Wednesday, 3 June 2026

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:53): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

On 15 April 2026, the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper v Victoria [2026] HCA 11 (Hopper).

In Hopper, the High Court found that Victoria’s political donations and expenditure laws contained at Part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Act), was wholly invalid as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

The High Court declared Part 12 of the Act invalid in its entirety, as it was not permissible to sever any parts of provisions, subdivisions or divisions of Part 12 to preserve its validity.

In light of the High Court’s finding in Hopper, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act to introduce a new political donations, State funding and reporting regime (proposed regime).

The new regime applies to registered political parties, candidates at an election, elected members, associated entities and third-party campaigners (collectively, ‘regulated person or body’).

The key reforms in the Bill include:

a. setting a $7,500 general cap on political donations to a regulated person or body;

b. setting a higher general cap of $15,000 for eligible new entrants to the electoral process;

c. prohibiting political donations from foreign sources;

d. prohibiting anonymous political donations equal to or above the value of $1,250;

e. requiring that political donations equal to or above $1,250 be disclosed to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) within 7 days.

f. requiring regulated persons or bodies to provide annual returns containing financial information to the VEC;

g. providing powers for the VEC to compel the production of documents or require a person to give evidence in relation to compliance with the proposed regime;

h. prescribing offences and penalties relating to non-compliance, including introducing prospective criminal liability for any failure to disclose certain political donations made between 15 April 2026 and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent; and

i. make State funding available to eligible registered political parties, independent candidates and independent elected members.

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill

In my opinion, the human rights under the Charter engaged by the Bill are the:

• right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter);

• right to privacy (section 13(a) of the Charter);

• right to freedom of expression (section 15 of the Charter);

• right to take part in public life (section 18 of the Charter); and

• right to property (section 20 of the Charter).

Having considered all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter. To the extent that any rights are limited, the limitation is reasonable and able to be justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to equality and protection from discrimination (section 8 of the Charter)

Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Equal Opportunity Act), on the basis of an attribute in section 6 of that Act, which includes race. Relevantly, the definition of ‘race’ in the Equal Opportunity Act includes ‘nationality or national origin’.

Ban on foreign donations

Clause 5 of the Bill will insert new section 209 into the Act to make it unlawful to make or accept a political donation if the donor is not an Australian Citizen or Resident, or in the case of a donor who is not a natural person, where the donor does not have an Australian Business Number.

The ban on foreign donations limits the right to equality before the law as it prohibits the rights of persons to make a political donation on the basis of nationality. However, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent foreign governments, corporations or individuals exercising influence on Victoria’s political system through donations to regulated persons or entities. This proposal supports national sovereignty by restricting the influence that non-Australians have over Victorian politics and elections.

Right to Privacy (Section 13(a) of the Charter)

Section 13(1) of the Charter states that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Anonymous donations and requirement to provide disclosure returns

Clause 5 of the Bill will insert new section 210 into the Act to make it unlawful to make or accept an anonymous political donation equal to or above $1,250. This amendment engages the right to privacy as it requires a person to divulge their name and address if they wish to make a political donation which is equal to or above the threshold.

Clause 5 will also insert new section 216 into the Act to require that a disclosure return be provided to the VEC in relation to any political donation equal to or above the disclosure threshold of $1,250. The disclosure return must include the name and residential address of the donor. New section 217 requires that that VEC publish the disclosure return on its website (which would include the name but not the residential address of the donor) within 14 days of its receipt.

These amendments also engage the right to privacy as the names and addresses of people who donate above the threshold must be provided to the VEC, and the names of each these donors will then be published on the VEC’s website.

While both the anonymous donations and requirement to provide disclosure returns amendments engage the right to privacy, in both cases, the interference is lawful as it is authorised under legislation. Further the interferences are not arbitrary, as they are reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate objective of supporting transparency and reducing the possibility of regulated persons or bodies working in the interests of anonymous donors.

Powers of the Commission

Clause 5 will insert new section 255 into the Act to provide a VEC compliance officer with the power to serve a notice requiring a regulated person or entity to produce documents or other things, or to appear before a compliance officer to give evidence. A notice may only be served on a regulated person or body or on any other person if the compliance officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is capable of giving evidence in relation to a possible contravention.

These powers engage the rights to privacy as they could be used to require a person to divulge private or personal information to the VEC. However, the interference is lawful as the powers are clearly prescribed in the Bill. The powers are not arbitrary as the power is reasonable and justifiable as it enables the VEC to conduct investigations and encourages compliance with the scheme.

Freedom of expression

Section 15(1) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference. Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and includes information imparted orally or in writing.

General cap on political donations

Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new section 212 into the Act, to provide for a general cap on political donations. The general cap is $7,500 (subject to indexation) or any higher amount prescribed by regulations. The donations cap applies to one off-donations and to aggregated donations from a single donor to the same regulated person or body within a 4-year election period (new section 213).

The donations cap engages the right to freedom of expression by limiting the funds available for people or bodies covered by the scheme to engage in political communication and by limiting a person’s ability to donate and engage in political communication.

However, to the extent this clause limits freedom of expression, it is reasonable and demonstrably justified as it reduces the risk of corruption and undue influence in the political process.

If political donations were not capped, then a person or body could use their wealth to have a disproportionate impact on elections. In this manner, the donations cap promotes the right to freedom of expression by allowing for a greater number of people to express their political views.

Ban on political donations from foreign sources

The ban on foreign donations in new section 209 (discussed above) engages the right to freedom of expression by preventing foreign nationals from engaging in political communication through a political donation. However, this is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to address concerns about interference from foreign sources in elections, and it prevents foreign governments, corporations or individuals exercising influence on Victoria’s political system through donations to regulated persons or bodies.

The cap on the number of third-party campaigners to whom a donor can donate

Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new section 211 into the Act to limit the number of third-party campaigners to which a donor may make a political donation. This limits a donor’s freedom of political expression by restricting the number of third-party campaigners to whom a person can donate.

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the proliferation of third-party campaigners as a means to exceed the general cap, whereby donors could seek to split their political donations among a large number of third-party campaigners.

To the extent that this clause limits the right to freedom of expression, it is reasonable and demonstrably justified to ensure the integrity of the general cap and prevent its effectiveness being undermined. The general cap will, in turn, reduce the risk of undue influence in the political process and encourage equal participation in the electoral process.

