Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

What to do about the worst type of government: local

By Philip Lillingston - posted Tuesday, 10 November 2020


A current councillor would probably say that as State and Federal governments are strictly one person, one vote (OPOV), should not Local also be the same. In response to that, apart from the fact that both the Senate and Western Australian upper house are, strictly speaking, not OPOV, that principle is still appropriate for State and Federal because those governments are, in the main, institutions debating and implementing politically philosophic questions of human rights, efficient economic, health and criminal justice systems, and otherwise of peace, order and the general welfare for the people of the community. Compare that to your local council whose raison d'être/mission statement is mostly a local environment management service (parks, libraries, roads and rubbish).

And just as the board of a public company is appointed by shareholders, and proportional to the number of shares each holder owns, so the council management team could be appointed by stakeholders (property owners) and proportional to the number of properties each stakeholder owns.

Do the transients really care about their current municipality?

Advertisement

With reforming the franchise, in most situations only property holders would be granted the vote and as many as units (house, apartment, shop, office suit, unit in industrial park, etc) they possess. Bearing in mind the current high level of non-voters at council elections, it would be fair to say that a large portion of that figure represented temporary residents, leasing. A property owner could, if desired, legally surrender his/her vote to a renter as a part of lease negotiation if his community spirit was not as strong as that of the prospective tenant.

When one looks at the very built up Melbourne City municipality, one might guess that approximately half of the stakeholders, comprising owners of office blocks, department stores, restaurants, theatres and shops etc., currently get only a miniscule number of votes, while the remainder, the residents, get most. Then bear in mind the approximate half of all residents who would be leasing. Why would such people, temporarily in the municipality, bother voting at all, and if they do, consider the long-term ramifications of their vote if a short-term benefit is offered? If things later go bad because of their vote, they simply pack up and move to another municipality.

But Does Our Democracy Suffer?

The claim that extending the franchise would be a blight on our democratic principles might wane when considering further existing drawbacks of our system.

Unlike citizens of Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines or the United States, Australians do not have the democratic right to directly appoint their state or federal chief executive, ie, the Premier or Prime Minister. Voters for smaller parties or independents do not even have an indirect right, and no supporters, big party or small, have a say when chief executives are changed between elections, something that has become an unfortunate regular occurrence in the last decade. Moving on to the next branch of government in this democracy, unlike Switzerland, Japan or the United States, Australian voters are denied the right to appoint or remove members of the judiciary. And regarding the criminal justice system, it is our Public Prosecutor who leads the charge in protecting us by bringing suspected felons to trial and conviction where appropriate. But he/she is public in name only, unlike some overseas jurisdictions where the District Attorney/Chief Prosecutor is, in fact, appointed by the public in an election.

Thus, are we to assume it is acceptable in Australia that the important positions of Premiers, senior judges, heads of prosecution departments, or even the most important job of all, that of Prime Minister, are not appointed directly by the public, but what is important is that the local government body to look after our roads, rates and rubbish, is completely democratic?

Advertisement

In summation, to save ourselves the somewhat regular embarrassments of the antics of local councils, the suffrage should be extended to all stakeholders of the municipality. Residents merely renting accommodation with no long-term commitment would not ordinarily have the vote, but property owners would, and as many as the individual residences or business units they own. Profit being an extremely compelling motive, the newly enfranchised, the multi-property owners, would have the incentive to vote responsibly so as to maintain a safe, clean and pleasant environment for their clients. And in doing such they would have little desire to occasionally welcome refugees, declare nuclear free zones, mandate all staff engage in diversity/intersectional aware/safe space training, or visitors to Town Hall made to declare their preferred pronouns before making such inquiries as to which day green waste is collected.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Philip Lillingston, has previously taught political science and now maintains the website Why Not Proportional Representation?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Philip Lillingston

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy