Thursday, 4 June 2026

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:07): Just yesterday this bill was rammed through the Legislative Assembly. Today it is our turn, and the manufactured urgency is just as fake. It might be politically urgent, but the judgement forcing the government’s hand came in April, and they have shown their willingness to make this legislation retrospective. So there is no excuse whatsoever for the way the parliamentary process has been abused in this bill. We all know the reality: the government wants, needs, this bill to suffer the minimum scrutiny possible. And that is the reason they have yet again decided to fail to brief us with any decent notice, to fail to produce a draft and to ditch any chance of public consultation, mature consideration and the productive refinement and review of legislation. In fact we are being asked to deal almost immediately with a bill of enormous democratic significance, a bill that goes to the rules of elections themselves. That alone should trouble every member of this chamber. Even if you have decided to support the government today, can you honestly say you believe this is how we should do business? It is bad enough when we rush any legislation, but when it is about the very way our democracy works, the loudest alarm bells are ringing. Electoral laws should not be written in panic, negotiated in secret or forced through Parliament on a political timetable designed by the government of the day, but that is exactly what is happening here. Electoral law should be careful, principled, transparent and constitutionally sound – is that seriously too much to ask?

The reason we are here at all is because the government got it wrong last time. Its previous political donation laws were struck down by the High Court because they impermissibly entrenched political advantage – not in a small way. In fact they undermined fairness, they offended against democracy.

You would think that might occasion some humility from Labor, but no. Instead of that, Labor have come back with another rushed bill that appears to preserve and, in some respects, worsen the differential burden the High Court identified. Our central objection is simple. Labor claim to be banning big money from politics, while in reality they are leaving open the channels of big union money into the Labor Party. That is not a level playing field. That is not fair. That is the High Court’s differential burden writ large.

There has been a lot of discussion of protection rackets here in the last few days, and this is a particularly shocking one – a political protection racket dressed up as transparency. Members in the Assembly pointed to the millions of dollars flowing from the CFMEU font of corruption and other unions to the Labor Party, while other political participants face tight caps and restrictions. The government cannot credibly lecture anyone about integrity while designing a system that says, in effect, ‘Union money, good; everyone else’s money, bad.’ If the rules are going to be fair, they must apply fairly to all. If the objective is transparency, then transparency must apply to Labor’s own financial lifelines as much as to anyone else.

The idea that this money will be entirely quarantined from political campaigning, that it will be spent on paperclips, is just – I do not know what to say – garbage. There is no way that the staff, buildings, databases, systems, organisers, call centres, software, compliance teams, HR, training, research, polling, messaging work and party infrastructure are somehow hermetically sealed from the election campaign. Even if we had not had the red shirts rorting scandal, this set-up would look suspect. Every dollar Labor receives for administration frees up another dollar for campaigning. You cannot seriously pretend there is a wall between running the party and fighting the election. If one side gets millions in protected administrative funding while everyone else is capped, that is just basic unfairness. And why – it is shameless and unprincipled for sure, but it is much more than that. It is desperate, it is panic, it is terror. This is a government that knows it is in trouble. They see the polling. They see the anger in the suburbs. They know regional Victoria is walking away. Liberals, Nationals, One Nation, independents: they are all coming for seats Labor once thought were safe, that they took for granted. But instead of asking why Victorians have lost faith, desperate Jacinta’s instinct is to change the rules. Clearly this makes no legal or moral sense. It is naked political survival. They will do literally anything they can, including making laws they know may be struck down, just to buy time, put things off and fight an election on unfair terms in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

On the rest of the content of the bill, I will come first to public funding. It goes without saying that this is a very, very poor time to be asking ordinary Victorians to put their hands in their pockets to pay for political campaigning.

We are not talking about the cost of running the election here – the Victorian Electoral Commission, the voting centres, the ballot boxes. We are talking about political campaigning – campaigners, posters, mail shots, social media, TV advertising, putting politicians’ faces in front of every Victorian, forcing them not only to look at us but to pay for the privilege of having us intrude into their lives.

This state is drowning in debt, taxes, levies, charges and duties. The whole panoply of money-extracting methods has already skyrocketed under Labor, and now this bill is coming back for more. Jacinta Allan is putting her hand further into your pocket to fund not roads, hospitals, schools, police, emergency services or basic services but politics – to put her face on a billboard to tell you to vote for her. It is yet another example of Labor wasting your own money to tell you how you ought to vote. It is a shocking situation.

Public funding is always sold to us as the cure for private money in politics: ‘Get the donors out,’ we are told, ‘and let the taxpayer pay instead.’ But look at what that bargain actually does. It does not take politics off the donors payroll, it puts politics onto the public payroll. And it does not return power to the people, it returns power to the parties already powerful enough to award themselves a cheque. This is not a new argument; it has been recognised for years. The danger is that introducing public funding for political parties’ election campaigns will fossilise the system. It will lead to party dependence on the state.

We should be clear about what a political party is or what it should be. It is not a public utility, it is a private association formed to persuade citizens, to recruit members, to raise support and to campaign for political power. Parties should have to earn support, membership, volunteering and donations and force political movements to remain connected to ordinary non-political Victorians. If parties live off the state teat instead, they need fewer members, fewer local branches, fewer volunteers and less genuine public enthusiasm. Politics becomes more professional, more bureaucratic, more consultant driven and basically a lot more remote from ordinary people. It is less democratic, to be blunt.

It is far more than a technicality. If the parties in this building write the rules, then they allocate the money, and if they allocate the money, they will naturally favour themselves, all the while calling it election integrity – how ironic. Strip away that language and what you have is a protection racket for incumbents. Those already in Parliament get the funds, the staff, the profile and the machinery. Those on the outside and the party that does not exist yet face a higher bar. Mr Limbrick should recognise these arguments. Surely no Liberal or Libertarian can in good conscience support this. There is another reason why: no citizen should be compelled through the tax system to bankroll political messages they find abhorrent. It is one thing to ask taxpayers to fund the neutral machinery of democracy – the rolls, the booths, the counting, the enforcement of the law. Let me put it as plainly as I can with an extended analogy I hope you will understand: a democracy should fund the umpire, not the teams. It should fund the ballot box, not the campaign machine, because once the state starts paying the players, the players will start designing the game around themselves, and that is the whole story of this bill. Let us call this bill what it is: not reform, not integrity, not transparency but another attempt by this cornered government to rig the rules of an election it is terrified of losing.

Remember how we got here: the High Court struck down Labor’s last attempt because it impermissibly entrenched political advantage. It created a differential burden – one set of rules for some and another for everyone else.

You would think a government with any humility would have learned. Instead they have come back with a bill that preserves that differential burden and in places makes it worse. The beneficiary is always the same: Labor. The caps fall on their opponents, the restrictions fall on their opponents, but the great rivers of union cash from the CFMEU keep flowing into Labor’s coffers, quarantined behind a fiction that nobody in this chamber believes. Every protected dollar for administration is a dollar freed for the campaign. Union money, good; everyone else’s money, bad. That is not a level playing field, that is a differential burden in capital letters, and they know it.

Why should a government take a law it suspects is unconstitutional and ram it through anyway? Because this is not about principle, it is about survival. They see the polling. They see the suburbs turning. They see regional Victoria walking out the door. This is a government in its final days, and it knows it, reaching into your pocket, rewriting the rule book, doing whatever it takes to cling to power for a few months more. Victorians are not fools. They can see a stitch-up when it is paraded in front of them, and they will not be bought with their own money. I urge the house: vote this bill down.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:21): I rise to speak on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. Right now Victoria has no rules around political donations for state elections at all. We urgently need to fix them, and the bill before us is attempting to do that. Before I go into the substance of the bill it is worth revisiting how we got into this situation in the first place. In 2018 Labor stitched up laws that would allow themselves and the Liberal and National parties to keep nominated entities – their election slush funds – while at the same time denying any other party or independent the same opportunity. For years the major parties were warned not only that this was unfair and undemocratic but also that it would at some point be the subject of a legal challenge. Labor had countless opportunities to deal with it. A simple fix to the laws to remove nominated entities would have done the trick. But instead they let a High Court challenge go ahead, which found, quite rightly, that nominated entities were unconstitutional. However, because nominated entities were so embedded in section 12 and integral to how the whole package of donations laws got passed in the first place, the High Court chose to strike out not simply nominated entities but the entirety of section 12 of the act. So we now find ourselves in a place where for months who knows how much money from who knows where has potentially been flowing into election coffers all over the state, where vested interests could be using hundreds of thousands, maybe more, to buy influence over the next election. It is a situation that the Greens say has to be remedied urgently.

But fixing the mess now is not as simple as it might have been if the government had just dealt with the nominated entities issue to ward off a High Court challenge, because now there is the High Court ruling itself to take into consideration. Additionally, because limitless donations have been flowing into campaigns for months now, including potentially from nominated entities, despite unequivocal warnings from the Premier not to exceed the donation cap in the period there were no laws, that money will now need to be clawed back. Further complicating the situation is the fact that a state election is around the corner. There is not the luxury of time to do a wholesale rewrite of the donation laws. What we have got here is a bandaid fix. It will stem the bleeding and do for now but only on the condition that it is followed by a thorough review and consideration of broad donations reforms.

Turning to what the bill does in itself, importantly, it deals with the problem that triggered this whole saga in the first place: the three nominated entities belonging to the Labor, Liberal and National parties. Until now these slush funds amassed over years could donate unlimited amounts to their campaigns, as they were exempt from the donations cap. This exclusive carve-out has been removed, and nominated entities are now subject to the same donations cap as every other party and candidate.

