”.

At the end of last year – more than a year after the reforms were pledged - the achievement score on the 10 point list was zilch. 0/10.

At the council’s February meeting, Labor councillors joined Liberal and Independent councillors to defeat measures proposed by The Greens that would have given some substance to those commitments.

Problems experienced under the disgraced McCloyal council bloc were a primary stimulus for the reform proposals, so it’s hardly surprising that the McCloyal die-hards (Liberal and Independent councillors) didn’t support these measures – they never have. 

But for the Labor councillors, this was an epic (though not entirely unexpected) backflip.

Despite election promises in the Open Government Reform Agreement*:

• Councillors and council staff still meet regularly in secret sessions (called “workshops”) closed to the public and the media, but not always to developers and other vested interests,
• The Lord Mayor has not kept a public diary outlining to whom she’s been talking,
• No changes have been made to get rid of unreasonable administrative restrictions that impede councillors from properly representing the voters who elect them,
• No effort has been made to establish a network of council-supported, community-based groups or committees who represent the interests of residents in the local communities
• No internal council ombudsman role has been created to independently investigate and respond to complaints about council administration
• Community members and groups still have the same (limited) opportunities to address the elected council, administered by council officers who strictly vet and control this system
• No attempt has been made to revitalise and expand Council’s ailing and depleted committee system
• The elected council still meets on a monthly cycle, rather than a fortnightly cycle
• Significant community assets (including significant trees) are still removed with no or little consultation with residents
• The council’s website is now harder to navigate, and less accessible, especially archival material, such as past council meetings.

[* The listed points here correspond to the 10 points in the Open Government Reform Agreement]

A number of reforms were proposed by The Greens (Councillors Therese Doyle and Michael Osborne) at the February council meeting, but were voted down by Labor and conservative councillors. 

The sad fact is that, despite the change in the council’s political complexion, and despite the political promises, very little has actually changed in the way Newcastle Council operates since the days of the McCloyal bloc ascendency. 

If anything, some aspects (e.g., the website) are even worse.

One positive change evident at the February council meeting was a new audio system, which at least made it easier to hear how councillors were rationalising these backflips.

Little wonder that – unlike their Port Stephens neighbour – Newcastle Council has been unable to rouse many in its community to care enough to stand up and defend them against the state government’s ill-conceived, ideologically driven council amalgamation agenda.

That agenda looks as though it will push the next council election from September this year into March next year - another full year of the current council.

It will be a disappointing thing indeed for Newcastle if the key legacy of the current council’s tenure is the scandal of the Jeff McCloy regime, and the broken promises of the Nuatali Nelmes period.

Newcastle GM dismissal no "shock and horror" case

Some of the local media coverage of the recent dismissal of Newcastle Council’s (now former) General Manager, Ken Gouldthorp, could give the impression that the majority of councillors who voted for Mr Gouldthorp's dismissal committed a heinous crime against humanity in parting company with him.

Mr Gouldthorp was appointed by the former Lord Mayor, Jeff McCloy, and the Liberal and conservative Independent councillors who formed the then dominant McCloyal voting bloc, soon after the 2012 council elections.

Jeff McCloy resigned after ICAC revelations about his role in the political donations scandal that rocked the Hunter last year, setting off two council by-elections in which the conservative Liberal/Independent bloc lost its majority.

Given the obviously close relationship between Mr Gouldthorp and Mr McCloy, many council-watchers speculated at the time that the McCloy appointee might have preferred to move on to an organisational environment more aligned with his own ideological predisposition.

But he stayed, and the tensions between him and non-McCloyal councillors were as palpable and persistent as they were predictable.

Anyone who witnessed this tension play out at council meetings could see that the relationship wasn’t going to last.

When the inevitable moment eventually came, at the 27 October council meeting, it was no real surprise.

So why the shock and horror from some - though not all - of the local media, including speculation that “it might cost Newcastle ratepayers$1million if the council elect to pay [Mr Gouldthorp] out of his contract”.

Since August 2006, all NSW councils have had to use a standard General Managers employment contract, developed by the NSW Department of Local Government and approved by the NSW Minister for Local Government, which covers all the things you’d expect in an employment agreement, including termination.

The contract is freely available on the internet.

Among other provisions related to termination, it states (in clauses 10.3.5 and 11.3) that a council can terminate a General Manager’s contract without notice provided it pays the employee either 38 weeks’ remuneration or the amount the employee would have received if the employee had been employed for the full term of the contract, whichever is the lesser [my emphasis].

