2015-16 representation review guide for … · web viewhasan hassan and mr lucas, in their...

WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCILAugust 2019

© State of Victoria (Victorian Electoral Commission) Wednesday 28 August 2019

Version 1

This work, Local Council Representation Review Preliminary Report – Whitehorse City Council, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/]. You are free to share this work under that licence, on

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Local Council Representation Review – Preliminary Report Whitehorse City Council 2019

the condition that you do not change any content and you credit the State of Victoria (Victorian Electoral Commission) as author and comply with the other licence terms. The licence does not apply to any branding, including Government logos.


ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................1

BACKGROUND.........................................................................................3

Legislative basis..........................................................................................................................3

Public engagement......................................................................................................................3

The VEC’s principles...................................................................................................................4

Developing recommendations.....................................................................................................5

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS (PRELIMINARY)......................................................7

THE VEC’S FINDINGS AND OPTIONS........................................................15

Preliminary report findings.........................................................................................................15

Options......................................................................................................................................23

NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................24

Response submissions.............................................................................................................24

Public hearing............................................................................................................................25

Final report................................................................................................................................25

APPENDIX 1: OPTION MAPS....................................................................26

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS...................................29

of 36


Executive summaryThe Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) to

conduct an electoral representation review of each local council in Victoria at least before every

third council general election.

The purpose of a representation review is to recommend an electoral structure that provides ‘fair

and equitable representation for the persons who are entitled to vote at a general election of the

Council.’1 The matters considered by a review are:

the number of councillors

the electoral structure of the council (whether the council should be unsubdivided or

divided into wards and, if subdivided, the ward boundaries and the number of councillors

per ward).

The VEC conducts all reviews based on three main principles:

1. taking a consistent, State-wide approach to the total number of councillors

2. if subdivided, ensuring the number of voters represented by each councillor is within

plus-or-minus 10% of the average number of voters per councillor for that local council

3. ensuring communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible.

Current electoral structureWhitehorse City Council currently comprises ten councillors elected from five two-councillor

wards. More information on Whitehorse City Council and the current electoral structure is

available in the council fact sheet on the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au

Prior to the last representation review in 2007, Whitehorse City Council was comprised of ten

councillors elected from five two-councillor wards. Visit the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au to

access a copy of the 2007 review final report.

Preliminary submissionsThe VEC invited preliminary submissions from the commencement of the Whitehorse City

Council review on Wednesday 3 July 2019. The VEC received 24 submissions by the deadline

for submissions at 5.00 pm on Wednesday 31 July 2019. These submissions can be viewed on

the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au and a list of people or organisations who made a submission

is available at Appendix 2.

1 Section 219D of the Local Government Act 1989.

Page 1 of 29

http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/


http://vec.vic.gov.au/


VEC optionsThe VEC is considering the following options for further consultation:

Option A (preferred option)

Whitehorse City Council consist of 11 councillors elected from five wards (four two-councillor wards and one three-councillor ward).

Option B (alternative option)

Whitehorse City Council consist of 10 councillors elected from five two-councillor wards, with adjustments to the current ward boundaries.

Page 2 of 29


BackgroundLegislative basisThe Act requires the VEC to conduct a representation review of each local council in Victoria

before every third general council election, or earlier if gazetted by the Minister for Local

Government.

The Act specifies that the purpose of a representation review is to recommend the number of

councillors and the electoral structure that provides ‘fair and equitable representation for the

persons who are entitled to vote at a general election of the Council.’2

The Act requires the VEC to consider:

the number of councillors in a local council

whether a local council should be unsubdivided or subdivided.

If a local council should be subdivided, the VEC must ensure that the number of voters

represented by each councillor is within plus-or-minus 10% of the average number of voters per

councillor for that local council. 3 On this basis, the review must consider the:

number of wards

ward boundaries

number of councillors that should be elected for each ward.

Public engagement

Public information program The VEC conducts a public information program to inform the community of the representation

review, including:

public notices printed in local and state-wide papers

a public information session to outline the review process and respond to questions from

the community

a media release announcing the commencement of the review

sponsored social media advertising geo-targeted to users within the local council

area

an information email campaign targeted at known community groups and communities of

interest in the local council area

2 Section 219D of the Local Government Act 1989.3 Ibid.

Page 3 of 29


a submission guide and fact sheet to explain the review process and provide background

information on the scope of the review

ongoing information updates and publication of submissions on the VEC website.

Public consultationPublic input is accepted by the VEC in:

preliminary submissions at the start of the review

response submissions to the preliminary report

a public hearing that provides an opportunity for people who have made a response

submission to expand on their submission.

Public submissions are an important part of the review process but are not the only factors

considered during a review. The VEC ensures its recommendations comply with the Act and are

formed through careful consideration of public submissions, independent research, and analysis

of all relevant factors.

The VEC’s principlesThree main principles underlie all the VEC’s work on representation reviews:

1. Taking a consistent, State-wide approach to the total number of councillors.

The VEC is guided by its comparisons of local councils of a similar size and category to

the council under review. The VEC also considers any special circumstances that may

warrant the local council having more or fewer councillors than similar local councils.

2. If subdivided, ensuring the number of voters represented by each councillor is within plus-or-minus 10% of the average number of voters per councillor for that local council.

This is the principle of ‘one vote, one value’, which is enshrined in the Act. This means

that every person’s vote counts equally.

3. Ensuring communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible.

Each local council contains a number of communities of interest. Where practicable, the

electoral structure should be designed to ensure they are fairly represented, and that

geographic communities of interest are not split by ward boundaries. This allows elected

councillors to be more effective representatives of the people and interests in their

particular local council or ward.

