2008 Under the 2012 model

We decided out of interest to apply the 2008 vote under the new proposed model of nine Councillors.

It should be noted that this is indicative only. For the sake of the exercise we excluded Peter Clark from the count. He was replaced by Jackie Watts. (This time she was elected in her own right)

Elected	Candidate	Group
1	JETTER, Carl	JETTER
2	OKE, Cathy	GREENS
3	LOUEY, Kevin	McMULLIN
4	ONG, Ken	TEAMMELB
5	SHANAHAN, Brian	SHANNAHAN
6	KANIS, Jennifer	FOWLES
7	BINI, Luciano	JETTER
8	LEPPERT, Rohan	GREENS
9	WATTS, Jackie	MORGAN

* Results indicative only

Commission recommends increase in City Representation

The Victorian Electoral Commission has recommended in its final report that the level of representation of the City of Melbourne be increased from 9 to 11 Councillors - 2 City wide Councillors plus the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor team)

The Commission failed to address concerns related to the method of election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor and the City's external boundaries and voter franchise.The Commissions report also failed to address concerns in relation to the above the line voting, calculation of the surplus transfer value and count-back process used in fulfilling casual vacancies. The terms of reference of the Commission review prevented it from addressing the real issues effecting the City Council.

Putting the limitations of the review aside the recommendation to increase the level of representation and maintain a city wide electorate is a positive for Melbourne. A ward system based on geographical boundaries would have divided the city and communities of interest.

The Council votes as a whole and should be elected as a whole.

The geographical size of the Council is not too large (Similar in size to a State or Federal electorate).

Under the system of proportional representation, in spite concerns about the serious flaws in the way votes are counted and issues pertaining to the voter franchise - the City wide multi-member electorate is the most democratic.

An increase from seven to nine members elected city wide would ensure on average that 95% of the electorate would be represented by a representative of their choosing, where in a single member electorate up to 49% of the electorate would be disenfranchised.

Whilst there is ongoing urgent need for review of the City's electoral system, its external boundaries and the election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor - the recommendations proposed in the final report should be supported.

Review Disclosure - Due March 21

The Victorian Electoral Commission is due to publish the final report for the City of Melbourne Electoral review on Wednesday (March 21, 2012).

The preliminary report had recommended that the City Council representation be increased by 2, excluding the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor the number of Councilors would increase from 7 to 9. The initial recommendation proposed that the City continue to be elected as a whole.

Melbourne City Councilor, Jackie Watts, in a misguided direction opposed the increase in representation and proposed a reduction in democratic representation in order to establish Local Wards that she mistakenly thinks will increase her chances of election .

The criticism of the City Council is an indictment against the current Councillors and Council administration and the system of franchise and the direct election of the Lord Mayor and its external boundaries.

The problems highlighted by Cr Watts and some residents groups would not be addressed by the solutions advocated by Cr Watts. Cr Watts herself was elected not on merit but as a result of the flaw in the way the State Government counts the votes. Over 6000 votes were ignored in the count-back that followed Councillor Clarke's resignation . 6,000 votes that should have been counted but were not.

The Kensington Association submission is worthy of consideration. They have rightly supported the "City as a Whole" proposal with the fall back of a 3 x 3 ward option as being the most democratic. They also highlight the divisons within the Residential community. Residnets represent 40% of the City electorate and the City Wide model, like it or not relfects that breakdown although it is distorted by the system of direct election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor.

Sadly the real issues effecting the City Council will not be looked at as the terms of reference of the Commission was restrictive. It prevented the consideration of alternative solutions that would help address the many perceived problems surrounding the City Council. Those problems will still remain.

Hopefully the Commission will not compound the problems by supporting Cr Watts ill-conceived proposal.

Tomorrow we will know what the final recommendation is. We will not be holding our breath. The Commission has made many inconsistent recommendations in the past and we see no reason why they would break that model.

City of Melbourne Representation Review 2012

SUBMISSION

Change that Counts
City of Melbourne Electoral Review

Commission Recommendation

I wish to express my support for the commission recommendation that the City Council be represented by a nine member city council elected as a whole in addition to the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor but with qualification as outlined below:

1. Terms of Reference

The terms of reference of the commission were overtly limited and as such prevented the proper and concise review of the representative model,

1.2 Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor positions

The review should have included as part of its terms of reference method the direct election of election and representation of the Lord Mayor and the Deputy Lord Mayor. By failing to do so has brought the review into disrepute.

