The Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne MP, agreed to receive information about CoRBA’s concerns. The information contained in CoRBA’s position statement was forwarded to Richard Wynne. The letter below was written to CoRBA by Dan O’Brien, Chief of Staff, Premier of Victoria.

CoRBA believes that this response understates the issues and has replied accordingly.

Dr Jackie Watts
Coalition of Residents and Business Associations
MELBOURNE

Dear Dr Watts

Melbourne City Council Elections and Governance

Thank you for your email of 6 May 2008 on behalf of the Coalition of
Residents and Business Associations (“CoRBA”).

Before responding to your specific comments and proposals, there are some
general points I would like to make.

As you know, governance and electoral arrangements for the City of
Melbourne were the subject of an extensive review and consultation process
which led up to the City of Melbourne Act 2001. Many of the issues you
raise were dealt with as part of that review and are now specifically dealt
with by that Act. The fact that Parliament has so recently considered and
dealt with these issues in detail for the City of Melbourne places it in a
different category from other municipalities.

Many of the issues you raise relate to the balance of representation of
businesses, property owners and ratepayers and residents on the Council and
in the selection of the Lord Mayor. I appreciate that this is a
contentious issue on which a wide range of views are held. The current
arrangements for election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor, which
are set out in the legislation passed in 2001, are intended to give all
voters in the municipality a direct and equal say in the election to these
positions.

Similarly, the proportional voting arrangements for the other seven
positions was intended to result in the election of councillors in
proportion to their level of support across the municipality amongst voters
of all categories. The voting systems used are similar to those used for
the State and Federal Parliaments.

I will now respond to the matters in the order they are listed in the
attachment to your email.

Postal voting

There are arguments in favour of both attendance and postal systems. Which
is most suitable in a particular case will depend on a number of
considerations.  For this reason, the decision whether to use postal or
attendance voting systems is one that has been left by Parliament for each
individual council to determine what is best for its municipality.

I note that the Melbourne City Council has considered this issue on several
occasions recently and has decided to retain the postal system for the
elections due in November.

The Government does not believe that the postal system is open to
large-scale abuse or electoral fraud.  If you have any evidence of
particular instances of abuse or fraud in the current voting arrangements,
then this should be provided to the Minister for Local Government for
investigation and any necessary action.

Election of councillors by wards or by the municipality as a whole

As you know, the electoral and governance arrangements for Melbourne City
Council need to take into account both the interests and rights of
residents and businesses.  It is a generally accepted principle in
Australian municipal government that, as they are funded mainly by rates
levied on property owners, those being taxed should have a voice in the
government which levies and spends those rates.

The geographic concentration of businesses in the central business district
would mean that a system of electing councillors by wards, along the lines
you propose, could result in a relatively greater representation of
councillors from residential areas relative to their electoral support
across the municipality.  Conversely, CBD electors would have lesser
representation on Council relative to their electoral support.

As mentioned above, the current voting arrangements were enacted by
Parliament in 2001 with the aim that the representation of views on Council
should be proportionate to the level of support for those views amongst
voters of all categories.

I note that, at the elections due in November, the majority of councillors
to be elected across the State will be elected under proportional
representation.

Direct election of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor

I note your comments in relation to the relative advantage of candidates
with substantial campaign funds. However, this is a comment that could be
made of all electoral systems. Given the number of voters in the City of
Melbourne, it is practicable for a candidate with significant community
support to stand successfully.  The total enrolment for the City of
Melbourne at the 2004 election was a little under 76,000 electors, compared
with around 98,000 voters in the federal electorate of Melbourne for the
2007 election.

As with the proportional system of voting for councillors generally, the
current arrangements were enacted by Parliament in 2001 with the intention
of giving all voters in the municipality an equal and direct say in the
election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy.

Abolition of the deeming provision

I note your comments about the undesirability of voters being deemed to be
electors without their knowledge. My understanding, however, is that the
City informs persons who have been enrolled as voters. There do not appear
to be grounds for assuming that enrolments under this arrangement are more
likely to result in fraudulent voting than amongst other classes of voters.

Company nominee provisions

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, which have come into force
since the last council elections in 2004, now require that a person may not
be nominated to vote on behalf of a corporation unless he or she is a
director or company secretary of that corporation.  I believe this
amendment should resolve the concern that an individual with no real
connection to a company could be nominated to vote on its behalf.

Candidates must be on electoral roll for two years before nomination

I understand that your proposal to prevent individuals from standing for
election to councils if they have been on the electoral roll for less than
two years is intended to prevent candidates standing with no serious intent
of being elected but merely to garner and channel preference votes to
another candidate. However, it is not clear that this would be effective,
since there is no obvious reason why a newly enrolled voter should be more
willing to participate in such a scheme than other voters.

In any case, I do not believe the proposal would be consistent with
Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Section 18 of the
Charter guarantees the right of eligible persons to vote and be elected at
State and municipal elections without discrimination. Preventing recently
enrolled voters from standing for election would seem to be an
unjustifiable curtailment of democratic rights under the Charter.

Require a review of electoral arrangements every election cycles

I appreciate that periodic electoral reviews are conducted in other
municipalities to assess whether they remain appropriate. The reason that
this arrangement does not apply in the case of the Melbourne City Council
is that, after extensive review and consultation, special electoral
arrangements have been specifically enacted by Parliament in the City of
Melbourne Act 2001. Any change to those arrangements would require
amendment of that Act.

Leaving aside the issue of whether there is a case for reviewing again the
arrangements that were enacted so recently, it would not be practicable to
conduct a review and the extensive consultation that would be required in
time for legislation to be passed before the election scheduled in November
this year.

Abolish above-the-line voting

Part 3 of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 specifically requires the election
of seven councillors by proportional voting using the Senate style voting
system. This is a voting system that is well-understood and familiar to
Victorian voters, being used for elections to both the Senate and
Legislative Council.

Voting entitlements to be limited to property over a certain value

I understand your concern in relation to persons potentially being able to
be enrolled as voters merely on the basis of owning a car parking space in
the City of Melbourne.

As you would be aware, the Minister for Local Government has recently
stated publicly that this issue is currently under consideration by
Government with a view to legislation being passed before the November
council elections to address this anomaly.

Disclosure of election funding

Your email refers to a proposed requirement for the source of election
funds to be disclosed. I note that section 62 of the Local Government Act
1989 now requires candidates to provide a return to the Chief Executive
Officer of a council disclosing donations of over $200 received during the
election period. The details that must be disclosed are prescribed in the
regulations made under that Act. If you believe that these provisions are
not adequate, could you please let me know what specific improvements you
would propose.

I trust this satisfactorily answers the issues you have raised. Thank you
again for raising your Association’s concerns.

Yours sincerely

Dan O’Brien
Chief of Staff
Premier of Victoria