Clearly, the 38 week amount will be substantially less than a pay-out for the remainder of Mr Gouldthorp's term, so - if the contract means what it says - that’s presumably what Mr Gouldthorp will get.

The local media coverage chose to not even mention this most likely outcome, in favour of speculating on an improbable one.

That’s not to say that the current council majority covered themselves with glory in how they handled all this.

On the same night they dismissed Mr Gouldthorp, they pushed through an entirely new set of council delegations with only a few hours’ notice to councillors, despite reasonable calls for deferral and public exhibition to allow more time for scrutiny and deliberation.

The dismissal decision itself was subject to dubious procedural manoeuvring on the night, involving Labor councillors moving a clearly insincere rescission motion against the dismissal they’d just supported, so they could vote down their pseudo-rescission motion and thereby prevent any subsequent genuine ones.

Whatever the legality of these manoeuvers, it’s hardly what real local democracy should look like, and it was a disappointing performance from the councillors involved, who’ve previously criticised dubious meeting practices by the former McCloyal majority.

It was an opportunity for these councillors to show that they were better than their conservative predecessors; instead, they stooped to their level.

They’ll now need to work hard to regain the moral high ground they’ve lost in these shenanigans, especially in the face of overtly hostile and biased elements in the local media, and in the light of having achieved none of the open government reforms they promised during the by-elections that gave them their majority.

That’s if they’re not all swept away in a wave of council amalgamations, of course….

Can the NSW government learn from past mistakes?

The recent news that Urban Growth and GPT have submitted a new development proposal to replace their controversial high-rise tower proposal for their strategically important Newcastle CBD site fulfilled a commitment by the NSW Planning Minister, Rob Stokes, to look at the proposal “with fresh eyes”.

By all accounts, the new proposal is now within the height limits that applied to the site before the changes imposed earlier this year by the state government to accommodate the high-rise towers.

It made a refreshing change in a city where political commitments are routinely broken.

However, the imposed planning controls are still in place, and still available to any future developer who might be interested in exploiting them.

So far, the current Planning Minister appears to be serious about preserving the human scale and heritage character of Newcastle’s eastern precinct. To confirm this, the state government needs to remove the imposed planning controls.

However, on another front, Macquarie St looks set to break an election commitment in order to impose yet another unwanted decision on the Hunter community.

Despite promises by the NSW Coalition government that they wouldn’t force NSW councils to amalgamate, they’re now threatening to amalgamate councils across the state, including Newcastle and Lake Macquarie.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) recently recommended the two councils merge, after declaring both councils “unfit for the future” on the grounds of their “scale and capacity”.

The IPART “Fit for the Future” report containing this recommendation does not define “scale and capacity”, nor explain how various councils (including Newcastle and Lake Macquarie) failed on these grounds.

When I asked IPART what they meant by “scale and capacity”, I was referred to a list of ten factors published in previous reports, including highly subjective considerations such as “knowledge, creativity and innovation, credibility for more effective advocacy, and high quality political and managerial leadership”.

IPART told me that they had undertaken a “comprehensive and in-depth” assessment of each council using these factors.

When I requested a copy of that assessment, I was told it was “internal information” and could not be released.

Without access to the assessment that found them supposedly wanting in “scale and capacity”, the councils can’t scrutinise and critique IPART’s recommendation.

Newcastle hasn’t polled its community to find out how they feel about amalgamating with Lake Macquarie, but when Lake Macquarie surveyed its residents it found 87% of them opposed such a merger.

So, the councils and their communities are now expected to respond by November 18 to an IPART recommendation that is not supported by either of the councils or their communities, and that is based on a secret assessment using highly subjective criteria.

In an even more recent move, the NSW Transport Minister, Andrew Constance, shocked the city by announcing that the state government intended to privatise Newcastle’s public bus, ferry and (future) light rail services.

The Minister’s announcement was framed as a positive response to the region’s long held demand for more local control over planning and operating local transport services.

While the Minister’s media release referred vaguely to the government starting “a market sounding process”, it astutely avoided any mention of “privatisation”, and it took some time for the penny to drop in local media reporting that this is what he was talking about.

At the time of writing, some still appear to be caught in the spin.

The Greens Transport Spokesperson, Mehreen Faruqui, said it was “unacceptable that the system has been run into the ground to justify the privatisation of the network”.

“The Baird government have themselves created the problem they now say they are trying to fix,” she said.

While the announcement caught the local community by surprise, media reports speculated that the state government has been discussing the matter with at least one private transport operator, Keolis Downer.

To its credit, the state government has effectively admitted it made a big mistake in the matter of the proposed Newcastle CBD high-rise towers, when it privileged the views of vested private interests and imposed their agenda on a hostile community.

But, given the recent signals about what it intends to do with local council amalgamations and local transport privatisation, you have to wonder about its ability to learn from past mistakes.

McCloy's brazen “money for preferential access” argument rejected by High Court

Earlier this month the Australian High Court found against a challenge to NSW laws limiting donations from property developers to political parties by property developer and former Newcastle Lord Mayor, Jeff McCloy.

Mr McCloy had previously admitted to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) that he had made such donations to local state Liberal Party members of parliament, leading to his resignation as Newcastle’s Lord Mayor last year.

The High Court judgement (which can be found at: http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/34) emphatically rejected Mr McCloy’s challenge and endorsed the constitutional validity of the NSW laws.

While the court acknowledged that the impugned laws did place a burden on the freedom of political communication implied in the Australian constitution, it found that this was justified, because the laws had been “enacted for legitimate purposes” and assisted that purpose “by rational means which not only do not impede the system of representative government provided for by the Constitution, but enhance it”.

The court found that “there are no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose” and that “the provisions are adequate in their balance”. 

The court judgement rejected the argument put by Mr McCloy that “the ability to pay money to secure access to a politician” was protected by the freedom of political communication implied in the constitution.

“To the contrary,” the judgement said, “guaranteeing the ability of a few to make large political donations in order to secure access to those in power would seem to be antithetical to the great underlying principle of the constitution [i.e., that the rights of individuals are sufficiently secured by ensuring, as far as possible, an equal share in political power]."

The judgement noted that Mr McCloy’s challenge argued that the NSW laws “restrict political communication by removing the preferential access to candidates and political parties which would otherwise come to those who have the capacity and incentive to make large political donations”.

The court branded this argument “as perceptive as it is brazen”, and said that it “goes to the heart of the mischief to which the provisions are directed”.

Tellingly, the judgement says that the reason for limiting campaign funding in the case of the NSW laws “surely extends to the elimination of what has there been labelled ‘clientelism’:  "the danger that officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder".

The judgement referred to the recognition in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom “that preventing wealthy voices from dominating political discourse so that other voices may be heard ‘is necessary for meaningful participation in the electoral process and ultimately enhances the right to vote’".

The High Court also found that targeting corporate property developers was justified due to both “the nature of the business in which they are engaged” (i.e. a profit-making business dependent on the exercise of statutory discretions by public officials that gives them “a particular incentive to exploit such avenues of influence as are available to them”, irrespective of how limited those avenues of influence might be) and “the unfortunate experience in New South Wales … of exploitation of influence leading too readily to the corruption of official conduct”.

All fascinating enough in itself, but even more interesting (and disturbing) in context of controversial state government decisions such as closing the Newcastle rail line, or the route of the proposed replacement tram.

At the same time as the Baird government was declaring its support for the High Court decision, it was moving full steam ahead with the very decisions that were the most strongly advocated causes of the practitioners of what the High Court had identified as “clientelism”.

"Making it Happen", Baird style

The Baird government’s newly released state plan, titled “Making It Happen”, is at least as significant for what’s missing from it as for what it contains.

The new plan replaces the state government’s former “NSW 2021:A Plan to Make NSW Number One”, released in September 2011, after Barry O’Farrell’s election as NSW Premier.

The original plan contained general goals and hundreds of specific targets, grouped under the key policy areas of Economy, Transport, Health, Family and Community Services, Education, Police and Justice, Infrastructure, Environment and Communities, and Accountability.

The new Baird plan significantly reduces the number of goals and targets and entirely scraps a number of these categories, and their associated goals and targets.

For Newcastle, one of the most significant changes is the scrapping of the “transport” category, and the previous plan’s specific target (under Goal 8) to “increase the share of commuter trips made by public transport to and from Newcastle CBD during peak hours to 20% by 2016.”

Before the Baird government cut the Newcastle rail line on Boxing Day last year, the evidence suggests that they were on track to achieve this relatively modest target, with official figures indicating that increased use of rail services were providing a steady increase in commuter trips to and from the Newcastle CBD.

Since the rail cut, the numbers are trending decisively the other way. 

