Thursday, 4 June 2026

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Government Services, Special Minister of State, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria) (11:25): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

On 15 April 2026, the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper v Victoria [2026] HCA 11 (Hopper).

In Hopper, the High Court found that Victoria’s political donations and expenditure laws contained at Part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Act), was wholly invalid as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

The High Court declared Part 12 of the Act invalid in its entirety, as it was not permissible to sever any parts of provisions, subdivisions or divisions of Part 12 to preserve its validity.

In light of the High Court’s finding in Hopper, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act to introduce a new political donations, State funding and reporting regime (proposed regime).

The new regime applies to registered political parties, candidates at an election, elected members, associated entities and third-party campaigners (collectively, ‘regulated person or body’).

The key reforms in the Bill include:

a. setting a $7,500 general cap on political donations to a regulated person or body;

b. setting a higher general cap of $15,000 for eligible new entrants to the electoral process;

c. prohibiting political donations from foreign sources;

d. prohibiting anonymous political donations equal to or above the value of $1,250;

e. requiring that political donations equal to or above $1,250 be disclosed to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) within 7 days.

f. requiring regulated persons or bodies to provide annual returns containing financial information to the VEC;

g. providing powers for the VEC to compel the production of documents or require a person to give evidence in relation to compliance with the proposed regime;

h. prescribing offences and penalties relating to non-compliance, including introducing prospective criminal liability for any failure to disclose certain political donations made between 15 April 2026 and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent; and

i. make State funding available to eligible registered political parties, independent candidates and independent elected members.

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill

In my opinion, the human rights under the Charter engaged by the Bill are the:

• right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter);

• right to privacy (section 13(a) of the Charter);

• right to freedom of expression (section 15 of the Charter);

• right to take part in public life (section 18 of the Charter); and

• right to property (section 20 of the Charter).

Having considered all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter. To the extent that any rights are limited, the limitation is reasonable and able to be justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to equality and protection from discrimination (section 8 of the Charter)

Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Equal Opportunity Act), on the basis of an attribute in section 6 of that Act, which includes race. Relevantly, the definition of ‘race’ in the Equal Opportunity Act includes ‘nationality or national origin’.

Ban on foreign donations

Clause 5 of the Bill will insert new section 209 into the Act to make it unlawful to make or accept a political donation if the donor is not an Australian Citizen or Resident, or in the case of a donor who is not a natural person, where the donor does not have an Australian Business Number.

The ban on foreign donations limits the right to equality before the law as it prohibits the rights of persons to make a political donation on the basis of nationality. However, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent foreign governments, corporations or individuals exercising influence on Victoria’s political system through donations to regulated persons or entities. This proposal supports national sovereignty by restricting the influence that non-Australians have over Victorian politics and elections.

Right to Privacy (Section 13(a) of the Charter)

Section 13(1) of the Charter states that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Anonymous donations and requirement to provide disclosure returns

Clause 5 of the Bill will insert new section 210 into the Act to make it unlawful to make or accept an anonymous political donation equal to or above $1,250. This amendment engages the right to privacy as it requires a person to divulge their name and address if they wish to make a political donation which is equal to or above the threshold.

Clause 5 will also insert new section 216 into the Act to require that a disclosure return be provided to the VEC in relation to any political donation equal to or above the disclosure threshold of $1,250. The disclosure return must include the name and residential address of the donor. New section 217 requires that that VEC publish the disclosure return on its website (which would include the name but not the residential address of the donor) within 14 days of its receipt.

These amendments also engage the right to privacy as the names and addresses of people who donate above the threshold must be provided to the VEC, and the names of each these donors will then be published on the VEC’s website.

While both the anonymous donations and requirement to provide disclosure returns amendments engage the right to privacy, in both cases, the interference is lawful as it is authorised under legislation. Further the interferences are not arbitrary, as they are reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate objective of supporting transparency and reducing the possibility of regulated persons or bodies working in the interests of anonymous donors.

Powers of the Commission

Clause 5 will insert new section 255 into the Act to provide a VEC compliance officer with the power to serve a notice requiring a regulated person or entity to produce documents or other things, or to appear before a compliance officer to give evidence. A notice may only be served on a regulated person or body or on any other person if the compliance officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is capable of giving evidence in relation to a possible contravention.

These powers engage the rights to privacy as they could be used to require a person to divulge private or personal information to the VEC. However, the interference is lawful as the powers are clearly prescribed in the Bill. The powers are not arbitrary as the power is reasonable and justifiable as it enables the VEC to conduct investigations and encourages compliance with the scheme.

Freedom of expression

Section 15(1) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference. Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and includes information imparted orally or in writing.

General cap on political donations

Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new section 212 into the Act, to provide for a general cap on political donations. The general cap is $7,500 (subject to indexation) or any higher amount prescribed by regulations. The donations cap applies to one off-donations and to aggregated donations from a single donor to the same regulated person or body within a 4-year election period (new section 213).

The donations cap engages the right to freedom of expression by limiting the funds available for people or bodies covered by the scheme to engage in political communication and by limiting a person’s ability to donate and engage in political communication.

However, to the extent this clause limits freedom of expression, it is reasonable and demonstrably justified as it reduces the risk of corruption and undue influence in the political process.

If political donations were not capped, then a person or body could use their wealth to have a disproportionate impact on elections. In this manner, the donations cap promotes the right to freedom of expression by allowing for a greater number of people to express their political views.

Ban on political donations from foreign sources

The ban on foreign donations in new section 209 (discussed above) engages the right to freedom of expression by preventing foreign nationals from engaging in political communication through a political donation. However, this is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to address concerns about interference from foreign sources in elections, and it prevents foreign governments, corporations or individuals exercising influence on Victoria’s political system through donations to regulated persons or bodies.

The cap on the number of third-party campaigners to whom a donor can donate

Clause 5 of the Bill inserts new section 211 into the Act to limit the number of third-party campaigners to which a donor may make a political donation. This limits a donor’s freedom of political expression by restricting the number of third-party campaigners to whom a person can donate.

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the proliferation of third-party campaigners as a means to exceed the general cap, whereby donors could seek to split their political donations among a large number of third-party campaigners.

To the extent that this clause limits the right to freedom of expression, it is reasonable and demonstrably justified to ensure the integrity of the general cap and prevent its effectiveness being undermined. The general cap will, in turn, reduce the risk of undue influence in the political process and encourage equal participation in the electoral process.

