Who’s best for Melbourne? The Age cannot endorse mayoral candidates

Candidates across the Victorian council elections taking place this month have told The Age that integrity is a leading issue for them, ahead even of housing.

If we give credence to the old proverb that a fish rots from the head, perhaps it’s no surprise that there’s a startling lack of integrity on display in the race to become Melbourne’s next lord mayor.

Among the candidates for lord mayor of Melbourne are: Jamal Hakim, Arron Wood, current Lord Mayor Nick Reece, Anthony Koutoufides, Roxane Ingleton.Credit: The Age

Not one of the major candidates – Arron Wood, Nick Reece and Anthony Koutoufides – was willing to accept The Age’s invitation to reveal their campaign donors in real time. If you were voting on this issue alone, you would have to look past all of them.

Mudslinging tactics have sadly been prevalent in this campaign, though we have done our best to filter them from our coverage. They have extended beyond criticism of policies and into the spreading of nasty personal rumours without evidence. The Age condemns this gutter politics in the mayoral race particularly.

On the ground in other local government areas, name-calling, vandalism and the sabotaging of corflutes have marred the contest.

Transparency in this election has also been severely lacking. It’s not only donation reform that is required, but better transparency around political affiliations, which would bring us into line with other states. There are no laws forcing candidates to declare political party memberships that might force them to vote along party lines.

In addition to integrity and transparency, voters are overwhelmingly telling us they struggle to find information about their candidates. The Age does not have the capacity to write about every one of the 1478 candidates across Victoria, although we did contact all candidates running for election in Greater Melbourne and asked them to complete a short survey consisting of biographical details and key concerns. Only 46 per cent replied. Better systems and more detailed declarations are required to ensure people know who they are voting for.

Another area in which the lack of transparency and detail has created a disconnect between what voters choose and what they receive is the labyrinth of preference deals between the candidates. As our city editor, Cara Waters, has reported, voting above the line for a particular group ticket can set in motion complex flows of preferences that result in a wholly unexpected outcome. There is something wrong with our democratic process when one “wild” weekend in September, of “wheeling and dealing” by candidates and their teams in meetings across the city, has such a pronounced effect on the final result of voting.

Lord Mayor Nick Reece and candidate for deputy lord mayor Roshena Campbell.Credit: Simon Schluter

There is also the issue of how the City of Melbourne’s electorate is determined in the first place. Since its earliest days, the city has given property owners a special role in voting, and during the Kennett era rate-paying businesses – regardless of whether their owners lived in the CBD – were given two votes for council elections, while individual residents receive one. As then-councillor Stephen Mayne pointed out in 2015, a franchise restricted to residents would favour the Greens. Far from accepting the view that their role in the electoral process is outdated, business wants to see the extent of their representation augmented: raising whether businesses should be given three or more votes.

Concerns over how these absentee votes might affect the process have prompted calls by councillors for a review of the 2001 City of Melbourne Act. The state government has acknowledged these expressions of concern repeatedly, but so far, no action has been taken.

It is time for a major overhaul of Victoria’s local government laws. If the state government is remotely serious about integrity, it must make it a priority to raise local government up to at least the same integrity standards as state parliament, and perhaps further. While it may not be a political priority, it’s a step it must take.

Councils are presently too easily hijacked by vested interests, and local government is now the level of government most vulnerable to corruption, where deals can easily be sealed by shopping bags full of cash, as we saw in Casey Council. If legislation is not brought forward to address this problem, scandals such as those seen in Moonee Valley and Geelong will mount, and with them contempt for government.

Former Carlton star Anthony Koutoufides is running for lord mayor.Credit: Simon Schluter

So, what’s best for the city?

We cannot recommend Koutoufides. His policies don’t extend beyond gimmickry, his government experience is lacking and the presence of two property developers on the “Team Kouta” ticket is deeply unsettling.

The Greens’ candidate, Roxane Ingleton, has failed to articulate policies beyond narrow talking points on the housing crisis and cost of living – issues Melbourne’s lord mayor cannot possibly fix single-handedly.

Arron Wood and his team for City of Melbourne elections.Credit: Joe Armao

Meanwhile, independent councillor Jamal Hakim may be the stalking horse of this election. Experts suggest he could benefit from an elaborate preference deal. Last election, he became a councillor with just 0.4 per cent of the vote. His focus on integrity as a mayoral candidate is to be commended, but like the leading candidates, he has failed to cut through with inspiring ideas for the city’s future.

That really leaves two contenders: Wood and Reece.

Wood is seen as the “business candidate”, an advantage in the current outdated system.

Reece has the advantage of incumbency. No sitting lord mayor has ever lost. He and his running mate, Roshena Campbell, have shown they are willing to put some policies out there for scrutiny. But they are also current councillors, meaning they must own the failings of the City of Melbourne, which in some areas has become wasteful.

There is little to separate the Reece and Wood tickets or to inspire voters. Neither have impressed with visionary ideas for the city’s future. They have argued about free tram zones, incentives to lure people into the CBD, and largely short-term attempts to improve safety in the streets, which The Age acknowledges is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Neither have shown enthusiasm for transparency and integrity. Reece is generally more supportive of existing initiatives like Sally Capp’s Greenline, which Wood says he would scrap.

The Age cannot bring itself to endorse either of them. But they are at the front of a thoroughly uninspiring bunch.