Live LG elections blog - Come and join me and The Advocate!

I am the guest blogger for tomorrow night's election coverage of the NW local government elections.  Click on the image above to join in.

The last two elections (2009 and 2011) has seen a big jump in candidates.  Looks like people are looking for a change.  One interesting thing for me though is that there are no female candidates in Burnie.  Hmmm!

A few ponderings/speculations of the tight races:

• Will Alvwyn Boyd, Mike Gaffney and Lynn Laycock lose their Mayor seats?  I suggest at least one will.
• Will Ken Dorsey and Wessley Koop unseat sitting Waratah-Wynyard Councillors?  I suggest that at least one will.
• Will there be two or three new Aldermen in Burnie?  I suggest that it could be three but it's going to come down, very much, to the order of exclusion and the following distribution of preferences.  Alvwyn may even claim two quotas in his own right but let's see if one of the musos (Lynch, Anderson, Matthews or Bentley) makes it.
• Could someone win the Deputy Mayor spot in Burnie but not get voted in as an Alderman?  This could very well happen!
• Has the West Coast, in its current form, ever had a Councillor from Linda?  Linda Valley Cafe owner, Brandon Lane, is in with a shot to be that person!
• Is Konsy on the nose or is it time for Alvwyn to move on?  I can't even speculate on that one.  I'm tipping a 51/49 split either way.
• Will Kath Downie win a seat in Central Coast?  I say definitely yes.
• Will Dr Shane Broad step up to the plate in Central Coast?  Quite possibly.
• Will Betty Kay win a seat in Circular Head?  I say yes and there could be two, maybe three, new ones given the size of the field.
• Can Gerrad Wicks finally claim a spot in Latrobe?  Too close to call.
• Will Alwyn Friedersdorff hold her Deputy Mayor position in Waratah-Wynyard?  I suggest yes but Darren Fairbrother is going to make it very close.
• Will all nine Council areas in the Cradle Coast see at least one new Councillor?  I say yes with the possible exception of KI.

N.b. Your numbers two, three and often four do play a massive role in tight elections. They will play a massive role in this one - some counts could take a few days!

I hope to see you all tomorrow from 7pm.

Cheers,
C.

New campaign vids for Chris Lynch in Burnie

A guide to voting in Burnie and Waratah-Wynyard elections

Hi all,

Take a look at this quick two minute video.  It should help you :)

...and why not this one?

Cheers,
C.

Time for new young-blood on councils

I smell a change in the air... new blood coming to a Council near you.  With no disrespect to sitting councillors or other candidates (all's fair in love and war!), in Waratah-Wynyard and Burnie City I strongly urge you to consider Wessley Koop and Chris Lynch respectively for your number one vote, or, at least, your number two or three (preferences really do make a difference).  Both have a passion for youth issues, are younger candidates, understand the need for change and are experienced community members.  I'll be letterbox dropping for Wessley and scruitneering and social media blasting for Chris.  Although I'm part of the campaign team for the above-mentioned, Brett Donoghue is worth a crack too from what I've seen :)

I am disappointed to see very limited female candidates (none in Burnie City at all), let alone younger ones.  I think it's a 'system' problem.  How do we make being a councillor more attractive to younger people?

Below is a letter I sent to The Advocate Newspaper this morning.

I am amused at the obvious, yet predictable, profile-raising in the Letters to the Editor of former councillor David Moore ahead of 2011 Waratah-Wynyard Council elections.  I find his knocking of the current Council perplexing given that the issues he's spouting were under his management when he was on Council on two previous occasions.  While I respect his endeavour, may I suggest that it's time for new blood on local Councils with fresh ideas for the future of their respective municipalities rather than old rhetoric?

CR Clayton J Hawkins
Waratah-Wynyard Council

Party Politics in Local Government

Hi all,

Does a party-endorsed candidate in local government stand as a representative of the party and it's members or as a representative of the local community with the freedom to vote for their constituents' needs and wants?  I'm sure that they'd say both but surely it is very difficult to be both when your community wants something different to the party's policy stance. 