Further, clause 5 of the Bill will insert into new section 206 of the Act, under the definition of “third party campaigner” an example that provides if a third party campaigner incurs political or electoral expenditure for general advertising and awareness raising, for the benefit of a registered political party (RPP), candidate, group, elected member or associated entity, the making of this expenditure is not a gift. This is to ensure that restrictions on donations to third-party campaigners are not inadvertently captured by the definition of “gift”, and subject to associated restrictions, where they are not incurred by a person or entity for the benefit of, or that otherwise benefits, one or more other persons or entities.

Payment of public funding

Clause 5 will insert new section 227 into the Act to enable the payment of public funding to eligible registered political parties and independent candidates. A party or candidate will be eligible for public funding where they contested the previous general election and were elected or, one or more candidates received at least 4% of the first preference votes (new section 227(3)).

Registered political parties and independent candidates who qualified for public funding for the previous election, will also be eligible for instalment payments of equivalent public funding in advance of the next election (new section 232). Public funding supports electoral parties and members to focus their efforts on participation in parliamentary processes by meeting the administrative costs associated with being an elected representative. It also reduces the reliance on political donations which provide disproportionate power to people with the financial resources to donate. Public funding therefore promotes the right to freedom of expression by enabling more people to participate in the electoral process.

The public funding amendments also limit freedom of expression by restricting public funding to parties and independent candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria, which in turn, decreases the capacity of members and supporters of smaller parties to contribute ideas and opinions into the political debate.

To the extent this clause burdens the right to freedom of expression, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

New entrant general cap

Clause 5 will insert new Division 5 of Part 12 into the Act to introduce the new entrant general cap for eligible candidates. An independent candidate and RPPs will be eligible where they are ineligible to receive other sources of funding under the Act, including public funding, administrative expenditure funding, and policy development funding.

Resultantly, the new entrant general cap will apply to first-time independent candidates, recontesting independent candidates who received less than 4% of the first preference votes at the most recent election, and new or first-time RPPs which have been registered for less than a whole calendar year. The purpose of the new provision is to reduce barriers for eligible electoral participants by ensuring they have access to increased funds for political expenditure, despite not being eligible for a stream of State funding.

Previously, due to ineligibility for State funding streams, these participants were wholly reliant on political donations but subject to the same cap as all participants, resulting in them having access to less funds for political expenditure. The availability of funding through the new entrant general cap therefore promotes the right to freedom of expression by enabling new people and RPPs to participate in the electoral process.

Right to take part in public life (Section 18)

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that a person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Further, section 18(2) of the Charter provides that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination to (a) vote and be elected at periodic State and municipal elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors; and (b) have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office.

General cap on political donations and limitation on anonymous donations

The donations cap and limitation on anonymous donations engage the right to take part in public life as these reforms place limitations on the way in which a person may participate in the conduct of public affairs through a political donation.

However, any limitation on the right to take part in public life imposed by these amendments is reasonably and demonstrably justified as the amendments will reduce the risk and public perception of corruption and undue influence in the political process.

The donations cap also reduces the disproportionate influence of people with significant financial resources to influence elections, thereby providing the opportunity for others to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

Payment of public funding

A party or candidate will only be eligible for public funding where they contested the previous general election and were elected or otherwise received a total first preference vote of at least 4% of votes given in that election.

The right to take part in public life may be burdened as those candidates who are not eligible for funding will be less able to convey the opinions and policy preferences of their supporters. Additionally, those candidates will be less able to provide information to electors which will in turn impair the information available to voters for future elections.

To the extent that the entitlement to public funding burdens the right to take part in public life, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving instalment payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

Further, public funding will reduce the reliance on political donations, which disproportionately favour those with the financial resources to donate. In this manner, public funding enhances the right to partake in public life by enabling more people to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

Clause 5 also inserts new section 233, that provides a discretionary power for the VEC to seek repayment in instalments or waive repayments for candidates that are no longer eligible to receive public funding for the next general election, in circumstances where repayment of overpaid advance public funding may cause serious financial hardship, or in other circumstances deemed relevant by the VEC. The inclusion of this power enhances the right to take part in public life by ensuring that parties are not deterred from accessing public funding to participate in the election process merely on the basis of risk of financial hardship where repayments may be required.

New entrant general cap

New entrant general cap under new section 247 will enhance the right to take part in public life under s 18(2) of the Charter by enabling new people and RPPs to participate in the conduct of public affairs, such as greater opportunities to run successful campaigns and be elected at State elections, despite being ineligible for State funding. Therefore, the new entrant general cap will address the burdens on the right under section 18(2) flowing from eligibility limitations for State funding under the Act, by providing access to another source of funding where eligibility requirements are met.

Right to property (Section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law.

Powers of the VEC

The right to property is engaged through the VEC’s power to serve a notice requiring a specified person to produce evidence, documents or other things in new section 255. This allows the VEC to deprive a person of their property rights where the property would be relevant to assessing disclosure with the regime.

The VEC’s right to deprive a person of their personal property is clearly conferred by the Bill. As such, any deprivation of property would be clearly in accordance with the law, and therefore compatible with the Charter.

Further, clause 5 inserts new offence provisions at sections 278, 279, 280, 281 and 282 into the Act to require certain amounts to be disclosed and in some cases returned. These include unlawful political donations (e.g. those exceeding the general cap) and certain specified gifts received that are greater than the donations cap under new Part 12 of the Act, received between 15 April 2026 (the date that the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper) and the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Where disclosures or returns are required, this is to occur within 30 days after the day the Bill receives royal assent. New section 277 also requires the return of certain amounts received by RPPs from their Nominated Entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 before the 2026 State election. New section 215 also requires forfeiture to the State of political donations accepted in contravention of new Division 2 of Part 12, including any foreign donations, anonymous donations above the $1,250, donations above the general cap.

These amendments engage the right to property as a person would be required to repay any money, which is a form of property, to the donor, or forfeit amounts to the State. However, this would be clearly in accordance with the law, as it would be clearly prescribed in the Bill. Further, the amendment would not be arbitrary, as it is for the legitimate purpose of ensuring that regulated persons or bodies do not have an unfair advantage by receiving a donation which is unlawful or above the old general cap, prior to the new regime being introduced.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some of the provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

The Hon. Jacinta Allan MP

Premier

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:53): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act). I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

2.   On 15 April 2026, the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper v Victoria [2026] HCA 11 (Hopper). In Hopper, the High Court found that Victoria’s political donations and expenditure laws contained at Part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Act), was wholly invalid as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

3.   The High Court declared Part 12 of the Act invalid in its entirety, as it was not permissible to sever any parts of provisions, subdivisions or divisions of Part 12 to preserve its validity.

