Thursday, 19 March 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:01): I rise to speak on the very, very exciting, at this time of day, Electoral Amendment Bill 2025. There is no more interesting topic in this place than electoral reform, so I am very pleased to be here leading the debate on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals on this bill. This bill has its origin in two matters. First, a number of candidates at the last state election took issue with Victoria’s donation laws and the system introduced by the former Premier to reform donations. Their view was that the system was unfair and therefore those provisions should be challenged as unconstitutional in the High Court. As the matter is currently before the High Court, the question remains unresolved as to whether the nominated entity provisions in particular are unconstitutional. For context, when that case arose, the government considered it necessary to prepare a bill that in part addressed those concerns raised by those candidates about nominated entity provisions to the act. As a result they did develop a bill that some might describe as a set of quite significant amendments to present to the applicants in the High Court matter as a means of addressing their concerns and potentially bringing that application to an end.

After that section of the bill was drafted in that form, the Liberals and Nationals were consulted on it. I note that in relation to donation laws and the electoral system more broadly, Victoria deserves a system that is robust, fair and transparent, and the best way to achieve that is cooperation through all members of both chambers of Parliament. I note the Liberals and Nationals have said for some time they are willing to work with the government on electoral matters, because we believe we have ideas, insights and contributions that can assist with the development of legislation in this area, and that goes to the principles that I mentioned: strengthening integrity, ensuring robustness and supporting a democratic system that operates transparently.

When you are drafting a bill and presenting it to the opposition and even members of your own caucus have issues with that electoral bill, maybe it ought to be massaged a bit further before bringing it to the chamber. And those members of the Labor caucus were quite right in having issue with a lot of things that were originally in that electoral bill. Could you imagine the minister going around deciding where booths are? I say to the government – and it was probably suggested to the government in Labor caucus – imagine a Liberal minister deciding where your pre-poll booths and your booths are in Labor seats. That is the exact same theory that we met with as well. But these are the kinds of things that were in the original draft of the bill, which were I think quite shocking to both members of the Labor caucus and members of the opposition as well.

Following the drafting of the bill, the government did engage with the Liberals and the Nationals. At the time the bill was drafted we raised a significant number of concerns about the nominated entity provisions and made clear that we had a wide range of issues with those sections. However, setting that aside, we do not believe those changes address the central question raised by the former candidates in their High Court applications. The coalition did not believe that the matter would be resolved at that time or that changes would satisfy their concerns, which has proven to be the case. I therefore note that the government has now moved to remove the nominated entity provisions in anticipation of the High Court outcome, which is understandable.

That provides some background as to how we arrived at the amendments, and the government has now moved in relation to that. What the government was attempting to do was play the wildest game of chicken we have ever seen. They wanted to present what they had introduced into the house, but not debated, as an argument in the High Court so that the High Court could consider that they were doing something on this, without having the support of the Parliament. High Court judges are not stupid. They know that things need to go through both a lower house and an upper house to get support, and they do know that the government does not have a majority in this chamber, the Legislative Council. For the boffins in the Premier’s private office to even suggest that in a High Court argument, or to even put a thought out there that they could do this, is one of the wildest things I have seen in politics around electoral law.

The second part of the bill is largely operational, relating to how the electoral commissioner carries out their duties, including regarding issues they have raised and requests they have made regarding their functions. Not all of those requests are without controversy. Not every change in this part of the bill originates from the electoral commissioner, although most do. There were two further amendments in the house beyond those dealing with nominated entities, based on discussions with the shadow minister and the government, and the shadow minister expressed concerns on behalf of the opposition. In simple terms, the provision would have formalised a process whereby the Victorian Electoral Commission could request staff and the public service could provide them. I am not making the claim that the public service is politicised, but that was a finding that was made by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has reported that the public service is politicised; that is a finding that the Ombudsman has made. It would be reasonable to suggest that any arrangement allowing political operatives to be placed within the election process raises concern, particularly where there is no clear oversight or transparency.

What is more concerning is that during briefings on this bill we were advised that this occurred at the 2022 election, before this power was even proposed in legislation. The government at the time deployed public servants into the electoral commission for electoral duties. There was no public awareness of this. There was no transparency provided in any meaningful way, and I believe Victorians should expect to know about this. When people attend a polling booth, they expect to see staff from the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). They do not expect to see public servants from unrelated departments brought in for that purpose. When we raised concerns about including this power in the bill – and I know that amendments have been made to remove it – the department explained that the reason for the 2022 arrangement was that the commission could not recruit enough staff. On hearing that, one might assume this was a last-minute issue shortly before the election, but this was actually not the case. The department advised the shadow minister, the member for Brighton, that the process to second staff began nearly a year before the election. It was formally approved by the Victorian Secretaries’ Board in February that year, meaning the groundwork would have been undertaken in late 2021. That would have involved preparing submissions and briefing the secretaries well in advance. These processes do not occur overnight, so approximately a year before the election, an approval process was initiated and then endorsed early in the election year to move public servants into election roles for the 2022 election. That is a significant revelation, and I thank the government for considering our concerns and for removing this power from the bill. It was the correct decision. They listened to the Liberals and Nationals’ concerns, and I acknowledge that.

While it was clearly the right course of action, as we saw previously, this has occurred without legislative authority. It has happened before any such power existed in law. Therefore even though the provision has been moved from the bill, there is nothing to prevent a similar arrangement occurring at the next election. It is important that questions continue to be asked about whether public servants are being deployed into election roles in what should be a commission that is beyond question. By raising this matter and providing context, I hope we can ensure these arrangements do not occur again. I do not know whether the request in 2022 came from the commission or whether it was initiated by the government. It may have been that the commission indicated it could not secure enough staff and that the government offered a solution – we do not know. What I do hope is that for the next election there is full clarity. Victorians would be concerned by this; whether the government considers it acceptable is beyond the point. The public expectation is clear. Even the executive appears to recognise this, as the provision has been removed from the bill. We must ensure that the electoral commission is unquestionably impartial, and I hope that by raising this issue both the media and the public will continue to scrutinise to make sure it does not happen again. It was not appropriate, and while I thank the government for removing the provision, we must remain vigilant to ensure that it is not repeated.

The other matter I will note that is closely related is the proposal that would have allowed the minister to determine the locations of polling booths. This was removed due to concerns raised by the Liberals and Nationals. Under the original bill, in this case, a Labor minister with political affiliations would have had the authority to decide where booths were located. When we saw the proposal, we made our position very clear: it was not acceptable. The government removed it, as they should have, because decisions about polling locations must remain independent of political influence. I understand the Labor caucus also had very, very similar concerns to what we had as well, so I am glad that provision was removed from the bill. I have spent quite a while on the Electoral Matters Committee, and this is not something that was ever, I think, even discussed there. It is important, particularly in this form of work, to consider ‘Would I want a Labor minister having this power?’ or, if you are on the other side, ‘Would I want a Liberal minister having this power?’ These things are much better left to an independent and well-respected body like the VEC.

Having removed those amendments, the Liberals and Nationals will not oppose this bill. That being said, we do have a few amendments, and I ask for those to be circulated. I just want to run through those amendments and what they do, and I particularly want to speak about my amendments that have been discussed with the government. One in particular is about the need for the VEC to undertake full preference counts in different seats and two-candidate preferred counts. It is not good enough when the VEC gets the person in second wrong but it is clear that the first has won, and they just give up and put it all away and that is the end of the matter. It is important to have a full count. There were 25 seats, I believe, that were not counted in a full preference distribution and a two-candidate preferred count. I know both Liberal colleagues and Labor colleagues were very keen to see this change, and I thank the government for the way they have collaborated on this issue and particularly for the helpful suggestion that the election manager will comply with that direction within three months after receiving it, so if the VEC are deciding a tight election race, they do not have to rush to do two-candidate preferred counts on seats that are quite obviously decided; they can pour resources into those close-run seats. I presume, and I know, seats like Yan Yean and Greenvale will be top of mind for close seats – maybe not so close now; who knows.

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I presume the member for Brighton will be back with quite a handsome majority. I am not sure if you have been to those rallies.

