Poorly protected voter privacy
Recently, l applied for a postal vote as l will be absent from my electorate on polling day. The documents l received were the ballot papers and an envelope to put the completed papers in, all very straightforward, but what followed highlights the incompetence of government departments in dealing with matters of great importance; in this case, exercising my right to vote. The front-side of the envelope has the divisional returning officer's details on the top right corner. The bottom left corner has my name and address. After marking the ballot papers and putting them in the envelope, a small flap of paper provided at the bottom can now be folded up to conceal my name and address.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Now, here's the news flash: On the reverse side of the envelope is my name and address, my phone number, my signature, and the signature of my chosen witness for all the world to see. The concealment of my name and address on the front-side is more critical than much more sensitive information on the back; that is according to the policy of the AEC.
On closer inspection though, this is just a further example of a sloppy bunch of bureaucrats who obviously don't have the intelligence to design a product to the secure the privacy of citizens. Of course, l can purchase a cheap envelope to secure my private information, but that misses the point. The government requires us by law to vote, so my requirement of the government if they offer me the option of postal voting, is to provide me with the appropriate package to protect my privacy. After all, it is the government who trumpets ad nauseum the need to keep our personal information secure, so why don't the practice what they preach?
Adrian Lillis, Mt Clear
A legacy of debt
This Council has determined that with only four months remaining of its current tenure, it intends to borrow $20 million, which will leave the next elected council (October 22) and subsequent councils hamstrung to achieve any future community development over the next four years and beyond.
This is simply unacceptable. Council must start moving into caretaker mode and not make such major costly commitments. We, the community, must demand that only essential services be provided using recurrent finances up until the election on 22 October, and no capital expenditure for major projects be undertaken until the new Council is elected and is able to examine Council's financial position and determine an interim budget within the rate-capping constraints that come into effect from 1 July.
Council's finances need to be forensically and independently audited. The 2017-18 budget should be thoroughly assessed for its community benefit and that Council's business units will be required to justify their future budget bids in a presentation to councillors.Gone are the days of automatic rate increases without justification. Council, like its ratepayers and shareholders, must work within its financial constraints. Any new major projects must seek state, federal, corporate or philanthropic support. Prioritising projects based on community need and benefit is a must.
In conversation with many people recently, the overwhelming view is councillors must change. The actions of some have been irresponsible; look at the Schinck reappointment fiasco, which five of them supported, not to mention the untenable rises in rates over the past three budgets without the delivery of beneficial outcomes to the community.
Change and renewal is essential to return our Council back to one that has the community's best interests as its number one priority and that it is accountable to the community.
Ron Egeberg, is a candidate for the 2016 Ballarat City Council Elections
