ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW
Cardinia Shire Council
Final Report
28 March 2012
2
Final Report
Contents
RECOMMENDATION
4
BACKGROUND
5
Legislative basis
5
The VEC and electoral representation reviews
5
Profile of Cardinia Shire Council
5
Current electoral structure
6
The electoral representation review process
6
VEC research
7
Public involvement
7
Advertising
7
Media releases
8
Public information session
8
Guide for submissions
8
Information brochure and poster
8
Helpline
8
VEC website
8
PRELIMINARY REPORT
9
Preliminary submissions
9
Preliminary options
10
PUBLIC RESPONSE
14
Response submissions
14
Public hearing
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
17
Number of councillors
17
Electoral structure
17
Recommendation
20
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SUBMITTERS
21
APPENDIX 2: MAP
23
3
Recommendation
The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) recommends that Cardinia Shire
Council consist of nine councillors elected from one four-councillor ward, one
three-councillor ward and one two-councillor ward, with modified boundaries.
4
Final Report
Background
Legislative basis
The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires the VEC to conduct an electoral
representation review of each municipality in Victoria at least every 12 years. The Act specifies
that the purpose of a representation review is to recommend to the Minister for Local
Government the number of councillors and the electoral structure for a municipality, which will
provide ‘fair and equitable representation for the persons who are entitled to vote at a general
election of the Council’.1 The Act requires the VEC, as part of an electoral representation
review, to consider:

the number of councillors in a municipality;

whether a municipality should be unsubdivided or subdivided;

if it should be subdivided, whether ward boundaries:
o
provide for fair and equitable division of the municipality;
o
ensure equality of representation through the number of voters being
represented by each councillor being within 10 per cent of the average
number of voters represented by all councillors; and,

if it should be subdivided, the number of councillors that should be elected for
each ward.
The VEC and electoral representation reviews
The VEC has conducted electoral representation reviews since 2004 on appointment by local
councils. The Act was changed in 2010 to define the VEC as the only agency authorised to
undertake the reviews.
The VEC drew on its experience in mapping and boundary modelling and also engaged
consultants with experience in local government to provide advice on specific local
representation issues during the review.
Profile of Cardinia Shire Council
The Shire of Cardinia was formed in 1995 by the amalgamation of the Shire of Pakenham and
parts of the Shire of Sherbrooke and the City of Cranbourne. The Shire includes the localities of
Beaconsfield, Emerald, Garfield, Gembrook, Koo Wee Rup, Lang Lang, Nar Nar Goon, Officer,
Pakenham and Pakenham Upper. At the 2006 census, the Shire recorded a population of
57,115. Over the next 10 years population is expected to grow by 49.1 per cent. The highest
projected growth is in the Pakenham area with a population growth of 76.86 per cent. The
balance of the Shire is significantly lower, with the south forecast to grow by 13.66 per cent and
the north by 4.96 per cent.
1
Section 219D of the Local Government Act 1989.
5
Current electoral structure
The last electoral representation review for Cardinia Shire Council took place in 2005. 2
Following the review, the Minister for Local Government determined that the structure of
Cardinia Shire Council would be:

seven councillors;

divided into four wards — Bunyip Ward, Central Ward, Port Ward and Ranges Ward;
and,

with one three-councillor ward, one two-councillor ward and two single-councillor wards.
The electoral representation review process
The VEC proceeded on the basis of three main principles:
1.
Ensuring the number of voters represented by each councillor is within 10
per cent of the average number of voters per councillor for that municipality.
Populations are continually changing. Over time these changes can lead to some
wards having larger or smaller numbers of voters. As part of the review, the VEC
corrected any imbalances and also took into account likely population changes to
ensure these boundaries provide equitable representation until the next review.
2.
Taking a consistent, State-wide approach to the total number of councillors.
The VEC was guided by its comparisons of municipalities of a similar size and
category to the council under review. The VEC also considered any special
circumstances that may warrant the municipality to have more or fewer councillors
than similar municipalities.
3.
Ensuring communities of interest are as fairly represented as possible.
Each municipality contains a number of communities of interest and, where
practicable, the electoral structure should be designed to take these into account.
This allows elected councillors to be more effective representatives of the people in
their particular municipality or ward.
6
The recommendation is based on:

internal research specifically relating to the municipality under review;