Further, clause 5 of the Bill will insert into new section 206 of the Act, under the definition of “third party campaigner” an example that provides if a third party campaigner incurs political or electoral expenditure for general advertising and awareness raising, for the benefit of a registered political party (RPP), candidate, group, elected member or associated entity, the making of this expenditure is not a gift. This is to ensure that restrictions on donations to third-party campaigners are not inadvertently captured by the definition of “gift”, and subject to associated restrictions, where they are not incurred by a person or entity for the benefit of, or that otherwise benefits, one or more other persons or entities.

Payment of public funding

Clause 5 will insert new section 227 into the Act to enable the payment of public funding to eligible registered political parties and independent candidates. A party or candidate will be eligible for public funding where they contested the previous general election and were elected or, one or more candidates received at least 4% of the first preference votes (new section 227(3)).

Registered political parties and independent candidates who qualified for public funding for the previous election, will also be eligible for instalment payments of equivalent public funding in advance of the next election (new section 232). Public funding supports electoral parties and members to focus their efforts on participation in parliamentary processes by meeting the administrative costs associated with being an elected representative. It also reduces the reliance on political donations which provide disproportionate power to people with the financial resources to donate. Public funding therefore promotes the right to freedom of expression by enabling more people to participate in the electoral process.

The public funding amendments also limit freedom of expression by restricting public funding to parties and independent candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria, which in turn, decreases the capacity of members and supporters of smaller parties to contribute ideas and opinions into the political debate.

To the extent this clause burdens the right to freedom of expression, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

New entrant general cap

Clause 5 will insert new Division 5 of Part 12 into the Act to introduce the new entrant general cap for eligible candidates. An independent candidate and RPPs will be eligible where they are ineligible to receive other sources of funding under the Act, including public funding, administrative expenditure funding, and policy development funding.

Resultantly, the new entrant general cap will apply to first-time independent candidates, recontesting independent candidates who received less than 4% of the first preference votes at the most recent election, and new or first-time RPPs which have been registered for less than a whole calendar year. The purpose of the new provision is to reduce barriers for eligible electoral participants by ensuring they have access to increased funds for political expenditure, despite not being eligible for a stream of State funding.

Previously, due to ineligibility for State funding streams, these participants were wholly reliant on political donations but subject to the same cap as all participants, resulting in them having access to less funds for political expenditure. The availability of funding through the new entrant general cap therefore promotes the right to freedom of expression by enabling new people and RPPs to participate in the electoral process.

Right to take part in public life (Section 18)

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that a person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Further, section 18(2) of the Charter provides that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination to (a) vote and be elected at periodic State and municipal elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors; and (b) have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office.

General cap on political donations and limitation on anonymous donations

The donations cap and limitation on anonymous donations engage the right to take part in public life as these reforms place limitations on the way in which a person may participate in the conduct of public affairs through a political donation.

However, any limitation on the right to take part in public life imposed by these amendments is reasonably and demonstrably justified as the amendments will reduce the risk and public perception of corruption and undue influence in the political process.

The donations cap also reduces the disproportionate influence of people with significant financial resources to influence elections, thereby providing the opportunity for others to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

Payment of public funding

A party or candidate will only be eligible for public funding where they contested the previous general election and were elected or otherwise received a total first preference vote of at least 4% of votes given in that election.

The right to take part in public life may be burdened as those candidates who are not eligible for funding will be less able to convey the opinions and policy preferences of their supporters. Additionally, those candidates will be less able to provide information to electors which will in turn impair the information available to voters for future elections.

To the extent that the entitlement to public funding burdens the right to take part in public life, it is a lawful restriction within the meaning of the Charter, as it is reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving instalment payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

Further, public funding will reduce the reliance on political donations, which disproportionately favour those with the financial resources to donate. In this manner, public funding enhances the right to partake in public life by enabling more people to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

Clause 5 also inserts new section 233, that provides a discretionary power for the VEC to seek repayment in instalments or waive repayments for candidates that are no longer eligible to receive public funding for the next general election, in circumstances where repayment of overpaid advance public funding may cause serious financial hardship, or in other circumstances deemed relevant by the VEC. The inclusion of this power enhances the right to take part in public life by ensuring that parties are not deterred from accessing public funding to participate in the election process merely on the basis of risk of financial hardship where repayments may be required.

New entrant general cap

New entrant general cap under new section 247 will enhance the right to take part in public life under s 18(2) of the Charter by enabling new people and RPPs to participate in the conduct of public affairs, such as greater opportunities to run successful campaigns and be elected at State elections, despite being ineligible for State funding. Therefore, the new entrant general cap will address the burdens on the right under section 18(2) flowing from eligibility limitations for State funding under the Act, by providing access to another source of funding where eligibility requirements are met.

Right to property (Section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law.

Powers of the VEC

The right to property is engaged through the VEC’s power to serve a notice requiring a specified person to produce evidence, documents or other things in new section 255. This allows the VEC to deprive a person of their property rights where the property would be relevant to assessing disclosure with the regime.

The VEC’s right to deprive a person of their personal property is clearly conferred by the Bill. As such, any deprivation of property would be clearly in accordance with the law, and therefore compatible with the Charter.

Further, clause 5 inserts new offence provisions at sections 278, 279, 280, 281 and 282 into the Act to require certain amounts to be disclosed and in some cases returned. These include unlawful political donations (e.g. those exceeding the general cap) and certain specified gifts received that are greater than the donations cap under new Part 12 of the Act, received between 15 April 2026 (the date that the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper) and the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Where disclosures or returns are required, this is to occur within 30 days after the day the Bill receives royal assent. New section 277 also requires the return of certain amounts received by RPPs from their Nominated Entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 before the 2026 State election. New section 215 also requires forfeiture to the State of political donations accepted in contravention of new Division 2 of Part 12, including any foreign donations, anonymous donations above the $1,250, donations above the general cap.

These amendments engage the right to property as a person would be required to repay any money, which is a form of property, to the donor, or forfeit amounts to the State. However, this would be clearly in accordance with the law, as it would be clearly prescribed in the Bill. Further, the amendment would not be arbitrary, as it is for the legitimate purpose of ensuring that regulated persons or bodies do not have an unfair advantage by receiving a donation which is unlawful or above the old general cap, prior to the new regime being introduced.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some of the provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Ingrid Stitt MP

Special Minister of State

Minister for Government Services

Minister for Ageing

Minister for Mental Health

Minister for Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Government Services, Special Minister of State, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria) (11:26): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

1.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act). I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

2.   On 15 April 2026, the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper v Victoria [2026] HCA 11 (Hopper). In Hopper, the High Court found that Victoria’s political donations and expenditure laws contained at Part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Act), was wholly invalid as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

3.   The High Court declared Part 12 of the Act invalid in its entirety, as it was not permissible to sever any parts of provisions, subdivisions or divisions of Part 12 to preserve its validity.