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Well, I hope you heard the message. The other amendment I particularly want to speak to is on the delegation powers. It is important to understand that we seek amendment to the way those powers work, because they are very broad delegation powers. With the Electoral Commissioner having the job of managing elections and setting aside that we have had six by-elections in this presumably four-year term and we have one election every four years, it is not unreasonable to expect the Electoral Commissioner would have the role of managing elections. It is only reasonable for the Electoral Commissioner to make the final call when it comes to significant vote counts and significant determinations. Our concern is that the Electoral Commissioner should make the final calls, and what this bill would effectively allow is the capacity for the commissioner to delegate some of those powers. That is my second amendment.

The other amendment in particular is an amendment to the government wanting to get rid of the printer authorisation details on election material. We think that is an important transparency measure, and we will be moving an amendment to keep that measure as well. Those will be the amendments that I will be moving. Currently, election material must include both the authorisation of the candidate and the details of the printer. This provides two points of contact. Historically, the safeguard was introduced to ensure that if a candidate could not be located or had provided false details, the printer could be identified as a secondary source. This has been particularly important where material is inappropriate or offensive. Removing the requirement weakens that safeguard, and we have concerns about that change.

There is a further amendment which it is disappointing to have to propose, as I said. For several Legislative Assembly seats, there was no full preference count. As I have discussed, it should be a basic expectation conducted for every seat. As I have outlined, this bill has had a complex development. To the government’s credit, we have reached a point where the Liberals and Nationals will not oppose it, as the most concerning elements of the bill have been removed.

One thing I am disappointed about that is not in this bill and we still have not heard anything about is the removal of group voting tickets. I am very keen to hear from the government about when that might be coming. We know the government was very interested in this at the end of last year when polling was a little bit different. Now they seem to have ghosted on the issue of group voting tickets. The government likes to talk about preferences and preference deals quite a bit. I am of the view that individuals decide their own preferences, which is true. Individual Victorians are smart enough to decide their own preferences, but currently Labor are leaving us with a system where the parties can decide where the preferences go. I believe all Victorians should decide where their own preferences go, so it is really up to the government to explain what the hold-up is on this reform. I was on the inquiry the government commissioned into group voting tickets, and I was pleased to support that particular Electoral Matters Committee report. We did our own addendum to that report from the Liberals and Nationals. We think it is an important reform.

For too long our electoral system and therefore the representatives we get in this chamber have not been aligned with the wishes of the Victorian people, and that is a deep problem for our democracy. I hope sincerely that the next electoral bill that we are dealing with will deal with group voting tickets. They are a disgrace. They are subversive to our democratic system of government. They result in outcomes that the Victorian people did not wish for. We have seen that on both sides of the political equation where people think they are voting for a ‘sack Dan Andrews’ party and ended up electing an Animal Justice Party. We have seen that on both sides of the political equation as well, where people game the system and group together to pip out someone that should have been obviously democratically elected but was not due to backroom deal making.

Again, the government likes to openly talk about preference deals. The only people that set their preferences should be the Victorian people, but we have enabled a system and keep delaying reform on a system that allows backroom shady players, some of which are paid by the taxpayer in commission for the deals that they do. I think that is a system that we ought to get rid of. I hope the next electoral amendment bill deals with that. I look forward to contributions and being here for that day, because if the government continues to delay it and heads to another election without progress on this, then once again Victorians votes at the ballot box will not be reflected truly in this chamber of the Victorian Parliament. I will leave my contribution there.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:24): I am delighted to stand and support the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025. Our democracy, as I have spoken about a number of times in this place, is something we should all cherish. The way it operates and the way elections are conducted is something that should be and is incredibly important to all of us, but also to all Victorians. The bill will ensure that key parts of the Electoral Act 2002 are fit for purpose given the scale and complexity of modern state elections. The bill also clarifies requirements for the conduct of state elections to ensure they can continue to be delivered in an efficient, transparent and organised manner. The bill is informed by various reports on Victoria’s electoral system and processes released since the last significant reform of the act took place in 2018. These include reports by the Victorian Electoral Commission, the Electoral Review Expert Panel and the Parliament’s Electoral Matters Committee. The bill will achieve this through amendments across the Electoral Act, including inserting detailed requirements for supplementary elections and re-elections, simplifying and modernising authorisation requirements for electoral materials, tightening restrictions on the party names and logos that can be registered, providing more flexible powers for the commission to respond to emergencies affecting elections, updating legislative timings and requirements for electoral processes and other minor and technical amendments to improve the overall operation of the Electoral Act.

There have been a few amendments to the bill since it was introduced to the house. I will not go through all of those, but I will note that it is important that amendments enable the commencement of the bill to be on a day or days to be proclaimed. This will allow the Nepean district by-election processes to proceed on the current requirements of the Electoral Act 2002, removing any ambiguity just to enable the by-election to occur, since the Deputy Leader of the Liberals resigned his position as deputy leader but then also resigned his position from the Parliament. It is good that Nepean have the opportunity to go to the polls after the former member for Nepean decided that the Liberal Party was not a place he any longer wanted to work. I will leave my contribution there.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:27): I rise to speak to this bill, and at the outset I just want to endorse the words of Mr Mulholland regarding group voting tickets. I will not go on about that any more, but I think on that issue we are very much aligned. I also just want to speak mainly to the amendments we have proposed to this bill. Our amendments ban political donations from corrupt actors and industries that are harmful to our communities and our environment. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2025 falls short, we believe, of the meaningful reform Victoria urgently needs. Rather than addressing the structural flaws that entrench the major parties’ unfair advantage, it cherrypicks convenient recommendations while leaving the core problems plaguing our electoral system untouched.

A prior incarnation of this bill sought to sugar-coat the unfairness inherent to nominated entity slush funds so beloved by Labor and Liberals alike, but the simple truth is that to make our electoral system fairer, nominated entities must go. There is simply no redeeming them. These mechanisms allow major parties to circumvent donations caps and preserve the unfair influence that old money brings. Most Victorians would be aghast if they were aware of their existence. The electoral review panel said clearly, they should be abolished. If the High Court does not act, this Parliament must. When accumulated wealth determines electoral outcomes, democracy suffers. Independent and community-backed candidates can have strong policies and genuine grassroots support and still be drowned out by big money. That is not a fair contest. What we actually need is campaign expenditure caps, not just donation caps. Spending is easier to track and far more effective at levelling the playing field. New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT already have them. Victoria should too. We also need limits on candidates self-funding their own campaigns, particularly as well-resourced far-right candidates increasingly seek to buy their way into Parliament.

If the Big Build scandal has taught us anything, it is the corrosive power of big money on the fabric of our democracy. Today the Greens seek to introduce amendments to this bill to cut off the poisonous influence of money on our politics. Handling stolen goods is a crime. Handling dirty donations from people involved in corruption should be too. The Greens are clear: corrupt donations have no place in our democracy. The megadollars of the construction, fossil fuel and gambling industries – industries that for far too long have bought influence in the corridors of power – must be banned from our politics, full stop. No exceptions, no loopholes. Yet both the Allan Labor government and the Liberals have refused to support our amendments. Both have chosen big donor money – dirty money – over democratic integrity. The Liberals talk a big game on the $15 billion of Big Build corruption, but they are happy to keep on pocketing the donations of the property and construction industries. Victorians are not fooled; they can see exactly what is happening: two major parties, different attack lines, same donors, same inaction on donation laws in the face of Victoria’s biggest ever corruption scandal. The Greens will keep fighting to ban dirty donations and corrupt donations. The question is: when will Labor and the Liberals stop taking them?

I kindly ask that our amendments are circulated. Our first amendment would make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive or spend a donation from any person that has been found to have engaged in corrupt conduct by IBAC or a royal commission or subject to an adverse finding by IBAC. The principle is simple: if you are corrupt, you have no business funding Victorian political parties. Our amendment would also give the state the power to confiscate those tainted donations. Similar laws already exist in New South Wales, and Victoria should be no different. I note this amendment would become more powerful to crack down on donations from corrupt actors if IBAC were given follow-the-dollar powers and the expanded jurisdiction that it so desperately needs to get to the bottom of the Big Build corruption scandal. We had legislation in this Parliament to do this yesterday, and we saw what the government thought of that: they voted it down. We, the Greens, still have a bill before the Parliament; we believe that the Parliament should get behind this and that everyone needs to come to the integrity party. For those concerned that an adverse finding by IBAC is too low a bar to be banned as a political donor for 10 years, it is helpful to remember that IBAC’s legislated function is to investigate and expose corrupt conduct with a focus on serious or systemic corrupt conduct and that any adverse findings IBAC reaches must be necessarily within the envelope of that legislated function.