The dual election of both Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor on a preferential majority of vote distorts the proportionality of the representational model, effectively giving 50% of the electorate a ratio of three to one. This goes against the principle of one vote one value.

It is my firm position that the positions of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the City Council should be appointed from and by the elected City Council as a whole and not by a general plebiscite. It is essential that the City Council maintains confidence and support in its chairman at all times. The elected Council should have the right to dismiss the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor should they no longer maintain confidence of the Council. The City of Melbourne Act should be amended to provide clarity and a mechanism to address this issue. This could include a separation of responsibly of the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the City Council.

Further, the legislative exclusion of candidates for the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor positions from nominating and standing for the general Council position is discrimatory and severely limits the rights of candidates to stand for public office and for electors to choose those who they consider best to represent them. There is no justification that merits their exclusion from running for both positions. If need be the Government should consider increasing the nomination deposit for each position to discourage frivolous or tactical nominations.

1.3 Order of the Ballot

Analysis of the 2008 Lord Mayor ballot shows that the current Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, was elected on the strength of the so called “Donkey vote” determined by the order of the ballot, with candidates at the top of the ballot having a distinct advantage of candidates that securer a lower position.

This issue can be addressed by adopting what is commonly referred to as “Robson Rotation” where the order of the ballot paper is rotted in such a way that no single candidate maintains a poll position in the order of the ballot.

1.4 Internals Ward

Whilst it is the past practice to establish local electorates on the false premise of a geographical boundary representing “community of interest” that fact is that community of interests transcend geographical boundaries.

Decisions of the Council are made as a whole and as such it is preferable that the Council is elected as and whole and not divided into geographical wards.

Local Wards

Concerns of non local-representation as made in a number of submission is misleading. Any perception of lack of representation is a reflection of the existing representatives and procedures of the City Council not the electoral system. An unsubdivided, multimember proportional representational model increases the representation of the Council. The single member model conversely diminishes and distorts the extent of representation.

If local wards are to be introduced then it is important that each ward returns the same number of elected representatives. To this extent, a nine member council would be best served if there were three wards each returning 3 elected councillors.

It is acknowledge that is often difficult to draw internal geographical boundaries in such as away so to maintain a balance of equal representation and number of constituents. For this reason it is recommended that the City of Melbourne not be subdivide into local wards

Alternative Option

An alternative to local wards is to implement a division of representation based on a voters mandate entitlement (Residents and non resident status) and electing Councillors according to their enrolment status. The review body should consider this as an alternative option.

1.5 External Boundaries

The review should have canvassed the need for a review of external boundaries. The City of Melbourne should be expanded to include the City of Yarra, Port Phillip and the former city of Prahran and the four state lower house seats of Albert Park, Melbourne, Richmond and Prahran taking into considerations of community of interest and economies of scale.

1.6 Method of voting

In considering any proposed representational model it is important that consideration is given to the method of voting and election.

Proportional Representation provides the best outcome of representation however the method of counting the vote as defined in the Local Government Act and Regulations distorts the proportionality and accuracy of the ballot.

The method of calculating the surplus transfer value and the distribution of preferences need to be reviewed. (See section below)

1.7 Above the Line voting

The method of “Above the line voting” used in the City of Melbourne election inflates the number of candidates who nominate with most groups nominating more candidates then can reasonably be expected to be elected. Further it allows for the predetermined allocation of preferences which in a local government context is not desirable although it is acknowledged that it does assist in the data-entry of ballot papers that record an “Above the line” vote. The “Above the line” voting system facilitates and encourages candidate groups to nominate as purely as tactical means of influencing the outcome of the ballot.

1.8 Method of fulfilling casual vacancies

The method of filling casual vacancies and count back currently implemented is seriously flawed. Over 6,000 voters were disenfranchised and their votes excluded as a result of the count back procedures used to fill the casual vacancy following the resignation of Councillor Clark. The value of Votes that remained on the table at the conclusion of the 2008 election were not taken into consideration. These votes should have been counted.

The current legislation provision only considers the ballots attributed to vacating candidate and in the process the candidate elected does not reflect the proportionality or intent of the electorate.

Analysis of the 2008 ballot indicates that the wrong person was elected to fill the casual vacancy as a result of this error.

This needs to be addressed if the community is to maintain confidence in the electoral process.

1.9 Integrity and scrutiny of the ballot

In 2008 THE Victorian Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, had interfered and undermined the independence of the returning officer. As a result the Returning Officer failed to adopt the provisions of the local Government Act that require the preliminary distribution of the ballot papers prior to the distribution of preferences. This severely limited the opportunity and quality of the scrutiny of the election. The preliminary distribution of preferences allows scrutineers to oversee the conduct of the election in an orderly sequential fashion, providing a means were a scrutineer can monitor the progression of the count. Whilst there is provision in the Act and Regulations for the Returning officer to vary the procedure used in an electronic count this does not necessitate or justify the refusal of the Returning officer to undertake a preliminary distribution prior to the data-entry and transcription of voter’s preference data.

Further more in the Chief Electoral Commissioner had compromised the integrity of the election by making allegations that were false and misleading in relation to the legitimate concerns expressed by members of the community as to the procedure of the counting of the ballot.

If confidence is to be maintained in the electoral process it is important that the returning office is independent from the direction or interference by the Chief Victorian electoral Commissioner. The Chief Victorian Electoral office has no legal to direct the returning officer in the fulfillment of their duties.

More information

Strike while the iron is hot Peter Clarke pushes for electoral reform

Melbourne City Councillor, Peter Clarke, has moved a motion to kick start voter reform for the City of Melbourne in the wake of Melbourne's non-spectacular flop of an election last month.

Whilst electoral reform review is long overdue and should have been canvassed by the previous Council the proposal put forward by Clarke is half backed and falls short of community expectations.

The current system of representation has failed to deliver good governance and the newly elected council shows little sign of improvement more of a back slide into a council of ridicule and rip-off. Missing in Clarke's proposal is a review of the City of Melbourne's external boundaries and the need to consider a Greater Melbourne option.

The Clarke proposal failed to mention a review of the direct election of Lord Mayor and the leadership team structure.

The motion put forward by Clarke needs further review,consideration and direction.

For example: Who is going to conduct this review? Will it be the City Council itself or the morally corrupt and incompetent Victorian Electoral Commission? Neither body is capable of delivering the level of review and independence that the city requires.

Without a well spelt out, all encompassing ,terms of reference we can not expect any review to deliver on expectations.

You can not resolve the problems facing the City of Melbourne in isolation.

In the end it is the State Government that must take responsibility for any review. The Council needs to call on the State Government to show leadership and governance (something that has been remiss when it comes to the City of Melbourne).

The City Council needs to outline in more detail its proposed terms of reference and call on the State Government to commit to a wide review that involves all Melbourne's inner City municipalities. The Council needs seek a commitment for the State Government to a time frame and method of a review and in doing so needs to make sure that the review addresses all the real issues and is not just window dressing.

The other issue of concern is Clarke's proposed reintroduction of exhaustive preferential ballots. This must be rejected outright as it is undemocratic and a back slide into the past where 50%+1 elected three or more Councillors. If we are to re-embrace multi-member wards then it must be on the basis of proportional representation.

Clarke's motion , whilst a small step in the right direction, needs more work and serious consideration not just quick fix ideas, a slap them up, half baked proposal dreamt up between Christmas cocktails and celebratory drinks, designed to fill the blank pages of the council's agenda.


C O U N C I L M E E T I N G
Agenda Item 6.2 - 16 December 2008

NOTICE OF MOTION:
CR CLARKE, ELECTORAL REVIEW, CITY OF MELBOURNE

Motion
1. That the City of Melbourne request the Minister for Local Government to immediately
commence a review of the provisions of the City of Melbourne Electoral Act, including
but not limited to:
1.1. governance processes;
1.2. voting system (is exhaustive preferential and proportional);
1.3. the number of Councillors and possible re-introduction of wards; and
1.4. other matters the community may wish to consider.
Background
2. The previous Council agreed to a review post the 2008 election. During the 2008 election
campaign, all elected councillors agreed to support a review of the current system.
3. The community via CORBA – Coalition of Resident and Business Associations – has
pressed the urgency of the need for an electoral review. We must respond and act
decisively whilst the election is fresh in our consciousness.

Moved: Cr Clarke

Why John So is your bro The perils of a direct election

The Age has published an article proposing the question "Why is John So my Bro"?

IN it the writer makes some connection to London's new Lord Mayor and then goes on to expose some of the myths and weakness of Johns So's tenure.

This pop star image and brunt of a joke that John so well responds to is a by product of the Direct election system. A system that sees a populist politicians with no substance elected as Mayor of our capital city.

The question needs to be asked who supported the direct election model. The changes were brought in by Bob Cameron, the minister of Local government back in 2000. Bob Cameron did not last long as minister and was soon replaced by Candy Broad, a lack l;aster Minister. The review undertaken in 2000- was held in secret, submissions, unlike Municipal reviews undertaken today, where never published and the public had no opportunity to scrutinies or respond to the proposal for direct elections. Instead of being independent from the municipal process the review was made by the Department/Ministers office.

