New South Wales appears to be considering changes to rules around voting for the City of Sydney, replacing a special law passed a decade ago to expand the business vote in that council alone. Yet I would argue that this is not enough – it’s time for New South Wales to go further and eliminate all non-residential voting in council elections, statewide.
The specific City of Sydney law was passed in 2014. It expanded the existing rights of non-residents to vote (consistent across New South Wales) to allow certain qualifying businesses to enrol two people as representatives, and in theory attempted to make it compulsory.
The issue was definitely motivated by the desire to remove Clover Moore from office. The government had already passed legislation which forced Moore to choose her council office over her state seat in 2012, which led to her ally Alex Greenwich winning the seat of Sydney at a 2012 by-election. But it also reflected a desire for the City of Sydney to more resemble the City of Melbourne. Businesses in the City of Melbourne also have two votes, and enrolment and voting rates are quite high. But the City of Sydney is roughly twice the size of Melbourne, with a much larger number of residents in the area who strongly favour Moore (as do many of the business voters undoubtedly).
Previous conservative governments in 1965 and 1988 had split the City of Sydney away from the surrounding residential suburbs to make a much smaller core city where non-residential voters would play a much larger role, while Labor governments in 1948, 1982 and 2003 had merged surrounding areas with the City to make a larger council, putting its impressive rates budget in the hands of councillors responsible to that larger residential group. For whatever reason, the Coalition government in 2014 wanted to try and restore the City as a business-dominated entity without splitting off its residential heart.
Independent MP Alex Greenwich asked a question of local government minister Ron Hoenig, who also represents a neighbouring electorate which substantially overlaps with the City, and it sounds like Hoenig is sympathetic to removing the special business voting rules for the City.
But this issue goes beyond the City of Sydney’s specific legislation, and it’s time to eliminate non-residential voting for all New South Wales councils, and indeed for all councils around Australia.
All councils in New South Wales allow some non-residents to vote in a council if they own non-rateable land or if they are an occupier or ratepaying lessee of such land. This only applies to non-residents, and nobody can have more than one vote in a specific local government area.
Indeed non-residents have rights to vote in council elections in five states – only Queensland has abolished this privilege, way back in 1921. Ryan Goss had a great piece in the UNSW Law Journal (free to access) in 2017 running through the history of the local government franchise and the exact voting rights that apply in all six Australian states. I recommend checking it out.
Non-residential voting is a relic of a time when the right to vote was based on property, and not all people (not even all men) were able to vote. There are also relics of a thing called ‘plural voting’, where people with property in multiple electorates could cast multiple votes. Some forms of plural voting are still possible in local government thanks to non-residential voting, which Goss runs through in the paper above.
Queensland eliminated non-residential voting in 1921, around the same time that they amalgamated numerous councils, bringing voting for the City of Brisbane closer to parliamentary voting than council elections in other states.
The original logic of council elections involved those who pay the rates electing the councillors, but we’ve moved into an era where the role of local government has expanded beyond ‘roads, rates and rubbish’, and its sources of revenue have also changed.
Non-residential voting also gives a privilege to just one type of non-resident who might have an interest in an area. If you own property or run a business you can vote, but those who travel to an area to work or to use the services in that area do not get a say. Absentee landlords get a vote, but those who would like to live in the area but can’t find a house do not.
Non-residential voting doesn’t just increase the voter rolls, arguably it’s bigger impact is in allowing non-residents to run for election. Numerous councillors sit on councils where they don’t live, often using quite flimsy links to a piece of property which qualifies them to run.
If we want to ensure that the interests of those who don’t live in an area are represented, there are alternative options.
Firstly, there is oversight by the state government – which is elected by all members of the state. Some issues need to have the involvement of local residents and of a broader cross-section of society. Indeed I think there’s a case for a level of government covering the entire metropolitan region which is different to state or local government that would take on some appropriate jobs.
Secondly, this is a reason why council boundaries need to be appropriately drawn. A too-small council gives too much power to voters in a small area to control their boundaries and limit services in a way that harms the interests of non-residents with an interest in the area. There will always be arbitrary lines drawn which define different political units, but councils should be drawn to represent real and substantial areas. In a number of parts of Sydney, they are still too small.
“it’s time to eliminate non-residential voting…for all councils around Australia.” Does this mean that each person in Australia would only vote once in local government elections, i.e. where they live?
Well council elections are never all held at once. It’s possible someone could move around and vote in different elections, but presuming they don’t move, yes.
