Wednesday, 3 June 2026

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (11:32): I move:

That the government business program resolution agreed to by this house on 2 June 2026 be amended to change the completion time of the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 to 7 pm on 3 June 2026.

It is our government that believes elections should be fair and that they should be decided by Victorians. Liberals believe big business should decide elections, and that big business, with big dollars in their back pocket –

Members interjecting.

Anthony CARBINES: Isn’t it interesting that we have before us the opportunity, in amending the business program, to debate and discuss a bill that will replace the invalid regime in part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 to increase transparency and integrity in the Victorian electoral system, but those opposite would rather a free-for-all? Those opposite do not want electoral funding transparency or integrity. Just like the old COVID record, they want to let it rip. That is what those opposite want to do. They do not want follow-the-money powers around the dark money of foreign investment and foreign donations.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! There is too much audible noise in the chamber.

Anthony CARBINES: Those opposite do not want accountability – back to the High Court decision in April to hold them accountable – for whatever funding donations were made in Nepean or those that might come later through to this election. We know that electoral funding needs to be transparent. It needs to have integrity. We need to be sure that everyone who makes donations around elections and that funding is transparent and clear so that we can have full understanding of the way in which people choose to engage with and influence the result of elections.

We want fair elections, and we want Victorians to decide those elections – not big business, not big money and not those who want to remain anonymous and hide in the shadows. It is only those opposite that want to obfuscate, delay, deflect and not bring on the debate on these electoral funding matters to bring forward integrity, balance and transparency around electoral funding. Those opposite do not want to debate it, do not want to vote on it and do not want to discuss it. They would rather have no rules at all.

Since the High Court struck matters down in April, the Parliament needs to act. The Parliament needs to make decisions. We have a bill before the Parliament that will restore balance, transparency and integrity in electoral funding and hold accountable those who seek to influence those who want to be elected to this place. The people who cannot quite come to a decision about whether they want to support transparency and integrity in electoral funding include the Leader of the Opposition. And who is the Leader of the Opposition? Is it the member for Kew? Is it the member for Brighton? The confusion around what they choose to discuss –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is a procedural motion – relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Relevance. Thank you. The minister to remain within the parameters of the debate before the chamber.

Anthony CARBINES: There is clearly touchiness from those opposite, who have spent most of their time obfuscating, deflecting and denying that there is an electoral funding transparency issue that needs to be addressed since the High Court made its determinations back in April. The Parliament, through a series of negotiations with other parties, independents and those opposite over six weeks, have brought a bill before this place that the government seeks to act on immediately, seeks to act on later this day, seeks to determine today and hold to account each and every member in this place. The electoral funding needs to be transparent and accountable. We want elections decided by Victorians, not by dark money, not by those who want to hide in the shadows. The only people – and we will see this through this government business program amendment – who do not support bringing on this bill later this day and bringing it to a determination and conclusion so the remainder of the Parliament can deal with it are those opposite.

And what are their motivations for that? They are quite happy that the High Court has struck down electoral funding laws in this state. They are quite happy to let it rip. They are quite happy to make sure that it is a free-for-all. That is what they are like over there – a bit dog eat dog, find your own dog, do what you like, have no democracy, spend what you like in the back corner and in the back pocket. That is what those opposite are looking forward to doing. They will play the role of making sure there are not electoral funding laws in this state. They do not want any laws. They cannot find a coherent narrative or position on these matters. The government has a bill before this place and amendments to the business program that will ensure electoral funding is transparent – that there is accountability and integrity in our funding laws for elections and donations in this state – while those opposite will continue to obfuscate, to delay and deflect and deny, because hiding in the shadows and taking money from dark operators and big business is their game plan.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:37): What the government are trying to do today is ram through their rigged laws, and you can see that is all it is. They know these laws do not stack up, but they also know that the beneficiary is Labor. Labor is the beneficiary of these laws – and I get why they are doing it. They are wrong, but I get why they are doing it. Do you know why? Because they are sinking. This government is end of days. I do not know which one of you briefed that out yesterday, but with ‘end of days’ you were bang on. You can see these dodgy, rigged laws.

