Wednesday, 3 June 2026

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (14:43): I have been keenly listening to the various arguments that have been spoken across the chamber pertaining to this particular bill, which has some absolutely urgent reforms, and I am dismayed by what I would suggest is the rather irresponsible manner in which in particular the opposition have been portraying not only the intention but the functionality that should result following the successful passing of this bill. We know at present there is a very grave risk of our electoral system literally being sold to the highest bidder, because we do not have the appropriate controls in place that are in the best interests of everyone in the Parliament as a result of the High Court decision in Hopper v Victoria. I also want to concur with one of the very salient points mentioned by the member for Preston, and that is the very real risk that when you distort these fundamental tenets that underpin the critical protections that I think we all value for our electoral system, you further disenchant those who otherwise would consider, I think, a logical strength in governance that we all value.

I am going to give an example. This is not a common matter that I have encountered in doorknocking, but I did have a constituent who was considering One Nation, and she was dismayed because she said, ‘Oh, it’s such a pity that the national anthem is no longer sung in schools.’ And I said, ‘I beg your pardon?’ She said, ‘Well, only in private schools.’ I said, ‘No. I attend the public schools’ – and private schools as well – ‘and I attend public school assemblies all the time.’ I think many of us can reflect in this chamber that the national anthem is sung with pride, and actually I will say I choke up when I hear it, because I am very patriotic myself. But such is the level of mythical information that is highly unfortunate and being distributed, essentially on social media, that I think there is a general responsibility among all of us to be as accurate as possible. Accuracy is absolutely paramount, particularly when debating a matter that fundamentally underpins the electoral system that I would otherwise contend to be one of the best, if not the best, in the world, save for the fact that we do need to urgently pass these controls to ensure that our elections are not handballed to billionaires and others who might seek to, for want of a better word, purchase our elections. I do not think that is in the interests of any of us. Furthermore, seeking to distort and to sully the intent of the Labor Party with regard to these reforms not only undermines the government but undermines the Parliament as a whole. So it is counterproductive to be feathering these kinds of spurious arguments.

I am not saying we should not have a rigorous debate. That is absolutely the premise of Parliament, and it is in all our interests to have a rigorous debate, and we certainly welcome those raising particular points that they have concerns about. However, the opposition are grossly distorting the intent to disguise what I think is actually at the core of the opposition to this bill, and I am going to go to a couple of these points. The Electoral Act 2002 has always allowed parties to receive affiliation fees from associated entities. This is not specific to unions or Labor. There is nothing in this bill to preclude the opposition undertaking structural reform, but it is not the role of the Parliament, let alone the government, to undertake the necessary structural reform that the Liberal Party may wish to undertake. Maybe they just cannot agree; I do not know, and I do not wish to cast further aspersions because I am not in their party. But they certainly have at their discretion to undertake that appropriate structural reform rather than undermining and blunting the whole process of furthering these very important electoral reforms that we are debating here in the bill in front of us.

Furthermore, affiliation fees from associated entities can only be used for administrative funding. I think it is very important, again, to be accurate. When you are referring to critical elements that underpin the reforms that we are debating that we have before the chamber at this time, you do not distort elements which can only further disenchant certain members of our community – who I absolutely respect. I absolutely respect the broad spectrum of perspectives that people can develop over time, and I am not here to put down one or another opinion that people may form. I get that social media can be incredibly influential, irrespective of what is behind the particular points that are being tried on for the benefit of undermining major political parties – and you will note I said ‘parties’ plural. So I think in the interests of the Parliament as a whole, it would be to our benefit to adhere to what this bill is actually seeking to do.

Furthermore, I think it is very important that we do not distort the premise upon which the Premier spoke to and responded to the matter that was before the High Court, Hopper v Victoria.

I am going to quote the Premier. The Premier said:

The High Court’s decision to strike down Victoria’s long-standing electoral integrity laws leaves our state exposed to dark money in politics.

And there is no shying away from that. Sorry, they were my own words. I will go back to her quote:

Right now, money could be flowing from foreign billionaires into political party bank accounts – with no limits, no disclosure, and no oversight.

The Government will immediately move to restore Victoria’s electoral integrity regime within the limits of the High Court’s ruling.

We can’t allow anyone to exploit this current period to solicit huge donations and move money around secretly.

And finally:

Our legislation will make sure that every party and every candidate will be accountable for every dollar they receive from this day onwards.

I know I take great comfort in having – and this was pre the Hopper decision – every cent that is donated accounted for. It is absolutely reassuring. It is reassuring not only to me as a local member and to the government but actually to the decent supporters who turn up for the trivia nights and everything else. They want to know that money is tracked and used appropriately as well. We are accountable to them, as I am sure and I hope the opposition and other members of the Parliament are as well.

So I think as part of displaying integrity – not only displaying but in action as opposed to words in terms of the broader community – it is upon us to duly pass these reforms as expediently as possible, noting that there has to be absolute rigour in the debate. That is certainly welcome. But perhaps we could resile from flagrant distortion of the fundamental underpinnings of this bill. And if the opposition need to make structural reform, please go forward and do so, but do not undermine the Parliament and fundamentally sell out the Victorian community. They deserve to have the transparency and accountability that we are bringing before the Parliament here and now.

The Premier was not in any way backward in terms of stating exactly the intention of the reforms. I have read to the chamber an exact quote of her words. It is not as if this is some kind of surprise. She did forecast that we would bring forward necessary reforms. Even right now as we speak, the overseas donations and otherwise unaccounted-for money make me feel nauseous, to say the least, because I know that we should respect the wonderful democracy that we have as a country but also as a state. Therefore I hope that the opposition will pull their thumb out, get on board and actually debate this bill with respect but without perhaps exposing their own structural vulnerabilities, which they absolutely have the discretion to correct and otherwise see fit to ensure that the community are not further disenchanted – not as a whole, there are certain sections, and I pay respect to the spectrum of responses. But I think it is upon us to have some dignity and honour in this debate and pass this bill accordingly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members about unparliamentary language. It has been ruled that pulling one’s digit out is unparliamentary.

 Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (14:53): Well, apart from that particular phrase, a lot of hifalutin words from the member for Albert Park about a bill which is essentially trying to rig the playing field to support the Labor government and prop up a dying government at this election so they can get one more lick of the ice cream. That is what this is about.

Let us start with the fact that this is a bill, in response to a High Court judgement, which this government wants to rush through this place in less than one single day. This bill has got a long progeny. But remember, this is not the first time this government, this Labor government, has fallen foul of the High Court of Australia. Remember the case of Vanderstock v The State of Victoria. That was this Labor government’s EV tax – an EV tax which the government was warned was unconstitutional at the time it passed. And then of course it went to the High Court and was found to be unconstitutional and had to be repealed. Once again, Labor got it wrong. Once again, Labor broke the constitution.

Then came the wage theft laws. Labor was told at the time that wage theft laws were unconstitutional because the federal Parliament had already legislated and had covered the field on the issue. But of course this government thought it knew better, and it went and legislated wage theft laws. On the eve of those laws being considered by the High Court, what did the government do? It withdrew every single wage theft charge, withdrew all of them, and then it repealed the wage theft laws. Third time lucky: they got it wrong on the EV tax, they got it wrong on wage theft and they got it wrong on political donations. And having stuffed it up comprehensively, this government now seeks to rush in a 116-page fix with less than one day of debate – one day of debate for something which is so important to get right. We have got to get this one right, and I do not think the government has got it right.

The member for Preston, in his contribution, talked a lot about the rise of One Nation, and it looks like everything in this bill is governed through a political lens of this government trying to protect itself against the political threat posed by other parties. It is not about integrity in electoral funding. If this was simply about stopping dark money, stopping foreign money, I think there would be unanimous agreement in this place; that is not a problem. This government is trying to rig the playing field to benefit itself: union money, good; everyone else’s money, bad. That is what this bill says: union money, good; everyone else’s money bad. And to their great discredit, the government has been aided and abetted in this attempt to rush through this dodgy bill by the Greens. Those paragons of integrity in the Victorian Greens are hand in glove with this Labor government in trying to rush dodgy bills through to tilt the playing field in their own favour six months out from an election. It reminds me of an article from 17 March 2023, published in the Age, by Broede Carmody, which states:

Multiple Greens sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said while the party wanted Labor to take integrity issues more seriously, MPs were treading carefully because their supporters wouldn’t want them to assist in anything that could eventually contribute to the downfall of a left-wing government.

That says it all – the Greens would rather prop up a corrupt Labor government than act with integrity, because when push comes to shove they are more interested in being left wing than they are in being ethical. I will not hear anything from the Greens about ethics when it comes to these matters either.

The government said in its press release from the Premier, issued today that:

Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals will each be required to return money transferred to their nominated entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 above the general cap of $5,030 …

Of course the High Court judgement, a unanimous judgement, was handed down on 15 April. The government is saying in this bill that any registered entity – which are essentially the registered entities of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor – needs to return any money they have received in excess of the cap. But why the start date of 1 July 2023? That is not the date of the last state election. Why that date? That is an arbitrary date. Why does that period for which money has to be returned commence on 1 July 2023? There is nothing in the second-reading speech about it. The second-reading speech simply says:

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 …

It goes on with no explanation as to why that date was chosen. Do you think that maybe the Labor Party’s nominated entity gave the Labor Party a truckload of money just before 1 July 2023 and they do not want to have to hand it back? Maybe that is the reason.

When this government comes in here and talks about ethical, sensible laws, it is a rort. It is a rip-off. I want members opposite to stand up here and put on the record whether their Labor Party’s nominated entity made any transfers to the ALP Victorian branch between the date of the last election and 1 July 2023. If the answer is no, then we might start to take them seriously. We might start to listen to what they have to say as though they have a shred of credibility. But I suspect the answer is that none of them are going to stand up and give us that guarantee – not one of them – because this is a rort.

It is a rort designed to benefit the Labor Party at everyone else’s expense, because they are on the nose, they know it and they want to hamstring their political opponents from making the best possible case for a change of government at this year’s state election. That is what this is about. If I am wrong, I challenge Labor members to stand up and give that commitment that no money was transferred between Labor’s nominated entity and the Victorian Labor Party in the period between the last state election and 1 July 2023. Otherwise, it looks like the government has picked a date that suits it and not everyone else. I will wait with bated breath to hear whether we hear any such admissions.

I have read the High Court judgement, and the High Court judgement is a very interesting judgement. It talks about differential burdens, and it does that in the context of the established political parties being able to establish their nominated entities and use previous money for those but new nominated entities not having that ability. What do we say about the differential burden where Labor’s nominated entity can shovel money into the ALP and not repay it but other parties cannot do the same thing? That is a differential burden, and the High Court has made it very clear that differential burdens can be an impermissible burden on the freedom of political communication. This is why these laws are dodgy and why they are susceptible to being challenged yet again. This government got it wrong many, many times. It got it wrong on the EV tax – unconstitutional. It got it wrong on wage theft – unconstitutional. It got it wrong on political funding once – unconstitutional. I have no faith that this government will not get it wrong again when it comes to political funding.

Why is it okay for the CFMEU and unions to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars into the Labor Party while no-one else has the same opportunity? That is a fair question. I heard the member for Albert Park say that it only goes to administrative purposes. Money is fungible. The more money you get which goes to your administrative causes, the more money that you can obtain from other sources that can go to campaigning. It is no answer at all.

At the end of the day, this bill does a number of things. It puts the law at constitutional risk again, because again it is tilting the playing field in favour of the ALP. It is putting impermissible burdens on other parties. Number two, it is keeping the flow of big union money into the ALP. Number three, it is preventing other parties having access to the same opportunities to raise funds that the Labor Party has through its big union mates. That is what it does. This bill is a rort. If any member of the Labor Party wants to stand up and say, ‘Member for Malvern, I can guarantee you not a single cent was given by Labor’s associated entity to the Victorian ALP before 1 July 2023,’ I will resile from my comments. I wait with bated breath, because that will not be happening. That is not a date plucked out of thin air but a calculated date chosen by this government to benefit them at the expense of other parties. Hand in hand, the Greens have done a deal with Labor to rush these bills through today with no debate. That is why we oppose this dodgy bill.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:03): It gives me great pleasure to stand up this afternoon and make a contribution in favour of this legislation. I will pick up some of the comments from previous speakers soon enough, but for those that have not figured it out yet, for the last six or so weeks in Victoria there have been no donation laws. There have been no donation laws in Victoria for the last six weeks, which obviously plays a role in harming the integrity of the political system in Victoria and most certainly the donation system. We have heard members opposite during their contributions question why this is so urgent, why we have to do it today and why we have to have speedy passage of this bill. I would have thought that it is pretty self-explanatory. I would have thought it is pretty self-explanatory that once we have landed on a position that is rock solid, has integrity and is transparent we get this bill through the Parliament as quickly as possible to eliminate the risk that exists right now of dark money coming into Victoria’s political system, perhaps from overseas, perhaps from elsewhere and perhaps in enormous quantities.