Secondly and crucially, the bill puts a donations cap back in place. It is increased to $7500. We would have liked to see that even lower, but given the other figures being entertained we think this is a reasonable outcome. In contrast to the Liberals, who have argued for significantly higher caps, the Greens support caps as a way of limiting the influence of big money over election outcomes. No-one should be able to buy a seat in this place. There has been a lot of talk about level playing fields around this bill, but the playing field should also be as close to level as possible for ordinary citizens. Now everyone and every entity – whether it be the Cormack Foundation, a union, a billionaire or Jill from down the road – will be subject to the same cap. Further, the bill reinstates public funding. Public funding is linked to the level of support candidates receive from their voters, ensuring that electoral funding is distributed more democratically. Anyone who gets over 4 per cent of the vote gets public funding. It also reinstates the same disclosure requirements as were previously in place – that is, donations above $1250 cannot be anonymous – and bans foreign donations.

Crucially, the donations cap and disclosures will be retrospective. Any donation received since the 15 April High Court ruling that exceeded the cap must be repaid or the recipient will be subject to criminal penalties. This includes money received by the Labor, Liberal and National parties from their nominated entities during that period, regardless of whether it has been spent. The Liberals are deeply unhappy about this, but it is hard to feel much sympathy for them. It was made abundantly clear that this would be the case. As the party that claims to believe in individual responsibility, they have chosen to disregard warnings and potentially take and spend bucketloads of cash on campaigning. If they have chosen to do that in the past couple of months, they should have to wear the consequences.

The bill also contains some novel aspects which are an attempt to address the High Court’s concerns about the evenness of the playing field for candidates. The way the government has dealt with this is to provide for a doubling of the donation cap for new entrants at an election, bringing that cap to $15,000. The principle behind this concept is reasonable. There should not be significant structural disadvantages for new people or parties choosing to run in elections. Incumbents and established parties do have a head start, it should be acknowledged, with public funding and existing infrastructure, and that higher cap for new entrants allows them to fundraise faster to get their campaigns up and going. While the principle of it is sound, I think it is still unclear whether this mechanism will actually achieve the intended outcome. The definitions and operation of the new-entrant system are complex, and we are aware of a number of concerns that have been raised about potential unintended consequences. For example, there are questions about whether the amount of public funding received by a candidate who was unsuccessful but achieved greater than 4 per cent adequately offsets the advantage created by a higher cap. The issues with the new-entrant system highlight why the Greens have insisted on a proper review of these laws so that this sort of thing can be considered more thoroughly in the near future.

Overall we have made the assessment that the bill deals with some of the critical problems with the old laws, is certainly preferable to having no laws in place at all and therefore is supportable. But we very much view these laws as an emergency stopgap measure to put in place some donations guardrails before the upcoming state election. They need a thorough clean-out, and that is why the Greens have demanded a comprehensive legislative review. If we are serious about strengthening democracy and levelling the playing field, other options for political donations reform need to be on the table and therefore to be explicitly considered as part of the review. These include things like looking at spending caps. The Greens have long argued for spending caps. These do a much better job of levelling the playing field than donations caps alone. It limits the advantages of individual wealth, given candidates themselves are not subject to donations caps. It diminishes the benefits of incumbency. At a time when the influence of big money and vested interests on elections is growing, spending caps are the obvious way to curb this. It is not a radical idea. Spending caps are already in place in many jurisdictions, including in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT.

Other ideas for reform include the Centre for Public Integrity’s proposal for a donations voucher system and the New York City matching funds program. These are all ideas that we could be exploring.

We understand that these options present a more significant change from the previous laws, and in the circumstances we find ourselves in currently in Victoria, it is not possible to get across all of these and consider the implications in the time required. But the review, importantly, will commence within a month of the election and must be completed within a year, so it may not be long before we have the opportunity to put better laws in place. Crucially, the review must be done by independent experts, not politicians. As this debacle demonstrates, we cannot have politicians who stand to gain or lose from the electoral donation system designing that very system. Those in power are very unlikely to support changes that make things harder for themselves or advantage political opponents, unless – as is the case here – they have their hand forced. It should not have actually taken a crisis to get these laws looked at. One would hope that the drive to protect integrity in our democracy would be reason enough. Perhaps the government should learn from this experience. It is much easier to prevent these disasters in the first place or at least treat them very early when you become aware of them.

There are broader donations reforms that need to occur in this state – reforms that, just like the changes to nominated entities, have long been called for by integrity experts and others. For example, candidates running in council elections are not subject to any caps at all. This leaves the door wide open for vested interests – for example, property developers – to buy influence. Victoria’s longest running corruption investigation, which looked into corruption at Casey council, led to IBAC recommending donation caps for local government candidates that match the state election cap. Operation Sandon recommended both caps and bans on donations from high-risk groups such as developers – something the Ombudsman also recommended in 2015 – and yet neither of these things have occurred. It should not take another disaster to get action.

We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it. Let us make sure when these laws are reviewed next year that we take the opportunity to learn from what has happened and get them right. In a democracy, voters – not money – should get to decide the outcomes of our elections.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:32): I rise to speak to the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, and I do so because I think this piece of legislation that we are debating this afternoon and into the night is a significant piece of legislation that has been poorly articulated by the government given the massive failings that they have undertaken. Let us not forget why we are debating this today. In 2013 and in the lead-up to the 2014 election, the red shirts operated. It operated out of Daniel Andrews’ office. It implicated ministers and members of Parliament and other members of the Labor Party movement significantly. It was, as the Ombudsman claimed, an artifice, and the Labor Party had to pay back $388,000 to the taxpayer. The Labor Party and the then Premier and his ministers rorted the system. They rorted Victorian taxpayers, and in that time they also used the union movement to campaign heavily against the then government, the Napthine government, of which I was a member – so I remember it very clearly, and there are many people in this house that do not.

Out of that disgraceful cover-up of the red shirts – and it was a cover-up – the police did not do their job properly. No-one was charged. They should have been. That was a disgraceful cover-up in every sense of the word. And here we have legislation brought into this chamber to fix what Labor had done. Labor had done this – Labor had ripped off the taxpayer and Labor had rorted the system. They rigged the system then and now they are rigging the system again. They brought in legislation that we voted against at the time, and it was only passed by one vote. We had a very long and significant debate at that time. And here we are again. Labor come in here and have the audacity to lecture us about integrity. Let us not forget why we are debating this – because of the rorting of the system that Labor does continuously, doing it to the taxpayer. And we are having this debate. There is so much I could say about integrity and the failures of Labor, whether it is under this Premier or the former Premier, because they have no basis and no grounds on which to speak to the Victorian public about integrity measures and how they stand up for the little people, the voters.

They have got no credibility on this because they are a part of the problem; they set up the systems to rort the system. That is why this bill is so important. It is why we are opposing it – because it is a rigging of the system. It is not the Liberal Party’s or the National Party’s fault that we are in here debating it, it is the government’s.

It is Labor that introduced the first laws. It is Labor that did the deals with the crossbench at the time and got the legislation through by one vote. It is Labor that stuffed it up. It is Labor that is now lecturing to the Victorian public about integrity. Spare me. What the bill does is go beyond restoring a political donations framework following the High Court’s decision in Hopper v Victoria. The Independent candidate who took it to the High Court still has concerns around how this is not a level playing field, because it is not, because the union movement is a part of it. It is extraordinary. I do not understand how anyone can say that this is fair given the union influence. Look at that movement. Look at the union movement. Look at the union influence. What do they do? They are a part of the labour movement, as has ben said, and I think it was Ms Ermacora who said this morning in an interjection, ‘We are part of that union movement.’ Yes, we understand that, but the unions are being exempt from this legislation, and the unions, by their own definition, are part of a system in the labour movement where they influence – they influence in conferences and influence in internal matters through who is appointed to ministries, who is appointed to seats and who is appointed to the leader roles. The union movement has a huge amount of influence on what happens in this state and what this government does and says in this state; that influence and those big pockets of the union movement are still influencing the Premier and this government through this bill.

This bill is rigging and rorting the electoral system. The union movement has never been so powerful. Look at the CFMEU: $15 billion they ripped off the taxpayer through the Big Build. The then minister, now Premier, turned a blind eye to it. She is responsible. The union movement, with what they did throughout COVID, what they did throughout 2013 and 2014 in that election campaign, what they did in the red shirts campaign – these are the unions with influence. So for the Premier to get up there and say in her media statement that they are not going to be influenced by those with deep pockets – well, this legislation and these donation laws should not be influenced by big unions either. And by hell do we have big unions in this state. Everybody knows that. Victorians know it. They can see it. They are feeling the effects of the union influence on this dreadful government. They have rorted the system through the Big Build and they have rorted taxpayers money, and they are rigging the electoral system again. The government has allowed the union movement to still be part of the donation system. How is that a level playing field? I say to every crossbencher: you are pathetic if you side with the government and agree with this.

I want to take up Mr Limbrick’s discussion, though, in the procedural debate – and I could not agree with him more – around the foreign influence, the foreign interference and foreign donations. I totally agree with you. We could have carved that out and sorted that out, and I think there would have been unanimous agreement – but oh, no, no, no, not this government. They know what they are doing: shut everyone else out but let the union movement, with their influence, with their big pockets and with their deep pockets, influence this government and rig the system again.