Page 4 of 29


Developing recommendationsThe VEC bases its recommendations for particular electoral structures on the following

information:

internal research specifically relating to the local council under review, including

Australian Bureau of Statistics and .id data4; voter statistics from the Victorian electoral

roll; and other State and local government data sets

small area forecasts provided by .id for relevant local council areas

the VEC’s experience conducting previous electoral representation reviews of local

councils and similar reviews for State elections

the VEC’s expertise in mapping, demography and local government

careful consideration of all input from the public in written submissions received during

the review

advice from consultants with extensive experience in local government.

Deciding on the number of councillorsThe Act allows for a local council to have between five and 12 councillors but does not specify

how the appropriate number of councillors is to be decided.5 In considering the number of

councillors for a local council, the VEC is guided by the Victorian Parliament’s intention for

fairness and equity in the local representation of voters under the Act.

The starting point in deciding the appropriate number of councillors for a local council is

comparing the local council under review to other local councils of a similar size and type

(Principle 1). Generally, local councils that have a larger number of voters will have a higher

number of councillors. Often large populations are more likely to be diverse, both in the nature

and number of their communities of interest and the issues of representation.

However, the VEC also considers the particular circumstances of each local council which could

justify more or fewer councillors, such as:

the nature and complexity of services provided by the Council

geographic size and topography

population growth or decline

the social diversity of the local council.

4 .id is a consulting company specialising in population and demographic analysis and prediction information products in most jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand.5 Section 5B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Page 5 of 29


Deciding the electoral structureThe Act allows for a local council to be unsubdivided, with all councillors elected ‘at-large’ by all

voters or subdivided into a number of wards.

If the local council is to be subdivided into wards, there are three options available:

1. single-councillor wards

2. multi-councillor wards

3. a combination of single-councillor and multi-councillor wards.

A subdivided electoral structure must be developed with internal ward boundaries that provide for

a fair and equitable division of the local council.

The Act allows for wards with different numbers of councillors, as long as the number of voters

represented by each councillor is within plus-or-minus 10% of the average number of voters per

councillor for that local council (Principle 2). For example, a local council may have one

three-councillor ward with 15,000 voters and two single-councillor wards each with 5,000 voters.

In this case, the average number of voters per councillor would be 5,000.

Over time, population changes can lead to some wards in subdivided local councils having larger

or smaller numbers of voters. As part of the review, the VEC corrects any imbalances and takes

into account likely population changes to ensure ward boundaries provide equitable

representation for as long as possible.

In considering which electoral structure is most appropriate, the VEC considers the following

matters:

the VEC’s recommendation at the previous representation review and the reasons for

that recommendation

the longevity of the structure, with the aim of keeping voter numbers per councillor within

the 10% tolerance for as long as possible (Principle 2)

communities of interest, consisting of people who share a range of common concerns,

such as geographic, economic or cultural associations (Principle 3)

the number of candidates in previous elections, as outcomes from previous elections

indicate that large numbers of candidates can lead to an increase in the number of

informal (invalid) votes

geographic factors, such as size and topography

clear ward boundaries.

Page 6 of 29


Public submissions (preliminary)The VEC received 24 preliminary submissions by the deadline at 5.00 pm on Wednesday

31 July 2019. These submissions can be viewed on the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au and a list

of people or organisations who made a submission is available at Appendix 2.

The matrix below provides an overview of preferences in the preliminary submissions. Detailed

analysis of the submissions follows.

Submitter wanted fewer wards

Submitter wanted ward number to

remain unchanged

Submitter wanted more wards

Submitter did not comment on

number of wards

Submitter wanted fewer councillors 2 — — —

Submitter wanted councillor

number to remain unchanged

— 8* 3 —

Submitter wanted more councillors 4* 6 1 1

Submitter did not comment on number of councillors

— — — —

* Some submissions nominated a preference for more than one option.

Number of councillors Various proposals were put forward by submitters on the appropriate number of councillors for

Whitehorse City Council. The majority of submissions were in favour of either increasing the

number of councillors to 11 or retaining the current number at 10. A smaller number of submitters

suggested that either nine or 12 councillors would be appropriate.

Two submitters proposed reducing the number of councillors to nine. Aaron Hewett suggested

that nine councillors would make Whitehorse City Council consistent with the number of

councillors and voter-to-councillor ratios of similar local councils, such as Knox City Council and

Darebin City Council. The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania)

Inc. (PRSA) proposed nine councillors because it preferred an odd number of councillors to

ensure that a majority vote was reflected in election results and to avoid tied votes on the

Page 7 of 29



Council. The PRSA also suggested nine councillors in support of its preferred electoral structure

of three three-councillor wards.

Ten submitters proposed retaining the current number of councillors at 10 as many felt the

current number of councillors was working well. Brian Pell favoured 10 councillors as he felt that

this was consistent with similar Metropolitan Melbourne local councils and that 11,770 voters per

councillor was at about the median point for all Victorian local councils. Peter Lucas suggested

there was no need to increase the number of councillors and that 10 councillors were sufficient to

cover the local council area. None of the submitters in support of retaining 10 councillors thought

that an even number of councillors was or would be problematic. Mr Pell suggested the number

of times the Mayor had needed to exercise their casting vote in the event of a tied Council

decision was insignificant.

Nine submitters proposed increasing the number of councillors to 11, mainly to accommodate

population growth, with particular reference to the growth currently occurring and expected to

continue in Box Hill. Whitehorse City Council suggested a structure of 11 councillors would be

appropriate for population and voter growth. According to Andrew Davenport, increasing the

number of councillors to 11 would cater for population growth over the next 12 years, which he

suggested was being driven largely by developments in Box Hill. The submission made by the

Whitehorse Branch of the Victorian Greens argued for increasing councillor numbers to 11 as

population growth, particularly around major activity centres (such as Box Hill and Nunawading-

Mitcham), would place increasing pressure on the task of representation. In their respective

submissions, David Berry, the Blackburn and District Tree Preservation Society Inc., Elgar

Contact and Helen Harris OAM also all mentioned the disproportionate rate of growth expected

in Box Hill in their support of increasing the number of councillors to 11.

Some submitters in favour of increasing councillor numbers to 11 compared the City of

Whitehorse to other Metropolitan Melbourne local councils. Mr Davenport pointed out that in

another recent representation review, the VEC recommended the number of councillors for

neighbouring Boroondara City Council be increased to 11; he suggested such an increase was

also appropriate for Whitehorse City Council as it was similar in size to Boroondara City Council.

Whitehorse City Council made the same point in relation to Boroondara City Council, and also

referred to Darebin City Council and Knox City Council, to suggest that both had almost identical

voter numbers to Whitehorse City Council, and, with nine councillors, each would likely have

their number of councillors increased when next reviewed by the VEC.

Whitehorse City Council submitted that, with 11,771 voters per councillor, the City is currently

close to the median voter-to-councillor ratio of Victorian local councils. The Council argued that

decreasing the number of councillors to nine would disproportionately increase the voter-to-

councillor ratio, whereas increasing the number of councillors to 11 would not drastically alter

Page 8 of 29


Whitehorse City Council’s position in relation to the voter-to-councillor ratios of similar local

councils. The Whitehorse Branch of the Victorian Greens submitted that the onerous workload of

councillors would be given some relief by increasing the number of councillors to 11 and

residents would be better represented if there were more councillors to share workloads. Kieran

Bates felt that 11 councillors would provide a better chance that all of the Whitehorse City

Council electorate would be represented.

Peter Allan made two preliminary submissions to the review. In Mr Allen’s second submission he

proposed increasing the number of councillors to 11, though he did not provide specific reasons

for this preference. He suggested in his first submission that increasing the number of councillors

to 12 was appropriate due to population growth.

Two other submitters also proposed increasing the number of councillors to 12. Warwick Dilley

argued for an even number of councillors so that Council decisions could be determined by a full

council and not by a majority of one. Mr Dilley also suggested that 12 councillors would provide

an equal number of four councillors per ward in his preferred three-ward electoral structure. Judy

Sharples similarly preferred an even number of councillors and proposed increasing the number

of councillors to accommodate population growth in and around the Box Hill Activity Centre.

Electoral structure The majority of submitters favoured a multi-councillor electoral structure. There was some

support for a single-councillor electoral structure and minimal support for an unsubdivided

electoral structure.

Whitehorse City Council provided a comprehensive submission and presented five different

electoral structures. The Council’s submission proposed a preferred option of 11 councillors

elected from five wards (four two-councillor wards and one three-councillor ward) and an

alternative option of 11 councillors elected from four wards (three three-councillor wards and one

two-councillor ward). The Council also provided arguments against continuing with the current

electoral structure, a single councillor per ward electoral structure and a structure of nine

councillors elected from three three-councillor wards. A number of submitters supported one or

the other of the Council’s preferred and alternative electoral structures.

Unsubdivided

Ms Sharples suggested that Whitehorse City Council should be unsubdivided, though only if her

first preference for creating an additional ward to contain the Box Hill Major Activity Centre was

not possible. She did contend, however, that an unsubdivided electoral structure would be of

benefit to voters as it would enable councillors to be elected from, and concerned about, the

Council as a whole and not just the parochial interests of their local ward.

Page 9 of 29


Single-councillor wards

Four submitters proposed that Whitehorse City Council should be subdivided into single-

councillor wards. Three of these submitters preferred 10 single-councillor wards and one

preferred 11 single-councillor wards.

Mr Allan argued for 11 single-councillor wards as he felt the additional reforms proposed as part

of the Local Government Bill 2019 would make any multi-councillor ward option obsolete within

three years and that it would therefore be sensible to adopt a single-councillor ward option.

Hasan Hassan and Mr Lucas, in their respective submissions, felt the current structure of two

councillors per ward did not adequately represent voters. This is because some wards have

more voters or residents in them than others, and that each ward should have approximately

15,000 to 18,000 residents in each. They argued that in single-councillor wards, councillors

would deal with residents’ issues more directly and be more involved in community events. Both

submitters suggested single-councillor wards would provide equal representation, would not

favour one community of interest over another, would improve transparency, honesty and

accountability and would prevent less hard-working councillors from hiding behind councillors

who did work hard. They also felt single-councillor wards would facilitate more inclusive

community programs and strengthen community cohesion.

Gary Haley argued that single-councillor wards would allow councillors to be more responsive to

residents’ needs and concerns, and better able to manage the challenges associated with

development. Mr Haley also felt that having just one councillor per ward would reduce potential

conflict and competition between multiple councillors elected from the same ward.

Multi-councillor wards

The majority of submitters favoured a multi-councillor ward structure consisting of either three,

four or five wards. Ms Sharples’ submission proposed a six-ward structure, creating an additional

ward specifically for the Box Hill Activity Centre. This model was suggested on account of

population growth in the area and what Ms Sharples suggested was a unique community of

interest not shared with other Elgar Ward residents.

Whitehorse City Council pointed out it had always had a multi-councillor electoral structure, and

that such a structure was appropriate for the Council due to its size, voting population, ability to

utilise effective ward boundaries, accommodation of communities of interest and longevity. While

the Council outlined some of the advantages of single-councillor wards, it contended that such

an electoral structure would likely result in regular ward boundary adjustments and would rely too

heavily on unclear and less familiar ward boundaries.

