Wednesday, 23 September 2026

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc – Minister for Local Government, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Renters) (11:15): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I rise to speak on the amendments to the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026 moved in the other place. These amendments improve what is already a substantial reform package designed to strengthen integrity, accountability and governance in local government. It responds to recommendations from IBAC’s Operation Sandon, reflects issues raised through the Whittlesea commission of inquiry, supports fairer and more secure work through the framework for a local government fair jobs code and regulator and improves council operations and decision-making across our sector. At its core, this bill helps ensure councils are transparent, better governed and more capable of serving their wonderful communities, and so do these amendments moved by the government in the other place. This bill is about stronger communities through stronger local government. The Legislative Council amendments sharpen that objective by improving electoral fairness, strengthening integrity and accountability, making governance arrangements clearer and more workable and increasing public confidence in the City of Melbourne’s electoral and leadership systems.

The City of Melbourne Act 2001 is long past its review time, and issues with the act’s functionality and fairness have been raised with me since I was sworn in as the Minister for Local Government and, I am sure, with ministers for local government before me. These issues have a long history and require careful consideration and consultation to resolve in full, but I am very proud that this Labor government has taken very positive steps to strengthen the operation of the City of Melbourne.

These amendments abolish group voting tickets, the last use of that system in the Australian local government system, and of course we had the abolishment of group voting tickets only a little while ago in Victoria. Preference flows will no longer be controlled through opaque group voting ticket arrangements. These reforms follow more than two decades of a voting system shaped by arrangements introduced by the Kennett government in the 1990s and respond to the community and council’s own repeated calls for reform.

The government is so proud of its amendments already passed and is committed to further reviewing the City of Melbourne Act 2001 in this term of government. Work to commence this review is already underway. I am really proud as the minister. I am eager to see these deliver positive outcomes for residents of the City of Melbourne and strengthen democracy in this great city of ours, including by taking steps to ensure that each vote in the City of Melbourne is worth the same value. This practice was established under the Kennett government in 1993 and has played a significant role in disempowering residents in the City of Melbourne. By 2020, businesses and nonresident property owners made up the majority of the City of Melbourne’s electoral roll, leaving resident voters, around 43,000 people with a median age of 28 years, in the minority of those entitled to vote. I think everyone can agree that this practice is not befitting for a city that is more than a business hub and that is a community.

Through the review of the City of Melbourne Act, the government will receive advice on how best to achieve these reforms to increase fairness for the residents of the City of Melbourne. The City of Melbourne has advocated for a review of the City of Melbourne Act as well, and I am pleased to be commencing this work as the Minister for Local Government. More information will be distributed to stakeholders in the coming weeks, but it is an exciting and pivotal time in the City of Melbourne’s journey, with the work that is being done.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the advocacy of Melbourne councillor Davydd Griffiths. As a Labor-endorsed councillor candidate for the City of Melbourne in 2020 and 2024, he consistently called for reforms to the enrolment and voting rules in the City of Melbourne. Davydd is a tireless advocate for the Melbourne community. I wish him all the best in his campaign going forward.

I also want to acknowledge the Leader of the Greens political party as well for advocacy in this space and work in the upper house, and all those that contributed to the debate and discussion, even the work that was put forward by my counterpart, the Shadow Minister for Local Government Bev McArthur in the other place. While we do not agree on all these changes and reforms, this is how the work of our Parliament best serves Victorians: to tease out these ideas, vote on them, have these amendments put through and lead to a better outcome for Victorians.

Amendments moved by the government in the other place further strengthen the integrity provisions of the bill by requiring published guidelines for arbitration decisions. The guidelines will ensure consistency and give arbiters clarity on what they must take into consideration when making a finding of misconduct or directing or suspending a councillor. This will provide clarity and confidence in councillor conduct processes. These amendments also extend the time for councillors to make an application for an arbitration process. This will ensure that poor conduct by councillors, where they breach the councillor code of conduct, is held to account. Across our 79 municipalities and the work that our councillors do, we want to raise the standards and also ensure that Victorian communities across our municipalities are getting the very best outcomes from their councillor elected representatives.

I am grateful to my colleagues across the Parliament for the work they have done in collaborating on the bill and with the government and I particularly give a shout-out to the minister in the other place, Ingrid Stitt, who does a power of work in this space. We passed the legislation through in the Assembly, and it takes a lot of work to get to that point, so I acknowledge the incredible work of the minister, not only in her portfolios but across her duties in the other place. The government in the other place supported the Greens political party’s amendments to end automatic enrolment of businesses and non-resident property owners. I acknowledge that amendment that was moved in the other place and the work of the member for Melbourne. The government’s intention was to pursue this reform through the City of Melbourne Act 2001 review, but we accepted the Greens political party’s amendment because fundamentally both the government and many of our colleagues across the Parliament want to ensure the electoral roll is built through active enrolment rather than automatic inclusion.

The opposition moved amendments to reform the process for filling a vacancy in the office of Deputy Lord Mayor, requiring the council to appoint a councillor if the vacancy arises six months or more before a general election and then treating that councillor’s former office as an extraordinary vacancy. That obviously deals with the current circumstance of the Liberal candidate for Western Metropolitan Region Roshena Campbell and is an important step around ensuring continuity and support for the City of Melbourne going forward as well. It maintains leadership continuity, so important when ensuring any resulting council vacancy is dealt with under the established statutory framework.

These amendments are practical, fair and necessary. They improve the operation of the councillor stand-down provisions, they reduce the risk of unnecessary instability in councils and they support the broader purpose of the bill, which is to strengthen integrity, accountability and governance in local government.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by the Department of Government Services. Their teams are some of the most amazing people you could meet. The work that they have done in preparing the bill for the Legislative Assembly, down to the minutes of changes to legislative proposals, bills and drafting, is just truly extraordinary. I will not name them, but they know who they are. They are some of the best people in the public service, and I want to thank them for all their work, their diligence and care, because this bill will greatly change the outcomes for local government and, in its name, strengthen communities. I commend the bill to the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:23): I rise to make some comments on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. I want to put on record some key points in the bill that we will be opposing, which we pushed very hard in the upper house. I want to commend the Shadow Minister for Local Government Bev McArthur, who has worked tirelessly with stakeholders to ensure that we get this particular bill right. There are a number of things that we do support, and I acknowledge the Minister for Local Government’s contribution. Strengthening local government is really important. We should be striving towards that in the best possible way we can.

I will say, however, that what we have seen in the upper house is symbolic of what we would see from a Labor–Greens government should they be re-elected. We hear a lot about coalitions, and the coalition that we must be really concerned about is a Labor–Greens government. A Labor–Greens government is disastrous when it comes to restarting our economy here in Victoria. If you ever want to understand just how bad things are, just talk to business, or just talk to industry. Just talk to anybody and they will say that it is so hard to do business in Victoria. There is a saying ABV – anywhere but Victoria –because this government has been ideologically opposed to business and ideologically opposed to investment. We have got the Minister for Small and Family Business at the table now. She understands that, because she would be hearing this each and every day when she visits small businesses. They would be saying that this government just has complete disregard for business. This particular bill today is symbolic of that, because we have had a longstanding historical commitment to ensure those businesses that actually employ people in our great CBD of Melbourne are able to vote and are on the roll. That has been –

Ellen Sandell interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Melbourne can interject as much as she likes, but the member for Melbourne knows that she has done a deal with the Labor Party to ensure that the voices of Melbourne businesses have been lost because of this particular bill. What has happened –

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, members are required according to the standing orders to be factual. The member for Caulfield is not being factual. Businesses will still get to vote in the City of Melbourne after these amendments.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member for Melbourne knows that is not a point of order. It is a matter for debate. It is not the Chair’s responsibility or purview to determine the facts of the matter.

David SOUTHWICK: As we know, thanks to the member for Melbourne and the Greens and the Labor Party, businesses will each and every time have to enrol to stay on the roll to vote; otherwise they will be taken off the roll. Thanks to the member for Melbourne and the Greens, who hate business, hate the economy and hate anyone trying to have a job, who are ideologically opposed to government, this is what we would have under a Labor–Greens coalition government. Welcome to Melbourne. Welcome to Victoria. We have Melbourne, the most livable city seven years in a row. These businesses have had to deal with a pandemic. They have had to deal with lockdowns, they have had to deal with protests – they have had to deal with issue after issue because of a government that has completely neglected them. This government just needs to walk the streets of Melbourne and talk to the businesses that have struggled to keep their doors open. Now what this government wants to do is take the voice away from many of these hardworking businesses that employ people and bring visitation back to our great city and our state. The City of Melbourne is the heart of our state. When that is not beating, the rest of the state struggles, and that is what has been happening under the last three premiers.

Natalie Suleyman interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The minister for small business wants to talk down my feelings and sentiment for this great state.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! The minister is not to interject over the table, please.

David SOUTHWICK: The minister for small business keeps interjecting, but the minister for small business has not spoken to small business. It is ironic. You have got a portfolio of small business, but you walk around with your head literally buried in the sand.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Caulfield, through the Chair.

Natalie Suleyman: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have been listening for a short period of time to the member’s contribution on the other side. I do point to the matter that is before the Parliament. I do want to say that there are more businesses that are opening their doors in Victoria and Melbourne, and we are seeing more investment and more trade opportunities in Melbourne.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Minister, is there a point of order?

Natalie Suleyman: The point of order is the matter before Parliament. It is totally out of context.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Is the point on relevance?

Natalie Suleyman: That is right: relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): In terms of relevance, it is a wideranging debate. I encourage all members speaking on this, though, to stick to the bill before us, the amended bill from the Legislative Council.

David SOUTHWICK: The minister has been here long enough to know that vexatious points of order are irrelevant points of order when we are talking about something so important, about small businesses that have lost their voice thanks to the now Carroll Labor government. They have lost their voice, because prior to this legislation and amendment here those businesses would be on the roll automatically. They would not have to go with another level of bureaucracy to re-enrol each and every time there was a vote. But hang on a minute, wait, we know this government loves bureaucracy and red tape. We know because they have just added another one. They have added another one and made it harder for these businesses. The Minister for Small and Family Business should know how hard it is to run a business, how much regulation and red tape these businesses need to comply with each and every day, and yet the small business minister is backing more regulation and red tape for small business. What a joke. This shows that this small business minister has no idea about how hard it is to run a business, no idea about the regulation and red tape that these businesses have to deal with. The minister is allowing yet more regulation and red tape and the very businesses that keep our city thriving and open to close –

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, in terms of being factual, the shadow minister should be factual with the business community about the impact the $40 billion in cuts is going to have on decimating businesses and small businesses across our community, sacking one in seven workers –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Pascoe Vale, order! That is not a point of order.

David SOUTHWICK: It is obvious that the government is very touchy about this, because what we have is a confidence issue in this state. What we have is people that are choosing not to invest in this state because we have the worst government we have seen, one that has been so ideologically opposed to investment and to small businesses having a go and getting started in this state. We have seen it each and every time. This is so symbolic of what the Labor and Greens parties would do should they be elected in November. That is why they must be absolutely put down the bottom when it comes to voting at election time, because this is what they would do. The dirty deals that Labor and the Greens have done have again slammed businesses in the CBD, once the most thriving city that this state, this country and the world had ever seen. It was the world’s most livable city for seven years running. We have lost the title because we have a government that hates small business.

Do not forget this government has presided over week after week of protests down in the city despite these businesses calling out for the government to do something. A lot of these individual businesses stood there strongly to say it is important that they have a voice. It was council, as a result of many of those businesses standing up, that employed a private security firm to help with some of the law and order issues in this state. Why? Because the government have run out of funding to fund police in the CBD of Melbourne, so we have now got private security to deal with it. How did this happen? It happened because a lot of those businesses cried and called out for more protection. Because we see knife crime and stores vandalised. We have seen graffiti attacks. We have seen the city being turned to rack and ruin because the government have not invested in it and the government has not provided a law and order response. That is why it is important for businesses to have that voice and to work with council, because when you see a government that does not support this great city, unfortunately, in this particular instance, the council has had to stand up, because there has been a huge gap as a result of the government’s lack of action. That is why it is really important. I commend the Shadow Minister for Small Business in the other place, who said that the new Premier, who said we were going to have a reset and ensure that we had business at the table because they had been forgotten under the two previous premiers, has, in his very first test, shown his true colours when it comes to what he thinks about business, the nightlife economy, the tourism that the businesses provide, the commercial opportunities and the amount of people that come and work in the city. A lot of that has been slashed because the government have not invested and supported them.

This is another example. This is why it is really important that the businesses that pay taxes, that pay huge rates to the city and to the council, have their say in how the council is run and do not have to apply to the roll each and every time. We are not asking residents to reapply for the roll each and every time, but we are asking businesses to do that. We have got a two-tier system when it comes to voting, and we know why the government has done that – because the government hates business. The government hate business and say, ‘You know what, we want to get you off the roll. We want to ensure that you vote wherever we can get more Greens councillors on board, more Labor councillors, but at the end of the day, let’s ensure that businesses do not get a say.’ Businesses are struggling hard enough without having to do more regulation and fill in a voting paper to say ‘I want to vote’ and register to vote before having to vote. Let us not make it harder for business, let us actually make it easier for business. If you want an example about what we would do on our side versus what Labor do on their side, we would make it easier for businesses to have a say, we would make it easier for businesses to run their business and we would make it easier for businesses to employ more people. The largest employer of anybody is small business; 90 per cent of people that are employed by business are employed by small business. They are the backbone and the engine room of the economy. That is why we need to back them, not sack them, like this government has done when it comes to voting.

On other legislation points, we have supported a number of those amendments because we believe this is really important. We support the removal of group voting tickets from City of Melbourne elections. That is certainly consistent with what we have done in the other place when it comes to group voting tickets more generally. They are clauses 1, 10 and 13. We also support clauses 3, 4, 5, 11 and 14 when it comes to the deputy lord mayor vacancy being filled by appointment. That amendment avoids a costly by-election for City of Melbourne ratepayers. Of course this is sensible stuff. Why send people off to another election? When, again, what we have is a fine deputy mayor, by the way – Roshena Campbell – who has done an outstanding job when it comes to tourism in the city and when it comes to planning in the city. She will do a great job when she comes into the other place as well, and she will teach a thing or two to many –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! I cannot hear the member on his feet.

David SOUTHWICK: Many on the other side of the house are quite jealous because they will not be returned in November, whereas Roshena Campbell will be, with real experience, with real know-how, with a can-do attitude and, guess what? For those opposite – she actually knows a thing or two about business and will back business. There will be confidence back in this state under Roshena Campbell, and we are looking forward to having Roshena join us in the other place.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Members to my right place. Order, please! I am just trying to hear.

David SOUTHWICK: We are looking forward to having Roshena Campbell join us in the other place. She will contribute greatly to the debate and greatly to the future of this state and will ensure that we have small businesses properly represented. I acknowledge that, and at the same time, I acknowledge the government’s support of our amendment with this to ensure that we avoid a costly by-election, which of course is ridiculous when it is only a few months out from an election.

We also support new clauses 18A and 18B, on arbitration guidelines and extending the application window from three to six months and on publishing guidelines to give councillors more certainty in arbitration. The longer window gives more scope for vexatious complaints, but the change is modest. Again, we have seen this happen many times. We have vexatious claims on councillors. They need to be sorted out. When it comes to cost, these are additional costs that are incurred. Dealing with those matters is important where we can do those.

The last one that we are also supporting is clause 21, which is the principal councillor conduct register, to publish model code arbitration guidelines. We supported that in the Council. Dealing with arbitration issues and largely being able to sort those out again minimises the cost involved in doing it in any other proposed way.

