VOTERS in the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area (LGA) will head to the polls on Saturday, 14 September.

Residents will elect a mayor and eight councillors to represent them on Port Macquarie-Hastings Council.

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

Voters will also participate in a local referendum that could reshape the Council’s structure from 2028 onwards.

The referendum will ask: ‘Do you favour a reduction in the number of Port Macquarie-Hastings Councillors from nine to seven, consisting of the Mayor and six Councillors?’.

Voters will indicate their preference by ticking either the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ box.

This marks the second time a reduction in councillors has been proposed for the LGA.

In 2003, the community voted to reduce councillor numbers from eleven to nine.

The current proposal, if approved, would further decrease the number of councillors to seven, increasing the population per councillor from 9,621 to 12,369 (based on the most recent available data from 2021-2022).

The Port Macquarie-Hastings LGA, with a population of 86,585, currently ranks fifth in highest population per councillor among NSW Category 5 LGAs.

Comparatively, it has the second highest population per councillor in nearby regions, behind only the Central Coast, which has a population of 348,379 and fifteen councillors.

A two-page information document has been released by Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, authorised by CEO Dr Clare Allen, presenting arguments for both sides of the referendum question.

According to the issued document, reasons to vote ‘yes’ could be that fewer councillors may improve cohesion and decision-making for the benefit of the community.

Reducing councillor numbers is seen as a cost-saving measure, potentially reducing Councillor Fee costs by $60,322 per annum, and is not unusual, as similar reductions have been proposed or implemented in other councils.

Additionally, fewer councillors might increase advocacy, efficiency and effectiveness.

According to the Council’s document, reasons to vote ‘no’ could be that more councillors may increase representation and improve decision-making for the benefit of the whole community.

The reduction could limit diversity of opinion and reduce the quality of representation, particularly as the area’s population continues to grow.

Those opposed to reducing councillor numbers say the potential savings from the reduction are minimal compared to the possible impact on councillor workload and community engagement.

A majority of the candidates vying for election have declared their positions on the referendum and provided News Of The Area with their reasoning.

Some have chosen to take a group decision while some have provided their position individually.

Candidates supporting the ‘yes’ vote include Adam Roberts, Danielle Maltman, Chris Kirkman, Evan O’Brien, Kylie Van Der Ley, and Josh Slade.

Although they are all running on the same ticket (Group C) lead candidate Adam Roberts said he encouraged each of his team to independently formulate their positions on the issue and provide their reasoning.

• Adam Roberts believes that fewer councillors may improve cohesion and decision-making, reduce costs, and lower the risk of council takeover by special interest groups. Regardless of the outcome he has expressed that he will respect the voters’ decision.

• Danielle Maltman: “I will be voting ‘yes’ to reduce the number of Councillors from nine to seven. This small change can reap significant benefits in our community, including enhancing decision-making, cohesion and also removing further fees and related costs being imposed on our ratepayers. Fewer Councillors can boost efficiency and effectiveness and potentially limit the disruption to the social fabric of our community that extremists could pose.”

• Chris Kirkman: “I will be voting ‘yes’ in the referendum to reduce councillor numbers in four years time. Personally, I feel that this will reduce costs to the ratepayers going forward and create a more harmonious council for the Port Macquarie Hastings community.”

• Evan O’Brien: “I will be voting ‘yes’ as I believe that having seven councillors offers better representation for our community. Councillors would need more votes to become elected, and more votes for an individual or team means that there is more support from the community. This benefits our community by having a more cohesive and focused Council. This would also limit the ability for activists to be elected and push agendas that only a very small percentage of the community want.”

• Kylie Van Der Ley: “I will be voting ‘yes’ in the referendum as my personal opinion on this is that it would reduce the costs to our community ratepayers, as every dollar counts.
Reducing councillor numbers is not unusual and fewer councillors may increase efficiency and effectiveness overall and make them more personable within our local community.”

• Josh Slade: “I’m happy to see the reduction of councillor numbers. Over the last two elections, the voters have chosen seven candidates with a quota. The last two candidates have just fallen over the line because we had to have nine elected.”

Candidates/Groups supporting the ‘no’ Vote include Group A (The Greens), Group B (Team Sheppard), Group D (Team Lipovac), Group E (Labor), Group F (The Libertarians) and ungrouped candidate Donald Apanui (DJ) (Independent).

• The Greens believe that diversity in representation fosters more robust debate and better decision-making for the entire community.

With only seven Councillor positions available, comprising one Mayor and six Councillors, they believe there’s a genuine risk that a single group ticket of six candidates, all aligned in thought and voting behaviour, could dominate the Council.

They say such a scenario would severely limit diversity of thinking, representation, and debate, potentially undermining the democratic process that is vital to our community’s well-being.

• Team Sheppard has said that reducing councillor numbers may appear to promote smaller government, but in reality it diminishes community representation.

They say Team Pinson’s proposal to decrease councillor numbers from nine to seven was introduced abruptly, with a $70,000 cost and without broader consultation.

They argue bloc voting during the outgoing council term often ignored community feedback and expert advice, and fewer councillors would only exacerbate the risks of such voting patterns.

Team Sheppard opposes the reduction, arguing that with a rapidly growing population, more representation is needed, not less, particularly for outlying areas that struggle to have their voices heard.

The group argues the minimal savings from cutting councillor numbers are outweighed by the potential harm of reduced diversity and increased bloc voting.

Team Sheppard says they are committed to collaborative decision-making to ensure well-informed, community-focused outcomes.

• Team Lipovac argues against the reduction, citing the growing population in the local area.

The group believes that reducing councillor numbers will narrow diversity and viewpoints on the council, which could hinder effective governance.

• Labor stresses that reducing councillor numbers could affect the quality of representation and increase the workload of councillors.

They argue that the savings achieved would be insignificant compared to the potential loss in diversity and community engagement.

• The Libertarian Party stated that while the party advocates for smaller government, this does not mean fewer representatives.

They believe that maintaining the current number of councillors is important for adequate community representation.

• Ungrouped candidate Donald Apanui (DJ) believes that reducing councillor numbers will dilute representation and increase the workload of councillors, making the council less accessible and accountable.

By Luke HADFIELD