Personal Explanation 30/9/2011
Clr.Jackie Watts
City of Melbourne
Topic : Voter Eligibility
Personal Explanation in response Personal Explanation made by Clr. Ong on
Tuesday Sept.13 and to the document distributed by Clr. Ong at that
meeting.
__________________________________________
 At the last Future Melbourne Committee meeting (Sept 13), a rarely used procedural
device, the ‘Personal Statement’ was adopted by Clr. Ong’s to express his views. It is
regrettable indeed that Councillors choose to communicate via such statements and
accompanying document. Significantly, this document, distributed to Councillors, staff
and the media - actually well in advance of the meeting - was not signed, dated or
tabled. No debate was permitted. There was no attempt whatsoever to seek clarification
or debate on electoral matters, which are, clearly, very poorly understood. Nor was the
full text of the document included in the Council minutes.
 While such criticism of the Notice of Motion (Item 6.3, Clause 1.1.7.) is acceptable, it
is not acceptable in my view, to adopt a strategy of innuendo and mischievous
misinterpretation and in so doing, attempt to malign constituent groups by questioning
the legitimacy of their views or the sincerity of their concerns. Such action is
unwarranted, inflammatory and unjust and - and so I feel, must be challenged now.
 The fact of the matter is that Notice of Motion (6.3) simply called upon Council to
again press the Minister for Local Government to review various aspects of our
municipal electoral system since she has to date failed to do so. To press for a review of
Melbourne’s unique electoral system, including voter eligibility criteria is not sinister,
and certainly not ‘unconstitutional’. Nor is a call to review voter eligibility criteria
‘discriminatory’. A review is, by definition, an exploratory process, raising issues, but
making no immediate judgements or conclusions. It is absurd to assert otherwise.
 Turning now to the actual substance of the Clause 1.1.7, voter eligibility (just one of the
7 proposed in Notice of Motion 6.3. It is important to note that even the most cursory
scan of the relevant academic literature on the evolution of the current franchise
arrangements in Victoria and elsewhere reveals that there have many electoral reviews
and subsequent reforms. Such reviews generally seek to address problematic issues that
have arisen as a consequence of change - ideological, socio/economic or demographic.
For example - perceptions around imbalance in electoral power, inequitable
representation or appropriate franchise. Our current system has been devised to deliver
the electoral outcomes reflecting prevailing conditions and objectives of an earlier time.
 Times have now changed. Melbourne has changed - the municipal demographic has
changed, the economic ‘drivers’ have changed, the % of the workforce that is now
‘global’ has changed, the % of absentee landlords has changed, the % of non-residents
has changed. This Council, the Minister for Local Government and the constituents of
Melbourne all recognize that, consistent with historical precedents, it is time for an
electoral review. A gerrymander exists to significantly advantage certain groups in the
electorate over others. The ‘balance’ between various constituent groups is no longer
valid or correct
 In any review of the electoral system, voter eligibility - and candidate eligibility for
that matter - are obviously crucial elements to consider. Again, let’s look at the facts.
A quick Internet search and/or scan of the relevant literature will reveal that when
comparisons are drawn between this municipality other municipalities in Victoria and
between with other comparable cities around the world. voter eligibility criteria in
Melbourne are extraordinarily generous.
 Yet suddenly, voter eligibility is the focus of self-righteous indignation and deemed to
be beyond review - a ‘no go zone’. What can have precipitated this reaction? Why
this bizarre attempt to stifle debate? What hidden agenda could it has threatened?
What might a review of voter eligibility question? Should Melbourne move to
‘harmonise’ or align our voter franchise arrangements with those of other
municipalities or States or levels of Government? Is our aberrant system conducive to
national or international business or administration? Should non-Australian residents
in Melbourne for one month be entitled to apply to vote in municipal elections? Is one
month’s residency appropriate today? Should we waive the need to apply for a vote at
all? Should candidates be required to have resided in the municipality for 6 months?
How many votes should there be per household? Should serviced apartment clients
have a vote? What should voter eligibility criteria be for global ex-pat workforce,
tourist visitors, interstate and international students? Is it valid that we distinguish
between ‘the right to vote’ and the right to have ‘consultative in-put’ into municipal
affairs by those involved with our city - for example day workers? What role should
citizenship have in determining voter eligibility?

Our electoral system is not perfect. It is not set in stone, and neither is our society. My
contention is that a comprehensive and objective review of all electoral matters
identified as problematic - identified by the constituents, identified by this Council and
acknowledged by the Minister herself – should be undertaken. The findings of such a
review should be enacted before yet another municipal election in 2012. The problems
are well known. Yet progress is stalled and this furore regarding voter eligibility is a
manifestation of this resistance to electoral reform. Such scrutiny perhaps spooks those
groups in the electorate, which are advantaged by the current system. One response is
to try to obscure the issues. For example, innuendo about some fictitious strategic
campaign involving community groups to achieve a particular electoral outcome.
Disinformation or inadequate understanding of our electoral system should not be
permitted to derail reasoned debate.
 I wish remind Councillors the resident and businesses groups making submissions in
support of this Motion 6.3 - including Clause 1.1.7), were in fact, exercising their
democratic right to express a view and give voice to genuine concerns. Their
experience and in-depth knowledge of our flawed electoral system is irrefutable. Any
Councillor questioning the legitimacy of their representatives advancing views on
behalf of their organizations, should note that since such groups are incorporated, and,
in accordance with the Associations Act, elect their committees and office bearers
democratically. These elected committees of the various groups have the
responsibility of developing policies and positions on behalf of their members.

In conclusion -let me be quite clear. Unlike the more politically ambitious amongst us,
my concern and the concern of community groups supporting the Motion, 6.3 is to
achieve equitable and proper electoral representation in the municipality of Melbourne.
Nothing more - and nothing less. Others may ‘jockey’ for electoral advantage. We do
not. We actually value grass roots democracy and the opportunity for participation in
the decisions facing this Council, and those seeking to defend the status quo will not
stifle us. We deserve to have our agenda for electoral reform to be treated respectfully
and to have a fair, independent and impartial consideration of its merits and
articulation of the outcomes of a Review.