General News
23 October, 2024
Perspective: Consistency in the eyes of integrity
By CHRIS EARL LOCAL government election campaigns are in the final stretch - last week there was a little bit of good old argy-bargy out there on the hustings. It was dutifully pointed out by one candidate that all election material must have the...
By CHRIS EARL
LOCAL government election campaigns are in the final stretch - last week there was a little bit of good old argy-bargy out there on the hustings.
It was dutifully pointed out by one candidate that all election material must have the street number of the person authorising the printed pitch for votes. With a thin veil, perhaps, drawing attention of another candidate who had who was close with the digits but not close enough.
All about integrity and transparency it was said. Indeed the Local Government Inspectorate would only say: “The Local Government Inspectorate deals with complaints in strict confidence. As an integrity agency, we cannot provide information on any complaints or allegations we have received, nor on any investigations underway.”
So we’re none the wiser on how many complaints have been made about the conduct of Loddon Shire ward elections.
But the nitty-gritty of campaigning requirements does raise questions about consistency and level of expected transparency. For example, in neighbouring City of Greater Bendigo there are three “independent” candidates in the mix for possible election.
They have authorised their own printed material, with the address of Bendigo Trades Hall but no mention of the overarching union organisation.
The Local Government Inspectorate could use any post-election review to look at what address details are appropriate in the 21st century.
Insisting on a street number identifies an individual’s location (we would hope not putting at risk their personal safety or that of others). But under the current Act, it’s okay to use a post office box. Hardly the way to quickly have a chat with a candidate, that is if transparency of identification is so important.
The Local Government Act 2020 has also been interpreted as requiring every social media post of candidates to carry an authorisation line. Even those not facing an election are, apparently. required to observe that edict.
Yet there have been countless social media posts across Victoria shared online to other “local pages” by candidates. The original post may have had an authorisation but not the share! Mmmmm.
The Local Government Inspectorate may well have the correct interpretation of the Act to support its stance of refusing to divulge information on alleged breaches.
But in the washup from local council elections, both the inspectorate and the State Government should release data on how many alleged breaches there have been, the types of breaches and, importantly what commonsense changes may be required to retain and build integrity of the local government election process.
Oh, and a little practical application of lateral consistency wouldn’t be a bad thing either in refining rules of parish pump politics.