Wednesday, 4 March 2026

 John LISTER (Werribee) (18:01): In returning to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025, I want to use this half of my time to reflect a little bit on the experience of the Werribee by-election and the Prahran by-election as being some of the most recent examples of elections in Victoria under the system that we have with the Victorian Electoral Commission. One of the comments that I had back during the by-election was discussion about some of the issues with authorisation of materials. I know that in the by-election review there is a little bit of commentary and some recommendations around the authorisation of materials and the way the VEC handled particularly third-party authorisations. This bill does not necessarily go into that space, but it does go into another interesting space when it comes to authorisations.

I remember reading recently that in Tasmania they had a lot of difficulty because their legislation said that they had to have authorisation on their materials of where their electoral materials were being printed. Unfortunately in Tasmania they did not have a printer that they could use, so it had to come from Victoria, across on the ships. It caused a little bit of a panic, and they had to do some last-minute changes to make sure that they were still complying with the law. But it is a little bit old-fashioned. It comes from an era where we wanted to show where someone could go to hassle and say, ‘Hey, who put this pamphlet out about this particular political issue?’ We will remove that requirement to display the details of printers and publishers on that printed material particularly and provide greater clarity around the way electoral material should be authorised, particularly around paid advertisements; printed material, which we know about; and any material produced by or on behalf of entities who receive political donations under the act.

One of the other things that came out of the Werribee by-election, and a lot of other elections that we have had, is early voting. Early voting is an important part of our system. It means that people who are unable to be there on election day still get that opportunity to vote. We have been grappling with this idea of early voting since 1861, particularly around the idea of how to vote when you are going to be absent on election day. Early voting only really emerged in Victoria in 1985, so it is a relatively recent thing for us. Since then we have been working through what is a fair period to have early voting.

This bill will allow for a shorter early voting period by setting a default duration of 10 days, reducing that early voting period from the current duration of 12 days down to 10 days. One of the issues with the 12 days is if you have a weekend included, it can feel like two weeks in a campaign, and two weeks is quite a long time. From people who cast their ballot on that first day of early voting all the way to election day, a lot can happen in two weeks. They say a week is a long time in politics. Well, two weeks is an era.

Accessible voting is important, and some of the things that we saw in the by-election that worked particularly well were some of the changes to mobile voting, but particularly some of the low-sensory environment voting trials that were done as well. We need to make sure that we make voting as accessible as possible, but we also need to make sure that people can engage with the political campaigns to understand what it is those people are putting forward as the best options for their community. Putting forward policies, even in a by-election, is important, despite the fact that the gentleman who ran against me did not put forward any policies. Even with 12 days of early voting, I do not think that would have changed much for what people were thinking. It is important to have that early voting but to make sure that it is balanced.

The other thing that I am sure many of us have experienced when scrutineering is counting for the Legislative Council and making it really clear that does not have to start immediately after 6 pm. The priority is finding out what is happening here in the lower house, because that is the house of government, and we want to make sure that we have got a government as close to election night as possible. So it is just clarifying that counting must begin as soon as practicable. In conclusion, from those experiences from the by-election, I commend this bill to the house.

 Tim READ (Brunswick) (18:06): I would like to share some concerns about the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025, because it does miss the mark on urgently needed electoral reform in Victoria. Instead it cherrypicks from recommendations of the Electoral Review Expert Panel, Electoral Matters Committee and the Victorian Electoral Commission and clings to a system that unfairly favours the two major parties. What is left of the bill is some mostly uncontroversial recommendations from those bodies, but what really we would have liked to have seen in this bill is real reform to create an electoral system which advantages candidates of merit rather than those with money.

The original version of this bill included amendments to the operation of nominated entities. While we assume those amendments are on hold pending the determination of the High Court, I will note that there is no way to justify nominated entities. Nominated entities must be abolished because, like group voting tickets, their continued existence is a blight on democracy in Victoria. For those unfamiliar, the Electoral Act 2002 currently caps political donations that can be received by parties, candidates and MPs. Registered political parties can avoid this cap by appointing a nominated entity, which can transfer funds to the party without those transfers being treated as a gift and therefore without counting toward the donation cap. Before the donation cap reform of 2018 Labor, the Nationals and the Liberals stockpiled millions of dollars in these nominated entities. That money is still sitting there, ready to be spent at the next election. The expert panel said it clearly: nominated entities should be abolished with transitional arrangements, and if the High Court does not abolish them by decree, our collective responsibility to democracy is that we do so in this Parliament. The now scrapped amendments to nominated entities were an attempt to put lipstick on a pig without stopping the major parties from gorging themselves in their troughs of old money. The amendments, by clarifying that the definition of ‘gift’ does not include electoral or political expenditure that benefits third parties, would have allowed nominated entities to spend unlimited amounts of money on election campaigns in support of their affiliated party or candidate. The amendments would have also permitted major parties to use half a million dollars of nominated entity slush funds every election cycle to pay campaign staff and organisers, rent campaign offices in marginal seats and run what are essentially campaign ads.

