Will takes a Redwood dive bid for the Limo’s Keys

Will Fowles bid for the Lord Mayors Limousine took a dive when the ALP administrative committee rejected his bid for endorsement.

At a recent ALP branch meeting, Fowles proved he had potential but he failed to answer one question with substance preferring to dodge weave and avoid the real issues. (This is a talent that is in some quarters highly regarded)

His biggest mistake was jumping into bed with all time loser and failed former city Councillor Kate Redwood. Redwood has not once been elected to public office on her own merit. Her last stint was due to the good will and foolish nature of Peter McMullin who mistakenly put her number one on his ticket bid for the Lord Mayor back in 2001 before he opted to run for the City of Geelong. Peter McMullin we understand has no kind words to say about Redwood. (Join the queue)

Kate Redwood, who is a part time ALP member more interested in securing paid positions on cushy government committees of management, was renowned for milking the system and enjoying luxury visits back home to the UK at a cost to ratepayers of $20,000 for a ten day all expenses paid holiday “Fact finding tour” in the weeks leading up to the end of her term of office. Her bid for re-election in 2004 failed when she only received 600 votes.

Whats even more laudable is that Redwood preferenced John So’s Team and the Greens ahead of other ALP members preventing the ALP from electing two members of Council. The very people that Will Fowles claims he is trying to beat.

By selecting and announcing Redwood as his Deputy candidate before he consulted with the Party was his down fall and showed a serious lack of political judgement.

Whilst Will Fowles may have his families money to back up his play for the Lord Mayor’s Office it is highly unlikely he can win the seat in the Lord Mayor’s limo.

Being an endorsed ALP candidate would have made it that much harder as he would not have attracted the support of more conservative members of the electorate. He would have had to out-poll the Greens and local heroes, such as Kevin Chamberlain and John So, and hope that he collects 100% of available preferences to stay in the race.

When asked realistically what percentage of the vote does he expect to attract he had no idea.

Peter McMullin in 2001, also backed by his family fortune and with Kate Redwood on his team, failed miserably in his attempt to win against John “Bro” So.

Will Fowles is set to repeat McMullin’s triumph disaster.

The real problem facing Melbourne is the direct election model which Socialist Left’s Bob Cameron, then Minister for Local Government, introduced.

Will takes a Redwood dive bid for the Limo’s Keys

Will Fowles bid for the Lord Mayors Limousine took a dive when the ALP administrative committee rejected his bid for endorsement.

At a recent ALP branch meeting, Fowles proved he had potential but he failed to answer one question with substance preferring to dodge weave and avoid the real issues. (This is a talent that is in some quarters highly regarded)

His biggest mistake was jumping into bed with all time loser and failed former city Councillor Kate Redwood. Redwood has not once been elected to public office on her own merit. Her last stint was due to the good will and foolish nature of Peter McMullin who mistakenly put her number one on his ticket bid for the Lord Mayor back in 2001 before he opted to run for the City of Geelong. Peter McMullin we understand has no kind words to say about Redwood. (Join the queue)

Kate Redwood, who is a part time ALP member more interested in securing paid positions on cushy government committees of management, was renowned for milking the system and enjoying luxury visits back home to the UK at a cost to ratepayers of $20,000 for a ten day all expenses paid holiday “Fact finding tour” in the weeks leading up to the end of her term of office. Her bid for re-election in 2004 failed when she only received 600 votes.

Whats even more laudable is that Redwood preferenced John So’s Team and the Greens ahead of other ALP members preventing the ALP from electing two members of Council. The very people that Will Fowles claims he is trying to beat.

By selecting and announcing Redwood as his Deputy candidate before he consulted with the Party was his down fall and showed a serious lack of political judgement.

Whilst Will Fowles may have his families money to back up his play for the Lord Mayor’s Office it is highly unlikely he can win the seat in the Lord Mayor’s limo.

Being an endorsed ALP candidate would have made it that much harder as he would not have attracted the support of more conservative members of the electorate. He would have had to out-poll the Greens and local heroes, such as Kevin Chamberlain and John So, and hope that he collects 100% of available preferences to stay in the race.

When asked realistically what percentage of the vote does he expect to attract he had no idea.

Peter McMullin in 2001, also backed by his family fortune and with Kate Redwood on his team, failed miserably in his attempt to win against John “Bro” So.

Will Fowles is set to repeat McMullin’s triumph disaster.

The real problem facing Melbourne is the direct election model which Socialist Left’s Bob Cameron, then Minister for Local Government, introduced.

Will takes a Redwood dive bid for the Limo’s Keys

Will Fowles bid for the Lord Mayors Limousine took a dive when the ALP administrative committee rejected his bid for endorsement.

At a recent ALP branch meeting, Fowles proved he had potential but he failed to answer one question with substance preferring to dodge weave and avoid the real issues. (This is a talent that is in some quarters highly regarded)

His biggest mistake was jumping into bed with all time loser and failed former city Councillor Kate Redwood. Redwood has not once been elected to public office on her own merit. Her last stint was due to the good will and foolish nature of Peter McMullin who mistakenly put her number one on his ticket bid for the Lord Mayor back in 2001 before he opted to run for the City of Geelong. Peter McMullin we understand has no kind words to say about Redwood. (Join the queue)

Kate Redwood, who is a part time ALP member more interested in securing paid positions on cushy government committees of management, was renowned for milking the system and enjoying luxury visits back home to the UK at a cost to ratepayers of $20,000 for a ten day all expenses paid holiday “Fact finding tour” in the weeks leading up to the end of her term of office. Her bid for re-election in 2004 failed when she only received 600 votes.

Whats even more laudable is that Redwood preferenced John So’s Team and the Greens ahead of other ALP members preventing the ALP from electing two members of Council. The very people that Will Fowles claims he is trying to beat.

By selecting and announcing Redwood as his Deputy candidate before he consulted with the Party was his down fall and showed a serious lack of political judgement.

Whilst Will Fowles may have his families money to back up his play for the Lord Mayor’s Office it is highly unlikely he can win the seat in the Lord Mayor’s limo.

Being an endorsed ALP candidate would have made it that much harder as he would not have attracted the support of more conservative members of the electorate. He would have had to out-poll the Greens and local heroes, such as Kevin Chamberlain and John So, and hope that he collects 100% of available preferences to stay in the race.

When asked realistically what percentage of the vote does he expect to attract he had no idea.