4.   In light of the High Court’s finding in Hopper, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act to introduce a new political donations, State funding and reporting regime (the regime). The new regime applies to registered political parties (RPPs), candidates at an election, elected members, associated entities and third-party campaigners.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

5.   The First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl (Assembly) was not given an opportunity to advise on the Bill and the Assembly did not otherwise make representations about the Bill’s effect on First Peoples.

6.   The Assembly was not given an opportunity to advise on the Bill, as section 66 of the Treaty Act commenced on 1 May 2026, and the Assembly only became operational on Monday 4 May. Considering this timeframe, there was insufficient time to seek advice from the Assembly prior to the introduction of the Bill into Parliament.

7.   As consultation with the Assembly was not undertaken, I am not able to make an assessment as to whether the Bill is consistent with any advice given or representations made by the Assembly.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

8.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the following objects set out at section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act:

8.1 advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples;

8.2 addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

8.3 ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

Advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples (section 66(3)(d)(i))

9.   The inherent rights of First Peoples, including the right to self-determination, are recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

10.   The First Peoples’ Assembly, as it existed prior to the commencement of the Treaty Act, identified that the right to self-determination for First Peoples includes political self-determination, which provides First Peoples with the right to self-government and the power to organise and direct their lives according to their own values, institutions and mechanisms within the framework of the state of which they are a part.

11.   The Bill may indirectly limit the achievement of political determination for First Peoples by imposing obligations and limitations on political donations, including donations made by First Peoples, to First Peoples, or to political parties or candidates who represent First Peoples’ interests. These limitations include:

11.1 setting a $5,030 general cap on political donations to a regulated person or body from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and a $7,500 general cap from 29 November 2026 onwards (new sections 212 and 288);

11.2 setting a $10,060 general cap on political donations to eligible electoral participants (new entrant general cap) from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and a $20,000 general cap to eligible new entrants from 29 November 2026 onwards (new section 247, with sections 212 and 288);

11.3 prohibiting political donations equal to or above the value of $1,250 from anonymous sources (new section 210);

11.4 prohibiting political donations from foreign sources (new section 209); and

11.5 limiting the number of third-party campaigners a donor may make a political donation to (new section 211).

12.   The Bill could also limit the achievement of political determination for First Peoples by limiting eligibility for public funding to circumstances where a political party or independent candidate contested the previous general election, and one or more candidates received at least 4% of the first preference votes (new section 227).

13.   Restricting public funding to parties and independent candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria, could, in turn decrease the capacity of members and supporters of smaller parties (including parties representing the interests of First Peoples), and independent candidates who are first peoples from contributing to political debate.

14.   Despite the limitation on the right to political self-determination, the Bill is nonetheless compatible with the object of advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples, as the limitation is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

14.1 The limitations and restrictions on political donations and payments of public funding apply equally to all Victorians, including First Peoples and non–First Peoples.

14.2 The restrictions and limitations on political donations serve the overall purpose of increasing the transparency and integrity of Victoria’s electoral system.

14.3 The payment of public funding reduces the reliance on political donations which provide disproportionate powers to people with the financial resources to donate. Public funding therefore enables more people to participate in the electoral process, including First Peoples.

14.4 The restrictions on the payment of public funding are reasonably necessary to prevent candidates or parties from receiving payments if they only receive a handful of votes, make no substantial contribution to the democratic process, or have little intention of engaging in electoral competition.

14.5 The new entrant general cap for eligible independent candidates or RPPs under new section 247 will enable persons ineligible for State funding streams, including First Peoples, to have access to alternative forms of funding for their political campaign and reduce barriers for new entrants, providing greater opportunities to participate in the electoral process. The restrictions on eligibility are reasonably necessary to ensure that new entrant general cap is only available to candidates or RPPs that are ineligible for other forms of State funding.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation

15.   The Yoorrook Justice Commission’s ‘Truth be Told’ report describes the effects of colonisation on First Peoples. It describes how the gap between outcomes for First Peoples and other Victorians in areas including life expectancy, education, and health is caused by the impacts of colonisation in the past, which continue today.

16.   The Bill may have an impact on the disadvantaged inflicted on First Peoples by imposing restrictions and limitations on political donations and by restricting eligibility for public funding (discussed above). These amendments could restrict the funding received by political parties represented by First Peoples, candidates who are First Peoples or people who represent First Peoples’ interests.

17.   Despite the possible limitation on the object of addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation, the Bill is nonetheless compatible with this object for the following reasons:

17.1 As the amendments apply equally to First Peoples and non–First Peoples, it is unlikely to have further impact on the disadvantage faced by First Peoples; and

17.2 The regime serves the overall purpose of increasing the transparency and integrity of Victoria’s electoral system, and the restrictions imposed are proportionate to this overall purpose.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

18.   A Bill may affect the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms by First Peoples where, in its express terms or practical effect, it has a differential effect on First Peoples as compared to non–First Peoples.

19.   As the Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples, and does not directly or indirectly in its practical effect engage the human rights or fundamental freedoms of First Peoples, the Bill is compatible with this object.

Ingrid Stitt MP

Special Minister of State

Minister for Government Services

Minister for Ageing

Minister for Mental Health

Minister for Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Government Services, Special Minister of State, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria) (11:26): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard:

The Victorian Government is deeply committed to protecting and strengthening Victoria’s democratic systems by ensuring that integrity, transparency, accountability, and fairness underpin our electoral processes and electoral system. This Bill achieves this very purpose by introducing a new legal framework for the regulation of political donations, State funding, and reporting, which is currently absent from the Electoral Act 2002 (the Act) following the High Court’s decision in Hopper v State of Victoria. On 15 April 2026 the High Court ruled that the old Part 12 of the Act, which contained the former legal framework for Victoria’s political finance and donations scheme, is wholly invalid.

Without this Bill, Victoria’s political finance environment remains entirely unregulated, leaving this State without laws to govern how political money is raised and disclosed. This regulatory vacuum jeopardises the core principles of our democracy by opening the door to hidden influences and leaving our system vulnerable to unchecked political spending. This fundamentally undermines public confidence in the fairness of this State’s electoral processes and outcomes. This Government is committed to restoring and safeguarding that confidence through this Bill. We cannot afford to let an unregulated environment persist as we approach the next election and to expose our democratic system to the risk of improper conduct.