When we prop up a system in which accumulated wealth is a key determinant of electoral success, we let down Victorian voters and rip holes in the fragile fabric of our democracy. Our voters deserve electoral laws that advantage candidates who will go above and beyond to represent and to show up for their electorates, not just those with the deepest pockets. Under the current system an independent or small party candidate could have the best policies, the strongest community support, and with volunteers ready to donate their time – genuine grassroots backing – and they would still get massively outspent. That is not a fair contest. Victorians deserve an electoral system that represents them, not the interests of big corporations and the billionaire class.

The bill shies away from the real structural reform that our electoral system needs to shield our democracy from the sway of big money. We need reforms that make government accountable to communities, not to the big end of town. We need campaign spending caps, not just donation caps. Campaign spending is far easier to track with a much better mechanism to level the playing field and dilute the political influence bought with big corporate dollars. Anyone can give a suitcase full of cash and it is not declared, but campaign spending is hard to hide. New South Wales, Queensland, the ACT and many other countries all have electoral expenditure caps – why not Victoria? Victoria desperately needs laws to stop members and candidates from spending unlimited amounts of their own money to get themselves elected. We should be collectively shaking in our boots at the thought of One Nation and other far-right candidates spending millions of their own money to buy seats in this Parliament.

In the absence of spending caps, under standing orders I advise the house of amendments to this bill, and I ask that they now be circulated. It is a crime to handle stolen goods, and we think it should be a crime for political parties to handle dodgy donations. Victorians do not want our politicians pocketing cash from corrupt actors. Given what we now know, Victorians would be concerned to learn that Labor in Victoria pocketed more than $168,000 in 2022–23 and $400,000 in 2021–22. Our first amendment would make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive or spend a donation from any individual or organisation that has been subject to a finding of corrupt conduct by IBAC or a royal commission. Put simply, if IBAC or a royal commission has found that you have engaged in corrupt conduct, you should have no place funding Victorian political parties. Our amendment would also give the state the power to confiscate dodgy donations from political parties. Similar laws already exist in New South Wales; Victoria should be no different.

Our second amendment is to ban political donations from not just the fossil fuel industry but property developers, the construction industry, big banks and real estate agents. Labor and the Liberals are funded by dirty donations from companies whose corruption costs us billions and lays waste to our environment and climate. Between 1999 and 2019 the property and construction industry donated over $15 million to the federal Liberal Party and over $6.5 million to the ALP. Over the same period in Victoria the building industry and developers donated about $2.7 million to the Victorian division of the Liberal Party and $2.2 million to the Victorian branch of the ALP. Last decade the resource and energy industry disclosed over $136 million in political donations nationally. The gambling industry continues to pour money into the coffers of the two major parties, while big bank donors make record profits during a cost-of-living crisis.

The big parties are more accountable to the property industry and polluters than they are to everyday Victorians. Labor has pocketed developer donations with one hand and with the other given out billions in public money to corrupt private companies. Yet Labor refuses to give our anti-corruption watchdog the power it needs to investigate. Developers and the fossil fuel industry have bought their way into the corridors of power with their dodgy donations, and this has come at the expense of our climate, our communities and this government’s integrity. If either of the major parties oppose our law to ban dodgy donations, it is obvious they are happy to continue to withdraw from the ATM of vice and corruption that has for far too long plagued politics in Victoria. Victorians deserve to know that their elected representatives answer to them, not to developers, not to coal and gas companies and not to corrupt players. I commend these amendments to the house.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:14): I actually think that Australia – and I know we are talking about Victoria – has the best electoral system in the world. I am going to put it out there. I think we have seen many others overseas and otherwise that do not have compulsory voting, and you can see some pretty polarised outcomes as a result, so I am just going to put that out there from the outset. I think we are in a lucky country, and I think, as a collective, it is a good decision-making process that has resulted in us having what I think is the strongest electoral system in the world. Is it perfect? No. Hence this is why we are providing amendments here and now, and we had another big review back in 2018. I was just thinking about the removal of the bunting, which used to be such a bugbear.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Wasn’t it? You had to have volunteers who would sit up half the night. I used to feel sorry for them having to man that. It was a waste of plastic. But it just shows – I am probably leaning over to the extreme end of things, but nevertheless we have all been there – the importance of the review and making these changes and the difference they can make in the lives not only of the MPs themselves but of those who are electing us and those who support us, the many hundreds and thousands of volunteers, and we are very grateful to them as well.