On the weekend the Tasmanian Labor Party held their state conference.  According to The Examiner Newspaper (I can't find the link online), the Tasmanian Labor Party, at the conference, made a policy decision to endorse candidates for local government elections.  This concerns me greatly.  Is it to counteract the policy stance of the Tasmanian Greens who currently have party-endorsed, sitting members in Local Government.   Their candidates openly campaign as Green candidates.  They currently boast nine Green local councillors.  This has been a policy of the Greens for numerous years and this also concerns me.


My concern is not the fact that they're doing it but for the fact that those 'party-endorsed' candidates will be bound by party policy over local decision-making.  I guess it comes down to whether the local reps have to abide by party policy.  If they don't then why are they endorsed?  I haven't directly spoken to any Green councillors about this but I would find it extremely hard to made a decision that conflicted with party policy and local need.


It's fair to say that all councillors would have a political persuasion of some ilk.  Most do not express it at the council table and, from my experience, don't use this for overall decision-making.  Some openly show their colours - there's quite a few aspiring or former state and federal pollies amongst us.  One recent example in state politics is former Mayor of Waratah-Wynyard Kevin Hyland putting his hand up for Labor.

I'm going to use my council as an example to explain my dilemma.  This is all hypothetical and not using real examples.


At present, no councillor on the Warwyn Council is a party-endorsed candidate (that I'm aware of).  I know there's a few that show their colours now and again but they are not bound by an 'endorser'.


Let's pose a Green example.  The Greens have a platform for the development of a geotrail.  For this example, the Greens have said to Council, "If you put up $X we'll promote and help develop Fossil Bluff and Doctors Rocks as part of the trail".  If Warwyn had a Green candidate then you'd expect them to vote 'Yes' because if they didn't they'd be going against their party's policy on the geotrail.  What happens if the community can't afford it?  Does the Green vote yes with the party or no to support the balancing of the community budget?  Where does their allegiance lie?


Let's pose a Labor example.  Labor has a policy stance to retain the rail network west of Burnie.  If the community rallied to get Council to actively 'picket' Labor to allow it to be used for the Coastal Pathway, would the Labor-endorsed candidate vote along party lines or with the majority voice of the community?  

Let's pose a Liberal example.  The Liberals have recently launched a platform to make all high schools go to year 12.  What happens if a local school votes in the majority to not make their school go to year 12 and asks for Council to back them?  Does the Liberal-endorsed candidate vote along party lines or with the majority decision of the school community?


A collective example is The Tarkine.  What happens if a policy stance is to be made by the Council regarding its vision for the future of the Tarkine in its municipality.  Will a party-endorsed candidate vote for what the community wants or for what their party wants?


This is not even considering people becoming endorsed candidates of other parties like the Socialist Alliance, the Australian Christian Lobby, Family First, the Democrats etc. (some of these hold much more polarising policy stances).


Finally... what happens if, at a council table, one party holds majority?  This is the day that community representation at a local level dies.  More interesting still is if a Council is dominated by X party but Y party is in power in Tasmania.  This is going to be more of an issue if local government secures Constitutional Recognition.

My feeling is that when party politics dominates local independent voice then the little bloke loses their say.  Imagine a retired pensioner running for Council versus a party-endorsed, Obama-style campaigner of the ilk of the Brooksy extravaganza.  What chance does this poor bugger have?  Just over half of Tasmania votes in local government elections.  If parties came into it then I guess that this would rise in favour of parties as voters would have someone on the ballot that they could identify with (even if it is only because they're voting for a party).  It may also have the potential of decreasing the donkey vote as this often occurs as voters do not know the candidates.

Party-endorsed candidates afford an unfair advantage over other candidates as it can encourage people to vote for a party rather than the best candidate for the job.  I'll take a stab that there's people out there who would vote for their party without looking at the quality of the candidates themselves.  Then again... that happens all the time at State and Federal level, doesn't it? 


