AS the dust settles on the 14 September local government elections, the Port Macquarie-Hastings LGA is gearing up for its final term with a nine-member Council.

The recent referendum posed a significant question to the electorate: “Do you favour a reduction in the number of Port Macquarie-Hastings Councillors from nine to seven, consisting of the Mayor and six Councillors?”

Advertise with News of The Area today.
It’s worth it for your business.
Message us.
Phone us – (02) 4981 8882.
Email us – media@newsofthearea.com.au

The question passed, but narrowly, with a margin of just 1.89 percent – or 2,193 votes – out of 57,031 formal votes cast.

The close result has sparked debate over whether voters were sufficiently informed about the implications of reducing the number of councillors.

Arguments for the change centred on cost savings and reducing the influence of special interest groups, yet concerns are growing that the community may not have fully understood what they were voting for.

Sentiment from voters News Of The Area spoke with on election day and in the weeks following highlighted this.

Many residents initially expressed the view that “less government is better and it will save us money”.

However, when provided with more detailed information about the potential consequences, such as reduced representation and a higher workload for the remaining councillors, most agreed they would have voted “No” if better informed.

On Election Day, 20 out of 28 polling booths saw the “No” vote take the lead, while pre-polling and postal votes returned a stronger “Yes” vote, which some attribute to early voters lacking a more significant understanding of what they were voting for.

The move to reduce the number of councillors is expected to bring minor cost savings by decreasing the councillor stipends of the two abolished positions.

However, as the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area (LGA) continues to grow, with an approximate current population of over 90,000, concerns are being raised about how this decision will affect representation and diversity on council.

Following the 2028 election, the LGA will have one of the highest population-to-councillor ratios in New South Wales.

This ratio, projected to be around 15,000 residents per councillor, could potentially limit council’s ability to address a wide range of community interests and adequately represent diverse viewpoints.

Critics of the reduction argue that fewer councillors could hinder robust debate and lead to a concentration of power.

A smaller council may find it challenging to manage the increasing workload that comes with a rapidly growing population, potentially resulting in slower response times and less comprehensive decision-making.

Additionally, there are fears the decision may lead to a lack of broad representation, particularly for smaller or less vocal communities within the region.

Further complicating the situation, the first meeting of the new council revealed that if one or two councillors leave during this term, they will not be replaced – there will be no count-back or by-election.

This raises questions about whether the community was fully aware of such details before casting their votes.

Councillor Nik Lipovac criticised the process, describing it as “a travesty”.

“It’s shambolic, and makes a mockery of democracy,” he said.

Councillor Lisa Intemann expressed similar concern.

“Community representation will undoubtedly suffer from fewer councillors, but who will know except the councillors left struggling to do a proper job?” Cr Intemann said.

“In effect, council just spent $70,000 on a referendum that no one in the community had asked for, instigated by particular councillors, and promoted by council’s organisation as if just another consultation, despite the community significance.

“Given so little information, the 51.89 percent Yes vote is hardly decisive, and the valid cut-off should be at least 60 percent for any certainty.

“If you’re unhappy with this situation, get talking and tell your local Member of Parliament also.”

In contrast, Mayor Adam Roberts has defended the referendum.

“I thank the voters for engaging in the democratic process and fully respect their decision to reduce the councillor numbers,” he said.

“I personally had no issue with the way that council managed the information flow regarding the referendum and I thought that the information council provided on its website was fair and balanced.

“The decision to hold a referendum was made one year before the election, which was, in my view, more than enough time for any interested parties to make a case for or against before the polling period.

“I encourage all community members to respect the democratic decision that was made by the voters.”

Councillor Mark Hornshaw, who voted No in the referendum, said it was time to accept the decision and move on.

“I generally trust the average person on the street more than I trust politicians to make good decisions on issues like this,” he said.

By Luke HADFIELD