This is a disgrace. It is so shocking, and it is even more shocking with the way the government has introduced this bill. The Liberal and Nationals have had less than 24 hours to see the bill. They say it is urgent. They bring it in and then move a motion. I do not want to denigrate the motion on Neale Daniher – an amazing Australian, an incredible Victorian – but we could have done that yesterday when the lower house did. But we did not. It is an urgent bill, and they bring that on. And there are amendments. They have not even gone through the proper process around going through the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, as Mrs McArthur said, going through the proper parliamentary processes of what we are meant to do. The minister said, ‘We’re a house of review.’ Well, you are not even following the rules of this Parliament, Minister. You are not even following what needs to be done. We have got the new treaty that has been passed. That was meant to be an amazing application to every piece of legislation that is going through this place. Well, they bypass them when it suits them. They disregard the – what is it?

Bev McArthur interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Gellung Warl. Thank you for correcting my pronunciation, Mrs McArthur. They just disregarded them, bypassed the process. I mean, this is farcical. But it is not just farcical, it is dangerous. Our state has so much to lose. It is about good government and decent government and integrity in government.

For many years we have seen Victoria, I think, slide into a state of decay, a state where there is not that value on what it means to have integrity and good government, because for Labor it is power at all costs. We saw it with Daniel Andrews, and we are seeing it with Jacinta Allan. That is dangerous for democracy. It is dangerous for the future of our state. I say that this bill is flawed because of the nature of it, and that is why the Liberals and Nationals will be moving amendments to improve this. I know that Mr Mulholland will be going through it. He will go through those amendments when we move those. I would urge members to look at those amendments closely. I am sure that we are giving more time to the crossbench in explanations of why we believe those amendments should be moved than the government has provided to them. I spoke to one crossbencher. She said that they have not even had a briefing from government. It was 2 hours ago. I mean, seriously, what a disgrace – how arrogant. You hold members on the opposite side of this house in complete contempt. You are a disgraceful government in so many ways.

I want to just say a little bit about the retrospectivity aspect. It is as clear as the nose on your face. Let us go back and have a look at what the government is doing with this bill. Parties will have to return money transferred to their nominated entity – so it is basically the Liberals, Nationals and Labor Party, putting the union movement aside over there – between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 above the general cap of $5030, so when that court action happened. Look at that date: 1 July 2023. It is a very arbitrary date. Why? Why don’t we go back to when the legislation was first introduced or to the last election? Why is it 1 July 2023? The government will not answer those questions, but it is very clear that Labor had money shovelled to them before that date. That is the cut-off. They need to explain exactly why they called for this date, because I say I do not trust this government. They lie and they will lie about this too, I have no doubt. They have lied about so many things. Look at the Commonwealth Games. Look at all the broken promises that we are dealing with. Look at the incredible debt and the 67 new taxes. Daniel Andrews promised he would not increase one tax way back in 2014.

I mean, this government will do anything to hold on to power. Why do they want to cling to power? Because there is a lot they have to hide.

But these donation laws to ensure that we have a proper democratic process in this place should have better scrutiny. They should have a whole range of better aspects than what this bill provides. It provides one-way traffic to an overbearing party machine, the Labor machine, run by the unions – the unions that dominate in this state and call the shots in government. They are all apparatchiks of the union movement; they all belong to a union movement. The union movement determines who goes where in Labor, who is sitting as Premier and who is sitting as Deputy Premier. Look at all the internal fighting. They keep it in-house, I must admit – they are better than we are – but they are dominated by –

Ingrid Stitt interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: The minister is laughing; I do not blame her. But the point is, the union movement dictates who goes where. We are the Liberal Party – we are far more open, and I think it is far healthier to have those open discussions.

I say again, look at the union influence in this state, look at the union influence within the Labor Party, look at the union influence within government, and the unions are exempt. Those deep pockets that the Premier speaks about are going straight into her coffers, straight into rigging the electoral system, rigging this Parliament, rigging the processes of what needs to be done here. Our state deserves better than what we have with this government, and our state deserves better than this bill. I stand with my colleagues in opposing it.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:47): It is unfortunate that we have gotten to this state. The original Electoral Act 2002 was brought in before my time in this Parliament. I note that the opposition opposed it at the time, and I imagine that if I had been in Parliament I would have railed against it as well. There are lots of things in the Electoral Act. Ever since I was elected, I have had to look at it all in so much detail – how the administration and campaign funding works and all of the ways that you have to deal with it. It is an absolute nightmare for a small party to manage compliance with these things. It is very difficult. There are lots of problems with the existing Electoral Act, and I totally agree with Dr Mansfield that it needs a wholesale review from the bottom up. We are simply in a situation where that cannot happen at the moment. You cannot really do any major changes to the Electoral Act after August, otherwise the Victorian Electoral Commission will not be able to run the election properly, so that is a problem.

I note that the government has committed to a larger review of the act – that is good. But on the part of the current act that was struck down by the High Court, it should have been obvious to anyone when it was instituted that it rigged the system in favour of the major parties with the way that the nominated entities work. The Liberal Party had a nominated entity, the National Party had a nominated entity and the Labor Party had a nominated entity. This was a way for the major parties to continue using these vehicles that they had set up for funding to continue to have an advantage over every other party, whether they are existing or new entrants. In hindsight it is obvious – blind Freddy could have seen that there was an unfair advantage. As of April this year the High Court has rumbled it and said it is invalid. I do not think anyone, including the litigants, expected the High Court to strike out the entire section 12. For whatever their reasons, they said that they could not disentangle the entrenched advantage from that, so they struck out the whole section 12. That puts the state of Victoria in a very precarious position, because there were a number of things which were not controversial in section 12. The one that I am most concerned about is foreign donations, but also other things around party administration, funding and donation disclosures. These are all very important things.

My position has been consistent ever since this High Court ruling went in – I have said it publicly, I have said it to the government, I have said it to anyone that will listen: we need to urgently and as soon as possible reinstate as much as possible from the old act as is constitutionally valid to have a bandaid so that we can at least run the next election properly, and any larger changes to the system I will not be supporting without a proper review. For the most part that is actually what the government has done. They have tried to come up with a bill that they think will survive a constitutional challenge and that reinstates things like foreign donation prohibitions, donation caps – all that sort of thing – and that also removes the entrenched advantage of the ability of nominated entities to transfer as much money as they like. I am not a constitutional law expert. I do not have the resources to hire one to give me an opinion. But ultimately, whether or not this survives a constitutional challenge, the government has the resources of the solicitor-general and all sorts of other resources, and the constitutional validity is on the government. They have to make a decision on whether they think it will survive a challenge, and I think that there probably will be a challenge. They have to make that decision.

But I am upset that we were not debating this earlier. I note that the opposition was saying, ‘If it was urgent, why didn’t we do it earlier?’ That is a very good question. We should have done it earlier. In fact I said to the government I would be happy to support a recall of Parliament to fix this problem during the break. I said I was disappointed that we were not debating this in the last sitting week, because every day that we stay in this limbo our state is exposed to foreign influence. At the moment it is totally legal for any political party to solicit and receive donations from anyone in the world, and if people cannot see how dangerous that is, they need their heads read. That is a very, very serious problem with our system.

Similarly, less significant but still significant, the disclosure of donations currently is not required either, and I think it does need to happen. The caps are being reinstated. I have philosophical problems with the caps, but ultimately they are just reinstating what they had with a slightly higher amount. I think it is $7000 it has gone up to now from close to $5000. It is really neither here nor there.

The main thing that I am concerned about is how vulnerable our state is at the moment. I actually agree with the opposition: if the government had come up with a bill that just fixed these really critical things and done it very quickly, maybe we could have had unanimous agreement on it, because I know that the opposition also, as has been stated, are concerned about the foreign donations. But ultimately I have to make a decision based on the bill that I am presented by the government, and what I have been demanding from the government is for them to reinstate as much as possible of what is constitutionally valid. It is my belief that for the most part the government has done that. They have reinstated foreign donation prohibitions, which is good, and we cannot go another day while Victoria is vulnerable.

I totally agree there are many, many, many problems with the Electoral Act – I do not think that anyone in here actually seems very happy with the Electoral Act as it was – and we do need a wholesale review. We simply cannot do that in a considered way before the election. It is just not going to happen. I do not think even the government would claim that this bill is anything more than a bandaid to make sure that we can run the election properly and we do not have dark money flowing in from overseas. On that basis I will be supporting this bill, but I do not support the current Electoral Act. I do not support the way that it works at the moment. I think that many of the things that happen in our Electoral Act at the moment are just wrong, cumbersome, difficult to comply with or counterproductive. There are so many things wrong with it, but we simply do not have the time before the election to have that considered review. The government needs to act to make sure that these loopholes are closed, like the foreign donations issue, and this bill will close them.

Therefore the Libertarian Party will be supporting this bill, with many reservations about the bill. I have got no choice but to accept the government’s advice that they think it is constitutionally valid. But if this fails a constitutional test, well, the government have stuffed up again, haven’t they. I think that there is a lot of pressure on the government to make sure that this does survive a challenge.

As for the amendments, I share the opposition’s curiousness about the date of 1 July 2023, and I am giving due consideration to the amendment being proposed by the opposition on that particular issue. They claim that there was lots of money transferred before that date. Maybe the Labor Party or one of the Labor MPs could actually clarify that for us, because I do not know whether that is true or not. I have no information. I do not know the financial inner workings of the Labor Party. But if that was the case, I think that Victorians would be outraged if that was true. I think that Victorians would be outraged that they are forcing this retrospectivity to pay back money but making it slightly after they made a payment.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: I will take up the interjection by Mr Mulholland. If Mr Mulholland has evidence to that effect, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Evan Mulholland: There were. They told us.

