Last night I voted for the abolition of wards and the reduction of the number of councillors to six.
I did this despite the fact that every single speaker (from the many in the gallery) spoke in opposition to this change (and was enthusiastically cheered and applauded). Not only that, in the community consultation more submissions were against than in favour. Topping that, a straw poll conducted at Bridgepoint indicated that 90% did not want wards abolished.
My action needs an explanation
I did it because I made a judgement call, that for the majority of the electorate, this was not an issue that they felt was important enough to devote time to come to grips with. It is an issue that really does require considerable time investment to make an informed decision. For example which is more democratic, having all councillors accountable to all electors or having each sub-area of Mosman having its own voice? In terms of representation, is it more important to have sub-areas represented or demographic sub-categories? To what extent does the fact that ward councillors have a limited mandate and limited accountability compromise their ability to make strategic decisions for all Mosman? I could go on.
Some would argue, as Tom Sherlock and Libby Moline* did, that it was our job to educate the community on the issue in all its complexity and then hold a referendum, but I felt that people need to be motivated enough to engage in such an educational program. and that on this issue the vast majority simply had better things to do. Hence it was our responsibily as a councillors to do the hard yards on their behalf.
The danger of putting an issue to a referendum when the electors don’t have the time or inclination to do the necessary thinking through of implications was highlighted by a number of speakers at the meeting who lamented the fact that the in voting for a popularly elected mayor at the last referendum few realised that this would make 3 wards no longer viable. In fact this was explained but chances are most electors (remember voting is compulsory) made an “intuitive’ vote. Libby proposed what I thought was a great idea – having a referendum where you had three options, Yes, No and ‘Not a burning issue for me’. Sadly, this is not constitutionally valid
Isn’t this the whole point of a representative democracy? People get elected not because of their position on every issue – after all who knows what issues are going to come up? They get elected on the basis of their perceived competence and willingness to grapple with the big issue and come up with a position that they believe is in the best interests of the community as a whole, certainly not just the vocal few.
In the case of the ward issue, councillors are particuarly well equipped to make the decision. After all at every Council vote they can observe at first hand how ward loyalties sometimne get in the way of good governance.
I read through all the submissions and taking into account who made each submission and what their likely motives were (another judgement I know, but unavoidable) I came down on the side of reform. One of the gallery speakers made the point “Why would councillors every vote to reduce their own numbers?” My answer is when they make the decision on principle rather than self interest.
At the council meeting I used my 3 minutes to explain as best I could my position. A key factor in my judgement call was the very small (albeit decicated) percentage of the electorate who chose to make a submission despite wide advertising. If my judgement was wrong on this issue, the electorate will have every opportunity to punish me at the next election!