It is incredibly important that we pass this legislation this week so we have a system in Victoria which will hold up to a High Court challenge and which makes sure that there is a fair playing field in the Victorian political system when it comes to donations, because we know what happens when there is not: huge amounts of money from corporations and from other places, from overseas, come into Victoria’s political system, and they have undue influence on elections. I cannot remember exactly who it was earlier today who said – I think it was the member for Gippsland South – ‘No-one has been talking about the fact that we should have caps. Why should you have caps?’ Everyone is talking about the fact that we should have caps – everyone. There is political discourse all over the country about donation laws in different political systems.

I have listened intently to previous contributions from those opposite, and one after another from that clown show opposite have come into this place and sought to conflate issues.

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Yes, I am half on your side, because we won 56 seats a few years ago, guys. There is a reason some of us are over here. They have sought to conflate issues and drum up fear –

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Keep it down. They cannot lie straight in bed. They come in here and conflate the issue of union affiliation with the Labor Party like it has something to do with this. You cannot use it to campaign, guys. They are separate accounts. They do so whilst holding $130 million in Cormack. How can you look at us with a straight face and conflate those issues?

Furthermore, we know how these negotiations went. All of us do. All of us on this side understand how these negotiations went, and everyone on that side understands it too. Everyone in this place understands how this went. It was intensive consultation with the opposition, particularly at the outset, to try and land an arrangement that we could get through the Parliament in a bipartisan manner. But we could not do so, firstly, because the member for Brighton thought that he ran the show. He could not get to the same position as the party office and could not get to the same position as the Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought, given I am pretty sure the Premier’s office has carriage of this bill, it would have been most appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition’s office had carriage of this bill for the other side. But the member for Brighton, to be fair, is the smartest guy in the room, so he insisted that we consult only with him. We were unable to land a position at the outset because of the retrospective nature of the legislation and the transparent nature of the legislation.

I do not want to accuse the opposition or the Liberal Party of anything – the member for Nepean is not here anymore – but I do note that there was one particular event during the last six weeks where perhaps a sizeable sum of money may have been invested into a certain by-election. I am only spitballing here.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Werribee happened in February, you goose. It was covered by the former donation laws, you clown. I do not want to accuse anyone of anything, but there was that significant event in the last six weeks or so where maybe there was a whole bunch of money put into it that maybe was over any donation cap that the state has ever had – maybe, just maybe.

Also, there was a significant issue around what the donation cap may be. I know the Liberal Party were pretty keen on $50,000. I am not sure what the point of having a donation cap would be at that point, but that was a real point of contention from the outset as well. There was also the issue of the nominated entities. I am not a lawyer or a former lawyer, member for Malvern, but I would have thought if the High Court decision said anything it was that nominated entities are done. They are done.

It was the Liberal Party’s position that maybe they could get their way through this while still being able to use these nominated entities, perhaps because they have got $130 million in theirs. I am not sure, but perhaps that had something to do with it. I mean, anyone with half a brain would have thought that absolutely had something to do with it. To come in here and to conflate issues of integrity, to try and drop the union movement in it, because they just love doing that – we can have a bingo card for how many times they say ‘CFMEU’. The CFMEU are not even affiliated to the party anymore, so I am not quite sure what they have got to do with it. I would have thought that we were talking about donation legislation from when the High Court made its decision, and I am pretty sure that the CFMEU are no longer affiliated to the party, member for Malvern.

They cannot lie straight in bed. To come in here, to conflate those issues, to talk about integrity, all that has happened is they have chucked their toys out of the cot because they did not get their way. That is all. They have chucked their toys out of the cot because they did not get their way, and then they come in here, they conflate all of the issues and they talk absolute drivel until someone pulls them up. The members on this side have been pretty good at pulling them up, because, to be frank, it has been a pretty transparent process with our caucus, and our caucus understands how these negotiations went. When the member for Brighton talks out both sides of his mouth, context is important. Contextualisation may not be his strong suit, but to come in here and conflate all of these issues and try and deal with this in this way I think is disingenuous, but it is also kind of dangerous.

These laws are incredibly important to the integrity of Victoria’s political system and to the integrity of our elections here in Victoria. That is why they existed in the first place. We were all a bit surprised by the High Court decision, but we are now moving through this with goodwill, unfortunately not with the Liberal Party or the opposition, but with the crossbench and the Greens. We are all moving through this with goodwill to make sure of the integrity of our elections here in Victoria is as strong as it can possibly be.

Just to go to the legislation for a moment before I finish my contribution, the few changes included in the bill – the political donation cap I believe prior to the High Court decision was slightly under $5000. It will now be $7500. That is a slight increase – nothing as ridiculous as $50,000, but a slight increase. A ban on all foreign donations – one of the most important aspects of the bill, and frankly one of the most problematic reasons for the Liberal Party to be opposing it and not want to give it a speedy passage. Do not look at me like that, member for Narracan; you know what is going on. And a ban on anonymous donations at or above $1250, so if you make a donation over $1250, you have to declare it, which is incredibly important. It will also improve enforcement and compliance mechanisms.

I will reiterate: there are no donation laws in Victoria right now which could cause foreign interference and which could cause the integrity of our elections to be called into question. It is deeply irresponsible for the opposition to not be supporting this bill. I commend it to the house.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:13): I am pleased to rise on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. It is always interesting to follow the member for Tarneit, having listened to the absolute drivel that comes out of his mouth.

We have to ask why we are here today discussing this bill, and the reason why we are here today, quite frankly, is because the government stuffed it up. That is it. The legislation got challenged in the High Court, and that is why we are here today. The member for Malvern stated earlier that it is not the first time the government has stuffed up a bill in this place that has been challenged in the High Court and been overturned. That is why we are here today doing a donations bill, because of the government’s incompetence in doing it in the first place. I have heard so many members today talk about integrity. They have talked about due process. They have talked about a range of issues. You would think they were the high and mighty of integrity in this state, yet Victoria knows a lot better. But the fact of the matter is that this bill has been handed to us in the last few hours.

We have had no time. They may say, ‘Oh, oh, oh,’ but the fact of the matter is that side of the house keep telling us how important this legislation is yet give this side of the house no chance to scrutinise it, not even a bill briefing, which is a pretty standard practice – a bill briefing where we cannot ask questions. To be honest, this bill should go to consideration in detail. If it is what that side says it is, that it is so important that we get this through, be transparent about it. But it is typical of that side. They do not like being transparent. They do not like it. They are trying to jam this legislation through today with no scrutiny from anyone. This is what amuses me: the government is asking us to have the faith in them that they have got this bill right when the previous donation bill just got thrown out of the High Court. We are not going to play that game with this government. We will not play that game with this government, because we know they continually stuff things up. Now we have got to take their word for it that when this goes through it will not be challenged and it is all constitutional. But I think the Premier herself has said she expects these laws to be challenged. Why? Are they wrong already? It is a fair question. If the Premier has already stated that she thinks these laws will be challenged, are they already wrong? It is a problem if at the moment we actually have no electoral laws in this state because the government stuffed things up, and that is why we are here today, through their incompetence.

I heard the member for Tarneit, and he has run out of the chamber now. He always does that when he knows he is about to get towelled up – he scuttles out of the chamber. He does not want to stand here. But let us talk about how the government is really setting this up. They are really setting this up six months out from the election, as the member for Malvern stated earlier, to hamper all their political opponents. There was $1.5 million from the CFMEU last year – $1.5 million from a union that is in administration. Talk about lying down with people – this government are just so blatant about it now, they do not even worry about it. They just blatantly lie down with the CFMEU, even though they are in administration at the moment. We know what CFMEU stands for: crime, fraud, misogynistic, extortion, union. That is what it means. That is what they are. But the government still wants to be in bed with them. It is unbelievable. As I say, you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And I tell you what, there are a lot of members on that side of the chamber that should be really, really itchy right now. I really think they will be, because come this election on 28 November there are going to be a lot of the members over that side that will not be –

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Member for Point Cook, I will be happy to wave goodbye to you come 28 November. Do not worry, because I think your seat is one of the seats that will be in trouble and you probably will not be here – neither will the member for Narre Warren North. She will probably be gone as well. This is what they are trying to do now – they are trying to rig the election. That is what they want to do. They want to rig the election to try and win again. They are trying to hold on. And this is why they have done the laws they have, and this is why they are trying to jam this through Parliament in one day with no-one to have a say in it. So do not sit up there and be all pious like you are the most honest people in Victoria, because Victorians know you are not. They know that through your behaviour. We will talk about that later on today, I imagine. But yes, we are opposing this for a number of reasons, because you are trying to stitch up the opposition. That is all you are trying to do. This bill has been manipulated by this government to stack the cards in their favour.

That is exactly what is happening here today. The High Court has thrown it out the first time because the government got it wrong, like they threw out the EVs bill and like they threw out the wage theft bills. The government continually gets bills wrong. They continually get challenged and they continually get thrown out. Is this bill constitutional? Do we take the government’s word for it, being that they got it wrong the first time around? To be honest, how are we meant to know if it is constitutional? When the Premier says she expects it to be challenged, she probably realises that it is not constitutional. So why go through with it? Why not go through the proper process? Why not give us time to look at the bill properly? Why not give us a bill briefing and why not do consideration in detail? I have said this before about the member for Essendon. When he thought a bill was very, very important – it was a Workcover bill – that minister sat in that chair and did consideration in detail, himself. He backed himself because he knew the importance of the bill. Why isn’t the relevant minister doing the same on this bill? Why aren’t they doing it, if it is that important? Because they are scared of the questions that we are going to ask. It is really that simple.

To be honest, the fact they just want to go back to 1 July 2023 does raise some serious questions. Why are they picking that date? I do not know. Whose idea was that? I mean, the member for Tarneit just thinks he was involved in everything. He knows everything, and he talks himself up a fair bit, the member for Tarneit. But again, he just makes it up as he goes along. He just makes stuff up. As I said, it is important that we have donation laws in Victoria; we do not want to see foreign donations capitalise or influence any political party in this state. I firmly agree with that. Why can’t we have the time to debate this bill properly? You cannot jam a bill through like this and expect everyone to agree. You just cannot. That is a ridiculous notion. Just the fact that we get a few hours notice really is snubbing your nose at the conventions of this Parliament and at the people of Victoria. That is what you are doing.

All that you have managed to do is continue to get donations from union affiliates. That is what this bill has done, and that is why we oppose this bill, because it is not a level playing field. It got thrown out the first time by the High Court because it was not a level playing field. Yet the government has just reintroduced another bill that is not a level playing field. That is exactly what they have done, and that is the reason why we oppose it. That, and the fact we have had no consultation at all, just shows you how low this government will go to win an election. They are hanging on for grim death, and that is the problem. Everyone over there is hanging on for grim death. There are at least 20 members over there that are wondering, ‘Are we going to be here after 28 November?’ They are. I will be here. I will guarantee I will be here. But there are a lot over there that will not be here. They will not. Point Cook probably will not be here, and I will not miss him one bit.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (15:23): I will come to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 in a moment, but I want to just reflect upon the really disconcerting contributions by a number of those opposite who have conflated a legitimate electoral contest with this bill to suggest – in the words that the member for Caulfield has used in his speech, the words of the member for Narracan – that the intention of this bill is to rig an election, that it is inherently corrupt, is incredibly dangerous. It is so toxic. It is a form of destructive populism, the consequences of which will be visited upon them, because of the delegitimisation that that kind of populist nonsense has upon the whole system. It undermines people’s confidence in democratic norms and democratic institutions, and it is the right-wing fringe in seats like Shepparton, seats like Narracan and seats like Gippsland South, which will be vulnerable to a right-wing fringe party as a consequence of trust in the entire system breaking down. There will be an election in November. Every single person in this house will be up for election, and that is right and proper, as it should be.

It is also entirely true to say there are no campaign financing laws in place in Victoria at the moment. So it is far too rich for those opposite to say that they want to have a prohibition on foreign donations while at the same time not engaging in the debate properly in this place. Rather they suggest that an attempt to introduce sensible reforms around campaign financing is somehow a manifestation of corruption and an attempt to rig an election. I cannot state more strongly how destructive that is for people’s confidence in democracy. It is astonishingly short termist from those opposite. As I say, the consequences of that short termism will be visited upon them because of the collapse in their primary vote.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: We will see what happens, member from Narracan.

Coming back to the premise of the bill, what happened on 15 April was that section 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 was effectively struck out in its entirety. It could not be finessed. It requires a fundamental overhaul of the electoral financing arrangements in Victoria. The Premier, upon the High Court handing down that decision, very clearly foreshadowed that there would be legislative action to retrospectively address the gap that now does exist that means there is no prohibition on any foreign actor spending money on or donating money to a Victorian political candidate, in effect trying to buy an election. We have heard from the director-general of ASIO and others about how foreign interference in Australia by malign actors – both state and non-state actors – is very real. To have a situation whereby there is no prohibition whatsoever, in effect, on somebody outside of this country donating money, seeking to buy an election, palpably seeking to have an undue influence and to interfere in democratic processes in Australia and Victoria, as the case might be in this instance, is incredibly dangerous. It is why there is an urgency to this bill.

I come back to the member for Narracan, who has just left the chamber. His suggestion that the urgency and the expedited timelines in this place somehow denoted an absence of consultation and an absence of the capacity of those opposite to scrutinise this bill is an absolute furphy. There has been extensive consultation between the political parties at a secretariat level and at a political level in this place, including the opposition parties – both the Nationals and the Liberals. To suggest that there has not been that opportunity to fully scrutinise, to ask the questions that they are suggesting they do not have time to ask in this place, is just simply untrue, and it does them a disservice. Fundamentally again it is seeking to obfuscate and to dissemble.

The core premise is that as of 15 April we do not have electoral financing laws in place in this state. There is inherently an urgency to bring them in to ensure that Victorians can have confidence in the entire architecture, because in their absence we have no way of knowing who is donating money to political campaigns, how much money they are donating to political campaigns, the provenance of that money and the geographic origins of the people who are making those donations. That is surely an absurdity. Those opposite know that, and yet instead, rather than grappling with the fundamental need to have reform, they conflate issues. They suggest that somehow it is an attempt to buy an election – an attempt by one party or another to have an undue influence. They suggest that it is a manifestation of corruption and of trying to rig an election. The member for Caulfield set that tone in his contribution. I thought it was astonishingly intemperate, and I think it is actively destructive not just for his own party and his coalition partners but for the trust that Victorians have in democratic institutions. We have seen it before in other jurisdictions. It does not end well for parties in the mainstream when that sort of rhetoric is used and when those sorts of images are put around to suggest that there are malign actors who are in power seeking to nobble ordinary people and to control the system to suit their own ends. It is not true, but that does not mean that people will not believe it. It is toxic, it is corrosive and it undermines the democratic fabric that we have.

The member for Preston in his really eloquent and informed contribution, born of his deep experience with these matters, did make the point – and I think it is worth dwelling upon – that part of the reason why the original 2018, I think, laws were struck out is that they were seeking to grapple with the challenge that the Cormack Foundation is not entirely governed by the Liberal Party; it is semi-independent of it. The political parties themselves do not fit neatly into the structures that legislation in Australia has for organisations, whether that is incorporated associations or corporations.

I think the member for Preston made a really compelling point: the federal government, the Special Minister of State and others with responsibility for these issues should seek to develop a mechanism that captures the complexities of political parties, which are entirely legitimate and also essential pillars of our political processes. Political parties are not nefarious actors, they are entities that enable people of like mind and shared values to come together to seek to advocate for particular causes, changes and reforms in our society. Then we come to this place and we have a debate. We have a debate about those things in a democratic way that means that we do not have violence on the streets and that we do not have strongman politics where power and might are right. We may not have consensus on every issue or agreement on every issue, but we have democratic processes that enable us to resolve tensions between competing rights and divergent perspectives on issues. Political parties are an incredibly important part of that process, so I think it is incumbent upon governments, the federal government in this case, to think about how to properly ensure that the nature of a political party is reflected in law, so that we do not have this scenario where there is an attempt to retrospectively fit onto the realities of political party governance structures, campaign financing laws that the High Court self-evidently on 15 April deemed were unconstitutional.

The member for Gippsland South also made the point that, in a sense, the judgement of the High Court, without reflecting upon it in any pejorative way, has the effect of penalising political parties which have been in existence for a long period of time. The Nationals and their precursor the Country Party have been in existence for 110 years, the Labor Party for well over 120 years and the Liberal Party for over 80 years, and during that period of time they have husbanded resources and the donations of loyal members to create the mechanisms whereby they can fund campaigns. Because of the High Court's decision, they are limited therefore in their capacity to use the donations that people have very legitimately given to them.

As I said, there is a profound importance of democratic institutions and transparent donation laws to our economy and to our society. One of the astonishing strengths that Australia has, and Victoria has, on a global scale is low sovereign risk. Investors have confidence in the political system, the political structures and the democratic institutions that provide security to market actors. One of the dimensions of that that is so important is free and fair elections where foreign investors, or anybody for that matter, can have confidence that elections are not going to be bought and that elections are not subject to nefarious activities of foreign actors who may have malign interests. Things like a robust and independent Australian Electoral Commission, things like the Victorian Electoral Commission and things like the absence of gerrymandered electoral boundaries where there is a genuine contest in every seat, are important, so too are campaign financing laws that ensure that Victorians can have confidence that people are not seeking to buy an election, where there are caps in place, and there is clarity over who is making a donation, where they are coming from and what that money is being used for. That is why there is an urgency to this legislation, because at the moment there are no laws in place to prevent that sort of malign activity. I commend this bill to the house. I hope that it is able to be sent upstairs for further scrutiny and for further debate and that we have laws in place.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:33): I just cannot believe that this Labor government continues to believe their own rubbish. This is a bill that is nothing more than a shameful attempt by the Labor Party to rig the system. That is what it is for – to rig the system. Let us call it what it is.

Iwan Walters interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: You have had your go. This government have done everything they possibly can. We know that the popularity of the Allan Labor government has fallen through the floor. When we see the Premier doorknocking in her own seat in a desperate move to try and win votes, we know that the government will now do anything they possibly can to ensure that they win the election in November – anything. This is a classic example. You see, what we have had are election laws in this state that were challenged at the High Court constitutionally and thrown out by the High Court constitutionally. A law that was implemented in 2018 has been thrown out.

The government is having a second go, but we need to understand why they are having a second go and what the difference is. There is one consistency in this when it comes to corruption. Let me spell it out for you: there is one consistency, and that is the CFMEU. The CFMEU has stolen $15 billion of taxpayer money. The same CFMEU donated $1.5 million to the Labor Party in the last term and half a million dollars in this term, and the laws that we are debating today enable the CFMEU to continue to donate to the Labor Party. Every other entity is off limits, but the CFMEU and their union mates can continue to donate to the Labor Party to ensure that they have rivers of gold going into the election – rivers of gold to go into the election and save all the marginal seats, including you, Tarneit.

Dylan Wight interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Order! Member for Tarneit, you can go to your seat.

David SOUTHWICK: To save your skin, to save Werribee, to save Point Cook – to save all of you.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Order! Member for Tarneit, will you please go to your seat.

David SOUTHWICK: This government are scared because they know they are going to lose their seats without the rivers of gold from the union mates and from the CFMEU.

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, members should use correct titles rather than ‘you’ and talk about the actions of the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: It is not a point of order. Again we can see the member for Point Cook –

Mathew Hilakari: We need to use correct titles, and we should not reflect on the Chair in this chamber.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Point Cook has had his turn, and the member for Point Cook needs to understand –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am waiting for a ruling on that point.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): If you could please call members by their name, member for Caulfield.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Point Cook is very nervous at the moment because the member for Point Cook is in one of the seats that Paul Hopper and the West Party are coming after, and we are absolutely coming after. It is one of my favourite seats. I have been to Point Cook many, many times –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Order! Through the Chair.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Point Cook knows very, very well –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Can I please hear the member on his feet in silence.

David SOUTHWICK: that Point Cook and 11 other seats in the west are all under severe threat, and that is why the seats in the west and these marginal seats are all absolutely scared of what is coming and will do anything they possibly can. That is why we have this dodgy bill to give dodgy money to protect these seats – a protection racket for the likes of Point Cook, a protection racket for the likes of Narre Warren and Tarneit, who is out of his seat.

Members interjecting.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Tarneit, the member for Werribee, the member for Narre Warren – let us keep going – the members for Footscray, Laverton, Niddrie, Williamstown, St Albans, Sunbury, Sydenham, Tarneit –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Order! I am on my feet, member for Caulfield. I cannot hear the member on their feet. Continue, thank you, member for Caulfield.

David SOUTHWICK: Thank you, Acting Speaker. Again, the reason why these members of the Allan Labor government and the Labor Party are up and about at the moment is because they know that they are at real threat of losing their seats. That is why we have a rushed bill that has come before the Parliament today to run roughshod over Victorians and ensure that Victorians do not get a proper say in what is going on, to ensure that, even though these laws were thrown out the first time by the High Court, they can have another go. We know that the West Party, which is coming after Point Cook, is already challenging these laws in the High Court, before they have even passed today. We know that because the government have not done their homework. They are trying to rush these laws through with the real issue of not getting these laws done properly.

We all want fair laws. We do not want foreign donations, we want transparency, but we also want to ensure that the Labor Party and their CFMEU mates abide by the same transparency. It should be a law for everybody, including the union movement. We cannot have the union movement shovelling money into the Labor Party like there is no tomorrow to run a protection racket for their Labor mates. There are at least 20 seats the Labor Party are at risk of losing as a result of a government that has not been listening to Victorians since they were elected. They have failed to listen, and this is another example. They are not listening again. The government is not listening to the High Court ruling. The government fail to listen to anybody and will do anything, including dirty, dodgy deals, to get themselves elected. That is why the rules should apply to everybody, including the Labor Party and including the CFMEU.

There is one thing that all Victorians know, and that is that there has been $15 billion of CFMEU corruption on the Labor Party’s big, rotten, dirty build. Every major transport project in Victoria has been corrupted by the CFMEU, and the government and the leader, the Premier, have allowed this to happen. Mick Gatto was arrested today. He has been running the protection racket on half of these sites. Again, this was allowed to happen under Labor’s watch. The same union have shovelled $1.5 million of donation money into the Labor government, with another half a million this year – $2 million – and they want to keep shovelling money in to try and ensure they are elected again. Because the one thing that we will do is run a royal commission to make sure we clean up the state and clean up the corruption. That is the fear that every Labor member, Labor minister and Premier has: that we will finally get to the bottom of the corruption and we will lock up those that have been caught up in this dirty, rotten corruption that has ripped off every single taxpayer in Victoria. That is what every Victorian taxpayer expects.

This is why this bill is so important. This is why it is so important to get things right. This is why it is important to have transparent donation laws that are fair for everybody – a law that fits for everybody. You cannot say on one hand that you can have no donations coming from one group and one side of politics but open the floodgates when it comes to the union movement, because we know that is an unfair advantage. Many in the Labor Party today have spoken about how they have got to make sure that there is transparency and to not scare people. Well, yes, Victorians are scared. If only I had a dollar for every Victorian that said if Labor win the election again this year, they will be moving elsewhere because they have had a gutful of this government. They have had a gutful of a deceitful, hurtful, spiteful government that does everything it possibly can to drive Victoria into the ground. They do not want another four years. And when this desperate government, this doorknocking Premier in her own electorate, goes out there and says, ‘You know what, we’ll have another crack to ensure we run a donation deal that just favours the unions to the Labor Party,’ well, that is not fair, that is not right and that is what we stand against.

