Since the expanded City of Sydney was created in 1948, every single state government has tinkered with the City of Sydney’s structure and boundaries to advantage their allies in local council elections.
Today’s announcement by the state Liberal government that they plan to radically expand business voting in the City of Sydney is in the same vein, but is a more extreme step away from local democracy in the City of Sydney, and a step back to an era where voting rights were contingent on property ownership.
It’s hard to say for sure what is being proposed, as I have not been able to find an actual bill anywhere, but the legislation appears to apply only to the City of Sydney (although it is suggested that it may be expanded to cover other councils), will give “up to two” votes to each business in the City of Sydney, and will create a permanent electoral roll for non-residential electors, so that all businesses are automatically enrolled and don’t have to ‘re-enrol’ for each election.
Owners and occupiers currently have the right to vote in NSW council elections in the council where they own property or operate a business, but most are not enrolled and do not vote. The City of Sydney is the only council where non-resident voters (such as businesses) are required to vote at the moment, but because most businesses are not enrolled to vote, and because you have to re-enrol for every election, it is effectively not compulsory to vote if you are a business.
While there are philosophical arguments about giving the right to vote to business owners who don’t live in the council area, this proposal is a naked power grab from conservative state politicians who have been unhappy with the progressive agenda that has been supported by voters in the City of Sydney, and want to remove the most prominent and successful mayor in New South Wales.
It’s hard to say how many extra electors will be added by these proposals, but there have been estimates that there are about 80,000 non-residents eligible to vote in the City of Sydney. It’s unclear whether the proposal will give two votes to each business (as is the case in Melbourne), but if so that would add close to 160,000 extra voters to an electorate of about 100,000 today.
The practical consequence of these changes would be to flood the City of Sydney electoral roll with a majority of new votes cast by business owners. While it would be a mistake to assume that all of these voters will be automatically conservative – many voters may be happy with Clover Moore’s policy agenda – you would have to guess that this constituency would act quite differently to the residents of the City of Sydney.
NSW Premier Mike Baird today attempted to justify the legislation today as an attempt to prevent “disenfranchisement” of ratepayers, but it’s a pretty shameless attempt to wrest control of the most significant local council in NSW by radically changing the voter base.
Clover Moore’s agenda has proven to be popular with local residents in her council area. Policies like significant investment in bike lanes – so hated by conservative state politicians and the Murdoch media – make sense for a politician representing the resident constituents of the City of Sydney, and have seen her re-elected as Lord Mayor twice.
The City of Sydney has a large budget and a prominence unrivalled amongst local councils in New South Wales. In the past, conservative governments have attempted to design elections in the City of Sydney to ensure that the council was dominated by business interests, and didn’t reflect the interests of the larger residential communities at the southern end of the current electorate.
The Askin and Greiner governments both broke off the southern parts of the City of Sydney to create a ‘South Sydney’ council, covering suburbs such as Alexandria, Rosebery, Erskineville and eastern parts of Newtown.
From 1989 to 2003, the City of Sydney covered a tiny area from Pyrmont and Ultimo to Woolloomoooloo Bay, but excluding inner suburbs such as Surry Hills, Darlington and Woolloomooloo. Naturally, such narrow boundaries ensured a wealthy electorate with a larger proportion being non-residential voters.
Since the Labor state government expanded the City’s boundaries in 2004 (in a vain attempt to allow the ALP to take power), the City of Sydney has covered a sizeable resident population with suburbs from Glebe to Rosebery and Newtown to Paddington, and that has been reflected in the direction of a progressive council under Clover Moore.
Past conservative governments have resolved this situation by separating the CBD – which contains most of the rates revenue – from the nearby suburbs which tend to elect progressive mayors and councils that then spend the money. It seems that, instead of creating another suburban council in South Sydney, this government plans to create the same result by flooding the council with business votes.
There are real philosophical arguments to be had about voting rights on councils for non-residents, and I might devote another blog post to this topic, but the motivations for this proposal are obvious. Conservatives haven’t been able to win the policy fight on the City of Sydney as a fair fight, so they want to massively tilt the field to knock out a prominent and successful leader who pursues a different agenda. It’s a power grab, and should be seen as such.
