2016-08-31
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak on Mr Davis's motion that clause 38 of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2016 be disallowed. I thank Mr Davis for bringing this motion to the house today. I know Mr Davis has referred to what is known particularly in local government circles as the Georgiou review. I will also be referring to that extensively because it undertook a very close examination of the issue of dummy candidates and what reforms could be undertaken to try to prevent dummy runners, stooges or whatever terminology you would like to attach to candidates who are not actually running for the genuine reason of being elected to local government but are there simply to direct preferences to the 'real' or lead candidate.
In terms of the Georgiou review, it was extensive. It actually looked at a range of different areas. It looked at electoral representation, integrity, participation and the electoral process. In relation to the electoral process, one of its key terms of reference was looking at improvements that could be made to ensure the integrity of the electoral process, and that included candidate integrity, including issues regarding dummy candidates, information disclosure, existing candidacy requirements, campaign funding and disclosure.
I was very fortunate at the time of the Georgiou review to be the president of the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA), and it was one of those issues that we keenly followed as an organisation at that time. In fact many of the recommendations of the Georgiou review would in fact have strengthened the sector. However, many of them — or any of them — have not been implemented, which is a pretty poor outcome for local government because there certainly were some excellent recommendations that came out of that.
I want to refer to the local government electoral review stage 1 report. Section 4 of that report deals specifically with dummy candidates, candidate participation and candidate capability. The panel who made up the Georgiou review highlighted that in terms of the submissions they received there was:
Significant concern about the existence of dummy candidates was a strong and persistent theme raised by stakeholders during the consultation. Most people who raised this were troubled by the perception that too many candidates contest local government elections without the intention of being elected, but rather to secure and transfer votes to another candidate. A large number told the panel they believe this undermines the integrity of the electoral system.
I quote from the Victorian Local Governance Association submission to the review:
The idea that 'dummy candidates' were particularly prevalent in the 2012 elections was pervasive.
It was pervasive in that particular election. I draw from memory that probably one of the most extreme examples of that was the City of Casey, which had 85 candidates running in that election — an extraordinary amount of participation, which you do have to question.
In terms of other submissions made in relation to dummy candidates, Cr Matthew Kirwan of Greater Dandenong City Council, a fine Greens candidate for that municipality, noted that the nomination process:
… should be more onerous. It is too easy for a dummy candidate to nominate by just turning up one day …
Of course the Greens are so opposed to the idea of dummy candidates that it is embedded within our constitution that in fact you cannot run dummy candidates to support you in your local government elections, because it is a perversion and distortion of democracy — democracy we in the Greens hold very dear.
In her submission to the review Elizabeth Jeffrey said:
I also think that our system is being abused by allowing too many dummy candidates; candidates should be genuine.
The panel's view is that it is not desirable for the election result to be impacted by the running of dummy candidates. The panel, in considering this matter, considered the issue of the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) actually distributing how-to-vote indications with their package of materials that goes out to voters. The panel, when considering this, believed that:
… the publication of candidate how-to-vote recommendations does not enhance voter ability in this respect but is a major inducement to dummy candidates standing purely as a mechanism for siphoning preferences.
At the Melbourne hearing Geoffrey Goode of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia said:
… the proliferation of dummy candidates is assisted and contributed to by two aspects of the arrangements in Victoria. One, in our view, is the distribution by the returning officer of candidates' how-to-vote recommendations. This doesn't apply in … surrounding jurisdictions.
John Watson, Brimbank City Council commissioner at the time, said:
An option would be not to allow that —
how to vote —
to be included in the election pack that is sent to the voter by the VEC or the election provider.
Bayside City Council, which I think Mr Davis has referred to, said in their submission:
It is suggested that candidate preferences not be included in the ballot pack, which may deter ballots being stacked with 'dummy candidates'.
It is certainly an enormous issue, particularly for those genuine candidates who want to do the right thing by their community and put their hand up to run but do not have the linkages or perhaps the notion that some candidates in fact get very coordinated and run a team of candidates in order to support them. So if you are an individual wanting to do the right thing and you have not thought that this is an issue, it certainly is a very unlevel playing field in terms of participation and democracy.
In terms of the panel's deliberation in the review, it stated:
The panel believes that communication of preferences should be a matter for candidates to pursue through their own campaign efforts. The panel recognised that this approach may create more work for some candidates but is important to removing incentives for running dummy candidates.
Ian Farrow in his submission said:
Dummy candidates are empowered by … the ability to publish how-to-vote information in the postal vote material circulated to eligible voters. The incentives to run dummy candidates would be considered reduced if … candidates were unable to include how-to-vote information with the circulated postal vote material.
It was a continual theme received by the Georgiou review at the time. Given the theme and level of commentary and discussion around that, the panel made a recommendation. It is recommendation 26:
Candidates' how-to-vote recommendations not be contained in the postal packs circulated by the VEC.
One would question whether the VEC is the appropriate mechanism to circulate preferences. I do not believe that it is the appropriate mechanism. Candidates have every opportunity to indicate to their potential voters who they would like to preference in terms of their election campaign. There are a number of mechanisms by which they can do this. Possibly one of the easiest ways for the candidates to do that is to have an online presence. Candidates even have the opportunity to include in their statement references to websites or opportunities for voters to find out what their how-to-vote recommendations are.
So I do not think it is an enormous limitation to say that the VEC is not the appropriate mechanism for distributing how-to-vote information.
I even noted in the government's own discussion paper put out in relation to the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2016 that they talked about the conflict in the role of the VEC as the independent and impartial election service provider in distributing the preferences of candidates in the same packs as those containing the election ballot papers. They also noted that it is open to misuse if people nominate for the purpose of directing preferences to another candidate instead of genuinely seeking office.
Mr Barber — The government's own review said that?
Ms DUNN — The government's own paper said that. They also noted in that paper that no other Australian jurisdiction allows for inclusion of candidate preferences in postal ballot packs in council elections. I will say that this paper did also note the potential for a greater level of informal votes. However, I think that is selling the voters of Victoria short, because I think voters are very aware of the fact that they do need to put a number in each box. I think we do not give voters enough credit, and I think we should not be using the VEC as the mechanism to distribute that sort of information.
In terms of the other reforms and proposed changes that came out of that discussion paper, there was the addition of enabling candidates to answer a series of questions relating to their capacity to be a councillor. Those answers have been made available by the VEC and they enable voters to compare candidate information like for like. That change was implemented, and we certainly support that.
Mr Davis — There is no university of hard knocks listed on the paper.
Ms DUNN — There is no university of hard knocks. The other thing we are very pleased to see is that the candidate statements have been increased from 150 to 200 words. That is a reasonable change in terms of garnering more information from candidates. As I said, that is a mechanism by which candidates can in fact direct voters to other means of finding out more about them, particularly in this information age.
I want to quote from a Herald Sun newspaper article from 7 April 2016, which contains some comments from Local Government Victoria (LGV).
Ms Shing — It is not printed on recycled paper, that is for sure.
Ms DUNN — Through you, Acting President, the Greens always print on 100 per cent recycled paper, so I can tell you that it is — and I can tell you that no Leadbeater's possums were killed in the making of this piece of paper, either.
Ms Shing — Can you guarantee that?
Ms DUNN — I can absolutely guarantee that, Ms Shing. LGV in this article is reported as saying that the practice of including candidate how-to-vote information in postal ballot packs:
… posed a conflict for the VEC as the 'independent and impartial election service provider'.
The article continues:
It allowed candidates to effectively campaign at ratepayers' cost, LGV said.
'It is also open to misuse if people nominate for the purpose of directing preferences to another candidate instead of genuinely seeking office for themselves', it said.
This concern about dummy candidates milking the system was raised by several councillors in submissions to a review of local government laws.
There is plenty of information out there in terms of why it is not a good idea to publish how-to-vote information as part of those ballot packs. As I have said, there are plenty of other mechanisms that candidates can use to get that information to their voters. The voters are intelligent people, They understand how it works and have been doing it for a long time.
In terms of not indicating preferences in VEC ballot packs, it would be a fairer system and it would in fact discourage the running of a support team of dummy runners. The disappointment for the Greens is that in fact council candidates do not have to disclose their political affiliations. We actually see that as a weakness. If you want to be genuine and honest with your community, you should disclose your political membership and affiliation. I was always bemused by the many people who spoke to me in my nine years in local government and my six years with the VLGA and told me that local government is no place for politics. When I asked them what municipality they belonged to, I could generally reel off who belong to which party, even though of course that was not disclosed.
I did raise earlier the extraordinary case of Casey council, which had 85 candidates in the last election. I know in this house Mr Finn has raised the issue of the potential team of 40 out at Wyndham. That is an extraordinary number. The reality is that we never truly know until the day nominations close how many people will be nominated, but I think that in terms of trying to get a fairer level of democracy and participation not indicating preferences on VEC ballot packs is a very good idea.
I just want to turn to talk about my experiences on Yarra Ranges council. As I said, I was a councillor for nine years. I have in fact served on a council where a dummy runner got elected. That does happen from time to time, that dummy runners get elected. So there is a real and genuine surprise at the declaration of the poll in terms of who won. I have had countless conversations, and not only with my own colleagues at the time at Yarra Ranges council, about the running of teams of supporting candidates. Across local government many, many councillors participate in this activity. That really goes some way to explaining why it is difficult for the peak bodies to support this — because of course there are many councillors out there who comprise the membership of those peak bodies and who in fact employ this system themselves as a way to direct preferences that they may not get otherwise.
There is a standard rule of thumb even in local government about who you should choose as your dummy runners in terms of demographic and interest mix. To say it does not happen is a very foolish approach. It does happen, and it happens at every election. The indication of how-to-vote preferences on VEC ballot packs just exacerbates that issue even more so. It is not appropriate that it be on there. The VEC is not the appropriate mechanism to distribute those how-to-vote indications, and the Greens will be supporting Mr Davis's disallowance motion.