Elector Representation Review Final Report

May 2013

This report has been prepared pursuant to Section 12(8)(a) of the South Australian Local Government Act 1999 (hereafter referred to as the Act) by Debbie Nankervis, Spatial Marketing. The elector entitlement figures in the models are based on elector data supplied by the District Council of Mount Barker as at July 2012.

The purpose of the report is to—

1. provide information on the public consultation undertaken on the Representation Options Paper and the Council’s response to the issues arising from any submissions made as part of that process; and

2. to set out—

I. the proposal for the composition and structure of the Council that the Council considers should be carried into effect; and

II. an analysis of how that proposal relates to the principles under S26(1)(c) of the Act and the matters referred to in S33 of the Act (to the extent that they may be relevant)

This Representation Review Report was endorsed by the Council at its meeting on Monday the 20th of May 2013. Resolution number 91.5.

DISCLAIMER The calculations and all other information provided within this document or otherwise in relation hereto are made by Debbie Nankervis in good faith and as far as possible based on data or sources which are believed to be reliable. Debbie Nankervis expressly disclaims any liability and responsibility to any person whether a reader of this document or not in respect of anything and of the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance whether wholly or partially upon the whole or any part of the contents of this document. COPYRIGHT Debbie Nankervis 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of Debbie Nankervis or the District Council of Mount Barker.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… ………... .. 5

2 The Council Profile…………………………………………………………….………… 6 2.1 Population growth factors………………..……………………………………… 7

3 The process of the Representation Review………………………………………… 9

4 Public consultation on the Representation Review Options Paper……………. 11 4.1 Written submissions received…………………..…….………….……..………. 12

5 Representation Structure Proposal………………………………………..…..…….. 21 5.1 Outline of Council’s proposal…………………………………….…..………..... 21

6 Rationale for Council’s Proposal…..……………………………………………….... 21 6.1 Election of the Principal Member…………………………………………..…... 22 6.2 Wards or no wards……………………………………………………………….. 23 6.3 The number of Councillors…………………………………………..………….. 25 6.4 Area Councillors………………………………………………………………….. 28 6.5 Ward structure………………………………………………….……..………….. 28 6.5.1 Spatial distribution of electors…………………………………………………... 29 6.5.2 Ward quotas……………………………………………………………..……..… 31 6.5.3 Proposed ward structure……………..……………………..…………………… 33 6.5.4 Maps of proposed wards………………………………………………………… 36 6.6 Communities of interest……………………………………….………..……….. 39

7 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..…… 40

8 Public consultation on the Representation Review report……………….….…... 41 8.1 Written Submissions Received………………………………………………... 42

Appendices Appendix 1: Copy of public notices……………………………………………………. 43 Appendix 2: Electors per town/area………………………………..…………………. 52 Appendix 3: Proportional Representation………………………………..…………... 53

The remaining appendices are attached as separate pdf files

Appendix 4: Copies of Public Submissions

Appendix 4.1 Submission from David Welsh

Appendix 4.2 Submission from Ann Haines OAM (Secretary) Hahndorf Community Association Inc.

Appendix 4.3 Submission from Brian Calvert Mt Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities

Appendix 4.4 Submission from Nathan Rogers

Appendix 4.5 Submission from Dianne van Eck Mt Barker & District Residents’ Association

Appendix 4.6 Submission from Laurence Gellon

Appendix 5: Additional Options

Appendix 6: Copies of Public Submissions (round two)

1 Introduction

The District Council of Mount Barker is currently undertaking an Elector Representation Review to determine whether its community would benefit from any alteration to its composition or ward structure.

Section 12 of the Act requires every Council to ensure that all aspects of Council composition and the issue of its division, or potential division into wards are comprehensively reviewed on a scheduled basis as directed by the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, or the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia. The last Representation Review for the District Council of Mount Barker was undertaken in 2005.

Any changes to Council’s composition and electoral structure that may arise from the Representation Review will come into effect at the next Local Government periodic election to be held in November 2014.

This report discusses the proposal for the composition and structure of the Council that the Council considers should be carried into effect and an analysis of how that proposal relates to the principles under S26(1)(c) of the Act and the matters referred to in S33 of the Act (to the extent that they may be relevant).

2 The Council Profile

The District Council of Mount Barker encompasses an area of approximately 595 square kilometres in the Mount Lofty Ranges. It is bounded by the Adelaide Hills and Mid Murray Council Areas to the north, the Rural City of Murray Bridge to the east, the Alexandrina Council to the south, and the City of Onkaparinga to the west. Characterised by rapidly growing urban areas, small historic townships and large areas of rural hinterland, the Council Area has become an increasingly popular place to live and visit.

Mount Barker Summit, from which both the town of Mount Barker and the Council Area take their name, was officially recognised in 1834 by King William and named after a British explorer Captain Collet Barker. It is approximately 363 metres high and is situated close to the heart of what is now known as the District Council of Mount Barker.

Originally settled by farmers who welcomed the area’s luxuriant pasture, fresh water and magnificent views, Mount Barker is now one of the fastest growing areas in South Australia. Many of its residents commute daily to the city of Adelaide, while still being able to enjoy the beauty and lifestyle of the picturesque Adelaide Hills. General farming still plays a significant role in the area with livestock, cropping, dairy products, viticulture and horticulture, producing some of the finest quality in the world.

With significant growth expected within the Council Area in the near future, Council faces many challenges and as stated on the District Council of Mount Barker website:

“As new people move into the region, there are opportunities and challenges associated with assisting them to integrate into the region and ensuring that growth is sustainable. This requires creative approaches and careful consideration of how we provide regional employment opportunities, plan our houses and suburbs to promote wellbeing and cohesion, provide sport and recreation for a growing population and protect our precious environment. ”

2.1 Population Growth Factors The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures reveal that approximately 31,000 people now live within the District Council of Mount Barker and during the twelve months to June 2011, it had the largest population increase in Outer Adelaide.

ABS figures also show that the area’s population has grown by approximately 6,000 people in the last ten years. With proposed new development, the Council Area’s population may increase by more than 6,000 people in the next five years and continue to grow substantially in the following decade. However, despite the recent rezoning of land for residential development and the subsequent expected growth, there is also the possibility that growth may be significantly slower than expected due to the current financial difficulties being experienced by many families. Future growth and change in the District Council of Mount Barker will largely be influenced by the time taken for developers to release the newly rezoned land for purchase and the speed by which families purchase this land and build their homes. Population is also likely to increase from the settlement of vacant land in existing subdivisions and there is also limited opportunity for dwelling gain through infill within townships.

Population growth from newly rezoned land is likely to be most significant in the current Central Ward, with an estimated 2,100 homes likely to be built in the next five years. It has also been estimated that 50 new homes in Meadows and 100 in Nairne may also be built within the same period. An additional 1000 homes may be built throughout the Council Area within existing subdivisions during the next five years. These figures are best estimates only as discussed with Council staff. Development may be slower or greater than estimated.

As Council proposes to retain a ward structure, significant development within the heart of Mount Barker will have an impact on elector numbers and ward quota requirements. The Act stipulates that wards must be constituted to meet the quota requirement and at the same time consider the impact of future growth.

After considerable effort to design a ward structure which currently meets ward quota requirements and at the same time considers future growth, it became clear that it would not be possible to design such a structure without dividing the township area of Mount Barker in some way. Due to the unpredictable nature of Mount Barker’s future growth and strong opposition from public submissions, Council proposes minimal change to the current ward structure, thus avoiding divisions within communities at this time. However, Council recognises that another Representation Review may well be required sooner than anticipated if wards become non-compliant as a result of rapid growth in the centre of Mt Barker.

Map of the Council Area and Existing Wards

3 The process of the Representation Review

Section 12 of the Act outlines the process that each Council must follow when undertaking a Representation Review.

As required by the Act, Council, in consultation with the public, considered all aspects of the composition and structure of the Council—

How the Principal Member is elected.

The number of Councillors necessary to provide equitable representation.

How Councillors should be elected; a) as representatives of the Council Area as a whole; b) as representatives of wards; c) combination of both Ward and Area Councillors.

Where ward boundaries will be placed or whether the Council Area should be without wards.

The process began with Council staff, the Council and a geospatial consultant Debbie Nankervis, working together to formulate a number of acceptable options to present to the general public. An Options Paper was approved by Council and made available to the general public for comment for a period of six weeks. Six public submissions were received. Taking the submissions into consideration, along with feedback from a public information session, a public workshop, two Councillor workshops, Councillor survey and requirements of the Act, Council formulated a proposal for the future composition and structure of Council, which was presented in the Representation Review Report and endorsed by Council on the 18th of February 2013.

The public were given the opportunity to make submissions on this proposal for a period of just under five weeks. Two public submissions were received, both in favour of Council’s proposal. As required by S12(10) of the Act, any person making a submission was invited to appear personally, or by representative before the Council to be heard on their submission. They chose not to appear.

Council has made its decision as presented in this Final Representation Review Report which will now be submitted to the Electoral Commission and if approved, will be implemented at the next Council election in 2014.

Representation Review Process

4 Public Consultation on the Representation Options Paper

The District Council of Mount Barker commenced the Representation Review in October 2012 with the preparation of a Representation Options Paper (prepared in accordance with S12(5) & S12(6) of the Act) for public consultation. Public Notice of the availability of the Representation Options Paper was given in The South Australian Gazette on the 15th November 2012, The Courier on the 14th November 2012 and The Advertiser on November 14th and 17th 2012. These notices contained an invitation for interested persons to make written submissions to the Review by 5pm on the 28th December 2012.

The Representation Options Paper was available on the Council’s website and copies were available from the District Council of Mount Barker customer service desk, or by contacting Ros McDougall, the Council’s Risk and Governance Officer on 8391 7231 or [email protected].

In addition to the statutory requirements:

Council provided information on the Review in its newsletter, “District Matters” (distributed with all rates notices on the 2nd of November 2012 and published on the Council website).

Two other informative articles were placed on the Council website during November and December giving information about the Review and the public information evening.

The public were also given information about the Review process in the Courier on the 14th and 21st of November and the 5th and 19th of December 2012.

A public information session was held at 7pm on the 11th of December 2012 at the Council Chambers, 6 Dutton Road Mount Barker.

A public workshop was held on January 15th 2013 at the Council Chambers.

Copies of all public notices are attached as Appendix 1.

4.1 Written Submissions Received

The Representation Options Paper provided seven indicative models for ward structures and an eighth option without wards:

Option 1 – three unequal wards with a total of ten Ward Councillors. Option 2 – two unequal wards with a total of ten Ward Councillors. Option 3 – two equal wards with a total of ten Ward Councillors. Option 4 – two unequal wards with a total of eleven Ward Councillors. Option 5 – two unequal wards with a total of eleven Ward Councillors. Option 6 – Council Area without wards. Ten or Eleven Ward Councillors. Option 7 – two unequal wards with a total of ten Ward Councillors. Option 8 – three unequal wards with a total of ten Ward Councillors.

Six written submissions were received during the first round of public consultation. All relevant issues raised have been considered by Council and listed in the table below. Other points were made in these submissions but as they are outside the parameters of a Representation Review, they have not been discussed. All submissions can be viewed in full (attached as Appendix 4).

The majority of submissions were in favour of retaining the position of Mayor and retaining wards.

Summary of Public Consultation Submissions Received – 1st Round

1. Written submission received from: Mr David Welsh Po Box 27 FLAXLEY SA 5065

Summary of issues raised Council Response “the options provided do not address properly Section 26 of the Act contains a number of Section 26 (1) in particular 26 - Principle (ix) ‘principles’ to be considered when undertaking a “to ensure that local communities within large Representation Review. Whilst Council has made council areas can participate effectively in every effort to consider these principles, it must decisions about local matters;” and (xi) abide by requirements of the Act. In particular, “…residents should receive adequate and S22(2) “the number of electors represented by a

12 fair representation within the local councillor must not, as at the relevant date government system”” (assuming that the proposal were in operation), vary from the ward quota by more than 10%.”

“All of the options outlined run the risk of Taking into account current legislation and the denying representation to and effectively nature of Mt Barker’s population distribution, the disenfranchising smaller townships and only way to address the issues pertaining to both communities by encouraging elected this point and the previous issue raised, may be members to concentrate entirely on Mount for Mt Barker to choose a ‘no wards’ option. Barker…… as the growing urban township of Mt Barker increasingly gains representation However, it is generally accepted that Ward dominance.” Councillors understand their responsibility to take into account the welfare of the whole community in any decisions Council may make.

Mr Welsh suggested that the options Due to the current spread of electors, with a provided in the Options Paper were too significant concentration in central Mount Barker limited and earlier public consultation may and the predicted future growth within the same have helped to increase the number of area, options which comply with all the necessary options. criteria are limited. This was demonstrated at a public workshop on January 15th 2013.

“’Representation Options’ consultation The ‘Proportional Representation System’ is used process is diminished by a lack of clarity when counting votes. A brief explanation of this about the ramifications of the voting method system as explained on page 65 of the SA Local to be employed which could determine Government Election Report 2010 is attached as entirely opposite outcomes and prejudice Appendix 3. The type of voting system, however, choice of option.” is outside the parameters of this Review.

“Unlike the 2005 Review no raw figures re Elector numbers per area are now provided as the numbers of eligible voters per township Appendix 2 on page 49 and were emailed to Mr or community are provided.” Welsh soon after his submission was received.

“A ward structure that provides for multi With eleven Councillors, Mt Barker’s ward quota wards with each ward represented by one would be 1,894. With this scenario, if one ward councillor creates a clear line of were to grow by 190 electors it would become

13 responsibility, greater transparency and non-compliant (assuming variance began at ‘0’). accountability and less confusion for and about the community being represented.” Southern Cross Care, for example, have been granted approval to build an 80 bed nursing Mr Welsh put forward a potential eleven ward home and have received planning approval for model with one Councillor per ward. 173 2/3 bedroom units on Hawthorn Road Mt Barker, which could potentially house around 300 electors in a short period of time. Another Representation Review would then be required.

Debbie Nankervis built Mr Welsh’s suggested model which is on page 11 of Appendix 5.

“the position of Mayor should be determined After careful consideration and consultation with by elected Councillors.” the general public, Council proposes to maintain the position of Mayor (elected by the community) as its Principal Member.

2. Written submission received from: Ann Haines OAM (Secretary) Hahndorf Community Association Inc. 6 Byard Crescent HAHNDORF SA 5245

Summary of issues raised Council Response In the opinion of the Committee, the current Council is very appreciative of this comment. ward system works well and elected members are able to relate to electors needs and issues.

Paechtown should be returned to North Council supports this suggestion. Its proposed Ward. ward structure includes Paechtown in North Ward.

3. Written submission received from: Brian Calvert Mt Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities PO Box 882 Mount Barker 5251

Summary of issues raised Council Response “by no means an exhaustive analysis as Due to the current spread of electors, with a there are almost an infinite number of options significant concentration in central Mount Barker that could be envisaged.” and the predicted future growth within the same area, options which comply with all the necessary criteria are limited. This was demonstrated at a public workshop on January 15th 2013.

“a ward structure should be maintained.” Council agrees and proposes that a ward structure is maintained.

“keeping logical clusters of communities Every effort has been made to keep ‘communities within one ward where possible.” of interest’ intact.

Population growth may be far more erratic Council acknowledges this fact and understand than anticipated, necessitating another that another Representation Review may be review. required sooner than anticipated.

“similar-sized wards which can be Every effort has been made to achieve equitable adequately-serviced by one or more geographic area. Due to requirements of The Act Councillors.” and the spread of electors, however, this is not achievable.

“keep the number of EM's to a minimum with When compared to other Councils of a similar reference to the population they have to size and type, the electors of Mount Barker service.” Council are not over-represented. Council proposes to maintain the status quo with ten elected Ward Councillors.

“We strongly believe that the Mayor should After careful consideration and consultation with not be elected by Councillors” the general public, Council proposes to maintain the position of Mayor (elected by the community) as its Principal Member.

4. Written submission received from: Nathan Rogers Unit 2 9a Albert Road Mount Barker 5251

Summary of issues raised Council Response “Are the options put forward the best Due to the current spread of electors, with a representation options we can have” significant concentration in central Mount Barker and the predicted future growth within the same area, options which comply with all the necessary criteria are limited. This was demonstrated at a public workshop on January 15th.

“Have any previous representation changes Yes. Boundary changes implemented as a result (say for example from 2005) implemented by of the 2005 Representation Review are still within the District Council of Mount Barker lasted in the 10% variance limit as required by The Act. terms of legislative requirements?”

“Has the District Council of Mount Barker or Not that Council is aware. other parties assessed the issues above (in section 3) in more depth, or received any correspondence in relation to election matters in relation to 2005 and 2012 Representation Review changes?”

“With the ‘predicted growth’ (listed above) Council has taken this into consideration at all being approximately 30,000 people by 2011 stages of the Review. This issue is discussed in and the current population for the District the Options Paper and relevant predicted growth being around this figure in 2011 (from 2005) information is also tabled after each Option. the impact of rezoning of land in terms of elector representation considered?”

“Is it possible to get a detailed review of any Mainly due to cost, this exercise has not been comparison of reports from 2005 and 2012?” considered by Council.

Maintain current wards with minor changes. Council proposes to introduce a new ward structure which does exactly that.

Number of wards could be increased. Due to the unpredictable nature of future growth within Mt Barker, Council has decided not to increase the number of wards, as this would increase the likelihood of wards becoming non- compliant before another Representation Review is scheduled.

“An in depth investigation in relation to Councillors and public submissions were not in having no wards is required…..abolishing favour of abolishing wards. With careful wards may be the only viable option to consideration of all pros and cons, Council consider” proposes to maintain a ward structure.

“consider the option of making no changes to Council’s proposal involves minimal change. the District Council of Mount Barker’s ward However, public and Councillor response structure.” indicated that Paechtown should be moved into North Ward.

“consider rejecting all options in the 2012 This option could not be achieved within the Representation Review and establish a timeframe allowed for the current Representation council committee (including public Review. members) to look at this issue in more depth”

“The District Council of Mount Barker should Council agree with this suggestion and have now have consultation that lasts for at least one extended the second round of public consultation month, if not longer.” to just under 5 weeks, extending until after Easter.

“The District Council of Mount Barker should There are specific guidelines which Council must have a Representation Review document follow when formulating a Representation Review with more detail” Report.

“Section 33 under “Ward quotas” under The Act requires Council to consider estimated section 3 says: future growth, which it has done in great detail. Due to the unpredictable nature of the new The 10 per cent tolerance referred to in growth proposed for Mt Barker, Commonwealth subsection (2) may be exceeded if, on the or State Government agencies are unlikely to be basis of demographic changes predicted by a able to provide data which accurately predicts Commonwealth or State government agency, demographic change within the next five years. it appears that the ward quota will not, as at the next periodic elections, be exceeded by After considering all requirements of The Act and more than 10 percent” public submissions, Council proposes that the current ward structure is maintained with the “If the allowance can be exceeded – why the exception of moving Paechtown into North Ward. need for any major changes in relation to This proposal is put forward with the representation in the District Council of understanding that Council may have to Mount Barker?” undertake another Review earlier than scheduled.

5. Written submission received from: Dianne van Eck Mt Barker & District Residents’ Association PO Box 494 Mount Barker 5251

Summary of issues raised Council Response “We therefore question the timing of this The Options Paper was made available on the review, as December is traditionally a busy Council website from Friday 9th of November, period for most citizens.” allowing seven weeks of public consultation. The Review was scheduled to fit in with Council staff work plans and consultant availability. As many Councils are undertaking a Review during the same period, Council felt it was “better to begin earlier rather than later and risk an extended delay later in the year once it was provided to the Electoral Commission.”

“Although your maps indicate four areas of As procedures had not been finalised, the future growth, it is not clear where the consultant was not permitted to show actual boundaries for these growth areas are, and borders of the proposed development. The which main roads border these growth location of proposed new development was areas.” shown in greater detail at the Public workshop on January 15th and is also on page 31 of this report.

