There is a bill currently before the NSW Legislative Council which makes a number of changes to how local government elections work in New South Wales. The bill has been referred to an inquiry that is currently open for submissions.
The bill’s focus has been on a change to end the option for local councils to use a private election provider to run their elections. This is long overdue and I have already made a submission in support of this clause. I have written about this topic before.
The explanatory memorandum for the bill is a bit sneaky, in that the summary completely misses a quite significant other change in the bill.
Currently in New South Wales, councils face a choice at their first meeting following an election: to either have vacancies filled by by-elections or by countbacks. If they use countbacks, they are used for any vacancies caused in the first eighteen months of the term.
This bill would end this practice from 2028: instead, councillors elected as part of a group would be replaced by the next candidate in their group. For everyone else, it will be by-elections.
This is a backwards step and I have made a supplementary submission urging the inquiry, and the Parliament, to reject this change.
By-elections are a poor way to fill vacancies in proportional representation elections. While only some voters cast their votes for the vacating representative, all voters get their say in choosing a replacement.
This is what is so brilliant about countbacks: they don’t require a fresh election, but you can use the existing ballot papers to choose the person who is the next choice of those voters.
They are used in numerous other elections, including proportional elections in Tasmania and the ACT. I have been advocating for this reform since at least 2018.
The minister’s alternative solution, where the next candidate in a councillor’s group would fill their vacancy, would result in the same result in many cases, but it is not the same. Most of the time, countbacks would result in someone of the same political colour filling a vacancy, but only because voters actually vote that way. If voters vote below the line and don’t follow through and vote for the next candidate, then it is fair that someone else can win the seat.
Countbacks are also a useful tool in non-group elections. The democratic dilemma of some voters losing their representative but all voters choosing their replacement is true even without groups. Voters still have additional preferences.
In the minister’s speech, he talks about the need for political stability. I don’t disagree – countbacks usually produce more stability than by-elections. And it is possible to look at the voting data to know exactly who will win countbacks – a smart councillor should know exactly who will replace them if they were to resign. But stability shouldn’t be prioritised over the wishes of voters.
In my submission, I have urged the Parliament to instead amend the legislation to require countbacks be used in all local government vacancies, with by-elections only available where a countback isn’t possible. If this isn’t possible, I would urge them to strip out this provision entirely, or otherwise block the legislation.
While only a handful of councils use private election providers, this measure would weaken democracy all across the state.
Any heads up on the outcome ?
https://elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/local-government-elections/2025-georges-river-council-mortdale-ward-countback-election
@J Knight, mostly likely outcome will be ALP Candidate, No #3 on the ticket, Gerard Hayes will be elected Councillor.
Reasoning:
In 2022 there were two count-backs, one for Mortdale and one for Peakhurst Ward, both held by LAB Councillors. For Mortdale, Warren Tegg (ALP) resigned and Ash Ambihaipahar was elected on count-back (her resignation due to election to Federal Parliament, causing this count-back.) There were 5 groups and ALP got 1.3 quotas. For Peakhurst, Kevin Greene (ALP) resigned and Veronica Ficarra was elected on count-back. There were 3 groups and ALP got 1.7 quotas. In both cases the #2 in the group got elected.
However…if Gerard Hayes declines to be a candidate, as there are no more LAB candidates left (since 2 got elected in 2024 and Gerard was #3), then it would almost certainly mean a GRRRR candidate would then get elected, most likely #2 in the group, Alexandra Fleming.
Ben
It is a moot point – but – would count backs ever have made a difference to the Senate particularly in the days of GVT when senators were sometimes elected on very small primaries.
In Victoria – what is the casual vacancy replacement method – again would countbacks make a difference with the abomination that is GVT?
On a very personal level, I ran for a Council who had only just reintroduced Wards. I ran in a Ward that ALP felt could not be won given the popularity of Independents (Libs), I ran because I felt having Labor candidates in all Wards was important. It was the testing of iVote (which of course due to a number of us arguing we were ripped off by it’s poor processes landed us in Court to test it) which failed dismally. I won by 4 votes or 12 with preferences. The Indies challenged it based on iVote inconsistencies and we went to a By Election which I then won by over 500. We had a 5 Independents (Libs) v 4 Labor Council make up. A Mayor who 99% of the time voted with his mates who underpinned his win. At the next Council election they threw everything at the ward and with sadly very little support of the ALP I lost. Now we have 3 Labor Clrs and 6 Independents. The CEO has been on fully paid leave for 3 months plus, A few Clrs struggling with juggling family, FT work and demands of Council meetings and paperwork are flaking. A countback would bring me back. They voted for a by election 6 to 3. The were/are scared of me, I asked lots of uncomfortable financial questions ! 14 yr ALP Federal Staffer (retired) I know how to ask right questions…My submission will be pro Countback.
How would you feel about countbacks being used for casual replacements in the Australian Senate?
I don’t think countbacks would change the outcomes under GVT because those ATL votes would still follow the same order. I believe Victoria uses party replacement.
I would support countbacks for the Senate. It would require a cultural change from the parties to run people they would actually be comfortable with if they were to get elected.
Clearly parties have trouble sometimes finding people willing to run #2 on a ticket who would be willing to fill a vacancy, but this shouldn’t be a problem for the Senate.
Ben
Thanks for your response. As replacement by the same party is constitutionally enshrined, presumably this would be incompatible with countbacks. Is that a correct assessment?
That is correct.
Ben:
Not only using countbacks for filling Senate casual vacancies requires a massive cultural change from the parties to run people that they would be comfortable with getting elected, it will require a Constitutional amendment to amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Chapter I — The Parliament, Part II — The Senate, Section 15 which prescribes:
“15. Casual vacancies.
If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the State is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.
Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.”
The current prescription in Section 15 was ratified by the Australian people in a 1977 Referendum.
Ronald A. McCallum
A Canadian observer
I am aware. Literally the previous comment was me saying that. It will not be changed, but someone asked about how it would work.