The current certified electoral roll for the upcoming election is comprised of the State Roll held by the VEC and the CEO roll held by the Council. Council did not contact these new ratepayers when they purchased their property and so they are not entitled to vote in the current election. We calculate that around 1446 such voters are not on the roll for this election despite just receiving their annual rates bill. The other two wards appear unchanged so not impacted in any significant way at this stage.

Effect on Prom Coast Ward

Most of these disenfranchised voters most likely have purchased a holiday home so probably own property in Venus Bay area or Sandy Point. Normally in a Council election the voters elect one candidate from Venus Bay area, one from Foster area, and one from the Toora area as these are three distinct localities in the ward.

With a reduction of these numbers from the Venus Bay area there may not be enough voters to elect the “Venus Bay” representative and a second Foster candidate might get elected instead.

The next election in 2024

Of course, at the next election this removal of voters from the Prom Coast Ward is likely to be a minimum of half the current voters (see from page) and possibly more considering Council is not obliged to inform ratepayers current or new that they have been removed from the roll.

This will likely have serious consequences for the Shire Ward structure leading into the 2024 election since the Electoral Review Committee will be reviewing boundaries prior to the 2024 election. There are rules to keep voter numbers within 10% of the Ward average so rather than the usual tinkering around the edges of each ward to balance numbers up by moving one road or small area from one ward to another, drastic boundary changes will likely occur.

It is possible that we lose three wards going to 2 or 4 wards. Anything is possible in such circumstances.

Council response

We initially asked Council for the numbers of voters in each ward to be removed from the roll after this years’ election and met with this unexpected response.

“Unfortunately this is a hypothetical question that will be influenced by a range of factors over the coming three years and so there are no relevant numerical figures that can be provided now.

In 2024 every non-resident ratepayer with a property within the Shire at that time, regardless of the Ward, in the lead up to the 2024 election will be able to apply to vote if they wish to do so by the close of the roll in August. Those who choose not to vote are not ‘lost’ they have simply determined their own voting preference. Those non-resident ratepayer who do not provide a response by the close of that roll, will then be ineligible to vote. Council has no way of determining what these numbers may be now, for an election that is to be held three years into the future.

 Further, the shifting trends occurring across the country, as city residents move permanently into rural and coastal areas, are likely to result in changes to the total number of non-resident voters in all the wards, compared to the current situation.”

To be clear, we asked for the numbers that would be removed from the current roll not from some hypothetical roll in 3 years time but no need to worry-we looked up the information ourselves on the VEC site and asked the VEC to confirm the numbers.

The VEC responded as follows:

“Firstly, the enrolment figures you have provided are for State enrolled voters and do not include Council enrolled voters. The enrolment figures – both State and Council enrolled voters – have been certified today for the South Gippsland Shire Council.”

So, a simple subtraction sum and we have the numbers of voters to be removed from the current roll after this election and before the next election from the current list.

Not hypothetical after all!

What these figures show is that already 1446 voters have already been removed. Those were people who have (since the 2016 election) moved and the new ratepayers who purchased their properties have not been included in the current roll.

The VEC also confirmed that there is currently no requirement for councils to write to anyone who has become a non-resident owner since the last council election in their local area to notify them of their enrolment eligibility.

There is a recommendation for the State Govt to mandate that Councils must inform the non-resident ratepayer voters before removing them from the roll but at this stage it is not required to do so.

Regardless of what the State Govt does in this area, Council should inform its ratepayers of the rule changes and how they can if they choose, stay on the electoral roll.

Don Hill