Peter McMullin in 2001, also backed by his family fortune and with Kate Redwood on his team, failed miserably in his attempt to win against John “Bro” So.

Will Fowles is set to repeat McMullin’s triumph disaster.

The real problem facing Melbourne is the direct election model which Socialist Left’s Bob Cameron, then Minister for Local Government, introduced.

So will he or wont he? The Great Race for the Chains and Robes begins to take form

Michael Warner has a good historical summary of the race for the keys to the Lord Mayor’s Limo in today’s Sunday Herald Sun News paper . There has been a lot of speculation in the media this as the punters and would be Robe and Chains Hunters begin to mark their claims for the title of contenders.

John So

John So has yet to declare his hand but everyone expects he will be in in the race to become Melbourne Mascot Lord Mayor for a third term.

If John So will run he will find it a much more difficult challenge then he did last time around.

Most, if not all, of John’s opponents will be seeking to ensure he does not win a third term. John So is unlikely to secure the level of support he received back in 2004 and his ploy of pleading to the electorate to give him their second preference may not deliver the same result as it did last time around. Odds are he will not secure a majority of the Council and will at best only win two of the seven Council seats on offer placing a So lead team in a not so strong position.

Jeff Kennett

Speculation has been rife that former Premier Jeff Kennett will put in a bid to be restored to public life. Jeff is not seen as a serious contender by insiders as he previously has toyed with the media and the idea of nominating for the City’s number one but never followed through with the notion. It is unlikely he will do so again either. However he has John So and his team spitting dim sims at the prospect of facing such a political legend – a legend in his own mind.

Jeff Kennett really did not serve Melbourne well under his reign of terror, bad planning and municipal reform. In many ways Jeff Kennett is to blame for much of the mess and malice that the Council now faces. Jeff stripped the city of its asserts and reduced its size and influence to the point that the Council is perpetually dysfunctional.

Major projects under Jeff Kennett was a complete disaster that saw ill-considered and poor planning have a negative impact on Melbourne’s future. (over 12 years on and we still are suffering the effects). The relocation of the Melbourne Museum to the Carlton Gardens and the development of Federation square being the classic tale of missed opportunities and poor long term strategic planning.

Eddie McGuire

The famous and talented Eddie McGuire gets a nomination but he also is not a serious player. Why would he when is doing fine what he is doing now and taking on the LM’s position is not part of his long game play. Having to deal with the Council bureaucracy is such a daunting task. (But he would be welcomed if he nominated)

Bill Fowles

Young Bill Fowler, son of the Fowles auction house emporium, jumped the gun and announced his bid to seek ALP pre-selection and endorsement for the right to run as Lord Mayor. His proposed running mate is Kate Redwood, who could be his down fall. (Surely if he is serious he can and should find someone better to run with)

Kate Redwood, a former City Councillor and part time member of the ALP, has been a non-event careerist in the past. Redwood is more interested in securing lurks and perks, postings on various governmental boards to top up her meager salary and taking advantage of the numerous career advancement opportunities that being a City Councilor can offer then good governance. (Who can forget her $20,000 ten-day, first class accommodation, world tour junket she took paid for by Melbourne’s ratepayers just before she lost office back in 2004).

The ALP has yet to decide if it will endorse any candidates and in the past it has been reluctant to do so.

A team with Redwood as a support act is unlikely to attract any serious attention and it is doubtful that the ALP will endorse candidates anyway. If it does then it is the Party that will decide who is to head-up and comprise an ALP endorsed team.

If Bill Fowles does run, chances are he will end up going the same way as Peter McMullin, former one-year-term Deputy Lord Mayor’s efforts back in 2001.

Adam Bandt

The Greens nominated Adam Bandt. The Green’s feel their on a roll having Richard Di Natale come within 2-3% of winning the State seat of Melbourne agianst embattled Local State ALP Member Bronwyn Pike in 2006 and Adam Bandt trying to bump-off Lindsay Tanner in 2007. Whilst the Greens will be expected to win a position on the Council it is unlikely they will have the chance to win the Lord Mayor’s “Bicycle” seat. The Greens did well in Melbourne under David Risstrom but since his departure they have not really broken though the winning barrier. They will not have the support of the conservative liberal party supporters who gave them a snow flakes chance in a world of global warming back in 2006.

Kevin Chamberlain

The best contender to date is former Lord Mayor, Kevin Chamberlain. Kevin has the skill, knowledge and commitment to do the job and would be candidate worthy of consideration. Problem is Kevin is his own worst enemy at times. A former member of the ALP with strong community ties his brash style has alienated himself from those that would otherwise support him. Melbourne needs Kevin and there are many that believe Kevin would be best running as a Councillor and be assured of a seat at the table then to gamble once more by running for the top job.

In the background

The other player behind the scenes is the State Government of course. Their biggest mistake was letting the genie out of the bottle, thanks to Bob Cameron (former Local Government Minister who recommended, against sound advice, the adoption of a directly elected Lord Mayor).

The Lord Mayor’s position has the potential to turn against its creator.

A politically astute Lord Mayor contender can be a thorn in the State Government’s side, and if won by the opposition, is a position that could be the means and down fall of the State Government. (Remember Yeltsen) Whoever holds the position of Lord Mayor has the possibility to wage a war against the State and could prove a strong tactical position for an opposition to win the next battle scheduled for 2010. This is why there is so much interest in who may and who may not be running.

This most certainly would have the premier and his cabinet concerned if a hostile person was to win the robes and chains. One reason why one John may support the election of the other John.

Winners versus losers

In the midst of the media circus and speculation of who will be the main contenders, it is the City’s residents and ratepayers that really lose out – as the focus of the public attention is on the personalities and not the policies or performance of the Council.

It is early days and the race is not yet in the starting blocks but the fun and games and media speculation has most certainly started.

The search for Melbourne’s new Lord Mayor begins
Michael Warner, Herald Sun Newspaper
August 02, 2008

IN the heady days of the early 1960s Sir Maurice Arnold Nathan, lord mayor of Melbourne, occupied a post of genuine power.

By the time Sir Maurice had hung up his chains in 1963, the long-serving councillor had overseen the establishment of Tullamarine airport, Moomba and the Southern Cross Hotel, and headed the Melbourne Olympic Games organising committee.

He was the VFL chairman and a racing industry board member; he was responsible for widening CBD streets and formed the Victorian Promotion Committee (the original Victorian major events company) with premier Henry Bolte.

Forty-five years later about the best our Lord Mayor can claim is a name change for a city laneway to recognise rockers AC/DC.

