Wednesday, 3 June 2026

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (18:00): I was interrupted for grievance while I was talking about the part of the bill that doubles the donation cap to $15,000 for new entrants and the need to level the playing field and give new entrants a leg-up to be able to start a campaign before they receive public funding. Some will feel that for that balance between incumbents and new entrants, this bill does not get that balance right, and I acknowledge that and I acknowledge the difficulty in getting the balance right. That is one of the reasons why the Greens insisted on a comprehensive review to properly examine that issue, and we are very open to looking at other models. But as part of our talks with the government over this bill, the Labor government would not entertain any other models in this legislation because they wanted to pick up part 12 and then put it back in the legislation with as few changes as possible to get it done quickly. That is what they told us. We did put forward other models, but unfortunately they were not entertained.

The bill also reinstates disclosure requirements for donations because transparency around donations is very important in a democracy, and the level that is required to disclose the donation will remain the same as in the previous laws, so no anonymous donations can be received above a total of $1250, and the bill finally will ban foreign donations, which the Greens strongly support. It also tidies up some confusing elements relating to third parties who are engaging in legitimate campaigning activities and enabling them to do so, which is important and something that has been put to us by community groups that I thought was very important to tidy up as well.

One of the really important things about this bill is that donation caps and disclosure will be retrospective, meaning that any donations that were taken above the cap since the High Court decision was handed down in this period where we have had no donations laws will have to be paid back, with criminal penalties for not doing so. This provision means that Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals will also have to pay back any money drawn out of their nominated entities from the date of the High Court decision whether it has been spent or not.

I also want to talk about what the alternative was to this legislation. The Liberals wanted a donation cap so high that it would be almost meaningless and allow tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more of dollars to flow into their coffers. That is true – the Liberals wanted a donation cap that was significantly higher than we have in this bill, and this would be fundamentally undemocratic and significantly advantage people who have huge amounts of wealth and enable them to influence elections while ordinary people just do not have the same power and influence. Fundamentally, the Greens believe that money should not decide the outcome of elections; voters should.

There was a lot of commentary in the press since the High Court case about the Liberals not wanting a system that was retrospective.

James Newbury interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: Well, there was commentary about that in the media. That is true – and the Liberals wanting to be allowed to continue to take money out of their political slush fund for their political spending. That kind of scenario is just unacceptable. Ultimately, though, this bill was needed because Labor made a mess of the previous laws by trying to keep special rules for themselves and for the coalition parties. But this is a temporary fix to fix the current bleeding and to ensure that we have donation caps and political donation laws for the state election this year.

That is fundamentally why this is being brought to us. But there is no doubt that these laws are not perfect, and we proposed several suggestions to Labor which they would not entertain as part of these laws. It will be on Labor if they are challenged successfully in the High Court or not. They are the ones who designed these laws. We believe that the Electoral Act 2002 needs a rewrite and it needs proper scrutiny, which is why we have insisted on a timely and comprehensive legislative review which is baked into the laws.

The kinds of things that the Greens believe need to be included in our laws and in a review are not just caps on donations but also caps on campaign spending to end this escalating political arms race where people feel like they have to spend more and more to outdo their opposition. I do not think that that benefits Victorians at all. Spending caps are easier to monitor, they are harder to sidestep, they help level the playing field and minimise the advantages of incumbency. New South Wales, Queensland, the ACT and many countries all have electoral expenditure caps, so why cannot we have them too?

There are also other gaps that need fixing, like candidates being able to spend unlimited amounts on their own campaigns, people being potentially able to donate multiple times under multiple entities and a few other issues we have raised with the government which they would not fix in these laws but absolutely need to be fixed.

As I spoke of earlier, the system should also look at ways to ensure fairness between all players and candidates in the system. Independents, challengers, new entrants, incumbents and political parties, they should all be on a level playing field to ensure our elections are truly democratic. There are models already in use in democracies around the world to ensure that this is the case which we could look into. Some have already been presented to the government, like a model where public funding is perhaps provided in advance to new entrants if they reach a genuine threshold of community support in small donations. This is similar to a model that they have in New York – a little bit different because our election system is fundamentally different here, but they do have a model like that that we could take potentially some elements from. I know the Centre for Public Integrity has mentioned this model that they also have in some US states of a donations voucher system where the public can decide where they want those public funding vouchers to go – which parties and candidates they want them to go to. There are other models that various people and organisations have suggested. I think they should all be looked at.

With these laws, the Labor government was simply not interested in looking at these options because it would need a significant rewrite of the bill. We understand that something quickly was needed to stem the flow of big political donations happening right now. But a proper rewrite would leave us with better laws and should be done as soon as possible.

The Greens believe that we should also go further and introduce truth in political advertising laws and other integrity measures that would significantly improve our democracy, such as an independent means of funding our integrity agencies to ensure a process where the chairs and membership of Victoria’s parliamentary investigative committees are non-government, including the Electoral Matters Committee. We think that the chairs of those committees should be independent of the government of the day. These are things that we have put to the government many times and had them rejected.

Something that is, I think, incredibly important and is raised with me by constituents all the time, is the need to apply donation caps and laws to council candidates and councillors as well. The Greens have long said that donations to council candidates in this state in Victoria are still uncapped. They are unlimited, and they are still allowed from clearly conflicted interested parties like property developers. Labor refuses to change this system. They blatantly refuse to do it.

The Greens also believe that there are certain actors whose actions are so damaging to society and the planet that their money should have no place in our electoral system, and that includes dodgy donations from the gambling industry, property development industry and fossil fuel industries where their actions are either damaging to our future or that they seek to very unfairly influence the outcome of elections. We have seen the case where, for example, property developers have sought to line the pockets of the major parties in order to get favourable outcomes to increase their profits. I do not think that that kind of money should be allowed in politics.

We have already seen in my electorate, in the City of Melbourne, the millions of dollars that were donated to the mayoral campaign of mayor Nick Reece – property developers and corporations who donated to the mayor of Melbourne. What did they get in return for their donations? I think that is a very legitimate question that Victorians should be asking. We may never know, but they did not give those donations for no reason. It is dodgy, it smells, it needs to change.

Obviously, in conclusion, it would have been a lot better and saved a lot of unnecessary pain if the Labor government had changed these laws eight years ago, in 2018, and not included such problematic elements as the carve-outs for the major parties’ slush funds. Instead they created an inherently flawed model, which directly led to the mess that we are in today. This cause of this mess is the Labor government, but the Greens will be supporting this temporary solution to keep big money out of politics, and we urge also all parties to support a rewrite to properly interrogate all of the other options to improve our democracy as soon as possible.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (18:11): I rise to speak in support of the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. In my contribution I would just like to take a bit of a different approach and take a step back from the focus of what we have really been paying regard to today, because this bill really is about democracy. It goes to the very foundations and essence of what it means to live in a free, democratic society, country and state. Democracy is something that we should not ever take for granted. It is something that is fragile. It is something that we all have a role to play in protecting, defending, preserving and sustaining. And it is something that has not come about by accident. It is something that has come about by centuries and thousands of years, arguably, of service, sacrifice and contributions of people from across public life and various parts of our community.

On Anzac Day this year I gave a speech that I would like to touch on and I believe is very relevant to this bill, because we would not be here today in this democracy of Australia and indeed Victoria if it was not for the service and the sacrifice of our veterans community. They first served as a nation as the Anzacs combined forces at the Gallipoli landings on the shores of Türkiye in Gallipoli, Çanakkale. Twenty thousand Australians served in Gallipoli; 9000 lost their lives.

I had the privilege to visit Gallipoli as part of the Victorian parliamentary delegation a couple of years ago to pay tribute and homage to the veterans from my community. There were at least 60 that we could identify that came from the suburbs of Coburg and Brunswick, made the ultimate sacrifice and remain buried on the shores of Türkiye. They fought to protect democracy, and so too did all the other veterans who have put up their hand to serve this country through subsequent conflicts and peacekeeping operations. Democracy came under attack again of course in World War II, through Nazi Germany, through the rise of hate and through the rise of vilification and violence against innocent people based on their religion, faith or culture. It was Western democratic forces that came together to push back, fight against Nazi Germany, liberate Europe and indeed free the world.

But of course as we fast-forward to today, you can basically argue that democracy is very much under attack again, in new ways and like never before. Autocracy is very much on the rise around the world. Just look around us in any corner of the world. Look at what is happening in Ukraine with the aggression happening there and Russia continuing to attack the independent sovereign Ukraine and not seeking to withdraw. Look at what is happening in Iran. Just earlier today I was very pleased to welcome a delegation from the Iranian Women’s Association and local Iranian–Persian community led by Nosrat Hosseini, who briefed us members about the ongoing suppression, violence and persecution that innocent Iranians are suffering at the hands of the violent, fundamentalist Islamic regime that still remains there today. Look at what is happening in North Korea, where people continue to be persecuted and are not able to speak out against Kim Jong Un and his fundamentalist communist regime as well. Look at what is happening in Russia, where political opponents are still jailed and opposition leaders were previously jailed as well.

The point is that democracy, as I say, does not happen by accident, and as we look around the world it is increasingly under attack, not just in traditional political ways but in new technological ways.

We should not be letting the algorithm, for example, determine and be the only substantive influence in terms of how people think and how they are influenced to vote. Obviously there are a lot of positives with AI, but there are a lot of challenges when it comes to the political sphere. Look at the rise in misinformation, disinformation and fake news. We have a lot to be wary of and to fight and push back against as a community, as a state and as a country when it comes to protecting and preserving our democracy. That is what in many ways this bill at a state level is about, because we are a country that is proudly democratic. People have the right in Australia and in Victoria to think, feel and vote however they like, to believe in a god or not believe in a god that they choose to worship or not.

At a state level there is so much we can control in this space in the political environment. One of the most fundamental spaces of public policy we can have a meaningful say in is through donation laws, because it is through donation laws that we can sustain, to a large degree, the integrity, the transparency and the public confidence in our voting and democratic system in this state. In 2018, and that is why we are here today, the original intent of the laws that were moved and passed here was to protect our democracy at a state level through the introduction of what really at the time were nation-leading reforms around donation caps, thresholds, declarations, reforms to nominated entities, public funding and increased transparency.

But in saying that we cannot ignore the decision of the High Court. That is why we are here today to again update and modernise these laws as soon as possible following on from that High Court decision. The High Court’s decision struck down Victoria’s longstanding electoral integrity laws, leaving our state exposed to dark money in politics. Right now money could be flowing, in the absence of these laws as they have been struck down, from foreign billionaires into political party bank accounts with no limits, no disclosures and no oversight. The government, through this bill that is before us now, is immediately moving to restore Victoria’s electoral integrity regime within the limits of the High Court ruling, and we cannot allow anyone to exploit this current period to solicit huge donations and move money around secretly. Our legislation is designed to make sure that every party and every candidate will be accountable for every dollar they receive from this date forward, which was the intent of the original legislation that was passed.

We know the Liberals are fighting and opposing these changes, because they want to keep taking advantage of the void of legislation that is in place at the moment. They have got the Cormack Foundation, which we know has $130 million sitting in it that they want to continue to access and grow for their own political advantage. They want to continue bringing in the money, with no checks and balances, from big business, from their billionaire mates and, who knows, even from people overseas.

I have the High Court decision here – which I have gone through, and it could not be any clearer – from 15 April, where they say in their statement:

Today, the High Court unanimously answered questions of law stated for its consideration in the special case to the effect that Pt 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 –

here in Victoria –

… is invalid because that Part, operating with “the nominated entity exception” in para (j) of the definition of “gift” in s 206(1) of the Electoral Act, impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

That was the decision. That is what we have to accept, and that is what we have to now respond to with these new laws. But we know the Liberals are not the best when it comes to engaging and respecting and responding to court decisions, because they have been tied up in court cases amongst themselves for the last couple of years and indeed have been utilising donor money from the Liberals to sustain and fund those court cases.

Members interjecting.

Anthony CIANFLONE: I have hit a nerve there, because that is exactly where we are going to, where the Liberals have been utilising funding from the Liberal Party to sustain and fund matters relating to their own legal cases amongst themselves – defamation cases. We know the Liberal executive is pursuing this legal matter still, seeking further funding from the Liberal fundraising account to sustain further appeals. We know that for a fact. I draw the house’s attention to an article by Shannon Deery in the Herald Sun on 28 May. The subheading is ‘Hopes for pre-election peace deal fade as Victorian Liberal Party infighting rages’. The article states:

A $1m legal bill has emerged as a potential roadblock to hopes the Victorian Liberal Party can shut down a looming Supreme Court battle that risks derailing its election campaign.

The party is at war with itself in the Supreme Court over the controversial $1.55m rescue loan paid to former leader –

the member for Hawthorn –

Members of the party state executive have launched an unprecedented Supreme Court action over the validity of the loan, paid by the party’s investment arm Vapold …

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! There is a point of order.

James Newbury: Relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member is within the parameters of the debate, I believe.

A member interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Is that a reflection on the Chair?

A member: No.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member for Pascoe Vale to resume.

Anthony CIANFLONE: I am literally going to the very essence of what this bill is related to, which is donor money, political party fundraising money, and how it is being deployed and used. That is the essence of this bill. We are seeking to minimise caps and increase transparency, and as part of that it is important, given the Liberal Party are opposing this bill, to call out and to understand the reasons why they are opposing the merits of this bill. I am arguing and putting to the house that it has a lot to do with the way in which they are utilising their own fundraising money for legal purposes, not campaign purposes. Again, the Shannon Deery article goes to that very, very eloquently, and I encourage everyone to have a look at that if they get the chance. But basically, our changes under these new laws will cap donations at $7500 over four years, with an interim cap of $5030 for the 2026 period. All foreign donations will be banned, anonymous donations above $1250 will be prohibited, donations of $1250 or more must be disclosed in real time and new candidates and parties will be able to receive double the standard cap to get a foothold. Essentially, this is about integrity and transparency and strengthening our democracy and voting system.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (18:21): I rise to make a contribution around the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. We have spent a fair bit of time in here today talking about process and procedures, and there are, frankly, very sound reasons for having had to do that. This is a bill that has been brought on in a very, very big rush, so it is unsurprising that we have had a debate about the way in which the bill was introduced and had a debate about for how long the debate on the bill will occur. It has all arisen, yes, because of a High Court decision, and the government needs to respond to that. But if the government are going to bring changes as substantial as this to the chamber, it is incumbent upon them to, one, make the case for change in a way that is clear and compelling and provide the supporting evidence, the data and those things that have brought them to this position.