The primary role of councillors is to approve a rate and the budget annually. I have thought that only ratepayers (as it used to be) should be allowed to stand for council and vote in council elections. Whether we are a ratepayer resident, absentee landlord and a business paying rates that were it should stop.
That’s ridiculous. Councillors don’t just approve rates and a budget – indeed councillors don’t have that much influence over rates which are largely set by independent bodies.
They also approve development applications, make decisions about services, and lots of other things.
I think it’s a pretty important principle that we don’t allocate voting rights based on someone’s ability to pay. It just happens that amongst all the taxes that people might pay (and nearly all adult residents of a council would pay at least some of those taxes), rates are levied on land values so a lot of council residents don’t pay rates – it doesn’t mean they don’t have a legitimate say in what the council does or don’t pay their way in the overall mix of taxes.
No its not about their ability to pay but having control over how their money is spent. Councils in Victoria have been n fringe issues like art galleries that no one goes to or pork barrelling vested interest groups through community grants. Councils need to get out of kindergarten too unless the users pay the real cost of running them. This has started to happen in Port Phillip Council on Inner Melbourne.
Opps something went wrong with my last above. The second sentence should read “Councils in Victoria have been told by the Auditor General to concentrate on core functions and not waste money on fringe issues like art galleries that no one goes to or pork barreling vested interest groups through community grants”.
Good post, Ben. You accurately summarise the situation and State Government’s motivations.
The philosophical foundations for business voting are extremely weak. Why should the paying of rates give an entity a vote? Political power should be derived from people – which currently means meant adult citizens. I would like to see that extended to permanent residents and also 16-17 year olds. In state and federal elections only adult citizens get a vote – not non-human entities. Why is there no clamouring for companies to be able to vote in state and federal elections? I wonder.
And if people want to go down the ‘only ratepayers should get a vote’, well every time you pay rent or purchase goods or services from a business located in the City of Sydney, some proportion of that expenditure would go to cover rates. This argument is bollocks.
If the argument is that ‘businesses are stakeholders and should have a say’, well (a) there are many stakeholders and (b) there are many ways of having a say, voting being one way. There should have been a discussion about how should be able to vote in NSW local council elections – but of course there hasn’t been.
And the argument that ‘businesses pay rates so should get a vote’ is also bollocks. Businesses pay income tax to the Federal Government – and they don’t get a vote in federal elections. The right to vote does not depend on whether you pay taxes and nor should it.
Yet another NSW Government fiddling with the City of Sydney electoral system for their own benefit.
Councils are always talking about supporting vibrant shopping and business precincts. Most businesses pay the rates for a rented shop.
“No its not about their ability to pay but having control over how their money is spent.”
Using that logic, you could say that only those who pay income tax should have a say in how income tax is spent – that’s not how representative government works. Taxes are paid according to ability to pay, but everyone gets an equal vote.
The whole point of local government is that the people in that locality are the ones making the decision. Decisions that affect the whole state or Sydney region should ultimately be made by the body that represents all those people – it’s far more rational than significantly diluting the representativeness of the City of Sydney for the 100,000 adult citizens who actually live there.
OK lets agree to disagree. That said we all know that NSW is a corrupt place all round and thats because of its convict roots.
Sorry Ben, ever heard the saying: No taxation without representation?
All businesses I’m aware of pay land tax and rates under their lease agreement. Yet despite contributing to the wellbeing of the community they are often ignored in the planning process because frankly votes talk. I’ve seen the City of Sydney rip up numerous pavements, roads, etc and effect has been to drive the local businesses into insolvency and many of these building remain boarded up years later.
This is a step to rectify a deficiency in the current system, which your arguing to preserve.
Sorry, I have to beg to differ and respectfully agree to disagree.
People are entitled to representation. Businesses are not people.
Businesses have a huge amount of influence over policy and how decisions are made, far more than ordinary people, without having the right to vote. It’s a joke to suggest they are somehow in need of enfranchisement.
Spot on Ben.
Would people who support business voting in local government elections support foreign corporations or foreign property investors getting votes in state and federal elections too?
It’s an archaic concept that went out at other levels of government in the 19th century. It’s very hard to see how it is in pricniple any more legitimate in local government. It should be ended not extended.