To protect our institutions and the integrity of the electoral process, this Bill establishes clear, enforceable boundaries to support fair, transparent, and efficient elections, delivered in partnership with the Victorian Electoral Commission. The Bill achieves this by introducing:

• a rigorous political donations disclosure and reporting scheme;

• strict caps on political donations;

• a complete ban on foreign donations and clear limits on anonymous donations;

• transparent State funding provisions; and

• a robust compliance and enforcement framework with penalties for infringing the law.

These reforms will prevent improper influence in our political process. The reforms will ensure that Victorian election outcomes are determined by the voices of voters and not by the depth of certain pockets. Crucially, these measures will reduce any disparities arising between electoral participants due to unequal access to financial resources. And most importantly, political funding will become visible to the public to support broader confidence in the electoral system and to ensure our citizens can make informed decisions.

I will now turn to the details contained in the Bill.

Application of the regime

The regime introduced by the Bill will apply to any individual or entity that makes or receives political donations. This will include registered political parties, candidates, groups of candidates, elected members, associated entities, third party campaigners, and donors.

An associated entity will be defined as an entity that is associated with a political party by financial membership, registration, voting rights, control or purpose, with the purpose threshold being an entity which operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of a political party. Unions, think-tanks and fundraising entities are examples of associated entities. As also outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, entities that were nominated entities under old Part 12 will be regulated in the same manner as an associated entity for the purposes of the Bill, and will be subject to the same limitations and restrictions.

A third party campaigner will be defined as a person or entity who is not a candidate, elected member, group, political party or associated entity, but who receives political donations exceeding $7,500 or incurs more than $7,500 of political expenditure in a financial year. A third party campaigner could include a range of large or small activist or public interest groups, who are not aligned with a particular political party but engage in political campaigns.

A group will be defined as two or more candidates who are grouped on a ballot-paper, such as grouped Legislative Council candidates.

Activity regulated by the regime

Activities relating to political donations and political expenditure will be covered by the regime.

A political donation will include gifts of money, property, and services made without consideration or with inadequate consideration to a political party, candidate, group, elected member and in some cases, an associated entity or third party campaigner. A gift to an associated entity or third party campaigner will only be a political donation if it is for the purpose of incurring or reimbursing political expenditure. Political donations will also include the payment of an amount in respect of a guarantee and payment or contribution at a fundraising function. However, annual levies, subscription and affiliation fees will not be considered political donations, nor will gifts made in a private capacity for personal use or volunteer labour.

Political expenditure will be defined as any expenditure for the dominant purpose of directing how a person should vote at an election by promoting or opposing a candidate, political party or elected member. It does not include expenditure by an associated entity or third party campaigner disseminated outside the election campaigning period unless it refers to a candidate or political party or how a person should vote.

Advertising and raising awareness about issues, without promoting or opposing a candidate or political party, will not be considered political expenditure. The broadcasting, production or publication of an advertisement relating to an election will be defined as electoral expenditure under the Bill.

The provision of labour is only taken to be political expenditure if the dominant purpose of the labour is to create or communicate electoral matter. For example, if Charlotte is the chief executive officer of a not-for-profit organisation that encourages healthy eating and occasionally issues material to influence how electors vote, but Charlotte’s primary role is the delivery of healthy eating programs in schools and workplaces, as the dominant purpose of Charlotte’s employment is not to create or communicate electoral matters, her salary is not taken to be political expenditure.

Political expenditure has been defined in this way to ensure that all Victorians maintain their right to engage in public discussion on policy matters that are important to them, with an ability to advertise and raise awareness about an issue without it being considered political expenditure, so long as it does not promote or oppose a candidate or political party.

Caps and bans on political donations

To address concerns about foreign influences in elections and consistent with our system of representative and responsible government, the Bill will introduce a complete ban on foreign donations, regardless of the amount of the donation. It will be unlawful for a donor to make, or an entity to accept, a political donation unless the donor is an Australian resident or citizen, or has a relevant business number if the donor is not a person.

The Bill will also make it unlawful to accept anonymous political donations over $1,250 to improve transparency and operate as an anti-avoidance measure. This will preserve the integrity of the electoral process and prevent avoidance of disclosure and reporting requirements. This is consistent with reporting thresholds in other Australian jurisdictions.

Unregulated and excessive private funding poses risks of corruption and undue influence.

These types of unlawful donations, if accepted between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be required to be disclosed and forfeited to the State.

From 29 November 2026, the Bill will set a cap of $7,500, or a higher amount provided in the regulations, for each four-year election period on political donations made or received from the same source. The Bill will introduce a separate, interim cap of $5,030 for the period from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, which is the date of the 2026 general election. Donations made above the interim general cap between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent will be required to be returned.

Political donations caps allow individuals or entities to express their support without the risk of undue influence, supporting equal participation in the electoral process. Caps will apply to all electoral participants without discrimination, including nominated entities operating as associated entities under the new regime.

It will also be unlawful to make political donations to more than six third party campaigners for each election period, to prevent a proliferation of third party campaigners as a means to circumvent the cap.

New entrant general cap

The Bill introduces a double general cap for eligible electoral participants, called the new entrant general cap. This will be an interim amount of $10,060 from 15 April 2026 until 28 November 2026, and $15,000 from 29 November 2026 for each four-year election period on political donations. As with the general cap, amounts can be increased by regulations and are subject to indexation.

Eligible electoral participants will be those ineligible for State funding, including recontesting independent candidates who received less than 4% of first preference votes the previous election, first-time independent candidates and new registered political parties who have not been registered a whole calendar year.

Applicants seeking to be subject to the new entrant general cap must apply to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), with the required information as set out in the Bill. Within 30 days of receiving an application the VEC must provide confirmation of eligibility or ineligibility. The VEC will be required to maintain a Register of New Entrants, published on its Internet site, which sets out those who have previously received or are eligible to receive political donations at or below the new entrant general cap.

The purpose of the new entrant general cap is to reduce barriers for those ineligible for a form of State funding, ensuring they have access to other means to fund their campaign without being constrained by the former general cap.

Small contributions

The Bill includes a small contributions exemption, which designed to be a practical way to ensure the donations scheme is not unduly onerous on those people that make minor contributions to entities covered by the regime. It will prevent a donor or recipients from inadvertently breaching the disclosure requirements or general cap, through making contributions of $100 or less, or a higher amount prescribed by the regulations, at events such as party meetings or events.

