Thursday, 4 June 2026

 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (04:29): The Speaker has received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 with amendments.

Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

[CONTENT TO BE INCORPORATED]

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (04:29): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In moving that those amendments be agreed to can I say that I might just start by pointing out I am not quite sure just how much the member for Brighton has cost the Liberal Party with his shenanigans in relation to these amendments. I point out further that it has only been the Labor Party that has been prepared to stand up for transparency and integrity. It has only been the Labor Party that has not filibustered and spent overnight and into this morning trying to obfuscate and delay to stop the opportunity for fair and free elections and for Victorians to decide election outcomes in our state, not big business, not big money, not those who want to have on speed dial their little slinky mates in the dark. This is what we have seen from the Liberal Party: trying to have big, massive caps, trying to blow up a system that has a special counsel and the support to make sure it can withstand challenge the High Court.

We have seen amendments put before this Parliament that have been about ensuring fair and free elections and fair and free funding to make sure there is transparency and accountability for those who want to make a contribution to who has a say here in Victoria. Those opposite have decided to use ChatGPT, so lazy are they in relation to the determination about what they should do and what they think is appropriate. They have decided that they do not have any original ideas about these matters. Their strategy, their game, is simply to make sure that nothing stands up to scrutiny, nothing stands up –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just on relevance, I do not see how attacks at this point in time are relevant to the amended bill from the Council before us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On relevance, I will bring the minister back to the amendments before the house on the bill.

Anthony CARBINES: Again the question on everyone’s mind is: why doesn’t the opposition want retrospectivity back to 2018? These are in the amendments. Why don’t they want foreign donations outlawed? It is because they are a mess. They want to try and protect themselves over protecting the Victorian people, and that is a disgrace. Firstly, clause 12 of the bill – let us go there – includes a broad-ranging post-election review of the entire act by an expert panel to ensure that reviews are informed by experts. The bill provides that the review:

… must not include more than one former member of the Council or the Assembly …

After discussion with the Greens political party, we recognised that this should be amended to include no former member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or the parliament of another state or territory.

As we have seen in the debate on the bill, there has been a lot of misinformation about this bill put out by those opposite. The coalition has circulated amendments to change the date regarding the refund mechanism in section 277. This currently provides an obligation in the bill on political parties to return money transferred from a nominated entity to a political party between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 that was in a party state campaign account on 15 April 2026. Those opposite have said there is something nefarious about the original date of 1 July 2023 – fascinating. In the interests of demonstrating that is not the case, the government moved an amendment to provide that the specified period in the section commences from the date after the 2018 election. We all remember that election, don’t we? Accordingly, this will amend section 277(3)(a) to change the beginning of the specified period from 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2018. The bill provides that a higher amount can be prescribed for the general cap by regulations. Concerns have been raised about the use of this regulation-making power and whether the government would seek to increase the general cap. We have no plans to increase the general donations cap. Nonetheless, in the interests of assuaging these concerns, we have moved an amendment to amend the definition of the general cap – section 206(1) – to remove the ability to prescribe a higher amount and make any consequential changes, including – the table in section 267 and section 288(1)(b) – to remove the ability to prescribe a higher amount for the election period for the 2026 general election.

Victorians deserve elections that are fair, transparent and free from undue influence. These changes make sure the outcome is determined by voters, not by big money. We know the Liberal Party are perfectly comfortable to have big money flowing into politics, but the Labor Party is not, this government is not. We commend these amendments to the house. We commend this bill to the house, and we will see this bill through.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (04:35): What we have seen is a government trying to rig the electoral system. That is what this government has done. Yes, they have made some amendments to their bill. They have made some amendments, primarily in a deal for the crossbench votes, not solely. They also made some amendments based on pressure from amendments that we moved to the bill. The Leader of the House spoke to a concern that we have put publicly about the date of 2023 being picked in terms of clawback provisions, 2023 of course being picked because it was shortly after the last date that the Labor Party received a payment, some random date mid-2023 after receiving the last payment in April of that year. And now the government has accepted the need, through force, to change that date. But I suspect most of this conversation will be irrelevant, because I suspect that very shortly it will all be before the High Court.