Our second amendment would ban political donations from the fossil fuel and gambling industries, property developers, the construction industry, big banks and real estate agents. These industries have bought their way into the corridors of power, and everyday Victorians pay the price through an increasingly cooked climate and a government that has tarnished its integrity amidst Victoria’s biggest ever corruption scandal. The principle of ‘one vote, one value’ means that every citizen’s vote should carry equal weight in determining political outcomes. This central demand of the suffragette movement grew from votes for women into something bigger: the demand for equal representation and an end to a system where wealthy property owners got multiple votes and people who did not own property did not. The problem with dirty corporate donations in our political system is that they undermine everything that the one vote, one value campaign achieved. Dirty donations amplify the political influence of big corporates and billionaires far beyond that of the ordinary voter. This creates a political system where big money shouts louder than the smaller voices of the ordinary voters who elect us. Gina Rinehart should not have more sway in our Parliament than Gino from Jan Juc, but under the current system her money means she does. When corporations and billionaires like Gina make donations, they expect a return on their investment; big donors use their money to purchase political outcomes. The Big Build corruption scandal is a case in point. The numbers speak for themselves. Between 1999 and 2019 the property and construction industry donated over $15 million to the federal Liberal Party and more than $6.5 million to the ALP. In Victoria alone developers and the building industry donated about $2.7 million to the Victorian Liberals and $2.2 million to the Victorian Labor Party over the same period. Last decade the resources and energy sector disclosed over $136 million in political donations nationally. Labor has taken developer money with one hand and handed out billions in public funds to corrupt private actors with the other while refusing to give our anti-corruption watchdog the powers it needs to investigate. When voters see politicians answering to corporate donors instead of communities, they lose faith in government. A recent Australian Election Study report found that the vast majority of One Nation voters do not trust government, and 74 per cent believe that politicians just look after themselves. There are no doubt many reasons for the rise of One Nation, but if the major parties have any hope of winning back these voters, they need to take real steps to restore trust in our political system, including ending the nefarious influence of dirty donations on our democracy.

The gambling industry is a blight on our society, and their donations should have no place in how decisions are made in our government. Last financial year Victorians lost over $7.3 billion to gambling, with a record $3.145 billion lost on poker machines in hotels and clubs. Gambling devastates so many lives and families in Victoria, yet the major parties continue to pocket the gambling industry’s dirty donations. Despite donations caps, last year the two major parties continued to pocket tens of thousands of dollars from the likes of Sportsbet; the duplicitously named Responsible Wagering Australia, the peak body representing the online betting industry; the Australian Hotels Association; and numerous individual hotels with pokies. Let me be clear: the gambling industry has used these donations to buy influence and access to our government. Ahead of the 2022 state election both major parties in Victoria provided letters of comfort to the pubs and clubs lobby, assuring them that gaming machine revenue would not be significantly impacted by future policies despite the crackdown on Crown Casino. In 2024 the Allan Labor government cut the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, which had provided crucial support to people preyed on by the pokies industry, such as the gambler’s help program. In 2025 alone the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation disclosed meetings with the gambling industry and lobbyists on 16 different occasions. And how often did he meet with civil society gambling reform groups? Once. These 16 meetings included a meeting with Crown Melbourne chairman and former Labor Victorian Minister for Racing Martin Pakula. You cannot make this stuff up. This is the political influence that the gambling industry’s dirty donations buys, and the Allan Labor government has a gambling addiction fuelled by its regular payouts.

Australia’s big banks post record profits through a cost-of-living crisis while their political donations keep on flowing. Last financial year the Commonwealth Bank’s cash profit rose to a record $10.25 billion. Much of these unprecedented profits come from putting the squeeze on families already struggling to make ends meet. If either major party opposes these amendments, they are making their position clear: they would rather keep drawing from the ATM of societal and environmental harm, vice and corruption that has plagued Victorian politics for far too long. Victorians deserve elected representatives who answer to them, not to developers, not to coal and gas companies, not to the gambling industry and not to corrupt players. I commend our amendments to the house and look forward to further discussion on these during the committee stage of the bill.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:38): A brief contribution from me tonight, I think. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2025 does give us the opportunity to commend the exceptional work that our Victorian Electoral Commission does in the conduct of elections for the state Parliament on a four-yearly cycle. The efficacy of our electoral process relies on the Victorian Electoral Commission and their hardworking staff to deliver us democracy in Victoria. I think we are exceptionally fortunate that we have an institution like the VEC, who are able to deliver us democracy that we can rely on and deliver us democratic results here in Victoria. Regardless of who wins or loses any particular contest, I think our state and our democracy are well served by an institution like the VEC. So I wanted to just make those remarks briefly, because I do think it is an exceptionally important part of why we have a functioning democracy.

I think we also need to be aware that there are forces in other parts of the world but also increasingly here in Australia who seek to undermine the legitimacy of our electoral process, who seek to undermine the legitimacy of the independent institutions that run our electoral processes and therefore to undermine our democracy itself. The undermining of trust in democracy begins with people questioning the legitimacy of actions that occur at ballot boxes. Sadly, we are seeing it increasingly in the United States, where they have different systems, they have different rules and they do not have institutions like our electoral commissions to run their elections. They come from a different tradition. But what we see in their politics is a continual questioning of those electoral outcomes. To question the legitimacy of electoral outcomes is to question the legitimacy of democracy, and when that happens everyone loses.

We all, as politicians, have a responsibility to keep faith in our democratic institutions and to keep faith in our electoral institutions, and that is what I want my contribution today to underline: how important the electoral commission is, how important its independence is and how important our conduct as politicians in supporting those institutions, supporting the electoral system, supporting the electoral commission and supporting democracy is for this state, regardless of who wins or loses.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:41): I also would like to say a few brief words on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025. This bill makes some helpful changes to the Electoral Act 2002. I will not go through all of the changes, but some of them are helpful changes. Anyone that has been involved with the administration of a party will know that it is a very difficult thing. Some of the things that the bill talks about are the registration of party names, trying to prevent deceptive names and names that are similar to other parties, and also limitations on the word limit and limitations on the logo that can be used on the ballot paper. There are also some technical changes around clarifying for people that are homeless that they are able to vote and able to participate in democracy. I think that that is a good clarification. There are other things around disclosure notices for the party’s registered officer; things to clarify the change of roll date, the close of rolls, and when that will happen; information about nominations; and minor changes to group voting tickets and about the withdrawal of candidates.

Helpfully, election material changes – they no longer require the name of the place of business that printed the materials. I personally think that is a good change. I think it was a bit silly having the place of business. To my mind, having the authorisation is helpful, because if you have electoral material, you want to know who is behind it, and if you know who is behind it, then I think it has served its purpose. I do not really think it serves much purpose to show where it was printed, so I think that that is a helpful change. I know that for many parties, especially minor parties, that is a difficult thing to manage. I would have liked to see some changes around clarifying social media electoral materials, because that is still a bit confusing for political parties. Again, to my mind, if something is posted on a candidate’s page, it is pretty clear that it came from them, and therefore I do not know why you would necessarily need a disclosure or authorisation if it is for a candidate that is obviously from a party. Nevertheless there are some helpful changes here. I note that there are some amendments, which we will get to.

One of the more controversial things, which has actually been removed through amendments in this bill, is around the nominated entities. I actually agree with Dr Mansfield that the nominated entity system is a disgrace. It is basically allowing the major parties to have an unfair advantage forever because they had these investment vehicles set up prior to these electoral reforms. It is nearly impossible for any new party to actually set something similar up, and it is disappointing that that was not changed, but it is what it is. Nevertheless, the changes that are left in the bill are sensible for the most part. Some of them are just minor and technical. Most of them are very helpful, though, and the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) incorporated the following:

I am pleased to make a contribution on the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2024.

As a member of the Electoral Matters Committee, I am proud to contribute to upholding the integrity of our electoral processes.

This Bill supports the integrity of our elections.

It will ensure that key parts of the Electoral Act are fit-for-purpose given the scale and complexity of modern state elections.

I will focus my comments on some aspects of the Bill that are particularly important to the healthy functioning of our democracy.

The electoral landscape has changed.

According to the VEC’s website, the number of candidates increased from 887 in 2018, when the Act was last amended, to 1194 at the last election.