Last Year a number of Councillors recommend that the State Government City of Melbourne initiate a review of Melbourne representative model and that the City of Melbourne should be subjected to the same review process as all other Municipal Council in Victoria. Under the Local Government Act every municipality (except the City of Melbourne) is required to undertake a representation review every technical term of office. If these requirements applied to the City of Melbourne then a review should have been undertaken last year.

The proposal for a review was put forward and voted down by John So and his team 5-4 as John took the do nothing approach. The City Councillors whop initiate the idea of the review did nothing to further the issue and the State Government failed to take up the initiative.

Some Councillors are now trying to make a bit of noise about the need for a review before the next Municipal election due in November, but unless there is the political will there is a snow flake chance in hell that any meaningful review will take place.

Dick Wynne, former Council elected Lord Mayor and now Minister for Local Government has shied away from reviewing the monster that his predecessors created and allowed to exists. Dick more then any other Minister knows the short comings of the direct election model.

The So genie is out of its bottle and it may be hard if not impossible to put it back. The direct election model has failed to deliver good governance and more importantly the person elected Mayor is not held accountable as he/she is not elected and as such not accountable to the Council itself. Under the Council appointed system the City Councillors provided a day to day accountability. Under the direct election system the only accountability comes from the media and once every four years when the public focuses its attention on the would be star Lord Mayor and votes for who is the most likable.

The fact that the City finances are in worst shape then ever and that the design me a job city continues to milk the ratepayers for every cent and dollar possible has little to no bearing on the voters choice. many who live outside the city itself, the overseas property investor.

Melbourne Council most certainly needs review and the direct election model should cancelled. Council must be given more power and say to hold the Lord Mayor accountable.

In the end the failure of the City Council is a failure of the State Government to act.

One of the problems that inhibit the City Council is the restriction that the Load Mayor is also the Chairman of the Council, an oversight and left over from the days of a Council appointed Mayor.

The fact that John So has little skill and more often then not does not chair Council meetings is of concern.

If Dick Wynne and the State Governments are unwilling to subject the City of Melbourne to a proper and comprohensive open public review then the lest they should do is to separate the position of Lord Mayor and Chairman so that the Chairman can be appointed from and by the City Council. Such a move would provide the necessary day to day checks and balance required to restore good governance and financial management to the City.

John So head in the sand and hand in the public pocket

John So continues to spend spend spend whilst burying his head in the sand.

The State Government has also wiped it's hands clean and failed undertake a review of the City of Melbourne's representative model. Whilst every other Municipality is subjected to comprehensive review Melbourne has been excluded.

Its been just seven years since Melbourne narrowed its focus and adopted a direct election of its Lord Mayor.

Last year there was a half hearted proposal for the City of Melbourne to initiate it won representative review, A proposal that met with opposition from John So and was rejected on the casting vote of the Lord Mayor.

Why the city councillors that were supporting a review did not appeal directly to the State Government is anyones guess. After all it is the responsibility and determination of the State Government to undertake any serious independent review.

David Dunstan in today's Age has reflect on the issues that face Melbourne faces and the need to ensure that the City's governance meets the challenges it faces.

The largest and most central of them all, Melbourne City Council, instead of being made larger to give a lead, was made smaller and more ineffectual to prevent inner-city residents having any say over Melbourne's lucrative golden mile and inner region. Labor has been careful not to undo the pro-growth, pro-big-property stance of its predecessors. But for nine years it has taken the city for granted, simply assuming that it can absorb the growth to 4.5 million people. Now problems of housing affordability, traffic congestion and the inadequate contribution of the public transport system are upon us.

The proposal to create a greater City of Melbourne is not new but for various reasons has never been taken seriously. Jeff Kennett in fact went the other way and reduced the size of the Council to that of a small island.

There is an urgent need to review and expand the Cities boundaries.

The direct election model has failed to provide good governance and accountability.

John So has spent the Cities inheritance and family jewels. Come November he will also loose the support of a number of his collection or rubber stamps. It is expected that John will dump his Deputy Lord Mayor, Gary Singer, as team up with the third rate councillor David Wilson. Catherine NG, one of So's best performers. is expected to stand down leaving a serious gap in Johns ability to undertake even the most basic of tasks required by the City Council.

John So leadership is also under question.