‘No taxation without representation’ refers to people – not corporations!
Ben is absolutely right – people deserve representation. Businesses are not people.
yes it is a power grab……….. how do you make voting compulsory for businesses?
i think having any sort of business vote is a massive concession for business any way
what Alex Greenwich is suggesting with a permanent roll for businesses is the way to go.
Here’s the text of the bill
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/131a07fa4b8a041cca256e610012de17/8ebe89753851210dca257d32001dfd41/$FILE/10952167.pdf/b2014-062-d03-House.pdf
Some of it seems quite bizarre. There’s a limit of 2 owners/lessees/occupiers who can be enrolled per parcel of rateable land, which seems rather arbitrary.
And here’s the real kicker, it provides that regulations may be made under the Local Government Act extending these provisions to other local government areas!
Incidentally, requiring the council to maintain the non-resident roll rather than the electoral commission is already the practice for every council in NSW except for the City of Sydney.
In Victoria residents and ratepayers get a vote. Also two people running a shop (eg) a couple in a Milk Bar get a vote each and companies can nominate two company members to vote. Its not compulsory for absentee landlords or business owner or companies to vote though. People over 70 don’t have to vote (ridiculous) but they have to vote in state and federal elections.The Council maintains a voters roll as some voters like absentee landlords may not live in the council area. Until a decade ago ratepayers could vote for every property they owned provide it was only one vote per ward but the ALP government of the time restricted one vote for a property the owner nominates. At about that time non taxpaying resident were permitted to stand for council and we had our first one at the last council election. This means that non ratepayer are now deciding how ratepayers funds are spent which is also ridiculous.
In Melbourne the Lord Mayor is elected in a separate ballot paper by voters (presidential style) while the other councillors are elected on a ward basis I think but its a separate ballot paper to that of the Lord Mayor.
they have to work out some way to win. I hope no one from the left ever act like this.
Instead of constantly fiddling the rules to see the “right people” elected, you’ve got to wonder why they bother with the pretence of local democracy at all. Why doesn’t the State Government just declare the City of Sydney of such statewide importance that it will have administrators directly appointed by the State Government instead, if that’s what it really believes?
Exactly. Not that I’d support that, but it would be far more straighforward than trying to fiddle with the electoral system.
But for some people it’s not exclusively about the City of Sydney. It’s part of a wider view that conservatives have adopted that frames local government as more of a corporate-like entity than a level of government, and much of the legislation around local government increasingly reflects this. They characterise councillors as equivalent to the board of directors of a company, giving rise to various notions about how councils should operate. Voting based on property or business ownership is just another idea that flows from this metaphorical view of local councils as a corporation.
It’s also about a frame that says that the job of government is to do what business wants, rather than business being one particular sector of the community.
Those arguing in favour have pointed to the City of London, but the main difference is the City of London is so small that it is almost entirely business, it has only 7000 residents – there are almost 170,000 residents living in the City of Sydney – it is a vibrant residential area, not just a CBD.
The old City of Sydney pre-2003 contained very little suburban areas. It would be far more sensible to shrink the City of Sydney to literally just cover the CBD.
But despite that, I think it’s a good thing that the richest and most prominent council in NSW actually represents a community and provides services to them, instead of just being beholden to corporations in the CBD.
Surely that should be Greiner, not Wran.
You’re right, thanks for the correction David.
Sir Robert Askin during the visit to Australia by US President LBJ said of the pro Viet Cong protestor lying on the road “run over the bastards”. That was back in the 1960’s
Presumably the problem with that is that the surrounding residential areas have a considerable impact on their infrastructure due to the CBD, which the rates from the CBD businesses should be going to support.
A shrinking city is one option. Another option is a greater Sydney council like Brisbane or London. After all the core functions that most ratepayers are interested in for any council is rubbish collection, fixing drains, repairing roads and footpaths and watering the parks and gardens.
Further point re the London situation. Whilst there is the Greater London Authority (cue Boris Johnson); it’s remit extends mainly to transport, policing, fire and rescue, development and strategic planning. For the services that we take as being those belonging to local government; there are still the local-based “borough councils”.
Comments are closed.