Disclosure of political donations

Victorians need to know who makes and receives political donations, in a timely manner, to monitor the potential risk that donors are influencing political decisions. The Bill includes a requirement for political donations and loans equal to or above $1,250 to be disclosed to the VEC by both the donor and recipient, with this amount indexed over time. Multiple donations from the same source or related companies will be treated as a single donation. Disclosure must occur in “real time”, with disclosure returns submitted to the VEC within 7 days of either making or receiving a political donation. The VEC will publish disclosure returns on its website within 14 days of receipt, supporting transparency in our political system.

Acknowledging the period of time since old Part 12 was invalidated in Hopper, the Bill will include disclosure and reporting obligations in relation to political donations made and received between 15 April 2026 and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent, with donations in some cases required to be returned.

In addition to real time reporting, annual returns must be provided to the VEC by political parties, associated entities and third party campaigners. The returns will include amounts received and paid, as well as the total debts incurred as at 30 June. The registered agents of candidates, groups and elected members must also provide an annual return to the VEC which sets out particulars of donations received above the $1,250 disclosure threshold.

The VEC will publish annual returns on its website within 6 months after the end of the relevant financial year.

Recipients of political donations will be required to keep a State campaign account to differentiate fundraising and expenses associated with an election, from other financial flows. Only funds in the state campaign account can be used to incur political expenditure. The State campaign account will be required to be denominated in Australian dollars, implementing recommendation 5.10 of the Electoral Review Expert Panel’s 2023 Report on Victoria’s laws on political finance and electronic assisted voting.

State funding

In recognition that political donation caps reduce how much money electoral participants can raise, the Bill will provide for state funding. State funding will be comprised of public funding, administrative expenditure funding and policy development funding.

• Public funding will reimburse eligible political parties and independent candidates for costs relating to running a state election. Registered political parties running a joint Legislative Council ticket will be able to jointly nominate how public funding associated with the ticket is apportioned between them, implementing recommendation 6.9 of the Electoral Review Expert Panel’s 2023 Report onVictoria’s laws on political finance and electronic assisted voting. To address circumstances where repayment of overpaid advance public funding may cause serious financial hardship, which may arise where a participant is no longer eligible or has not elected to receive payment in relation to the next general election, the VEC will have discretionary powers to seek repayment in instalments or waive repayments.

• Administrative expenditure funding will provide funding in recognition of the administrative burden on elected members, whether they are a member of a political party or an independent. This will help elected Members of Parliament meet the administrative costs of running their offices and complying with disclosure and reporting requirements. Administrative expenditure funding must not be used for electoral expenditure, or paid into the State campaign account and used for political expenditure. Amounts payable will be based on the number of elected members from a registered political party, or a fixed amount of $300,000 for each independent elected member.

• Policy development funding will reimburse eligible political parties for costs incurred in relation to policy development, up to a maximum of $31,050.

Compliance and enforcement

The Bill will prescribe civil penalties and offences for non-compliance under the Act and empower the VEC to regulate compliance with the regime.

The VEC will be able to appoint compliance officers, who will have powers to gather information to investigate possible contraventions of the Act.

Strong penalties will act as a significant deterrence and signal the importance of compliance with reporting obligations, with penalties of up to two years imprisonment or fines of up to 300 penalty units.

To further ensure compliance with the regime and ensure bad-faith actors do not go searching for loopholes, intention to circumvent a prohibition or requirement under the regime will be an offence with penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment or 1,200 penalty units for a natural person, and 6,000 penalty units for a body corporate.

The Bill imposes prospective criminal liability for certain offences relating to donations made and received between 15 April and the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Additionally, the Bill will require registered political parties to refund to their former nominated entities, before the 28 November 2026, being the date of the next general election, any funds received from their nominated entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 that are in excess of the new general cap and remain in the RPP’s State campaign account on the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Bill will impose prospective criminal liability on those who fail to comply.

Independent Expert Panel Review

In addition to compliance and enforcement measures, the Bill requires an independent review to commence within 1 month following the 2026 November election to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the new regime. The review will be conducted by an expert panel of three appointed members and will be completed within 12 months after the election. The appointment of an independent expert panel to undertake the review provides external oversight to ensure an objective assessment of the proposed reforms and that they are operating as intended.

The review will examine and make recommendations in relation to the operation of the regime, including:

• the effectiveness of the Act in addressing risks of undue influence arising from political donations;

• the effectiveness of the Act in promoting fairness in electoral competition;

• the operation and effectiveness of the political donation disclosure scheme, including timeliness, accessibility, and transparency;

• the impact of the Act on third-party campaigners, small community groups, and not-for-profit entities; and

• the overall administrative operation of the Act, including enforceability, compliance burden and the role of the VEC.

The report of the review will be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 10 sitting days after the review is completed.

Commencement

Following the decision in Hopper on 15 April 2026, when old Part 12 was declared invalid, there has been a period without a political donations and reporting framework. To rectify transparency concerns and ensure there is no gap where unlawful donations could unknowingly be made and received, the new political donations disclosure and reporting and state funding regime in Part 12 will commence retrospectively from 15 April 2026, the day of the Hopper judgement.

Public statements were released on 15 April and 17 April to put electoral participants on notice that obligations would apply retrospectively, to ensure continuous record keeping for disclosure and reporting purposes.

However, to ensure the Bill does not introduce retrospective criminal laws, certain offence provisions relating to making or accepting a political donation that is unlawful, entering into, or carrying out, a scheme with the intention of circumvention the proposed regime and failing to disclose and/or return certain nominated entity transfers, will be prospective offences and apply from Royal Assent.

Otherwise:

• Technical amendments to the Act will commence on 25 May 2026

• Remaining provisions, including consequential amendments to the Electoral Amendment Act 2026 and the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026, will commence on the day after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Transitional and savings provisions

Also as a consequence of Hopper, the Bill will introduce transitional and savings provisions to validate past actions taken under old Part 12, so that they deemed to have been taken under new Part 12, including:

• funds paid by the VEC, and the acquittal of funding used by funding recipients

• activities related to the status of calendar year and financial year annual return

• deeming registers, compliance officer appointments and procedures of the VEC

• state campaign account activities.

Transitional provisions also provide for the separate interim cap of $5,030 for the period between 15 April 2026 and the date of the 2026 general election and provide that certain political donations offences do commence until after Royal Assent.

The Bill will also include a provision authorising the Governor in Council to make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the Bill.

Conclusion

The Bill will ensure there is transparency and accountability in the electoral process, with political donations disclosure and reporting and state funding regime that is founded firmly on integrity-based principles.