This may sound like I'm having a sook as I am an independent.  I float across the spectrum picking the best policies across the whole sphere.  A party-endorsed candidate can not do that.  To be honest, it's going to be fun on the day when a party-endorsed candidate becomes elected and I can trip them up on their party's policy versus the decision that they make.  It'll be fun to stand up and say "Even though the data overwhelming says that you should vote yes Mr/Mrs/Miss X... I'm sorry but you can't for this because your party says no".

Finally, I'll put on record that I do not support party politics in local government.  Local government in Tasmania is, in effect, a project of the State Government and so should represent the spectrum of the people that they represent, not broader agendas that may not fit into those communities that they supposedly represent.  This is not criticism of those who are party-endorsed, I just personally wouldn't like to be one.  I would not like to have my decision-making abilities reduced by a higher power.

Ciao all... I'm of the belief that there's going to be some party-endorsed candidates running in 2011 in the Cradle Coast.  Interesting times.

RIP Stephen Hite - Rock on mate!

Very very saddened by the news of the passing of an old mate in Stephen Hite.  A close work colleague when I was at Burnie City Council and an awesome music friend until his passing.

With no disrespect to my former employer in the slightest, in my first week at Burnie City Council (in 2001) Stephen pulled me aside and said "Watch your back...".  I never understood what he meant initially but his wisdom guided me through community politics.  I often went to him for advice and he always gave it.

We had many hilarious chats about his former life as a DJ and his battles for supremacy over his nemesis DJ Tim Franklin.  I know that his white DJ suit is still in his cupboard!  He wouldn't tell me his DJ name and it has been my quest for 10 years to find it out.  I have never found it out.

He was a very passionate supporter of me and my music endeavours (and my new role as a councillor for Waratah-Wynyard), just like my other old mate in Jeremy White.  That pair were inseperable at work and in passion and now they've both left us for another place.  Burnie, and the wider region, will realise the extent of their passion for years to come.

My sincere best wishes go out to his family as they get though this.

He always listened closely when I performed U2's One.  Here it is for you mate.  RIP Stephen.  #RIPStephenHite

Song for today!

Compulsory Voting in Local Government?

Hi all,

Compulsory voting in local government elections has been a hot topic, yet again, that the annual Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT)'s Conference currently being held in Hobart  ...and now at the Tasmanian Young Labor 2011 Conference where it appear that they are calling for compulsory voting.

Dr Kevin Bonham from the Tasmanian Times wrote a provative piece in 2009 advocating against compusory voting here - http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/councils-a-case-against-compulsory-voting.

Former Premier David Bartlett was bold enough to address the 2008 LGAT conference and tell them that he felt that compulsory voting was "Ultimately, it is not a question of money but of representation". 

I'm yet to be convinced either way but I'm definitely open to the idea.  A longer-term councillor said to me last year that the current voting system saves money (compared to compulsory voting) and it does not force those who are not interested in local government to vote in something that they have no interest in.  I discussed with him that all people living in a municipality have an interest, even if indirectly, and that they have their chance to have their say.  He argued that they do have the chance but many don't exercise this.  Nb. Only 50-60% of people in municipalities exercise this right to vote.

I find this interesting as I often hear "BLOODY COUNCIL" but when I ask them did you vote I often get a no.  My thoughts are that you get what you vote for (or don't vote for).  There's a lot of argument going on in the media around the quality of councillors in the North-West and that they should be voted out - with just over half of the people voting you'll get the people that the 50-odd% vote for.  I'd love to know how I could get my hands on the data to see who votes to identify areas/demographics etc of non-voters.  A new candidate would be clever to try and tap into this non-voter base.  It worked well for me :)

I decided to look unbiasedly at this by conducting a simple SWOT analysis - looking at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of bringing in compulsory voting (it's a quick one - there's much more I could have looked at).

Strengths:

• At present, only just over half of the residents in municipalities have a say which means that councils miss out on the view of the non-voters
• There is a lack of engagement with the non-voters at present
• The Labor party has expressed interest in the concept
• By having all people vote you 'should' have a better guide toward planning the future of the municipalities
• Councils are not obtaining a council that is representative of the whole community - you currently only get who the 50-odd% voted for and this can have a demographic bias

Weaknesses:

• The current system permits the 'engaged' to exercise their right to be engaged and those who don't want to exercise this don't have to (I guess though that those forced to vote can simply post in a blank one!)
• Those who are not interested in local governance do not have major impacts on the votes of those who are
• A compulsory model is much more expensive
• A potential increase in those who vote purely on name recognition (these are people who vote without much idea of the candidates, if any, so vote on for people who they've heard of) may turn the election back to a popularity vote rather than a 'quality vote'
• A potential increase in party politics
• A potential increase in big $$$ being spent on campaigns which can reduce social equity (I can see Adam Brooks style campaigns in small communities)
• Potential for an increase in Donkey Voting or Informal Voting

Oppotunities:

• Councils can use this as a lever to actively promote to people the value of participating in elections
• It can be used as an education process to increase interest in local government
• Facilitates an opportunity for increased intergenerational representation in local government
• If local government receives Constitutional Recognition, as it's campaigning for, then the issue of compulsory voting is much more important as the Australian Government will be able to directly fund local government rather than going through state governments all the time - I know that I'd want a representative council to bargain for money from the Feds.

Threats:

• Being cynical, there is a threat to the seats of some councillors who survive on the basis that their current supporter base votes - some councillors may lose their seat if compulsory voting was brought in as their voter base may be diluted
• An increase in Labor, Liberal and Green candidates - personally, I believe that party politics should stay out of local government - those voting on party lines are required to vote according to party policies rather than purely on the facts put in front of them - it could compromise the candidate (I know that it would compromise me)... but this is up to the voters to decide
• Some people may become pissed off that they have to vote and become more disenfranchised

As I said... this was just a basic 15 minute SWOT.  I'm sure that there's many more reasons for and against.

Personally, anything that increases engagement and interest in the happenings of local government and creates intergenerational equity is a goer in my books.  Compulsory voting looks like it could do it but, man, would it need to be done well otherwise it could head in the opposite direction fast.  I can see that there would need to be a community education process, appropriate resourcing to support it's implementation, strong media imformation and the introduction of protocols/laws etc to minimise abuse by candidates in elections.

Well... LGAT have knocked it back for another year and the State Government seems to not want to get involved in the touchy subject of the structure of local government in Tasmania (even if they've come out supporting compulsory voting).

In the meantime... I encourage people to start consider standing for local government in the 2011 elections.  It's a rewarding experience even if you do get a bit of an ear-bashing in the aisles of Woolies or by the media now and again (this is only minor compared to the influence and change that you can make). You get to have a BIG VOICE toward the future of your municipality.  Rather than sitting back... get in an be heard.

Have fun!  Cheers!

CJH

Guest blogger for The Advocate

Hi all,

I am this week's guest blogger for The Advocate Newspaper.  I was asked to write on the council amalgamantion debate.  I had to cut my ramblings from 1,700 words to under 1,000 but the main essence of the post is there.  Yeah I know... I can dribble sometimes.

I thank Julian O'Brien, the new Editor for the opportunity to do this.

Find the link here - www.theadvocate.com.au/blogs/reader-blog/elephant-in-the-room-council-amalgamations/2225526.aspx?storypage=0.

Cheers, C..

Councillor Allowances and Councillor Representation

Hello all,

This post is of my own opinion and is purely a reflection

I've read with keen interest the debate around councillor allowances that are paid.  Although I have not seen any official documentation to state this is the case (other than reports in The Advocate Newspaper),  I am of the understanding that Alderman Steve Martin from Devonport City Council sought to have passed a motion by the DCC councillors to have their allowances frozen from rises.  Councillors can elect not to receive their allowance.  Allowance values are set by the Tasmanian State Government and are based on numbers of residents in respective municipalities (e.g. a councillor at DCC would receive more than a councillor at Waratah-Wynyard).  I must note that my annual councillor allowance is set as $12,293 for the 2011-2012 financial year.  This allowance is to cover costs associated with being a councillor - so, in effect, we are volunteers with a subsidy for expenses.