4.   In light of the High Court’s finding in Hopper, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act to introduce a new political donations, State funding and reporting regime (the regime). The new regime applies to registered political parties (RPPs), candidates at an election, elected members, associated entities and third-party campaigners.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

5.   The First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl (Assembly) was not given an opportunity to advise on the Bill and the Assembly did not otherwise make representations about the Bill’s effect on First Peoples.

6.   The Assembly was not given an opportunity to advise on the Bill, as section 66 of the Treaty Act commenced on 1 May 2026, and the Assembly only became operational on Monday 4 May. Considering this timeframe, there was insufficient time to seek advice from the Assembly prior to the introduction of the Bill into Parliament.

7.   As consultation with the Assembly was not undertaken, I am not able to make an assessment as to whether the Bill is consistent with any advice given or representations made by the Assembly.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

8.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the following objects set out at section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act:

8.1 advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples;

8.2 addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

8.3 ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

Advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples (section 66(3)(d)(i))

9.   The inherent rights of First Peoples, including the right to self-determination, are recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

10.   The First Peoples’ Assembly, as it existed prior to the commencement of the Treaty Act, identified that the right to self-determination for First Peoples includes political self-determination, which provides First Peoples with the right to self-government and the power to organise and direct their lives according to their own values, institutions and mechanisms within the framework of the state of which they are a part.

11.   The Bill may indirectly limit the achievement of political determination for First Peoples by imposing obligations and limitations on political donations, including donations made by First Peoples, to First Peoples, or to political parties or candidates who represent First Peoples’ interests. These limitations include:

11.1 setting a $5,030 general cap on political donations to a regulated person or body from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and a $7,500 general cap from 29 November 2026 onwards (new sections 212 and 288);

11.2 setting a $10,060 general cap on political donations to eligible electoral participants (new entrant general cap) from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and a $20,000 general cap to eligible new entrants from 29 November 2026 onwards (new section 247, with sections 212 and 288);

11.3 prohibiting political donations equal to or above the value of $1,250 from anonymous sources (new section 210);

11.4 prohibiting political donations from foreign sources (new section 209); and

11.5 limiting the number of third-party campaigners a donor may make a political donation to (new section 211).

12.   The Bill could also limit the achievement of political determination for First Peoples by limiting eligibility for public funding to circumstances where a political party or independent candidate contested the previous general election, and one or more candidates received at least 4% of the first preference votes (new section 227).

13.   Restricting public funding to parties and independent candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria, could, in turn decrease the capacity of members and supporters of smaller parties (including parties representing the interests of First Peoples), and independent candidates who are first peoples from contributing to political debate.

14.   Despite the limitation on the right to political self-determination, the Bill is nonetheless compatible with the object of advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples, as the limitation is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

14.1 The limitations and restrictions on political donations and payments of public funding apply equally to all Victorians, including First Peoples and non–First Peoples.

14.2 The restrictions and limitations on political donations serve the overall purpose of increasing the transparency and integrity of Victoria’s electoral system.

14.3 The payment of public funding reduces the reliance on political donations which provide disproportionate powers to people with the financial resources to donate. Public funding therefore enables more people to participate in the electoral process, including First Peoples.

14.4 The restrictions on the payment of public funding are reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

14.5 The new entrant general cap for eligible independent candidates or RPPs under new section 247 will enable persons ineligible for State funding streams, including First Peoples, to have access to alternative forms of funding for their political campaign and reduce barriers for new entrants, providing greater opportunities to participate in the electoral process. The restrictions on eligibility are reasonably necessary to ensure that new entrant general cap is only available to candidates or RPPs that are ineligible for other forms of State funding.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation

15.   The Yoorrook Justice Commission’s ‘Truth be Told’ report describes the effects of colonisation on First Peoples. It describes how the gap between outcomes for First Peoples and other Victorians in areas including life expectancy, education, and health is caused by the impacts of colonisation in the past, which continue today.

16.   The Bill may have an impact on the disadvantaged inflicted on First Peoples by imposing restrictions and limitations on political donations and by restricting eligibility for public funding (discussed above). These amendments could restrict the funding received by political parties represented by First Peoples, candidates who are First Peoples or people who represent First Peoples’ interests.

17.   Despite the possible limitation on the object of addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation, the Bill is nonetheless compatible with this object for the following reasons:

17.1 As the amendments apply equally to First Peoples and non–First Peoples, it is unlikely to have further impact on the disadvantage faced by First Peoples; and

17.2 The regime serves the overall purpose of increasing the transparency and integrity of Victoria’s electoral system, and the restrictions imposed are proportionate to this overall purpose.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

18.   A Bill may affect the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms by First Peoples where, in its express terms or practical effect, it has a differential effect on First Peoples as compared to non–First Peoples.

19.   As the Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples, and does not directly or indirectly in its practical effect engage the human rights or fundamental freedoms of First Peoples, the Bill is compatible with this object.

The Hon. Jacinta Allan MP

Premier

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Victorian Government is deeply committed to protecting and strengthening Victoria’s democratic systems by ensuring that integrity, transparency, accountability, and fairness underpin our electoral processes and electoral system. This Bill achieves this very purpose by introducing a new legal framework for the regulation of political donations, State funding, and reporting, which is currently absent from the Electoral Act 2002 (the Act) following the High Court’s decision in Hopper v State of Victoria. On 15 April 2026 the High Court ruled that the old Part 12 of the Act, which contained the former legal framework for Victoria’s political finance and donations scheme, is wholly invalid.

Without this Bill, Victoria’s political finance environment remains entirely unregulated, leaving this State without laws to govern how political money is raised and disclosed. This regulatory vacuum jeopardises the core principles of our democracy by opening the door to hidden influences and leaving our system vulnerable to unchecked political spending. This fundamentally undermines public confidence in the fairness of this State’s electoral processes and outcomes. This Government is committed to restoring and safeguarding that confidence through this Bill. We cannot afford to let an unregulated environment persist as we approach the next election and to expose our democratic system to the risk of improper conduct.