And I welcome the Premier into the chamber. I am glad the Premier is here and I can say it directly: these laws will not stand up, Premier –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Manager of Opposition Business, order! Through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: It is shameful. This ramming through of these laws is shameful. And we just asked, led by the Leader of the Nationals, a very simple question: are these laws so rushed that they may not even stack up in their ability to be debated?

If you turn to the statement of treaty compatibility, the First Peoples’ Assembly were not even consulted. The moral superiority of Labor on treaty – it drips from them.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! I am on my feet. There is too much audible noise. I can barely hear, which is extraordinary. Everyone else just needs to be quieter, please. Thank you.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker, and I say again: this government has breached treaty with these proposed laws. Can you believe they have breached treaty? The moral superiority that comes from that side of the chamber over treaty and for introducing treaty compatibility into their proposed legislation – they could not have been more chuffed. It dripped off them. And to see them being forced to admit – which is why we have asked the Speaker whether the statement associated with these proposed laws even stacks up.

I am looking forward to the Speaker reporting back to the house on whether the statement of treaty compatibility is even a legitimate statement, because it is a legislative requirement that they provide it. As they say in this statement:

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

Where is your moral superiority now, Labor? Very, very quiet.

This bill rigs the system for Labor. We have said consistently, despite the Leader of the House’s meaningless attempts, that we support a strong system, we support a transparent system, we support bans on foreign money. But what we also support as a point of principle is constitutionally valid laws. When it comes to these proposed laws, the government said at the get-go, ‘We will negotiate with you, but we will not negotiate on any part of the proposed laws that deal with the constitutionality.’ We said, ‘Well, guys, you got it wrong. The High Court said you got it wrong, so we need to consider a set of laws that are constitutional,’ and the government said, ‘No’. What they wanted to talk about was only a small fraction of the proposed laws. We took the view, and I certainly took the view very early on, that it was a sham and this government had no interest in making these laws constitutional. What were they focused on when I was talking about things like caps with the government? Direct quote: ‘The West Party matter’s success and not having high caps so that the West Party would not be a threat.’ That was what this government were focused on – not the constitutionality of the bill but their electoral fortunes. This tips taxpayers money into Labor’s coffers. It is an outrageous attempt today to ram this bill through. It will be seen by the broader community as such. I know it will. We will never support what Labor is seeking to do so disgracefully now.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (11:42): To bring this back to the issue at hand, it is around a procedural motion changing our government business program to have this matter dealt with by 7 pm this evening and making sure that we have the chance here in this chamber to get this through urgently, because since 15 April 2026 there have been no regulations around where money can come from when it comes to our electoral system. It means money could be coming from all sorts of places – it could be coming from dark money; it could be coming from billionaires – and the longer we leave this, the more chances there are for things to fall through. We want transparency in our electoral system, and that is definitely something that we need to debate urgently. We need to get this to the upper house. We need to have that discussion here first, obviously, but we also need to get it to the upper house for their consideration as well this week, because the longer we leave it, the more chance there is for people to be moving money in and around our electoral system without any kind of transparency around it. We need to bring this bill on – vitally.

While this is a procedural debate and we are looking at the idea of debating this today until 7 pm in this house, there are a few things that we need to address here. Having public funding electoral rules and having public money in elections is important, because it means that it keeps billionaires out from influencing our elections. We do not want the rotten boroughs of the Tories of yesteryear, which seem to be what those opposite want – the rotten boroughs. They want billionaires to be able to influence what MPs can do and who gets to speak.

James Newbury interjected.

Katie Hall: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I heard a comment from the member for Brighton which I found quite offensive. Could you ask him to withdraw it – relating to the member for Point Cook.

John LISTER: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I did in fact hear what the member for Brighton referred to me as, and I wish for him to withdraw that particularly offensive statement.

James Newbury: I withdraw.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The comment has been withdrawn.

John LISTER: Thank you. To make sure that there is a little bit of order in this place, I think it is important to remember that by having that public funding it means that we can have control over the types of influence that are in our politics. There are nefarious actors out there that do want to influence our politics here in the state of Victoria. We need to make sure that there is that opportunity for new entrants into the system as well to get that support, which is something that this procedural motion being accepted by the house will go to.