The Electoral Act is fundamental to the operation of democracy in Victoria. Noting its significance, there will be a post-election review of the regime.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, and I do so, on behalf of the opposition, with significant concern about both the content of this legislation and the manner in which it has been brought before this Parliament. This bill is being presented by the government as a necessary response to the High Court decision in Hopper v Victoria. If that were all it did, if it simply restored a constitutionally valid framework for political donations and electoral funding, then all members of this place could engage in a constructive discussion about how best to achieve that objective. But that is not what this bill does. Instead this legislation represents a shameful attempt by the Allan government to rig the system in its own favour. It goes well beyond restoring an electoral donations framework following the High Court decision. It seeks to reshape the electoral landscape in a way that advantages the Labor Party, disadvantages political opponents and – let me be clear – entrenches Labor’s own political interests just months before Victorians go to the polls. Victorians deserve better than this.

This is an end-of-days government, a 12-year-old government that knows it is on the nose. This is a desperate Premier with a supposedly dysfunctional, if you ask Labor MPs, Premier’s private office (PPO) seeking to entrench itself into office, seeking to disadvantage political opponents with taxpayer money and seeking to tip the scales in its direction because the public have worked it out. This government finds itself in this position because it legislated laws that were found to be unconstitutional, and that should be a moment of reflection for those opposite. I was not here then. I criticised the laws from outside of this chamber, sure, but I was not here then. But there are members of this chamber who were that knew it was unconstitutional and did it anyway. I am looking forward to hearing their excuses as to why they supported unconstitutional laws and why they do not see these laws as unconstitutional, as does almost everyone else who has commented on what they have seen of this bill so far.

It should have been an opportunity to work constructively with all parties in the Parliament to develop a fair, transparent and constitutionally sound framework. If the government thought this was so urgent, it could have brought in a bill straightaway to stop foreign donations. There are plenty of things actually that we do agree on. It could have parked the rest and quickly passed a bill on matters where we all agree, because there is a lot of agreement. The Liberal Party still does not even allow foreign donations, but it is a problem that there is a loophole that allows for foreign donations. That obviously could have been passed through.

We have even had a sitting week since the High Court decision. What did the government choose to do? Nothing. Rather than fixing the problem entirely, it engaged in a politically motivated exercise to stack the decks in its own favour, to try and rig the election to Labor’s advantage. The government has chosen political advantage over good governance and partisan self-interest over democratic integrity. Maybe I should not be surprised, because we know about this tired Labor government. When the choice is Victoria’s interests or the Labor Party’s interests, they are always going to choose the Labor Party – every single time.

Perhaps most concerning and extraordinary is the way this legislation is being rushed. Members of this place are being given barely a few hours to consider complex and far-reaching changes to the electoral system. These are not minor administrative amendments. This is not tinkering around the edges. These are laws that govern how elections are funded, how donations are disclosed and how political competition operates within our democracy. These are matters that go to the very heart of public confidence in electoral outcomes. The Premier herself has acknowledged that these laws may be challenged again yet is not taking careful consideration with careful scrutiny, detailed examination and proper parliamentary consideration. Instead we are being told to rush it all. We are being told to pass significant electoral reforms within hours. This is an affront to democracy. It is an affront to transparency and an affront to democracy itself. This approach demonstrates the utter contempt the Labor Party have for democratic principles. The public expects us to take this role seriously. They expect legislators to examine legislation carefully before voting on it. They expect transparency and accountability; they do not expect governments to force through major electoral reforms at breakneck speed because doing so suits their political timetable. Yet this is precisely what we are seeing today.

What makes this situation more remarkable is this government’s willingness to abandon principles it previously insisted be followed. Since ramming the treaty through this Parliament, Labor has made a virtue of this process. The government has repeatedly told Parliament and the Victorian community about the importance of consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly, Gellung Warl. It has embedded consultation requirements in its own legislative framework and has lectured others about complying with the importance of these obligations. This is a good one to note for when, inevitably, we bring in a private members bill and the government tries to have a crack at us for not complying with their sham treaty consultation process. I do not want to hear any lectures from the other side when that inevitably happens. When Labor’s own political interests are at stake, those principles become very, very apparent. Again, they have rushed to stack the decks in their favour. The First Peoples’ Assembly were not provided with proper opportunity to comment on the bill. I do not believe it has gone to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulation Committee at all. The consultation that Labor demanded from others has been discarded when it was convenient – absolute hypocrisy.

Perhaps the most obvious feature of this legislation is the way it protects its own financial interests while seeking to restrict others. The Labor Party continues to benefit from substantial financial support from affiliated unions, which up until recently included the CFMEU and could very well include the CFMEU once again. This is not the first time the Labor Party has disaffiliated from the CFMEU or a version of it. We know they have a long history of coming back together. See, the Labor Party and the CFMEU, they do not want to admit it, but they are one and the same. One is out on construction sites siphoning off taxpayer money to bikies, the criminal underworld, strippers, gangland wars and drug deals.

The other side, the parliamentary Labor Party, is led by a Premier that enabled a thuggish monopoly which enabled the CFMEU to siphon that money. The CFMEU and the Labor Party are one and the same, and nothing is to stop them re-affiliating to the Labor Party to continue to have the rivers of gold run through Labor Party coffers. For years Victorians have watched as the Labor Party has received what can only be described as rivers of gold from their union mates, and the figures speak for themselves. Labor received approximately $1.5 million from the CFMEU during the last term of Parliament and half a million dollars more during the current term so far – extraordinary sums that help explain why Labor continues to turn a blind eye to the violence, corruption and gangland links of their union paymasters. At a time when the government claims to be concerned about integrity and fairness in political funding, it is remarkable that the legislation continues to facilitate enormous flows of money from the unions to the Labor Party.

Victorians are entitled to ask one simple question: who benefits from this bill? Who does? Who actually benefits? The answer appears very obvious when you have a deep look at the bill: Labor is shutting off sources available to its political opponents while preserving arrangements that allow its own financial backers to continue to provide substantial assistance. They are attempting to bake in their advantage before they are forced to face their reckoning in November. My friend the member for Malvern in the other place made a very apt observation that I would like to repeat here, that the Premier’s press release announcing the bill said:

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

Sorry, President, I cannot hear myself because of the chatter going on over here.

Sonja Terpstra: Was that a point of order?

Evan MULHOLLAND: No, it is just during my speech.