To protect our institutions and the integrity of the electoral process, this Bill establishes clear, enforceable boundaries to support fair, transparent, and efficient elections, delivered in partnership with the Victorian Electoral Commission. The Bill achieves this by introducing:

• a rigorous political donations disclosure and reporting scheme;

• strict caps on political donations;

• a complete ban on foreign donations and clear limits on anonymous donations;

• transparent State funding provisions; and

• a robust compliance and enforcement framework with penalties for infringing the law.

These reforms will prevent improper influence in our political process. The reforms will ensure that Victorian election outcomes are determined by the voices of voters and not by the depth of certain pockets. Crucially, these measures will reduce any disparities arising between electoral participants due to unequal access to financial resources. And most importantly, political funding will become visible to the public to support broader confidence in the electoral system and to ensure our citizens can make informed decisions.

I will now turn to the details contained in the Bill.

Application of the regime

The regime introduced by the Bill will apply to any individual or entity that makes or receives political donations. This will include registered political parties, candidates, groups of candidates, elected members, associated entities, third party campaigners, and donors.

An associated entity will be defined as an entity that is associated with a political party by financial membership, registration, voting rights, control or purpose, with the purpose threshold being an entity which operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of a political party. Unions, think-tanks and fundraising entities are examples of associated entities. As also outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, entities that were nominated entities under old Part 12 will be regulated in the same manner as an associated entity for the purposes of the Bill, and will be subject to the same limitations and restrictions.

A third party campaigner will be defined as a person or entity who is not a candidate, elected member, group, political party or associated entity, but who receives political donations exceeding $7,500 or incurs more than $7,500 of political expenditure in a financial year. A third party campaigner could include a range of large or small activist or public interest groups, who are not aligned with a particular political party but engage in political campaigns.

A group will be defined as two or more candidates who are grouped on a ballot-paper, such as grouped Legislative Council candidates.

Activity regulated by the regime

Activities relating to political donations and political expenditure will be covered by the regime.

A political donation will include gifts of money, property, and services made without consideration or with inadequate consideration to a political party, candidate, group, elected member and in some cases, an associated entity or third party campaigner. A gift to an associated entity or third party campaigner will only be a political donation if it is for the purpose of incurring or reimbursing political expenditure. Political donations will also include the payment of an amount in respect of a guarantee and payment or contribution at a fundraising function. However, annual levies, subscription and affiliation fees will not be considered political donations, nor will gifts made in a private capacity for personal use or volunteer labour.

Political expenditure will be defined as any expenditure for the dominant purpose of directing how a person should vote at an election by promoting or opposing a candidate, political party or elected member. It does not include expenditure by an associated entity or third party campaigner disseminated outside the election campaigning period unless it refers to a candidate or political party or how a person should vote.

Advertising and raising awareness about issues, without promoting or opposing a candidate or political party, will not be considered political expenditure. The broadcasting, production or publication of an advertisement relating to an election will be defined as electoral expenditure under the Bill.

The provision of labour is only taken to be political expenditure if the dominant purpose of the labour is to create or communicate electoral matter. For example, if Charlotte is the chief executive officer of a not-for-profit organisation that encourages healthy eating and occasionally issues material to influence how electors vote, but Charlotte’s primary role is the delivery of healthy eating programs in schools and workplaces, as the dominant purpose of Charlotte’s employment is not to create or communicate electoral matters, her salary is not taken to be political expenditure.

Political expenditure has been defined in this way to ensure that all Victorians maintain their right to engage in public discussion on policy matters that are important to them, with an ability to advertise and raise awareness about an issue without it being considered political expenditure, so long as it does not promote or oppose a candidate or political party.

Caps and bans on political donations

To address concerns about foreign influences in elections and consistent with our system of representative and responsible government, the Bill will introduce a complete ban on foreign donations, regardless of the amount of the donation. It will be unlawful for a donor to make, or an entity to accept, a political donation unless the donor is an Australian resident or citizen, or has a relevant business number if the donor is not a person.

The Bill will also make it unlawful to accept anonymous political donations over $1,250 to improve transparency and operate as an anti-avoidance measure. This will preserve the integrity of the electoral process and prevent avoidance of disclosure and reporting requirements. This is consistent with reporting thresholds in other Australian jurisdictions.

Unregulated and excessive private funding poses risks of corruption and undue influence.

These types of unlawful donations, if accepted between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be required to be disclosed and forfeited to the State.

From 29 November 2026, the Bill will set a cap of $7,500, or a higher amount provided in the regulations, for each four-year election period on political donations made or received from the same source. The Bill will introduce a separate, interim cap of $5,030 for the period from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, which is the date of the 2026 general election. Donations made above the interim general cap between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent will be required to be returned.

Political donations caps allow individuals or entities to express their support without the risk of undue influence, supporting equal participation in the electoral process. Caps will apply to all electoral participants without discrimination, including nominated entities operating as associated entities under the new regime.

It will also be unlawful to make political donations to more than six third party campaigners for each election period, to prevent a proliferation of third party campaigners as a means to circumvent the cap.

New entrant general cap

The Bill introduces a double general cap for eligible electoral participants, called the new entrant general cap. This will be an interim amount of $10,060 from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and $15,000 from 29 November 2026 for each four-year election period on political donations. As with the general cap, amounts can be increased by regulations and are subject to indexation.

Eligible electoral participants will be those ineligible for State funding, including recontesting independent candidates who received less than 4% of first preference votes the previous election, first-time independent candidates and new registered political parties who have not been registered a whole calendar year.

Applicants seeking to be subject to the new entrant general cap must apply to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), with the required information as set out in the Bill. Within 30 days of receiving an application the VEC must provide confirmation of eligibility or ineligibility. The VEC will be required to maintain a Register of New Entrants, published on its Internet site, which sets out those who have previously received or are eligible to receive political donations at or below the new entrant general cap.

The purpose of the new entrant general cap is to reduce barriers for those ineligible for a form of State funding, ensuring they have access to other means to fund their campaign without being constrained by the former general cap.

Small contributions

The Bill includes a small contributions exemption, which designed to be a practical way to ensure the donations scheme is not unduly onerous on those people that make minor contributions to entities covered by the regime. It will prevent a donor or recipients from inadvertently breaching the disclosure requirements or general cap, through making contributions of $100 or less, or a higher amount prescribed by the regulations, at events such as party meetings or events.