I do want to pick up a point on the presumption that minor parties are necessarily members who are elected on merit and that major party MPs are not. There was an inference made by the member for Brunswick, which I thought was quite unfair, because I was thinking about many of the policies that we have right now – for instance, free transport for students under 18, free TAFE and virtual ED. We will have built 100 new schools, with 19 of them being delivered this year. The Solar Homes program has been enormously successful and lapped up by Victorians. 950 new medical interns have kicked off their careers, and that is backed in by our Labor government, and there is a 50 per cent increase in health workers. Through our legislated renewable energy targets we achieved, last year, 44.6 per cent energy generation through renewable energy. I am just presenting an example.

When you are talking about merit and you are talking about policy, I would like to give a little bit of credit to the Victorian people, because I felt like there was quite a distorted perception of how our electoral system works. I felt like it did not give enough credit to Victorians and their ability to assess the various policies and those matters delivered in this state, because there are those who talk about things and there are those who deliver. I certainly know with our government it is all about delivering. I think that whilst we are not suggesting that the system is perfect – hence this is why we have a number of amendments being made here today – to suggest the very distorted and warped reality that I felt the member for Brunswick was presenting was really invalidating Victorians and their ability to discern between the various campaigns and the various policies and infrastructure or otherwise that are delivered in this state. I just want to state that from the outset.

I also think that – and it should be respected – we are not seeking to cut across the High Court. I think, awaiting their decision, there is a pretty decent rationale for that, and I hope that that is taken in the spirit that it should be, because we are respecting that decision being made in due course. I also want to pay respect to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), the Electoral Review Expert Panel and the Parliament’s Electoral Matters Committee, because we know that those various reports that have been prepared have helped inform the amendments that are being brought before the chamber today.

What are the amendments seeking to achieve? They will insert detailed requirements for supplementary elections and re-elections and simplify and modernise authorisation requirements for election materials. For instance, I know my learned colleague from Werribee was speaking to this, we are in a different era, and there are not so many of the paper-based materials. They still exist. We are still producing DLs and otherwise, but a lot more is digitally generated these days. Henceforth we need to adapt to the modern environment. Tightening restrictions on the party names and logos that can be registered and providing more flexible powers for the commission to respond to emergencies affecting elections are very pragmatic changes – updating legislated timings and requirements for electoral processes and other minor and technical amendments to improve the overall operation of the Electoral Act 2002.

I think, fundamentally, when we are thinking about election processes, all the rules that come into play when we are standing at the booths are just so very important. I think as MPs we want the voting experience of the voters to be a respectful one. At least I will speak for myself and those on this side of the house. It is a delicate balance. On the one hand, you do have to be able to put forward as best you can what you are campaigning on, but at the same time respect that the voter experience could be sullied depending on how aggressive a candidate may or may not be. I think overall I will say that on the booths that I have been fortunate to stand on, most of the time the behaviours have been reasonable. I think I am lucky. But I have heard of some pretty horrific situations where people experience significant aggression. I do not think it lends itself to the overall voting experience or to respecting democracy when people behave in a manner that does not respect what it is like and the experience of the voter themselves. I do remember one chap coming and absolutely yelling and screaming, and they had to remove that person from the booth, but that was an isolated incident. Nevertheless, it did not help the experience, and it just stressed out everyone who was at the booth, not least the voters themselves – and there is no place for that.

The other thing that I was thinking about is that the member for Brunswick was suggesting that for some reason – maybe he was referring to his party, the Greens, or otherwise – they had the best policies, but nevertheless because of certain circumstances they were not able to become a major party. I am not sure what the trajectory of that argument particularly was, but again I would like to default to the premise that the Victorian people make their decisions based on a whole range of policies and infrastructure and other needs that they see. I just think care has to be taken, because if that applies to the Greens, it might also apply to One Nation as well. I mean, where does it stop? It is not only about one minor party; it is about any minor party. I just think that we have to look at the whole picture and not just narrow in on one perspective when it comes to analysing how the whole democratic system and the process of elections is operating.

Some of the other practical elements here will only enhance the voting experience. I am not talking about from an aesthetic or emotional point of view necessarily but just to ensure that the fundamentals of democracy are maintained and that we continue to ameliorate in a collective and collegiate way. I do also note the updating of requirements – I am just thinking about all the pragmatics, having also witnessed a number of counts myself – for the vote counting process for the Legislative Council, including providing that counting must begin as soon as practicable rather than immediately after 6 ‍pm on election day, and may occur at a place determined by the VEC to enable the VEC to prioritise counting for the Legislative Assembly. I note of course that it is extremely important the upper house gets counted, and we are not trying to in any way diminish that, but nevertheless expediency, in terms of expediting as much as we can in a very civilised and appropriate way the lower house obviously is important when we are looking at determining government, and I think certainly the population of Victoria wants to see results delivered as soon as possible, and this is likely to help facilitate that process. I am highlighting this example to just show the many practical elements that are being provided as part of this bill. I will close out on the premise that I still stand by the fact that we do have the best voting system in the world, and I feel very fortunate to be a Victorian and an Australian.

 Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (18:24): I have got some comments to make about the Victorian Electoral Commission. While I respect the member for Albert Park, and she actually made some reasonable comments, I am afraid I do not share her views about the conduct of the commission or the quality of the system that they have created. The Victorian Electoral Commission’s conduct – and they are a feature part of this bill – at the last election was abysmal. Let us get one thing absolutely clear – and this applies to every political party in this Parliament and those prospective parties trying to get into this Parliament – we all rely on the electoral commission to do their job and to do it fairly and independently. You could claim they might be bad to one party at this election, but beware, because in maybe one or two elections, they will be bad to you too if that precedent is set. What all of us expect in this chamber, and I suspect in the upper house as well, is an electoral commission that actually abides by the mandate it has been given to be fair, free and independent and to conduct elections that are not akin to Bolivia but akin to Australia.

The Victorian Electoral Commission’s conduct under Warwick Gately at the last election was a disgrace. He was a disgrace, and his conduct was outrageous. His communications head Sue Lang’s conduct was more than just a disgrace. These people should have been referred to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. The anti-corruption commission, if it had done its job, should have taken an own-motion inquiry and examined their conduct. How have we got to a circumstance in Victoria, Australia, where the Victorian Electoral Commission participates in commentary a week out from an election, as it did in 2022? Some opposite might say, ‘Oh, gee, I’m glad it wasn’t us.’ But the precedent is set.

A member interjected.

Matthew GUY: You might find it funny, member for whoever is up there – Glen Waverley – but when you start political puberty you can come back in here and throw barbs, right? The reality is that no-one and no political party should have to deal with an electoral commission that becomes partisan in the middle of a campaign – not Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens or anyone. None of us expect that, and none of us should have that.

So my comments on this bill are very straightforward. We do not oppose it. We have problems, and the member for Brighton has outlined our concerns succinctly and as you would expect. But when the electoral commission and those running it – and I note there is a new Electoral Commissioner – have no credibility to the extent that some in this chamber think, like me, that they should be wound up and scrapped and the job outsourced to the AEC, because at least they will do an independent job, then we have got a problem. We have a problem when there is a lack of any accountability. When the Electoral Matters Committee of this Parliament, chaired by a Labor member – I have no problem – quite rightly comes in and asks for a report from the electoral commission straight after the election, like the Electoral Matters Committee is entitled to do, and the Victorian Electoral Commission seek to hinder, obfuscate and behave in a way that is thoroughly uncooperative with the Electoral Matters Committee of this Parliament and sneak out like sewer rats straight after their hearing because they do not want to give further evidence, again we have got a right to be concerned, all of us in this chamber, because all of us in this chamber have an expectation that the Victorian Electoral Commission will just do its job.

They know four years out from the next election when the date is going to be. How did they run out of ballot papers? How did they run out of ballot papers in seats, funnily enough, which were marginal coalition seats on the coalition target list? Not to throw anything in, but they ran out of those ballot papers. How was it that the Victorian Electoral Commission, as we only found out through this bill, had been seconding people from the Victorian public service for years before the 2022 election? We have only found that out through the discussions and the negotiations on this bill. Who knew that? Who are they from the VPS? Are they people that we would consider to be politicised appointments in the VPS? Were they appointed by Sue Lang, who made comments a week before the last state election? Were they appointed by Warwick Gately, who snuck out of his job because he did not want to face up to the abysmal conduct that he ran at that election as Electoral Commissioner? We do not know. Why should any political party and why should any of us have to put up with an electoral commission that behaves in that manner, seconding people from the VPS behind the backs of everyone else with no power? It was taken out, I note, by an amendment from the government with this proposal. However, the fact is that before it was put in it was done anyway. It had already been done. They had already been seconding staff. Again, I ask: who, and in what roles? Were they unionists? Were they union members?

Forgive me for asking these things, but I am entitled to as a member of this chamber, and I am entitled to as someone who expects that the Victorian Electoral Commission will behave in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner. They certainly did not. When they run out of ballot papers and they have had four years to prepare, when they put up billboards encouraging those who have been incarcerated to remember to re-enrol but they cannot get ballot papers for Victorians who turn up to a country polling booth because they have run out, or there are reports from our side that they have got workers advising elderly residents how to vote – this is Victoria. It is not Nicaragua, right? This is Victoria. I am sorry, but I am a little burnt by the conduct of the electoral commission in the form that we saw last time. No political party should put up with this kind of behaviour.