The High Court judgement that got Labor into this mess was handed down on 15 April – I have got it here, I have read through a lot of it. Under this bill the government proposes that any registered political entity, which is effectively the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Labor Party, must return donations received in excess of the prescribed cap. What is not clear, however, is why the government has chosen 1 July 2023 as its starting point for these provisions. Why this date? I encourage every member of the Labor Party who speaks after me to offer up an explanation. You are all on notice. 1 July 2023 – why this date? And do not give me some crap about that being the start of a financial year and it is easier to go back to then. Why this date, and why not the date of the last state election? It does not appear to correspond with any obvious electoral or administrative milestone. The selection of 1 July 2023 seems entirely arbitrary. If the government believes excess donations should be repaid, it must explain why the obligation applies from that particular date and not another. What is the rationale for requiring money received from 1 July 2023 onwards to be returned? Victorians deserve to know the basis upon which this retrospective period has been determined.

It was not mentioned in the second-reading speech of the minister in the other place, which said:

Additionally, the Bill will require registered political parties to refund to their former nominated entities, before the 28 November 2026, being the date of the next general election, any funds received from their nominated entities between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 that are in excess of the new general cap …

As I said, the member of Malvern figured it out. He said:

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

Well, we know this is the reason. Labor’s nominated entity, Labor Holdings Pty Ltd, gave millions of dollars to the Labor Party in that period. I would remind the minister that this appears to be a scheme. This is a scheme that is designed to enable an entrenched advantage to the Labor Party. Minister, the High Court did not just knock out the ‘nominated entities’ part; it knocked out a whole bunch of the bill. The High Court decision – have a read – spoke about an ‘impermissible burden’ between the different parties. What you have done, Minister, and what the dysfunctional Premier’s office has done is set an arbitrary date which advantages the Labor Party above any other party, because we know Labor Holdings Pty Ltd sent millions of dollars between the last election and 1 July to the Labor Party. That is an impermissible burden which entrenches advantage to the Victorian Labor Party. The High Court will almost certainly have a look at this, and I will be having more to say in my amendments about this case. I ask that they be circulated.

It is also clear in negotiations – and yes, we engaged in good faith negotiations with the government and put many, many matters to the government. They came back with always the advice that the solicitor-general warned about these particular matters. But I find it extremely curious that the setting of this date has not been called out by the solicitor-general. Perhaps it was to the Premier, and they decided to just barrel through because they want to keep the $4 million that its nominated entity has provided to the Victorian Labor Party. Why is the solicitor-general silent on this particular date? We would like to know this. Why would that be? The government knows it is facing growing public dissatisfaction. It knows that Victorians are increasingly addressing its record and questioning its record. It appears intent on limiting the ability of political opponents to put the strongest possible case for change at this year’s election. This is what the legislation looks like. If that assessment is wrong, I invite government members to explain why 1 July 2023 was chosen as the relevant date. I invite them to confirm whether any funds were transferred between Labor’s nominated entity and the Victorian Labor Party in the period between the last state election and 1 July 2023. I invite any member of the Labor caucus over there to rule out that any money was transferred from its nominated entity to the Victorian Labor Party. Please rule it out. You can save me the burden of moving an amendment – I will probably move it anyway – but I am of the understanding that you received millions of dollars, so of course you want that date. If there is a clear and principled justification for selecting that date, the government should provide it. If there is not, Victorians are entitled to conclude that the government has simply chosen a date that best serves its interests rather than one based on an objective principle. I will be listening carefully to whether the government is prepared to provide that explanation.

The High Court’s reasoning speaks directly to the issue of differential burdens. In particular, it considered:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The advantage afforded to established political parties that were able to create nominated entities to utilise funds that accumulated under previous arrangements, while newer entrants to the political system did not have the same opportunity.

What did Labor do by setting this for 1 July? It, to go to the High Court decision, utilised funds accumulated under previous arrangements. What does the Labor Party picking this date do? Newer entrants to the political system do not have the same opportunity. What you have drafted here goes directly to what the High Court knocked out. It goes directly to it.

There is no way around this for the Premier and the minister, other than their wanting to keep old money that Labor’s nominated entity donated to itself and no-one else. Old money the Labor Party are okay with because they have entrenched themselves a favour that keeps them millions of dollars, and it raises obvious questions in the context of this bill. What are we to make of the situation where Labor’s nominated entity is able to transfer funds to the Australian Labor Party without being required to repay those amounts while other parties do not enjoy the same benefit? Surely this constitutes a differential burden – it does. It is the exact definition of a differential burden. If we looked up the words ‘differential burden’ in the dictionary, we would find ‘The Labor Party entrenching money and not paying back money because it was an earlier date and the Liberal Party having to pay back money’. That is differential burden that you have set yourself. This is an end-of-days government with a dysfunctional Premier’s private office, with a dysfunctional government that is at each other’s throats, trying to entrench power for itself at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of new entrants.

The High Court has made it clear the differential treatment within an electoral funding regime can amount to an impermissible burden on the implied freedom of political communication if it unfairly advantages some political participants over others, which is exactly what the Labor Party is doing. That principle should be front of mind for every single member considering this in this house. We are only months away from the state election. Victorians will soon make a decision about the future of our state. Yet rather than allowing a contest to occur on a fair and transparent basis, the government is attempting to rewrite the rules in a way that benefits itself. This is end-of-days stuff from a tired government that appears increasingly desperate to cling to power and will do whatever it takes. The Allan Labor government understands that Victorians are frustrated. They understand that Victorians are frustrated at them and their corruption, and so they seek to tip the scales. Rather than addressing those concerns, they are attempting to change the electoral framework to protect their own position. They are attempting to rig the electoral system in Labor’s favour, and that should concern every single Victorian.

Another deeply troubling aspect of this legislation is its retrospective operation. The bill seeks to apply provisions retrospectively to 15 April, and retrospective legislation should always be approached with caution. It undermines the fundamental principle of good law-making that individuals and organisations are able to understand the legal rules that apply to them and their conduct at the time that they act. The government argues that public statements were made following the High Court decision and that affected parties were therefore aware of the intention. But press releases are not legislation. Media statements are not legislation. Government announcements are not legislation. The law is what this Parliament enacts, not what ministers announce at press conferences. It sets a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

As I said, the coalition has sought to operate, negotiate and engage in good faith with the government. We recognise the need to respond to the High Court’s decision and maintain public confidence in Victoria’s electoral system. We recognise the value of transparency, accountability and integrity. These principles matter. But transparency cannot be selective. Labor cannot claim to have any principles while simultaneously designing legislation that advances itself, rushing it through Parliament with minimal scrutiny, abandoning its own consultation requirements and protecting its own financial interests. The government has chosen to pursue a political deal rather than genuinely engage with the opposition on a balanced solution.

Members should be under no illusion about what this legislation represents. This is not a good faith effort to repair Victoria’s electoral laws. This is not a narrowly tailored response to a High Court decision. This is not a principled attempt to improve democratic processes. This is a political exercise designed to benefit the Labor Party. Victorians deserve an electoral system that is fair, they deserve an electoral system that is developed transparently, they deserve legislation that is properly scrutinised and they deserve a government that places democratic principles ahead of partisan advantage. Unfortunately, this bill fails those tests.

For those reasons the opposition cannot support legislation that barely attempts to conceal its intention to stack the decks in favour of the Labor Party and its union mates. The intention is clear: to keep the status quo and to keep the rivers of gold from the union movement. It entrenches political power, even through public funding; even through public funding it entrenches political power. If you are a donor, you can only donate that $7500 once to a political party like the West Party; yet if you want to donate to multiple independents, you can donate however many lots of that cap to however many independents. That is an entrenched political advantage available to some and not others. It goes directly to the differential advantage in the High Court.

We will always continue to stand for transparency, accountability and public confidence in Victoria’s electoral system, so we will not support a bill that seeks to entrench this desperate Labor Party political advantage at the expense of fairness and integrity that we rightly expect. We will not be supporting this bill, and in fact we will be seeking to amendment it. I ask for my amendments to be circulated.

Our first amendment seeks to exclude trade unions from the definition of ‘associated entity’ in new section 206 and now applies to the whole definition. It ensures that trade unions are not considered an associated entity and able to continue to be the paymasters of this Labor government. Again, Labor have stacked the decks and written laws so that unions, many of them found to be corrupt, can continue to donate millions of dollars to the Labor Party, but no other party is afforded that same opportunity, nor is an independent candidate afforded that same opportunity. That creates a differential burden that the High Court struck out. So that is my first amendment.

Our second amendment seeks to amend the start date of the state campaign account payback period, the specific period from 1 July 2023, to 27 November in section 277. As I said, I went through a long explanation of why the Premier picking this date of 1 July 2023 was unconstitutional. This seeks to set the payback period to 27 November, the day after the election. If the minister and the Labor Party want to explain that they have got nothing to hide within that period, they should have no problem supporting it. If the Labor Party oppose this amendment to seek to change the start date, we can only assume what we were told: that the Labor Party has received millions of dollars from Labor Holdings Pty Ltd between the election and 1 July. So that will be an interesting clarification, and if they vote against it, we will know it is true. This makes absolutely sure that the Labor Party are not seeking to bake in their own advantage using an arbitrary date to keep donations that may be made by their associated entity in the period after the last election.

Amendment 3 seeks to replace proposed sections 279 and 280 to now require parties to disclose to the Victorian Electoral Commission all amounts received from nominated entities and nominated entities to disclose all amounts given to parties since the 2022 election. Again, this is a transparency measure. I am sure it will be supported by the crossbench – I know there has been very good interest in this particular measure – because then we will know exactly what amounts have gone, and if there are amounts that have gone between the election and 1 July, we will know about it because the VEC will force them to disclose that particular amount. We have got nothing to hide. What has the government got to hide? I look forward to continuing discussions with my crossbench colleagues on that particular matter. This has to be done within 30 days of royal assent, and it will include the date the amounts were given and received. The VEC must then publish the amounts and dates within seven days under section 217. This relates to the previous amendment, given the Labor government’s arbitrary choice of 1 July 2023 and our concerns about the motivation for doing so.

Amendments 4 and 5 are consequential amendments to section 283, because the previous sections 279 and 280 only applied to special gifts, whereas the new one applies to all amounts. As I said, these particular amendments should be supported by all members of the chamber. Again, if the Labor Party have got nothing to hide, they will support our amendments. But what they seek to do through both public funding – and the way it is set up, it is public funding – and the way associated entities can continue to donate to the Labor Party is embed an entrenched advantage. As the High Court called it, it is a differential burden. It is like no-one in the PPO actually read the High Court case. If the solicitor-general was willing to call out constructive ideas in regard to how to fix this legislation, I want to know if the solicitor-general actually called out this arbitrary date of 1 July2023. These laws are a shameful attempt by Labor to rig the system in their own favour, a shameful attempt by an unpopular Premier to rig the system for electoral advantage. The Labor Party should be ashamed for bringing such a bill to the chamber.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (11:56): What we hear from the opposition is any reason available to them, whether based in fact or based in fantasy, not to proceed with legislative reform that introduces a measure of transparency, accountability and integrity – the very things that they say are important – into the framework for political donations in this state. I do not intend to try to comment on or second-guess the nature of the High Court’s decision in Hopper. In my view, that would be completely inappropriate. It has not stopped, however, people like Mr Mulholland from opining on the work of Australia’s highest court and highest authority in the interpretation of law. What I have noted, however, is that Mr Mulholland agrees that he has not actually read the entire decision. That is somewhat telling.

Ryan Batchelor: It is not a shock.

Harriet SHING: It is not surprising, Mr Batchelor, in fact, that Mr Mulholland has agreed he has not read the entire decision of the High Court. We have also heard today from the opposition, in a desperate attempt to avoid this legislation being considered, that it does not even want to have it debated. Mr Mulholland has also tried with the angle ‘If you don’t have anything to hide, then just show us everything.’ It is a curious, curious attempt to create a controversy for government moving this legislation, because Mr Mulholland has said, ‘If you’ve got a reason to provide us with guarantees, then provide them. But in any event, we won’t be supporting the legislation.’ So it would seem, based on the rationale and the reasoning that we have heard to date, that there will be nothing that is good enough to satisfy the opposition to the point where it would support this legislation. Back to first principles, the question on that is not what would satisfy the coalition to support legislation like this; it is why the coalition will never be satisfied to the point where it could support legislation for greater integrity, transparency and accountability. If we go to perhaps the why on this, the largest overseas political donation – I am not sure where that might have come from, if anyone can help me.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Harriet SHING: It came from the UK. And which political party did it go to, Mr Batchelor?

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Harriet SHING: That is right. It was the Liberal Party. So the largest political donation from a foreign donor came from the UK to the Liberal Party. No wonder you do not want legislation that deals with integrity, transparency and accountability. You are the beneficiaries of the largest donation from an overseas donor, and you do not want to debate legislation –

The PRESIDENT: Minister, I have to interrupt business.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.