VEC experience from its work with other municipalities and in similar reviews for
State elections;

VEC expertise in mapping, demography and local government;

careful consideration of all public input in the form of written and verbal submissions
received during the review; and,

advice received from consultants with wide experience in local government.
Public submissions were an important part of the process, but were not the only consideration
during the review. The VEC seeks to combine the information gathered through public
submissions with its own research and analysis of other factors, such as the need to give
2
An electoral subdivision review, which can only look at adjusting ward boundaries, was conducted by the
VEC in 2008.
Final Report
representation to communities of interest. The recommendation is not based on a ‘straw poll’ of
the number of submissions supporting a particular option.
VEC research
In addition to the information provided in submissions, the VEC created a profile of the
municipality based on population trends, development projections and demographic indicators.
The VEC used the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 census community profiles, the
Department of Planning and Community Development projections and voter statistics
from the Victorian electoral roll. The VEC also undertook field work to view current and
possible boundaries for each of the options presented in the preliminary report to evaluate
their effectiveness.
Public involvement
The VEC values the local knowledge and perspectives presented by the public in written
submissions. The public were given two opportunities to provide submissions during the review.
Their input was considered by the panel in forming the options in the preliminary report and
they were also invited to respond to these options. In addition, a public hearing
was held to enable people to speak in support of their submissions and supplement it
with information.
To ensure transparency in the process, all written submissions were published on the VEC
website and all verbal submissions were heard at a public hearing.
To raise awareness of the review and encourage the public to engage with the process, a full
public information campaign was undertaken.
Advertising
In accordance with sections 219F(4) and 219F(7) of the Act, the VEC ensured public notices
were placed in local newspapers.
Notification of the review appeared in local newspapers: the Monbulk Yarra Ranges Trader Mail
on Tuesday, 1 November and Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader and Pakenham Berwick
Gazette on Wednesday, 2 November. The notice detailed the process for the review and called
for public submissions. A general notice covering several reviews was printed in The Age and
the Herald Sun on Saturday, 22 October.
Notification of the release of the preliminary report appeared in local newspapers: the Monbulk
Yarra Ranges Trader Mail on Tuesday, 31 January and Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader
and Pakenham Berwick Gazette on Wednesday, 1 February. The notice detailed the options
contained in the preliminary report, including a map of each option, instructions on how
to access a copy of the preliminary report and how to make a submission in response to
the report.
7
Media releases
The VEC produced two media releases for this review and distributed these to the local media.
These releases corresponded with the notice of review on Tuesday, 1 November and with the
notice of release of the preliminary report on Tuesday, 31 January.
Public information session
The VEC held a public information session for people interested in the review process on
Thursday, 17 November at the Council Chambers in Pakenham.
Guide for submissions
A guide for submissions was developed and distributed to those interested in making
submissions. Copies of the guide for submissions were available on the VEC website, in
hardcopy on request, and were provided to the Council.
Information brochure and poster
An information brochure was provided to the Council to be distributed to residents through the
Council’s network, such as in libraries and service centres. A poster was provided to the
Council to be displayed in public spaces.
Helpline
A dedicated helpline was established to assist with public enquiries concerning the
review process.
VEC website
The VEC website delivered up-to-date information to provide transparency during the
preliminary and response stages of the review process. All submissions were posted on the
website and an online submission tool was created to facilitate the submission process. The
preliminary report was available for electronic download on the website.
8
Final Report
Preliminary report
In accordance with the requirement of the Act, the VEC produced a preliminary report outlining
its preferred option and three alternative options proposed for Cardinia Shire Council. The
report was released on Tuesday, 31 January.
Preliminary submissions
By the close of preliminary submissions at 5.00pm on Wednesday, 30 November, the VEC
received 13 submissions.
The VEC received seven submissions from individuals and six submissions from organisations,
including the Cardinia Shire Council.
The VEC received four submissions that supported the current structure. The submitters
recognised that boundary adjustments were needed to bring wards within the +/- 10 per cent
tolerance under the Act. Further, two submissions, including one from the Council, provided a
description of suitable ward boundaries for a nine-councillor ward structure in the event that an