Hi Ben , Hope you are well. I want “two bob each way” on this. I can see that property owners should have a vote as they do pay rates. But they shouldn’t have two! As to whether they get to run for office my gut feeling is no they shouldn’t but I can think of an argument that is consistent with letting them vote in the first place. Can you? Regarding the history of bouncing surrounding suburbs into and out of the City of Sydney depending who is in power in Macquarie Street, it is absolutely classic. Interestingly, that model was maintained during the Liberal’s push to amalgamate councils during their tenure. It would have been geographically, economically and administatively logical to bring Botany into the city, creating a CoS that went from the CBD to the airport. My guess is the Liberals knew that to do this they’d bring in a majority of Labor voters and probably lose the city for 50 years. So they created Bayside Council, which is absolutely ridiculous in every way, except politically. Labor could split Bayside and add it to the City. Clearly, the residents of South Sydney have benefitted by having access to the vast financial reserves of the CoS, not to mention Clover’s vision. So too would the inhabitants of Botany. Do you think Hoenig, as a former Mayor of Botany would be up for that? Or will this Labor Government want to avoid the odium that comes with amalgamations?
what an amazing hobby that would be
you could change enrolment for each by-election as well
“All councils in New South Wales allow some non-residents to vote in a council if they own non-rateable land or if they are an occupier or ratepaying lessee of such land. This only applies to non-residents, and nobody can have more than one vote in a specific local government area.”
Are there non-residents in other councils that have as much voting power as businesses in City of Sydney do?
“Numerous councillors sit on councils where they don’t live, often using quite flimsy links to a piece of property which qualifies them to run.”
I find it bizarre how we hold to account state/federal candidates who don’t live in their electorates even though they could end up working for the state/country, yet we are fine with councillors who don’t live anywhere near the council that they work for. I guess that councillors don’t get as much publicity nor paid as much.
What’s the point! The next time we have a Liberal State Government, they will only change it back.
While that is a cynical point, it is reflective of the ease in which democracy can be fiddled around to suit whoever is in power at the time. As a person who worked in local government, not at a political level, it always amazed me the absolute power that the State Government had over what a local government can or can’t do. Abolish a Council – stroke of a pen. Move boundaries – no problems. Amalgamate Councils, a bit more work and hurdles to jump through, but can do. Impose mandatory housing target – I just ring the developer to get the numbers he wants. Take away their power to control local water and sewerage supply – just privatise it.
I’ve always thought that we should have a Democracy Act that definitively set out the rules for a number of different matters (e.g. boundaries, voting, representation etc) and that Act can not be amended, unless it receives a super majority (70-80%) of the parliament. Of course getting agreement for the original Act will be an issue and I would suggest it not be left up to politicians, but a mixture of judges, experts and policy juries all working as one to get a final draft that will be adopted. You can build in the same process every 10 years as a review mechanism to make sure all is working as intended.
Otherwise, as history shows us, these things just become a plaything for whoever is in power at the time and whatever nefarious ploys they have up their sleeves.
Yes, do it. Don’t waste time ‘considering’ it. There are exactly zero good reasons not to.
Qualifications for voting should. Be residents only. You only get one vote. And voters ate not corporations or similar
The single greatest power the Councils have is control on the use and building of property. The single largest revenue is still rates based on land value (certainly in Victoria – I assume in other jurisdictions). Admittedly various horrible distortions cause vertical fiscal imbalance – the State and Federal Government want policies implemented by others so they can avoid scrutiny. Multiple votes are indefensible for a single council.
I am not sure I agree in principle, but very specifically for City of (Sydney/Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth) I absolutely disagree. The reality is, those city centre ‘City of’ councils have a very different role to those of suburban/regional/rural councils. Very specifically, the number of workers who come into the city each day is far greater than the number of residents, and that is even with the current CoS boundaries, let alone the older boundaries (which I think are somewhat more appropriate).
These councils also contain a number of venues of State significance – from state theatres to opera houses to sporting venues to museums, let alone the state parliaments etc. To me, these are more important than the needs of residents, who will often be hostile to the ‘undesirables’ coming in from the outer suburbs to work/go to show/go to sporting events/shop etc.
At the more local level, if I live in Dandenong and have a small business based in Bayside, I do have a legitimate interest in both councils. Not sure that does entitle me to vote in both councils, but it is not as clear cut that I should only be allowed to vote where I live, not where I run a business (where I may actually spend more time, and where the council services impact me more).
I don’t know how the workers who come into the city each day are represented by the existing non-residential voters.
At the very least you could argue that the interests of employers and employees line up when it comes to the services councils provide. Far better than their interests are not represented at all.
A big argument against allowing non-resident individuals in one council but not another is based on equality and democracy. In the City of Sydney, voting rules are unique and undermines the principle of ‘one vote, one value’. It smells like malapportionment. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
I agree that the City of Sydney council is the most economically important and most visited in the state and possibly even in the country, outside Queensland (as they tend to have large councils). However, there are other councils in NSW that also have busy CBDs comparable to other councils named after state capitals e.g. Parramatta, North Sydney, or have even larger populations e.g. Central Coast where businesses and landlords don’t have the same voting rights.