There are real issues in this bill when it comes to businesses having their say. I acknowledge that it really demonstrates the lack of care of this government and certainly its lack of acknowledgement of the great contributions small businesses make in our city and in our state. We do not support that. We will back business to the hilt. They are the engine room; they drive small business. The CBD of Melbourne has been through hell and back. Those businesses have been through hell and back. We have seen a 4 per cent vacancy of small businesses, and we are in double digits when it comes to general occupancy in this state. We have got to change that. We have got to reset. It starts with Melbourne – it starts with confidence – and we will work with business to ensure we reset and restart our economy and restart the CBD. We will not work against them. It is a commitment under a Wilson-led government that we will ensure that Victoria gets back the reputation it had.

I cannot wait to get our most livable city reputation back in this state. But you will not get that under this Labor lousy lot, and you will certainly not get that when you have got a Labor lousy lot with a Greens coalition. That is the worst, worst outcome that Victorians could have come November. Victorians need to really think long and hard: do we want a Labor government with Greens coalition? Do we want that? Can we risk that? I think the answer is no, because if you think that we are heading towards a rust-bucket state, you wait and see if you get the Greens in coalition with Labor what they would do to this great state. I will tell you what, they will sell us down the river – that is what this government intends to do. That is why we must think long and hard when it comes to November, ensure that our vote counts, forget about those Greens and absolutely send Labor a message: it is time for a fresh start, Victoria.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:42): I actually do not like hearing my city trashed. Melbourne is ranked as Australia’s most livable city and third in the world, according to the Global Liveability Index 2026 by the Economist Intelligence Unit. I think Melbourne is bloody fantastic, but it is being endorsed globally. Those opposite, they take any opportunity to talk our beautiful city down –

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Maybe they do. And hey, they want to join up with One Nation – I would not be too proud of that. So, take them apples.

But anyway, I rise to speak on the amendments to the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Bill 2026. These amendments improve what was already a substantial reform package designed to strengthen integrity, accountability and governance in local government. It responds to recommendations from IBAC’s Operation Sandon, reflects issues raised through the Whittlesea commission of inquiry, supports fairer and more secure work through the framework for a local government fair jobs code and regulator, and improves council operations and decision-making across the sector.

The other thing I just want to mention about how we support businesses, perhaps in the CBD particularly but not only, is our major events calendar – our jam-packed major events calendar. The Australian Open, Cartier exhibition, Boxing Day test, grand prix, NFL and AFL combined contribute $3.64 billion to the state’s economy. When you talk about how we back in our businesses, this is a key way that we do it. Again, putting it down to one councillor that has done all this magic – I am not taking anything away from the work of the City of Melbourne, but the state also plays a major part in helping to support our businesses in our wonderful city of Melbourne.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (11:44): I also rise to speak on the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities) Act 2026 and in particular those amendments that would make elections in the City of Melbourne fairer, more transparent and more democratic. These are simple, they are sensible and they are overdue. I am proud to say that they came from the Greens in negotiations with the government. I would also like to thank the minister, the government and the Premier’s office for their negotiations in good faith over something that will strengthen our democracy.

Two of these amendments for democracy in the City of Melbourne would not have happened without the Greens. They were not proposed by the Labor government initially and they happened because the government did need the Greens votes to pass this bill, and our support was contingent on changing the incredibly archaic City of Melbourne voting system that sees residents’ votes watered down in favour of big business, which skews democracy in our central city. Yes, this is what you get when you have Greens in power. You get more democracy, you get more transparency and you get more say for residents, and all of those are good for people in Victoria, because for too long residents who live in the City of Melbourne have had less democracy than everyone else in the state. That is not fair. It is not fair that just because you live in the City of Melbourne you get less democracy than everywhere else. It is fundamentally undemocratic, and I am so pleased that we are going some way towards changing that today.

The first amendment abolishes group voting tickets in the City of Melbourne. This Parliament has only recently gotten rid of group voting tickets and preference whispering at state elections for our upper house. We did that because this Parliament recognised that it is fundamentally undemocratic for parties and backroom preference whisperers rather than voters to decide where their preferences flow at an election. Once we removed that archaic system at our state elections for the upper house, the only place in the entire country where these dodgy group voting tickets remained was the City of Melbourne. But we in the Greens fundamentally believe that voters in the City of Melbourne deserve democracy the same as everyone else and that residents of the City of Melbourne deserve to be able to determine where their own preferences go. They should not be determined by backroom political party deals or paid preference whisperers who use our democracy as a way to make money.

When a voter puts a 1 in a box above the line on their ballot, their preferences could travel through deals that they never witnessed, that they did not know anything about, to candidates that they had never heard of and may never have supported. In fact they might vote for one party and have their preferences end up with a party that had fundamentally the opposite view to the first party that they voted for. That is not democracy; it is people profiting off and gaming a flaw in our election system, a flaw that everyone else in the country had gotten rid of except for Victoria and except for the City of Melbourne. My colleague Dr Tim Read campaigned tirelessly against these dodgy group voting tickets. When the state reforms passed the Assembly, he said he hoped to see them also removed from the City of Melbourne but that he worried that that might be something that was kicked off into the future as a matter for another day. I am very glad that he got to live to see these amendments pass through the upper house and that we are finally finishing that job today. I am proud that it is something the Greens have long campaigned for and that we were able to use our powers to effect this change to improve our democracy.

The second amendment ends the automatic enrolment of businesses and non-resident property owners to ensure that it is residents in the City of Melbourne who get to decide who is elected to their council and the key position of Lord Mayor, not businesses and not landlords who do not live in the city. In every other Victorian council, non-resident owners, such as people who own property but do not actually live in the council area, get to vote in council elections, but they have to opt in. They have to enrol to vote. Yet the City of Melbourne, because it has its own act, works differently. Businesses and non-resident landlords are enrolled automatically and then fined if they do not vote. What that means is that the City of Melbourne actually has to spend huge amounts of time and money trawling through lists of businesses who have their headquarters in the city, including overseas businesses and interstate businesses. In fact officers are even employed to walk up and down the streets of our suburbs in the City of Melbourne to note down the names of businesses that are there. Then they automatically put the names of two directors of these businesses onto the electoral roll without them knowing about it, without their consent, and they send them a ballot. These people might be in Singapore, they might be overseas, they might be in Queensland – we do not know. They are just the top two directors, often, on the business’s board.

They send them a ballot, and then they send them a warning that says they will be fined if they do not return that ballot. Not only is it undemocratic, it is actually a huge cost to the ratepayers of the City of Melbourne to have to undertake this exercise at every single election. I was interested to hear the contribution of the member for Caulfield, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, because I thought that the Liberal Party would not want ratepayers money to go to something as wasteful as this. I thought that the Liberal Party was all about reining in wasteful spending, yet his contribution indicated that the Liberal Party wanted to continue to have the City of Melbourne use a huge amount of ratepayer money on this unnecessary and incredibly costly exercise. It does not make any sense to me. In this instance it is actually the Greens who are the fiscally responsible ones who are trying to rein in waste and save money and also protect our democracy.

The effect of this automatic enrolment of businesses and non-resident landlords and investors is, in effect, to compel large numbers of disengaged landlords, investors and businesses to vote, even those who have absolutely no stake in the decisions of council. I want to give you one example that one of my constituents sent me that she found on Reddit. There was a Reddit thread that was titled ‘Melbourne city Council election. Sydney voters?’, and this is the message. It says:

My friend has no affiliation with a business or residency in Victoria. They aren’t even a citizen of Australia. Why would they be asked to vote on the Melbourne city council elections?

They are asking Reddit why their friend has been sent a ballot and told that they have to vote in the City of Melbourne. Then they did some digging and came back with an answer. They said:

Solved! Their Melbourne based accountant created a family trust company in their name, using the accountants address –

and clearly that accountant was in the City of Melbourne –

Pretty crazy that entitles a non citizen to vote.

This is the kind of thing that is happening in the City of Melbourne. Potentially this one accountant was doing this with their one address in the City of Melbourne for dozens or hundreds of different people, creating family trusts and then needing an address, innocently putting down their CBD, City of Melbourne, address as the address that was linked to that family trust, and then all of a sudden those family trusts get two votes in the City of Melbourne, they automatically get sent ballots and then they get fined if they do not vote. These are people who live interstate or overseas, and in this case someone who is not even a citizen. This is what was happening in the City of Melbourne, and the aberration to our democracy.

What it resulted in was the number of businesses, non-resident investors and landlords outweighing and diluting the voices of people who actually lived in the city, people who actually used its services and are affected by the decisions of council. Those of us who actually live in the City of Melbourne – I am one of them – are the ones who are affected by the decisions of council about how our rates are spent, who is elected as lord mayor and who is elected to our council. We are the ones who feel those decisions in our maternal health services, in our local parks, in all the services that the City of Melbourne provide. This dilution and outweighing of the residents’ vote was very, very stark. The minister mentioned in his contribution that non-resident owners of property and businesses made up nearly 60 per cent of the electoral roll in the City of Melbourne. That means that residents in the City of Melbourne only got 40 per cent of the votes in the City of Melbourne, which is just outrageous when you think about it. When you combine that with a system that already gives businesses two votes to a resident’s one – remember that in the City of Melbourne businesses still get two votes and residents only get one – it compounds this problem and you get a structural, built-in corporate bias in how the city is governed.

Let us be clear: under these amendments, businesses still get to vote. We accept that small businesses that operate and are based in the City of Melbourne have a stake in what happens in the City of Melbourne, the decisions that are made. They still get to vote; all they have to do is enrol, just like in every other council area in the entire state. This means that this system was fundamentally undemocratic. Even New South Wales acknowledged this. They recognised it years ago, because they had a system that was similar to this, and they reformed it. They changed it at the City of Sydney. They removed automatic enrolment of non-resident and business voters. The minister who did that at the time described the old arrangements which still existed in the City of Melbourne as something North Korea would be proud of. I do not think we want a voting system that North Korea would be proud of. I think we want a democracy here in the City of Melbourne. If our neighbours in Sydney could fix it, so could we, and I am glad that we are.

They are not new ideas; the Greens have moved these amendments before. Council candidates from across the spectrum – many, many different political parties – once they run for council, realise how broken the system is and they join the campaign to try and fix it. Many council candidates and lord mayor candidates have asked for this system to be overhauled. Labor’s own state conference in fact called for one vote, one value in the city in their own motion last year. So the question for us in this house is: if we believe in democracy and integrity in our voting system; if we believe that voters, not deals, should decide elections; and if we believe that residents should not be outweighed by businesses and corporations and absentee investors, then it is incumbent upon us to support the amendments that are before us today. One resident, one vote, one value – that is how democracy should work, and we have a chance to do that today in the City of Melbourne.

There were two other amendments that the Greens moved in the upper house that Labor and the Liberals would not support. One was to ban donations from property developers and other corporate interests to councillors and put a cap on donations to councillors and council candidates. That was one of them, because these reforms, we believe, are part of a bigger conversation about integrity in the City of Melbourne. At the 2024 council elections Lord Mayor Nick Reece, who is a former member of the Labor Party, received close to $1 million in donations, including tens of thousands from donors with property interests – property developers and those with pending developments in the City of Melbourne. Because of that, Nick Reece, the Lord Mayor, and his team that were elected with him have had to recuse themselves from planning decisions in the City of Melbourne council at least eight times. That is incredibly disruptive to our council. It is bad for our democracy. It is bad for good governance and decision-making when half a council has to walk out of the council chamber when a decision is before them because they have a perceived conflict of interest.

I am not suggesting that these donations influenced any specific decisions that he or his team made, and those decisions were perfectly lawful when he accepted them – and to his credit, he has argued for the system to change. But isn’t that exactly the problem – that it is lawful to take these huge donations from property developers who have a clear interest in what happens in council decisions, where council decisions can enrich a property developer? We have seen IBAC reports specifically recommend that this needs to be changed because of the corrupting influence that donations, particularly from property developers, have on our council decisions. When the rules allow these kinds of donations, they create, at the very least, a perception of conflict of interest, and that perception alone damages public trust in our democracy.

Residents deserve a system that is fair in practice and also fair in appearance. That means not just fixing who gets to vote and how preferences flow, as we are doing today, but also who gets to bankroll campaigns when it comes to council. For state elections we have rules that no single person or business can donate more than about $5000 in one election cycle period, and that is to ensure that big money cannot influence our politics. Labor, when we did those donation laws a number of years ago, promised to also institute these laws for council. But unsurprisingly, Labor backtracked and broke that promise. Now they have also voted against Greens amendments to ban dodgy property developer and corporate donations to council. It is disappointing that we had the opportunity to fix this with this bill and Labor refused to. They will continue to allow big money to influence our council politics, which is terrible for our residents, terrible for Victorians and terrible for democracy.

The other amendment that we attempted to move but that was blocked by the Labor and Liberal parties was to remove the double vote that businesses get. I think Victorians would be absolutely appalled to learn that while residents in the City of Melbourne are entitled to just one vote like everybody else, businesses get two votes in the City of Melbourne. That is right, a business vote is essentially weighted double that of an ordinary resident.

The Greens believe that businesses and nonresident investors should not really get any votes, but as I mentioned, they still will get votes under this system. Businesses do not get to vote at state or federal elections. Why do they get to vote at council elections? But even if we have a disagreement on businesses being able to vote, surely we could all agree that just one category of voter getting double the votes of everyone else is an absolute abomination. This plural voting was a feature, apparently, of 19th and 20th century councils in different places. It was officially abolished in Melbourne in 1969 but then reintroduced in 1993 by Jeff Kennett, and really that says all you need to know about the intentions behind the double business vote.

We live in a democracy. That means people get to decide who they elect and that people get to decide what happens in our halls of decision-making, not people who have a huge amount of money and not corporations. Corporations are not people, people are people. How much money you have, whether you have a business interest or whether under capitalism you have been able to amass an amount of capital to buy a business, should not determine that you get more votes than anybody else in this state. That is a fundamental principle of living in a democratic society, and yet we do not have that in the City of Melbourne. I think that is incredibly archaic.

I would say that it is incredibly disappointing that Labor refused to get rid of the double business vote in this bill while they had the chance, and it is certainly something that I will be fighting hard to get rid of as we head into the November election. Let us be clear: the Greens are fighting to get rid of the double business vote in the City of Melbourne at this state election. Labor and the Liberals want to keep the double business vote. Labor and the Liberals want to keep the system, an abomination of our democracy, where businesses and corporations get two votes in the City of Melbourne while everybody else – residents – gets only one each. This is a perversion of democracy. A fundamental principle of democracy is one vote, one value – that everyone’s vote should count for the same value. Only the Greens are fighting to end this double business vote abomination, and anyone else who believes that we should have a principle of one vote, one value in our democracy should vote Greens at the November state election, because we are the only ones who are fighting for residents to have an equal say in our democracy.

Fortunately, though, the Greens amendment that went through that got rid of automatic enrolment of businesses will go some way to levelling the playing field of our democracy. While businesses will still get two votes to residents’ one, it will get rid of the bizarre practice of two directors from a business automatically getting added to the roll, and that will significantly weight power back into residents’ hands where it belongs. We were also able to get the government to agree to a review of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 in this term of Parliament, not contingent on the election outcome and not after the election, and we hope that these issues, the issues of getting rid of dodgy donations to councils and the issues of the double business vote, will be taken up as part of this review.

I would like to thank my Greens colleagues, volunteers, council candidates and branch members for their hard work on this and my Greens MP colleagues for their tough negotiations to make democracy actually work for residents in the City of Melbourne, something that nobody else has been able to achieve since Kennett introduced these reforms.

We will also be supporting the amendment that means we do not need a costly by-election if the deputy lord mayor steps down – for example, to run for election, as the Liberal deputy lord mayor is doing. Our democracy is precious. We need to defend it. These Greens amendments go a large part of the way to fixing some of the biggest holes in our democracy in the City of Melbourne, and I very much commend them to the house.

Motion agreed to.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the decision of the house.