David LIMBRICK: Okay, well, if that is the case. No-one told me about millions of dollars being transferred before 1 July 2023. But if the government have got nothing to hide, maybe they would not mind changing the date back to the date of the election or close to it. I understand that if you did it right on the election date there might be problems, because there is lots of money flowing around during an election period. But I would like to hear the government’s explanation. The explanation they have given so far, of it being the first day of the new financial year – okay, well, if you are going to choose an arbitrary date, I suppose that is as good as any. But if it is actually true, the government should either change the date, as the opposition is suggesting, or stand up in here and tell the truth. If there were no transfers made, then it does not really matter if it is 1 July. If there were no transfers made and if the government can confirm that there were no transfers made, then I think that that is probably reasonable. But I do not know; the government has not said anything about it. At this point it is up to the government to come clean on that. But it is an unfortunate situation that we are in. I do not like it. But ultimately we need to plug this gap that we have got at the moment, and therefore I will be supporting this bill.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:58): I rise today to oppose this bill in the strongest fashion. It has been interesting and important to listen to the debate, and I appreciate the comments that have gone before me. I came in in 2015, and at the start of 2015 there was constant frustration and outrage as the red shirt rorts were being unpacked both in this house through questions that we put to the government but also through the Ombudsman Deborah Glass. I always find it gobsmacking how somehow Labor members of Parliament must go to a certain school, must have certain levels of tuition so that, first, Daniel Andrews can stare down a TV camera and say, ‘No more taxes,’ and then lo and behold, we are up to 67 – probably about 60 by the time he left. It is just confounding how they can do this and think, arrogantly, that they should be entitled to get away with it. That is what they thought, taking almost $400,000 of taxpayer-funded money from the electoral office and campaigning in red shirts. The Ombudsman said, in both 2018 and 2019, it was an artifice and it was wrong. Twenty-one MPs got on board, some of which were in that Parliament in 2018 because of those red shirts.

Bev McArthur: Michaela Settle is one.

Melina BATH: Yes, we could get the list out. Some of them have gone through other means – through transporting their dog around in a company car and various other interesting spaces and places. But we see this happening. The legislation was brought through, and it was flawed at the time. We see now that this legislation is flawed today.

I am a simple person. I grew up in the country, my parents worked hard, I went to uni – all of those things. But I am astounded at the amount of legal representatives that this government has as staff working on this. It went through the High Court – Hopper v Victoria – and the decision came down. Then, lo and behold, we waited seven weeks – seven weeks, with all that force, all that understanding, all those people poring over the law – for the government to then bring in legislation. Not through due process, like democracy demands – they brought it in, stuffed it into the lower house yesterday, and now it comes through here as an urgent bill. It could have come in five weeks ago. It could have come in, been first read and then gone off through the normal process – through SARC and through bill briefings. Put your hand up if you were afforded a bill briefing, anyone in the opposition or on the crossbench. No, we were not. There was no due process – no request. We were not handed the bill until late yesterday at best. And now we see this bill is coming through.

Not only that – this is the house of review, and this morning we were lectured by the Allan government, by members in the government, who said that we should just roll over about the process of this house. The house of review should be about moving slowly and surely through a piece of legislation. This is a significant piece of legislation because it impacts taxpayers, it impacts due process and it impacts transparency. Now, I am all for greater transparency and accountability, which we have not seen through the last 12 years of this government, but I am also about due process passing through Parliament. Indeed we see there was not due process – even to the point where this government in November last year brought through the statewide treaty. We were told by those opposite of the very importance of Gellung Warl, of the First Peoples’ Assembly and of having a statewide treaty statement of compatibility. We were told, and we said no. We said we oppose treaty. We have a different route to closing the gap and self-determination. We were howled down. ‘Shame,’ it was said. Well, this government now, in its fast-tracking of this somehow vital piece of legislation that had to be rushed through yesterday, has just cast that aside: ‘Oh sorry, it doesn’t suit our narrative. We can abandon that.’ That which was so important in November – we can debate whether it was important or not, but they threw it down our throats and we were supposed to cower under it. And now this government has cast that aside: ‘It doesn’t suit us.’ Indeed, the statement of treaty compatibility said:

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.

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 it goes on. I find that slightly duplicitous. I find ‘What works for me now may not work for me in the future’ is what Jacinta Allan is running here. This is not minor machinery of a bill. This is about changing the rule book of political competition. Again, I am a simple person. I go to people in my electorate who I have worked hard for, and I say to my friends and family, ‘Do you think you would like to give me some money to run my campaign?’ The Nationals have gone through in detail about the caps, disclosures and all of those things. If you run a raffle, you have got to make sure that you meet those needs and requirements to the nth degree.

Here we are told now that because of this High Court decision, the government is rewriting the rule book. We do not like black money – in fact it scares the living daylights out of me – but what I hate more is grey corruption from the Allan government. That is what we are seeing here through this process, through the Big Build and $15 billion worth of corruption. It is astounding and scary. I support the Westminster system and I support democracy, but I cannot support this bill.

I just want to go through a couple of other points in relation to this – first of all, the retrospectivity. I take the point that Mr Limbrick raised and I have heard all on our side raise: this value point of 1 July 2023. What is this government hiding? 1 July 2023 is just an airy-fairy arbitrary date. Well, is it? What happened just before 1 July 2023? Why don’t you cast the net back further, as we have suggested, back to 27 November 2022 – the election. Why don’t you make that a clean break? Therefore we will see that you have integrity. I am sorry that you are not and it is not applicable or appropriate.

To go to the unions – and this is the part that really completely frustrates – workers deserve to be in a union. They deserve to take fair pay home for a hard day’s work. They deserve pay and conditions. They deserve to be safe. They deserve to choose what to do with their money. But what we see with this government is that it is using this. Labor cannot claim it is cleaning up political donations while preserving many pathways for ongoing financial benefit from the union heavies. The CFMEU is not just any donor; it is a union that has been placed under administration after several findings and allegations of corruption, intimidation and organised crime in the construction sector. This should send a shiver down the spine of many Victorians about all the things that they are missing out on: the schools, the hospital upgrades, the shoddy roads that we are missing out on because of this black hole of corrupt money, and yet this government will continue to take those funds.

We see the bill excludes annual affiliation fees as a definition of a ‘gift’. This means that Labor can continue to benefit from this union financial support while other parties and candidates are constrained by strict donation caps. Let us call it a level playing field and make it a level playing field. This is not donation reform; this is political self-preservation while rights are being limited by Parliament and we are being denied that scrutiny. The Nationals will oppose this bill. We oppose the fact that the government is doing this in a cost-of-living crisis and is seen to be lining its own pockets while pushing down and pushing away that fairness and transparency. We see our roads crumbling, as I have said. We see our hospitals and just the whole range of service industries under pressure.

In conclusion, this government needs to come to the table and at the very least take on our very good amendments that make it more of a level playing field. The government needs to turn over a new leaf. What would that cost? What would that do? You would have to have that gun that the Men in Black used to look at before they had complete amnesia. They would have to turn over and become reasonable, appropriate, respectful and honest with the Victorian population. You cannot clean up donations while keeping the union rivers of gold flowing. The Nationals oppose this bill.

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (15:09): I rise to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2026. One Nation Victoria will be supporting this bill. We 100 per cent support a fair and transparent political donation system in Victoria.

We had concerns about what seemed like loopholes in the bill, and it took a bad mood, some mudslinging in this chamber and a few emails to get a briefing from the government. It is disappointing that it took this for the government to finally consult with me, but then again, this is rather a rushed bill. I have absolutely no issue with capping the general donation limits. It creates a fair and even playing field for all parties and candidates. I would have liked to see the cap on associated entities donations be backdated to the last election, which I see my colleagues in the opposition are trying to rectify with their amendments, which I will be supporting. This bill is not perfect by any means, but it is at least a starting point. The electoral system in Victoria is broken. It is being played by who has the most money to spend on preference whisperers, smear campaigns and flat-out saturation campaigns. I would like to see a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but it seems this government is not brave enough to do that just yet. In closing, I am glad to see some change to the donation rules and commend this bill to the house.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:11): I rise to speak on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. This is a bill that I do not consider to be an urgent bill but one that the government are pushing through this house in one day as an urgent bill. The key to why it is not an urgent bill came in Minister Shing’s contribution this morning when she said, quite rightly, that we are a house of review. What the government is doing here is avoiding any scrutiny or any review of this legislation by trying to ram this through today. It is not an urgent bill. We have known for some time of the decision of the High Court, and Labor could have brought legislation earlier than this. They could have consulted with all parties in the Parliament about what should be in this bill, but they have not. They have just brought in this bill that actually entrenches advantage to the Labor Party, to the detriment of all other parties and independents in this Parliament.

Why are we debating this bill today? We are debating this bill today because Labor got it wrong in the first place. Labor got it wrong, and someone challenged this in the High Court. And I would say the Greens got it wrong in the first place, because the Greens collaborated with Labor to get the original legislation through, which has been challenged in the High Court. Even though the government have been told what is wrong, this legislation is still wrong. There are holes right through this. We know that it is going back to the High Court, but the government could not even get what they brought into the lower house yesterday right. We are now hearing there are going to be government amendments to this bill. It went through the lower house yesterday, and the government are already saying, ‘Oops, we got it wrong. We’ve got to put an amendment to this bill.’ This is a real concern, because what we know is this bill will not be constitutional, it will not be legal and it will go back to the High Court.