Page 10 of 29


Mr Davenport argued councillor workloads could be shared more effectively in multi-councillor

wards, especially in relation to representing the community, acting on residents’ concerns and

attending community events. He felt that this enabled councillors to have a work-life balance.

Ms Harris also suggested that sharing workloads was an advantage of multi-councillor wards.

She added that in her experience, councillors understood the need to represent the whole

community and not just their own area or ward. The Blackburn and District Tree Preservation

Society Inc. preferred a multi-councillor electoral structure as it submitted that in single-councillor

wards, residents have no options if their ward councillor is unresponsive or ineffective.

Some submitters, including Mr Berry and the Blackburn and District Tree Preservation Society

Inc., argued that multi-councillor wards with councillors elected through proportional vote-

counting gave non-politically aligned community candidates a better chance of being elected;

they also argued that community candidates provided the best representation to residents and

voters.

The Whitehorse Branch of the Victorian Greens argued that multi-councillor wards were more

democratic, fostered greater diversity of representation and helped prevent the major political

parties from dominating elections. They also pointed out what they saw as the disadvantages of

a single-councillor electoral structure, such as councillor isolation and overload, loss of

collegiality, limited options for residents connecting with councillors and more frequent boundary

adjustments.

Some submitters commented on the prospective additional reforms to the Local Government Bill

2019, which if passed into law as currently proposed, would disallow multi-councillor wards.

Elgar Contact (an apolitical residents’ group) and Ms Harris suggested that this would be a

regressive step and result in regular ward boundary changes and greater chances of by-

elections.

Three-ward electoral structure

Three submitters proposed an electoral structure of three wards; two preferred nine councillors

elected from three three-councillor wards and one preferred 12 councillors elected from three

four-councillor wards.

Mr Dilley argued for three four-councillor wards in order to better represent small groups and

interests. He made this suggestion with reference to the lower quota of votes required for

electing candidates in a four-councillor ward, adding that this would help prevent a party from

gaining the majority of positions in a ward. He also expressed a preference for having an equal

number of councillors in each ward so all residents were represented in the same way.

Mr Hewett favoured multi-councillor wards, which he felt provided better representation for

different communities of interest when compared with single-councillor wards. He preferred three

Page 11 of 29


three-councillor wards as nine councillors was consistent with other councils such as Knox City

Council and Darebin City Council, and that approximately 13,000 voters per councillor was

appropriate for a Metropolitan Melbourne local council.

The PRSA advocated for a multi-councillor electoral structure to maximise the value of effective

votes and increase voter choice. It suggested an electoral structure of three three-councillor

wards to ensure parity between the different wards and to maximise the benefits of proportional

representation counting. The PRSA did not believe an electoral structure containing two-

councillor wards was in the best interest of voters.

Four-ward electoral structure

Two submitters favoured a subdivided electoral structure of four wards (three three-councillor

wards and one two-councillor ward).

Mr Bates thought this electoral structure would be more democratic and would provide smaller

parties with a greater chance of being represented.

The Whitehorse Branch of the Victorian Greens contended that the number of wards in

Whitehorse City Council should be reduced to provide more councillors per ward as this would

be inherently more democratic and would facilitate the sharing of councillor workloads. They

argued that a four-ward electoral structure would increase the diversity of views represented on

the Council as they did not believe that the current structure provided sufficient diversity and that

it favoured the major political parties.

A four-ward electoral structure was modelled by the Council and presented as its alternative

preference. In its submission, the Council suggested that it provided reasonable boundaries,

contained Box Hill Activity Centre in the one ward and catered for increases in the voter

population, though not as effectively as its preferred five-ward model.

Current five-ward electoral structure

Seven submitters favoured retaining the current electoral structure of 10 councillors elected from

five two-councillor wards. Most of these submitters felt the current electoral structure was

working well and provided voters with fair and equitable representation. Some submitters did not,

however, elaborate much further on these arguments.

Mr Pell believed the current electoral structure had strong community support, was understood

and served residents well and had provided stable local government. He said that under the

current structure, councillors are able to develop a good understanding of issues in their ward

while also taking a holistic view of the interests of residents. Mr Pell believed the two-councillor

wards had enabled a suitably diverse selection of candidates and elected councillors. He

proposed that the number of voters should be increased in Morack Ward in response to

population growth and change.

Page 12 of 29


Whitehorse Historical Society Inc. (the Society) similarly submitted that the current electoral

structure was working well and that it received sufficient support from the ward councillors. The

Society suggested that having to connect with all of the 10 councillors under a different electoral

structure would be detrimental to its interests.

Elspeth Drury suggested the current electoral structure allows for local independent candidates

to be elected and that it provides residents with another option in the event one of the councillors

will not represent them. Chris Trueman felt the current structure should be maintained and that

any change away from multi-councillor wards would be a regressive step.

Dennis Law argued the current system of multi-councillor wards provides local residents with a

voice about developments in their area, that having multiple councillors in the one ward assists

with population and development pressures, particularly those relating to the Box Hill Activity

Centre, and that a single-councillor ward structure could result in an elected councillor

representing outside interests and not those of the Council or residents.

Alternative five-ward structure with 11 councillors

Six submitters preferred an electoral structure of five wards comprising four two-councillor wards

and one three-councillor ward. Many of these submitters also suggested the current electoral

structure was appropriate and working well but identified the need for an additional councillor to

accommodate population growth, particularly the growth occurring and expected to continue in

Elgar Ward.

Five submitters argued that Elgar Ward should have three councillors, mainly on account of the

high growth rate expected for this area. The sixth submitter suggested that Riversdale Ward

should have three councillors, as this would enable similar suburbs, such as Mont Albert, Surrey

Hills, Box Hill South and Blackburn South, to be contained within a larger ward.