I have learned over the course of today that the solicitor-general’s advice, upon which the government relies, has been made available to minor parties and has been made available to crossbenchers in the other place but has not been made available to me – I do not know if it has been made available to the opposition or not – even to review. It seems to me churlish in the extreme that the government would withhold that advice from people who are being asked to cast a vote in this place.

I find myself, perhaps for the first time in my time in this place, particularly on the crossbench, actually torn between three options. Quite validly I could vote against this legislation because it seems to me to be rushed and to contain substantial flaws. Quite validly I could abstain because we have only had the bill for a few hours and have not had the benefit of seeing the fundamental, expert, constitutional legal advice that supports the bill. Without that I quite validly could abstain and not actually form a view about it because we have not been given any of the things that we would ordinarily require to be able to form a view and to cast a vote. Unlike perhaps others in this place, I cast every single vote like it is the determinative vote. The votes that I cast represent my actual view on the topic at hand, and I cast them like they would actually affect the outcome, even though clearly they do not. Or I could vote in favour of the bill, and I am obviously under pressure to do that, because one of the provisions of this bill re-enlivens the administrative funding under which some of my staff are employed. So I either vote for the bill, save my staff and reward bad behaviour, or I vote against the bill, do not reward bad behaviour and punish my staff. It is an unenviable position that the government has put me and others in, and it is profoundly unfair.

The process has been completely tortured. There has been no meaningful engagement. Despite some of the weasel words from government members over the course of the past couple of days, there has been no meaningful engagement. I am grateful for the couple of briefings that I have received, but I am very, very disappointed at the offhand way in which, on my pretty simple request to actually look at the constitutional legal advice that underpins this legislation and to even review it, I have been told to go stick it.

It is disappointing that we find ourselves in this circumstance. As I say, I have not made a decision yet, but I could go any one of three ways quite validly. There are good reasons to vote against, there are good reasons to abstain and there are good reasons – not policy reasons necessarily, but good reasons in terms of protecting the welfare of my staff – to support the bill.

So what is in it? It reintroduces a whole bunch of matters that I supported when changes to the electoral act were put through this place. Those are things I still support: increasing transparency, strengthening disclosure requirements and regulating political donations and re-establishing that framework around that. They are all good, important and sensible goals. My concern, though, is that of course this is a response to a High Court decision that, like all common law, does not lay out an alternative statute that Parliament ought adopt but simply lays out a set of opinions of the majority about what they consider the implied freedom of political communication to allow and not allow. The implied freedom of political communication I first studied, I think, in 2003. That is a basket of constitutional rights that has gone up and down with time. It has moved left; it has moved right. It is probably one of the least settled parts of constitutional law in Australia, and that is not least because it is, as the name tells you, implied. It is merely implied by the system of government that we have that there is in fact freedom of political communication, and that freedom of political communication flows in a derivative sense from the constitution through to acts propagated by the states. In those circumstances it is more important than ever to have access to the legal advice that underpins where the government has landed on this, and it is churlish, rude, dismissive and frankly outrageous that the government is sharing only with selected members of Parliament, not all members of Parliament, what that advice actually says.

There are some good changes being contemplated here, and as I said, I support anything that is going to allow my staff to keep their jobs. But we also have a real risk, I think, of this all being knocked off again and the very real risk of matters coming before the High Court prior to the election, and it will all be off once more. That would be, obviously, unfortunate. There was a recent podcast with Stephen Donnelly and David Feeney as well as the former deputy chief of staff to Daniel Andrews Jessie McCrone, where they were talking about this particular issue, and Stephen Donnelly said it was a mess and that Gavin Jennings had one job. Jesse McCrone said some would argue his one job was to get it through Parliament, and he did, but it was not in a constitutional way. David Feeney said he did not think anyone could anticipate that the High Court was going to set the whole legislation aside in the way that they did, and Jesse McCrone said she would put him in touch with someone who maintains that they have said this the whole time. So the deputy chief of staff to the Premier had advice that the original bill was unconstitutional and was going to get knocked off by the High Court, and wowee, it happened. The Premier’s private office knew about the risks, and they still put up the legislation. There is a very real chance that it is all going to happen again.

But we will not know what those risks are without seeing the expert constitutional advice. Plenty of people in this chamber have been freely giving out so-called expert constitutional legal advice over the course of this debate. Not one of them is a seasoned constitutional lawyer. We have got a seasoned constitutional lawyer; that person is the solicitor-general. But the government is only sharing that advice with their mates or whomever they consider might want to see it. I doubt they have shared it with the backbench. They are obviously not sharing it with me. They have shared it with the Greens. Well, it is churlish in the extreme and is not the way to conduct the orderly business of this chamber – a rushed bill, no advice being shared and a truncated debate. As I said, we only got the bill a few hours ago when the second reading happened.

There are real dilemmas for those of us amid a paucity of information and in a flawed process who have the competing tensions of wanting to ensure that staff whose jobs have been imperilled are allowed to retain those jobs and who support the principles of this legislation but do not support being treated in such an appalling fashion by the Premier’s staff and do not support this truncated process that has been brought through the chamber. The advisers can sit in the corner of this chamber and snigger and laugh at me as much as they bloody well like, but frankly it is a bit too much. If they have the great privilege of sitting inside this chamber, they should be moderating their expressions and their interaction with members of this chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Just tone it down, member for Ringwood.