Personally, I believe that Ald Martin's motion was inappropriate as it's each councillor's option to not receive their allowance.  I guess a council could vote to do this but it should be left in the hands of each councillor to decide (although it could bring in a case of peer pressure if one does it and another doesn't).  Ald Martin, personally, can opt to freeze his own if he wishes.  Lets see if he does.

The DCC example is not the issue of this blog post though.  I have used it as a lead-in to discuss the issue of councillor allowances and whether councillors deserve it.  I reflect on Libby Bingham's article entitled 'Mayors say allowance reimburses time and commitment' in The Advocate on Saturday - www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/mayors-say-allowance-reimburses-time-and-commitment/2213665.aspx?storypage=0.

Yes, councillor allowances can add up to tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes several hundreds of thousands when looking at city councils) but, as I said, these figures are based on population size.  There is the debate in the Letters to the Editor that, if two councils were amalgamated, the costs of councillor's reimbursements would fall.  Although I have not 'done the sums', as the allowances are based on population size, I wouldn't expect the overall expense to change much as the individual councillors allowances would go up to compensate (I'll look into this one).

A Mayor's role is a full-time role, especially when councils get larger.  Do we really expect someone to work full-time for the community for free?  I'd be keen to hear your views on this.  In my opinion, it's an issue of social equity if we did and it seriously limits who is capable of doing it.  To work full-time for free assumes that you either have another flexible job to bring in some income, you are on some kind of benefit (e.g. superannuation, a pension), you have a large bank account and/or you have a financially supportive family.  This is why I could never run for Mayor during my working career.  I'd have to leave my current job so that I could attend all of the functions, meetings, meet and greets etc. and take a pay-cut.  I'm not going to do this and can't afford to.  With a young family and a mortgage it's just not possible.  I have had numerous people in the community tap me on the shoulder and ask me to run for Mayor of Waratah-Wynyard.  Sorry people, in this climate it just can't happen (even if I wanted to).

To follow on... Why would someone give up their job to become a Mayor?  It's only a two-year contract!  In the North-West, the Mayor's salary is modest to say the least if you compare it to a chairman of any other multi-million dollar enterprise.  This is why, in my opinion, you end up with a high average age of councillors.  Unless you have a flexible job you can't fulfil the duties of being a councillor and work to feed your family.  Most board members appointed by state governments etc. are paid remunerations + expenses.  A local councillor is, in effect, a board member.

Ms Bingham's article mentions that Mayor Boyd "...famously refused to collect all his mayoral allowance for a number of years...".  Well that's fine for Mayor Boyd but how could someone afford to do this if this was their only income?  Mayor Boyd at the time ran a successful business.

The underpinning argument under all of this is... Do communities want volunteers or experts running their municipality?  It is a demanding job and one that has limitations as to who can, in reality, allocate the time to it.  If you don't pay allowances then you'll only ever be represented by those who have the capacity to.  This also limits the skill sets and age representation required for good governance of a whole of community function.   Even at the current allowance rates I have many friends who won't stand for council due to financial constraints.  Getting generation Y and then Z'ds to run for council is going to be increasingly hard.

I often ask myself the question of why am I a councillor?  I cop scrutiny and angst, and for what?  It's certainly not for 10pm phone calls, weekend obligations and 3am agenda reading.  The only benefit to me is knowing that I'm utilising my skills, leadership and learnings for the future of the municipality.  I enjoy it and will continue to do so as long as I'm not out of pocket.

So in wrapping up I ask... Is it worth it to you to pay councillors an allowance or should it be revoked?

Have fun with this one.  It's only a reflection and I don't have any answers.  I have put across my thoughts... it's really based on what the community expects of a councillor.

Cheers... C.