Like those in support of the current electoral structure, most submitters in support of this

proposal outlined the benefits of multi-councillor wards, such as proportional representation

counting, the sharing of councillor workloads and the ability of this electoral structure to easily

accommodate population change.

Numerous submitters felt the ward boundaries of the current electoral structure worked

effectively and could, with slight modifications, continue to function just as well or be improved

under their preferred 11-councillor five-ward structure. Indeed, through its modelling, particularly

with reference to the ward boundary adjustments required to sustain the current electoral

structure, Whitehorse City Council demonstrated that its preferred 11-councillor five-ward

structure incorporated better ward boundaries. It argued that this model closely resembled the

current structure and would not confuse residents. Similarly, Elgar Contact suggested this five-

ward option would be the least disruptive in terms of ward boundary adjustments.

Page 13 of 29


Whitehorse City Council argued that under its preferred five-ward electoral structure, residents

would be able to easily identify who their councillors were and that it would effectively cater for

communities of interest. It outlined the groupings of various suburbs in each ward to argue that

this structure most effectively represented communities of interest and avoided splitting the Box

Hill Activity Centre.

The Council provided detailed voter numbers and growth projections to argue that this proposal

more effectively complied with the legislated requirement that the number of voters represented

by each councillor is within +/- 10% of the average number of voters per councillor, and was the

most sustainable over the long-term.

Page 14 of 29


The VEC’s findings and optionsPreliminary report findings

Number of councillors The VEC takes a consistent, state-wide approach to the total number of councillors and is guided

in its recommendations by comparing local councils of a similar size and category to the council

under review. As the table below indicates, Whitehorse City Council has a voter-to-councillor

ratio reasonably close to the median (11,523) of all Metropolitan Melbourne local councils. The

City’s population is expected to grow at a moderate rate of about 1.2% per year between now

and 2036, with much higher rates of growth expected in some areas. In its 2007 review of

Whitehorse City Council, the VEC found convincing evidence to warrant an increase in the

number of councillors to 11 and put forward several 11-councillor options for further consultation.

In determining the appropriate number of councillors for any council, the VEC also considers a

range of other factors, including arguments presented in submissions, communities of interest

and any special circumstances that might influence the appropriate number of councillors.

Comparable Metropolitan Melbourne councils to Whitehorse City Council

Local council Area (km2)

Population (2016

Census)

Number of voters at

last review

Current estimate of

votersNumber of councillors

Number of voters per councillor

Brimbank City 123 194,319 127,517 135,931 11 12,357

Boroondara City * 60 167,231 125,742 133,357 10 13,335

Moreland City 51 162,558 109,744 132,790 11 12,071

Monash City 81 182,618 120,779 123,695 11 11,245

Kingston City * 91 151,389 105,316 122,333 9 13,592

Melbourne City 36 135,959 104,929 119,595 9^ 13,288

Knox City 114 154,110 116,335 118,678 9 13,186

Whitehorse City * 64 162,078 111,384 117,705 10 11,770

Darebin City * 53 146,719 96,334 117,261 9 13,029

Frankston City 131 134,143 95,979 109,662 9 12,184

Page 15 of 29


Glen Eira City 38 140,875 97,582 106,440 9 11,826

Greater Dandenong City *

130 152,050 93,970 101,846 11 9,258

* The local council is undergoing an electoral representation review by the VEC during 2019–20.

The City of Whitehorse is located about 15 kilometres east of Melbourne’s CBD and covers an

area of 65 square kilometres. It is primarily suburban but also contains numerous parks,

waterways and important natural environments, such as Blackburn Lake, Forest Hill Reserve and

Wurundjeri Wetlands.

The City of Whitehorse contains the suburbs of Blackburn, Blackburn North, Blackburn South,

Box Hill, Box Hill North, Box Hill South, Burwood, Burwood East, Forest Hill, Mitcham, Mont

Albert, Mont Albert North, Nunawading, Surrey Hills, Vermont and Vermont South. The City

includes major commercial centres, industrial precincts and several educational and health

facilities, all of which play an important part in the local economy and employment.6 The two

major educational institutions of Box Hill TAFE and Deakin University are important employers

and have an approximate student enrolment of 37,000 and 28,000, respectively.7 There are a

large number of domestic (about 11,167) and international (about 6,248) students residing in the

local council area, which together comprise about 11% of the total resident population.8

Separate houses make up the majority of dwelling types but have decreased considerably from

about three-quarters of the total housing stock in 2006 to about two-thirds currently.9 Major

growth has taken place in medium- and high-density living, particularly around major activity

centres. There has been sustained growth in the number of renters, from 11,872 households in

2006 to 16,358 by 2016, growing over this period from 21.7% of all tenure types to 27.1%.10

Healthcare and social assistance is the largest employment industry in the local council area. In

2016 it made up 18.2% of all employment and employed 12,586 people.11 Healthcare and social

assistance is also the biggest employer of the City’s residents, employing about 10,000 local

residents.12 The number of residents working in accommodation and food services, professional,

6 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), Planning Schemes Online, Whitehorse Planning Scheme, http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/whitehorse, accessed 15 August 2019.7 Independent insight, City of Whitehorse student accommodation strategy–background paper. Prepared for City of Whitehorse, Final July 2018, https://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/student-accommodation-study, accessed 15 August 2019.8 ibid. 9 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: community profile’, https://profile.id.com.au/whitehorse, accessed 15 August 2019.10 ibid. 11 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: economic profile’, https://economy.id.com.au/whitehorse, accessed 15 August 2019.12 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: community profile’, https://profile.id.com.au/whitehorse , accessed 15 August 2019.