Will FOWLES: They are members of staff; they are not members of Parliament. They should not be interacting with members in the chamber in this way.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Ringwood, I ask you to come back to the debate, please.

Will FOWLES: As a point of order, Chair, I would ask that you ask advisers sitting in this chamber to keep their facial expressions to themselves rather than reacting to what is going on on the floor. They are not members of Parliament. They have no right to be engaging with members of Parliament in that way. If you want to engage with members of Parliament in that way, you do it out the front.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Ringwood, take your seat, please.

Nick Staikos: I would ask you to direct the member to stop bullying staff.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Ringwood, I think if we can come back to the debate –

Will FOWLES: Have you ruled on the point of order?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): This is my ruling on the point of order. If you can come back to the debate without the gesticulation towards certain people, I think that would be helpful.

Will FOWLES: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask specifically that you direct staff not to engage with members of Parliament when sitting in this chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): That is something you are welcome to raise with the Speaker in her office.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (18:31): I rise to make a contribution here on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. I commence by reminding everyone that since 15 April 2026 we have not had legislation in this state protecting donations law, so when there are those contributing who are concerned about a quick timeframe, I submit that they would be the first to be shouting if this took any longer than it did. Time is of the essence to get this legislation in and ensure that we have legislation which is fit for purpose. What is the purpose? It is to ensure integrity and transparency in our electoral process. It is to ensure that our democracy remains strong, robust and intact, and the way to do that is to ensure that big money, dark money and foreign money does not sully our state and does not sully the reputation of our elections – that each and every one of us in here is voted in by the people and not because there is huge money out there that we cannot track and that we cannot trace casting long, dark shadows over our democracy.

There has been a lot of commentary in here today, and probably the most concerning that I have heard has been commentary talking about rigging elections. I am fundamentally fearful that if that kind of narrative is bandied about – not on the fringes and not by those out there who are sovereign citizens – by people who are duly elected into this chamber in one of the most robust democracies we have, we enter very dark territory. We start to go down a path I do not ever want to see in our state or our country. When we do not have complete faith in the democratic structures around us and in our electoral system – when we lose that faith and there is a chink in the armour because people decide that just to win an argument they are going to cast aspersions like this – we are on the cusp of something very dangerous indeed. I take this incredibly seriously. I have been listening hard, and it is completely Trumpist of those opposite to be claiming that anything to do with this act is in any way to rig an election. I cannot believe that that is where they have gone today, because I did think that there was a modicum of decorum and there was an understanding here that if we all share something in this chamber, we share how important democracy is and faith in our electoral system. When those opposite who sit in here start to cast those terrible and egregious accusations, we are really going somewhere that I do not think any of us want to go to.

I have spoken with a Victorian Electoral Commission official who was there in East Timor during that incredible referendum in 1999. He went there to ensure that there was absolute security in that election, that each vote was cast properly, that no-one was able to cast more than the vote that they were entitled to and that people were not intimidated in doing so. Australian peacekeepers went there to ensure that there was peace through that election.

I think sometimes people forget just how wonderful our electoral system is. I will defend it with my dying breath. I have sat there and scrutineered for over 24 years. I have been part of the process watching how the ballots are treated, watching how they are counted, watching how they are scrutinised. I am sure every one of us here has participated in that at some stage along the way or another. It is something we should be immensely proud of. It is something we should defend completely and utterly, and never, ever give any quarter to suggestions from those that you should be filling it out with pen, not pencil, because somehow it is going to be tampered with or delayed. It is an incredible electoral system, and I am beyond stupefied at the words ‘being rigged’. It was even interjected when I first started my contribution on this. There was a member on the other side of the chamber who actually said, ‘It is.’ I cannot believe it. I hope I do not hear that anymore. Words matter. I have said it before. The words we say in here matter. The bill is not rigging our election system here in Victoria.

James Newbury interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: It is absolutely so wrong what I am hearing at the moment.

I will also say, the member for Narracan, who I have a lot of time for, was concerned about the 1 July 2023 date. I will actually reveal to everyone why that date was chosen, because I wondered as well. It is the first day of the financial year post the November 2022 election.

James Newbury interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: There are those opposite who are really unhappy with the nature of this bill at the moment because they do not like the cap – $7500. There is a point where if a cap is too high, there may as well not be a cap at all. That cap is there; $7500 is what has been arrived at. That cap, I think, is an important one. It is one that we need to be careful of.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): There have been enough interjections for now, thank you.

Daniela DE MARTINO: I actually spoke to someone who had a very intimate knowledge of the US electoral system, someone who had worked within the US political system for many years. I asked them, just as a matter of interest: for a backbencher in a state election, what would it cost for them to run a campaign in a fairly moderately safe seat? How much does it cost in the US if you are in an equivalent state to Victoria? The figure that he replied with blew me away. In a general election – not a by-election – when everyone knows there is an election on, he told me the conservative figure is a million dollars per candidate. We must never, ever go anywhere down a path where that is the end result, because once people have to raise that kind of money, we stray into terrible territory indeed.