We are here because the government got it wrong. The government got this legislation wrong. The government said they got it right. The former Premier Daniel Andrews said he got the legislation right, didn’t he? Well, he got it wrong, just like he has got it wrong many, many times before the High Court. This legislation was thrown out. The High Court said they were wrong. They were wrong. That is why we are here. That is why we are dealing with the bill, and that is why we are dealing with the amendments, because the government drafted legislation that was wrong and based in politics, not good policy. It was found to be unconstitutional. When the drafting began on the subject matter of this bill, the first thing that the coalition said was that the legislation needed to be based in a constitutionally valid set of policy matter. What did the government say? ‘We don’t want to talk about anything relating to the constitutional matters in the bill. We don’t want to deal with any of it.’ So is it any surprise that the successful applicant who saw these laws get thrown out is already publicly talking about their next challenge? This bill has not passed the Parliament, and the successful applicant is already filling out the form on the next challenge. So what the coalition said was, ‘We don’t want to see a second challenge and a second challenge which sees these laws thrown out in the immediate lead-up to the election.’ But what did the government say to that conversation? ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ Why, you would ask? Because the fundamental underpinning – all of the subject matter in the bill that the government does not want to talk about – is based in politics. We have a system that is being put to the house which blocks all big money out of the system except union money.

How can it be that this government, this Parliament, could pass a bill that blocks big money out of the system, except from the unions? It is rank, and it is obvious what the government is doing. It is absolutely rank and obvious what the government is doing.

But when it comes to other matters in the bill, the government did not want to discuss those either. The government did not want to discuss many of the fundamental elements in the bill that are of constitutional concern. I will raise another one. We just talked about the union backdoor pathway that is built into the bill. We just talked about the union backdoor money that is being delivered like a slush fund to the Labor Party. What does this bill also do in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis? It increases public funding. From the moment that the government proposed an increase of public funding, we said that it was inappropriate and that it was wrong for the Premier to further dip her hand into taxpayers pockets and to take more money out of taxpayers.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I do seek your advice in relation to relevance to the amendments which we are meant to be speaking on in relation to these matters. I know the member for Brighton has cost the Liberal Party a lot of money tonight, but I do think that we should be sticking to the amendments.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Without the extras from members, I do not uphold the point of order. However, I bring the member back to the amendments in front of us.

James NEWBURY: There is a fundamental misunderstanding that the Leader of the House misses. I do not wake up in the morning wanting to do a deal with Labor.

Jacinta Allan: You did!

James NEWBURY: I do not want to do a deal – no, no, no.

Jacinta Allan: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton is misleading the house, and he would not want me to start tendering evidence of his deep, desperate desire to reach agreement with the Labor government.

Members interjecting.

Jacinta Allan: That is what I am just saying: it is his deep, desperate desire to reach agreement with the government, which is why I am saying he is misleading the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member to continue on the amendments.

James NEWBURY: As I was saying, from the moment the government proposed increasing public funding, we said that we did not support public funding. From the moment public funding was raised, we opposed public funding. At no point did we propose increasing public funding. This legislation increases public funding in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, which all Victorians will be able to see. This legislation also leaves a back door open for the unions to bring big money into the Labor Party. All this bill shows Victorians is that this government is at the end of its days – and it is.

When you bring a bill and a set of amendments into this place which are simply attempting to rig the system, what does it say to Victorians? Before the last election the CFMEU delivered $1.5 million to the Labor Party, and this bill allows that money to continue. That is what this bill does. It allows this money to continue. Sadly, unfortunately, the Parliament has not seen fit to stop it. Speaking to these amendments, for context, the coalition sought to stop that, because it is only fair and reasonable. I suspect, as has been indicated by the successful applicant in the first challenge, that may be one of their concerns. One of their concerns may be a system that is now in place where all big money is blocked except for the unions. How can it be?

I also suspect that the core of the argument may be that the government is proposing to increase public funding on a bill at the same time as keeping low donation caps. What the government is doing is strangling, frankly, the capacity of non-incumbents to see themselves funded, and there is a fundamental difference between our position and the government’s position. They with pride talk about their reliance on public funding, and our view is that donations are a fair and reasonable part of the electoral system. We are not hiding from that. We are not hiding from the fact that donations should be a fair and reasonable part of the electoral system. As the High Court said, a person’s right to donate is there. It is reasonable, and the government’s bill – unreasonably, I suspect – does not fix that constitutional issue. We have said that this bill will not fix the constitutional problems that the High Court laid out. We have said that repeatedly and we have also made clear that this bill rigs the system, and Victorians can see it. Whether the government can is frankly irrelevant, because they are at the end of their days. Only a government that is trying to rig the system would be showing how desperate it is, and we will not support it.

 Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (04:49): I would like to thank members of this place and members of the Legislative Council – those who have supported this bill and who have been determined to sit through the night to restore integrity and transparency to Victoria’s political donation system. That is why we on this side of the house, and I do acknowledge the crossbench and political party representatives who supported the bill in the Legislative Council and who propose to support it in this place as well, were determined to sit for as long as was required to ensure that Victorians have the opportunity to determine the outcome of elections – not billionaires and not anonymous foreign donors, who clearly the Liberal–National parties want to see entrenched in our political donation system. That is why we have sat for a very long session – because we choose to vote for integrity and transparency, and we are determined to see this through. I must say, I think it tells Victorians everything they need to know about this craven, desperate, Liberal–National partnership who were choosing to use fake questions, ChatGPT-generated questions, to block and stall the restoration of integrity and transparency to our political donation system. That tells Victorians everything they need to know.

But just when you thought it could not get worse than that, we have seen in the dead of night the Leader of the Liberal Party filming social media posts in this place begging for donations. In a craven plea for donations –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker – relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Premier may have been straying from the amendments in front of the house.

Jacinta ALLAN:If I can draw your attention to why this is relevant to the bill, the Leader of the Liberal Party in this place, who is opposing this legislation and wanting to see big donors – billionaires and foreign donors – have the opportunity to be entrenched in Victoria’s political system is out there –

Members interjecting.

Jacinta ALLAN: No. I can show you the social media post that was posted just tonight, where –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, specifically in relation to foreign donors, the Premier is misleading the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as we discovered earlier. The Premier is to continue on the amendments.

Jacinta ALLAN: I say this in the context of something the member for Brighton said in his earlier contribution about discussions that were being held at length outside of this place that we were pursuing in order to restore integrity and transparency to the political donations system as a result of the High Court decision. We did have discussions, and I thank all those representatives who had the discussions with us, based on that determination and that principle of restoring free and fair elections in this state and having a robust political donation system. I say to the member for Brighton that perhaps he was not aware of the desperate phone call my office received less than 48 hours ago from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, desperate to have a conversation at the same time that I may have been standing up holding a press conference announcing the arrangements. I say this: you have got to ask why. When we hear the words from the Leader of the Liberal Party or the National Party, you have got to ask: why don’t they want a fair system? Why don’t they think Victorians deserve to know who is donating and how much they are donating? Why don’t they want them to know, and why did they work overtime, with the assistance of ChatGPT in an abuse of the parliamentary processes, to block and stall this legislation?

I will give the member for Brighton some credit. We thank him for his suggested amendment, which we took on board, and we have taken the decision to take those arrangements back to 2018. I thank the member for Brighton for his amendment and suggestion that he made through this process. As a consequence, we brought it back to this place, and it is why we are amending the bill in this place. Good job, member for Brighton, you have done well. You have done very well there.

I do come back to this central point: these changes are about making sure the outcome is determined by voters, not by big money. This is why we have sat through the night to make sure that Victorians have restored integrity and transparency to our political system. It is why we were determined to stare down the blockers and stallers in the Legislative Council to ensure that this was brought about, because we believe that Victorian elections should be decided by Victorians, not by who has the deepest pockets. And again, you have got to ask: why do the Liberal Party and the National Party not support this? Why don’t they want Victorians to have a fair system? Why don’t they want Victorians to have a system that is based on integrity and transparency?

And finally too, the question of a future High Court case on these matters does also beg that question why people would not want to see Victorians have the opportunity to have a system where they determine the outcomes, not big business. That is the fundamental difference between those of us who support this bill and the Liberal–National parties. Again I thank those who have worked incredibly hard. We have worked incredibly hard since that High Court decision to bring the legislation to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I thank those who have worked with the government along the way, and at times that did include the Liberal Party and the National Party. At times they were working with the government along the way, but they ultimately walked away. They walked away because they did not believe in integrity and transparency, and we have seen that demonstrated this evening – the blocking and stalling in the upper house, the craven plea for donations on social media tonight. It tells Victorians everything they need to know. Again I thank my colleagues, I thank members of the Legislative Council who have worked incredibly hard and I commend the bill to the house.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (04:57): I was listening to the Leader of the House earlier this evening when he erroneously did not know what he was doing in terms of the management of the house, of course, and he moved an entirely new motion. But he started with the words ‘the rivers of gold’.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I know there are several former leaders of the opposition in the house. I just wonder where the current Leader of the Opposition is –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?