Not only does the VEC needs enough time to prepare the election materials for all these additional candidates, they also need some flexibility in order to be able to deal with any issues with registration applications.

I’ve seen firsthand the amount of work that the VEC do to prepare for and run our elections.

It’s a monumental task to keep the machinery of our democracy working whilst maintaining the independence and impartiality of the Commission’s work.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the staff at the VEC for the amazing work they do to support our democracy.

Currently the VEC has just two days (over a weekend) in which to design, print and distribute all materials needed for the commencement of early voting.

That’s clearly not reasonable.

As a result, we are making the following changes.

•   Applications to register a political party will need to be received 180 days before election day, instead of 120 days

•   The electoral roll will close on the date of the writ, rather than seven days after.

•   Final nominations to become a candidate must be received within six days after the issue of the writ, instead of ten days after expiration of the Assembly

•   Both RPP-endorsed and independent candidates will have the same deadline, of noon on the final nomination day.

The VEC supports these proposed changes, saying in its response to the Committee’s report that:

“These changes will alleviate significant pressure points in the election timeline that currently pose a risk to the successful delivery of elections and jeopardise the safety and wellbeing of our staff.”

The Bill also makes changes that reflect the increased number of postal voters. The election statistics guru, Antony Green, reported statistics he received from the VEC that 13.3% of votes were postal votes in 2022, compared to 9.8% in the 2018 election.

These increased numbers make it even more imperative that postal voters are able to be fully informed prior to casting their votes.

The current provisions in the Act are not clear and there is a real risk that voters will not receive the information about candidates prior to voting.

This Bill will make it clear that the VEC can send declaration and ballot packs to all postal voters, whether in single elections or general elections, as soon as practicable. They don’t have to wait until early and mobile voting commences.

It also makes it clear that the VEC can provide information about single-election postal voters to parties and candidates as soon as their application to vote by post has been accepted.

The VEC will also be required to provide a complete list of general postal voters to registered political parties and independent candidates upon request, as soon as practicable after the later of the close of the roll or a candidate’s nomination.

These changes make it possible for candidates to provide those voters with information that will help inform their vote.

This Bill also makes changes to early voting days

Having early voting centres open for the current period of around 12 days is a big drain on the VEC’s resources.

They not only have to staff those centres, but they have to ensure they are safe and secure.

This, unfortunately, is an increasingly important issue. The Electoral Matters Committee report on the 2022 election found:

“… interacting with campaigners at voting centres is negatively impacting on voters. Stakeholders described campaigner behaviour towards voters variously as annoying, pressuring, stalking, hassling, harassing, confronting, distressing, disrespectful and abusive.”

The current almost two weeks long early voting period creates increased demand on VEC resources, particularly in relation to security, making it more difficult for the VEC to ensure that all voting centres provide a safe and secure environment for members of the public. 

This Bill will shorten the early voting period to ten days.

Early voting is clearly important. Victorians lead busy lives that are no longer so clearly defined by the nine to five weekday. Elections also need to reflect our changing lifestyles including increased workforce flexibility.

Almost half of Victorian voters cast their ballots early in 2022.

But the majority of those votes were cast in the second half of the early voting period.

Shortening the early voting period will balance the need to provide plenty of opportunity for early voting with the resource demand on the VEC, candidates and campaigners.

The provisions relating to silent electors are among the most important in this Bill.

Silent electors are people whose own personal safety, or that of their family, would be placed at risk if their address appeared on the electoral roll.

Many, many of these people are women who have escaped abusive relationships and don’t want their ex-partner to know where they live.

Currently, the VEC ensures that the addresses of silent electors are not entered on electoral rolls.

But there is no requirement or permission for the VEC to retrospectively remove such information from existing electoral rolls or other documents.

This Bill will require the VEC to remove the address of a silent electors from existing electoral rolls and other documents produced before the person became a silent elector, where it is within the VEC’s power and reasonably practical for it to do so.

For our democracy to function, voters must also be able to make genuinely informed choices.

The integrity of our electoral processes depends on it.

When voters cannot clearly distinguish one party from another, the link between voter intention and electoral outcome is weakened.

This Bill strengthens that link.

It does so by extending the existing prohibition on registering a name for a political party that is too similar to an existing party.

That prohibition will now also cover acronyms and abbreviations.

It also prohibits the registration of names or logos that include words suggesting that the candidate holds a parliamentary office – such as ‘MP’, ‘MLA’ and ‘MLC’.

However, we recognise that certain words are in common usage and should not be kept for the exclusive use of existing parties. So, for example, the word ‘democratic’, collective nouns for people, and certain geographical terms cannot be prohibited even if they are already in use.

Another area that has the potential to misinform voters is when a candidate is dis-endorsed.

The Bill provides a process for parties to disendorse candidates. Currently parties must rely on the candidate to withdraw their nomination.

The VEC will also be required to ensure that ballot papers are updated to reflect changes to groupings of candidates in case of the withdrawal of the nomination.

This is another measure that supports the integrity of the ballot. It ensures that what voters see on election day accurately reflects the current state of candidacies.

The Bill will also provide more flexible powers for the VEC to respond to emergency situations affecting voting.

Where voting is adjourned at one voting centre, it will be able to move to another voting centre where it is not possible, safe or practical for an election to be held at a the original centre

A declaration of a national or state-wide emergency will not be required.

Supplementary elections and re-elections

This Bill clarifies some important issues in relation to supplementary elections and re-elections.

If circumstances which causes an election to fail only affect a particular region or district, the election will only fail for that area – not elsewhere.

The Bill also sets out the requirements for the issue and form of the writ for a supplementary election, and for updating the electoral roll ahead of the supplementary election.

•   However, the Bill still contains four other reforms to address operational issues with Victoria’s political finance scheme, including to:

Enable the VEC to recover overpayments or required repayments of funding made to former registered political parties and former independent elected members.

At the moment, obligations to repay only apply to currently registered political parties and current independent elected members.

This means the VEC has no means to enforce these outstanding obligations once a political party is de-registered or an independent elected member leaves the Parliament.

It is also difficult for the VEC to recover any amounts of policy development funding which may be owed by a registered political party once the party has been de-registered.

This Bill will also:

•   Require RPPs to disclose relevant expenditure and repay any excess funding before deregistering

•   Require former independents to disclose expenditure and repay excess funding within 30 days of ceasing to be an elected member.

Offences and penalties for non-compliance with existing disclosure obligations will be extended to these new obligations.

The current Act also contains a loophole in that the VEC cannot exclude expenditure on GST from claimable expenditure, even if the entity is eligible to receive a tax credit for the same GST expenditure.

This means that some RPPs can be reimbursed twice for the same expenditure, once by the VEC and once by the Australian Taxation Office.

The Bill will close this loophole.

Another modernising step in the Bill is in relation to authorisation of electoral materials.

The predominance of digital communications means that the requirement to display details of printers and publishers is no longer critical. The Bill removes that requirement.

The Bill also clarifies what electoral material must be authorised. These include paid advertisements, printed materials, and any material produced by or on behalf of entities which receive political donations or political funding under the Act.

President, this Bill means that Victoria’s electoral legislation better reflects the scale and complexity of modern state elections.

It ensures our processes are efficient, transparent and organised.

And critically, it strengthens the integrity of our electoral system.

I commend the Bill to the House.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise to make a contribution on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025, and in doing so I would like to thank Minister Thomas in the other place, who put forward this bill which reforms one of the cornerstone pieces of legislation in this state.

The Electoral Act of 2002 is a core piece of legislation which underpins our democracy in Victoria.

Passed by the then Bracks Labor Government, the 2002 act instituted the Victorian Electoral Commission.

This independent body has, ever since, overseen our election processes in this state, and ensured that our democratic system remains fair, equal, and transparent for all.

I want to briefly outline this piece of legislation as it is the foundational element on which this electoral amendment bill rests.

Most regulatory provisions that we have in place to ensure the smooth, transparent, and fair execution of our democratic obligations, can be found in our electoral acts.

They define the role and scope of the VEC, and are regularly reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose.

This is extremely important in a fast moving age, where the world is changing quickly, and the Electoral Act has often been amended to suit these changing times.

One significant transformation is, of course, the rapid digitisation of our economy, with the internet being more accessible than ever and social media a part of many aspects of our lives.