But John Chun Sai So, Lord Mayor since 2001, has soared to superstardom anyway.

He’s yet to decide whether to run for a historic third term on November 29, but either way his critics say his legacy will be a series of publicity stunts rather than reform, cultural or concrete.

So’s popularity skyrocketed during the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The So show peaked when the wealthy restaurateur was crowned the world’s best mayor in an online poll.

But the anti-So forces, and there are plenty, say he’s been nothing more than a Melbourne mascot, a yes man to premiers Bracks and Brumby, and is short on policy or plans for the CBD.

His defenders, and there are a few of those, too, say he’s overseen a council that brought the city’s laneways to life and delivered on minor projects such as CH2, the environmentally friendly building in Little Collins St.

Birrarung Marr and retail hubs at Melbourne Central, QV and the GPO emerged under his stewardship, even if they weren’t his doing.

Others argue that state government reforms of the 1980s and 1990s rendered the lord mayor’s position largely ceremonial.

But the emergence of former premier Jeff Kennett and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire as potential candidates – although McGuire has said he will not run – has raised questions over whether Town Hall and the Lord Mayor can still exert significant influence.

Liberal city councillor Peter Clarke says yes.

He says the only major power lost by the council in the 1980s was when control of planning projects bigger than 25,000sq m was handed to the State Government.

This saw major construction projects such as Crown casino, Melbourne Exhibition Centre, CityLink, Telstra Dome and Federation Square taken out of the council’s hands.

“Outside of that, not much has really changed over all of those years. But the role of the lord mayor is played out differently, given the nature of the personality of the person who inhabits the seat,” he says.

“John So has played the role of a marketing mascot for Melbourne. He’s been all about what famous person you can stand next to. Everything is good news, there’s no bad news.

“The criticism a lot of people would level against John is that he’s a policy vacuum.”

Clarke says a new lord mayor will have the power and legislative authority to shape several key issues

facing the city: traffic congestion, public transport, security, 2am lockouts, festivals, amenities, taxis, the drought and the health of parks and the Yarra River.

“That’s why I think people got more excited about Jeff Kennett running than Eddie McGuire. As much as Eddie has a range of good ideas . . . it might be more marketing – and they’re tired of that with John. They actually want some policy and some action,” he says.

Formed in 1842, the Melbourne City Council predates the Parliament by nine years and played a vital role in forging the city.

Monash University historian Dr David Dunstan says the responsibility for planning, utilities and city trams was once the domain of powerful Town Hall figures such as Sir Maurice, Bernard Evans and Edward Leo Curtis.

“These were very successful, powerful and prestigious figures,” Dr Dunstan said. “And the city council was a much bigger institution geographically.”

Dr Dunstan believes a lord mayor that exerts authority could again emerge. “I don’t think John So has been a good Lord Mayor. There are real issues facing the city to do with energy conservation, global warming, planning, transport and social equity, which he has not handled and I think Kennett would,” he says.

“. . . I don’t think it would be a comedown for Jeff Kennett to be lord mayor of Melbourne. I think that’s the level at which the contest should be played out.

“He’d get a lot of media play. He’d be in the papers every day and would be a de facto leader of the Opposition.”

Dr Dunstan says No silence on CBD binge drinking is typical of his failures to capitalise on his powers.

“John So is no doubt a very nice and capable man, but he’s been completely inarticulate on all these important issues. I think the mayor of the future needs to be much more engaged with urban issues and issues of planning, transport and well being.”

But not everyone is critical.

City councillor David Wilson, who has worked closely with So, says he’s a man of action. “I think he’s been a very good leader. He has a passion for Melbourne and makes decisions on what is best for the city.”

Brisbane’s Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, oversees a council that controls the city’s public trans-port network and most major planning projects.

New York’s and London’s mayors also have far greater powers and multi-billion-dollar budgets.

London’s flamboyant new mayor, Boris Johnson, is a case study for what might be achieved by a man such as Kennett.

Johnson, a supremo of conservative politics, has made a splash by banning alcohol on London’s underground tube trains.

He’s also leading a crackdown on street violence and weapons.

New York’s Rudy Giuliani is another legendary mayor who famously enforced an apparently successful but controversial zero-tolerance policy on street crime.

Businessman Ron Walker, lord mayor in 1974, declined to comment on the council, but is believed to be bemused by the declining standard of mayoral candidates.

Former Lord Mayor Kevin Chamberlain (1983-84) says it will take 16 years, or four more terms, for Town Hall to recover from So.

“In the past, the City of Melbourne’s strong financial position gave it significant independence and it was always a sore point for the state government,” says Chamberlain, who is spokesman for city business and residential groups trying to reform the council structure and voting system.

“. . . there is a need for a strong civic leader at the Town Hall who can advocate on behalf of the community and provide independent views on many of the important issues facing the city.”

A candidate such as McGuire or Kennett would also have about $300 million a year, funded by rising rates and parking tickets, to spend.

Clarke says there is only a 50-50 chance Kennett would run.

“People are saying to me: ‘If you speak to Jeffrey, encourage him do it.’ Not because of any political basis, but because they see him as a person who does things.”

So will he or wont he? The Great Race for the Chains and Robes begins to take form

Michael Warner has a good historical summary of the race for the keys to the Lord Mayor’s Limo in today’s Sunday Herald Sun News paper . There has been a lot of speculation in the media this as the punters and would be Robe and Chains Hunters begin to mark their claims for the title of contenders.

John So

John So has yet to declare his hand but everyone expects he will be in in the race to become Melbourne Mascot Lord Mayor for a third term.

If John So will run he will find it a much more difficult challenge then he did last time around.

Most, if not all, of John’s opponents will be seeking to ensure he does not win a third term. John So is unlikely to secure the level of support he received back in 2004 and his ploy of pleading to the electorate to give him their second preference may not deliver the same result as it did last time around. Odds are he will not secure a majority of the Council and will at best only win two of the seven Council seats on offer placing a So lead team in a not so strong position.

Jeff Kennett

Speculation has been rife that former Premier Jeff Kennett will put in a bid to be restored to public life. Jeff is not seen as a serious contender by insiders as he previously has toyed with the media and the idea of nominating for the City’s number one but never followed through with the notion. It is unlikely he will do so again either. However he has John So and his team spitting dim sims at the prospect of facing such a political legend – a legend in his own mind.

Jeff Kennett really did not serve Melbourne well under his reign of terror, bad planning and municipal reform. In many ways Jeff Kennett is to blame for much of the mess and malice that the Council now faces. Jeff stripped the city of its asserts and reduced its size and influence to the point that the Council is perpetually dysfunctional.

Major projects under Jeff Kennett was a complete disaster that saw ill-considered and poor planning have a negative impact on Melbourne’s future. (over 12 years on and we still are suffering the effects). The relocation of the Melbourne Museum to the Carlton Gardens and the development of Federation square being the classic tale of missed opportunities and poor long term strategic planning.

Eddie McGuire

The famous and talented Eddie McGuire gets a nomination but he also is not a serious player. Why would he when is doing fine what he is doing now and taking on the LM’s position is not part of his long game play. Having to deal with the Council bureaucracy is such a daunting task. (But he would be welcomed if he nominated)

Bill Fowles

Young Bill Fowler, son of the Fowles auction house emporium, jumped the gun and announced his bid to seek ALP pre-selection and endorsement for the right to run as Lord Mayor. His proposed running mate is Kate Redwood, who could be his down fall. (Surely if he is serious he can and should find someone better to run with)

Kate Redwood, a former City Councillor and part time member of the ALP, has been a non-event careerist in the past. Redwood is more interested in securing lurks and perks, postings on various governmental boards to top up her meager salary and taking advantage of the numerous career advancement opportunities that being a City Councilor can offer then good governance. (Who can forget her $20,000 ten-day, first class accommodation, world tour junket she took paid for by Melbourne’s ratepayers just before she lost office back in 2004).

The ALP has yet to decide if it will endorse any candidates and in the past it has been reluctant to do so.

A team with Redwood as a support act is unlikely to attract any serious attention and it is doubtful that the ALP will endorse candidates anyway. If it does then it is the Party that will decide who is to head-up and comprise an ALP endorsed team.

If Bill Fowles does run, chances are he will end up going the same way as Peter McMullin, former one-year-term Deputy Lord Mayor’s efforts back in 2001.

Adam Bandt

The Greens nominated Adam Bandt. The Green’s feel their on a roll having Richard Di Natale come within 2-3% of winning the State seat of Melbourne agianst embattled Local State ALP Member Bronwyn Pike in 2006 and Adam Bandt trying to bump-off Lindsay Tanner in 2007. Whilst the Greens will be expected to win a position on the Council it is unlikely they will have the chance to win the Lord Mayor’s “Bicycle” seat. The Greens did well in Melbourne under David Risstrom but since his departure they have not really broken though the winning barrier. They will not have the support of the conservative liberal party supporters who gave them a snow flakes chance in a world of global warming back in 2006.

Kevin Chamberlain

The best contender to date is former Lord Mayor, Kevin Chamberlain. Kevin has the skill, knowledge and commitment to do the job and would be candidate worthy of consideration. Problem is Kevin is his own worst enemy at times. A former member of the ALP with strong community ties his brash style has alienated himself from those that would otherwise support him. Melbourne needs Kevin and there are many that believe Kevin would be best running as a Councillor and be assured of a seat at the table then to gamble once more by running for the top job.

In the background

The other player behind the scenes is the State Government of course. Their biggest mistake was letting the genie out of the bottle, thanks to Bob Cameron (former Local Government Minister who recommended, against sound advice, the adoption of a directly elected Lord Mayor).

The Lord Mayor’s position has the potential to turn against its creator.

A politically astute Lord Mayor contender can be a thorn in the State Government’s side, and if won by the opposition, is a position that could be the means and down fall of the State Government. (Remember Yeltsen) Whoever holds the position of Lord Mayor has the possibility to wage a war against the State and could prove a strong tactical position for an opposition to win the next battle scheduled for 2010. This is why there is so much interest in who may and who may not be running.

This most certainly would have the premier and his cabinet concerned if a hostile person was to win the robes and chains. One reason why one John may support the election of the other John.

Winners versus losers

In the midst of the media circus and speculation of who will be the main contenders, it is the City’s residents and ratepayers that really lose out – as the focus of the public attention is on the personalities and not the policies or performance of the Council.

It is early days and the race is not yet in the starting blocks but the fun and games and media speculation has most certainly started.

The search for Melbourne’s new Lord Mayor begins
Michael Warner, Herald Sun Newspaper
August 02, 2008

IN the heady days of the early 1960s Sir Maurice Arnold Nathan, lord mayor of Melbourne, occupied a post of genuine power.

By the time Sir Maurice had hung up his chains in 1963, the long-serving councillor had overseen the establishment of Tullamarine airport, Moomba and the Southern Cross Hotel, and headed the Melbourne Olympic Games organising committee.

He was the VFL chairman and a racing industry board member; he was responsible for widening CBD streets and formed the Victorian Promotion Committee (the original Victorian major events company) with premier Henry Bolte.

Forty-five years later about the best our Lord Mayor can claim is a name change for a city laneway to recognise rockers AC/DC.

But John Chun Sai So, Lord Mayor since 2001, has soared to superstardom anyway.

He’s yet to decide whether to run for a historic third term on November 29, but either way his critics say his legacy will be a series of publicity stunts rather than reform, cultural or concrete.

So’s popularity skyrocketed during the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The So show peaked when the wealthy restaurateur was crowned the world’s best mayor in an online poll.

But the anti-So forces, and there are plenty, say he’s been nothing more than a Melbourne mascot, a yes man to premiers Bracks and Brumby, and is short on policy or plans for the CBD.

His defenders, and there are a few of those, too, say he’s overseen a council that brought the city’s laneways to life and delivered on minor projects such as CH2, the environmentally friendly building in Little Collins St.

Birrarung Marr and retail hubs at Melbourne Central, QV and the GPO emerged under his stewardship, even if they weren’t his doing.

Others argue that state government reforms of the 1980s and 1990s rendered the lord mayor’s position largely ceremonial.

But the emergence of former premier Jeff Kennett and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire as potential candidates – although McGuire has said he will not run – has raised questions over whether Town Hall and the Lord Mayor can still exert significant influence.

Liberal city councillor Peter Clarke says yes.

He says the only major power lost by the council in the 1980s was when control of planning projects bigger than 25,000sq m was handed to the State Government.

This saw major construction projects such as Crown casino, Melbourne Exhibition Centre, CityLink, Telstra Dome and Federation Square taken out of the council’s hands.

“Outside of that, not much has really changed over all of those years. But the role of the lord mayor is played out differently, given the nature of the personality of the person who inhabits the seat,” he says.

“John So has played the role of a marketing mascot for Melbourne. He’s been all about what famous person you can stand next to. Everything is good news, there’s no bad news.

“The criticism a lot of people would level against John is that he’s a policy vacuum.”

Clarke says a new lord mayor will have the power and legislative authority to shape several key issues

facing the city: traffic congestion, public transport, security, 2am lockouts, festivals, amenities, taxis, the drought and the health of parks and the Yarra River.

“That’s why I think people got more excited about Jeff Kennett running than Eddie McGuire. As much as Eddie has a range of good ideas . . . it might be more marketing – and they’re tired of that with John. They actually want some policy and some action,” he says.

Formed in 1842, the Melbourne City Council predates the Parliament by nine years and played a vital role in forging the city.

Monash University historian Dr David Dunstan says the responsibility for planning, utilities and city trams was once the domain of powerful Town Hall figures such as Sir Maurice, Bernard Evans and Edward Leo Curtis.

“These were very successful, powerful and prestigious figures,” Dr Dunstan said. “And the city council was a much bigger institution geographically.”

Dr Dunstan believes a lord mayor that exerts authority could again emerge. “I don’t think John So has been a good Lord Mayor. There are real issues facing the city to do with energy conservation, global warming, planning, transport and social equity, which he has not handled and I think Kennett would,” he says.

“. . . I don’t think it would be a comedown for Jeff Kennett to be lord mayor of Melbourne. I think that’s the level at which the contest should be played out.

“He’d get a lot of media play. He’d be in the papers every day and would be a de facto leader of the Opposition.”

Dr Dunstan says No silence on CBD binge drinking is typical of his failures to capitalise on his powers.

“John So is no doubt a very nice and capable man, but he’s been completely inarticulate on all these important issues. I think the mayor of the future needs to be much more engaged with urban issues and issues of planning, transport and well being.”

But not everyone is critical.

City councillor David Wilson, who has worked closely with So, says he’s a man of action. “I think he’s been a very good leader. He has a passion for Melbourne and makes decisions on what is best for the city.”

Brisbane’s Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, oversees a council that controls the city’s public trans-port network and most major planning projects.

New York’s and London’s mayors also have far greater powers and multi-billion-dollar budgets.

London’s flamboyant new mayor, Boris Johnson, is a case study for what might be achieved by a man such as Kennett.

Johnson, a supremo of conservative politics, has made a splash by banning alcohol on London’s underground tube trains.

He’s also leading a crackdown on street violence and weapons.

New York’s Rudy Giuliani is another legendary mayor who famously enforced an apparently successful but controversial zero-tolerance policy on street crime.

Businessman Ron Walker, lord mayor in 1974, declined to comment on the council, but is believed to be bemused by the declining standard of mayoral candidates.

Former Lord Mayor Kevin Chamberlain (1983-84) says it will take 16 years, or four more terms, for Town Hall to recover from So.

“In the past, the City of Melbourne’s strong financial position gave it significant independence and it was always a sore point for the state government,” says Chamberlain, who is spokesman for city business and residential groups trying to reform the council structure and voting system.

“. . . there is a need for a strong civic leader at the Town Hall who can advocate on behalf of the community and provide independent views on many of the important issues facing the city.”

A candidate such as McGuire or Kennett would also have about $300 million a year, funded by rising rates and parking tickets, to spend.

Clarke says there is only a 50-50 chance Kennett would run.

“People are saying to me: ‘If you speak to Jeffrey, encourage him do it.’ Not because of any political basis, but because they see him as a person who does things.”

So will he or wont he? The Great Race for the Chains and Robes begins to take form

Michael Warner has a good historical summary of the race for the keys to the Lord Mayor’s Limo in today’s Sunday Herald Sun News paper . There has been a lot of speculation in the media this as the punters and would be Robe and Chains Hunters begin to mark their claims for the title of contenders.

John So

John So has yet to declare his hand but everyone expects he will be in in the race to become Melbourne Mascot Lord Mayor for a third term.

If John So will run he will find it a much more difficult challenge then he did last time around.

Most, if not all, of John’s opponents will be seeking to ensure he does not win a third term. John So is unlikely to secure the level of support he received back in 2004 and his ploy of pleading to the electorate to give him their second preference may not deliver the same result as it did last time around. Odds are he will not secure a majority of the Council and will at best only win two of the seven Council seats on offer placing a So lead team in a not so strong position.

Jeff Kennett

Speculation has been rife that former Premier Jeff Kennett will put in a bid to be restored to public life. Jeff is not seen as a serious contender by insiders as he previously has toyed with the media and the idea of nominating for the City’s number one but never followed through with the notion. It is unlikely he will do so again either. However he has John So and his team spitting dim sims at the prospect of facing such a political legend – a legend in his own mind.

Jeff Kennett really did not serve Melbourne well under his reign of terror, bad planning and municipal reform. In many ways Jeff Kennett is to blame for much of the mess and malice that the Council now faces. Jeff stripped the city of its asserts and reduced its size and influence to the point that the Council is perpetually dysfunctional.

Major projects under Jeff Kennett was a complete disaster that saw ill-considered and poor planning have a negative impact on Melbourne’s future. (over 12 years on and we still are suffering the effects). The relocation of the Melbourne Museum to the Carlton Gardens and the development of Federation square being the classic tale of missed opportunities and poor long term strategic planning.

Eddie McGuire

The famous and talented Eddie McGuire gets a nomination but he also is not a serious player. Why would he when is doing fine what he is doing now and taking on the LM’s position is not part of his long game play. Having to deal with the Council bureaucracy is such a daunting task. (But he would be welcomed if he nominated)

Bill Fowles

Young Bill Fowler, son of the Fowles auction house emporium, jumped the gun and announced his bid to seek ALP pre-selection and endorsement for the right to run as Lord Mayor. His proposed running mate is Kate Redwood, who could be his down fall. (Surely if he is serious he can and should find someone better to run with)

Kate Redwood, a former City Councillor and part time member of the ALP, has been a non-event careerist in the past. Redwood is more interested in securing lurks and perks, postings on various governmental boards to top up her meager salary and taking advantage of the numerous career advancement opportunities that being a City Councilor can offer then good governance. (Who can forget her $20,000 ten-day, first class accommodation, world tour junket she took paid for by Melbourne’s ratepayers just before she lost office back in 2004).

The ALP has yet to decide if it will endorse any candidates and in the past it has been reluctant to do so.

A team with Redwood as a support act is unlikely to attract any serious attention and it is doubtful that the ALP will endorse candidates anyway. If it does then it is the Party that will decide who is to head-up and comprise an ALP endorsed team.

If Bill Fowles does run, chances are he will end up going the same way as Peter McMullin, former one-year-term Deputy Lord Mayor’s efforts back in 2001.

Adam Bandt

The Greens nominated Adam Bandt. The Green’s feel their on a roll having Richard Di Natale come within 2-3% of winning the State seat of Melbourne agianst embattled Local State ALP Member Bronwyn Pike in 2006 and Adam Bandt trying to bump-off Lindsay Tanner in 2007. Whilst the Greens will be expected to win a position on the Council it is unlikely they will have the chance to win the Lord Mayor’s “Bicycle” seat. The Greens did well in Melbourne under David Risstrom but since his departure they have not really broken though the winning barrier. They will not have the support of the conservative liberal party supporters who gave them a snow flakes chance in a world of global warming back in 2006.

Kevin Chamberlain

The best contender to date is former Lord Mayor, Kevin Chamberlain. Kevin has the skill, knowledge and commitment to do the job and would be candidate worthy of consideration. Problem is Kevin is his own worst enemy at times. A former member of the ALP with strong community ties his brash style has alienated himself from those that would otherwise support him. Melbourne needs Kevin and there are many that believe Kevin would be best running as a Councillor and be assured of a seat at the table then to gamble once more by running for the top job.

In the background

The other player behind the scenes is the State Government of course. Their biggest mistake was letting the genie out of the bottle, thanks to Bob Cameron (former Local Government Minister who recommended, against sound advice, the adoption of a directly elected Lord Mayor).

The Lord Mayor’s position has the potential to turn against its creator.

A politically astute Lord Mayor contender can be a thorn in the State Government’s side, and if won by the opposition, is a position that could be the means and down fall of the State Government. (Remember Yeltsen) Whoever holds the position of Lord Mayor has the possibility to wage a war against the State and could prove a strong tactical position for an opposition to win the next battle scheduled for 2010. This is why there is so much interest in who may and who may not be running.

This most certainly would have the premier and his cabinet concerned if a hostile person was to win the robes and chains. One reason why one John may support the election of the other John.

Winners versus losers

In the midst of the media circus and speculation of who will be the main contenders, it is the City’s residents and ratepayers that really lose out – as the focus of the public attention is on the personalities and not the policies or performance of the Council.

It is early days and the race is not yet in the starting blocks but the fun and games and media speculation has most certainly started.

The search for Melbourne’s new Lord Mayor begins
Michael Warner, Herald Sun Newspaper
August 02, 2008

IN the heady days of the early 1960s Sir Maurice Arnold Nathan, lord mayor of Melbourne, occupied a post of genuine power.

By the time Sir Maurice had hung up his chains in 1963, the long-serving councillor had overseen the establishment of Tullamarine airport, Moomba and the Southern Cross Hotel, and headed the Melbourne Olympic Games organising committee.

He was the VFL chairman and a racing industry board member; he was responsible for widening CBD streets and formed the Victorian Promotion Committee (the original Victorian major events company) with premier Henry Bolte.

Forty-five years later about the best our Lord Mayor can claim is a name change for a city laneway to recognise rockers AC/DC.

But John Chun Sai So, Lord Mayor since 2001, has soared to superstardom anyway.

He’s yet to decide whether to run for a historic third term on November 29, but either way his critics say his legacy will be a series of publicity stunts rather than reform, cultural or concrete.

So’s popularity skyrocketed during the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The So show peaked when the wealthy restaurateur was crowned the world’s best mayor in an online poll.

But the anti-So forces, and there are plenty, say he’s been nothing more than a Melbourne mascot, a yes man to premiers Bracks and Brumby, and is short on policy or plans for the CBD.

His defenders, and there are a few of those, too, say he’s overseen a council that brought the city’s laneways to life and delivered on minor projects such as CH2, the environmentally friendly building in Little Collins St.

Birrarung Marr and retail hubs at Melbourne Central, QV and the GPO emerged under his stewardship, even if they weren’t his doing.

Others argue that state government reforms of the 1980s and 1990s rendered the lord mayor’s position largely ceremonial.

But the emergence of former premier Jeff Kennett and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire as potential candidates – although McGuire has said he will not run – has raised questions over whether Town Hall and the Lord Mayor can still exert significant influence.

Liberal city councillor Peter Clarke says yes.

He says the only major power lost by the council in the 1980s was when control of planning projects bigger than 25,000sq m was handed to the State Government.

This saw major construction projects such as Crown casino, Melbourne Exhibition Centre, CityLink, Telstra Dome and Federation Square taken out of the council’s hands.

“Outside of that, not much has really changed over all of those years. But the role of the lord mayor is played out differently, given the nature of the personality of the person who inhabits the seat,” he says.

“John So has played the role of a marketing mascot for Melbourne. He’s been all about what famous person you can stand next to. Everything is good news, there’s no bad news.

“The criticism a lot of people would level against John is that he’s a policy vacuum.”

Clarke says a new lord mayor will have the power and legislative authority to shape several key issues

facing the city: traffic congestion, public transport, security, 2am lockouts, festivals, amenities, taxis, the drought and the health of parks and the Yarra River.

“That’s why I think people got more excited about Jeff Kennett running than Eddie McGuire. As much as Eddie has a range of good ideas . . . it might be more marketing – and they’re tired of that with John. They actually want some policy and some action,” he says.

Formed in 1842, the Melbourne City Council predates the Parliament by nine years and played a vital role in forging the city.

Monash University historian Dr David Dunstan says the responsibility for planning, utilities and city trams was once the domain of powerful Town Hall figures such as Sir Maurice, Bernard Evans and Edward Leo Curtis.

“These were very successful, powerful and prestigious figures,” Dr Dunstan said. “And the city council was a much bigger institution geographically.”

Dr Dunstan believes a lord mayor that exerts authority could again emerge. “I don’t think John So has been a good Lord Mayor. There are real issues facing the city to do with energy conservation, global warming, planning, transport and social equity, which he has not handled and I think Kennett would,” he says.

“. . . I don’t think it would be a comedown for Jeff Kennett to be lord mayor of Melbourne. I think that’s the level at which the contest should be played out.

“He’d get a lot of media play. He’d be in the papers every day and would be a de facto leader of the Opposition.”

Dr Dunstan says No silence on CBD binge drinking is typical of his failures to capitalise on his powers.

“John So is no doubt a very nice and capable man, but he’s been completely inarticulate on all these important issues. I think the mayor of the future needs to be much more engaged with urban issues and issues of planning, transport and well being.”

But not everyone is critical.

City councillor David Wilson, who has worked closely with So, says he’s a man of action. “I think he’s been a very good leader. He has a passion for Melbourne and makes decisions on what is best for the city.”

Brisbane’s Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, oversees a council that controls the city’s public trans-port network and most major planning projects.

New York’s and London’s mayors also have far greater powers and multi-billion-dollar budgets.

London’s flamboyant new mayor, Boris Johnson, is a case study for what might be achieved by a man such as Kennett.

Johnson, a supremo of conservative politics, has made a splash by banning alcohol on London’s underground tube trains.

He’s also leading a crackdown on street violence and weapons.

New York’s Rudy Giuliani is another legendary mayor who famously enforced an apparently successful but controversial zero-tolerance policy on street crime.

Businessman Ron Walker, lord mayor in 1974, declined to comment on the council, but is believed to be bemused by the declining standard of mayoral candidates.

Former Lord Mayor Kevin Chamberlain (1983-84) says it will take 16 years, or four more terms, for Town Hall to recover from So.

“In the past, the City of Melbourne’s strong financial position gave it significant independence and it was always a sore point for the state government,” says Chamberlain, who is spokesman for city business and residential groups trying to reform the council structure and voting system.

“. . . there is a need for a strong civic leader at the Town Hall who can advocate on behalf of the community and provide independent views on many of the important issues facing the city.”

A candidate such as McGuire or Kennett would also have about $300 million a year, funded by rising rates and parking tickets, to spend.

Clarke says there is only a 50-50 chance Kennett would run.

“People are saying to me: ‘If you speak to Jeffrey, encourage him do it.’ Not because of any political basis, but because they see him as a person who does things.”

Problems wH:h the Senate Counting System

Example based on 2007 Victorian Senate Count

At the end of Count 214 in the 2007 Victorian Senate count, the following four candidates

remained in the count. The quota for election was 454,625.

Votes

448,120

353,070

423,408

138,798

Quotas

0.9857

0.7766

0.9313

0.3053

Candidate (Party)

David Feeney (Labor)

Scott Ryan (Liberal)

Richard Di Natale (Greens)

Gary Plumridge (Family First)

Plumridge was the next candidate excluded. His votes included ticket votes for five groups

with next preference for Scott Ryan. These were Family First (77,147 ticket votes), the D.L.P.

(32,026), the Christian Democrats (6,358), Conservatives for Climate and Environment

(4,003) and Non-Custodial parents Party (1,344). The only ticket votes with Family First

showing preferences to Labor were One Nation (12,557). There were a further 5,363 belowthe

·line votes.

All votes with Plumridge at full value were distributed at the next count. This elected both

Scott Ryan and David Feeney. The totals were as follows

Transfer

+13,856

+123,698

+1,032

-138,710

Votes

461,976

476,768

424,440

88

Quotas

1.0162

1.0487

0.9333

0.0002

Candidate (Party)

David Feeney (Labor)

Scott Ryan (Liberal)

Richard Di Natale (Greens)

Gary Plumridge (Family First)

One Nation had lodged a preference ticket that had Labor ahead of the Liberal Party, with the

Greens last. If One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor on the ticket, then when

Family First was excluded, Labor’s David Feeney would not have reached a quota and the

preferences of the Liberal Party’s surplus to quota votes would have been distributed.

What is even more remarkable is that if One Nation had put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor,

then the Greens’ Richard Di Natale would have won the final vacancy, not Labor’s David

Feeney.

This would have occurred due to the formula used by the AEC to weight votes when

determining the preferences of surplus to quota votes. There are different methods in which

preferences can be weighted. The purpose of this discussion is to look at the different ways in

which votes could be weighted and the impact this can have on a Senate Count.

Re-Constructing the Liberal Vote

The following examples takes the count at the end of count 214 and makes one change to

what occurred at the 2007 election. It has been assumed that the One Nation ticket flowed to

the Liberal Party before Labor. All other votes are assumed to have flowed as in the actual

count.

The other assumption that has had to be made is the value of the transfer value that applies

to Liberal Party ticket votes transferred to Ryan from the first two Liberal candidates, Mitch

Fifield and Helen Kroger. There were in total 1,249,731 Liberal ticket votes. At count 214,

these all resided with Ryan, but at a reduced transfer value of 0.275739.

Using the changed One Nation ticket total, the totals at the end of Count 215 would now be:

2007 JSCEM – Appearance by Antony Green – 23 July 2008 1

Transfer

+1,299

+123,698

+1,032

-138,710

Votes

449,419

489,325

424,440

88

Quotas

0.9885

1.0763

0.9333

0.0002

Candidate (Party)

David Feeney (Labor)

Scott Ryan (Liberal)

Richard Di Natale (Greens)

Gary Plumridge (Family First)

On this count, Feeney remains 5,206 votes short of a quota, while Ryan has a surplus of

34,700 preferences. For the purpose of this example, I will ignore the residual of 88 Family

First votes, and proceed to the next count which is to distribute Ryan’s surplus.

What occurs is that the weightings applied to the ballot papers held by Ryan will determine

whether Feeney or Di Natale win the final position. On my calculation based on the system

used for the Senate Count, Di Natale would win the final seat on this count. Under an

alternative method which could be used, Feeney would win the last position.

To understand how these different outcomes occur, we need to look at the composition of

Ryan’s vote. As we know the source of the ticket votes, we can re-construct the final count.

Re-Construeted Count For Scott Ryan (Liberal): Victoria 2007

Ballot Transfer as % of

Party Ticket Papers Value Votes Votes

Liberal/National 1,249,731 0.275739 344,599 70.42

Cons Climate Env CO) 4,033 1.000000 4,003 0.82

Socialist Equality 754 1.000000 754 0.15

Family First (“‘) 77,147 1.000000 77,147 15.77

DLP. n 32,026 1.000000 32,026 6.54

One Nation (“) 12,557 1.000000 12,557 2.57

Christian Democrat (“) 6,358 1.000000 6,358 1.30

CEC. 1,584 1.000000 1,584 0.32

Non-Custodial Parents (“‘) 1,344 1.000000 1,344 0.27

GroupT 496 1.000000 496 0.10

Below-the-Iine 8,252 1.72

Total bal1otsNotes 1,394,454 489,325

(“) – transferred from Family First, the last bundle of votes received.

as % of

Ballots

89.62

0.29

0.05

5.53

2.30

0.90

0.46

0.11

0.10

0.04

Next

Pref

GRN

GRN

GRN

ALP

ALP

ALP

ALP

ALP

ALP

ALP

The problem that occurs at this point occurs because of the difference between a ‘ballot

paper’ and a ‘vote’. A ballot paper is a physical piece of paper, or these days, the stored

computer version of its preferences. A vote is the ballot paper times its transfer value, or more

normally the total of ballot papers multiplied by the transfer value. It is this distinction between

ballot papers that is at the heart of what follows.

Quota Preferential voting is a generic term for all different versions of multi-member

preferential voting used in Australia, whether it be Hare-Clark or different versions of the

Senate system. Under all different forms of Quota Preferential voting, the surplus value is the

same, Ryan’s vote minus the quota, a surplus of 34,700.

What differs is the votes examined to determine the the votes to distribute as preferences.

There are three common methods.

Gregory method

Used in Hare-Clark, the Gregory method is sometimes called the ‘last bundle’ method. The

bundle of votes examined for preferences at this point would be those votes transferred from

Family First at the last count. The surplus is 34,700, the votes transferred 123,698, the

transfer value 0.2805219. Only the 4,033 ticket votes for Conservatives for Climate and

Environment had preferences for the Greens, so the overwhelming proportion of preferences

distributed under this method would flow to Labor and elect David Feeney.

2007 JSCEM – Appearance by Antony Green – 23 July 2008 2

Inclusive Gregory method

This is the current Senate system. Rather than only look at the votes distributed at the last

count, all votes held by the candidate at the point where they were elected are examined to

determine surplus to quota preferences. However, the Inclusive Gregory method now uses

ballot papers rather than votes to determine preferences. Our surplus is 34,700, but our ballot

papers to be examined is 1,394,454, a transfer value of 0.0248842.

Under this system, the last candidate elected in the Victorian example would be Richard Di

Natale. How will be explained in a moment.

Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method

This method is the same as the Inclusive Gregory method, except that ballot papers retain

their transfer values, so determining the distribution of preferences is done by transferring

votes, not ballot papers. In the Victorian example, the surplus is 34,700, the votes 489,325,

the transfer value 0.0709140.

Under this system, David Feeney would win the final vacancy.

Why do Inclusive Gregory and Weighted Inclusive Gregory Produce Different Results?

In the table on the previous page, the votes for Ryan were broken down by source. The final

three columns expressed these sources as a % of Ryan’s votes, as a % of Ryan’s ballot

papers, and the next preference for these votes. The following table accumulates the

previous table by next preference

Scott Ryan (Liberal): Votes by Next preference

Next Preference

Green

Labor

Below-the-line

Total ballotsNotes

Ballot Weighted Inclusive

Papers Votes % of Votes

1,254.488 349,356 71.40

131,512 131,512 26.88

8,252 1.72

1,394.454 489,325

Inclusive Gregory

% of Ballots

89.96

9.43

Under the Inclusive Gregory method, all of Ryan’s ticket votes received from the Liberal Party

suddenly come into the equation at their original ballot paper value. This means that in the

34,700 ballot paper surplus of Ryan, we suddenly are over~sampling the Liberal vote. Where

only 71.40% of the votes held by Ryan were Liberal ticket votes that helped elect him, when

we look at his preferences, the Liberal preferences now makes up 89.96% of his ballot

papers.

Under the Inclusive Gregory method, only 9.43% of the 34,700 votes flow to Labor. That is a

total of only 3,272 votes flowing to Labor, where Labor need 5,206 to elect Feeney. The use

of the Inclusive Gregory Method has resulted in Liberal ticket votes making up 89.62% of

preferences, as opposed to 70.42% which was the number of Liberal ticket votes that were

part of Ryan’s total of votes.

The Weighted Inclusive Gregory method would sample votes for preferences at their present

transfer value, which is their value as votes rather than ballot papers. In the above table, that

means 26.88% of votes have next preference for Labor, and with a surplus of 34,700, that

would mean 9,327 preferences for Labor, enough to elect Feeney.

Conclusion

With electoral systems, the question is not always a matter of being right or wrong. As

outlined above, there are several different ways in which votes could have been counted at

the point where Scott Ryan was elected. The purpose of this exercise has been to try and

illustrate that there are different methods of doing the calculations, and consideration should

be given to whether the most appropriate method is currently being used.

2007 JSCEM – Appearance by Antony Green – 23 July 2008 3

The Senate’s voting system can always produce perverse results, even more so with the use

of ticket voting which can guarantee the delivery of preferences. As shown in the previous

example, just switching One Nation preferences to flow to the Liberal Party ahead of Labor

resulted in Labor falling just short of a third quota and resulted in Liberal preferences being

distributed.

If this was just a result of One Nation preferences. I would not consider this a problem.

Whenever a party’s votes flow through another party. there is always the chance their value

will be discounted by them becoming part of a candidate’s surplus to quota votes.

But as this example has shown, the preferences of all parties are not always treated the

same. In this example, the Liberal Party’s preferences are given greater weight than other

parties at the point where Ryan was elected and his preferences were distributed.

The current Inclusive Gregory method, by using ballot papers rather than votes, gives greater

weight to the preferences of any party that has already exceeded a full quota of votes. In the

example used here, instead of all votes used to elect Ryan being used to determine

preferences, all ballot papers are used. The Inclusive Gregory method effectively determines

preferences in this case by looking at the surplus as a proportion beyond the third quota.

It is my argument that it would be better to use the Weighted Inclusive Gregory method as

outlined above. This would mean that the proportion of votes distributed from Ryan as surplus

to preferences would be in the same proportion as the votes that elected Ryan. Instead of the

earlier quotas of the major party coming into play in determining preferences, only the votes

at present value of the elected candidate ‘WOUld be considered.

The problem of using the Inclusive Gregory Method had been outlined before in JSCEM

submissions, though I believe the explanation I have given here provides a better illusrration

of the problem.

The Western Australian Electoral Act has been recently amended 10 introduce the Weighted

Inclusive Gregory Method. It is the first jurisdiction to move in this way. I believe it is important

that the JSCEM should consider recommending that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be

amended in the same manner.

2007 JSCEM