Anthony Carbines: where the current member for Kew is. Where is she? Where is she hiding?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the House, resume your seat. It is late. Frivolous points of order are annoying.

Danny O’BRIEN: Technically, it is not late; it is early, Deputy Speaker. But obviously the Leader of the House is embarrassed to hear about what his own mistake was earlier when he started a speech about rivers of gold. I thought that obviously he was talking about this legislation allowing that CFMEU river of gold to continue to funnel its way to his party, because that is what this legislation is all about tonight. The government is rigging the system again, and let us all be aware there is only one reason we are here in the first place. It is because this mob stuffed up the legislation. This mob stuffed up the legislation in the first place, and now we come back. We have had since 15 April, and – what is it? – it is 5 June now. The government could not get its act together through whatever that is – that is six weeks – and then suddenly says, ‘We’ve got to rush this through within a day or two,’ 119 pages of legislation. To have the Premier standing there telling us about the dodgy deals that the Liberal Party was running at the last minute – we were being told by the Premier’s office just a few hours before that they could do a deal on increased caps. Just a few hours before, and then ‘No. Oh, sorry’ – well, not even a sorry, actually – ‘did we say that last night? Actually, no. We’ve done a deal with our mates the Greens up there.’ They have done a deal so that those rivers of union gold can just keep on flowing to that one and that one and that one and that one, because they are all very concerned.

One of them over there has said ‘It feels like end of days,’ and they are desperate to do whatever they possibly can. This is a government now standing up and trying to say this is about free and fair elections. Well, if it was free and fair, why wouldn’t you knock out the affiliation fees? Victorians ask us all the time ‘So hang on, you can only get $5000 from the corporates?’ and I say, ‘No, we can only get $5000 from you or BHP Billiton or whoever.’ That is the minimum. And yet the rivers of gold from the union movement keep flowing to all of you. Hands up those in the Parliament who are not members of a union. Everyone on that side, everyone! Every single one of them.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the house comes to order, I encourage the Leader of the Nationals not to incite members.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am sure that that ruling applies to all of those as well. This is the point of the dishonesty of this government. Mark our words – not our words, but the other plaintiffs’ – we will see this back again because the government keeps messing this up.

On the legislation, the amendments that are before us, we have five amendments. Can I request that the first four be put together and that the fifth be put as a separate amendment, and we will vote on them accordingly? This legislation sets up a particular advantage to the Labor government – a Labor government that is desperate to hold on to power. These amendments will do nothing to change that.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (05:02): I rise in strong support of the amendments and indeed of the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 as amended, which is a very important piece of legislation, the urgency of which has been made clear by previous speakers. I just want to touch briefly on amendment 3 which, of course, is the one we are debating that does go to the topic of nominated entities. But just before I get to that, I need to address this claim that unions are somehow getting some sort of special deal here. Unions will have exactly the same donations cap as any other organisation in this state. It is true that associated entities can pay affiliation fees, and I cannot help but notice some other political organisations have members.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals, you had your turn. Member for Brighton, you also had your turn.

Nathan LAMBERT: I cannot help but notice there are some other political organisations that also have things like members paying fees. If we are going to allow political organisations to have flexible, internal, democratic, collective decision-making systems that may well involve members and may well involve other organisations, if the Liberal Party would like to affiliate trade unions or any other type of associated entity, they too may do so. It is simply providing political parties with the key role they play in our system, which is that they need to have the ability to make internal collective decisions, and people may pay affiliation fees if they are then voting within those parties’ internal democratic systems.

Turning very briefly at this time of the morning to nominated entities, I think it is absolutely critical just to go back and remind us where nominated entities came from. They came from a problem that all of us in this chamber faced, which is that it is very difficult for a political party to structure itself legally in this state. Every single party has the same problem: you have got to be an unincorporated association to have your party rules, but then you have inevitably got some assets. In the case of the Labor Party, people might remember we had 360 King Street when we owned it. And people might remember this: 360 King Street was our headquarters. For a long time Jill Hennessy, when she was president, had to own 360 King Street because an unincorporated association cannot own a building.

[The Legislative Assembly report is being published progressively.]