What should have happened is this bill should have come in here. We should have had ample time to consider this bill. It should have been public for a number of weeks. There should have been time for legal and constitutional experts to see this bill and ensure that what is in it is correct. But no, Labor know better than everybody else, and Labor are ramming this legislation through. This bill should be deferred so proper scrutiny and review can be done on this bill to ensure that Labor and the Greens do not get it wrong again. These laws are an attempt by Labor to try and rig the system once again – to rig it in their own favour. This will cut off all money flowing to any other party, to Labor’s political opponents, while continuing to allow rivers of gold from the CFMEU and other unions to flow into the Labor Party. Labor has no doubt done a deal on this with the crossbench to benefit Labor, and the crossbench have not even been wise enough to be alert to that.

Labor will do anything, we know. Who was it who wrote the book Whatever It Takes?

Enver Erdogan: Graham Richardson.

Wendy LOVELL: Graham Richardson – Whatever It Takes. Labor will do whatever it takes to hang on to power, and if that means rorting public money, if that means corruption, Labor are in it like Flynn. This is very much a desperate attempt from a tired and corrupt Labor government to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.

The bill goes far beyond restoring the political donations framework and what was needed under the High Court’s decision. Labor are legislating unconstitutional laws, and instead of fixing the problem properly they have been politically motivated to stack the decks in their own favour and at the expense of all other parties and political opponents just six months out from an election. Labor has given the members on this side of the chamber just a few hours to consider and pass this legislation. As I said before, it should have been out there for weeks for constitutional and legal experts to scrutinise and for us to consult with people on this bill, but no, Labor will not give anybody that opportunity. The Premier herself has said that she expects this to be challenged in the High Court, and that is all the more reason why we should be getting this legislation right and not rushing bad laws through the Parliament.

This bill is an affront to democracy. The way elections are funded and how funding is disclosed is important to public confidence in the election results, but we know that does not matter to Labor because we know about the red shirts rorts and how they used public money to advantage Labor candidates and to elect Labor members of Parliament to this Parliament a couple of elections ago.

The CFMEU and the unions will be able to continue to make huge donations to the Labor Party. Rivers of gold will flow into the Labor Party. This bill enables that. In the last term of Parliament the CFMEU gave $1.5 million to Labor – that is just one union. Trades Hall have 41 unions who are affiliated with them, and I believe that 21 of those formally affiliate with the ALP, so does that mean that we will have 21 unions giving $1.5 million in a term of government to the Labor Party? That is $31.5 million. That is a huge advantage over the Greens, over One Nation, over the Nationals, over the Liberals, over the Lib Dems, over any other party on the crossbench, the cannabis party, the shooters party and the Animal Justice Party as well – a huge political advantage.

This bill is retrospective back to 15 April 2026. Call me cynical, but when was the last donation made by Labor’s nominated entity to the Labor Party? I bet you it was about 14 April 2026. That is why it is only retrospective back to that date. This is just another attempt by Labor to undermine their political opponents and shore up their own electoral position ahead of this November’s state election.

We just listened to One Nation, and they are going to support this, but Ms Tyrrell said, ‘We’re going to support this, but we couldn’t even get a briefing from the government until the very last minute. But we think this is transparent and fair.’ I would say to One Nation: read the bill, because this is not transparent and this is not fair legislation. This is legislation that is rigged to support the Labor Party to get rivers of gold flowing into the Labor Party at the expense of every other political party and independent that wants to gain a seat in this Parliament. The coalition did seek to engage with the government in good faith, but the government has chosen to stitch up a deal with the Greens and One Nation.

The coalition will always support principles of transparency, accountability and public confidence in Victoria’s electoral system, but that is not what the Labor Party want to do. The Labor Party just want to stitch up a deal that supports them, and we cannot support a bill that barely attempts to hide its intention to stack the decks in favour of the Labor Party and their CFMEU mates. We know that there is $15 billion in money that has been rorted under corrupt deals on the Big Build sites. You have to ask: is that $15 billion coming back into the Labor Party coffers, or is part of that $15 billion going to come back into the Labor Party coffers, to fund their election in November? This is further corruption by a tired 12-year-old Labor government who have run out of ideas, who have run the state’s finances down and into deficit and who do not know how they are going to get re-elected. They are so desperate to get re-elected that they would cripple their opponents rather than go to an election on an even playing field with a fair set of electoral reform matters.

This is appalling by the Labor Party. The coalition will move amendments to this. We will move an amendment to exclude trade unions from the definition of an associated entity in section 206, and this will stop the backdoor exemption for the rivers of gold that flow from the CFMEU and other trade unions into the Labor Party. If it is good enough to ban big business from donating unlimited money to any political candidate, it is good enough to ban big unions from doing the same with the Labor Party.

The other amendment that we will move to this is an amendment to ensure the constitutional validity of the new campaign finance regime. It ensures that the amounts that need to be paid back to nominated entities apply to the period since the last election. Labor have chosen an arbitrary date of 1 July 2023. Why would they have chosen that date? They chose that date probably because that was in advance of the last time they got a donation. They told the coalition during negotiations that the July date was selected because it was after –

A member interjected.

Wendy LOVELL: They actually did. This is it. They told the coalition during the negotiations that the July date was selected because it was after Labor received its last payment from Labor Services & Holdings. Why is it just after Labor received their last payment? Why is it not after the last date the Nationals or the Liberals or anyone received their last donation? Why is it not just from today onwards? Because some of that money that has been paid in from entities would have already been used on previous campaigns, and this will severely restrict the ability to campaign in this November’s election. Labor actually told the coalition that that was the last date they that they received a payment from their Labor Services & Holdings, despite communicating that the solicitor-general’s advice was that the new regime must apply to the entire election period, so this is showing that they are rorting it. They are not going back. The solicitor-general said, ‘Apply it to the whole election period.’ No, Labor said, ‘We’ll apply it from the day after the last time we got a payment from our entity.’ It shows you just how corrupt this government is. It is critical that this amendment be adopted to ensure the constitutional validity of the of the provision.

We have another amendment as well. That amendment seeks to replace proposed sections 279 and 280 to require parties to disclose to the Victorian Electoral Commission all amounts received from nominated entities by all parties since the 2022 election.

Labor does not want this transparency. The coalition does want this transparency. Labor do not, because they do not want you to know how much they have already received in dodgy dollars.

This amendment will open the books and shine a light on everyone’s campaign finance agreements. We are willing to commit to transparency, so why won’t the Labor Party? I would say to every member of Parliament, including the Labor members of Parliament and the Greens, One Nation and whoever else is supporting them on the crossbench: have a very close look at the sensible amendments that have been put up by the coalition. These should be adopted to ensure that this bill is a better bill. But I think that the bill is just so bad – it is so corrupt, just like the Labor Party is so corrupt – that we should oppose this bill no matter what format it is in, just as every Victorian should put Labor last on their ballot paper in November, because Labor is corrupt.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:26): I rise to speak on this allegedly urgent bill, which of course is not an urgent bill. This bill goes far beyond restoring the political donations framework following the High Court’s decision in Hopper v Victoria, which of course was Labor’s own fault. They legislated unconstitutional laws and instead of fixing them properly in advance at any point over the last few years, engaged in a politically motivated attempt to stack the decks in their own favour at the expense of their political competitors only six months out from an election. It is appalling. It is miscreant. It is a terrible thing. They had time to see this. This is the first point. This case was before the High Court for some time. There were clear indications of the direction of travel of that court case. There was wide conversation in the community. There was ample time to sit down with all parties and all stakeholders in the interests of democracy and come up with a clear, sustainable and constitutional way to manage election donations.

Election donations are a useful and valuable part of democracy, but they also can be a toxin and they can distort, so the fairness of the system is paramount to any functioning democracy. There was plenty of time where all parties at a sensible speed could have sat down and done it. It could have been revealed to the public so the public could have their legitimate say – because, after all, in a democracy it is their consent to the process that legitimises the process. If it is done behind doors, where is their say in any of this? In fact the last bulwark, the last backstop, to this is actually the Liberal and National parties in this chamber. We are the last democratic mechanism that the Victorian people have to have any say in what is going to happen in their democracy. All this time they could have had a good faith process to address the shortfalls of their donation legislation, but they chose not to do it. And just like so much else in this state, leaving it late or however they have blundered through it, they have left it to the last minute and said, ‘Oh, calamity, we’ve got a problem’ – a problem they could have seen from a hundred miles out. ‘Oh, we’ve got a problem, and now we must solve it, and we must solve it in the most hasty, ill-thought through, bad-faith process possible. And maybe with a bit of bluster we could just bluff our way through it and get what we want and get a structural advantage in doing so.’ Well, we are not having it. We will stand up. Others are going to fight for their own self-interest, but we are going to fight for Victoria’s interests and the Victorian people’s interests.

I do think this is sort of this Labor government’s last hurrah, because at this point of the election cycle in other periods they would have been coming out and saying, ‘We’re going to build a bridge,’ or ‘We’re going to do crossings,’ or ‘We’re going to have some megaproject.’ I mean, the Suburban Rail Loop came off a back-of-an-envelope calculation. They came out and announced that. They said, ‘This is what we’re going to do.’ It is very instructive that this year, at this stage of the election cycle, what they are coming out with is, ‘How do we rig it that we maintain our sources of revenue uniquely and no-one else does, and how do we add more money from the taxpayer to our campaigning?’

That is their big vision. The hue and cry that they are making over this – the bluster and the bluff – is their last shot. This is it. This is all they have got. That is all that is left in the tank. The only ammunition they have got left is ‘Well, we’re not going to be able to win on merit or on the battle of ideas. We’re not going to be able to win on performance. We’re not going to be able to win on the popularity of our leader. What we’re going to win on is that we will actually just rig the finances.’ So it will cease to be a battle of ideas; it will be a battle of union funding to the Labor government to the exclusion of every other legitimate source of funding. This is their last hurrah.