Disclosure of political donations

Victorians need to know who makes and receives political donations, in a timely manner, to monitor the potential risk that donors are influencing political decisions. The Bill includes a requirement for political donations and loans equal to or above $1,250 to be disclosed to the VEC by both the donor and recipient, with this amount indexed over time. Multiple donations from the same source or related companies will be treated as a single donation. Disclosure must occur in “real time”, with disclosure returns submitted to the VEC within 7 days of either making or receiving a political donation. The VEC will publish disclosure returns on its website within 14 days of receipt, supporting transparency in our political system.

Acknowledging the period of time since old Part 12 was invalidated in Hopper, the Bill will include disclosure and reporting obligations in relation to political donations made and received between 15 April 2026 and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent, with donations in some cases required to be returned.

In addition to real time reporting, annual returns must be provided to the VEC by political parties, associated entities and third party campaigners. The returns will include amounts received and paid, as well as the total debts incurred as at 30 June. The registered agents of candidates, groups and elected members must also provide an annual return to the VEC which sets out particulars of donations received above the $1,250 disclosure threshold.

The VEC will publish annual returns on its website within 6 months after the end of the relevant financial year.

Recipients of political donations will be required to keep a State campaign account to differentiate fundraising and expenses associated with an election, from other financial flows. Only funds in the state campaign account can be used to incur political expenditure. The State campaign account will be required to be denominated in Australian dollars, implementing recommendation 5.10 of the Electoral Review Expert Panel’s 2023 Report on Victoria’s laws on political finance and electronic assisted voting.

State funding

In recognition that political donation caps reduce how much money electoral participants can raise, the Bill will provide for state funding. State funding will be comprised of public funding, administrative expenditure funding and policy development funding.

• Public funding will reimburse eligible political parties and independent candidates for costs relating to running a state election. Registered political parties running a joint Legislative Council ticket will be able to jointly nominate how public funding associated with the ticket is apportioned between them, implementing recommendation 6.9 of the Electoral Review Expert Panel’s 2023 Report onVictoria’s laws on political finance and electronic assisted voting. To address circumstances where repayment of overpaid advance public funding may cause serious financial hardship, which may arise where a participant is no longer eligible or has not elected to receive payment in relation to the next general election, the VEC will have discretionary powers to seek repayment in instalments or waive repayments.

• Administrative expenditure funding will provide funding in recognition of the administrative burden on elected members, whether they are a member of a political party or an independent. This will help elected Members of Parliament meet the administrative costs of running their offices and complying with disclosure and reporting requirements. Administrative expenditure funding must not be used for electoral expenditure, or paid into the State campaign account and used for political expenditure. Amounts payable will be based on the number of elected members from a registered political party, or a fixed amount of $300,000 for each independent elected member.

• Policy development funding will reimburse eligible political parties for costs incurred in relation to policy development, up to a maximum of $31,050.

Compliance and enforcement

The Bill will prescribe civil penalties and offences for non-compliance under the Act and empower the VEC to regulate compliance with the regime.

The VEC will be able to appoint compliance officers, who will have powers to gather information to investigate possible contraventions of the Act.

Strong penalties will act as a significant deterrence and signal the importance of compliance with reporting obligations, with penalties of up to two years imprisonment or fines of up to 300 penalty units.

To further ensure compliance with the regime and ensure bad-faith actors do not go searching for loopholes, intention to circumvent a prohibition or requirement under the regime will be an offence with penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment or 1,200 penalty units for a natural person, and 6,000 penalty units for a body corporate.

The Bill imposes prospective criminal liability for certain offences relating to donations made and received between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Additionally, the Bill will require registered political parties to refund to their former nominated entities, before the 28 November 2026, being the date of the next general election, any funds received from their nominated entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 that are in excess of the new general cap and remain in the RPP’s State campaign account on the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Bill will impose prospective criminal liability on those who fail to comply.

Independent Expert Panel Review

In addition to compliance and enforcement measures, the Bill requires an independent review to commence within 1 month following the 2026 November election to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the new regime. The review will be conducted by an expert panel of three appointed members and will be completed within 12 months after the election. The appointment of an independent expert panel to undertake the review provides external oversight to ensure an objective assessment of the proposed reforms and that they are operating as intended.

The review will examine and make recommendations in relation to the operation of the regime, including:

• the effectiveness of the Act in addressing risks of undue influence arising from political donations;

• the effectiveness of the Act in promoting fairness in electoral competition;

• the operation and effectiveness of the political donation disclosure scheme, including timeliness, accessibility, and transparency;

• the impact of the Act on third-party campaigners, small community groups, and not-for-profit entities; and

• the overall administrative operation of the Act, including enforceability, compliance burden and the role of the VEC.

The report of the review will be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 10 sitting days after the review is completed.

Commencement

Following the decision in Hopper on 15 April 2026, when old Part 12 was declared invalid, there has been a period without a political donations and reporting framework. To rectify transparency concerns and ensure there is no gap where unlawful donations could unknowingly be made and received, the new political donations disclosure and reporting and state funding regime in Part 12 will commence retrospectively from 15 April 2026, the day of the Hopper judgement.

Public statements were released on 15 April and 17 April to put electoral participants on notice that obligations would apply retrospectively, to ensure continuous record keeping for disclosure and reporting purposes.

However, to ensure the Bill does not introduce retrospective criminal laws, certain offence provisions relating to making or accepting a political donation that is unlawful, entering into, or carrying out, a scheme with the intention of circumvention the proposed regime and failing to disclose and/or return certain nominated entity transfers, will be prospective offences and apply from Royal Assent.

Otherwise:

• Technical amendments to the Act will commence on 25 May 2026

• Remaining provisions, including consequential amendments to the Electoral Amendment Act 2026 and the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026, will commence on the day after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Transitional and savings provisions

Also as a consequence of Hopper, the Bill will introduce transitional and savings provisions to validate past actions taken under old Part 12, so that they deemed to have been taken under new Part 12, including:

• funds paid by the VEC, and the acquittal of funding used by funding recipients

• activities related to the status of calendar year and financial year annual return

• deeming registers, compliance officer appointments and procedures of the VEC

• state campaign account activities.

Transitional provisions also provide for the separate interim cap of $5,030 for the period between 15 April 2026 and the date of the 2026 general election and provide that certain political donations offences do commence until after Royal Assent.

The Bill will also include a provision authorising the Governor in Council to make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the Bill.

Conclusion

The Bill will ensure there is transparency and accountability in the electoral process, with political donations disclosure and reporting and state funding regime that is founded firmly on integrity-based principles.

The Electoral Act is fundamental to the operation of democracy in Victoria. Noting its significance, there will be a post-election review of the regime.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:53): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:53): I move:

That debate be adjourned until later this day.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:53): How can it possibly be that this government would be in such a rush to rig the donations system that they would want to slam a donation bill through this chamber so immediately, presumably without any real debate? We know why. Because there are such serious constitutional flaws with it, why would they want it debated? The government will say to you that there are no constitutional problems. What I would say, respectfully, is they got it wrong last time. All you can do is look at what occurred when they tried to pass bills through on the electoral donations system in 2018. The High Court struck them down.

We have said since they struck them down that we want to see a robust set of laws that starts from the principle of being constitutionally valid. The government said it did not want to talk about any matters in this bill that relate to the constitutional matters. We said they got it wrong last time and we have no faith that they will not get it wrong again. You certainly cannot start from a viewpoint of dealing with a bill that has significant constitutional problems if you will not discuss the constitutional issues in it.

When we see the government today attempting to ram through a bill – second read it this morning, debate it this afternoon – all we can say is that this government is ramming through a rigged bill because they are in fear of losing an election and want to try and entrench their advantage. I suspect the High Court will have a further say. I do hope that members not from just our side of the chamber but other members are persuaded by my argument that a bill of this magnitude needs to be considered properly. If there are constitutional problems with it, those issues need to be dealt with.

What this bill does, by definition, is it further entrenches advantage to the Labor Party, which is at the heart of why the High Court threw out the previous laws. It entrenches their advantage further. How you might ask. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis what is Labor proposing to do? Increase public funding. If you felt that 67 new or increased taxes and charges were not enough under the life of this government, the Premier has put her hand out even further into your pocket – from all of us – to take out money and give it to the Labor Party. How grubby that you are creating a set of electoral laws which is based around the Premier putting her hand into your pocket and giving it to the Labor Party. I mean, that is the circular economy under this government.

That is why we need proper debate on this bill. The idea that it gets dealt with in a couple of hours just goes to show the behaviour of this government and the nature of trying to ram through a rigged bill. It is appalling. When the government stands up and says, ‘We don’t need to debate it. We’re all okay,’ all I would say is they got it wrong last time – at the taxpayers expense, by the way; they footed the bill of the High Court challenge. They got it wrong, and I suspect they are going to get it wrong again with this bill. Time will see. This time we will not have to wait years; I suspect we are only going to be waiting a matter of months. Unfortunately, just before an election I suspect we might see these laws fall over, and we will see a two-time loser of a government rushing through bills which are only about rigging Labor’s advantage. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is outrageous. We will not stand for it. We certainly are calling it out now and will not support that today.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (10:59): I am pleased to rise to speak on this matter. It was very rude, I thought, for the member for Brighton to talk about two-time losers. That is a very unfair thing to say to the member for Bulleen as a two-time loser. It is a shame that you brought that up initially.

The member for Brighton is concerned about constitutional validity. It is not something that was raised in the debate when these laws were put through some years ago. We were all quite shocked by the decision of the High Court, including the Liberal–National parties who supported these bills in previous governments, so we need to turn back to this chamber and respond to those decisions of the High Court. It is a very normal thing for a government to do if a law is struck down by the High Court, whatever the reason may be.

Of course it is important that these bills get debated in this chamber and that they get debated immediately, and that is because there are some real concerns around what the Liberal Party and other parties have been up to in terms of the amount of money that they have been putting into their accounts. Their animation around this is less about the bill in front of us and the bills to be debated potentially later today and more about what the Cormack Foundation has been doing with millions of dollars being piled into Liberal Party campaigns in places like Nepean. Nepean of course is a challenge for the Liberal Party, because they might also be thinking about some of those foreign donations that they may well have received.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am going to bring the member back to the procedural debate on the question of the adjournment of this matter.

Mathew HILAKARI: Of course. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am always pleased to be brought back to that at hand. The member for Brighton spoke about entrenched advantage, and that entrenched advantage exists when you do throw millions of dollars into your campaign accounts as soon as humanly possible when the High Court rules some of our legislation out of order. Of course this is a worry for the Liberal Party, and of course that is why they have got deep concerns about having any debate on the bill in front of us.

I do take us to a matter that was raised in the Australian. It is not often that I quote the Australian. In Victoria Ink on 12 March 2026 there was a story titled ‘Sir Philip Davis’. It was substantially about Bev McArthur from the other place and Trent Sullivan and the internal machinations of the Liberal Party, but there was a line that I do not think many of us picked up at the time.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Point Cook has strayed very far from this procedural debate. He has done it before, and I ask you to bring him back again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I counsel all members to keep in mind that the procedural debate is about the timeliness of the adjournment, and whilst you can rebut things that have been said by –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the procedural debate.

Mathew HILAKARI: Thank you for your counsel, Deputy Speaker. In rebutting the member for Brighton I would like to mention that Mr Patel, a candidate for the Liberal Party, indicated he was ‘willing to spend $200,000 to $250,000 the way you would like’. What does that say about the financial disclosure that is required and why this bill is so urgent? There is a potential candidate for the Liberal Party wanting to put up to a quarter of million dollars to be spent however you like into the donation coffers of the Liberal Party. So there is an urgency for us to debate this, and there is an urgent need for the Liberal Party not to debate this so that they can continue to rake those dollars into their account. We are calling for this debate to happen and happen quickly because there is an urgency. We wait again for the Cormack Foundation. I am sure they are listening, the trustees of this, right now and thinking about how they can get the money through the door. Well, we are saying that money should not be through the door. We should know about the donations to the Liberal–National parties. We should know about the donations that they have received from overseas and anonymous donors. Of course we should. That is why it is urgent to get it through this Parliament. That is why it is urgent to go through this Parliament this week.

The bill that we hope to debate and hope to debate quickly and get on with in this Parliament, which is a result of the High Court’s decision, is of course something that we need to get to straightaway and we need to deal with this week, not wait till subsequent weeks so that more dollars and more anonymous foreign donations can be piled into Liberal campaign accounts. That is the critical matter – weeks and weeks of millions of dollars and candidates offering a quarter of a million dollars for their preselection.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:04): I also rise on this procedural debate. The government has moved that this bill should be debated later this day. What we want is for this bill to be debated in full and for more time to be allocated before this debate. But fundamentally we have got issues with this bill. We have got issues with the intent of the bill.

Members interjecting.

Brad ROWSWELL: Government members are talking about big money. I am very happy to speak about big money. It was a topic that they introduced, and the big money that I am referring to is the $1.5 million received by the Australian Labor Party Victorian branch leading up to the 2022 Victorian election and the $400,000 since the Victorian election in 2022 that was received by the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party by none other than the CFMEU.

That is why this government do not want a royal commission into the corruption on their Big Build projects – because they know that every single one of their members who were elected at the 2022 Victorian election would be implicated in an absolute and utter scandal because they were in receipt of $1.5 million in the lead-up to the Victorian election in 2022, donated to them by the CFMEU.

Nathan Lambert: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as we are all well aware, this is a procedural debate and the member has strayed far from that procedural debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I will counsel members again that this is a procedural debate. It is quite narrow. It is about the timing of this bill. If we could all please stay within those parameters.

Brad ROWSWELL: This is the government’s attempt to shamefully rig the system in their favour. They are not interested in transparency. They are not interested in enabling active and full participation in our democratic process. They are interested in rigging the system, and our contention is that this bill in fact enables them to do that. It was members of this government who raised big money coming into the system – big political donations coming into the system. Of course there should be transparency around all of this – of course there must. Foreign donations must be absolutely and utterly banned in terms of political donations in this state. That is the right thing to do. But this bill enables the continuation of union donations to the Australian Labor Party – from their union mates to the coffers of the Australian Labor Party – to continue the corruption that has occurred on their watch in this state. It is an absolute and utter disgrace.

We should be very, very, very clear about this. The Australian Labor Party, the government of Victoria, will claim time and time again that this bill is about transparency and that this bill is about being open about donations in this state. The Victorian people – those hardworking taxpayers and hardworking families who are already under cost-of-living pressures as it stands – should know that this bill is a shameful attempt by this government to rig the system to continue the Australian Labor Party receiving union donations. There was $1.5 million from the CFMEU alone in the lead-up to the 2022 election and $400,000 from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party since the last election, and this bill also enables greater public funding to political candidates and political parties. We are already $200 billion in debt. This government has already introduced or increased 67 taxes.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Member for Sandringham, please keep to the timing part and stay within the parameters of the procedural debate.

Brad ROWSWELL: Indeed, Acting Speaker. We do not believe that this bill should be debated in the timeframe proposed, and the reason we do not believe that is the case is because of the contents of the bill. The bill enables these donations to take place. The government will claim transparency, but the truth is something quite different. In a cost-of-living crisis taxpayers money should be spent on essential services – more teachers, more nurses, a safer community – and not go into the coffers of political candidates and political parties, and for that reason it is a disgrace.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (11:09): It was rough to sit through the verbal diarrhoea of the member for Sandringham. Everyone in this chamber is now dumber for what they had to listen to.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Let us keep our contributions parliamentary, please.

Dylan WIGHT: Indeed. I am pretty sure everybody in this chamber has by now clued onto the fact that there was a very surprising High Court decision some weeks ago.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: It was surprising to most people, I think.

Since that decision, there have been no effective donation laws here in the state of Victoria, and that is a dangerous place to be.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Member for Tarneit, I will ask you to pause for a second. There is too much audible noise in here and interjections coming from within the chamber. I would like to hear the member on their feet, and I will just anticipate and caution the speaker and the speakers to come to remain within the narrow parameters of this procedural motion. Thank you.

Dylan WIGHT: Indeed, Acting Speaker. If I could stop being interjected against, I was merely beginning a preamble as to why these laws are so urgent and why they should be debated today. We have, right now in Victoria, effectively no donation laws, which allows for several problematic things to occur, including donations into Victoria from foreign entities, which I think we can all agree is a dangerous place for the state’s political and donation system to be. So after weeks and weeks and weeks of consultation, both with the opposition and indeed with minor parties and crossbench members, we have come to a place where we, as the government, think that we can introduce legislation which will be transparent, retrospective and will go to some of the issues that we have spoken about. For the reasons that I just outlined, it is incredibly urgent to do so. It is incredibly urgent to get these laws into the Parliament and to get them passed as quickly as possible, so we can make sure that our donation system is transparent.

To the procedural motion and the opposition’s position on it, their position is not grounded in the fact that there needs to be more debate. Their position is not grounded in the fact that it is not transparent to pass this legislation or that there has not been enough consultation with the community. Their position on this procedural debate is nothing more than the fact that they do not support the legislation. It is nothing more than the fact that they do not support the legislation. We have, as the government, consulted with the Liberal Party to no end over the past weeks to try and land a position on this legislation. They were tricky negotiations. Principally –

James Newbury: Acting Speaker, this has nothing to do with the debate.

Dylan WIGHT: I am talking about your position on the procedural motion and our position on the procedural motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Through the Chair, member for Tarneit.

Dylan WIGHT: Sorry, Acting Speaker. Principally, those negotiations were incredibly difficult because of the member for Brighton, who could not –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, you have guided the member to remain on the procedural debate. Sledging me is not relevant to this procedural motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member for Tarneit to resume and remain within the narrow parameters of this debate, which concerns timing.

Dylan WIGHT: Absolutely. Our position on this procedural motion and why this should be debated today is because it is urgent. The opposition’s position on this procedural motion and why it should not be debated today is because they do not support the legislation. They cannot negotiate as one unit: the party office, the leader’s office, the member for Brighton all have different positions.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Member for Tarneit. We need to keep within the narrow parameters.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe this is the third or fourth time you have sought within 5 minutes to try and guide the member –

Members interjecting.

James Newbury: Can I finish my point of order, Acting Speaker?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): You certainly can, member for Brighton.

James Newbury: You have tried to assist the member in trying to deliver a 5-minute speech – and this, my friend, is how you do it.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (11:14): I do not know that there was anything that resembled a coherent thought in that last contribution, but I will, out of respect for your position, Acting Speaker, and understanding that this is a procedural motion, do my very best to stay high and stay within those parameters. There are a few opinions that were just dished out then. Some of the facts are that introducing and first reading a bill yesterday and then second reading it today to be debated later this day simply does not adhere to the conventions of the Westminster system.