The position of Mayor should be retained. After careful consideration and consultation with the general public, Council proposes to maintain the position of Mayor (elected by the community) as its Principal Member.

Strongly oppose the introduction of a Chair See notes above.

Do not support the introduction of Area Councillors and public submissions were not in Councillors or a no wards option. favour of abolishing wards or introducing Area Councillors. With careful consideration of all pros and cons, Council proposes to maintain a ward structure without the introduction of Area Councillors.

Suggested a potential Option 9 with three Debbie Nankervis built this model as suggested. unequal wards and 10 Councillors. It is available on page 3 of Appendix 5.

“Townships should not be divided (in fact this Council has made every attempt not to divide applies to Callington too which should townships or other communities of interest. become part of Mt Barker Council in total.) Alterations to the actual Council boundary are But importantly, Mt Barker central township outside the parameters of a Representation should not be divided.” Review.

6. Written submission received from: Laurence Gellon PO Box 19 Mount Barker 5251

Summary of issues raised Council Response “I strongly recommend that the present After careful consideration and consultation with system of the people of the district electing the general public, Council proposes to maintain the Mayor to continue.” the position of Mayor (elected by the community) as its Principal Member.

“Maintain the ward system; do not change to Councillors and public submissions were not in Area Councillors; Councillors to remain being favour of abolishing wards or introducing Area elected as Ward Councillors.” Councillors. With careful consideration of all pros and cons, Council proposes to maintain a ward structure without the introduction of Area Councillors.

“Leave the wards as they are” Council’s proposed option is close to the status quo, with the exception of Paechtown being moved into North Ward.

“Why did the Council adopt the The Review was scheduled to fit in with Council commencement time that it did?” staff work plans and consultant availability. As many Councils are undertaking a Review during the same period, Council felt it was “better to begin earlier rather than later and risk an extended delay later in the year once it was provided to the Electoral Commission.”

5 Representation Structure Proposal

After careful consideration and consultation with the general public, Council put forward the following proposal which has been formulated according to the Act.

5.1 Outline of Council’s proposal.

The position of Mayor as the Principal member elected by the community be retained.

The Council maintains a three ward structure with one boundary change to include Paechtown in North Ward.

Ward Councillors be retained without the addition of Area Councillors.

The number of Ward Councillors be maintained at ten. Four Ward Councillors in both North Ward and Central Ward and two Ward Councillors in South Ward.

Option Fourteen (Appendix 5 – Additional Options) as depicted on page 34 of this Report is the preferred ward structure.

6 Rationale for Council’s proposal

This section discusses the rationale for Council’s proposal and shows how Council has considered and fully complied with the principles under S26(1)(c) and matters referred to in S33 of the Act.

The Council is currently constituted with 11 members—

• The Principal Member (the Mayor) elected by the electors for the Council Area.

• The area is divided into three wards.

• Two wards each electing four Councillors and one ward electing two Councillors.

6.1 Election of the Principal Member Section 12(4) of the Act requires Council to comprehensively review all aspects of its composition. This includes the issue of whether its Principal Member should be publicly elected as Mayor or appointed by Councillors as a Chairperson. After careful consideration and consultation with the general public, Council proposes to maintain the position of Mayor as its Principal Member.

It is considered that:

A Mayoral election provides all the electors in the Council Area with the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.

A Mayoral election offers the opportunity for any eligible person in the community to put themselves forward as a candidate.

Electing a Mayor enables electors to choose their Council’s principal spokesperson.

If the Principal Member is elected from the Councillors, electors within their ward may be disadvantaged due to their Councillor’s additional responsibilities as Chairperson.

The availability of the Mayor’s casting vote is considered an advantage in the District Council of Mount Barker’s decision making process.

Only one submission proposed a change from Mayor to Chairperson, suggesting the community is in favour of maintaining the position of Mayor.

All surveys returned by Councillors were in favour of retaining the position of Mayor.

Choosing to have a Chairperson restricts the choice of candidates and confines the election of the Principal Member to those people who were elected as Councillors.

The process of the Principal Member being chosen from amongst the Councillors can create an environment where Councillors may focus on lobbying amongst themselves in order to be chosen as the Principal Member.

The cost to the Council to conduct a Mayoral election is outweighed by the opportunity for the electors to exercise their democratic right and vote for the candidate of their choice.

6.2 Wards or no wards

As required by S12(6)(b) of the Act, Council examined the question of whether the division of the District Council of Mount Barker into wards should be abolished. Feedback from the general public and Councillors revealed strong opposition to a Council Area without wards. Council proposes that the District Council of Mount Barker continue to be divided into wards.

Principles within S26 of the Act advocate structural change which enhances the capacity of local government to play a significant role in the future of an area or region from a strategic perspective. Sound strategic planning requires comprehensive knowledge of all relevant issues. Council proposes that crucial local knowledge is more likely to be absent from the planning table if Councillors are elected on an area wide basis.

Historically, communities prefer minimal change to the status quo. If change is necessary, it is more likely to be accepted if there are sound reasons for the change and it is made in a logical way with minimal negative impact.

In making their decision, Council considered all relevant principles in the Act and discussed the following advantages and disadvantages of not having wards:

The advantages - no wards

In theory, there is greater electoral accountability. Councillors elected as representatives of the Council area as a whole ensures the fundamental democratic principle of one vote one value in that each represents an equal number of electors.

All electors are able to judge the performance of all candidates and to choose their preferred representatives from the total list of candidates to represent their interest at the Council level rather than within the confines of a ward election.

A whole of Council area electorate establishes a single community of interest encompassing the economic, residential, recreational and social interests of the Council area. In theory, the structure should not favour any interest group or geographic location.

The structure is a less complex system to maintain. There is no requirement for ward quotas. Any fluctuation in elector numbers is automatically absorbed, as all Area Councillors represent the total elector number.

An undivided Council may enhance strategic planning, ensuring coordinated services and equitable facilities for all residents.

There is flexibility in the legislative requirement for a by-election if a Councillor position becomes vacant. The Council can have a policy to ‘carry one vacancy’ for Councillor until the next election or until a second vacancy occurs.

The disadvantages - no wards

Despite the popularity of electronic communication, communication and access between Councillors and electors may be diminished if Councillors could not be identified on a ward basis. Councillors are likely to have to travel further to visit constituents or to inspect problems.

Area Councillors may overlook local or sectional interests in favour of the wider interest and individual electors may feel that they cannot identify with any Councillor.

Campaign costs of area wide elections could be prohibitive for candidates with limited means.

The number of candidates on the ballot paper for area elections may create confusion for electors, either deterring them from voting or resulting in a large number of informal votes.

Council suggested that the quantity of mail out material required for an area wide election would be significant and likely to be problematic for both the candidates and the electors. For example, there were 22 candidates for the DC of Mount Barker in the 2010 election.

In the current environment where elector participation is relatively low, there is an increased risk of a single interest group having unreasonably high representation. Considering only 32% of ballot paper envelopes issued within the District Council of Mount Barker were returned at the 2010 election, this scenario is a possibility. State wide, 32.9% were returned.

Councillors suggested that an area without wards may lead to unnecessary duplication of representation in some areas, whilst leaving other localities effectively unrepresented.

6.3 The number of Councillors If any Council is constituted of more than 12 Members, S12(6)(a) of the Act requires an examination of whether the number should be reduced. The District Council of Mount Barker has fewer than 12 Members and does not propose to increase the number of Members at this time.

The Council Area is currently divided into 3 wards for the purpose of election of Councillors. Two of the wards are each represented by four Councillors, one ward is represented by two Councillors and the Mayor is the eleventh and Principal Member of Council. The ward quota for the District Council of Mount Barker is currently 2083.

Compared with other Councils of a similar size and type as shown below in Tables 1 & 2, the number of electors per Councillor in the District Council of Mount Barker is significantly higher than average. This number is likely to increase in the near future as the population grows, necessitating an extra Elected Member to provide an appropriate individual workload. However, Council proposes to maintain the status quo at this time.

Table 1: Comparison with other Councils of a similar size and type Council Councillors Electors Wards Ward Quota Approx Sq km ACLG

*Adelaide Hills 12 28767 5 2397 795 UFM

*Alexandrina 11 18097 5 1645 1827 RAV

Barossa 11 16155 0 1468 912 RAV

*Berri Barmera 8 7284 0 910 508 RAV

Copper Coast 10 9778 0 977 773 URS

**Mount Barker 10 20838 3 2083 595 URM

Mount Gambier 10 17940 0 1794 27 URS

*Murray Bridge 9 12954 3 1439 1832 RAV

Port Augusta 9 9255 0 1028 1153 URS

Port Lincloln 10 9799 0 979 30 URS

Victor Harbor 9 10975 0 1219 387 RAV

Whyalla 9 14555 0 1617 1000 URS

Mean 1463

Source: **Mount Barker’s figures are taken from the July 2012 House of Assembly Roll & Council Voters Roll. All other Council elector numbers are Electoral Commission figures as at August 2010 as presented in the Local Government Election Report 2010 p.10

* Some Councils in the above table are currently undertaking representation reviews.

ACLG = Australian Classification of Local Governments

URS = Urban Regional Small URM = Urban Regional Medium UFM = Urban Fringe Medium RAV = Rural Agricultural Very Large

(source: Local Government Association of SA 29th February 2012)

Table 2: Electors per member – selected Councils

Source: Local Government Election Report 2010 p.10

These figures suggest that the District Council of Mount Barker is providing adequate and fair representation as required by S26(1)(c)(xi) of the Act, rather than significant over-representation when compared to other Councils of a similar size and type.

Council proposes that the number of members representing wards be maintained at ten and a Mayor be elected as the eleventh and Principal Member.

6.4 Area Councillors

According to S52(2)(a&b) of the Act, Councillors may be elected as representatives of the whole Council Area, or, as representatives of a particular ward. A mixture of both Area and Ward Councillors is permitted.

Area representation offers electors the choice of all candidates to represent their interest at the Council level rather than within the confines of a ward election. Area Councillors have the responsibility of representing all electors within a Council Area.

However, it is generally accepted that Ward Councillors understand their responsibility to take into account the welfare of the whole community in any decisions Council may make.