All of us expect better, and why wouldn’t we? Why, I ask, as the member for Brighton did, do we still not have the full two-party preferred count in seven seats? This is the basis of the structure of our electoral count system: it is a two-party preferred, two-candidate preferred system. It is nine or 10 ‍months until the next election and the work still has not been done in seven seats. Again I state they have one job to do: count the votes, be prepared, educate what is a formal vote and check the roll for its integrity.

The capacity of the commissioner to delegate his or her powers concerns me greatly because, as I have just said, we have now found out three years after the event that the previous commissioner had been seconding people from the Victorian public service. Who were they? Were they CPSU members? Were they people who were actively against the opposition at that time? I ask these questions, quite rightly seeking transparency from our electoral commission. Now we are seeing in this bill there is a request to delegate powers from the commissioner. Again I state anyone who is in that role has but one job: do it. Do your own job. Delegating powers to whom and under what conditions and under what circumstance – why on earth would that be relevant or necessary?

I am sorry. I have, as you can imagine, a huge interest in seeing that future political leaders in this state, from both sides, have an electoral commission that operates fairly, freely and impartially. I say this as an elected representative – not a Liberal one, but as an elected member of this Parliament. Every member should have full confidence that our electoral commission is fair, free and impartial and does its job as such and does not have people on polling booths managing those booths who are potentially politicised and have been seconded to them without the knowledge of anyone else and certainly against any legislation and does not have people who partake in party politics a week before an election and then write it off as, ‘Oh sorry, I went a bit far.’

Again I say we are not Bolivia, we are not Nicaragua. We expect our elections to be fair, free and impartial. In the last one the conduct of the electoral commission was not. It was not, and I think it is fair and reasonable for me on this side in particular, of all the 88 members here, to come in here with a self-interest to say the last commissioner was a disgrace. I hope the new commissioner is a better one. I hope that after the next election, whatever occurs, when the Electoral Matters Committee asks for that commission to come in and provide some explanations on the conduct of it, they do not do it at 7:30 in the morning and sneak out like sewer rats.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (18:34): Struth, that was something. I hope you are getting support, member for Bulleen, because there is clearly –

Matthew Guy interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: He called me the ‘fat kid from Hey Dad..!’ as he exited, so he is clearly feeling a bit. ‘Fat kid from Hey Dad..!’ is what he said. That used to be a Tim Smith sledge, but how did that marriage go?

Paul Edbrooke: That was a car crash.

Tim RICHARDSON: He put that in the fence, didn’t he? That was the most unbecoming performance. I think I have had some good engagements with the member for Bulleen before, but even the anger of having a crack, not even knowing what I was going to say – to say that was unhinged is polite. That was one of the most disgraceful attacks on the Victorian Electoral Commission we have ever seen.

Brad Battin: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, obviously on relevance, attacking a member of Parliament is not relevant to the bill that is in front of us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order. The member for Mordialloc was directly responding to a comment that the member for Bulleen made.

Brad Battin: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, the comments were directly in relation to the conduct, not the actual outcome or what the member has said. The member might like to go and debate what the member had said and say he was wrong or incorrect, but this was a direct attack on his personal conduct, on how he handled himself in here. That has nothing to do with this debate. I am sorry, it should be simply to do with what is in the debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order. The member for Mordialloc was going immediately to the point of debate that the member for Bulleen had made in terms of his attack on the commissioner. If the member for Bulleen did not think that was part of the debate on the bill, then he should not have brought it up.

Tim RICHARDSON: There can be all kinds of trying to defend what was an absolutely out of bounds reflection on the Victorian Electoral Commission, the highest standard of authority in running safe, fair and transparent elections in Victoria. The member for Bulleen called a former commissioner and their staff, in his final words ‘sewer rats’. That is an egregious attack on the independent authority of the organisation that runs elections in our state. It was not going to be a theme of much of my statement, but it needs to be. The context is really important because we have seen the degradation of statutory institutions internationally. We have seen this play out in the United States, where the integrity of commissions has been a theatre of debate. It has led to prosecutions by voting firms that have been defamed. But we cannot allow this. This is a really urgent thing – and I say this down the camera to Liberals in the opposition leader’s office tonight – this is not the step to take. This is not the place to go. This is the worst thing you can do, the worst thing we can see that goes to the extremes that we are all worried about.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition and her team, that needs to never happen and be a feature of this place again, because to describe the Victorian Electoral Commission as sewer rats, to go after the commissioner – the member for Bulleen has probably not got the TV on, but there is a bit of context to this – and for those that were in this election contest, it was highly charged. This was at the time when – and I am just literally commentating the facts here – the former chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the member for Bulleen, was in a leaked article from those opposite, again cannibalising themselves, Liberals dropping on then Mitch Catlin and his integrity that led to that. It was not anything to do with the Labor Party; it was internal Liberal politics playing out on Mitch Catlin. That was how that came to be – the $100,000, as the Guardian reported at the time, and the Liberal donor billionaire.

