Tuesday, 31 March 2026

 The SPEAKER (12:17): I have a received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025 with amendments.

Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 61 –

‘61A Indicative two candidate preferred distribution of preferences

(1) In section 116 of the Principal Act, for “If the” substitute “Subject to subsection (2), if the”.

(2) At the end of section 116 of the Principal Act insert –

“(2)   In the case of an Assembly election –

(a)   the Commission must direct the election manager to proceed with the scrutiny referred to in subsection (1) for each district; and

(b)   the election manager must comply with that direction within 3 months after receiving it.”.’.

2.   Clause 92, page 53, lines 1 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(d) for the definition of political expenditure substitute –

“political expenditure –

(a)   means any expenditure for the dominant purpose of directing how a person should vote at an election, by promoting or opposing –

(i)   the election of any candidate at the election; or

(ii)   a registered political party; or

(iii)   an elected member; but

(b)   does not include –

(i)   expenditure incurred by an associated entity or third party campaigner or any material that is published, aired or otherwise disseminated outside of the election campaigning period, unless the material refers to –

(A)   a candidate or a registered political party; and

(B)   how a person should vote at an election; or

(ii)   expenditure for which a registered political party, elected member, group or candidate is entitled to any credit, rebate, refund, reimbursement or other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law;”.’.

 Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Women) (12:18): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Electoral Amendment Bill 2025 will ensure that key parts of the Electoral Act 2002 are fit for purpose, given the scale and complexity of modern state elections. The bill also clarifies requirements for the conduct of state elections to ensure they can continue to be delivered in an efficient, transparent and organised manner.

The bill was passed in the other place with amendments on 19 March 2026. The government had an amendment to clause 92(1)(d) of the bill relating to the definition of ‘political expenditure’. This is a technical amendment, only necessary because house amendments were made to the bill when it passed the Assembly on 5 March 2026. The definition was intended to operate in conjunction with a clause which has been removed from the bill following the house amendments. This meant that the definition in the bill was unworkable and a new definition was necessary. This was only picked up after the bill passed the Assembly. The amendment returned the definition of ‘political expenditure’ as it is in the Electoral Act now, while adding that ‘political expenditure’ does not include any rebate, refund, reimbursement or other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law, such as GST. This was always part of the bill and avoids parties double-claiming GST credits.

The government carefully considered the amendments that were circulated by the opposition and the Greens in the other place. The government supported one of the Liberals’ amendments concerning the requirement of a two-candidate-preferred count to be done in every seat, and we thank the opposition for working constructively with the government on this amendment.

The government did not support the other Liberal amendments to the bill, which included removing a clause in the bill providing that certain electoral material not require the name and address of the authoriser and printers of the material. The amendment would have retained the current requirements of the Electoral Act. We did not support this, because our changes simply bring the materials into line with modern requirements for electoral materials. Besides Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory are the only other Australian jurisdictions that currently require the name and address of printers to be disclosed on electoral materials. South Australia removed the requirement, effective from January 2026.

We also did not support removing a clause to allow the Electoral Commissioner to delegate to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner in a number of circumstances.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members, there is too much audible conversation in the chamber. I am having trouble hearing the Leader of the House. If members wish to have conversations, they can go outside the chamber.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: For example, the clause would permit the commissioner to delegate the power to the deputy commissioner to allow or disallow a ballot paper on a recount if the number of ballot papers reserved under the relevant section of the act for the decision of the commission may determine whether a particular candidate is declared elected. We considered that allowing the commissioner to delegate is reasonable and not uncommon for statutory office holders. This delegation may be important if the commissioner faces illness or sudden absence or if there are multiple close counts in the state which require the commissioner to determine whether ballots should be allowed or disallowed.

The government did not support the Greens amendment to ban political donations from certain people and entities, including property developers, building and construction industry entities and fossil fuel entities. As the Leader of the Government said in the debate in the other place, we consider the amendments unnecessary because of the 2018 donations changes we introduced. In 2018 we introduced the toughest political donation laws in Australia to ensure that Victorians know who makes political donations and when. The electoral review panel reviewed Victoria’s donation laws, and to quote its report from November 2023 tabled in Parliament:

… considered that Victoria’s disclosure requirements and low general cap on political donations make it unnecessary to introduce bans on donations from particular industries.

Thus the low general cap is a crucial factor which made the Greens amendment unnecessary.

In conclusion, the bill contains sensible measures to ensure our elections run more smoothly, many of which have been requested by the Victorian Electoral Commission, and we thank all members who engaged constructively with the government throughout the bill’s development and passage. I commend the amendments to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:22): I rise to speak on behalf of the coalition on the amendments before the house as they have returned from the Council: one in relation to the political expenditure definitional change and one relating to two-candidate preferred distribution. The Leader of the House did raise a number of other matters, but those matters were discussed in debate in the Council, so I will leave those discussions there. A number of those issues were also raised in this chamber when the bill was originally here.

I note the Leader of the House’s background to the political expenditure definitional change that she referred to but also that of the Treasurer in the other place, and if I may, I will put into Hansard her comments there.

I do want to put on record that in seeking a copy of Hansard from the Council I learned that the Council Hansard is not printed, which I hope is an issue that never occurs in this place, because some of us refer to physical copies of Hansard quite regularly. So I will, in an uncouth way, be forced to read from my computer the comments of the Treasurer in the other place. The comments of the Treasurer in the other place in relation to the amendment were:

It is a technical amendment only and is necessary because of house amendments that were made to the bill when it passed the Assembly on 5 March. The definition was intended to operate in conjunction with a clause which has been removed from the bill following those house amendments, which means that the definition in the bill currently is unworkable and a new definition is necessary.

I take both at face value but also in detail the fact that that is what it is – a non-controversial technical amendment. So the coalition does not have an issue with it.

In relation to the two-candidate preferred distribution of preferences, we very much thank the government for working with the coalition on the amendment that we proposed. We felt that it was more than passing strange the volume of electorates that did not have full two-party preference counts done. And when the amendment was considered, when debate occurred both in this place and the other place, I know that the Electoral Commission was consulted and – I do not want to put words in their mouth and suggest that they did not support it, because that would not be fair – I do think that they had some concerns as to the full need to do a two-preference count. The Electoral Commission on their website suggests that now some 20 electorates did not reach a full two-party preference count, which I think is wrong. I am not aware of any other state where those counts are not fully completed. I think it is only reasonable in a preference system – setting aside whether a preference system is good, bad or otherwise – that the community knows how their preferences were distributed. I mean, if we have a preference system, it is only reasonable that that occurs. And to see that at the last election that did not occur – I felt very strongly about this, because this occurred in Brighton, my electorate, and it has been a bugbear of mine ever since. So I thank the government and the Premier’s office specifically for working with me, on behalf of the coalition, on this amendment. We will certainly be supporting an amendment which we proposed, and as I said earlier, in relation to the other amendment, we have no issue with that either.

Motion agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.