The introduction of Area Councillors may be confusing for electors and create a perception of difference in status between Area Councillors and Ward Councillors. The cost of campaigning across the whole Council area may prohibit many potential candidates from entering an election and it was suggested that the quantity of mail out material required for an area wide election would be significant and likely to be problematic for candidates and voters.

Whilst some Councillors acknowledged the potential merits of having an eleventh Councillor as an Area Councillor, Councillors and public submissions were not in favour of introducing Area Councillors. Some Councillors felt that it would be a “big ask” for an Area Councillor to cover problems over the whole area. Some also suggested that it may create confusion about their role as there would be two Members nominating for the whole Council Area (Mayor and Area Councillor).

Council proposes that the District Council of Mount Barker would be better served by maintaining the status quo of electing Ward Councillors. The benefits of local knowledge and local representation are seen to outweigh any benefits of having Area Councillors.

6.5 Ward structure The District Council of Mount Barker last undertook an elector representation review in 2005. It was decided to retain a three ward structure, with four Councillors in both North Ward and Central Ward and two Councillors in South Ward. Council proposes to maintain the status quo with the exception of Paechtown, which is proposed to be included in North Ward.

6.5.1 Spatial distribution of electors

In the attempt to achieve equitable distribution between wards, it is the concentration of electors that dictates the placement of ward boundaries. Boundaries cannot always be placed in the most logical locations or utilise natural features such as rivers, main roads etc. The map below demonstrates why this is so in the District Council of Mt Barker and why some wards need to be much larger in area than others. Areas marked in red (hotspots) have the highest densities of electors per square km.

As of July 2012 there were 20,638 District Council of Mount Barker residents enrolled on the South Australian House of Assembly Roll. There were also 211 enrollments by non-resident ratepayers on the Mount Barker Council Voters Roll.

As over one third of the population live within the centre of Mount Barker, Central Ward has a significantly higher level of elector density than the majority of the Council Area which has a relatively low density. Hahndorf, Littlehampton and Nairne, currently in North Ward, also have a relatively high elector density when compared to the rest of the Council Area.

The map below is a close up of the most densely populated part of the Council Area. It also shows the number of new electors estimated to be living in these areas within the next five years, bearing in mind that these figures are best estimates only. Considering the global economic climate, development may be far slower than estimated.

6.5.2 Ward quotas

Ward quota’ is determined by dividing the number of electors for a Council Area by the number of Councillors representing wards within that area. The total number of electors in any ward must not vary from the ward quota by more than (plus or minus) 10% at the date the Representation Review Proposal is finalised.

Impact of future development on ward quotas The District Council of Mount Barker’s current ward structure as shown in Table 3 below, complies with the acceptable 10% variance level required by S33(2) of the Act. As required by Section 33(1)(e) of the Act, Council considered the nature of substantial demographic change that may occur in the foreseeable future when formulating its proposal.

North, Central and South wards are currently well within the 10% variance limit. This is likely to change, however, if the current ward structure remains the same. The planned residential development for Mount Barker may cause all wards to exceed the 10% variance well before the next Representation Review is due.

Table 3. Current Wards and the number of Councillors and Electors per ward

% Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8218 2054 -1.4

Central 4 8631 2157 +3.5

South 2 3989 1994 -4.3

Total electors 20,838

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Councils are directed to undertake Reviews as prescribed by schedule. Ideally, wards should be designed in such a way to allow room for future growth and at the same time, sit within the 10% tolerance required. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the growth expected, this simply may not be achievable if wards are retained.

Seven ward structure options were provided in the Representation Review Options Paper. Taking into account the current spread of electors and considering future growth, each model divided the town area of Mount Barker in some way. With significant growth expected for the centre of Mount Barker, divisions needed to be placed within this area to increase the likelihood of wards staying within the 10% variance allowed. Public submissions and Councillors felt that dividing Mount Barker would be deleterious for important communities of interest.

Recent discussions with the Electoral Commission have shown that they are sympathetic with Mount Barker’s issues and the uncertainty of growth areas and acknowledged that Council had put a great deal of effort into considering future growth, as required by the Act. The Electoral Commission is open to considering a model which may not withstand another five years, provided that Council understand that if wards become non-compliant, another Review will be required.

Consequently, five additional options were produced in response to public submissions and presented at a public workshop on the 15th of January. Discussion from this workshop reinforced that the status quo, or a minor variation that included Paechtown in North Ward was favoured. This led to the development of Options 14 (with Paechtown in North Ward) & Option 15 (status quo). Additional options are attached as Appendix 5. Options 1-15 were presented to a Council workshop for discussion on the 4th of February 2013.

6.5.3 Proposed Ward Structure

Council proposes that Option 14 be accepted as the future ward structure for Mount Barker. The proposed new ward structure is divided into three wards with four Ward Councillors in both North Ward and Central Ward and two Ward Councillors in South Ward. Current wards would remain unaltered with one exception. Paechtown would become part of North Ward, a suggestion made by two public submissions and the majority of Councillors. The rest of the ward structure remains unchanged.

Variations from the ward quota have improved slightly by moving Paechtown into North Ward, however, South Ward remains at -4.3%. Council is aware that if development occurs rapidly within Central Ward, another Representation Review will be required. If growth is significantly slower than expected, this structure may remain compliant for some time.

Council suggests that the current structure works well and to make radical changes at this time based on predicted growth which may be far slower than expected is not justifiable. Council suggest that the community is likely to favour an option which produces minimal change, although there is a significant likelihood of another Representation Review being required in a few years.

6.5.3 - P ro p o sed W ard S tru ctu re

Es tim a ted N um b er o f Ele cto rs a s o f Ju ly 20 12 - 1 0 w ard re pr es en tativ es

W a rd H oA R o ll C ou n cil R oll To tal E le cto rs Pe r C o un c illo r N o rth 83 1 1 64 83 7 5 20 9 3 C e ntral 83 7 8 96 84 7 4 21 1 8 S ou th 39 4 9 40 39 8 9 19 9 4

To tal 20 ,6 38 20 0 20 ,8 38

M t Torrens

Harrogate

Verdun Hay V alley Brukunga

Hahndorf

M tB J n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

ham pton l

t B

M ylor Paech o T town

M t Bark er ry Kanm antoo u Biggs b S um m it d Chapel F lat ra 2 B Hill Petw ood M ount B arker M t Bark er Echunga S prings Dorset V ale St Ives Jupiter 3 W istow Callington C reek

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla

Green H ills Range M ac clesfield M eadows W a rd B o un d a rie s

Co u n c il O ffic e s Kuitpo P aris Su b u rb Bo u n d arie s Creek Ex isting W a rds Prospect H ill No rth W a rd B ull N Ce n tra l W ard Creek So u th W ard

Data Source: H ous e of As sem bly R oll J uly 2012, M t B arker Council R oll J uly 2012 and S A G ov ernm ent DP TI boundary data.

5 0 5 k m M a p P rep are d b y D eb bie Na nk e rv is db na n ke rvis @ big po nd .co m - Fe b ru a ry 20 13

Proposed ward structure – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors

Ward Councillors Electors Per member % Variance

North 4 8375 2093 +0.5

Central 4 8474 2118 +1.7

South 2 3989 1994 -4.3

Total electors 10 20,838 WARD QUOTA = 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll and Council Voters Roll July 2012

The image below shows the area known as Paechtown, proposed to become part of North Ward.

Paechtow n

S o u th E a s d te R r n a F g re n e w u a h y

a e c h

t o

Darby R d H a

D s

a F r b t y k N R d

1 0 1 k m M a p P rep are d b y D eb bie Na nk e rv is Fe bru ary 2 0 13 - db n an ke rvis @ big po n d.c om

6.5.4 Maps of Proposed Wards

Proposed N orth W ard

M t T orre n s

H ar rog at e

B ru ku ng a H ay V alle y

H ah n do rf M t B ar

J un c

o t

s N airne

s k

s a

l D aw e sley

e Lit tle ha m pt on

n t

P a ec ht ow n o T

K an m a nto o

C allin g ton

Pro p o s e d W a rd B ou n d a ry

Su b u rb /To w n Bo u n d arie s

Da ta S o urc e : S p a tial M a rk e ting b o u nd a ry da ta a n d S A G o v t DP T I b o un d a ry d a ta .

M a p P rep are d b y De b bie Na nk erv is 5 0 5 km Fe bru ary 2 0 13 - db na n ke rvis @ big po n d.c om

Proposed C entral W ard

M ou nt B a rk er S u m m it

M ou nt B a rk er

P e tw o od

M ou nt B a rk er S p rin gs

S t Ive s

Pro p o s e d W a rd B ou n d a ry

Su b u rb /To w n Bo u n d arie s

Da ta S o urc e : S p a tial M a rk e ting b o u nd a ry da ta a n d S A G o v t DP T I b o un d a ry d a ta .

M a p P rep are d b y De b bie Na nk erv is Fe bru ary 2 0 13 - db na n ke rvis @ big po n d.c om 2 0 2 4 k m

Proposed S outh W ard

M ylo r N o cha nge from curre nt w ard s truc ture B ig gs F la t B ra db ury C ha p el H ill

E c hu ng a

W ist ow D or se t V ale Ju piter C re e k

Fla x le y B ug le R an ge s

K an g arilla

G re en H ills R a n ge

M ac c le sfield M ea do w s

K uitpo

P a ris C re e k

P ro sp ec t H ill

B ull C ree k

Pro p o s e d W a rd B ou n d a ry

Su b u rb /To w n Bo u n d arie s

Da ta S o urc e : S p a tial M a rk e ting b o u nd a ry da ta a n d S A G o v t DP T I b o un d a ry d a ta .

M a p P rep are d b y De b bie Na nk erv is 5 0 5 k m Fe bru ary 2 0 13 - db na n ke rvis @ big po n d.c om

6.6 Communities of interest

When redesigning ward boundaries, S33(1) and S26(1)(c)(vii & x) of the Act require Council to consider communities of interest. Ward divisions should reflect communities of interest of an economic, recreational, social, regional or other kind and be consistent with community structures, values, expectations and aspirations.

A community of interest is a group of individuals united by shared interests or values. These people exchange ideas and thoughts about their common interest but may have little or no contact with each other outside of this interest. Communities of interest are dynamic and within urban areas, they are not easily defined by a particular geographical area.

Service groups within the District Council of Mount Barker for example, draw their members from across the whole Council Area and beyond, as do some of their sporting clubs and churches. In contrast, several relatively small towns within the Council Area each have their own clearly defined communities of interest. Some of these towns have also worked hard to form links between each other. Hahndorf, Littlehampton and Nairne, for example, have built strong links and others have historical links.

Geographical area may not be as relevant within the more densely populated parts of Mount Barker but neighbourhoods still form an important part of its social infrastructure, facilitating the spirit of community and belonging. Strong links have also been formed within the business district.

To avoid any significant dislocation within the District Council of Mount Barker community, care was taken during the development of ward structures to ensure that, where possible, known communities of interest were not divided. Care was also taken to ensure identified land use precincts were kept intact within the bounds of a ward, taking into account the natural features of the landscape and proposed development.

Council’s proposed future ward structure is likely to have minimal impact on the status quo. The Paech family were amongst the first families to settle in Hahndorf and Council considers that communities of interest will benefit from the inclusion of Paechtown in North Ward.

Section 33(1)(d) of the Act stresses the importance of ensuring communication between electors and their elected representatives not be adversely affected by any new ward structure. Council feel confident that the changes to the current ward structure as proposed in this report would not adversely affect communication between electors and their elected representatives.

7 Summary

After careful consideration of the Local Government Act 1999, the Representation Review Options Paper and the issues arising from public submissions, the Council considers no benefit to the community would result from:

A change to the method of electing the Principal Member.

A reduction in the number of Councillors.

An introduction of Area Councillors

The introduction of a single area structure and all Councillors elected as Area Councillors.

They do however, consider benefit to the community would result from:

Retaining the position of Mayor as the Principal Member elected by the community.

Retaining the status quo of a three ward structure with four Ward Councillors in both North Ward and Central Ward and two Ward Councillors in South Ward.

Adopting a new ward structure (as presented on page 34 of this report) as the preferred structure for the District Council of Mount Barker.

8 Public consultation on the Representation Review Report

Public Notice of the availability of the Council’s Representation Review Report and details of the invitation for written submissions were given in the Adelaide Hills Courier on the 27th of February 2013, The SA Government Gazette on the 28th of February 2013 and The Advertiser on the 27th of February and the 2nd of March 2013.

The report was available for public consultation for a period of almost five weeks from the 27th of February to the 2nd of April 2013.

Availability of the Council Report The public were advised that they could obtain a copy of the Representation Review Report from;

District Council of Mt Barker (Customer Service desk) 6 Dutton Road Mount Barker SA 5251 The Council website www.dcmtbarker.sa.gov.au

The closing date for written submissions was 5 pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2013 addressed to:

Elector Representation Review District Council of Mt Barker PO Box 54 Mount Barker SA 5251 Or electronically at [email protected]

Further information on the Representation Review was available from:

Ros McDougall The Risk and Governance Officer, Corporate Services - phone 8391 7231 District Council of Mount Barker

Copies of all public notices are attached as Appendix 6. 41

Written submissions The public were invited to make written submissions on the matters addressed in the Report by 5pm. on Tuesday, 2nd April 2013 and advised that anyone who made a written submission would be invited to appear personally or by representative before the Council to be heard in support of their submissions.

The public were advised that all public submissions received would be provided to Council and the Electoral Commission and accessible under Freedom of Information and at the conclusion of the public consultation and hearing of submissions, the Council will prepare its final report to the State Electoral Commissioner.

8.1 Written Submission Received Two submissions were received and can be viewed in full (attached as Appendix 7).

Summary of Public Consultation Submission Received – 2nd Round Written Issues raised Council Response Submissions Ruben Komjanc “Just a short note to advise you that as a Thank you very much for PO Box 411 resident of Yantaringa Road I fully agree with your positive comments Hahndorf 5245 Councillor Jeff Bettcher that Paechtown Ruben. should be in the North Ward. There being lots of common issues and close to the township of Hahndorf it would be sensible to have in the same ward and represented by a local resident Councillor.”

Laurence Gellon As all of these proposals are in agreement Thank you very much for PO Box 19 with my original submission (only difference your positive comments Mount Barker 5251 is the addition of Paechtown to North Ward Laurence. which I think is a good idea) then naturally I thoroughly concur with all of the proposals.

I congratulate the Council on the process undertaken with this Representation Review and I congratulate and thank them for the proposals they reached.

APPENDIX 1 – Copies of Public Notices

District Council of Mt Barker District Matters article – distributed with all rates notices on 2nd November 2012 and was published on the Council website.

The Advertiser Public Notices – 14/11/2012 The Advertiser Public Notices – 17/11/2012

The Courier - article Wednesday 14th November 2012

The Courier - Public Notices - 14/11/2012

The Courier - article 21/11/2012

Government Gazette Public Notice -15/11/2012

District Council of Mt Barker website – November – December 2012

District Council of Mt Barker website – November-December 2012

The Courier - article 5/12/2012

The Courier - Public Notices - 27/02/2013

Government Gazette Public Notice -28/02/2013

The Advertiser Public Notices – 27/02/2013 The Advertiser Public Notices – 2/03/2013

The Courier - article 13/03/2013

District Council of Mt Barker website – February - April 2013

APPENDIX 2 – Electors per town/area as of July 2012

Council Council Town/area HOA roll roll Town/area HOA roll roll

Biggs Flat 50 0 Macclesfield 961 15

Blakiston 210 5 Meadows 868 6

Bradbury 2 0 Mt Barker 8117 96

Bridgewater 9 0 Mt Barker Junction 12 2

Brukunga 275 3 Mt Barker Springs 114 3

Bugle Ranges 185 2 Mt Barker Summit 71 2

Bull Creek 73 2 Mount Torrens 1 1

Callington 151 2 Mylor 122 3

Chapel Hill 91 1 Nairne 2845 28

Dawesley 177 1 Oakbank 5 0

Echunga 775 3 Paechtown 157 0

Flaxley 121 2 Paris Creek 72 0

Green Hills Range 66 2 Petwood 48 0

Hahndorf 1835 9 Prospect Hill 94 0

Harrogate 239 3 St Ives 28 0

Hay Valley 33 1 Totness 80 3

Jupiter Creek 170 2 Verdun 46 0

Kangarilla 44 0 Wistow 221 4

Kanmantoo 392 1 Woodside 2 0

Kuitpo 34 0 TOTAL 20638 211

Littlehampton 1842 9

APPENDIX 3 – Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation as explained on page 65 of the South Australian Local Government Election Report:

Submission on Elector representation Review 2012

Mount Barker Council

By: The Mount Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities

24 December 2012 - Sent by email to; [email protected]

The Representation Review Options Paper 2012 has a great amount of detail and some options for change, but is by no means an exhaustive analysis as there are almost an infinite number of options that could be envisaged.

Rather than attempt to critique the various options presented therein, or confuse the situation by adding others, we have taken the approach of stating the principles upon which we believe the community will be best served - then leaving the detail of this to be worked through.

1. Wards/No Wards

We are of the strong view that a Ward structure should be maintained. We see that Councillors representing local views and advocating for local issues is the essence of local government and that the opposite has the danger of local issues being ignored.

We also believe that there are great dangers in the skewing of elections in a no-ward situation by those who have money and influence and can concentrate advertising in dense population areas to get themselves elected. We also believe this method is more likely to encourage Councillors backed by political parties, which we see as undoing one of the basic philosophies of local government in South Australia.

2. Ward Composition/Sizes

There needs to be similar population sizes in each ward otherwise one Councillor represents more or fewer residents than another. This makes for uneven and unfair workloads on Councillors in large wards.

However, in drawing up new Ward boundaries, common-sense also needs to prevail in terms of geography and keeping logical clusters of communities within one ward where possible,

A difficult situation arises in the case of Mount Barker area specifically because of the large area of land (1300 ha) re-zoned as residential in 2010. This is largely open and rural still and likely to remain so over many years as development is slower than perhaps anyone anticipated. This will probably cause more frequent representation reviews in the future as (e.g) an area within a Ward is to grow by say 1000 people once development approval is given. As there is no staging in the 1300 MDPA development lands, growth can occur technically anywhere in isolation and give rise to erratic population growth in some Wards, requiring a review.

3. Number of Wards

We do not have a principle here except that number needed by dividing the total population into a number of similar-sized wards which can be adequately-serviced by one or more Councillors.

4. Number of Elected Members(EM's)

We have read and understood arguments for more EM's but are concerned that, as an efficient working group, ten people would seem to be a high number and going to say 12 or more Councillors would not be conducive to good decision-making. Our principle would be to keep the number of EM's to a minimum with reference to the population they have to service.

5. Election of the Mayor

We strongly believe that the Mayor should not be elected by Councillors but instead, as now, be elected by the Community. (Realising this is the opposite of the Australian Federal political situation.). We believe the Mayor has a duty to and a direct link with the Community which will want to hold the Mayor to election promises.

Brian Calvert

Mount Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities

PO Box 882, Mount Barker

8391 1031 [email protected]

Nathan Rogers Unit 2 9a Albert Road Mount Barker South Australia 5251

Phone: 8398 4127

28.12.2012

To whom it may concern,

This written report is a (very basic) submission in relation to the “Representation Review Options Paper” released in November 2012 by the District Council of Mount Barker.

1. Introduction

One important question to be asked in relation to this topic is a philosophical one. What is better local government all about? It is about what local government does, not about the constant changing of ward boundaries or voting systems. Something consistent is needed. As a result, some may naturally question the options put in the District Council of Mount Barker's Representation Review Options Paper 2012, with one question being:

1. Are the options put forward the best representation options we can have - even under current State Government laws and regulations that exist under the current Local Government Act that applies to South Australia?

Many including myself, would say no. The current ward system for the District Council of Mount Barker has been good in the areas of:

1. Wards and relationships with geographical locations whilst at the same time maintaining connections with good quality populations and people in principle.

The above (particularly in relation to representation options) of course makes developing any representation changes a challenge, with what is been seen by some as a poorly written Local Government Act in many areas, including those relating to electoral reviews.

Such an act has made a desire to see a viable, well designed representation system achieved very difficult– however this should not be seen as an excuse for limited action.

Now can be the time for high quality change re voter representation and future elections within the District Council of Mount Barker, with a viable, well designed electoral system that represents its residents and ratepayers well, with the District Council of Mount Barker having the opportunity to be a 'show-piece' for councils in South Australia and beyond.

2. Why State Government legislative change is vital

If a State Government does not make any legislative changes re the Local Government Act, particularly in relation to representation and election systems and how they operate – wards may need to be abolished within the District Council of Mount Barker - regardless of any public or council opinion – as legislative requirements relating to the 10% boundary factor may not be able to be maintained, or a government taking strong action in the future - particularly with any mass population increases within the Mount Barker township.

It is therefore vital that the District Council of Mount Barker takes action in this area to ensure its residents and ratepayers can be properly represented under its current ward system that is operating well – with the need for low impact ward and boundary changes if quality legislative changes are introduced. Lobbying for any change should occur through council itself and organisations such as the Local Government Association. 3. Representation review – basic comparisons between reports from 2005 and 2012

One very important issue to consider, not covered in the recent 2012 report is a comparison between council election reviews from both July 2005 and November 2012.

The 'Assessment Criteria' from draft Elector Representation Review report of July 2005 said:

“The elector numbers from the last review has risen from 15,791 to 20037 an increase of 26.8% with most of the growth in the Mt. Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne townships. The ten percent tolerance stipulated between ward quotas will have an effect of the long term viability of any representation structure that contains wards, however the chosen structure with the advent of four year terms with the next election for 2006 and then 2010 could last until 2014 before changes are implemented.”

The draft proposal Elector Representation Review (2005) under 'ward structures' said:

“In developing options for ward boundaries allowances need to be made for predicted fluctuations in elector numbers, as these will impact the balance between elector numbers in the future. Without accommodating predicted changes in elector numbers the structure developed will be short lived, however the growth in the Mt Barker district has been so dramatic in recent history that it is unlikely that any structure developed will survive the next review scheduled for 2011.”

“The current ward structure currently falls within the 10% tolerance but with expected growth in the Mt Barker, Nairne and Littlehampton areas that tolerance will not be sustainable for the future with predicted growth to approximately 30,000 by 2011. The South Ward will on current trends shortly exceed the 10% tolerance as it fails to keep up with population growth in the rest of the district.”

The 2012 Representation Review says: “It would therefore be prudent to adjust ward boundaries at this time in a manner which allows room for future growth and at the same time sit within the 10% tolerance required. Alternatively, a structure without wards could be adopted where ward quotas are no longer relevant and “the figures in table 2 suggest that the District Council of Mount Barker is providing adequate and fair representation as required by S26(1)(c)(xi) of the Act, rather than significant under or over-representation when compared to other Councils of a similar size and type. Significant growth, however, could result in electors being significantly under represented, unless there is an increase in the number of Councillors. There is a possibility that this could occur before the next Representation Review is due.”

Questions to be asked with the above in mind from 2005 when making comparisons to the 2012 report therefore can include:

1. Have any previous representation changes (say for example from 2005) implemented by the District Council of Mount Barker lasted in terms of legislative requirements?

2. Has the District Council of Mount Barker Council or other parties assessed the issues above (in section 3) in more depth, or received any correspondence in relation to election matters in relation to 2005 and 2012 Representation Review changes?

3. With the 'predicted growth' (listed above) being approximately 30,000 people by 2011 and the current population for the District being around this figure in 2011 (from 2005) the impact of rezoning of land in terms of elector representation considered?

4. Is it possible to get a detailed review of any comparison of reports from 2005 and 2012? 4. Issues relating to any Representation Review – further points raised

There are a range of options put forward in the Representation Review Options Paper 2012 re representation. These include having no wards and a range of ward options. These ward however options are very limited and it is my view a more in depth investigation is required in areas such as:

1. A better ward and election system in the District Council of Mount Barker (under the current Local Government Act or if possible a revised act) to encourage more people to stand for council and to encourage more electors to vote. Some suggestions and issues are put below. These include:

1a. With similar sized wards in terms population numbers being required, multiple wards could be established within and around Mount Barker, with surrounding areas having multiple ward options developed for the Northern and Southern areas of the Council - but this I believe would require further investigation if such a move was possible.

1b. Such changes (if able to be developed) may encourage new, better quality candidates to stand for council as they would not need to cover as wide of an area in terms of council elections. As a result more people may turn out to vote. It may also allow better representation of an area by individual councillors.

2. Maintaining the current ward system as it is and making small changes to better represent an area is also an option. Future population increases (as per State Government re-zoning) have not occurred to their full level at this stage and to what level in the future is not definite.

3. An in depth investigation in relation to having no wards is required. It is very likely any State Government will make no changes in relation to elector representation matters and if current issues (many from part 3) are not addressed – particularly the legal regulations in relation to conducting a representation review and associated issues – abolishing wards may be the only viable option to consider.

3a. Many (including myself) like the current ward system, with much of the above in mind – but with ward abolition, all candidates would be able to campaign the whole council area, council elections under 'no wards' could attract new voters and at the same time elected members would have responsibility and a desire to serve the wider community.

4. Consider the option of making no changes to the District Council of Mount Barker ward structure. The 2012 representation paper says: “that Council must set out the reasons for Council's decision”. If achievable, I think this is perfectly reasonable considering no public consultation occurred before this paper was put out and that way the current wards operate for Mount Barker District residents is good and the way the representation review system operates now is not viable – particularly if large population increase occurs.

4a. If one takes into consideration the (reasonably) correct figures put out in 2005 re population increases in relation to 2011 – but no population figures seen in relation to the future and how this could work 'representation wise', considering the potential population increase through re-zoning of land may or may not occur along with land ownership – there is no guarantee on what numbers may or may not occur in the future.

5. Consider rejecting all options in the 2012 Representation Review and establish a council committee (including public members) to look at this issue in more depth, before any consultant was to become involved. Some may argue a councillor may vote in favour of a system in their own interests, not the public. 5. Legislative and other issues to consider

The Local Government Act clearly states out a range of legal requirements that need to be met and some of these are listed below with other assessments made. Some of these include:

Under section 9 under one part of the Local Government Act the council must:

1. Make copies of its (final report to go out for public consultation) available for public inspection at the principal office of the council; and by public notice;

2. Inform the public of the preparation of the report and its availability;

3. Invite interested persons to make written submissions to the council on the report within a period specified by the council (being a period of at least 3 weeks).

Three weeks is a very limited time in terms of consultation (as per the council's Representation Review) and yet the legislation clearly states that consultation in relation to council's final document out for public consultation should be for a period “of at least three weeks”.

Suggested action: The District Council of Mount Barker should have consultation that lasts for at least one month, if not longer.

Legislation states: “The representation options paper must examine the advantages and disadvantages of the various options that are available to the council under subsection (1) and, in particular (to the extent that may be relevant).

The Representation Review commissioned by the District Council of Mount Barker is not detailed enough in terms of the above and more information is required. The review is too limited in terms of options put forward and the advantages and disadvantages of various options put forward for example – along with other sections of the representation review.

Suggested action: The District Council of Mount Barker should have a Representation Review document with more detail, and not repetitive information – much covered in either previous reports by the District Council of Mount Barker and other Councils in South Australia.

Section 33 under “Ward quotas” under section 3 says:

The 10 per cent tolerance referred to in subsection (2) may be exceeded if, on the basis of demographic changes predicted by a Commonwealth or State government agency, it appears that the ward quota will not, as at the next periodic elections, be exceeded by more than 10 per cent (the relevant date in this case being the date of the next periodic elections).

Suggested action: Questions relating to the above (section 33) need to be answered. Can relevant Commonwealth or State government agencies show that such a change will/will not occur in relation to the District Council of Mount Barker? If so where is the data? If the allowance can be exceeded – why the need for any major changes in relation to representation in the District Council of Mount Barker?

There are many other unanswered issues relating to ward quotas (relating to the Local Government Act and the DCMB) too complex to put here. These should be investigated in more depth, with answers provided by relevant authorities. Conclusion

Each area with the District Council of Mount Barker will always naturally be different in terms of population, permanent residents, younger, middle aged and older aged people, new residents of all different backgrounds moving into the area, new housing within and business people – with no doubt more change to occur in the future.

There are a range of issues in relation to any representation review – but we cannot have these discussions in depth when councillors – our local elected representatives discuss matters relating to a representation review (in closed workshops, away from the general public). This in the eyes of some will be seen as not in the public interest in terms of future elections and voting.

Frequent, too many boundary changes will also lead to likely frustration amongst residents and ratepayers – particularly those that are put in different wards after each election review – to potentially increase with population increases in the Mount Barker area. This could be very likely with 1300 ha of land rezoned by a State Government for predominantly residential housing in 2010. It can also lead to confusion amongst existing and new election candidates in terms of who to allocate time towards, funds and energy with any election campaign and during a council period itself.

The current Local Government Act also needs to be reviewed. This is very important. Constant reviews into representation are not viable – particularly when constantly going over very same and similar topics – at ratepayers expense. This will naturally discourage people from putting in a submission or taking any interest in the matter. An example of this includes if whether people within the District Council of Mount Barker should have the right to elect their own Mayor or have this position determined by elected representatives – this can only really be discussed so many times and as a result – and has been left out of this paper.

Final note

In terms of change to the Local Government Act and reform – this should be investigated with options from interstate considered. There are a range of much viable options available – as I have looked into some of these options myself – much better than what occurs in South Australia.

In terms of ward selection and the options put forward in the 2012 Representation Review paper – what is decided upon will be ultimately decided by councillors. It is important that they consider all options and submissions put forward by members of the public, along with any community groups. After all these people potentially voted for these elected members at previous elections.

Finally, whilst I do not believe any of the ward options put forward are satisfactory and I believe a complete, more detailed review is required – including legislative change to the Local Government Act - my personal preference is to keep any ward change progressive and/or minimal along with a system that sees councillors better represent the 'whole' community, something very important to many in the District Council of Mount Barker.

Yours Sincerely, (Mr) Nathan Rogers Mount Barker Resident

Mt Barker & District Residents’ Association Inc

PO Box 494 Mount Barker, South Australia 5251

For the Community

27 December 2012

Elector Representation Review District Council of Mount Barker PO Box 54 Mount Barker SA 5251

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Elector Representation Review

The Mt Barker and District Residents’ Association thanks you for the opportunity to present a submission to this review. The ability to elect their Mayor and Local Member is a fundamental right to democratic governance and is important to this community. We therefore question the timing of this review, as December is traditionally a busy period for most citizens. By making the deadline date of 28 December 2012 is also somewhat nonsensical considering Council staff will not be available to review the submissions until early in 2013. Also, we believe that if there are a minimal number of submissions from the community, this will be due to the bad timing rather than any perceived belief that the community is ‘not interested or over consulted’ as described by the CEO recently.

We have reviewed your Options Paper and provide the following feedback. An initial comment about information related to the growth planned for the next 5 – 10 years is warranted. Although your maps indicate four areas of future growth, it is not clear where the boundaries for these growth areas are, and which main roads border these growth areas. We have attempted to determine this from the brief information provided but it is impossible to consider the options appropriately without these full details. It appears in part that there are just lines drawn on a map with no real evidence as to their validity or reliability.

With further detailed information about the growth areas, our considerations of the options could be developed with greater certainty. We leave it to Ms Nankervis to consider this feedback and provide more detailed information in future consultation activities.

1. Election of the Principal Member by the electors of the Council Area. We believe this is essential to enable the community to elect their preferred Principal. We agree that it means the Mayor, as elected by a majority of electors is clearly accountable to the community.

There is a disadvantage that if a citizen wishes to run for a Mayoral position, if they lose they cannot be elected as a Councillor. We believe this is disappointing and feel that a person should be able to run for Mayor and as a Councillor.

We believe that the status quo should be retained.

2. Election of the Principal Member (the Chairperson) by the Councillors.

We do not believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. There would be no community 1

input into this important decision. It is obvious the farce that this would create if one observes the ‘dealings’ and negotiations that occur for the election of the Deputy Mayor. This is not a sensible approach for the election of the Mayor.

We strongly oppose this option.

3. Councillors elected as representatives of the Council Area as a whole

Although this option may appear to have some merit, we do not support it. It could be beneficial to have more Councillors with a ‘whole of District’ approach to decision making. Currently the North and South ward councillors can be more focused on issues in specific towns or settlements in their area, rather than considering the key principals or policy consideration for the whole of District. Equally, Central Ward councillors could appear to be less engaged with issues related to the outlying towns and settlements. We are not speaking only of this Council but also of previous Councils, and from our observations of at least one Association member attending the majority of Council meetings since 1999.

Several examples include consideration of sporting requirements in any of the wards without consideration of a District wide policy. Thus if a decision is required about the Echunga Oval or the Callington Oval, these decisions are made in isolation of a whole of District policy. Equally, decisions about the Mt Barker Football Club and its possible relocation to Stephenson’s land are being made in a policy free environment, with discussions between one Central Ward Councillor, the CEO and possibly the Mayor. We do not believe this is honest, wise or transparent governance.

The advantages of no wards are clear and we agree with them in theory. However, the disadvantages are significant and we believe they outweigh the advantages.

We do not support this option.

4. Councillors elected as representatives of wards

Option 1: Three wards

This is a logical suggestion and is the same as Option 8 but separates Paechtown from Hahndorf which we believe is not a good idea. We support Cr Bettcher on this. We also question the need to divide Mt Barker township into two in this option. By separating the township along Flaxley Road and Adelaide Road there is potential to have conflicting opinions presented for the one town. This could be particularly difficult for the businesses in these two areas. It would create an illogical divide, particularly along Adelaide Road. We do not support this option.

Option 2: Two unequal wards; 10 Councillors

This option separates Hahndorf from Littlehampton which we do not believe is a good idea as there has always been historical and close affinity between the two towns. It also makes two large wards which would be difficult for Councillors to manage. We do not support this option.

Option 3: Two equal wards; 10 Councillors

This option has similar issues as those of ‘two unequal wards’. We do not support this option.

Option 4: Two unequal wards; 11 Councillors

This option creates another Councillor position which we do not believe is necessary in an already over-governed country. The argument against two wards is extended to this option. We do not support this option. 2

Option 5: Two unequal wards; 11 Councillors

This option has similar issues to that of Option 4 and only appears to differ by moving Wistow from Ward 2 to Ward 1. There is no clear explanation for this option. Option 5 appears to present a lower variance but this is negligible. We do not support this option.

Option 6: Without wards

As stated previously we do not support this option.

Option 7: Two unequal wards; 10 Councillors

This option includes Hahndorf, Paechtown and Wistow in Ward 1. However, as stated previously we believe two wards is too large a workload for Councillors and there would be a natural separation of duties to facilitate the workload, thereby potentially creating an informal third or fourth ‘ward’ structure. We do not support this option.

Option 8: Three unequal wards; 10 Councillors

This option divides the district into 3 wards and maintains the current 10 councillors. We believe this structure has similar issues to Option 1. However, it includes Paechtown with Hahndorf which we support. We do not support this option.

Potential Option 9: three unequal wards; 10 Councillors

The current boundaries have Mt Barker township retained as a whole in Central Ward. We suggest that dividing Mt Barker township into two by making the boundary on Flaxley and Adelaide Roads will only create confusion for the electorate, and create the potential for division in the Chamber for issues related to Mt Barker. We suggest the consultant provide modelling data to determine the ratios if the current boundaries are retained for Central Ward but to: 1. move Paechtown into North Ward 2. move Petwood, St Ives, Mt Barker Summit and Mt Barker Springs into North ward 3. extend South Ward up to Martin’s Road. 4. extend North Ward through Wistow, up to Wellington Road.

Clearly there are many options which could be drawn up but there should be several key principles adhered to in this mapping exercise: 1. Townships should not be divided (in fact this applies to Callington too which should become part of Mt Barker Council in total.) But importantly, Mt Barker central township should not be divided. 2. More specific details about the new growth areas must be provided to ensure appropriate consideration of all options can occur.

Therefore, although we believe Option 8 as the best option offered in Ms Nankervis’s paper, we suggest that there are other more logical options which should be considered by the community.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to further consultation on this important matter.

Yours sincerely

Dianne van Eck

ADDITIONAL OPTIONS for Council consideration – Debbie Nankervis

The following options have been produced as a result of public consultation and feedback from a survey of Councillors.

Councils are directed to undertake Reviews as prescribed by schedule. Ideally, wards should be designed in such a way to last at least one election period and preferably two. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the growth expected, this simply may not be achievable if wards are retained.

Recent discussions with the Electoral Commission have shown that they are sympathetic with Mount Barker’s issues and the uncertainty of growth areas. Consequently, a model which may not withstand another five years may still be approved, assuming that Council understand that if wards become non- compliant, another Review will be required.

Option Comments

9 An option proposed by public submission on behalf of the Mount Barker and District Residents’ Association.

Ward quotas are within the allowed 10% variance, although higher than the current ward structure. Both Paechtown and Wistow have been included in North Ward which is likely to be popular. Mt Barker Springs, Mt Barker Summit, Petwood and St Ives have also been moved into North Ward. As a result, some Councillors would be required to cover significantly greater distances, increasing the inequality of representation across the Council Area.

10 Paechtown, Petwood and St Ives have been moved into North Ward. Ward Quota variance is marginally better than the current situation but South Ward remains at -4.3%. With this model, the only way to reduce the variance and increase elector numbers in South Ward would be to take a bite out of Hahndorf, or, add a substantial geographic area up to Kanmantoo. The resultant area needed to be covered by two Councillors would simply be inequitable.

11 This model establishes a one Councillor South Ward and extends the area of Central Ward with the addition of a 5th Councillor for Central Ward. North Ward remains intact with the

addition of a substantial geographic area. Petwood, St. Ives, Mt Barker Springs and Mt Barker Summit have been moved into North Ward as some have suggested that they have more in common with their rural surrounds than with Mt Barker township. Paechtown has also been moved into North Ward as many have suggested.

South Ward’s quota variance begins +7.3% which is close to the 10% allowed but cannot be reduced without splitting townships. However, it may be advantageous if central Mt Barker develops as quickly as estimated, helping to delay the quotas from passing the allowed 10% variance. Especially as Central Ward begins at -4.4% in this model.

12 As demonstrated at the public workshop on January 15th, options for 11 Councillors which do not split townships or communities of interest are limited. If Council chooses to have eleven Ward Representatives, this model has several positives. The geographic area is reduced for the two Councillors in South Ward and those in North Ward. Paechtown is included with Hahndorf and Wistow is included with urban areas. Central Ward has an additional Councillor to help cope with expected growth. All ward quotas begin close to 0, however, if growth occurs as predicted, wards may still become non-compliant before the next Review is due.

13 An option proposed in a public submission by Mr David Welsh.

With eleven Councillors, Mt Barker’s ward quota would be 1,894. With this scenario, if one ward were to grow by 190 electors it would become non-compliant (assuming variance began at ‘0’). Southern Cross Care, for example, have been granted approval to build an 80 bed nursing home and have received planning approval for 173 2/3 bedroom units on Hawthorn Road Mt Barker, which could potentially be home to around 300 electors in a short period of time. Another Representation Review would then be required.

14 This option includes Paechtown with Hahndorf, a suggestion made by both public submissions and some Councillors. The rest of the ward structure remains unchanged. Variations from the ward quota have improved slightly by moving Paechtown into North Ward, however, South Ward remains at -4.3%. If development occurs rapidly within Central Ward, another Representation Review will be required.

15 With this option, no changes are made. Ward quotas are compliant but another Representation Review is likely to be required earlier than scheduled. If growth is significantly slower than expected, this structure may remain compliant for some time.

Submission Option 9 - Three Wards

Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 - 10 ward representatives Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Vote Per Member 1 8699 72 8771 2192 - 4 mem 2 8041 90 8131 2032 - 4 mem 3 3898 37 3935 1967 - 2 mem Total 20,638 199 20,837

Mt This model was constructed as requested in a Torrens Public sumission from the Mt Barker & District Residents' Association

Harrogate

1 4 Councillors

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town 2 Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d 4 Councillors a Chapel Flat r Mount B Hill M Petwood artin Rd Barker Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset W Vale e ll St Ives in Jupiter g Wistow to Callington Creek n R d Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla

Meadows Green Hills Range 3 Macclesfield 2 Councillors Ward Boundaries

Kuitpo Council Offices Paris Creek Suburb Boundaries Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Submission Option Nine – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8771 2192 +5.2

Central 4 8131 2032 -2.4

South 2 3935 1967 -5.6

Total 10 20,837

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll (HOA Roll) and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Submission Option Nine – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 10 Councillors Predicted Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Growth Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 934 9705 2426 -10.8

Central 4 4552 12683 3170 +16.5

South 2 878 4813 2406 -11.5

Total 10 6364 27,201

WARD QUOTA 2720

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Voters Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

Option 10 - Three Wards

Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 - 10 ward representatives Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Vote Per Member 1 8387 64 8451 2112 - 4 mem 2 8302 93 8395 2098 - 4 mem 3 3949 40 3989 1994 - 2 mem Total 20,638 197 20,835 Ward Quota = 2,083

Mt Torrens

Harrogate

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga 4 Councillors

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town Mt Barker ry 2 Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d Flat ra Chapel 4 Councillors B Hill Mount Petwood Barker Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset Vale St Ives Jupiter Wistow Creek Callington

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla 3 Green Hills 2 Councillors Range Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Kuitpo Council Offices Paris Creek Suburb Boundaries Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Option Ten – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8451 2112 +1.4

Central 4 8395 2098 +0.7

South 2 3989 1994 -4.3

Total 10 20,835

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll (HOA Roll) and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Ten – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 10 elected ward Councillors Predicted Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Growth Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 934 9385 2346 -13.7

Central 4 5252 13647 3411 +25.5

South 2 178 4167 2083 -23.4

Total 10 6364 27,199

WARD QUOTA 2719

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Voters Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

Option 11 - Three Wards

Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 - 10 ward representatives Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Vote Per Member 1 8572 68 8640 2160 - 4 mem 2 9854 108 9962 1992 - 5 mem 3 2212 23 2235 2235 - 1 mem Total 20,638 199 20,837 Ward Quota = 2,083

Mt Torrens

Harrogate 1

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga 4 Councillors

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d Flat 5 Councillors ra Chapel B Hill Mount Petwood Barker 2 Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset Vale St Ives Jupiter Wistow Creek Callington

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla 1 Councillor Green Hills Range 3 Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Kuitpo Council Offices Paris Creek Suburb Boundaries Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Option Eleven – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8640 2160 +3.7

Central 5 9962 1992 -4.4

South 1 2235 2235 +7.3

Total 10 20,837

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll (HOA Roll) and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Eleven – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 10 elected ward Councillors Predicted Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Growth Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 934 9574 2393 -12.0

Central 5 5276 15238 3047 +12.0

South 1 154 2389 2389 -12.2

Total 10 6364 27,201

WARD QUOTA 2720

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Voters Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

Option 12 - Three Wards

Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 - 11 ward representatives Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Vote Per Member 1 7768 64 7832 1958 - 4 mem 2 9142 100 9242 1848 - 5 mem 3 3728 36 3764 1882 - 2 mem Total 20,638 200 20,838 Ward Quota = 1894

Mt Torrens

Harrogate 1

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga 4 Councillors

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b 5 Councillors Summit d Flat ra Chapel B Hill Mount Petwood Barker 2 Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset Vale St Ives Jupiter Wistow Creek 3 Callington

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla 2 Councillors Green Hills Range Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Kuitpo Council Offices Paris Creek Suburb Boundaries Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Option Twelve – Current number of electors with 11 elected ward Councillors % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 7832 1958 +3.4

Central 5 9242 1848 -2.4

South 2 3764 1882 -0.6

Total 11 20,838

WARD QUOTA 1894

Data source: House of Assembly Roll (HOA Roll) and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Twelve – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 11 elected ward Councillors Predicted Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Growth Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 934 8766 2191 -11.4

Central 5 5252 14494 2898 +17.2

South 2 178 3942 1971 -20.3

Total 11 6364 27,202

WARD QUOTA 2472

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Voters Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

Submission Option 13 - Eleven Wards

11 Councillors

This model was constructed as requested in a Public sumission from Mr David Welsh

Mt Torrens

Harrogate

11 Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga

Hahndorf MtBJ 4-5

o t

7 s

s i

s 6 Little Nairne k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town 1 Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d Flat 3 ra Chapel 2 B Hill Petwood Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset 8 Vale St Ives Jupiter Wistow Creek Callington

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla

9 Green Hills 10 Range Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Kuitpo Council Offices Paris Creek Suburb Boundaries Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Option Thirteen – Current number of electors with 11 elected ward Councillors Ward Councillors Electors Per member % Variance

1 1 1906 1906 +0.6

2 1 1861 1861 -1.7

3 1 1920 1920 +1.2

4-5 2 3740 1870 -1.3

6 1 1902 1902 +0.4

7 1 1899 1899 +0.3

8 1 1889 1889 -0.3

9 1 1919 1919 +1.3

10 1 1896 1896 +0.1

11 1 1909 1909 +0.8

Total 11 20,841

WARD QUOTA 1894

Data source: House of Assembly Roll (HOA Roll) and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Thirteen – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 11 elected ward Councillors Ward Councillors Predicted Growth Electors Per member % Variance

1 1 386 2292 2292 -7.3

2 1 136 1997 1997 -19.2

3 1 186 2106 2106 -14.8

4-5 2 724 4464 2232 -9.7

6 1 190 2092 2092 -15.4

7 1 62 1961 1961 -20.7

8 1 824 2713 2713 +9.7

9 1 922 2841 2841 +14.9

10 1 2258 4154 4154 +68.0

11 1 676 2585 2585 +4.5

Total 11 6364 27,205

WARD QUOTA 2473

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Voters Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations. 12

Option 14 - Three Wards Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 - 10 ward representatives Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Electors Per Councillor North 8311 64 8375 2093 Central 8378 96 8474 2118 South 3949 40 3989 1994 Total 20,638 200 20,838

Mt Torrens

Harrogate 1

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d Flat ra Chapel 2 B Hill Petwood Mount Barker Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset Vale St Ives Jupiter 3 Wistow Callington Creek

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla

Green Hills Range Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Council Offices Kuitpo Paris Suburb Boundaries Creek Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - January 2013

Option Fourteen – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors

% Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8375 2093 +0.5

Central 4 8474 2118 +1.7

South 2 3989 1994 -4.3

Total electors 10 20,838

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Fourteen – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 10 elected ward Councillors

Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 9309 2327 -14.4

Central 4 13726 3431 +26.2

South 2 4167 2083 -23.4

Total electors 10 27,202

WARD QUOTA 2720

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

Option 15 - Existing Wards Estimated Number of Electors as of July 2012 Ward HoA Roll Council Roll Total Electors Per Councillor North 8154 64 8218 2054 Central 8535 96 8631 2157 South 3949 40 3989 1994 Total 20,638 200 20,838

Mt Torrens

Harrogate

NORTH WARD

Verdun Hay Valley Brukunga

Hahndorf MtBJ n

o Nairne

s i

s Little k

e Dawesley

a n

hampton l

t B

Mylor Paech o T town Mt Barker ry Kanmantoo u Biggs b Summit d Flat ra Chapel CENTRAL WARD B Hill Petwood Mount Barker Mt Barker Echunga Springs Dorset Vale St Ives Jupiter Wistow Callington Creek

Flaxley Bugle Ranges Kangarilla

SOUTH WARD Green Hills Range Macclesfield Meadows Ward Boundaries

Council Offices Kuitpo Paris Suburb Boundaries Creek Existing Wards Prospect Hill North Ward Bull N Creek Central Ward South Ward

Data Source: House of Assembly Roll July 2012, Mt Barker Council Roll July 2012 and SA Government DPTI boundary data.

5 0 5 km Map Prepared by Debbie Nankervis [email protected] - September 2012

Option Fifteen – Current number of electors with 10 elected ward Councillors % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 8218 2054 -1.4

Central 4 8631 2157 +3.6

South 2 3989 1994 -4.3

Total electors 10 20,838

WARD QUOTA 2083

Data source: House of Assembly Roll and Council Voters Roll July 2012

Option Fifteen – Potential number of electors within 5 years with 10 elected ward Councillors

Potential % Variance Ward Councillors Electors Per member from ward quota

North 4 9152 2288 -15.9

Central 4 13883 3470 +27.6

South 2 4167 2083 -23.4

Total electors 10 27,202

WARD QUOTA 2720

Data source: HOA Roll, Council Roll July 2012 and District Council of Mt Barker development estimations.

16 Public Submissions Round Two

Laurence Gellon P.O. Box 19 Mount Barker SA 5251 08/8391 0769

23 March 2013 Representation Review District Council of Mount Barker P.O. Box 54 Mount Barker

Submission on Elector Representation Review Report Representation Review Round Two

In the Elector Representation Review Report it contains the following proposal:

5.1 Outline of Council’s proposal. The position of Mayor as the Principal member elected by the community be retained.

The Council maintain a three ward structure with one boundary change to include Paechtown with North Ward.

Ward Councillors be retained without the addition of Area Councillors.

The number of Ward Councillors be maintained at ten. Four Ward Councillors in both North Ward and Central Ward and two Ward Councillors in South Ward.

Option Fourteen (Appendix 5 – Additional Options) as depicted on page 34 of this Report is the preferred ward structure.

As all of these proposals are in agreement with my original submission (only difference is the addition of Paechtown to North Ward which I think is a good idea) then naturally I thoroughly concur with all of the proposals.

I congratulate the Council on the process undertaken with this Representation Review and I congratulate and thank them for the proposals they reached.

I look forward to them being implemented.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Laurence Gellon