Mostly Labor Voter: When councils lollygag with basic transit and active transport infrastructure because business owners want lots of traffic and on-street parking is that in the interests of their employees? When councils close bus routes and cut back on public swimming pools, libraries, art and cultural events, basic waste disposal and/or sanction dumping or any sort of noxious development is that necessarily in the interests of workers? is general livability and enjoyment of public space peculiar to haughty resident nimbys? and why not extend this principle to state and federal politics- surely woolworths and glencore and apple and google and huawei and the saudi royal family have business interests in the workings of the australian parliament too.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
Fugitive Lawngnome
What on earth are you on about. Simply by suggesting that businesses and their workers have legitimate interests at local council level, particularly in the metropolitan CBDs, you carry on with what can best be described as an unhinged rant. But to take your points – yes, workers and customers (and so employers) tend to prefer on street parking (except in Metro CBDs which was the point of my post!), it is NIMBY residents (or more realistically academic urban planners) who want to restrict parking. Not sure what you mean by basic transit – I hope you are not referring to Clovers toy train, ’cause that is exactly the kind of thing I think is a problem, trying to restrict access to the CBD to local resident populations at the expense of the rest of the metro area. Councils don’t operate buses do they, private companies or the state governments do. While the rest of the services are important (I notice one of the big Council services, Parks, missing from your little rant), and I am not advocating not having residents vote (where on earth did you get that from), surely art events are not essential services? And no, business should not get a vote at State or Federal level. But councils are different, as they are primarily local service providers, and business does have a legitimate stake in those services, and they are not always at odds with residents either.
Votante,
Having lived near Paramatta for most of my youth, I don’t think it is comparable to the City of Sydney in terms of size and importance, and I don’t think there would be as big a mismatch between residents and others as the CBD has.
‘Simply by suggesting that businesses and their workers have legitimate interests at local council level’
No you suggested that the interests of business owners and workers ‘line up’ at the council level. They don’t necessarily.
‘But to take your points – yes, workers and customers (and so employers) tend to prefer on street parking’
Not necessarily.
‘(except in Metro CBDs which was the point of my post!),’
pretty obviously your point was the opposite.
‘it is NIMBY residents (or more realistically academic urban planners) who want to restrict parking.’
and normal residents, and people who like walking, bicycling and just generally using public space, and people who prefer fewer traffic fatalities as opposed to more, people still holding out hope for a remotely sustainable planet, etc, etc.
‘Not sure what you mean by basic transit – I hope you are not referring to Clovers toy train, ’cause that is exactly the kind of thing I think is a problem, trying to restrict access to the CBD to local resident populations at the expense of the rest of the metro area.’
you’re gonna have to be more specific about what you’re talking about. i’m not aware of any rail network that’s restricted to residents. the light rail and metro networks have great ridership and definitely aren’t restricted to residents. wrt clover moore, i’ve only ever heard of her advocating for more connectivity to metropolitan sydney, not less.
‘Councils don’t operate buses do they’
Well mine does. Badly, sure. But somehow I get the feeling that inviting the votes of businesses and the people who desperately want to hollow out public services into yet more profiteering enterprises won’t improve it.
‘and I am not advocating not having residents vote (where on earth did you get that from),’
didn’t say you were. But giving businesses votes is very obviously not democratic.
‘And no, business should not get a vote at State or Federal level. But councils are different, as they are primarily local service providers, and business does have a legitimate stake in those services, and they are not always at odds with residents either.’
state and federal governments aren’t service providers? are the interests of business always at odds with the residents and workers of nsw, of australia? no, the principle is exactly the same. There’s enough plutocracy in government without literally giving corporations actual votes.
Labor Voter, I do agree that small business owners are the ones who may be impacted by council decisions (those who run a high street type shop rather than large businesses owning multi storey developments) and should have some say in local government elections, maybe a partial/half vote rather than a full vote compared to normal residents. But I don’t agree with your view that it is a bad idea to restrict parking, especially for the inner-city areas. I actually agree with Furtive’s view that having more people use public transport is beneficial and will encourage/force council to work with the State/Federal government in advancing better services.
Furtive, I think some of your arguments are unique for Brisbane and SEQ, which have larger councils that function in a manner similar to the ACT or county governments in countries like UK or USA. I think this model is better because services are geared more towards residents rather than business owners as is case for smaller councils interstate.
Yoh An, I tend to think if you do have business or business owner voting it should be at full value – they will always be far outstripped by residential voters anyway.
Also, I don’t think it is always a bad idea to restrict on street parking, it does depend on the circumstances, and there are plenty of places where it is appropriate to do so. However, I do also think a surprising number of inner city shops will benefit from on street parking, as well as some other traffic calming devices, say a raised level crossing and 40km speed limit. Is probably better in a lot of cases than no parking and flowing traffic.
Non-resident property owners (absentee landlords) are ratepayers and should vote. Voting for them should be compulsory like it is for resident owners and resident renters. After all they pay rates, as I said, and should have a say how their money is spent by councillors and city staff.
Comments are closed.