They have rushed this legislation. We have had less than 24 hours to look at this legislation, to understand or communicate or share out the implications of this legislation. The wider public of course have no visibility of this effectively at all. It is an affront to democracy, it is an affront to this chamber, it is completely inappropriate and it would not have been necessary if you had managed things properly in the first place. Certainly just because you did not does not give you the justification to ram it through. Yes, it is a serious matter, but you had time and space to address it as a serious matter. The fact that you have chosen to treat this as some sort of inconvenience does not justify it, and we will not stand for it.

How the electorate is funded and how funding is disclosed is important to public confidence in election results – there is no question of it. It does not even pass the pub test. I think if you had to explain these new laws to a friend over a coffee at a cafe or wherever you are meeting, at a supermarket, the shorthand of this is very simple: the Liberal Party and National Party sources of funding are going to be made illegal but funding from unions to the Labor Party is not. That pretty much sums it up. To just unpack that a little bit, it is unions like the CFMEU, one of the biggest recipients of state taxpayer funds for state Labor government projects, that gets that revenue. This borrowed money – it is not even taxpayers; it is borrowed money – goes to the CFMEU, and lo and behold, they are allowed to keep donating to the Labor Party.

Enver Erdogan: No, they are not.

Richard WELCH: They were allowed, weren’t they? While they were getting all this money they were allowed. You have received no funds from the CFMEU?

Enver Erdogan: They were affiliation fees. It is like a membership fee.

Richard WELCH: Oh, an affiliation fee. Yes, how convenient. How very convenient.

Enver Erdogan: But not anymore.

Richard WELCH: No, please tell us. I accept the interjection. Please tell us how pure as driven snow the CFMEU contributions are to the Labor Party. Even standing here, you are defending it. You are still defending it. I think this goes beyond denial. They often say, ‘Don’t ascribe malice to simple incompetence,’ but I think in this case it is a bit of both. It is not a level playing field, because the Liberal and National parties have served the people of Victoria and Australia for many generations. We have served this community. If we have built up resources by that process to help the party serve the community, we should have access to them just like any other party does. But no, it is not a level playing field.

This is not the only area where we do not have a level playing field. Look at the resourcing of our leader’s office. We used to have reasonable staffing levels, and that has been cut down to 11. Whilst the Premier’s office can have 20 or more media staff –

Wendy Lovell: Just media staff, not admin staff.

Richard WELCH: Yes, just media staff, more media staff than the entirety of the Leader of the Opposition’s office, which has 11. How is that a level playing field? What about Suburban Rail Loop community grants? Community grants issued in the name of the signature policy of the government, by which the government probably lives or dies. The policy that then says, ‘Every recipient has to sign an NDA and has to have a Labor member come out and announce it and present it.’ These are sums of money in the hundreds of millions – $300 million, it has been. How is that a level playing field? How do you get to use government for that marketing purpose? Then you time those community grants to be in the last six months before an election. Is that not corruption? Is that not grey corruption that everyone talks about in this government? How is that a level playing field?

And what about all the undisclosed advertising through social media and through social media groups such as Secret Melbourne? There is advertising going there. There is no disclosure about how much you are paying influencers on social media. Where is the level playing field? It is all with taxpayers money. Where is the level playing field then? You can afford to siphon off $15 billion in corrupt money to organised crime and just conveniently be looking the other way when the paper bags are passed over. How do you get to waste $15 billion and not be held accountable for it? How do you get to do that and no-one resigns, no-one is accountable? No integrity, but you will cut the funding to the integrity body so that they cannot properly investigate it. Where is the level playing field in any of that?

This is the last hurrah of a very tired government that has nothing new to offer the people but wants to take a little bit more on the way out the door. You want to rig the system because you cannot win on the battle of ideas, you cannot win through integrity, you cannot win on delivery and you cannot win on performance. You are a very, very poor government. You have made Victoria the laughing stock of Australia, the butt of jokes, just like we were in 1992 after the last time this all happened to us.

We will not support this bill. We will try to amend it in some very sensible ways. We think that if you are going to exclude our affiliated bodies, then it is only fair, if you actually genuinely believe in a level playing field, that unions should be excluded as well. We should stop the backdoor exemption that allows, as we are saying, the rivers of gold to flow from the CFMEU and other corrupt bodies into the corrupt Labor Party.

We would also make an amendment about ensuring the constitutional validity of the new campaign finance regime, because whilst some and particularly the crossbench railed this morning about how urgent this is, how this could interfere with democracy and how we could have money flooding in right now, I will tell you what, it will be 10 times worse in three months time when, just three months out from an election, it all gets knocked over and we are back where we began in the High Court. That is a really disingenuous and convenient argument: ‘We must do it because it could be going wrong now.’ It could get much, much worse. If there is a High Court challenge, it will have signposted the fact that that is coming, and people will be able to plan and act accordingly very close to an election. It is very dangerous indeed. It will ensure that moneys that need to be paid back to nominated entities apply to the period since the last election, not an arbitrary date chosen by Labor to yet again rig the system.

They told the coalition during negotiations that the July date was selected because it was after Labor had received its last payment from Labor Services and Holdings.

Members interjecting.

Richard WELCH: You want to interject on that, but you have got no legs to stand on. It is transparently corrupt. No person in their right mind could listen to that fact and say, ‘Yes, that’s all fair.’ No person in the street to whom this is explained would go – well, I think they would say, ‘We’ve got low expectations of Labor and corruption, but maybe we’ve just lowered the floor even lower.’ You would think a government that was trying to repair its reputation in terms of corruption would not do something so blatant as this, but they have, which tells you either they have completely lost their moral compass or they are so desperate to hold on to government and power that now it is whatever it takes – it will not matter what. As Ms Crozier pointed out, follow the money, but follow the motive. If they do not hold on to power, there are so many skeletons that are going to come out of the closet once there is a change of government.

The ability to use the machine and engine of government to hide and protect and to claim things as commercial in confidence and to hold back advice received and briefing papers and withhold documents that we, through the proper processes, have requested – all of those things fall out. There is so much that they have got to hide, and they have only got so much time to save the situation. If it was a purely democratic process, they know they could not do it. So now it has to be a process where if they cannot do it the normal way, they are going to do it by rigging the finances.

This is the stuff of banana republics. This is the stuff of a Third World country. This is not anywhere near the base level of integrity Victorians are entitled to in their democracy. I have often said the Westminster system under which we operate was never designed for a government like this – a government that waves aside every convention that holds the Westminster system together and degrades our democracy. Here is their last effort: ‘Let’s degrade the financial system as well to embed the corruption.’ It is a sad day for Victoria, and I would love to see our amendments get up. I would love the crossbench to see the bigger picture. It is not about the Liberal Party; it is about Victorian democracy, it is about integrity and it is about seeking the right outcome for all.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:42): I am pleased to be able to contribute on the Electoral Further Amendments Bill 2026. Donations are very foundational to our democracy. They are crucial, and that is why it is important that we get this legislation right and do not put forward legislation in haste, and certainly legislation that will end up back in the courts. I remember when I was first elected, coming and listening to a panel here in this Parliament that had a number of journalists and a lawyer. They were actually speaking about the Victorian Parliament, and they were talking about how transparency under this government had eroded over time. It has changed a lot, and I feel that this bill is another step in that similar direction. It feels to me a bit like a seesaw or a set of scales that is severely tipped in one direction, that is stacked in one way. We are told that it is urgent, that it must get through very quickly, but this is significant legislation. There are issues that need to be addressed, like banning foreign donations, but as has been said in this chamber today, that could have been passed with strong support, I expect, from all sides.

This government can push legislation when they want to, and they will go slow when they want to as well. I know I spoke in this house after the last election back in 2022 about the system of voting that we have in Victoria, certainly with the upper house, and I raised concerns in the early time of my term in Parliament about individuals in Victoria that can currently receive payments for helping coordinate preference deals for MPs to get them elected to this house. I am certainly not aware of any changes that have been made to stop that from happening, and yet the November state election is now just months away. Then with the bail reforms as well, we warned the government time and time again that weakening the bail laws would have a detrimental effect. They ignored the calls for reform. They said, ‘No issue,’ and later said that they were introducing the toughest bail laws and then making further amendments to make the toughest bail laws even tougher – but again, they still do not go far enough. We saw the same with tobacco licensing. It took forever to pass the laws, and then they actually delayed the implementation or the start date for the commencement. With the IBAC reforms, the government has again not enabled them to follow the money. They voted against our bill that we put forward. Finally, the Premier backflipped, but again they are going very slow. They are just appointing a working group this year, and they have said that there will not be any legislative changes until the end of 2027.

This bill feels very stacked. It feels like a game of monopoly where the government has all the property, because everyone gets capped except for the unions, whose donations go back to Labor. But we have seen this before, even with the Premier’s office; she has over 80 staff, whereas MPs get 2½ staff.

The High Court has found issues with the previous act, and it is likely that this bill will be challenged again, but it is unfortunate that there has not been transparency on the proposed changes. I am a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and we review legislation that comes to this Parliament, but we certainly have not seen this bill at all. There has been no bill brief, which is the usual process when a government brings in legislation to enable the other members of the chamber to consider it and ask questions, get a bit of feedback and understand it. There has certainly been nothing of that sort with this legislation. In less than 24 hours we are expected to be voting on it.

As has been mentioned, the date of 1 July 2023, the retrospectivity to be able to repay any funds received from associated entities, has been talked about. It is interesting to note that Labor did not stand a candidate at the Nepean by-election. I would be interested to hear the government speak about whether they received any finances before that date, because we are suggesting an amendment taking it back to the last election.

My concern is that this process that we are seeing unfolding in our chamber today sets a very dangerous precedent. We have already seen a real disregard by this government for parliamentary processes in so many different ways. The process of handing over of documents that have been requested we have seen time and time again quite frustrated. But as I have said, to introduce a bill and expect it to pass within 24 hours – Victoria has reached a new low.

We are here to represent our regions, to represent the people of Victoria, to consider the legislation that is before us and to ask: is it good for the people that I represent? Is it good for the wider community? Is it good for Victoria? To pass legislation that will see Labor retain a revenue stream when everyone else is capped – no, I do not think that is wise, I do not think that is fair, and I do not think it is good for our democracy. The model of our political system, our democratic system of government, is special. Ordinary people can stand for Parliament and advocate for their region. As a system of Parliament, we took the best from the systems in Britain and America and we made it our own. We cannot turn a blind eye to the issues in this bill. We have put forward amendments, and I hope other members will support them.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:48): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. On 15 April 2026 the High Court handed down its decision in Hopper v Victoria, the Hopper case. The High Court found that Victoria’s political donations and expenditure laws contained in part 12 of the Electoral Act 2002 were inconsistent with the implied freedom of political communication embedded in the Commonwealth constitution. Much I think to everyone’s surprise, the High Court declared part 12 of the act to be invalid in toto. It could not be simply amended to address its incompatibility with the constitution and would need to be completely replaced with provisions that are compatible with the constitution. From time to time high courts do make judgements that overturn arrangements that legislators had assumed to be entirely appropriate, and this is just such a case.

This should not be seen simply as a legal inconvenience. On the contrary, this is a bold and meritorious assertion by our highest court of what democracy means. It affirms the need for the legal instruments of our democratic system to reflect the constitution’s implied right of freedom of political communication and for a level playing field for those parties or individuals who choose to seek election to this Parliament.

For far too long our electoral system has privileged the large and established parties to the detriment of smaller parties and independent candidates. The 2018 amendments to the Electoral Act were, frankly, outrageous. They effectively established a form of electoral segregation which was morally and politically bankrupt. To suggest that there be one set of electoral rules for the major parties and a second discriminatory and disadvantageous set of rules for the rest of the parliamentary members is a fundamental betrayal of our democracy. Legalise Cannabis, a small but rapidly growing party, is part of a sea change in our communities, one that increasingly favours smaller parties and independents who come to this place with a deep sense of connection to our communities and with their priorities front and centre. As such, we wholeheartedly welcome this decision of the High Court and also express our deep gratitude to the litigants who prosecuted this case.

I do not propose to detail the specifics of either the case or the changes that are proposed in the bill. I am sure that others in this place will more than adequately fulfil that role, although doubtless with their own particular emphasis. I will note that the bill before us seeks to provide an interim set of arrangements, consistent with the decision of the court, that address political donations, the reporting framework for those donations, the arrangements and amounts associated with state funding and a range of outworkings and associated issues.

In approaching this issue, Legalise Cannabis is committed to two central principles. Firstly, as I have already stated, we see these as entirely interim arrangements. We have a state election fast approaching, and the prospect of that occurring in a regulatory vacuum due to the invalidation of section 12 is nothing if not horrendous – and a number of speakers have quite accurately detailed some of those threats. In our view, one shared I believe with many of my crossbench colleagues, the measures contained in this bill are intended to be a set of changes that are consistent with the findings of the High Court and provide a reasonable and equitable framework to underpin the 2026 state election. They are not perfect, nor do they include everything that we may have wished to see included, but we believe they are a reasonable and rational response to the Hopper decision as we head into the electoral cycle.

Secondly, if it is accepted that these are indeed interim arrangements and that the entirety of the Electoral Act requires review, then that review must and can only be undertaken by an independent and expert panel. To suggest that such a task could be legitimately undertaken by politicians, parliamentary committees or ageing party functionaries would be seen by the public as akin to appointing a coven of vampires to guard the blood bank – no disrespect intended. A review must not only be independent of vested interests, it must be seen to be beyond all reasonable doubt. On that basis, we reached out to the Centre for Public Integrity for their guidance. The centre is governed by a board of esteemed jurists and anti-corruption campaigners. The organisation describes itself as such:

We work to prevent corruption, protect the integrity of our accountability institutions, rein in executive power, and eliminate the undue influence of big money in politics.

Pardon the pun, but that sounds like they are right on the money for defining a bona fide review framework. We were very pleased to receive a set of terms of reference for a review into the issues raised by the High Court in the Hopper case. These terms of reference now constitute new section 182A proposed in the bill. This provision is timely. The review must commence within one month of the general election and report back within 12 months of the election. It is also sufficiently broad to capture a diverse range of issues pertinent to both the High Court’s ruling and the broader community concerns about money in politics, transparency and probity.

The opposition have raised a few questions regarding timeframes that I would like to address briefly. It has been said that this process has been rushed, and it has moved quickly. But I would also suggest that a prompt response is entirely necessary, firstly, because we find ourselves in a regulatory vacuum on the key issues raised in the Hopper case, and that is intolerable. We must have a functioning regulatory framework in place, and the sooner the better. Secondly, as we all know, there is every possibility that whatever legislation is passed here, however considered, however mindful we have been of the constitution, it may be appealed to the High Court. I hope that does not happen, but it could, and we have no say over what the court chooses to apply its attention to. Accordingly, we need to move forward with good, considered legislation in a timeframe that allows for possible High Court consideration before the state election. I would also like to rebut this suggestion that the legislation has suddenly dropped from the heavens. Both the opposition and the crossbench have been in discussions with the government for weeks. Feigning surprise at this point is, I would respectfully suggest, disingenuous.

That said, we approach the amendments moved by the opposition with an open mind. I would on the face of it suggest that in the absence of a compelling argument from the government as to the initial date for recoupment, whether that is in July 2023 or immediately after the state election, I can see, and I think Legalise Cannabis can see, a value in what the Liberals are proposing, and yes, unless the government has a compelling argument to the contrary, then I think that is probably where we will travel. On the other issue of associated entities, I think we are keen to understand what it is that the opposition is actually seeking to achieve. We have communicated to the opposition some questions, and we are awaiting a response to them.

Before concluding I would like to commend the government for the relatively open and transparent manner in which they have conducted the negotiations around this bill. I know they were not initially enamoured with the review terms from the Centre for Public Integrity, but I also know that they very quickly realised the merit of an arms-length independent review process. At a time when public confidence in our political systems, in our political parties, is at an all-time low, the government correctly concluded that this is far too important an issue to risk any impression of self-interest or partisanship. I would also like to record that while we at Legalise Cannabis Victoria participated in discussions on a range of issues canvassed in this bill, our only non-negotiable has been and remains this independent review. Mr Welch raised a whole lot of questions, a whole lot of very interesting questions, about what the problems are with the current disclosure framework, following the money – those sorts of issues. We agree wholeheartedly that those are all questions, and that is the very intent of a review: how do we investigate? How do we regulate? How do we ensure an equitable and level playing field for all political participants? On that basis we commend the bill to the chamber.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (15:59): It does always concern me when a system is set up to overtly benefit one particular interest over any other. Integrity matters, especially when it comes to the way in which our parties and the people that get into this place are actually funded, particularly given the fact that public money is involved. Integrity matters in relation to not just how we get it but the process and the limits surrounding non-public funding arrangements, such as the fundraising efforts that political parties or independents might undertake.

There are a number of aspects I do want to touch on in this bill. Firstly, on the discussion about foreign donation disclosures, I agree that foreign interference is a concern because it does challenge the integrity of the system of donations and fundraising that we hope prevents undue influence and corrupt behaviour in this state. There is absolutely no reason why these concerns could not have been dealt with 50 days ago, when the High Court handed down its decision on 15 April to strike out many parts of the donation and fundraising laws. If it was such an urgent matter, why couldn’t it have been dealt with then, as it was purported to have been? Can the government answer that question? Can they actually answer that question? I doubt it. If something is to be considered urgent, as Parliament has now agreed to this morning, then why wasn’t that an aspect of the changes passed through urgently immediately after the High Court handed down its decision on 15 April? The blame for that lies squarely with those opposite. Fifty-plus days since the High Court decision is not urgent, and those who support integrity in the funding of our electoral system need to at least acknowledge that fact.

The starting date is another interesting aspect of this as well. The government has decided – and I cannot really discern what the logical reasoning behind this is, other than perhaps political convenience – that the campaign payback period should begin on 1 July 2023. If there is another explanation forthcoming, I would love to hear it, but I cannot find one. You have got to ask the question: is it because it was just the last time the Labor Party received money from a nominated entity? I have not heard anything to the contrary. If the government were serious about genuine integrity reform, why not choose the date when the legislation first came into effect for the 2018 election, or at least the 2022 election? Why not a whole parliamentary term? I say to the crossbench, who are not here but might be listening, that I do actually understand their frustration with integrity reform in this state. I know the Greens in particular have spoken about it a lot in here – they have. If a member of this place believes in genuine transparency, accountability and the ability of the public to have real confidence in our system of public funding and donations, wouldn’t it make sense to at least support the payback date being at the commencement of this parliamentary term? Wouldn’t that at least make sense? The government has failed to justify why this date has been chosen. No government spokesperson, let alone the responsible minister, has been able to articulate in any clear terms why 1 July 2023 has been chosen, other than one obvious fact – it is the date the Labor Party last received a payment, pure and simple. Entrenching advantage – or disadvantage, for that matter – should not be something anyone who cares about integrity should be comfortable with. The worst thing is that we can all see how this will play out. The government is going to go to the crossbench and entrench advantage here and then completely steamroll the crossbench when it comes to electoral reform and abolish group voting tickets.