increase in the number of councillors would be required.
The Council’s submission noted the high population growth projected for the Shire, particularly
in the central part of the municipality. This increase in population has been recognised since the
VEC’s previous electoral representation review of Cardinia Shire Council through a shift in
Melbourne’s urban growth boundary, in the west of the Shire. The Council’s submission
suggested that although seven councillors from four wards provided an effective electoral
structure, ward boundary changes were needed to contain the Central Ward within the +/- 10
per cent tolerance. The submission included a diagram highlighting changes required to the
current seven-councillor structure to bring wards within tolerance. It proposed changing the
ward boundaries of Central Ward to shift areas into other wards — north-eastern area
(Pakenham) into Bunyip Ward, south-eastern area (Pakenham) into Port Ward and western
area (Beaconsfield) into Ranges Ward. The Council’s nine-councillor structure proposed
dividing Central Ward into two wards, with Officer in Central West Ward and Pakenham in
Central East Ward. Again, this model proposed shifting boundaries to include Beaconsfield in
Ranges Ward.
Three submitters did not state a preference for a particular structure, however, they argued
against suggestions made in the Council’s submission that proposed shifting Beaconsfield into
Ranges Ward. Submitters noted that Beaconsfield is in the urban growth corridor and has major
planned residential development, and for these reasons has little in common with the rural
townships of Ranges Ward, particularly the Hills area. Submitters argued that the urban
population had different issues and expectations of Council to the rural population and that
further urban growth will increase demand on councillors and decrease the level of effective
representation of rural voters in the Ward. Another seven submitters noted similar concerns
regarding the level of representation for communities of interest within Central and
Ranges Wards.
Four submissions supported an increase in both the number of councillors and wards for the
municipality. The submissions discussed the advantages of having boundaries that separate
9
the rural and urban areas given that these areas have different issues and service priorities.
The submissions also suggested dividing Central Ward into two wards, better fitting existing
communities of interest.
Finally, the submission from the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria–
Tasmania) Inc. suggested that a structure of nine councillors from three three-councillor wards
or, alternatively, an unsubdivided municipality would provide equity and parity to voters
throughout the Shire.
A list of submitters, by name, is available in Appendix 1. Copies of the submissions can be
viewed on the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au.
Preliminary options
The VEC assessed a range of electoral representation models that may suit Cardinia Shire
Council. The VEC considered the projected population change, the desire to maintain
communities of interest, and the number of voters and number of councillors compared with
other municipalities. The VEC developed four options — a preferred option and three
alternative options — for consideration.
Relative to other municipalities, Cardinia Shire sits comfortably in the band of metropolitan/rural
fringe municipalities with seven councillors. The VEC, however,
noted that the Shire’s population is projected to increase by 49.1 per cent in the next
10 years.3 Further, the VEC received strong support for an increase in the number of
councillors, with five of the 13 preliminary submissions received supporting this change. For
these reasons, the VEC considered it appropriate to provide options for both a seven-councillor
and a nine-councillor structure.
Cardinia Shire Council’s current electoral structure is based on communities of interest,
comprising of four distinct geographic areas: the urban growth corridor; the hills area; the
railway townships in the east and their hinterland; and the rural southern area. Considering that
the VEC recommended the current structure in 2005, and that several submissions expressed
the view that it was important to maintain this diversity on the Council, the VEC considered it
10
appropriate to attempt options that maintain such a structure.
As a result of growth in the Shire since the 2005 review, the VEC conducted an electoral
subdivision review prior to the 2008 local council elections to correct an imbalance that had
occurred, where Port Ward, at - 10.96 per cent, had exceeded the tolerance. Despite the
remedial measure, changing population has led to another imbalance in three wards, requiring
significant adjustments to be made in the Council’s current representation review.
In determining possible boundaries, the VEC considered development projections provided by
the Department of Planning and Community Development. Cardinia Shire is one of the fastest
growing regions of metropolitan Melbourne. The Shire’s growth in population has been
recognised since the VEC’s previous electoral representation review of the Council through a
shift in Melbourne’s urban growth boundary. While projections show a significant increase in
population is expected in the west of the Shire, where large greenfield opportunities have been
3 Department of Planning and Community Development, Victoria in Future 2008 Projections.
Final Report