That is why we will not be supporting this bill. We will not allow the unions to run this state. We will not allow the CFMEU to get away with what they have been getting away with since the Big Build started. Every time the Premier has put on a hard hat and cut a ribbon on the Big Build she has pretty much also given a pat on the back to the CFMEU and the movement that stood by her. The government have done nothing to shut this down, and now they want to continue to take donations from the unions to get themselves re-elected. This government will do anything and say anything to get re-elected. That is why this bill is not fair. 120 pages were delivered today to be passed today – no proper consultation and no proper debate. They want to silence us, they want to shut us down and they do not want Victorians to have their say. Victorians will have their say on 28 November. It does not matter how much corrupt money the Labor Party takes from the unions; Victorians will throw the Labor government out because it is a corrupt government that has not been listening to Victorians and has taken Victorians for a ride. Victorians once and for all have had a gutful of this shameful and hurtful government.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:43): Goodness me, if you ever, as a union person, want to know how much those opposite hate working people, just listen to that last bit and how the member for Caulfield talks about unions generally – unions in our state, people who build our state, people who are in the teachers union or the nurses union, unions that are contributing with compassion to the care of Victorians each and every day. Imagine if you were a teacher in the AEU today: you have just been described as corrupt, as a thug, as all these other synonyms that come to mind. And the irony of it all is to sit in here, with a former Leader of the Liberal Party behind you, talking about criminals and corruption when nine years ago old mate over there sat down for lobster with the alleged head of organised crime. Remember that?

Matthew Guy interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: We were all here, mate. We were all here during your era. Glass jaw over there, he will go for a few laps around the bowling green.

Daniela De Martino: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, there was unparliamentary language from the member who just left the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): He has left the chamber.

David Southwick: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is using incorrect titles when they are calling out members on this side. I ask the member to use proper titles when they are referring to other members.

Tim RICHARDSON: For the removal of all doubt, I will refer to the member for Bullen, who sat down with figures from the underworld in what was one of the most egregious actions we have ever seen in Victoria, which was the scandal of the 2018 election – for those opposite, who are so pure in describing themselves as the keepers of standards here on behaviour and conduct – which absolutely destroyed his quest for the premiership in 2018.

What was part of the reasons we found donation thresholds at such low limits? What was it? What were some of the reasons? That was one of them. That was one of the reasons that were put forward. The irony of the member for Caulfield in full flight to make those points while the member for Bulleen sits on is like one of the most twisted senses of irony I have ever seen. Some of us were here in the class of 2014 and saw exactly how outrageous that was. Who just goes to the Lobster Cave and sits down for a dinner with alleged underworld figures? Nick McKenzie’s brilliant report uncovered it all. That is exactly the reason we need to defend. That is why we need public funding disclosure, that is why we need real-time disclosure and that is why we need to see dark elements in political donations brought into the light, because those types of characters would not find themselves donating ever to political movements if it was public.

At that time the thresholds were up near $10,000 and you could get – this was in Nick McKenzie’s report – 25 people, 10 grand a head, ‘There you go!’ That was 250K that was never seen. That was the hope that night. We all knew it. Someone in the Liberal Party was good enough to step up and whistleblow to the media. Someone was good enough to say, ‘You know what? That’s a bit too far for us.’ It became an enormous scandal, Acting Speaker O’Keeffe. I know you were not here at the time, but goodness me, you could not walk anywhere without seeing someone dressed up as a lobster chasing the member for Bulleen around. It required a whistleblower. It required someone within the Liberal Party to have a conscience to bring out what was going to be a horrific breach of confidence and trust of alleged underworld figures donating directly to the Liberal Party for their political aspirations.

Those opposite cannot come in here with purity and say, ‘We’re all great, and we’ve got nothing wrong in our show,’ even though the member for Brighton, who knows intimately some of the negotiations that were done on this, did not in the first instance want retrospectivity, because it was a Hunger Games out in Nepean, and they were absolutely concerned whether the new member for Nepean would get up or not, and there is a grey area to that right now. This will be retrospective. Guess what, they have to either front up who was funding during that time, what they took in during that time and explain that, or hope that they are below the thresholds of those limits, because it will all come out. If they do not do it properly, there will be offences under these reforms and under this act.

The member for Brighton made some comments around the people he has been negotiating with, being 15th tier–order advisers. Maybe that is more of a reflection on where we see him in the rankings and who he actually had to talk to. Maybe they got a bit too cute here. Maybe they thought they had all the answers and rather than negotiating in good faith there was pressure borne from their regional seats being under huge amounts of pressure from One Nation, who do not have a state leader from what I can see. They do not have any sort of political presence in Victoria at the moment, and there is huge anxiety around what One Nation will bring to the Liberal Party. Federally we see a political movement that in its populist nature, like we see with Reform in the UK, is tearing to pieces our democracy, our Westminster system, and saying all kinds of stuff.

If you want to go back and see an eloquent description of where we are at and the state of play, the member for Preston – who has an incredible knowledge of this space and a passion for electoral reform, having served at some of the most senior levels in a political administration and in departments – summed it up impeccably. It is a moment in time. There should be more coverage of the way that he described it. The way he eloquently articulated it is a warning sign that some of us have tried to say over and over and over. The two-party system, the multiparty system now with the Greens political party, is a stable structure in Victoria.

If we chew away at the fringes and we are in a populist frame, rather than doing the hard stuff of governing, we all suffer that consequence. Member for Melbourne, I am giving you a bit of a lift-up here.

Ellen Sandell interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: It was a compliment, yes, member for Melbourne. For the record, which will probably come back to haunt me, it was a compliment, member for Melbourne.

I think they are well established in discourse nationally and in Victoria, as is the coalition and Nationals, as is the Australian Labor Party. But some of the consequences of things outside of our periphery, what we see in the US, the UK, Europe and other jurisdictions, and where we find ourselves a little bit behind that cycle but with it roaring up on us, is a warning to all of us that we need to really lift the standards of discourse and do the hard things that governments and oppositions need to do, because there is always someone who is going to be more populous; there is always someone who is going to take a further step or be more outrageous or more offensive. It is in human nature. It is in the psyche of us, in our disposition as people. So we need to think about the standards that we set and the standards that we lift in this place and in this engagement, and political donations are a really large part of that. A really large part of that public funding is about bringing that trust and confidence. We do not see that in other jurisdictions – where the Malinauskas government has gone, we see almost no donation frame to that. We still think there is a place where people can participate in that engagement and that democratic element. We see spending caps in Queensland. That is a way that they have looked at per-seat expenditure. We have got here public funding that supports the administration so there is not a risk of then further undermining and corruption into the future as well, and so that new entrants, whoever they might be, have an ability to fundraise in that environment, and that is disproportionate to other members of Parliament who would be fundraising in their own right as well.

These were time-sensitive and urgent pieces of legislation. You think of some of the work that we are doing and will come in the response around IBAC. How many moments in time would there be of grey corruption and of risk if we have just no elements of protection whatsoever over some of the donations? What would it look like? It would be an atrocious system that we would find ourselves in. The characterisations from those opposite around where these electoral reforms are, they were literally tinkering around the edges even last night of where this might be. The grandeur and all the dramatics here, they were close to landing with us, so let us just remind those opposite there. The member for Brighton can do the theatrics, but the member for Brighton was in those discussions up to last night, going through and negotiating and discussing. So all the theatre here – we are talking degrees of separation here. The member for Caulfield is having a crack at where this comes to be. Just remember the negotiations that their party administration office has been engaged in with the Nationals, the Greens political party, the ALP and other entrants and the crossbench. This has all been free flowing in that engagement.

Finally, because this place is just humorous and on many occasions has twisted irony, at least ask the member for Bulleen to step out when the member for Caulfield is in full flight about standards and criminality on donations, when old mate over there – Bulleen – was literally one of the big reasons we have this right now today.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:54): I rise to speak on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, and from the outset I would like to be very clear why we are all here, because this is a mess that Victoria finds itself in today, and it is entirely of the making of the state Labor government. In 2018 the Labor government carefully and deliberately passed laws that included massive loopholes to allow the Labor, Liberal and National parties to keep their political slush funds, while at the same time denying this to other political parties and candidates. In doing so, they created laws that were not only undemocratic, cynical and downright dodgy, but also, as it turns out, not permitted under the Australian constitution, funnily enough. In his speech earlier the member for Preston seemed to try and defend this by saying that nominated entities were totally legit, and my question to him, then, is this: if they were legit, why did the legislation specifically prohibit anybody else – any other candidate or party – from setting up a nominated entity and being exempt from the donations laws?

The Greens did not want one because we felt it was entirely undemocratic and dodgy, but the reason the Labor government prevented other parties from doing it is because it was rigged from the start, and the Labor Party knew it. It was rigged in favour of the Labor, Liberal and Nationals major parties, and now the High Court has found that it is unconstitutional. In finding the 2018 laws to be unconstitutional, the High Court immediately struck out the entire part of the Electoral Act 2002 that dealt not only with these nominated entity slush funds but also all the donation laws and requirements to do with electoral funding in Victoria. All of a sudden Victoria had no political financing, donation or electoral laws at all. Incredibly, this has been the case now for several months, and indeed it is still the case as I speak right now.

The Greens felt that it was untenable to allow a situation to continue where dark money – hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars – is potentially flowing from billionaires, corporations, vested interests and even overseas actors to influence the outcome of the Victorian election this November. There is clearly a need to address it and address it quickly and to also claw back the hundreds and thousands, perhaps more, in secret donations and transfers from those political slush funds that have flowed into political parties since the High Court’s ruling. But let us be clear: this is a temporary fix because Labor would not do a proper rewrite of the laws in the time that they had, and that is why having a review of the laws baked into the legislation is critical.

The temporary fix in the bill includes some important things. Firstly, it provides that the three nominated entities – the political slush funds that I mentioned that were exclusively made available to the Labor, Liberal and Nationals parties – will now be subject to a donations cap just like everyone else. They cannot donate more than $7500 to the political party that they are affiliated with. They will not be allowed to keep donating unlimited amounts. The bill reinstates a cap on donations and sets it at $7500. Donation caps are essential for our democracy, to stop wealthy individuals and corporations being able to exert undue power and control over our politics and elections at the expense, I must say, of ordinary Victorians who do not have the same wealth and power. Ordinary citizens are the ones who should ultimately determine the outcome of elections, through their vote. This is why the Greens support donation caps being set as low as is possible and as low as is constitutional. Now, $7500 is a little bit higher than it was previously – it was set at $4700 – but it is much less than what others had proposed, and it is better for democracy and better for keeping big money out of politics.

Everyone will be subject to this cap; no-one is exempt. If Labor takes donations from unions, they cannot use them for state election campaigning if it is above this cap amount. If the Liberal Party takes donations from their investment fund or a wealthy corporation who wants to influence their policies, they can only take a donation below $7500 if they want to use it for state election campaigning. This is a fundamental –

A member interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: If a climate activist wants to make a donation, they are subject to the exact same cap – $7500. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that everyone has the same donation cap rules, which is what this legislation does.

The bill will also reinstate public funding for elections. Public funding has long been an important feature of our democracy to ensure that ordinary voters determine who receives electoral funding based on the level of support they receive from a voting population and that it is not simply one or two vested billionaire or corporate interests that fund elections. Public funding allows us to get vested interest money out of elections. It allows for fair elections as everyone gets public funding if they run for election and they receive more than 4 per cent of the vote.

This bill also proposes to double the donation cap for new entrants and candidates running in elections for the first time, to $15,000 per donation. The higher donation cap acknowledges that in an open democracy it is important not only that all eligible people are allowed to put up their hand to run as candidates in elections but also that there should not be unreasonable or insurmountable barriers for them to do that. Further, the higher cap recognises that incumbents have some inherent advantages simply by virtue of being incumbents, and there is a need to level the playing field and give new entrants a leg-up to be able to start a campaign in the first place before they receive their public funding.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.