Page 16 of 29

https://profile.id.com.au/whitehorse

https://economy.id.com.au/whitehorse


https://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/student-accommodation-study

http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/whitehorse


scientific and technical services, and education and training has increased substantially since

2006, whereas those working in manufacturing and wholesale have declined.13 The City of

Whitehorse has a high proportion of its working population (about 32%) classed as

professionals.14

On a range of measures, including median house prices, income levels and wealth, educational

attainment and relative advantage/disadvantage,15 the City of Whitehorse is well above the State

and Greater Melbourne averages, and is considered a relatively affluent local council area.16

However, some areas do not perform so well on the same measures and there are pockets of

social disadvantage, particularly in the suburbs of Box Hill, Burwood, Burwood East and Forest

Hill.17 There are also about 1,500 social housing dwellings located across the local council area,

but mainly in the suburbs of Blackburn South, Box Hill South, Burwood, Forest Hill and

Nunawading.18

Currently, 38.4% of residents in the City of Whitehorse were born overseas.19 In 2006 this figure

was 29.1%. The growth of people born overseas has increased at a faster rate than for Greater

Melbourne overall, which increased from 28.6% to 33.8% over the same period.20 Significant

growth has occurred among people born in China, who in 2006 comprised 4% of the City’s

population and by 2016 had grown to 11.5%; there is a large number of Chinese-born residents

in Box Hill, where they comprise 27.6% of the suburb’s total population.21 In some suburbs,

including Burwood and Box Hill, the number of residents born overseas exceeds 50%.22

The population of the City of Whitehorse grew from 144,767 in 2006 to 162,078 in 2016.23 It is

expected to continue to grow at a rate of about 1.2% per year, to be 195,465 in 2026 and

207,836 by 2031.24 Some suburbs, such as Box Hill and Burwood East, are projected to grow at 13 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Census of population and housing: time series profile, Australia, 2016, 2003.0, 2017.14 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Census of population and housing: time series profile, Australia, 2016, 2003.0, 2017.15 ABS, Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016, 2033.0.55.001. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) is developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to rank areas in Australia according to relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. The rankings use variables, such as income, education, employment, occupation and housing, derived from Census data to indicate relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage for particular areas, including Local Government Areas, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2033.0.55.001, accessed 15 August 2019.16 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), ‘2016 Quickstats: Whitehorse (C)’, https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA26980?opendocument, accessed 15 August 2019.17 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: social atlas’, https://atlas.id.com.au/whitehorse, accessed 15 August 2019.18 ibid. 19 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: community profile’, https://profile.id.com.au/whitehorse, accessed 15 August 2019.20 ibid.21 ibid. 22 ibid. 23 ABS, Census of population and housing: time series profile, Australia, 2016, 2003.0, 2017.24 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), Victoria in Future 2019, 2019, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/land-use-and-population-research/victoria-in-future , accessed 15 August

Page 17 of 29

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/land-use-and-population-research/victoria-in-future


https://atlas.id.com.au/whitehorse

https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA26980?opendocument

https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA26980?opendocument

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2033.0.55.001


a much faster rate. The Box Hill Activity Centre in particular will experience rapid population

growth, from about 9,000 residents currently to 17,943 by 2031.25

The VEC considers that increasing the number of councillors to 11 would be appropriate for

Whitehorse City Council, particularly given the growth in population expected for the period

2019-31. The VEC notes that much of the growth and development will be concentrated in Box

Hill, and will likely place pressure on councillor workloads, particularly those elected to represent

this area in a subdivided electoral structure. The population growth will also put additional

pressures on Whitehorse City Council’s policy-making, planning, and delivery of services and

facilities. Increasing the number of councillors to 11 would reduce the voter-to-councillor ratio to

10,700, which is somewhat below the median. As such, the VEC considers that with 10

councillors, the voter-to-councillor ratio of Whitehorse City Council is on par with similar councils.

For this reason, along with the fact that the Council does not face significant social issues, the

VEC determines that 10 councillors would also be appropriate for Whitehorse City Council.

Electoral structureThe VEC was presented with a range of different electoral structures in preliminary submissions

and modelled all of these as part of the review process. The VEC acknowledges the various

models and high level of detail provided by Whitehorse City Council in its submission.

Unsubdivided

Only one submitter proposed an unsubdivided electoral structure. The VEC does not consider

this electoral structure to be suitable for Whitehorse City Council. This is due to the current and

projected population of the City of Whitehorse, which could present complexities for residents

identifying and relating to their local councillors within the densely urban population.

Furthermore, in each of the past three elections, there have been between 30 and 34 candidates

across the five wards. While this is not an unusually high number of candidates for a

Metropolitan Melbourne local council, in an unsubdivided electoral structure the size of the ballot

paper would likely confuse some voters and lead to more informal votes.26

Single-councillor ward electoral structure

In response to some support in preliminary submissions for this electoral structure, the VEC

modelled 10-councillor and 11-councillor single-councillor ward structures. Both proved

problematic due to the significant and uneven population growth, especially in the current Elgar

Ward. In both models it was possible to create single-councillor wards without dividing the Box

2019.25 .id, ‘City of Whitehorse: population forecast’, https://forecast.id.com.au/whitehorse , accessed 15 August 2019.26 The VEC has generally observed that informal voting increases as more candidates are listed on the ballot paper. See State of Victoria (Victorian Electoral Commission), 2016 Local Government Elections Report, 2017, https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Publications/CouncilElectionReports.html, accessed 23 August 2019.

Page 18 of 29

https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Publications/CouncilElectionReports.html

https://forecast.id.com.au/whitehorse


Hill Activity Centre, though such a model could only be sustained for the short-term. The Box Hill

Activity Centre would need to be split to enable the electoral structure to last beyond the 2020

elections, and splitting the Activity Centre was not considered appropriate.

Whitehorse City Council presented a single-councillor ward electoral structure of 11 councillors

to demonstrate that the accepted deviation of +/- 10% of the average number of voters per

councillor was unsustainable, and it also did not consider splitting the Box Hill Activity Centre to

be a viable option.

Moreover, both the 10- and 11-councillor single-councillor ward models relied on arbitrary

boundaries, such as minor roads, and split communities and suburbs to a significant degree.

For these reasons, the VEC did not consider progressing these options for further consultation.

Multi-councillor ward electoral structures

On the basis of submissions, population and voter projections and the VEC’s own research, a

multi-councillor ward electoral structure was determined to be the most appropriate structure for

Whitehorse City Council.

While the VEC modelled two three-ward electoral structures of nine and 12 councillors, and

noted that the Council also included a three-ward structure as a non-preferred model in its

submission, the VEC did not consider this multi-councillor ward structure to be viable, because

the most appropriate number of councillors for Whitehorse City Council was determined to be 10

or 11 councillors.

The VEC also considered the Council’s alternative proposal of 11 councillors elected from four

wards, which received a minimal level of support in preliminary submissions. The VEC noted that

the Council proposed this model as its alternative preference, arguing that it provided reasonable

boundaries and catered for both population growth and the City’s communities of interest. The

model was also supported by the Whitehorse Branch of the Victorian Greens and Mr Bates, both

of whom argued in their respective submissions that the four-ward electoral structure consisting

mainly of three-councillor wards was more democratic, would increase the diversity of

representation and would prevent the major political parties from dominating elections.

Preliminary submissions did not, however, indicate a lack of diversity under the current electoral

structure. Moreover, the proposed four-ward model used ward boundaries that were unclear and

split communities of interest, such as the Blackburn shopping strip. For these reasons the VEC

determined not to progress this model for further consultation.

Ms Sharples’ proposal for an additional ward containing the Box Hill Activity Centre, creating an

electoral structure of six two-councillor wards, was also considered unviable; 12 councillors was

considered too high for Whitehorse City Council and the Box Hill Activity Centre too small in

terms of voter numbers to sustain a two-councillor ward.

Page 19 of 29


As such, the VEC considers the following two options to be the most appropriate for Whitehorse

City Council, and the most likely to provide fair and equitable representation now and until the

next scheduled review.

Option A: 11 councillors elected from five wards (four two-councillor wards and one three-councillor ward)

Option A closely resembles the current structure, but with an additional councillor allocated to

Elgar Ward. Given the pressures associated with rapid population growth, high levels of cultural

and ethnic diversity, and evidence of social disadvantage in this area, an additional councillor in

the proposed Elgar Ward is justified. All but one of the submitters in support of this model agreed

Elgar Ward should be allocated an additional councillor. The extra councillor would enable Elgar

Ward to absorb the higher rate of population growth expected for the area more effectively than

the two-councillor ward.

This option entails changes to ward boundaries, which would affect 19,953 voters or about 17%

of the total voting population. The changes are as follows:

Elgar Ward would gain 5,147 voters from Riversdale Ward as a result of moving the ward

boundary to Riversdale Road and Station Street. It would gain the suburb of Surrey Hills

(3,288 voters) and part of Box Hill South (1,859 voters).

Riversdale Ward would gain 4,908 voters from Central Ward by moving the ward

boundary north to Canterbury Road. It would gain a large part of Blackburn South (4,908

voters).

Morack Ward would gain 2,556 voters from Central Ward by adjusting the ward boundary

to Canterbury and Blackburn Roads. It would gain most of Forest Hill (1,474 voters) and a

small section of Blackburn South (1,082 voters).

Springfield Ward would gain 2,306 voters from Morack Ward by moving the ward

boundary from Canterbury Road to Boronia Road. It would gain a part of Vermont (2,306

voters).

Central Ward would gain 5,036 voters from Springfield Ward by moving the ward

boundary to Springvale Road. It would gain small sections of Blackburn (131 voters) and

Forest Hill (913 voters) and a large part of Nunawading (3,992 voters).

The VEC considers these ward boundaries are an improvement on the current electoral structure

and superior to those proposed in Option B. The use of Springvale Road to separate Central and

Springfield Wards, and a larger section of Blackburn Road to separate Riversdale and Morack

Wards, provide more familiar ward boundaries than the current structure and the structure

proposed in Option B.

Page 20 of 29


A further advantage of multi-councillor wards is that they better accommodate population

change. Option A will more effectively absorb projected rates of growth over the long-term and

will perform better to absorb the growth than Option B.

Option A brings with it the benefits of multi-councillor wards and proportional representation

counting that voters would be familiar with under the current electoral structure and which most

submitters were in favour of. As with the current electoral structure, voters are provided with a

good degree of choice at election time, have options when connecting with their councillors and

have a good chance of electing candidates representing significant minorities.

One potential drawback is that not all wards would have an equal number of councillors and this

could lead to a perception of inequality.

Overall, Option A responds appropriately to projected population change, particularly the growth

expected in Elgar Ward, provides easily identifiable ward boundaries that use major roads and

takes into account the views presented in public submissions.

Option B: Retaining the current model: five two-councillor wards, with minor ward boundary changes

Option B is the option of least change and was supported by a large number of submitters. In this

option the current electoral structure is retained, but involves some boundary changes to

accommodate the significant growth expected in Elgar Ward and its impact on the ratio of voters

per councillor for other wards. As such, the area covered by Central Ward is adapted to

accommodate these changes, Riversdale Ward remains the same and Springfield Ward changes

slightly to improve the boundary with Central Ward.

The ward boundaries in Option B use mainly major roads and are, in most cases, easily

identifiable. However, like the current electoral structure, much of the boundary separating

Central and Springfield Wards, which is comprised primarily of minor roads, is retained.

The boundary changes would affect 6,017 voters or about 5% of voters, which is significantly

fewer than Option A. These changes are as follows:

Central Ward would gain 3,352 voters from Elgar Ward as a result of shifting part of the

current ward boundary of Middleborough Road to Dorking Road. It would incorporate

parts of Box Hill North (2,657 voters) and Box Hill (695 voters).

Morack Ward would gain 2,556 voters from Central Ward by moving the ward boundary

to Canterbury Road and Blackburn Road. It would gain parts of Blackburn South (1,085

voters) and Forest Hill (1,471 voters).

Springfield Ward would gain six voters from Central Ward by including a more sparsely

populated section of Nunawading due to a minor boundary improvement.

Page 21 of 29


Central Ward would gain 103 voters from Springfield Ward through the inclusion of a

small section of Blackburn as a result of a minor boundary improvement.

Riversdale Ward would remain unchanged.

According to the VEC’s projected enrolment figures, Option B, while sustainable until the next

scheduled review, will not accommodate population change as effectively as Option A.

Option B has an even number of councillors, which in other representation reviews has been

considered a disadvantage as tied Council votes can result in the Mayor having to exercise a

casting vote. However, this was not a prominent concern among submitters, some of whom

preferred an even number of councillors. A review of the Council’s minutes for the 2018 and

2019 calendar years substantiated a submitter’s claim that tied votes were a rare occurrence

during decision-making.

As with Option A, this option provides the same benefits of multi-councillor wards, such as a

good degree of choice for voters at election time, options for residents when connecting with

their councillors and a reasonable chance that significant minorities can elect a candidate of their

choosing.

The main strengths of Option B are that it involves minimal change to the current electoral

structure, allocates an equal number of councillors to each ward and generally provides easily

identifiable boundaries. However, some of the internal ward boundaries are not ideally placed,

especially the boundary separating Central and Springfield Wards which follows very minor

streets. Additionally, the use of Dorking Road to separate Elgar and Central Wards splits the

suburb of Box Hill North.

SummaryBoth Options A and B are considered viable and both offer fair and equitable representation for

the voters of Whitehorse City Council.

Page 22 of 29


OptionsThe VEC is required by the Act to include a preferred option and may include one or more

alternative options for the electoral structure in the preliminary report. The VEC considers that

both the options outlined below offer fair and equitable representation for voters in the local

council. Please see Appendix 1 for detailed maps of these options.

Option A (preferred option)Whitehorse City Council consist of 11 councillors elected from five wards (four two-councillor wards and one three-councillor ward).

Option B (alternative option)Whitehorse City Council consist of 10 councillors elected from five two-councillor wards, with adjustments to the current ward boundaries.

Page 23 of 29


Next stepsResponse submissionsAny person or group, including the council, can make a submission to the VEC in response to

the options contained in this report. Response submissions to the preliminary report should

address the models proposed by the VEC within this report. Response submissions must be

received by the VEC by 5.00 pm on Wednesday 25 September 2019. Late submissions will not

be accepted.

Submissions must include the full name and address of the submitter. Submissions without this

information cannot be accepted.

Submission methodsSubmissions can be made via:

The online submission form at vec.vic.gov.au

Email at [email protected]

Post toVictorian Electoral CommissionLevel 11, 530 Collins StreetMelbourne VIC 3000

Public access to submissionsTo ensure transparency in the electoral representation review process, all submissions will be

available for public inspection at:

the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au

the VEC office at Level 11, 530 Collins Street, Melbourne

The VEC will remove personal information such as the address, phone number, and signature, if

applicable, of submitters from all public copies. However, the full name and locality of submitters

will be displayed.

Page 24 of 29


mailto:[email protected]

http://vec.vic.gov.au/


Public hearingThere is an opportunity for people or organisations who have made a response submission to

speak about their submission at a public hearing. The public hearing is scheduled for:

Time: 7.00 pm

Date: Monday 30 September 2019

Venue: Council Chamber, Whitehorse Civic Centre, 379 Whitehorse Road, Nunawading

Participation in the public hearing is encouraged. If you wish to speak at the public hearing, you

must indicate this on your response submission. If there are no requests to speak at the hearing,

it will not be held. Visit the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au for more information on public

hearings.

Final reportFollowing the public hearing, the VEC considers all the evidence it has gathered and publishes a

final report for the Minister for Local Government containing a recommended electoral structure.

The report is scheduled to be published on Wednesday 23 October 2019. Any changes resulting

from the final report will apply at the October 2020 general election.

The final report will be available from the VEC by visiting vec.vic.gov.au or calling 131 832. It will

also be available for inspection at the offices of Whitehorse City Council.

Page 25 of 29


https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/


Appendix 1: Option mapsThe following maps are included in this report:

Map Page

Option A (preferred option) 27

Option B (alternative option) 28

Page 26 of 29


Page 27 of 29


Page 28 of 29


Appendix 2: List of preliminary submissionsTwenty-four preliminary submissions were received in total. Submissions were made by:

Allan, Peter (two submissions)

Bates, Kieran

Berry, David

Blackburn and District Tree Preservation Society Inc.

Davenport, Andrew

Dilley, Warwick

Drury, Elspeth

Elgar Contact

Law, Dennis

Haley, Gary

Harris, Helen OAM

Hassan, Hasan

Hewett, Aaron

Lucas, Peter

Makhijani, Anne

Pell, Brian

Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) Inc.

Sharples, Judy

Simpson, Donald

Trueman, Chris

Victorian Greens, Whitehorse Branch

Whitehorse City Council

Whitehorse Historical Society Inc.

Page 29 of 29

This page has been left intentionally blank

2015-16 representation review guide for … · web viewhasan hassan and mr lucas, in their...

Documents