It’s difficult to be exact about the specific extent of the decline, because the state government hasn’t yet provided data that would allow a direct comparison of what we now have with what we’ve lost. However, the downward trend is clear.

The NSW Minister for Transport, Andrew Constance, recently confirmed to a parliamentary estimates committee that the replacement bus service between Hamilton and Newcastle Stations is providing around 65,000 trips per month, which works out to an average of 2,167 per day on a 30 day month. 

Other official figures indicate that the rail services that these buses replaced were providing 4,668 trips per weekday, or around 140,000 on a 30 day month. 

That’s more than twice the figure given by the Minister for the replacement bus service.

Because the Minister’s daily rate figures include weekend days and the others don’t, they can’t be directly compared. But Newcastle and Civic rail stations were known to be strong weekend performers, so the difference that factor would make is likely to be negligible.

That means that it’s almost certain that public transport patronage to and from the Newcastle CBD has been more than halved since the government cut rail services to Wickham, Civic and Newcastle stations.

The figures for bus use offer no glimmer of light. 

Patronage and fare-box revenue figures for Newcastle Buses have been headed downwards for many years, and the current year figures show that they still are.

It’s hard not to conclude that the reason the Baird government’s new plan hasn’t retained the Newcastle transport target from the previous plan is that they’ve realised that their decision to cut the Newcastle rail line makes it unachievable.

Better to remove the target itself than face the embarrassment of inevitable failure.

It corresponds with the Baird government’s whole approach to the rail issue in Newcastle, including its recent steadfast refusal to include any discussion of re-establishing train services on the rail corridor land in their recent “Community Engagement” process on the city’s revitalisation. 

Refuse to provide information or evidence to support the policy, attempt to circumvent legal requirements, ignore their self-declared “referendum” on the issue, refuse to discuss it, and remove relevant targets to disguise policy failure.

That's “Making it happen”, Mike Baird style.

Liberal allegation drags local debate to low level

Sometimes, you have to despair at the standard of political debate in this city. 

Readers may have noticed that a recent change to Newcastle Council’s investment policy has made waves in the local and national media.

The change added a preference for “environmentally and socially responsible investments” where any such investment complies with legal requirements and policy objectives, and offers a favourable rate of return compared to alternatives.

Essentially, it means that the council should go for more environmentally and socially responsible investment options, all other things being equal.

By any reasonable measure, it’s a pretty moderate and sensible change. How else would a reasonable ratepayer expect our council to invest our money?

The change was initiated by Labor’s Ward 3 councillor, Declan Clausen, and was carried by a combined vote of Labor and Greens councillors. Liberal and Independent councillors voted against it.

The initial local newspaper coverage of the change followed the stock-standard pattern of a tabloid media beat-up that didn’t let facts stand in the way of setting up a good old fashioned barney between well-known mouthpieces of the coal industry (Tony Abbott, Bob Baldwin, Joel Fitzgibbon, the Hunter Business Chamber) and Labor’s relatively new Ward 3 councillor and Lord Mayor.

Clearly, the coal industry advocates were worried that the industry might not brush up too well on “environmental and social responsibility” criteria, and that the council’s policy might send a signal to this effect. 

Wow! Hold the front page on that scoop.

Under obviously intense media and internal party pressure, the Labor councillors gave the unfortunate appearance of backing away from aspects of the policy in the days following the change.

Spurred by the smell of political blood, the Liberal Party (and its key media supporter, the Australian newspaper) even criticised the council for entering into an agreement with Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) for $12million in development levies to cover its proposed Terminal 4 development.

The Australian reported Newcastle Liberal councillor and Lord Mayoral hopeful Brad Luke as branding this move “hypocritical”, on the grounds that it was somehow inconsistent with the decision to change to the investment policy.

Really? 

Could anyone seriously suggest that a council should forgo development levies designed to compensate for the impact of a development on a community on the grounds that the same council might want its investments to be used to support socially and environmentally responsible industries?

The $12million agreement with PWCS was adopted by a combined Labor, Liberal and Independent vote (including Clr Luke).

Greens councillors Therese Doyle and Michael Osborne opposed the deal on the grounds that the amount fell too far short of the $48million levy that would be owed if the council’s adopted 1% of value policy was applied to the $4.8billion development proposal.

For this they were accused of “having a price”.

What nadir of the political discourse have we reached when councillors can be subjected to such an allegation for fighting to get a better deal for the city from a major industrial development that they think is not paying its way?