On Tuesday, Lismore councillors debated a motion proposed by Councillor Big Rob to implement a new way of electing the mayor by councillor vote rather than the current method, which is by the popular vote of the constituents.
Cr Rob hoped to see the new method put in place by a constitutional referendum that would be included in the next council election in 2024.
In the agenda papers, Cr Rob said that the change would: ‘save ratepayers money each and every election going forward, and to ensure the Mayor is more accountable to the councillors the Mayor is supposed to represent, who are in turn accountable to everyone in the local government area, a change to the way the Mayor is elected is being sought.
‘The NSW Electoral Commission asks that Council let them know as soon as possible if we request to hold a constitutional referendum at the same time as the 2024 council election and that the final wording be provided to them no later than June 2024.
‘The Office of Local Government can assist in providing information on putting the motion together.
‘The following wording is one suggestion: The Mayor of Lismore is currently popularly elected directly by voters for a four year term, costing ratepayers more in election costs each and every election. Do you approve of the election of the Mayor every two years by the eleven councillors?’
10 per cent this way, 10 per cent that way
A staff comment by Governance & Risk Manager, Christine Cotterill, said that to conduct a referendum there would be a 10 per cent uplift in the overall cost of the election, approximately. ‘The current estimated cost of the election is $426,000. Noting each referendum (or poll) question is a separate count, therefore multiple questions may require additional staff which could further increase the cost.
‘If Council was to move from a popularly elected mayor to a councillor-elected mayor, it would be one less contest and one less count, which could result in an approximate 10 per cent saving in the cost of the (2028) election.’
Taking power away from the chamber
Cr Andrew Gordon spoke against the motion. ‘Councillor Rob said (earlier) tonight that we’re taking power away from the chamber. What about taking power away from the population? – a population that enjoys electing a mayor?
‘I like the mayor we’ve got and I like the way we got here,’ declared Cr Gordon. ‘So I think the population itself enjoys that opportunity of selecting their representative and I’d like to see that continue.’
Building a better team
Cr Peter Colby said that he supported the motion purely on the basis of building a better team for the future. ‘I think it’s about time we went back to the community and just said to them, “what would you like to see?” Is there an alternative?
‘I find it a difficult scenario because at the moment, it’s as though we’ve got two parallel universes running and I don’t think that’s healthy to a fully functional council.
‘I think that if you can get a team working together you can actually make some changes,’ said Cr Colby. ‘If you look at tonight, we see a lot of disparity in what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. And there’s a whole lot of ideas coming on the table, but at the end of the day, we should act as a team and behave as a team – it doesn’t reduce the powers of the mayor, and it gives actually him more power in the fact that he’s part of the team.
‘At the end of the day I think we need to test ourselves as a management group. I find it unnerving, sometimes, the lack of interaction – and it’s no one’s fault other than the way the structure works.
‘I would like to see that re-tested by the community to see whether they see that an elected mayor every two years, by their peers, shows that the team is working together and they’ve got confidence in the mayor at the moment.’
Plusses and minuses
Cr Darlene Cook said there were plusses and minuses on both sides of the argument. ‘The role of mayors has evolved and changed in recent years, but legislation doesn’t seem to have kept up to reflect that changing role.
‘There was a large review undertaken a few years ago by UTS (University of Technology Sydney) on the role of mayors in Australia and New Zealand,’ she said. ‘In most cases, the review noted that the mayoral role was moving away from being just the leader of the council, to being the face and voice of civic leadership, strategic planning direction and the driving of initiatives.
‘They noted the personal following of the mayor often enabled them to bring the community along on painful journeys of reconstruction after disasters, major changes in the city’s industrial capacity and employment – this was specifically referencing Geelong – and the introduction of controversial changes in Council’s directions.
‘Community elected mayors interviewed in the review felt that a personal mandate was seen to enable them to appeal directly to the constituents to represent a diverse range of community interests to work more effectively the central government’s business, key partners, and to exercise more influence in the community organisations and in negotiations with councillors and the senior management.’
The danger of personality politics
Cr Cook continued: ‘Some of those opposed to popular elections also pointed to the danger of personality politics. There were also concerns about a mayor that might be out of control, running a purely personal agenda or conversely, there could be a gridlock between the mayor and the majority of opposing councillors.
‘Concerns of that nature reflect the need to ensure the mass powers and responsibilities are articulated detail, to establish clear rules of the game – either by statute or a mechanism such as specific delegation of decision-making authority.
‘The New South Wales LG Act does need further review. It’s a 1993 edition – it’s way behind, reflecting the changes in the community attitudes and the way the mayors work today.
‘So pros and cons? I have to admit I seriously considered the change to peer elect mayors, but I still think there is sufficient merit for the community to make their own decision and choose their mayor directly.’
The community has already been asked
Cr Vanessa Ekins said the community has already been asked this question – in 2008. ‘The response from the community was “yes, we would like a popularly elected mayor”. And then the next election we got Jenny Dowell, who she was a very popular mayor.
‘So we’ve asked the community and they said they want to have a say in this.
‘I’m a bit torn by this one as well. I’m not really sure but I asked the question before, and we can go back and spend more money asking for polls and more elections, and then it becomes a bit of a fight in here over what happens and it’ll take up a lot of time voting for mayors in this room. I can guarantee that – we’ve seen it before.’
Mayor Krieg then took a vote – those in favour of supporting a motion for a peer-elected mayor were Councillors Colby and Rob. Those against were Councillors Cook, Guise, Gordon, Hall, Ekins, Bing and Krieg.