identified in the growth corridor area, there are other greenfield, infill and rural residential
development opportunities occurring at lower levels throughout the municipality. The VEC has
found that the disparate rates of population growth throughout the Shire, and the resulting
variances in the number of voters, have made it a challenge to provide acceptable ward
boundaries for the short term that will continue to stay within the +/- 10 per cent tolerance
accepted under the Act in the long term.
In considering suitable boundaries, the VEC reviewed and, where possible, modelled all
suggestions made in submissions. The VEC received three submissions, including the
Council’s submission, which illustrated recommended changes to ward boundaries. The
Council’s submission suggested changes to the boundaries of Central Ward to shift some areas
into the surrounding wards. One of the most notable changes was transferring Beaconsfield to
Ranges Ward. The VEC modelled this structure and found that, using current estimates Ranges
Ward, at +11.02, falls outside the +/- 10 per cent tolerance (Figure 1). While it is anticipated that
changing population will bring the ward within tolerance by the 2012 local council elections,
changes will also result in other wards being outside the +/- 10 per cent allowable deviation.
Figure 1: Model proposed by Cardinia Shire
Council for minor changes to current ward
boundaries, with current voter estimates and
deviations and estimated deviations for 2016.
The VEC also modelled a structure that, like Council’s submission, collects the localities of
Officer and Pakenham in Central Ward (Figure 2). However, in this model, attempts have been
made to address the current deviation in voter numbers by combining Bunyip and Ports Wards
in a multi-councillor ward. Although multi-councillor wards are better in absorbing population
growth than single-councillor wards, the VEC found that the differential growth patterns
occurring within the Shire would result in two of the three wards exceeding the +/- 10 per cent
tolerance.
11
Figure 2: Model proposing seven councillors and
three wards, with a one three-councillor ward
and two two-councillor wards, and estimated
deviations for 2016.
The VEC also modelled a structure that Councillor Brett Owen recommended in his submission
(Figure 3), which proposed a nine-councillor model that divides Central Ward into two wards:
East Central Ward and West Central Ward. Councillor Owen suggested collecting Beaconsfield,
Guys Hill, Officer and parts of Pakenham in West Central Ward, and having the remainder of
the existing Central Ward as East Central Ward. The VEC found that, while the Bunyip, East
Central and Ranges Wards will remain within tolerance by 2016, population changes would
result in three wards falling outside tolerance.
12
Figure 3: Model proposed by Councillor
Brett Owen proposing increasing to nine
councillors and five wards with an East
Central Ward and a West Central Ward and
estimated deviations for 2016.
In an attempt to address the short-term growth and provide sustainability for the future, the VEC
put forward four options; with a small but significant preference for Option A (Preferred Option),
which maintains a seven-councillor ward structure, while decreasing to three wards to better
allow for projected areas of rapid development within the municipality. While in Option A
Final Report
Ranges Ward, at +12.89 per cent, exceeds the +/- 10 per cent tolerance, it is anticipated that
projected population growth will bring the ward within tolerance by the 2012 local council
elections. Under the legislation, compliance with +/- 10 per cent tolerance requirement may be
determined by reference to the number of voters at the time of the review or by reference to the
number of voters projected to be voters on the entitlement date for the next general election. In
both Option A (Preferred Option) and Option C (Alternative Option) the VEC combined Port and
Bunyip Wards in a multi-councillor ward. The VEC considers that its preliminary models Options
A and C recognise the existing communities of interest that are represented under the current
ward structure. While Options A and C would shift some voters into other wards, the boundaries
recognise the existing relationships within and between towns in the Shire. Options A and C are
also likely to be able to provide representation for new communities of interest, likely to result
from large residential subdivisions, through the proportional vote counting method used in multicouncillor wards. There were some submissions that criticised the Council’s proposal to include
Beaconsfield in Ranges Ward, arguing that the locality had more in common with the growth
corridor areas of Officer and Pakenham. However, the VEC had to include Beaconsfield and
nearby areas in Ranges Ward to spread the anticipated growth in population across three
wards and to provide sustainable boundaries until the next scheduled review.
Finally, the VEC recommended, as alternative options (Option B and Option D), that Cardinia
Shire Council consist of either seven or nine councillors to be elected by the municipality atlarge (an unsubdivided municipality). This structure would ensure equal voting power for all
voters across the municipality and eliminate the need for a subdivision review prior to the next
scheduled electoral representation review. An unsubdivided municipality widens the choice for
voters and may increase diversity in representation. The preliminary report detailed four options
that were under consideration by the VEC:

Option A (Preferred Option) that Cardinia Shire Council consist of seven councillors
elected from three wards, with one three-councillor ward and two two-councillor wards.

Option B (Alternative Option) that Cardinia Shire Council consist of seven councillors
to be elected by the municipality at-large (an unsubdivided municipality).

Option C (Alternative Option) that Cardinia Shire Council consist of nine councillors
elected from three wards, with one four-councillor ward, one three-councillor ward and
one two-councillor ward.

Option D (Alternative Option) that Cardinia Shire Council consist of nine councillors to
be elected by the municipality at-large (an unsubdivided municipality).
13
Public response
Response submissions
Response submissions on the electoral representation review of Cardinia Shire Council opened
on Tuesday, 31 January and closed at 5.00pm on Wednesday, 29 February. Eighteen response
submissions were received. Table 1 shows the levels of support for each option based on the
preferences expressed in each response submission.
Table 1: Preferences expressed in response submissions for each option
Option A
(Preferred
Option)
Option B
(Alternative
Option)
Option C
(Alternative
Option)
Option D
(Alternative
Option)
Other
1
—
3
2
12
The VEC received one submission directly in support of Option A (Preferred Option), proposing
that seven councillors be elected from one three-councillor ward, and two two-councillor wards.
The submission supported the proposal to shift Beaconsfield into Ranges Ward, suggesting that
this community had an affinity with the area north of the highway and the hills area and that
these communities were united by the north-south logical travel link. The submission suggested
that a seven-councillor structure would be most suitable due to the additional administrative
costs and the complexity of decision making associated with increasing the number of
councillors.
Three submissions directly supported Option C (Alternative Option), proposing a nine-councillor
structure, with one four-councillor, one three-councillor and one two-councillor wards. The
submitters supported the proposal to increase to three councillors for Ranges Ward, arguing
this may improve the level of representation for rural communities and, in particular, provide the
attention needed for bushfire-affected areas of the ward. One submitter also stated that multicouncillor wards encouraged diversity and also offered more than one councillor to contact
regarding concerns. In support for Option C, Councillor Brett Owen noted in his personal
14
submission that one of its main advantages is that it unites the locality of Officer in one ward.
Councillor Owen also suggested the option had the benefit of uniting two growth corridor towns
— Beaconsfield and Officer — in the same ward.
The VEC received two submissions that supported an unsubdivided electoral structure. Both
submissions supported Option D (Alternative Option), proposing an unsubdivided structure with
nine councillors. Former Councillor and Mayor of the municipality Kate Lempriere suggested
that an unsubdivided structure could fairly represent the diverse needs of the Shire and support
its infrastructure, construction, and maintenance requirements. The Proportional
Representation Society’s submission suggested that the option presented a good system of
proportional representation, giving wider representation to the whole community and would be
fairer to all electors.
Finally, 12 submitters did not directly support a particular option put forward by the VEC.
Several submitters expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed boundaries of the VEC’s
Final Report
preferred option, with the majority arguing that boundaries did not retain established
communities of interest. Arguments raised were that:

Beaconsfield is in the urban growth corridor and has a community distinct from those in
the rural areas of Ranges Ward.

The western Central Ward boundary of Option A runs through the major business area
of Officer, splitting the township between Central and Ranges Wards, and would not
best reflect communities of interest of that area.

The proposed Port Ward under Options A and C, would geographically represents over
60 per cent of the Shire. Two councillors would be unable to effectively attend to the
issues of such a large area.
Most submitters supported the Council’s suggestion to shift Officer into Central Ward by moving
the boundaries west to Brunt and Whiteside Roads. Two further submitters tried to address
concerns regarding communities of interest by suggesting an additional ward be introduced to
comprise Beaconsfield, Officer and parts of West Pakenham (Lakeside). The submitters
suggested that this would group similar communities of interest to provide
effective representation for the common infrastructure, commercial and community needs
of these areas.
A list of submitters, by name, is available in Appendix 1. Copies of the submissions can be
viewed on the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au.
Public hearing
A public hearing was held on Thursday, 8 March at the Council Chambers, Council Offices,
Henty Way, Pakenham. Everyone who made a submission in response to the report was invited
to speak to their submissions and eight submitters accepted. Members of the public were
invited to attend and 13 people, including the speakers, were present. The speakers were
allocated 10 minutes each.
One presentation was made in support for Option D (Alternative Option), proposing an
unsubdivided structure with nine councillors. The speaker contended that an unsubdivided
structure would ensure effective representation for all communities. The speaker did not
support a multi-councillor ward option as she considered community needs would be better
served through an unsubdivided structure. The submitter suggested that the proposal to keep
Beaconsfield in Ranges Ward, under options proposing multi-councillor wards, would be only
for financial convenience rather than to keep wards within tolerance.
In support for Option C (Alternative Option), proposing a nine-councillor structure with one fourcouncillor, one three-councillor and one two-councillor ward, one submitter argued that the
three wards would provide the fairest representation for the municipality’s diverse communities.
The submitter contended that an increase in the number of councillors would also increase the
level of representation.
The other speakers did not support any of the options put forward by the VEC, but rather took
the opportunity to raise concerns in relation to communities of interest. On the whole, speakers
were opposed to proposals to place urban areas within Ranges Ward under Options A and C.
Speakers argued that Council resources would be going to the urban growth areas, leaving
15
areas such as Gembrook, Cockatoo and Emerald without adequate representation. Some of
the concerns raised were that:

The Shire’s metropolitan classification would result in government funding being
inadequate to support the Shire’s rural areas, which account for 92 per cent of the area
of the Shire.

The Shire is the highest bushfire and flood prone area in Victoria, placing pressure on
the limited budget available for the rural areas.

The Shire grows much of Victoria’s produce, and would have to rely on the goodwill of
urban areas for funding.

The boundary that runs down the business area of Officer is illogical, and should not
split the area.

There are no communities of interest between these urban and rural areas.
The speakers discussed a number of changes necessary under Option A to better align
boundaries with communities of interest, including:

Moving the western Central Ward boundary further west to Brunt Road and
Whiteside Road.