John has failed to provide financial management or corporate governance. His ability to chair a meeting is left seriously lacking.

Whilst there is ongoing support and talk around the town hall for an urgent review of the City Council, reality is that both the Councillors and the State Government have left it too late to initiate a serious review.

At best we could hope that the State Government undertakes a ministerial review restore balance and strengthen the Council's accoutability and governance in the City Structure.

Lord Mayor, by default, is also the Council's chairman.

One proposal that should be considered and adopted is the need to separate the role of Lord Mayor and that of the Chairman of the Council.

When the State Government implemented a direct election model it did not pay sufficient attention to the functioning of the Council and did not consider to the role of chairman.

The chairman of any council should always maintain the support and confidence of the elected Council, the Chairman must be elected from and by the Council itself and not part and parcel of Lord Mayor's position.

The separation of the two roles and allowing the City Council to appoint the Council's chairperson of their own chopping would go a long way to strengthening the Council's governance and ability to hold the executive to account.

This one change is simple and logical and should be adopted without delay in the first week of the spring parliamentary session prior to the November Municipal election.

City Council in denial John So avoids public review

A case of a plague on both your houses.

The Herald Sun has reported on the growing unrest amongst Melbourne's residents which comes as no surprise. BUT...

There is more to say about this issue and so little time. The fact is the City Council has only itself to blame and could have and should have done much more.

There was nothing stopping the City Councillors from calling on the State Government to subject the Council to a proper review. We have on many occasions raised this issue. It is not necessary to have John So blessing and the State Government should have and could have acted independently from the Council.

The fact that the City Council is not subjected to a regular review is an indictment against teh State Governments and a blot on Richard Wynne's leadership. Richard more the anyone knows Melbourne ad the issues involved. Instead of addressing these issues the State government opted for a head in the sand turn a blind eye approach.

The Councillors suppoorting the review should also share some of the blame. They had three years in which to raise these issues, they choose not to, leaving it to teh last minute and allowing John So to scuttle ay hope for a meaningful review.

The Council could have also opened up0 the committee structure and provided more local input and expertise. The Council has failed in all respects to deliver much needed reform, they must share responsibility equally with John So who continues to pander to the popular at the expense of responsible good governance.


Residents put city council on notice

Ian Royall, Herald Sun, March 28, 2008 12:00am

AN alliance of 10 city residents' groups has fired the first salvo in what it calls the battle for democracy in Melbourne.

The Coalition of Residents Associations has described the voting system for the Melbourne City Council as dysfunctional and undemocratic.

The group wants Local Government Minister Richard Wynne, who was mayor between 1990 and 1991, to intervene.

The push comes after the latest move for an electoral review was defeated by Lord Mayor John So Melbourne Living team at council on Tuesday.

The alliance wants:

POSTAL voting scrapped in favour of attendance voting;

REINTRODUCTION of the wards system;

REVIEW of the popular vote to elect the mayor. It claims the current method favours the richest candidate;

REVIEW of provisions allowing company directors and landlords to vote;

ALL candidates to have been on the electoral roll for at least two years before the election.

Former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin said Melbourne was exempt from periodic reviews that applied to all other councils in Victoria.

"Melbourne could go for 50 years without a review under the current legislation."

Cr Fiona Snedden said the city needed a return to one vote one value principles.

She called on the lord mayor to act.

Cr So said he had had fruitful talks with the residents' groups.

"But six months before the election is not the appropriate time for a review," Cr So said.

Melbourne is growing by more than 9000 people because of the boundary changes that rope Docklands, North Melbourne and Kensington into the municipality.

The lord mayor said he had worked with the government over the boundary changes and was confident the current system was effective.

Mr Wynne's spokesman, Dan Ward, said: "The Government does not intend to change the council structure or the voting processes."

CORA member Jackie Watts said residents hoped transparency could be restored at Town Hall.

Mr Chamberlin said the case for a review was overwhelming.

"There is a lack of transparency and a lack of democracy," he said.

CEO pitches a curve ball on the eve of his departure

David Pitchford, Melbourne's soon to depart CEO in an interview reported in the Age Newspaper has made some rather interesting comments. The statements raise more questions and could possible give some insight into why he did not make the grad.

Pitchford had overseen the expansion of the City Council at an unprecedented rate. His out of control unfettered "design me a job" benefits he offered his senior team had left the City facing near bankruptcy. It was not until the Council called in a team of experts management consultants (At an addition cost to the CEO's $350,000 per year plus benefits remuneration) that the Council began to face reality.

Melbourne has only had three really good Ceos in recent memory. John Young, Elizabeth Proust and Andy Friend. Each person had a different approach and style to governance.

The Council went down hill fast following the appointment of Micheal Malouf (Who most people have forgotten already). It was under Malouf that governance standards declined dramatically and corruption began to set in. The Council no longer maintained a "non-political" professional management. Malouf's contribution aided and abetted by Alison Lyons lead to the dismissal of the elected City Council who was held out as the escape goat for poor governance whilst Maklouf and the administration escaped blame or accountability. Sure there were just reasons to dismiss the City Council at the time but the situation was made worst by a CEO who was out of his depth.

Part of the solution introduced by the then Minister (He did not last long) Bob Cameron was the introduction of a directly elected Lord Mayor. (On what basis the minister made this decision is difficult to determine as the review hearing was held behind closed doors and copies of submissions received where never published) Exactly who supported the idea is unknown but what is clear is that the directly elected Lord Mayor is part of the problem and not the solution

The direct election of a popular Lord Mayor has failed to deliver good governance and the elected Council is worst off as a result. There are many arguments against the notion of a directly elected Lord Mayor which I will not go into here suffice to say that the Lord Mayor and chairman of the Council must maintain the confidence and support of the elected Council.

A directly elected Mayor is only held accountable once every four years where an appointed Mayor is held accountable daily by the elected Council.

"Mr Pitchford believes Local Government Minister Dick Wynne should review the City of Melbourne Act after next year's council elections, to evaluate whether the system of a popularly elected lord mayor has worked."

What was interesting in then Pitchford swan song was his request for the current Local Government Minister Dick Wynn (Former City of Melbourne Lord Mayor) for the Minister to review the direct election model.

The question should be why wait until the newly elected council is elected. Surely any review should be made prior to the 2008 election?

The City of Melbourne is due for a representation review but sadly the City is excluded from the process of review as applies to all other Municipalities in Victoria.

The State Government should undertake a comprehensive review of the City of Melbourne
(Including its external boundaries) early in the new year. Only then will we begin to address the real structural flaws that exist in the management of the City Council.

With the Federal Election soon out of the way NOW is the time to put the review in place and act before the November 2008 Municipal elections.

VEC refuses to publish submission critical of its handling of the State election Steve Tully brings the Local Government Review into disrepute

The Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to publish submissions made to the various Local Government Electoral Representation Reviews. The submission is critical of the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission's administration of the 2006 State Elections and its management of the Local Government review.

A statement made by Ms Sue Lang, representing Steve Tully - Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, indicated that the VEC would not be publishing the submission.

The Victorian Electoral Commission's refusal to publish the submission has once again brought the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Victorian Local Government review into disrepute.

The submissions are similar to previous submissions that have been published by the Victorian Electoral Commission except that the current submission includes a section that is critical of the Victorian Electoral Commission's administration and management of the 2006 Victorian State Election. Information that is relevant to the Local Government Electoral Representation Reviews.

Information obtained under Freedom of Information legislation has indicated that the software currently used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in determining the results of the election has not been fully certified.

The City of Melbourne in 2004 had paid the Victorian Electoral Commission over $100,000 for software development. Presumably similar amounts have been paid by other Local Council's and the State Government in what is a very expensive software development project. The fact that the software has not been fully certified and there are a number of short falls in it's design and implementation raises concerns in relation to exactly what has the Victorian Electoral Commission spent the money on.

The conduct of the November 2006 Victorian Legislative Council election had identified a number of serious errors in the administration and counting of the ballot indicating that the system put in place by the Victorian Electoral Commission were not fully tested and does not meet industry standards. Problems associated with the conduct of the State election was further compounded by the refusal of the Victorian Electoral Commissioner to publish detailed results of the State Election (including the number of postal and pre-polling votes issued and returned prior to November 25, recorded below-the-line preference data and the Commission's refusal to published the detailed polling place results of the Victorian Legislative Council).

The software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in the conduct of the State Election is the same software used for Local Council elections.

The Local Government Minister has yet to respond to the complaint.


Addendum notation

The Victorian Local Government Election Regulations clause 110 (4) states “Before calculating the result, the returning officer must reconcile the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received".

This is something that was clearly missing from the November 2006 Victorian State Election and not accounted for in the software used to determine the re4ulst of the State Election.

Had the VEC reconciled the electronic record of ballot papers with the total number of ballot-papers received the significant number of errors in the conduct of the election count would not have occurred. A complete lack of due diligence on behalf of the Victorian Electoral Commission