Not to foreshadow too much of what is in the bill, but I do want to return to why it is important to discuss this now and have this debate conclude at 7 pm tonight so that we have time to get this through the Parliament. We have all been discussing this since 15 April. I can assure you we have all been in those discussions. We all understand that the need is there. The particulars, the figures and the numbers need to be debated in this house, but at the same time, those negotiations have been happening between the different parties and the different people who have an interest in this bill. What is important to maintain the integrity of our system is that we have this debate now, and we do it now. The longer we leave it, the more opportunities there are for people to get into our politics here in Victoria and influence them with money rather than with ideas. I know that is a little bit scary for those opposite, to have an election that is based on ideas and policy, given that they have come up with nothing for the western suburbs so far – I am just putting that out there. They have no policies for my part of town. They would rather have a debate based on how many corflutes they can buy –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Member for Werribee, I caution you to stay within the parameters of the debate.

John LISTER: We know that they do not want to have a debate of ideas. Public funding is really important to make sure that there is that level playing field, so it is a debate on ideas and policies for the people of Victoria rather than just who has more money from mining interests and from interests that want to do things in our community that may not be the best for our community, and some nefarious actors that are not necessarily legally registered industrial organisations either. It is important to have this debate. I wish to have this debate today, and I commend the motion to the house.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:47): What a disgrace this is from this government. What a disgrace this is not just for the merits of what this legislation is about and a government that is desperately trying to cling to power and use any means at its disposal to do so, but a government that cannot manage its own affairs. We are here in this situation because the government messed up this legislation at the start. That is why we are here. We had Daniel Andrews back in 2018 bring this forward, and that is the genesis of the debacle that we now find with the donations reform. Then in terms of the management of the chamber and the business of the day, the Leader of the House has had the gall to say that the opposition has no coherent narrative. That from a bloke who yesterday moved a business program that had this piece of legislation finishing at 5 o’clock tomorrow, yet today has come in and said, ‘Actually, no, we’ve messed that up too and we’ve got to change it, and now we’re going to make it 5 o’clock today.’ They have the cheek to say to us, ‘Oh, you guys have no coherent narrative.’ They could not organise a chook raffle in a pub these guys. It is extraordinary that the government does not know what it is doing at any given time.

I pick up the comments of the member for Werribee stating that we have all been engaged in this discussion. I am sure the member for Werribee is fully aware of the full 119 pages of this legislation. That is said with tongue in cheek, because I am sure he has not been informed, just as we on this side have only just got this legislation in full. I did see an earlier copy, but it was 116 pages, so clearly there have been some changes made again. The government is still working through what it actually wants to do, and we know that because extraordinarily, after all the lecturing that we have been getting from the government about treaty, at the first sign of a little bit of a problem, the government completely ignores its own treaty legislation. The statement of treaty compatibility tabled with this Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 specifically states:

Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill …

We are told by those opposite that this is urgent and we have got to rush it through.

The explanation as to why the assembly was not given an opportunity is the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 commenced on 1 May and the assembly only became operational on Monday 4 May, and:

Considering this timeframe, there was insufficient time to seek advice from the Assembly.

It is 3 June – it is a month later. It just shows that this government’s supposed commitment to treaty and to consulting the Aboriginal people of this state is –

Kim Wells interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: only when it suits them – exactly right, member for Rowville. It is only when it suits this government that they are committed to consulting with people. When it does not suit them, they just bulldoze their way through. And this is a government that does not even know how it wants to do the bulldozing. Yesterday the bulldozing was by 5 o’clock tomorrow. Today they have cut some dodgy deal with the crossbench in the upper house. They have cut a deal that says they will get exactly what they want as the Labor Party. The Labor Party will get what they want – the rivers of gold from the union movement, from the corrupt CFMEU, will continue to come through to the labour movement, but they will do over everybody else and remove the opportunity for others.

Then we have the member for Werribee having the gall to talk about nefarious actors. How much did the Lottery Corporation give to the Labor Party before the government did a dodgy deal on the eve of the budget, a billion-dollar deal for a 40-year extension of the Lottery Corporation’s licence? If the member for Werribee wants to talk about nefarious activity, he only needs to look around his own benches, because this government has got questions to answer on things like that.

It is absolutely galling to have the government trying to lecture anyone else in this place about integrity, about probity and about corruption when it has overseen the worst corruption this country has seen – $15 billion of CFMEU corruption to bikies and criminals on the Big Build, most of it overseen by the Premier as the minister at the time, who is still not willing to own up to it. To have the government say that this is now urgent for integrity’s sake is hypocrisy of the highest order. The government stands condemned for its activity on this. It has failed with the legislation. It will fail again, and it deserves to be condemned.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (11:52): I might begin by reminding people of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 that this this chamber considered and passed. It did not require mandatory consultation with Gellung Warl, and I would just suggest –

Members interjecting.

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

Nathan LAMBERT: I would suggest to the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Brighton that they may want to read more carefully the legislation that passes through this chamber. But perhaps all of us here know there is a good reason they may not have paid good attention to that particular bill, and that is because they do not support treaty.

I rise on this procedural matter to support the position taken by the Leader of the House and indeed the position set out by the member for Werribee. It is true in this state that we have a problem at the moment with the fact that there is no framework for political donations, and it is true that that raises very real concerns about what the Leader of the House called dark money and about, as the member for Tarneit in his earlier contribution referred to, significant donations from foreign entities. It is absolutely the case that there is an urgent requirement to fix that.

I listened carefully to the member for Brighton. The member for Brighton’s chief reason for opposing these procedural motions is that, in his words, there are problems with the legislation. I would counsel the member not to anticipate what a future High Court decision might get to. But if the member thinks there are problems with the legislation, he should surely welcome the opportunity to debate them in a substantive debate. I have to say, Acting Speaker, in listening to the contributions that we have heard from the opposition today, you have had to caution them numerous times about not debating the substantive matters, and that strongly suggests to me that they, like us, would like to get to that substantive debate because they recognise, as we do, the urgency.

I would put if I can a particular reason for that urgency that strikes me, and it is one I think the opposition would agree with. Many of us out talking to people in our community at the moment have noticed the very significant rise in support for One Nation, and that is something that I think many of us have reasons to be concerned about. If we think about it, when we talk to those people there is no doubt that some of those voters are driven by what could only be described as quite bigoted and often very gendered positions. Sometimes it is driven by this sort of false nostalgia and nationalism, but often it is driven by concerns about integrity. These are conversations that all of us are having with voters at the moment.

There is a sense amongst some of those One Nation voters that the system is rigged, that major parties are corrupt and that governments are corrupt.

Members interjecting.

Nathan LAMBERT: There are interjections from the members of the Liberal Party. I would suggest to them that perhaps this is a matter of urgency for them as well. Indeed for members of the National Party it is perhaps even more urgent that this One Nation vote is driven in part by this perception people have that the entire system is rigged against them. I would add that they extend that perception very much to the Liberal and National parties. They see the Liberal and National parties as part of the problem.

Anthony Carbines interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Exactly, as the Leader of the House says – we saw that play out in Farrer. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to be able to go out and talk about the genuine integrity in our system. It is not true to say that in Victoria the government is acting against the people. It is not true to say that in Victoria elections are rigged. It is an important message for all of us in the conversations we are having throughout the rest of this year. I would suggest to the opposition parties and indeed to the Greens that I think every single party in this chamber at the moment has good reason to want to, as quickly as possible, be able to have conversations with some of those people, at least those who have concerns about integrity.

And I will be very honest with you – when I have those conversations, I get the impression that what I am doing when I can convince some One Nation voters that the system is not totally rigged against them is that I am actually just turning them back into voters for the Liberal Party. I am not sure I am even winning voters for myself, but I still, very honestly, do not mind doing that, because I think it is important for all of us that some of those voters who have this false perception of a system that is totally rigged against them should be brought back and away from joining forces with some other voters who have very bigoted positions. We would all like to see that One Nation vote go back down to single digits – to the core of people, I think, who have very discriminatory positions that none of us would ever support.

Part of that important work is having conversations about integrity, and part of getting to that is having to fix the exact problem the Leader of the House and the member for Werribee set out in their contributions. It is a serious problem. It is feeding into an inaccurate and dangerous perception in our society, and I absolutely think we need to move as quickly as possible, as the Leader of House says, to get into the substantive debate about this and, most importantly, to get a bill through this chamber, allowing our colleagues in the other place to debate it and get the bill passed, so that these significant problems that we have highlighted can be fixed and we can have a proper conversation about integrity in this state.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:57): Let me give the member for Preston 15 billion reasons why Victorians think the system is rigged – $15 billion of corruption. If you thought that was enough and people had had a gutful, well, they have. Victorians have had a gutful. And this government is so desperate that again they are trying to rig an election by ensuring that money can be shovelled in from the union to ensure they get votes up come election time. This is nothing but a government that is so desperate they want to rig the system and take money from their union mates to ensure they get victory come November, and every single Victorian can see through this corrupt Labor government, and a Premier that is so desperate that she is doorknocking her own seat because her vote has fallen through the floor.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have been pretty lenient, I think, but I have to get to my feet and say that the member for Caulfield is not being relevant to the motion and the government business program that has been moved.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member has strayed somewhat from the motion put before the house. I have cautioned other speakers to remain within the parameters, which is debating the time of guillotine.

David SOUTHWICK: Victorians know that this government is the worst, most corrupt government that we have seen, and this is another example of it. The donation laws were thrown out by the High Court not only because did they not pass the pub test, but they were not legal. They were thrown out because they were not legal. Now what this government wants to do is have another crack, but instead of doing it properly, they have literally overnight just delivered a bill of 119 pages into the Parliament to rush it through as quickly as they can in the hope that Victorians do not see through this mess, in the hope that Victorians do not see through what this government is actually trying to do in their corruption that continues. The one thing this government does well is corruption. That is the one thing that they do. This is why this government is trying to rush this bill through in the light of day as quickly as they possibly can – to ensure Victorians do not see through this corruption. But Victorians know just how corrupt this government is. They know it. $15 billion of CFMEU corruption, and then this donation law –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is not a sledge motion. It is the government business program in relation to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill, and the member is not anywhere near those matters.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the minister would know that this particular motion that we are dealing with is all a timing issue, and it is dealing with the reasons why the government are trying to rush it through, and they are trying to do it as a protection racket for their CFMEU mates. That is what they are trying to do. The Minister for Police should know, because –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Caulfield! Order! What is the point of order? The rebuttal is that you are being relevant. Is that correct? Okay. I will rule on the point of order: it is very, very tenuous. We are trying to keep to the timing, and I have been listening carefully. I will say that timing has been discussed there, member for Caulfield, so please keep within the parameters of this procedural motion, the government business program, about the timing of this guillotine.

David SOUTHWICK: The truth hurts, and when the Minister for Police has to stand up here and try and run a protection racket on a piece of legislation that they are trying to rush through simply because they want to ensure that they get donation money from their CFMEU mates, this smells like a dirty racket – a dirty racket of corruption from the CFMEU, and Victorians know it. They will see through it come November. This government should not be allowed to rig an election by taking union money to ensure that they can steal an election come November. That is why rushing this through does not pass the pub test. We need to ensure it is given proper consideration, and trying to rush something through which the High Court has thrown out – the government wants to have another crack, and we know it does not stack up. We will be back at the High Court again because the government have not done their homework, and all they want to do is rig an election come November and take money from their CFMEU mates.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:02): (By leave) In a normal process we believe that all laws that are put before this place should go through the normal legislative process in terms of being introduced and then released and having two weeks so that there is public scrutiny on laws and that parties can have a look at them and hear feedback from stakeholders and constituents and then have them debated and passed through this house – or not passed through this house. In this case we will be supporting the procedural motion to vote on these laws tonight, because we have a situation right now where we have no donation laws at all in Victoria, and that is a very scary situation. We have had several months now where dark money – it could be overseas money, big money, hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars – is flowing into political parties and candidates here in Victoria from billionaires, from corporations, from vested interests and from people who want to buy the election in Victoria and influence the outcome of the election. There are no caps on that, and that is a completely untenable situation to be in and a scary situation. I think all Victorians would be pretty horrified to know that that is happening right now, and we need to put a stop to that and we need to do it quickly. So these laws, as we see them, are a temporary fix to plug that hole, which is why we think that it is important that they are voted on tonight. That is why we will be supporting the procedural motion.

Assembly divided on motion: