By Tim Howard
Clarence Valley Council will investigate the cost of using automated telephone surveys to gauge public sentiment on whether the mayor should be elected directly by voters, after a spirited debate at last month’s council meeting.
Councillors voted 6–3 in favour of seeking further information and costings on the polling option, which proponents say could provide a low-cost way of measuring community appetite for a constitutional referendum in 2028.
Under NSW law, councils elect their mayor unless the community has voted in a referendum to switch to a popular vote. Clarence Valley has considered the issue before — most recently in 2019 — but has never taken it to a referendum.
The report before councillors set out the financial hurdles.
The next local government election in 2028 is projected to cost the council about $535,000. Adding a referendum would tack on another 10% — about $53,700.
If voters approved the change, each future election would cost an additional 10% to administer mayoral ballots.
Three external consultants advised staff on engagement options, ranging from community surveys to deliberative panels.
The report noted that the most reliable methods also carried the highest price tags, and none could perfectly replicate the conditions of a referendum.
Cr Cristie Yager, who moved the successful motion, said she was torn between the democratic principle behind a referendum and the significant costs involved.
“I actually was going to jump in straight away and request that we just go ahead with the constitutional referendum, because it is the ultimate of consultation,” she said.
But with election costs rising, Yager said she wanted a clearer picture of cheaper alternatives.
The suggestion of automated telephone surveys — robo-polling — came from Cr Peter Johnstone, who said they can deliver statistically meaningful results at a fraction of the price.
Cr Johnstone told councillors that automated polling, often used by political parties, could cost as little as 50 cents to $1 per call.
“For a population of 55,000 people, statistics say we need a random sample of at least 400 people to get a result within 5%,” he said.
“If the cost is going to be very cheap, this could be a way to decide if a referendum is worth pursuing.”
He suggested conducting one poll early to measure baseline sentiment, then another immediately before councillors decide whether to put the question to voters in 2028.
“If it’s likely to fail, then at that stage, we pull the plug. If it’s likely to pass, then that might be a time when we go forward.”
Cr Debrah Novak backed the motion, describing the debate as “a conversation about democracy”.
“Local government is the closest arm of democracy to the people,” she said. “This is a really important discussion for the community to have.”
Cr Novak also queried arguments in the staff report that a popularly elected mayor would be “inconsistent” with how premiers and prime ministers are chosen.
“We don’t elect parties at local government — we elect people,” she said.
Cr Karen Toms admitted she was unfamiliar with automated polling technology (“I imagine it’s some AI machine asking you questions”) but supported seeking more information.
She emphasised that while she personally did not support a popularly elected mayor, the motion was about exploring consultation methods, not deciding the referendum question.
Cr Alison Bryant also backed the move, saying automated polling was straightforward and balanced compared with social media-based surveys.
However, Cr Shane Causley took the opposite view, concerned that a directly elected mayor could have no experience on council.
“I look back at the last 12 months and look at what Ray (Mayor Smith) has had to put up with,” he said.
“It just worries me that we get inexperienced people running the show.”
Greens councillor Greg Clancy expressed deep ambivalence, noting the tension between grassroots democracy and widespread voter confusion about how local government works.
“Popular does not necessarily mean competent,” he warned. “But councillor-elected mayors have their own risks too.”
In closing the debate, Yager stressed that the vote was not about endorsing or rejecting a popularly elected mayor — only about gathering more information.
“I ran for council to advocate for choice,” she said. “I don’t think it’s our role to decide. People can learn. They can get the opportunity to have their say.”
Cr Yager said her own early experience on council — watching the behind-closed-doors lobbying around the mayoral vote — convinced her the community should ultimately choose its mayor.
“It was like eating jelly with a fork. It was messy… and it completely spun me around, away from the community,” she said. “It did become selfish — it was about us.”
Those voting in favour were Crs Novak, Bryant, Yager, Toms, Johnstone and Smith. Crs Causley, Clancy and Cairns opposed the motion.
Staff will now prepare a report on the feasibility and cost of automated telephone polling, which will return to council at a later date.