The context is important for where that outburst came from, because it is an egregious attack. We have a former Leader of the Nationals who was a part of that contest. I do not know if the former leader, the member for Murray Plains, is up next. I would be interested to know where the former Leader of the Nationals would see that go, because the description – and I say that again – of the VEC in that context is really, really poor. We have all got performance suggestions that we put forward. We would all suggest things that could be more efficient – the two DPP point that was put forward, the timing of elections, their efficiency. They have got work to do. They are not like the Australian Electoral Commission. We see that when we have federal elections. There is room to improve and that is what some of the bill tries to do.

But I feel extremely worried and uncomfortable with the suggestion that the member for Bulleen put forward, that there was anything nefarious around ballot paper provisions, that there was anything salacious around the reporting of various disclosures that were asked and then referred. To describe a former commissioner in that way warrants further assessment and clarification if that is the standing position of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Liberal Party tonight have a role to play. There was a sledge of the member for Glen Waverley. He is an elected member of Parliament representing his community in here, and the member for Glen Waverley would not be questioning the integrity of the election commissioner or the whole organisation and how we run our show here. I am not sure if the member for Berwick, who has been elected I think five or six times now and is up soon, stands by the comments of the member for Bulleen that the election commissioner was in that standard corrupt and should have been at IBAC, should have been self-referred, and that the organisation is run by sewer rats. That is the standard that we have got here for what was an outburst that led to personal sledges and reflections on whether I am carrying a bit more weight or not. ‘Fat kid from Hey Dad..!’ – I mean, goodness me, seriously. That tells you every bit of the areas where those opposite are: it is personal attacks, it is sledges. We are not talking about the commission here.

Peter Walsh: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Mordialloc has had 8 of his 10 ‍minutes to say whatever he wants to say about the member for Bulleen. Can you ask him to come back to actually talking about the bill?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): As I ruled on the previous point of order, everything that the member for Mordialloc has canvassed were matters that were raised by the member for Bulleen in debate, so the member for Mordialloc can continue.

Tim RICHARDSON: This is a really critical frame here. Once again I reiterate tonight that there must be a clarifying statement from the leader of the transition to government for the Leader of the Opposition. Right, so this person has a portfolio responsibility as a shadow minister for the transition to government and is a founding leadership father of those opposite. He has had two goes at it and been a leader. It is very important that the senior leadership of a party and former leaders protect our system of democracy. With where we are tonight, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition clarify whether this is Liberal Party views or policy, to so describe the Victorian Electoral Commission. It is every bit of danger and One Nation territory that we have seen nationally, particularly in Queensland, but it needs to be scrutinised. I needed to clarify that for the protection of our system and our Parliament and our democracy, and there is nothing more important than that.

One of these amendments, though, goes to enabling the commencement of the bill to be on a day or days to be proclaimed. I read this in my notes and I thought, hang on, have I missed something? It allows for the Nepean district by-election processes to proceed. I thought I must have missed that. Nepean by-election – what has happened there? We have got to have enabling provisions before a by-election. And how was that by-election caused such that we need to, in the legislation, have a cut-off moment? It was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party who left because he saw the toxic environment and unsafe workplace and forced the by-election. Well, luckily in this legislation we have got a provision and a realisation that says we will not let the rules commence just until they sort out the election in Nepean that should not have happened if there was a safe and inclusive workplace for the former member for Nepean Sam Groth. We wish him well, because the only person that has has been the member for Berwick. Remember he went down the Nepean Highway and read the storybooks? They were really close. They were a good team. That is when polling was really strong. There was not the One Nation factor. That is why we are having a by-election in this state, because of the treatment and the toxic environment that was unsafe. Six weeks into being deputy leader he nicks off – off he goes and we have got a by-election. I am glad provisions are in place to protect that.

 Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (18:44): Acting Speaker Hamer, I rise to speak on this bill, but as you have already ruled from the chair, we can talk about whatever we like, as long as it was spoken about by a previous speaker. I might start off with the member for Mordialloc.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Careful, member for Murray Plains. I did not say that on the point of order. But continue on the bill. You can respond to points of the debate.