It also simply does not allow time for any of my colleagues, who I know like to be actively involved in productive debate. This is a bill of over 110 pages –

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Jade BENHAM: If we want to talk about One Nation, let us talk about that. Do we really want to open up that can of worms? I do not think so. We actually want donation laws that are constitutionally lawful and that level the playing field. I am sorry, I know that those on the other side have a different opinion to this. They want to make sure that the CFMEU can donate their million dollars to their election campaigns. I get that they want to rig elections; we all understand that. What we are after is a level playing field. That is all we are asking for. A bit of democracy – that is what we are all in this house for. I know those on the other side tend to giggle and laugh, and they get quite nasty. But that is why we are asking to stick to convention here rather than introduce this bill, which I agree is very important for a level playing field in this place and to ensure democracy in the state of Victoria – or the people’s republic of Victoria, as it is becoming known as. It is very important; however, we have not had a chance for a bill briefing even. How is that in any way fair? It is absolutely disgusting.

Again, there are those of us, probably much like the member for Tarneit, that sit on the back bench, that have not in any way been involved in the negotiations regarding this bill and that actually want to sit down and read it in its entirety, contribute to a productive debate, understand what is in this bill and take part in a bill briefing. We are not going to have time to do that today, and we all know what is going to happen here, don’t we? We know, because this happens time and time again when they want to ram through legislation that suits only the Labor Party. We will keep going on a bill that those of us on this side do not oppose, like the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 – we do not oppose that. I love talking about outdoor rec, and I have got the call next, so I would love to move on with that. But I know how this is going to go. We all know how this is going to go. We will spend the rest of today debating a bill we do not oppose. At 4 o’clock the minister at the table will move to adjourn that debate. We will come to this bill for 1 hour, and then it will be guillotined. That is exactly what is going to happen. That happens all the time. There is filibustering on a bill that we do not disagree with and do not oppose, and then there is an hour, so very few of us are able to participate in the debate, and then it is guillotined off. It silences and gags those of us and our communities on this side of the house. That is undemocratic. That is not why we are here.

Introducing a bill yesterday – having a first reading yesterday, a second reading today and a debate later this day – hardly gives us the ability to consult or even read the bill. Some of us read quicker than others. Member for Narracan, I am not looking at anyone in particular, but –

Members interjecting.

Jade BENHAM: Don’t. Hang on – those on the other side get nasty; they direct all their nastiness towards us. At least I am highbrow enough to direct it to one of my mates, who I know will laugh about it anyway, so it is okay.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Here is another thing. The poor old member for Narracan says the bills don’t have pictures, so it does take him a long time to read the bills. A few more diagrams, if you will, which is but another reason why we need bill briefings. To do this today does not allow for proper process, and we absolutely oppose it.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (11:19): (By leave) I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for the opportunity to talk a little bit about what is happening here. There has been a degree of froth in some of the debate we have just heard, but I just want to lay out what is happening. We have just literally in the last few minutes received a copy of this bill. That is a statement of fact. There is no dispute about that, I am sure.

I have been grateful to the Premier’s office for the briefings we have received as this bill has been formulated, but we have significant concerns. The concerns I express as part of this procedural debate, of course, are the concerns about the timeframe. The question before this chamber is ultimately: is it reasonable for Parliament to debate a bill with all of this complexity, with all of this nuance, with an interface with the common law, an uncertain jurisdiction if ever there was one? With all of that going on, is it reasonable to introduce a bill at a quarter past 11 in the morning and then seek to have it debated and presumably guillotined today? I have not received any indication yet from the government whether that guillotine might drop today or tomorrow on it, but that is the question before the chamber. As I say, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the opportunity. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Budget Office for having been briefed on the contents of this bill, but we have literally just got it minutes ago. I will be the first to admit I probably have not read every bill that has gone through this joint.

Jade Benham interjected.

Will FOWLES: Yes, I know. Certainly, when you are in the government you rely very much on your ministers bringing things to the chamber that broadly ascribe to your value set. But this is one where we in the crossbench need to get into the detail, into the nitty gritty of this bill, because there are some very, very serious issues at play. The way the High Court framed its decision in Hopper v Victoria was to remove an entire part from an act. That had consequences that, in my view and probably the view of many others – lay views, admittedly – went a fair bit beyond the matters being litigated. Nonetheless, that is the High Court’s prerogative. I have heard a number of people in this chamber over the course of the last couple of days profess to hold views about whether acts are constitutional or not. With the greatest of respect to the Shadow Attorney, newly minted lawyer that he is, he is not a seasoned constitutional lawyer of 40 years standing as in fact most of the members of the High Court are and, frankly, I will defer to them on these matters. But equally, the government will be getting very serious constitutional law advice from very serious constitutional lawyers, and at a minimum, they ought to share that advice with the chamber. That advice should be shared with all of us, because these matters have such a substantial degree of complexity.

On the procedural issue, what I say is, if we are to get our heads around difficult, nuanced, complicated, constitutional legal advice and if we are to get our heads around difficult, nuanced, complicated prospective legislation, we just need more time. It has been some 6 or 7 weeks since the decision landed. I know that there has been lots of the typical brouhaha going on, particularly when you involve the organisational wings of major political parties, who are pretty good at throwing rocks and not necessarily minded to sensible negotiation or conciliation when they all get in a room, and you have obviously got the chasm between the organisational wing of the Liberal Party and its parliamentary representatives. But with all of that going on, with all of the difficulties of landing a position, the government should nonetheless afford this chamber the respect and the decency, frankly, to be able to properly consider all of these matters. That proper consideration would be achieved by adjourning this off, notwithstanding the urgency. That is felt most particularly by the crossbench, because quite literally staff will be retrenched if this replacement part does not end up on the statute book pretty bloody soon. Staff will actually be turfed out onto the street; that is the reality. So I agree with the urgency. But nonetheless there are some serious complexities here, and I would strongly encourage the government to give us all just a bit more time to wrap our collective heads around that complexity. But again, I thank the Leader of the House for his indulgence.

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, and consistent with the last line of the member for Ringwood just then about a bit more time, I note in what has just been tabled the statement of treaty compatibility states at point 5 – and I am asking you, Acting Speaker, perhaps to refer this to the Speaker:

The First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl … was not given an opportunity to advise on the Bill …

We have been told repeatedly in this chamber how important it is to consult on every piece of legislation, and in fact it is the treaty legislation put forward by this government that requires this, and yet they have breached it at the first available opportunity.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): What is the point of order?

Danny O’Brien: I am asking you to ask the Speaker whether it is appropriate for this legislation to go forward in this situation.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): That is a point of debate, not a point of order.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask you, and I take the Leader of the National Party’s point: is the statement of treaty compatibility that has been tabled in this house compliant in the view of the Speaker?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I will refer the question to the Speaker.

Assembly divided on motion: