Voters deserve integrity and transparency, and are getting neither

Victorians will start to receive in the mail next week their voting packs for the local government elections. The packs will include ballot papers and statements from candidates. Voters then have until October 25 to post their choices. The election results will be declared in mid-November.

However, what will often not be declared by candidates in informing voters is any links they may have to political parties or associations through money received from donors. The candidates do not have to make these disclosures before polling.

Some of the faces of the council election candidates.Credit: Marija Ercegovac

They should. Of the three tiers of government, federal, state and local, it is the latter that most directly affects communities. The health of those communities, be it in inner Melbourne or in the regions, relies on the integrity of the system that places representatives of those communities in positions of power.

This week The Age reported on a survey it conducted of 1478 candidates running for election in the Greater Melbourne area. Almost half (677) responded and, of that number, about a third said they would advocate for integrity if elected, placing the issue ahead of the environment and housing.

On face value, this is heartening, given the recent history of local councils and the intervention that has been necessary from the state government because of financial mismanagement, unruly meetings and basic dysfunction.

Face value, however, isn’t enough. Integrity begins before the first meeting of councillors. It begins when a candidate puts their hand up that they want to serve their community. The necessary companion of integrity is transparency. This is an element lamentably missing from the voting system. That needs to change.

One reform plank should be real-time donation disclosure. That is when a candidate receives it, how much and from whom. As we reported, lord mayoral candidates, including Nick Reece and Arron Wood, will not say who is funding their campaigns until a month after polling.

Why? Non-disclosure wouldn’t be of concern if it were a private matter. But this is a matter of public interest.

If a position being sought is a position in which a person serves the public, then it cannot be other than incumbent upon the candidate to say who is giving them helpthem to win over the voters. This, to us, is the definition of integrity and transparency.

The second plank is disclosure of political affiliations. At present, this is a grey area. It should be black and white. The Age asked candidates if they were members of a political party, and of those who responded, 53 per cent said they were not members of a party, 14 per cent said Labor, 11 per cent Greens, 12 per cent Liberal and 4 per cent Victorian Socialists. The remainder were minor parties and groups.

Candidates do not have to reveal membership to the Victorian Electoral Commission. They can, if they like, answer a VEC question if they are endorsed by a registered political party.

It is here that the clarity of choice for a voter dissolves. Many candidates who are labelling themselves as independent are, in fact, members of a political party. But they have not been endorsed by the party, hence the ability to tag themselves as independent. This does not pass the pub test. Voters should see it for what it is: a sham.

Transparency International Australia chief executive Clancy Moore rightly says voters have a right to know who they’re voting for.

“So, if local government candidates are members of a political party, that information should be made public, as it forms a vital part of how the candidate might vote, act and what policies they will take forward,” he told The Age this week.

“Following the lead from NSW, Queensland and South Australia, Victoria should make it mandatory for all candidates to disclose whether they are a member of political party. This would help build trust in our political system and contribute to local democracy.”

We agree. A report from the VEC after the council elections of 2020 found this was an area voters were concerned about, and by inference wanted fixed.

The report noted: “Post-election feedback from voters identified that candidates are not consistently disclosing their affiliation with political parties and other interest groups, noting that candidates who choose to complete the candidate questionnaire are only asked to disclose their association when they are endorsed by a political party.”

We are not comforted by comments from the state government. In response to our reporting, a spokeswoman for Local Government Minister Melissa Horne said that disclosing political affiliation was not compulsory in this state because “voters may be misled into believing a candidate will be officially representing a political party”. Candidates could disclose membership in their candidate statements, if they wished – or not, if they didn’t.

This is not good enough. The rules must change. This would be an exercise in catching up, not leading, given NSW, Queensland and South Australia already require this level of disclosure.

Premier Jacinta Allan needs to act. If nothing is done then what are we to make of their attitude to integrity and transparency? That’s an easy one: they don’t care. And no matter what the lord mayoral candidates Wood, Reece and Anthony Koutoufides say, if they do not act, then their words ring hollow.

Integrity falls easily off the lips of those seeking public office.

Unless regulatory steps are taken to give form to the word, such as in making candidates accountable to voters with open disclosure of their affiliations and donors, integrity will mean little.

An uninformed vote is no vote at all. Voters deserve better.

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.