Peter WALSH: That is effectively what you said, Acting Speaker. The member for Mordialloc might actually want to get his facts right before he starts slagging off at the member for Bulleen. He is not head of transition to government. Get your facts right, mate. If you are going to slag off, get your facts right and actually have something to say effectively. The member for Bulleen’s language in some ways was disingenuous, but his beef with the Victorian Electoral Commission is real, and it is shared by others as well.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Peter WALSH: The issues with the electoral commission. One job for the Electoral Commissioner is to have enough ballot papers at the booths. He did go on about the ballot papers, and it affected electorates where the Nationals had candidates running. Our people who were handing out cards then had people coming back out saying, ‘We’ve got a card from you, but there are no ballot papers.’ It is the most important job of the electoral commission and the Electoral Commissioner. When we have compulsory voting, when people have to go to a booth otherwise they pay a fine and they go there and there is no ballot paper – spare me. What job do they have to do?

Tim Richardson interjected.

Peter WALSH: No, I am not burying the lead. I am saying that the Electoral Commissioner failed in his job on a number of things at the last election and people have a right to criticise that. If you are saying the institutions of government, including the electoral commission, are sacrosanct and we should never criticise them, what about what Dan did? What about what the former Premier did to the institutions of this state? Have a look in the mirror, member for Mordialloc, and look at what was done by your government under the previous Premier and what is being done under the current Premier to the institutions of this state. There is $15 billion worth of corruption in this state under the supposed institutions of government that you are talking about. Where is the justification for that, member for Mordialloc? Are you condoning that? Are you condoning $15 billion worth of rorting in this particular state? Is the member for Mordialloc actually condoning $15 billion worth of rorting in this state into what has been done? You talk about –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Acting Chair, I would ask that there be a bringing back to relevance in relation to the bill, because we all remember the office for living it up, the office for water under the previous Minister for Water, and the recommendations that were made there. So I would be careful what stones are thrown from those opposite.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): It has been a wideranging debate, but I ask the member on his feet to refer to the bill or to respond directly to points of debate that were previously raised. Where he was going, in my time in the Acting Speaker role, had not been points of debate raised.

Peter WALSH: I suppose what I would be interested in, in the points that have been raised, is a certain minister who has all the solutions to the law and order issues in this state in their bottom drawer. Let us bring out the bottom drawer and let us solve the law and order issues in this state, Minister. That would be a very good thing to do before we go anywhere else, before you start throwing muck at other people.

With this particular bill I have a number of concerns. The member for Bulleen and other members have raised this issue around the delegation of powers. The Electoral Commissioner has one job: to run the Victorian Electoral Commission and run elections in this state. Why does the Electoral Commissioner need powers to delegate those authorities? He is drawing a salary to do a job, to run elections, to make sure there are enough ballot papers, to make sure they are fair and transparent, and there are concerns from a lot of people that they are not fair and transparent. One of the good things that the electoral commission does is go around the aged care facilities in all our electorates to actually make sure the people that are in those aged care facilities have an opportunity to vote. There are concerns being raised by the children of people in aged care facilities that maybe the electoral commission staff that go around doing that might try to persuade people to vote a certain way. That would be very wrong if that is particularly the case. Those are concerns that have been raised with me.

The other issue is around the decisions as to what the two-party preferred vote is going to be done on. Someone in Melbourne sits there and makes a decision that will have the 2PP on these particular two candidates without actually having any research as to what is happening in that particular electorate. On election night when the count is actually being done, the 2PP is throwing up an absolutely crazy result because the people in Melbourne are making that decision. When you talk to the people counting the votes, when you go along to the scrutineer, they say, ‘Yeah, I know, I know, this is crazy, but those are the orders we got from Melbourne.’ We are going to have the 2PP based on that, without any actual research about what might actually be happening on the ground in that particular electorate at that time.

There is the issue of secondment of staff. In my humble opinion the Victorian public service has been politicised by a long-term Labor government, and particularly by the former Premier. We have seen the politicisation of the public sector here in Victoria. Why should the electoral commission be seconding staff from the Victorian public service when no-one knows where their political allegiances lie? They are not employed as independent people with the Victorian Electoral Commission. They are employed by the Victorian government, a government that has gone out of its way to politicise the public sector in this state, to corrupt the public institutions in this state and to take away the powers from the Parliament. You have seen the balance between executive government and the Parliament and the judiciary change, I think, in my humble opinion, for the worse in this state. I think the core principles of the Westminster system have been eroded and corroded, particularly by the former Premier, and we want to make sure that does not continue to happen. Having these sorts of things happen in the Victorian Electoral Commission is just an extension of win-at-all-costs. The former Premier, in my humble opinion, was a person that believed in winning at all costs and that it does not matter what you do to other people or what you do to the institutions of government. The Westminster system is something that has been around for over 700 years. It is something that I feel very passionately about as a long-term member of this place. The institutions of our system, I think, are precious if you look around the world. But we have got to a stage – the member for Mordialloc raised this issue in a different context – where people do not have respect for their institutions now because they have been politicised so much. The people that should be protecting it are no longer protecting it because they are more interested in keeping their job or keeping favour with those in power.