Capping donations like we do here in Victoria is fundamentally important; it is crucial. Getting this bill through both chambers and receiving royal assent is also critical because time is of the essence. As I have said, my colleagues here have mentioned, have reminded people, that since 15 April we have had nothing. We do not know what money has been flowing anywhere to anyone. We have no idea, because –

A member interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: There will be retrospectivity, but it will only take effect once it gets royal assent. So here we are. Time is of the essence, so we have to deal with this quickly, and we have to make sure that our electoral system is protected and that democracy is at the heart. I agree with the member for Melbourne in her statement before. She said, ‘Money should not decide the outcome of an election; voters should.’ Well, hear, hear to that.

I heard the member for Pascoe Vale. He was also talking about protecting democracy and the people who died for it here. In other parts of the world, not everyone gets to vote. Not everyone gets the opportunity, or if they do, it is a sham and it counts for nothing. But I tell you, nothing has worried me more in my 3½ years of being in this chamber and listening to debates.

We all have different points of view and we all have a different vision of how we might see things being, but I did generally think that we had some floor of understanding here, that our democratic system was pretty darn good and needed strong defending and that we were all pretty much on a unity ticket there. So to hear the language I have heard today really concerns me, and I hope I do not hear it beyond here and I hope that it stops, because when we start to sow the seeds of doubt, perception is very important. For the public, the second they think there might be some kind of truth there, even if there is not, even if it is misinformation that has been repeated often enough – the second we go down that path, the days for us here in our state are very, very dark indeed. We have already got a fringe element out there who think that our elections are not robust, but they have been out there way out on the fringes. That should never, ever be entertained by those of us who are hopefully the adults in the room who know, because we have experienced our system through all facets of it.

So I commend this bill to the house. I am pleased to see that the cap on political donations is where it is at. I am pleased to see that this is about transparency and accountability and it is there to underpin our democracy, which I think is one of the finest in the world. Long live compulsory voting, long live preferential voting and long live political donations caps.

 Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (18:41): Oh, the condescension of members opposite today. We have seen it all, haven’t we? We have seen it all. Apparently this is a system that the government have introduced without telling anyone, without showing anyone, without briefing anyone, with disingenuous negotiations, seeking to deal with the Greens, maybe deal with the coalition, deal with someone else, deal with this person – all of that behind the scenes – and then they run in this bill trying to guillotine it and ram it through in one day and then say, ‘Oh, no, it’s all above board. We haven’t rigged the system.’ Oh, yes, you will, and oh, yes, you want to. And when you ban, in effect, major donations from every other party but yourself, well, would you say that is rigging the system? If you ban every other party from a major donation but yourself just before an election where you are miles behind in the polls –miles behind – would you say that is rigging the system? I would say when looking at this bill – we have not had much time – that is an accurate description of what the government wants to do.

I have heard it all today. I have been here about four or five times. I have seen this before – five or six times maybe – when members get closer to an election. You always see it when members get a little bit kind of crazy and a little bit on edge, they come out with ‘The world’s about to fall’, and I am hearing this from government members today. I heard it from Tarneit. I heard it from Mordialloc – I will come back to him. I heard it from Laverton. I heard it from Albert Park. Laverton – talk about laced with condescension. And I heard the member for Mordialloc – the king of integrity, the guy who is featured in two Ombudsman’s reports, knee-deep in scandal – come in and lecture us on this bill on integrity. I could not believe it. I thought, ‘This was the guy with the $5000 stamps issue, wasn’t it?’ This is the guy who featured in the red shirts rorts issue, where $388,000 was stolen from the Victorian taxpayer, and on this bill the member for Mordialloc finds time to come in and lecture the opposition – wait for it – on integrity. Can you believe it? I mean, I have just heard it all, and I thought, after seeing what occurred with the member for Kororoit in question time, to run into this chamber and then start accusing everyone else of meeting unsavoury people, ‘Well, hang on, have you had a conversation with your own new minister?’ He featured that as part of his discussions on this bill. I literally could not believe it. It sounded like a juvenile student political speech, and then I realised that is one of the government’s heavy hitters, and that is where we have got to on this bill today.

I looked at it and thought, well, here we are in the middle of a disastrous cost-of-living crisis for ordinary Australians – that is real, that is absolutely real. And the Australian Labor Party, the Victorian Labor government bring legislation into the Parliament to ram it through with no meaningful consultation to any other party, where they want to pay themselves more money from the Victorian taxpayer. They want to take more money with this bill to give to themselves to run their party and their campaigns and rip it out of the taxpayer at a time the taxpayer can ill afford it. It is the highest taxing state, Victoria. We have the highest taxes in Australia, and they are getting stung with a government that is paying $1.2 million an hour to service this debt. And the government’s response is, ‘We’re going to fix the donations system and we’re going to make the taxpayer pay more.’ That is what their answer is: how do you fix the system? By making the taxpayer pay more. And fix it they are – they are rigging the system. And when you rig the system like this government is, I guess you have to have history, don’t you – red shirts, you know, when $388,000 was stolen from the taxpayer. All the Labor members coming in and talking about, ‘We’re for workers, we stand up for workers’. You hear the Premier in every question time: ‘We’re for workers, we’re for workers’ – whose money did they steal? Workers’ money – they stole $388,000 from the Victorian taxpayer, and then they gave it back. You do not give it back if you are innocent. I have never seen a bank robber walk back to ANZ and say ‘Sorry mate, this is yours. I’m going to give it back to you now, but please don’t refer me to the coppers.’ It is because Labor stole that money from the taxpayer. They have got history, they have got form in rigging things. That is what they did with red shirts, and that is what they are doing with this bill.

I find it astounding, the hypocrisy of the government on this matter, I find it just absolutely astounding. This government, the Labor Party, comes in and bags Australia Day, they bag all the institutions of this country. Yet the institutional left, they are the first ones to line up for honours and the regalia and the OAMs and the AMs, they are the first ones to line up for all of those. They are the ones who say the monarchy is evil, but I bet you they will take the long weekend off this weekend coming. These are the people in the Australian Labor Party that just – come on down, spinner. These are the people, the Australian Labor Party, the great leaders, the moral compass of this Parliament who are happy to steal money off the taxpayers, steal money off workers in a cost-of-living crisis to make Victorian workers pay more of their hard-earned tax dollars to the Labor Party. That is what this bill is about.

So when the Premier comes in here in question time tomorrow and says ‘We’re going to help with cost of living because we know it is really tough for Victorians’, well, I will tell you how you can help Victorians just a little bit more – do not pass this bill, because you are going to rip more money out of the Victorian taxpayer to pay yourself. But as I said before, with red shirts, Labor has got form on that. They like using the taxpayers purse as their own private kitty. The member in the upper house Evan Mulholland will tell you that the Premier has been doing this with these multicultural dinners, which are only for Labor MPs, controlled by the Premier’s office. But of course they use the taxpayers purse as their own private kitty, and we see this again in this bill.

So when we look at it from this side and we see the fire and brimstone, the worry, and ‘oh my God democracy’s at threat’ coming from the members opposite, we just say, if all of that is true, why did they show no-one the bill when they had three to four weeks? Why did they not go to the treaty, to Gellung Warl and actually say to them, ‘Can we get your point of view?’ We just brought in this treaty, which I take it Labor feel very sincere about, whether I agree with it or not, but it says that everything will pass through them – and the first major piece of legislation does not. So how can we believe the sincerity of the Labor Party on this front? How can we honestly believe them, when on their own measure that the Labor Party has on the treaty bill, their first major piece of legislation does not meet that treaty requirement?

Of course we look at it with great disdain. Why wouldn’t we? We were not briefed on it. It rigs the system in favour of the union movement. They do not consult the treaty elders like they said they would. And on every other measure, we look at it and say it cannot be right.

I heard the Greens coming in here, and I thought this was even weirder than the Labor members’ contributions, and that is saying something. But they come in there and say, ‘Well, you know, it’s all the millionaires and billionaires who are going to be donating to big parties if we don’t pass this urgent piece of legislation.’ I scratched my head and thought, ‘Hang on a tick. Didn’t the founder of Wotif Graeme Wood give the largest individual donation in Australian history to any political party by any sole individual to the Greens?’ I thought, ‘Hang on a tick.’ And this is the Greens running in here saying, ‘We’ve got to pass this immediately, because big millionaires are going to give money to political parties.’ Yes, theirs – that is what history shows. I thought to myself, ‘You know, I get the hypocrisy for the government members opposite,’ which I expect, because they are following a script six months from an election, when more than half a dozen of them are coming third on the primary vote in their own incumbent seats. Yet the member for Mordialloc comes in talking about polling – did you hear that one? I thought, ‘Holy hell, what parallel universe have I woken up in? Suddenly Jacinta Allan’s not minus 60, she must be plus 60.’ No, she is minus 60. Anyway, that aside, we just think if you had any sincerity with this bill, you would have shown it. If there was any genuine attempt to negotiate, we would have got an outcome, because we all want an outcome that is not going to be struck out at the High Court. But this bill will be struck out, no doubt. We can all see it coming, so it is a temporary piece of legislation by an end-of-days government.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (18:51): It is good to follow somebody who was a temporary leader two times in a row, the member for Bulleen. I am shocked that the member for Bulleen would oppose this sort of legislation. He mentioned a moment ago that the Greens had the largest donation that the country has seen, $1 million – that we know about, because how much have the Cormack Foundation shoved into the coffers of the Liberal Party? How much? Is it a million? Is it $2 million? We do not have a disclosure regime currently. We do not have a single disclosure regime currently. So how much have the Liberal Party got and how much are they going to have to pay back from the period of 2023 to today? That is the question that is in front of this Parliament. That is why you are so opposed to it. That is why you are so worried about it – because you are concerned that you are going to have to pay it back. The Liberal Party used the opportunity under the cover of a no-disclosure regime being in place to put millions of dollars in, not just in Nepean but just to shuffle it in, to try and get it through without having to disclose it, to hope that they can negotiate to not have to disclose it in the future. Well, we are not up for that. We are up for disclosure. We are up to opening up the books to the Victorian public to see what has been donated.

I understand why the member for Bulleen is the sort of person who would not like to have a disclosure regime in place, who would like to oppose this bill. We all remember lobster with a mobster. That was very evident in the public. That was in the public domain. Do you think the dinner was not about donations?What do we think? What do we think these dinners were about? They were not to have a friendly chat over a bottle of Penfolds. Were they for that reason? Is that what we are trying to say in this space, member for Brighton? Now, the member for Caulfield, the geographically challenged member for Caulfield, who believes that Narre Warren is in the western suburbs – admittedly, he has been closer in the past. He got to Williams Landing and thought it was Point Cook. He is getting closer each time. But Narre Warren – well, that was a shocker. It was just so far off the geography that we did not think it was right. ‘Rigging the system’ is what he said.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is required to be factual in his contribution, and that is what the Hopper party identified: Narre Warren as one of the seats. That was what was said, so I ask the member to be factual in his contribution.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member to continue.

Mathew HILAKARI: I look forward to reviewing Hansard tomorrow. We will both get to review it together. We can exchange some text messages. I will resend you the map for Point Cook, so you get a re-update on that one.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again the member is referring to ‘you’, which I assume means the Speaker –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Thank you for defending my honour. Thank you, member for Caulfield.

David Southwick: Can I conclude my point of order, please? I would ask the member to direct his contribution through the Chair.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): It is my role to direct the member and make requests of the member. I thank you for your point of order. Member for Point Cook, through the Chair, thank you.

Mathew HILAKARI: Thank you, Chair, I will make sure I avoid the word ‘you’. I apologise for that error. The member for Narracan mentioned a lot about concerns around polling, as did the member for Bulleen. I would be on pretty reluctant ground, if I was the member for Narracan, to talk about polling. Polling for One Nation in this context, in this time period – well, we are seeing what has happened at the federal level. I look forward to the next poll coming out at the state level, because I think we will see something of a wipe-out going on: the Liberal Party second fiddle to One Nation, and the National Party second fiddle to no-one because they may not be on the electoral map. I do not think they will be a party by the end of this. I do not think they will even be across any chamber. We will not be worried about talking about the National Party anymore. The only party with ‘nation’ in the name will be One Nation, and that is because there is not the value set in this opposition to stand up to One Nation. There is not the backbone to stand up within this opposition –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Members, please cease interjecting. Member for Polwarth, enough. Member for Hawthorn, enough. Enough interjections.

Mathew HILAKARI: The member for Hawthorn chirps in. What a gutsy move. The member for Hawthorn and I spent some wonderful time on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee together. We did have some opportunity, but I would not chirp too loudly. I would not take the member for Brighton’s advice to chirp loudly outside of this chamber.

But I do want to take us back to the bill, because this bill seeks to do some of those things that are important to our community. It is important to our community to see caps on political donations of course, because there is a great concern when you have a system that does not exist, as we have today, to put in one that exists to bring more legitimacy to politics. I want the Liberal Party to be supportive of these bills because I want them to be part of a better democracy in Victoria. There are elements that the Liberal Party are going to disagree with of course, but we want access to seeing who is paying for what in this political environment. The National Party, of all parties, should want this. The National Party should want a donation regime, because they should be worried about the million dollars that Gina Rinehart has put into One Nation. She would replicate the same in Victoria without a donation regime. You should be desperate –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Mathew HILAKARI: to understand who is paying for the politics in this state, but you are not as desperate as I think, so you are being led by the Liberal Party once again. It is very sad to see. There is no opportunity to set out your own vision of the future. Once again, it is very sad to see, but that is okay. It will not be a long time in this place –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member appears to be using language which is directing his commentary towards the Deputy Speaker, which is of course casting aspersions upon such a fine gentleman. I ask you to ask him to be appropriate in his language.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for her confidence. Yes, I remind the member for Point Cook that ‘you’ refers to the Chair. Let us not do that.

Mathew HILAKARI: I apologise, Deputy Speaker. I would not seek to do so. A ban on anonymous donations – of course we should ban anonymous donations over $1250. A ban on all foreign donations: this is the risk point for those people who participated in the recent by-election in Nepean – not for the new member for Nepean, who was busy out there campaigning and doing his very best, and those who know him speak highly of him, but for the party machine. What did they receive in this political campaign and from whom? The public deserves to know who is paying the piper. The bill will improve the enforcement and compliance mechanisms within Victoria, and I commend this bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of an item on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Assembly divided on question:

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.