These changes pose both great challenges and opportunities for all democratic nations.

Thankfully, the tireless work of this Parliament and our Federal Government has ensured that adequate guardrails are in place for us to reap the benefits of these changes, while protecting against negative effects.

In that same spirit, this Bill makes amendments to the Electoral Act, in order to implement the recommendations of various reports that have been released on Victoria since the last significant reform of the Act in 2018.

These reports include:

•   The EMC, or the Electoral Matters Committee of Parliament’s report on its Inquiry into the conduct of the 2022 Victorian State election.

•   And the Victorian Electoral Commission’s Report to Parliament on the 2022 Victorian State election, as well as their report on the 2023 Narracan District supplementary election.

•   It also looks at the Electoral Review Expert Panel’s main report.

These reports present a vital opportunity for this Parliament to modernise and update our electoral act to be fit for purpose for modern day state elections.

President, one of the first key reforms in this bill is the changes to political finance.

Under the current iteration of the Electoral Act, the VEC is not able to recover overpayments of administrative expenditure funding from a former registered political party after that party has been deregistered, or by a former independent Member of Parliament after they have left Parliament.

This issue is also applicable in the recovery of excess payments of public funding and policy development funding that may have been given to registered political parties, under similar circumstances where they may have been deregistered.

If a political party is currently registered, and then proceeds to deregister itself before its obligation to repay any excess funds, or before the VEC acts to seek repayments through the court system, then under the current system the VEC has no means of enforcing these debts.

Common sense will tell you that’s not right.

And that’s something this bill aims to rectify through these reforms.

Under this bill, when deregistering a party, there are now additional steps to do so.

Now, parties will have to disclose all relevant information for the calculation of administrative expenditure funding, public funding, and policy development funding entitlements.

They will then have to repay any overpayments back to the VEC before deregistration takes effect.

In the case of independent members of Parliament, they will be required to submit an annual return in relation to administrative expenditure funding.

That will be due within thirty days of ceasing to be a member with a similar requirement as for deregistering parties to repay any overpayments.

As with all regulatory frameworks, we need to ensure that there are compliance measures to make sure they are followed and respected.

This bill will extend the current offences and penalties for non-compliance with obligations under the electoral act for deregistration, extending them to this whole process.

President, the bill also will exclude GST from claimable expenditure for which funding may be claimed under the Act.

Currently, the VEC is prevented from excluding GST from expenditure that electoral participants may claim under the Electoral Act.

By the VEC’s determination in the report, the requirement to calculate claimable expenditure that is inclusive of GST, ends up costing an additional $60,000 per State election.

This is clearly an issue, and to set things right, this bill will amend the definitions of what is considered ‘electoral expenditure’ and ‘political expenditure’ in the Electoral Act.

This will specifically exclude expenditure for which an entity is entitled to any credit, rebate, refund, reimbursement or other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law.

This will have the effect of preventing expenditure on GST when claims are lodged for funding.

There are also provisions in this legislation to clarify that nothing in the amended Electoral Act is intended to make the internal documents or disputes of political parties justiciable.

Unlike corporations or other similar legal entities, political parties are voluntary associations.

The creation of a political party, their composition, and their membership, are not intended to create legal relations between people.

For that reason, this clarity is important in establishing current and future amendments and, as a result, future precedents.

This is to prevent the unintended consequence of disturbing the well-established precedent that an unincorporated political party’s internal conduct does not give rise to any cause of action in an Australian court, on the principles of it being a voluntary association as I just mentioned.

The clarity inserted by this bill makes clear that there is nothing in this amendment nor the principal act that has the effect of making the constitution, rules, resolutions or other documents of a registered political party enforceable in an Australian court.

This is not anything unprecedented in Australia, but a common sense measure to provide clarity which exists on the Commonwealth level since the 1918 Commonwealth Electoral Act.

President, the bill contains amendments to the nominated entities provisions in the principal act, seeking to address any risk that those provisions may produce unfairness in the electoral system, by way of inadvertently creating a disparity in electoral participants’ ability to fund political communication.

Under these amendments, the bill will allow all registered political parties, independent candidates and independent members alike to appoint a nominated entity, on the same eligibility criteria as each other.

The amendment will prohibit funds received from nominated entities from being placed in a State campaign account, as to prevent those funds from being used for political expenditure.

And it will introduce caps on transfers, in order to set a limit for how much funding a nominated entity can transfer to a registered political party or independent, equaling the playing field.

These changes will allow for a state where independents will be eligible to appoint a nominated entity on the same basis as a registered political party, with no favour, benefit, or advantage given to parties as opposed to an independent.

It also means that no entity can be the nominated entity for more than one registered political party or independent.

It also cannot be the nominated entity for both a registered political party and an independent at the same time.

This is being accomplished by making it so that so registered parties and independents cannot appoint a nominated entity if it already appears on the Register of Nominated Entities.

And as I stated before, the funds from these entities cannot be used in political expenditure or transferred into a registered political party’s state accounts.

President, this is a common sense measure to reduce the advantage of electoral participants with nominated entities in funding political communication, by prohibiting the use of these funds in political expenditure from state accounts.

It is quite clearly articulated in these amendments that the funds are intended to be used for administrative and operational expenses incurred by a registered party or independent, not political communication.

The transfer caps I’ve mentioned are another means by which we can minimise or eliminate any advantages over parties or independents without a nominated entity.

This cap will be set at an initial $500,000 for political parties registered with the VEC, and $50,000 for independents, all aggregated over an election period.

This cap is expected to be a fraction of the actual administrative and operational costs incurred by major registered parties in Victoria.

This is to work towards the principle of the independence of political parties to decide how to finance their operations with their access to other sources to fund administrative expenditure.

A good example would be the use of membership fees and levies instead.

Independent members of parliament have lower adminstrative costs and expenses than that of a fully fledged and registered political party, which is reflected in why the caps for independents are lower.

It would be odd, and I think unreasonable, if an independent were to claim that their administrative costs incurred rival that of a major political party in Victoria.

Nonetheless, the Governor in Council, on the Minister’s recommendation, may prescribe a different cap in regulations in the future.

That flexibility and revision can allow for adjustments to ensure the caps are proportionate in reference to actual administrative costs in the future, whether they be lower or higher.

As for instances where this cap is exceeded, any transfers that are above the cap must be repaid to the nominated entity within 30 days.

Otherwise, that sum is forfeited and recoverable as a debt to the Government from the registered political party.

There are some further caveats to this cap, notably that it will not apply to transfers made for Commonwealth purposes, nor would it cap transfers made by the registered political parties and independents towards those nominated entities.

The caps are on transfers back to the parties and independents, not the other way around.

Loans are also exempt from these entities to parties and independents on a commercial basis, and are required to be paid back within six months after an election.

The key elements of this amendment bill will apply retrospectively to the date of the second reading, so that no nominated entity that may have transferred to a state campaign account for use in political expenditure.

President, this bill will require that registered political parties remove funds from their State campaign account paid by a nominated entity that were either paid in after 1 September 2023, or remain in the state account at the time of the second reading, or otherwise exceed the cap in place.

And to otherwise ensure that the funds in place are being used to accommodate administrative work, the Bill will amend the definition of political expenditure to expressly exclude office administration or staff.

President, there are some more changes which may be of interest not just to political parties and registered independents, but to the voting public as well.

At the moment, early voting is effectively a two week period prior election day where people may cast their votes early, should they be busy or away on election day.

However, this two week period is an enormous strain on resources.

A lengthier early voting period brings with it more security arrangements for early voting centres, more staff needed to man these booths, and so forth.

This has only gotten more necessary with the sheer number of people choosing to vote early than on the day.

In 2018, 33.6 percent of voters had cast an early vote at the end of that early voting period, and in 2022 that had risen to 43.6 percent, which is nearly half of the voting public deciding to go to an early voting booth.

The importance of delivering a quality, transparent, and most importantly, a secure election, is paramount.

A longer election period for voting may give some more flexibility on when they can vote, but it strains the system.

As such, this Bill proposes trimming down the early voting period to ten days, as to begin on Wednesday the week before election day.

In 2022, by this point only 6.1% of voters had cast a vote, who will now simply do so on another day.

This ensures minimal disruption to early voting processes and activities, while ensuring that the VEC is not put under too much administrative pressure and can safely, securely, and transparently continue to operate.

Furthermore, this Bill will increase protections for personal information of silent electors, that being individuals whose address is absent from the electoral roll if the person considers their primary address’ inclusion on the roll may risk themselves or their family’s safety.

However, this is only applicable from the moment it is granted, and does not hide that address from prior records.

With this amendment, the VEC may protect the person’s address retrospectively on previously published documents or electoral rolls, so that the protections of a silent elector cannot be circumvented by simply accessing an old copy of VEC material somehow.

And finally President, this Bill will ensure that voters are best informed when casting their vote.

An informed democracy is a strong one, and a fair election means that a competitive one on the principles of voters knowingly voting for the party they desire.

As such, the Bill will strengthen restrictions on the political party names and logos that can be registered with the VEC.

In the EMC Report, it was found that it was likely that during the last state election, some votes were not directed as voters’ intended, because they were confused by the way parties’ names appeared on the ballot paper.

This can be caused by strange naming conventions, party names and logos that were too similar to other major party’s for some voters to distinguish, for with names and logos which suggested affiliations that did not exist.

By restricting new names and logos too similar to existing parties and prohibiting names and logos that mislead voters by falsely suggesting association with another established party, we are ensuring voters are not being misled, and vote as they intend to, and aren’t being misdirected by malicious actors.

President, this is a chance for this Parliament to continue to modernise our electoral laws, bringing them up to scratch for today’s era, and ensuring that our elections remain not just transparent, but fair, secure, and competitive, between not just parties, but with independents as well.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (17:44): A quick summing-up: thank you for the contributions to date. The bill will ensure that key parts of the Electoral Act 2002 are fit for purpose given the scale and complexity of modern state elections. The bill also clarifies requirements for the conduct of state elections to ensure that they can continue to be delivered in an efficient, transparent and organised manner. The bill will achieve this through a range of amendments – including inserting detailed requirements of supplementary elections and re-elections, simplifying and modernising authorisation requirements for electoral materials, tightening restrictions on party names and logos that can be registered, providing more flexible powers for the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) to respond to emergencies affecting elections and updating legislated timing and requirements for electoral processes – and other minor technical amendments to improve the overall operation of the Electoral Act 2002.

The government has carefully considered the amendments circulated by the opposition and the Greens. Save for one of the opposition’s amendments concerning the requirement of a two-candidate preferred count to be done in every seat, we do not support the other amendments to the bill. We think that the bill contains sensible measures to ensure our elections run more smoothly, many of which have been requested by the VEC and informed by consultation. We look forward to the committee stage of the bill, which I believe is predominantly to deal with the amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (17:47)

Jaclyn SYMES: Apologies, I failed to table my amendments in my summing-up, so I would like to do that now.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I do not have too many questions, but I might, to make it easier, ask everything during clause 1. This question in particular is on the delegation powers, Minister, if that is helpful. The Electoral Commissioner and the Deputy Electoral Commissioner are appointed by the Governor in Council and under the act are required to not be members of a registered political party or to have been so at any time during a period of five years immediately preceding the date of the proposed appointment. This requirement does not apply to other staff at the Victorian Electoral Commission. Does the new delegation power risk undermining the apolitical nature of the VEC?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are integrity requirements to be met for these appointments.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just for clarity, are you able to share or enlighten the chamber on the integrity requirements?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will see if I can get some more detail from the box.

Mr Mulholland, section 17 of the Electoral Act 2002 will take you through specifically the matters that you have raised in relation to the consideration of appointments. The amendment bill does not make any changes to that, but just for full clarification, you cannot be a member of political parties.

Evan MULHOLLAND: But presumably the five-year clause I do not believe applies. The minister’s second-reading speech in the Assembly described the removal of the printer details from authorisation requirements as a modernising measure. Can you elaborate further on why this was necessary?

Jaclyn SYMES: In modern days a lot of things are sent electronically and are no longer printed, so therefore it is not required to tell people where they have been printed, because they have not been.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As the shadow minister, the member for Brighton, rightly pointed out, the printer requirement effectively acts as a fail-safe so that if the name and the address of the authorising person are false and incomplete the printer details are an additional point of contact for the author of the document. Often we see a lot of misinformation come up at election time, as we have seen in multiple different elections, where the only sort of guarantee of contact is actually the printer where it was printed from. Would you agree with that assessment? In light of this, why is the government removing an additional transparency measure?

Jaclyn SYMES: In omitting this clause we are providing that certain electoral material does not require the name and address of the authoriser and printer of the material to retain the current requirements of the Electoral Act. It is my information that besides Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory are the only other Australian jurisdictions that currently require the name and address of printers to be disclosed on electoral material. South Australia removed the requirement, effective January this year.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the government received any briefing or done any risk assessment on how the removal of printer details may impact the enforcement of electoral offences, particularly in relation to misleading and anonymous campaign material?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, many considerations were considered through the policy development stage, and as we have indicated, this is similar to some other jurisdictions, most recently South Australia. These are matters that are obviously considered, but in terms of formal modelling, which I think you asked for, no.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That is the last of my questions to the government. I had a couple of questions on the Greens amendment, which I will come back to later.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests amendment 3.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1.   Clause 1, lines 9 to 11, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is basically similar to the conversation that Mr Limbrick and I were having earlier. So your clause 47 is a test. This is the same conversation we were having in relation to advertisements and electoral materials. The reasons that I outlined in Mr Mulholland’s questioning of me I would put back as a response for not supporting his amendment.

David LIMBRICK: As I outlined in the second-reading debate, I actually support the changes that are being made in this bill. I do share concerns about misinformation and materials, but I think that if the authoriser on the materials is fraudulent, then the printer is probably – it is either fraudulent or it is not, so I do not really see that having the printer actually provides a fail-safe. Therefore I will not be supporting this amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment of the Liberals. We, like Mr Limbrick, support the bill’s proposed removal of the requirement to include a print house name on political advertising materials. Under the current arrangements, there is actually nothing to stop a candidate that wishes to avoid identification giving a false address and printing details, and the current requirement actually just imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on candidates. It is not a strong safeguard against candidates trying to avoid identification.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (17:58)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendment 2, which omits this clause.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This is on the delegation power. As I mentioned in my contribution in the chamber, we think that it is fair for the Electoral Commissioner to have the final say over very important decisions, sometimes very heavily contested positions, and I do not think the particular safeguards that are there are there for the Electoral Commissioner and Deputy Electoral Commissioner, so we think this amendment is quite important.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government does not support omitting this clause, because this clause allows the Electoral Commissioner to delegate to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner in a number of circumstances. For example, the clause would permit the commissioner to delegate the power to the deputy commissioner to allow or disallow a ballot paper on a recount if a number of ballot papers reserved under the relevant section of the act for the decision of the commission may determine whether a particular candidate is declared elected. It also allows the Electoral Commissioner to delegate to a member of staff or election official manager, except in relation to a recount decision. We consider that allowing the commissioner to delegate is reasonable and not uncommon for statutory office holders. Therefore the government is not in a position to accept even the premise of the amendment. The delegation may be important if the commissioner faces illness or a sudden absence or if there are multiple close counts in the state which require the commissioner to determine whether ballots should be allowed or disallowed. In a practical sense, if there are issues in one part of the state versus another, it would take some time for the commissioner to travel between issues.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We will not be supporting this amendment. We support the bill’s proposal to vest the VEC commissioner with the power to delegate their powers by instrument to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner or a VEC staff member, as is appropriate. Delegation arrangements are common across the Victorian public service, and given the commissioner’s overarching responsibilities under the act, we do not anticipate the commissioner would delegate their powers in a manner that undermines their overarching duties and responsibilities under the act.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is the clause stand part of the bill. If people support Mr Mulholland’s proposal to omit it, they should vote no.

Clause agreed to; clauses 11 to 61 agreed to.

New clause 61A (18:01)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

4.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 61 –

‘61A Indicative two candidate preferred distribution of preferences

(1) In section 116 of the Principal Act, for “If the” substitute “Subject to subsection (2), if the”.

(2) At the end of section 116 of the Principal Act insert –

“(2)   In the case of an Assembly election –

(a)   the Commission must direct the election manager to proceed with the scrutiny referred to in subsection (1) for each district; and

(b)   the election manager must comply with that direction within 3 months after receiving it.”.’.

I do want to thank the government for the collaborative way they have engaged on this issue. Particularly for the psephologists out there, this is a long-fought issue. I know people like Antony Green and Kevin Bonham will be cheering from behind their computers at this particular amendment. But I know many colleagues on both sides that I have spoken to have been particularly animated by this particular issue, because if you are a member in your electorate, you want to understand entirely how people have voted in your electorate and how preferences have been distributed in your electorate. So this is a good outcome for all members of Parliament but for all election watchers as well. I do not think it is good enough for the electoral commission to get the second candidate wrong and then just pick the winner and be done with it and put all the ballot papers away. I do think we saw it a little bit in the federal election, but there are going to be some very complicated outcomes, and you only have to look at what was the safest Labor seat in the state at the federal election, the seat of Calwell, turning into the seat that was counted last in the state. I think we are going to have about 10 Calwells at this state election, so it is really important to know who is finishing second, who is finishing first and what the full distribution of preferences is to really understand the result and the implications of the result as well. The VEC have an important role to play in that.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I agree with Mr Mulholland; I think that this is a good change. The full disclosure of the data and preferences – I think the psephologists will be very happy with that. But yes, I agree, I think this is a good change and should happen.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will also be supporting this amendment. We believe this is a good amendment. It will ensure that the VEC always completes a full two-candidate preferred distribution of preferences for lower house candidates and prevent them from stopping the count once first preferences establish a winner with 50 per cent plus one of the vote. It means the public and candidates alike get to know not only who won on first preferences but how all the preferences were distributed across the field. We actually really welcome this change.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are happy with this change. It is reasonable for a two-candidate preferred count to be done in every seat. However, we have given feedback through conversations about what this should look like, that the two-candidate preferred distribution of preferences should be able to occur after the 21 days in which the writs must be returned. This is to avoid holding up an election outcome for other seats. We are very pleased that there have been constructive conversations particularly between the opposition and the government, but as we have heard, other parties are supporting these changes so the distribution can be done within three months.

New clause agreed to; clauses 62 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 (18:06)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1.   Clause 92, page 53, lines 1 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(d) for the definition of political expenditure substitute –

“political expenditure –

(a)   means any expenditure for the dominant purpose of directing how a person should vote at an election, by promoting or opposing –

(i)   the election of any candidate at the election; or

(ii)   a registered political party; or

(iii)   an elected member; but

(b)   does not include –

(i)   expenditure incurred by an associated entity or third party campaigner or any material that is published, aired or otherwise disseminated outside of the election campaigning period, unless the material refers to –

(A)   a candidate or a registered political party; and

(B)   how a person should vote at an election; or

(ii)   expenditure for which a registered political party, elected member, group or candidate is entitled to any credit, rebate, refund, reimbursement or other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law;”.’.

The government has an amendment to clause 92(1)(d) of the bill, which was circulated at the start of the committee stage. It is an amendment that relates to the definition of ‘political expenditure’. It is a technical amendment only and is necessary because of house amendments that were made to the bill when it passed the Assembly on 5 March. The definition was intended to operate in conjunction with a clause which has been removed from the bill following those house amendments, which means that the definition in the bill currently is unworkable and a new definition is necessary. This was only picked up after the bill passed the Assembly, so I appreciate the opportunity to rectify that in the Council. It is a technical amendment that will therefore return the definition of ‘political expenditure’ as it is in the Electoral Act now plus add that ‘political expenditure’ does not include any rebate, refund, reimbursement or any other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law, such as GST. This has always been part of the bill to avoid parties double claiming GST credits.

Evan MULHOLLAND: We will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 93 to 103 agreed to.

New clause 103A (18:08)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 103 –

‘103A New section 217BA inserted

After section 217B of the Principal Act insert –

“217BA Political donations from property developers, building and construction industry entities, fossil fuel entities and others banned

(1)   It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to make a political donation or for a registered political party, a candidate at an election, a group, an elected member, a nominated entity, an associated entity or a third party campaigner to accept a political donation from a prohibited donor.

(2)   For the purposes of this section, a prohibited donor is –

(a)   a property developer; or

(b)   a building and construction industry entity; or

(c)   a fossil fuel industry entity; or

(d)   a tobacco industry entity; or

(e)   a gambling industry entity; or

(f)   a supermarket entity; or

(g)   an estate agent; or

(h)   a banking industry entity.

(3)   Each of the following is a property developer for the purposes of this section –

(a)   an individual or a corporation if –

(i)   the individual or corporation carries on a business mainly concerned with the residential or commercial development of land, with the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit; and

(ii)   in the course of that business –

(A)   1 planning application has been made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation and is pending; or

(B)   3 or more planning applications made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation have been determined within the preceding 7 years;

(b)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

(4)   Any activity engaged in by an individual or a corporation for the dominant purpose of providing commercial premises at which the individual or corporation, or a related body corporate of the corporation, will carry on business is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the individual or corporation is a property developer unless that business involves the sale or leasing of a substantial part of the premises.

(5)   In this section –

approved venue has the meaning given by section 1.3(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

fossil fuel entity means –

(a)   an individual or a corporation that carries on a business mainly concerned with the mining, extraction or sale of a fossil fuel; or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

banking industry entity means –

(a)   a corporation that carries on a business as an ADI; or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

building and construction industry entity means –

(a)   an individual or a corporation that carries on a business in the building and construction industry (other than as a property developer); or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

close associate –

(a)   of a corporation means each of the following –

(i)   a director or officer of the corporation or the spouse or domestic partner of such a director or officer;

(ii)   a related body corporate of the corporation;

(iii)   a person whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is greater than 20% or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person;

(iv)   if the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is a stapled entity in relation to a stapled security – the other stapled entity in relation to that stapled security;

(v)   if the corporation is a trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to a trust – a person who holds more than 20% of the units in the trust (in the case of a unit trust) or is a beneficiary of the trust (in the case of a discretionary trust);

(vi)   in relation to a corporation that is a property developer referred to in subsection (3)(a) – a person in a joint venture or partnership with the property developer in connection with a planning application made by or on behalf of the property developer who is likely to obtain a financial gain if development that would be or is authorised by the application is authorised or carried out;

(b)   of an individual means each of the following –

(i)   the spouse or domestic partner of the individual;

(ii)   in relation to an individual who is a property developer referred to in subsection (3)(a) – a person in a joint venture or partnership with the property developer in connection with a planning application made by or on behalf of the property developer who is likely to obtain a financial gain if development that would be or is authorised by the application is authorised or carried out;

club has the meaning given by section 1.3(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

club gaming machine entitlement has the meaning given by section 1.3(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

club licence has the meaning given by section 1.3(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

director has the meaning given by section 9 of the Corporations Act;

domestic partner of a person means –

(a)   a person who is in a registered relationship with a person; or

Note

A registered relationship is defined in subsection (6).

(b)   a person to whom the person is not married but with whom the person is living as a couple on a genuine domestic basis (irrespective of gender);

estate agent means –

(a)   a licensed estate agent or an agent’s representative as defined by section 4(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1980; or

(b)   a person who holds a licence in another State or a Territory that is equivalent to an estate agent’s licence under the Estate Agents Act 1980; or

(c)   a person who is a close associate of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

fossil fuel means any of the following substances –

(a)   coal;

(b)   petroleum;

(c)   methane gas;

(d)   any other hydrocarbon-based fuel derived from material formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms;

fossil fuel industry entity means –

(a)   an individual or a corporation that carries on a business mainly concerned with the mining, extraction or sale of a fossil fuel; or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

gambling industry entity means –

(a)   a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with wagering, betting or other gambling (including the manufacture of gaming machines or other machines used primarily for that purpose); or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a); or

(c)   a club that holds, or on whose behalf another person holds, a club venue operator’s licence or racing club licence club in respect of an approved venue to which a club gaming machine entitlement applies; or

(d)   a person who, for a club referred to in paragraph (c), is –

(i)   the secretary of the club; or

(ii)   a member of the governing body of the club; or

(iii)   the spouse or domestic partner of the secretary or member of the governing body; or

(iv)   a close associate of the club; or

(e)   an individual or a corporation that holds a hotel venue operator’s licence; or

(f)   an individual or a corporation that represents or promotes the interests of a person or persons referred to in paragraph (e), whether or not the individual or corporation also represents or promotes the interests of any other persons; or

(f)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (e) or (f);

hotel venue operator’s licence means a hotel venue operator’s licence issued under Division 2 of Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

officer has the meaning given by section 9 of the Corporations Act;

planning application means an application for a planning permit or a request for the amendment of a planning scheme under the Planning and Environment Act 1987;

racing club licence has the meaning given by section 1.3(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003;

related body corporate has the meaning given by section 9 of the Corporations Act;

spouse of a person means a person to whom the person is married;

stapled entity means an entity the interests in which are traded along with the interests in another entity as stapled securities and (in the case of a stapled entity that is a trust) includes any trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to the trust;

supermarket entity means –

(a)   an individual or a corporation that carries on a business under which a person sells to consumers bread, breakfast cereal, butter, eggs, flour, fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh milk, meat, rice, sugar and other packaged food or most of those groceries; or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

tobacco industry entity means –

(a)   a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with the manufacture or sale of tobacco products; or

(b)   a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a);

voting power has the meaning given by section 610 of the Corporations Act.

(6)    For the purposes of the definition of domestic partner in subsection (5) –

(a)   registered relationship has the same meaning as it has in the Relationships Act 2008; and

(b)   in determining whether persons who are not in a registered relationship are domestic partners of each other, all of the circumstances of their relationship are to be taken into account, including any one or more of the matters referred to in section 35(2) of the Relationships Act 2008 as may be relevant in a particular case.”.’.

Our first amendment here would make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive or spend a donation from any person that has been found to have engaged in corrupt conduct by IBAC or a royal commission or subject to an adverse finding by IBAC.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. We consider it unnecessary because of the changes that we made in 2018. At that time we introduced the toughest political donation laws in Australia to ensure Victorians know who makes political donations and when. The electoral review expert panel reviewed Victoria’s donation laws and, to quote its report tabled in Parliament from November 2023:

… considered that Victoria’s disclosure requirements and low general cap on political donations make it unnecessary to introduce bans on donations from particular industries.

Thus the low general cap is a crucial factor which makes the Greens amendment unnecessary, and as I said, the government will not be supporting it.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just had a couple of questions on the amendment, if that is all right. Just on the prohibited donors, you listed gambling, the property industry et cetera – could be supermarkets. Would this capture people that may invest in gambling or property through a personal trust?

Sarah MANSFIELD: This is for industry donations – so for corporate donations, is my understanding – not for individual people. It is for corporate donations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would this amendment prevent Woolworths from donating to a political party or perhaps buying a ticket to a dinner to send representatives, given their interests in pokies – from making that contribution to a political party?

Sarah MANSFIELD: In section 5 you will find a list of the definitions of the different entities that we are proposing to ban from making donations. It includes approved venues, which is what would capture the gambling industry donations – clubs, club gaming machine entitlements, club licences and directors, so any entity that is also a gambling industry entity. It provides a definition of that, and in particular if you look at paragraph (a) under the definition of ‘gambling industry entity’, it says:

a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with wagering, betting or other gambling …

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will give you an example for this one. I note clause (2)(g) of the amendment refers to an estate agent. I know many people have done this on both sides of politics, so I will give you an example. There was a great real estate agent up in Craigieburn who last year at my gala dinner – I had about 420 people there – not only bought a ticket to my gala dinner but also delivered the auction, which meant great excitement for everyone there. Would that estate agent be prevented from buying a ticket to a fundraiser for a political party?

Sarah MANSFIELD: Again I will point you to the definitions that are provided. An estate agent means a licensed estate agent or agents representative as defined in the Estate Agents Act, and there is a series of other definitions that apply to that. That person under our proposals would be banned from making political donations in any form.

David LIMBRICK: I have got a question as well for Dr Mansfield. Why was this particular subset of industries selected? Why not other industries as well?

Sarah MANSFIELD: We believe that these industries have undue influence over political decision-making, and many of them are associated with a lot of adverse outcomes for the community and our environment.

David LIMBRICK: I fail to see how supermarkets are the bad guys, but if we are to look at political influence by industries on the Victorian Parliament, surely the largest industry that has influence over our Parliament and our politics would be the renewables industry. Why weren’t they included?

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I have outlined, we believe that these industries have undue influence over political decisions. I am not aware of what contribution the renewables industry makes, but I would also argue that, from our perspective, we are very supportive of the work that the renewables industry does. That said, this is about corporate donations having an undue influence over the decisions that are made. We have identified industries we believe are having that effect. No-one else has put forward any other industries they want to add to the list. This is the list of industries we believe are having undue influence through donations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just wondering, similar to Mr Limbrick’s question on other industries, about online booking agencies or travel businesses – like Wotif, for example. I think you could say that it kind of fits nicely within a whole bunch of industries there, given it donated $1 million to the Greens. Why weren’t those booking agencies included as well?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I feel like I have answered the question about why we have chosen these industries. I do not feel like there is anything additional to be added to about that. We have provided definitions of each of these industries and explained why we believe these industries should be included in this list. As I said, no-one else has offered other industries they believe should be added to a list. We have also, I think, in my second-reading contribution, outlined that we believe there should be spending caps as well on elections to really level the playing field. That would probably get around some of these issues around corporate donations. But we stand by the list that we have put here.

Council divided on new clause:

New clause 103B (18:23)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 104 –

‘103B   New section 217BB inserted

Before section 217C of the Principal Act insert –

“217BB Political donations from persons subject to adverse findings banned for 10 years

(1)   At any time during the relevant period, it is unlawful for a person who is subject to an adverse finding to make a political donation or for a registered political party, a candidate at an election, a group, an elected member, a nominated entity, an associated entity or a third party campaigner to accept a political donation from a person who is subject to an adverse finding.

(2)   Subsection (1) does not apply if the adverse finding has been overturned by a court.

(3)   In this section –

adverse finding, in relation to a person, means –

(a)   a finding by the IBAC or a Royal Commission that the person has committed or engaged in corrupt conduct; or

(b)   any other adverse finding about the person, or comment or opinion which is adverse to the person, in an annual report or special report;

annual report means an annual report of the IBAC under Part 7 of the Financial Management Act 1994;

corrupt conduct has the meaning given by section 4 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011;

relevant period, in relation to a person who is subject to an adverse finding, means the period of 10 years beginning on the day on which the finding is first made public;

Royal Commission has the meaning given by section 3 of the Inquiries Act 2014;

special report means a report of the IBAC under section 162 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011.”.’.

This is the amendment that would make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive or spend a donation from any person that has been found to have engaged in corrupt conduct by IBAC or a royal commission or subject to an adverse finding by IBAC.

David LIMBRICK: My question is for Dr Mansfield. How would a political party know if there was a finding against someone? If a political party has a website or something and they accept donations, most of the ones I have seen have a tick box that says ‘Please ensure that you are eligible’ or something and ‘Please ensure that you are not a foreigner.’ With this amendment it appears to me that if a person happened to have had an adverse finding against them and the political party received one, the political party would be in big trouble, even though they had no idea and could not have found out easily, I would think.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I understand that this will potentially increase the administrative burden on candidates and parties to do some due diligence on donors. There is basic information that needs to be provided by donors. There already are provisions within the act regarding unlawful donations that can be made, so this will be exactly the same sort of regimen that applies to those unlawful donations under division 3A or 3B. It is the same as people exceeding the donations cap and other things, so you just have to apply a similar process extended to this. In terms of being able to find out this information, this is about published findings against adverse findings or findings of corrupt conduct, so that is information that should be in the public domain. I would imagine if there was ever any uncertainty about a candidate’s or political party’s ability to have reasonably known that at the time of the donation, that is something that a court would be able to determine.

Jeff BOURMAN: For Dr Mansfield: you say people have to do their due diligence on what would be in the public domain. At what level are you expecting people to dig? Are you expecting someone to go to the point of going through Magistrates’ Court lists? Are they under investigation? At what point is it enough by the expectations of the amendment you are doing – or not enough?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think the requirement is that you undertake reasonable steps to try and uncover whether there has been anyone who has had any of these findings made against them make a donation. As I said, there are already rules around donations that exist, and this would be an extension of those rules.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government is not supportive of these amendments, because we consider them unnecessary due to the significant changes made in 2018.

Council divided on new clause:

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (18:31):

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (18:32):

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Harriet SHING: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for today, pursuant to standing order 4.01(3), be suspended.

Motion agreed to.