Extending Central Ward to Cardinia Creek, the municipality’s external boundary, and
splitting this ward into two wards.
Speakers, in response to questions, suggested that Officer related more to Beaconsfield than
Pakenham from a community of interest point of view. Speakers believed that capturing
communities of interest was more important than maintaining voter numbers within the
+/- 10 per cent tolerance. The panel explained that the maintenance of voter numbers within
tolerance was a requirement of the Act.
Most of the speakers focused their submission on Option A, not giving the alternative multicouncillor ward option much consideration. However, many agreed they would support an
increase to nine councillors if this was a financially viable option for the Cardinia Shire Council.
Finally, one speaker felt that the municipality was experiencing significantly high rates of growth
16
due to people moving into the area from the neighbouring municipality of Casey. The speaker
suggested that shifting the urban growth area into Casey would ensure effective representation
is provided to both the urban and rural communities. The VEC, however, advises that changes
to the external boundaries are considerations outside the scope of this review.
Final Report
Findings and Recommendation
This report has summarised the process the VEC completed to gather information and to
develop and consult on the options under consideration. The VEC now provides its findings for
recommendation to the Minister for Local Government.
Number of councillors
The Act requires the VEC to recommend the appropriate number of councillors for the council
under review, with the requirement to keep this to between five and 12 councillors. In
determining the appropriate number of councillors, the VEC compares the Council with other
municipalities of similar size and category in Victoria. The VEC, however, recognises that
special circumstances may necessitate an amendment to this principle.
Current estimates show that Cardinia Shire has 53,794 voters,4 placing the Council within the
average of metropolitan/rural fringe municipalities with seven councillors. The VEC, however,
takes into consideration the impact of the Shire’s projected growth in population, expected to
rise by 49.1 per cent in the next 10 years, and the municipality’s large geographic size
compared to other metropolitan/rural fringe councils on the workloads for councillors. The
growth of Cardinia would bring its number of electors up to the same level as other fringe
councils for which the VEC recommended nine councillors at their previous review (such as
Wyndham City Council and Whittlesea City Council).
The VEC considers that an increase to nine councillors is appropriate in light of these factors,
and is confident that a structure with nine councillors would provide fair and equitable
representation for the residents of Cardinia Shire.
Electoral structure
The Act also requires the VEC to recommend an appropriate electoral structure for the
municipality. The VEC considered whether the municipality should be unsubdivided or
subdivided into wards and, if subdivided, the positioning of ward boundaries and the number of
councillors to be elected for each ward to provide a fair and equitable division and ensure equity
of representation.
Currently, Cardinia Shire Council comprises four wards, with one three-councillor ward, one
two-councillor ward and two single-councillor wards. In the preliminary report, the VEC put
forward four options, including a seven- and a nine-councillor ward structure, comprising three
wards in each, and both a seven- and nine-councillor unsubdivided structure. All options
presented in the preliminary report were considered as likely to meet the VEC’s main electoral
representation review principles.
Recent changes to Melbourne’s urban growth boundaries have had a significant impact on the
residential development in the municipality, especially in the west of the Shire. In particular, the
population of Pakenham is projected to rise by 76.86 per cent over the next 10 years. On
balance, population in the south is projected to grow at a much steadier rate of 13.66 per cent
and the north is expecting only a marginal growth of 4.96 per cent. The preliminary report noted
4 The VEC calculates voter numbers by merging the resident electoral roll and most recently provided nonresident electoral roll.
17
that this uneven population change within the Shire, resulting in the current deviations in three
wards (Bunyip Ward at -16.24 per cent, Central Ward at +17.70 per cent, and Ranges Ward at 14.77 per cent), has necessitated significant adjustments to be made to the Council’s electoral
structure in the current representation review to correct the imbalance and to accommodate the
Shire’s projected growth. The Act requires all wards in a ward structure to deviate from the
average number of voters per councillor by no more than +/- 10 per cent of the average number
of voters per councillor across the municipality, as allowable under the Act.
An unsubdivided structure can be considered a solution when faced with the difficulty of
modelling ward boundaries that will meet legislative requirements while providing effective
representation for communities of interest. Unsubdivided structures can be conducive to a
‘whole of municipality’ approach, ensuring all voters are equally represented by councillors that
represent the entire municipality instead of a specific ward. There has, however, been a push
from residents for stronger rural representation. The VEC considers that a multi-councillor ward
containing a significant rural voter base would increase the possibility of a rural representative
being elected. Another consideration is that, at a general council election, all the candidates for
an unsubdivided council are on one ballot paper and would require electors to number each box
for their vote to count. The VEC envisages that as the Shire’s population grows, so too will the
number candidates and the size of the ballot paper, increasing the difficulty in voting and the
number of informal votes. For these reasons, the VEC considers that an unsubdivided structure
is less desirable than a subdivided structure for Cardinia Shire Council.
In considering suitable subdivided structures, the VEC sought to model boundaries that are
sustainable until the next scheduled electoral representation review. The VEC considered that
any ward containing the Beaconsfield, Officer or Pakenham areas has to absorb the ongoing
development while keeping the number of voters per councillor in the ward within +/- 10 per
cent tolerance requirement of the Act. Accordingly, the VEC attempted to mitigate the
concentration of progressive residential development between these wards in its multicouncillor ward options (Options A and C). As a result, Beaconsfield, split under the existing
structure between Central and Ranges Wards, is united in its entirety in Ranges Ward under
18
both options. Moreover, a larger portion of Officer is shifted into Ranges Ward under Option A
compared to the existing structure and Option C unites almost all of the locality within the ward.
In addition, Port and Bunyip Wards are merged into one two-councillor ward in both options.
The VEC considers multi-councillor wards are better in absorbing population growth than
single-councillor wards, as fast-growing areas are more likely to be equalised by areas that are
growing at a steadier pace.
A number of submitters expressed disappointment in the options put forward by the VEC.
Several submitters argued that having Beaconsfield and/or Officer in the same ward as the hills
communities would result in an under-representation of rural issues. The VEC considered all
arguments made in submissions and at the public hearing, and where possible modelled all
suggestions. The Council’s submission made suggestions that received substantial public
support. The VEC considered there to be merit in the Council’s suggestion to shift the western
boundary of Central Ward under Option A further west to unite a larger part of Officer in one
ward; however, these boundaries fell short of meeting the legislative requirement in terms of
Final Report
voter numbers and were also unable to absorb anticipated growth (as illustrated in Figure 1,
page 11). While not ideal in terms of communities of interest, the VEC considers Option C
successful in keeping a majority of Officer in one ward. Under this option, the western boundary
of Central Ward runs generally along locality boundary of Officer to shift Officer into Ranges
Ward. Gary Runge proposed changes that keep related boundaries to the existing Central
Ward, but split this ward into two wards with Cardinia Road as the connecting boundary. This
structure was also unsuccessful in meeting the +/- 10 per cent tolerance requirement of the Act
and, even after considerable variations were made to these boundaries, fell short of compliance
with this principle.
The VEC recognises that there are distinct issues faced in urban areas and rural areas that
may pose a challenge in providing effective representation, however, is unable to shift
boundaries in a way that best reflects these communities, while still keeping within the +/- 10
per cent tolerance requirement of the Act. This requirement and the uneven pattern of growth in
Cardinia Shire meant that the VEC was required to transfer growing urban areas from Central
Ward to Ranges Ward. It was impossible to leave Ranges Ward as it is, as its enrolment is
already well below the allowable per cent variation from the average, and would rapidly decline
further. Similarly, Port and Bunyip Wards had to be combined because enrolment in Bunyip
Ward was below the 10 per cent threshold and declining. Under these boundaries, Port Ward
would be predominantly rural and Ranges Ward substantially rural, allowing scope for rural
representation in a three-councillor ward.
The VEC believes that Option C (Alternative Option), with nine councillors elected from one
four-councillor ward, one three-councillor ward and one two-councillor ward, provides the most
effective electoral structure for the residents of Cardinia Shire. The VEC considers that Option
C provides a structure that recognises the existing broad communities of interest that are
represented under the current four-ward structure, would accommodate the uneven population
growth, and allow for effective representation for the Shire’s urban and rural residents. While
Option C would shift some voters into other wards, the boundaries recognise the existing
relationships within and between towns in the Shire.
While reviewing the suitability of the boundary, the VEC mapping team identified that a small
section of the Central Ward boundary, between Pakenham and Officer, runs through planned
property development. In view of the Cardinia Shire Council’s Review of the Pakenham and
Officer Locality Boundary, instigated at the General Council Meeting on 19 July 2010, a small
adjustment has now been applied to the ward boundary to align this in accordance with the
Council’s proposed changes. This change is illustrated in Appendix 2.
19
Recommendation
The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) recommends that Cardinia Shire Council consist of
nine councillors elected from one four-councillor ward, one three-councillor ward and one twocouncillor ward, with modified boundaries.
S. H. Tully
Electoral Commissioner
Liz Williams
Deputy Electoral Commissioner
20
Final Report
Appendix 1: List of submitters
Preliminary submissions were received from:
Name
Beaconsfield Progress Association
Cardinia Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc.
Cardinia Shire Council
Emerald Village Committee
Griffin, D and Wilmot, L
Joint Submission: Upper Beaconsfield Association and the Emerald, Cockatoo and
Gembrook Township Committees
Jolly, G
Legge, G
McNabb, A
Nickell, D
Owen, B
Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria–Tasmania) Inc.
Runge, G
21
Response submissions were received from:
Name
Aldersea, R and A*
Beaconsfield Progress Association Inc
Cardinia Shire Council*
D’Amelio, A and Baxter, T
Deppeler, O*
Eadie, G
Fuller, L*
Gembrook Township Committee
Hannan, B and J
Hocking, R*
Jones, L
Lempriere, K*
Officer Community Association
Owen, B
Petrovich, M
Proportional Representation Society of Australia
Runge, G*
Taylor, G*
* indicates those submitters who spoke in support of their submission at the
22
public hearing on Thursday, 8 March.
Final Report
Appendix 2: Map
23
Victorian Electoral Commission
Level 11, 530 Collins Street
Melbourne, Vic 3000
131 VEC (131 832)
cardinia.review@vec.vic.gov.au
vec.vic.gov.au