There are a lot of things in this bill that I think are not correct. There are a lot of things in the way the VEC has been functioning and doing its job which are inappropriate. I will not use the language that the member for Bulleen has used, because I do not think that this is the place for that intemperate language. But I understand the frustration that the member for Bulleen has because he lived through it as the Leader of the Opposition. As the Leader of the National Party, I was there most of the time, and I understand his frustration as that happened. We need to get back to the people of Victoria having respect for the institutions of government and the institution of the Victorian Electoral Commission. That happens by open and transparent review. The parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee did their review and had trouble, as I understand it, getting real information from the Victorian Electoral Commission and having them give evidence that was worthwhile about the things that went wrong at the last election. Some of the recommendations out of that report are not being picked up in this legislation, and I would have thought the government could have actually shown some real leadership, taken all the recommendations out of the Victorian parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee and made some meaningful difference so that people have confidence in the future about the Victorian Electoral Commission. I share the member for Bulleen’s view: perhaps the Australian Electoral Commission should take it over.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (18:54): I rise to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025. The Electoral Act 2002 is one of the foundational pillars of democracy in our state. It underpins the way in which Victorians choose their representatives, how votes are cast and counted and how political parties and candidates engage in the contest of ideas. It is therefore necessary that we ensure that this act remains up to date and reflects the modern demands that both voters and candidates have. This bill ensures that key parts of the act are fit for purpose. It clarifies requirements for the conduct of state elections so they can continue to be delivered in an efficient, transparent and organised manner.

Importantly, this bill is informed by the considered work undertaken since the last major reform of the act in 2018. That includes reports of the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), the Electoral Review Expert Panel and the Parliament’s Electoral Matters Committee following the 2022 state election. These reviews identified both operational pressures and opportunities for reform. Modern elections are larger, more complex and more logistically demanding than ever before. Early voting has expanded significantly, postal voting volumes have grown, ballot papers are longer and compliance and disclosure obligations are more detailed. These are the challenges that we have to be conscious of when debating this bill.

This bill modernises our elections through targeted amendments across the act. It inserts detailed requirements for supplementary elections and re-elections, simplifies and modernises authorisation requirements for electoral material, tightens restrictions on party names and logos, provides more flexible powers for the commission to respond to emergencies, updates legislator timings and makes a series of minor and technical amendments to improve the overall operation of the act.

A significant component of the bill relates to political finance in part 12 of the act. The integrity and sustainability of our funding model depends on clear rules and effective enforcement. At present the VEC is unable to recover certain overpayments of public funding from former registered political parties once they are deregistered or from former independent members after they leave Parliament. This creates an unacceptable gap. The bill addresses this by inserting an additional step into the deregistration process, requiring parties to disclose relevant information and repay overpayments before deregistration takes effect. It also requires former independent members to submit a final return and repay any overpayments within 30 days of ceasing to be a member. Offences and penalties are extended to support compliance. At the same time safeguards ensure the register of political parties remains accurate and up to date. This is a sensible change that ensures that taxpayer funds are fully accounted for when it comes to the public funding of candidates and parties.

The bill also amends the early voting period to commence on the Wednesday 10 days before election day, creating a default 10-day period. The current early voting period, often closer to two weeks, places substantial demands on staffing, venue hire and security. This reform maintains ample opportunity for those unable to vote on election day, while reducing unnecessary resource pressures. As somebody who represents a large number of casual and shift workers who have irregular work patterns, I believe that ensuring that we have a variety of times and days before polling day for people to vote is incredibly important. No matter how your schedule looks, you should have some time where a polling place is open for you to vote early or on election day.

To improve voter information and reduce confusion, the bill tightens restrictions on party names and logos. Reports following the 2022 election indicated that some voters may have been confused by names that were overly similar to those of established parties or that suggested affiliations which did not exist. The bill extends prohibitions to cover abbreviations and acronyms, prevents registration of names or logos suggesting the holding of parliamentary office and restricts names likely to mislead by implying a relationship with an existing party. These sensible exemptions for words like ‘democratic’, collective nouns and certain geographic terms ensure that the scheme remains workable, while protecting voters from confusion. All of these changes and much, much more make for a sensible bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.