Council mergers worth considering

Voting in Melbourne's council elections closes today and the process has not been an inspiring example of democracy in action. With a record number of dummy candidates, amateurish how-to-vote material and police investigations of some of those standing, the elections have been seen by many as a joke. The problem is, with so much public money and time being wasted, the joke is on all of us.

The opportunity to freely take part in choosing our elected leaders is both a right and a privilege. When you're feeling annoyed that heading to the polling booth on a Saturday is cutting into your weekend, spare a thought for those millions around the world who never get to vote, living under dictatorships and other systems of government which render them voiceless.

But the equation works both ways – if we are to have the right to vote, our vote should mean something. The number of obvious dummy candidates in some councils has rightly been called a subversion of democracy. Flooding the ballot paper with names of people who have no intention of winning and are standing only to deliver their preferences to a genuine candidate is confusing for voters, a waste of time and arguably gives some an unfair advantage.

Similarly, those who take the election so lightly that the material they send out to voters is riddled with clumsy wording and spelling mistakes, and gives little idea of their views or values, need to examine their motives.

Local government is periodically the subject of debate over whether the third tier of government is really necessary. The Age does not support the abolition of all councils. Effective local government knows its area and its community well and can play an important role over issues such as planning and building and allocating amenities. Issues such as the surge in medium density housing in many inner council areas are best handled when local government has a role.

But those who argue for less local government, such as former Melbourne City Council chief executive Elizabeth Proust, make a strong case. There is obvious scope for councils to reduce duplication, improve efficiency and cut spending, and mergers could be part of this. 

Every one of Victoria's 79 councils is headed by a high-paid chief executive, who often enjoys annual pay rises of $10,000. Melbourne City Council has the highest paid CEO, earning at least  $460,000.

As one Melbourne City councillor, Stephen Mayne, pointed out, you could hit a golf ball from the steps of parliament into the neighbouring municipality, and we have the odd situation of each side of St Kilda Road being governed by a different council.

Some councils have also come to attention for the wrong reasons. Geelong council was sacked earlier this year after investigations found "bullying" at the bayside municipality. Wangaratta council was sacked in 2013 due to similar concerns. Secrecy in councils, with too many decisions made in meetings closed to the public, has become such a concern that Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass has launched an investigation into local government transparency.

Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins has not ruled out reducing the number of Victorian councils in the future and says there is a strong case for reducing waste through greater sharing of service arrangements. We would encourage the minister to consider this issue.

While The Age does not support any reduction in democratic rights and believes local communities must continue to be guaranteed a voice, there is merit in considering the merger of some local councils as a means of improving efficiencies, increasing transparency and cutting waste. There has been some evidence that mergers don't always deliver the efficiencies promised, so this process would need to be done carefully and with clear objectives.