I also want to talk about associated entities as well. It is very clear that through the affiliate fees from various unions a huge funding windfall could be directed straight into the hands of the Labor Party. The definition of ‘associated entity’ should not include ‘a union’. If we look fairly and objectively at this, why should a trade union, whether it is a left or right union or indeed even the CFMEU, be allowed to donate via affiliate fees to the Labor Party while other membership organisations such as chambers of commerce, industry groups, service clubs and the like are unable to do so? Chambers of commerce, for example, would be subject to the same caps that the general public would be subject to – $5000 and $7500. Other membership organisations such as advocacy groups like GetUp, which have significant paid memberships, are not subject to those caps – they are subject to the ones that everyone else has. Environmental organisations such as Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth Melbourne or the Ecological Consultants Association are all affected and subject to the same caps. How is that fair? Why is just one membership organisation allowed?

Trade unions – their primary interest is industrial relations and in particular representing their members in negotiations with employers for pay and conditions and all those sorts of things. Why are they given a different treatment under these laws to other membership organisations?

I noticed in the procedural debate this morning regarding the urgency of the bill that Ms Ermacora, the current Acting President, said, ‘We are union, we are the union party’. Maybe that talks to the reason why there is a different treatment here. I would have thought that, given the well-documented allegations of rorting, corruption and the criminal conduct about the CFMEU, which are all very public and are all very available to us, there would be at least some caution around this matter and caution around facilitating a union like the CFMEU donating to a political party like the Labor Party, who have historically accepted support, whether it be in the form of manpower or donations from that union. If the CFMEU are unaffiliated with the Labor Party now, who is to say that they cannot just reaffiliate at some other point in the future or even straight after the next election or, geez, even straight after these laws might be passed? Who is to say that cannot happen?

The Greens; the cannabis party; the Libertarians; the Animal Justice Party; the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers; and One Nation – indeed the entire crossbench – have all supported calls for a royal commission into the $15 billion of corruption that is alleged to have been misappropriated on Big Build sites. To be fair I give full credit to the crossbench for supporting those calls, because it is entirely legitimate and important to get to the bottom of corruption in this state. If that is the case, doesn’t it then make sense to put measures, safeguards and limits in place to ensure that that sort of corrupt money cannot be used to influence the political process? Why is it so bad to put limits in place for that dirty money – money that has been taken by criminal elements? Why not prevent the facilitation of that money entering the political process and ensure that the system is cleaner? Surely that makes sense. If you do really believe in integrity, surely closing the door on corrupt money entering the bank accounts of any political party should be a priority.

I put on the record that it does not particularly affect my prospects. I am retiring, so whatever the arrangements are for funding, like for some others in this place who have made an announcement, it will not particularly impact me. My interest is in ensuring that any electoral reform is fair, balanced and facilitates the participation of citizens to engage meaningfully in democracy to elect their representatives. That is what representative democracy is. Those that seek election – be they from an established political party, a minor party or even as an independent – should do so in a fair, transparent and open manner, especially when public money is involved. Because it will be future generations who will not even know the new framework they are working in, it will just be what they have always known. They will have to engage with this framework, and they will not know what they have not known. It has the potential to wreck the very fabric of our democratic society as we know it. It is an uncomfortable truth to admit, but if these laws are passed in their current form, they will be entrenching an advantage to one side of politics. It really is a blatant attempt to shift the weights of a system to the advantage of the government. It looks as though it is a desperate attempt to do anything – literally anything, including rigging the electoral system – just to cling to power, and it is quite shameful.

If you believe in integrity, if you believe in openness and if you believe in having a fair process whereby public and private money is used for election purposes, there are many aspects of this bill that simply should not be here, or at the very minimum need drastic, drastic changes. It is incredibly disappointing that on our side we have not been offered any briefing, despite the claims of those opposite about negotiations. My understanding is they were not entered into in good faith. As the house of review we have the right – indeed the obligation – to scrutinise legislation and, if need be, to take the appropriate time to do exactly that. That is our function as the house of review.

It is entirely our job and within our remit. But with less than 24 hours to even consider the legislation, it looks as though the government really do just want to avoid scrutiny by pushing it through. Again, if you believed in the integrity of the parliamentary process, you would call this out for what it actually is. I hope the government can begin to see reason and support some of the positive changes that have been put forward that reflect the expectations of Victorians, who just want a fair and balanced system – one that will not be rigged, one that will not be taken advantage of and one that hopefully stands up in the court of law, but that remains to be seen.

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (16:11): I rise today to speak in opposition to this Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. I want to make it quite clear that this is a desperate and calculated attempt by this desperate Labor government to rewrite the rules of democracy in favour of them six months before the election. They are desperate to hold on to power. I contend that this is a rigged bill, designed to set other parties back while attempting to favour themselves in six months time at this election.

We have been informed again and again that this is an urgent bill. We are told it must pass immediately to fix the unconstitutional mess that this government created, as exposed by the High Court in Hopper v Victoria in April. As it was their mess in the first place, what we are trying to say is, having gone through the process through the High Court, there was a last attempt to make sure all the political donations, spending caps and funding to parties were transparent and made with integrity. But as you know, the High Court pushed back, and we are going through this process again of rushing the bill through. The High Court handed its decision down over 50 days ago. That is almost two months that the government has sat on its hands, and it is only now that it declares it an emergency. It is an entirely manufactured emergency as it is designed as a policy process to railroad the Parliament, denying minority parties the time to properly scrutinise this bill, ramming this through in hours and rigging the framework. Time and time again we see this government hastily rush legislation as a reactive measure. My colleague Mrs Broad has mentioned various legislation we have seen rushed through this Parliament in recent times, and again and again after it has passed the government seeks amendments to the legislation.

This bill goes far beyond simply restoring the political donation framework underneath the veil, because Labor hopes members in this chamber will not have the time to read the fine print. What we find highly convenient is the retrospective clause backdated to July 2023. One would ask: why that date? Why would the Labor government pick that date? Why were the government so urgent to boost integrity by cherrypicking the date to exactly July 2023? My colleague Mr Mulholland outlined various possible reasons that the government might do that. There is the possibility that the Labor government may have received a large amount from an entity – a donation just prior to that date. That would be quite a reasonable possibility. The bill currently imposes this retrospective starting date, as I mentioned, for this nominated entity payback obligation. The date is not an arbitrary date, as I mentioned. The date is not on principle in any form.

The date was chosen because it was convenient for the Labor Party, which had already received the benefit, as mentioned, possibly from the unions’ entities arrangement of an uncapped transfer and obviously the High Court obviously deemed this unconstitutional.

This bill neatly draws a line in the sand by the Labor government just after the Labor Party lined its own pockets with what we would describe as rivers of gold from the CFMEU and the union movement. I just want to refer to what I mean by this. In this bill, if you read the fine print, the amended section 206 asserts that an annual affiliation fee is excluded from the definition of a ‘gift’; it is not subject to that cap, meaning the Labor Party can endlessly benefit from unions and friends whereas for the rest of the other parties, everybody else is capped. They are not capped. They are not regulated, all while people who are running for election are capped unfairly. This is a deliberate drafting of a bill which will fail to deliver a level playing field, an agenda Labor fought to be established. That is why we say this bill should not be rushed through with only hours for this chamber to read and go through it before it passes. As the minister mentioned earlier in her speech, this is a chamber of review. You cannot review legislation as important as this in hours. They have banked their union cheques and secured their own election advantage with this bill, and now they want to pull the ladder up behind them and starve all the other minor parties and all their opponents from doing the same.

I will keep this short: this government is ramming this legislation through with, unreasonably, zero time for proper scrutiny. As I mentioned, they are desperately trying to manipulate the tide that is rapidly flowing against them going towards November. It is only months away. They allowed members of this chamber little time for scrutiny because they know it is not their best interests to do so. It is for their survival and ultimately a deception. Going through the records, the Premier has previously stated clearly that we must not rush bad laws through. This side of the chamber fully supports transparency of political donations, we support a level playing field, and we support laws that give Victorians confidence that elections are decided by voters, not by which parties have better access to uncapped funding. That is precisely why we cannot support this bill, because this bill does not deliver a level playing field.

I will just give one more example of going through the bill. We have sat here all day going through each part of it, and there are a few more things which have been identified already, and they are in the amendments that will be put forward by Mr Mulholland. It delivers a tilt to one side, dressed up in the language of reform. We will always stand for the principles of transparency, accountability and public confidence. It is important we do so. That is exactly the reason why we refuse to rubberstamp the government’s fabrication of urgency with this bill. We will not stand for a bill that deliberately undermines parties, and we will not stand for legislation that hides its truth and cynical intention behind a smokescreen of integrity by claiming, ‘We will review it in time.’ Well, how about we get it right in the first place instead of bringing it back to the High Court again? We will not stand for a bill that lines the pockets of the Labor Party or stacks the deck with allies of the union movement six months before an election. That is not a level playing field, is it? I oppose this bill in its current form. I commend the coalition’s amendments to the Council, which will be put forward by Mr Mulholland, and urge the crossbenchers to support the coalition’s amendments.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:20): I have heard quite a number of the contributions made this afternoon in this chamber – and before in fact, when we had the procedural motion this morning – and I thought it was important to put on the record a number of observations, not the least of which being that the proof will be in the pudding. Those opposite know that to be the case, because they know that whatever they do today and tonight and however they manage to ram it through, because that is their will and their want, ultimately the laws that they are going to shove through they probably already know are going to be challenged and they probably already know will be found to be unlawful. What this tells us about those opposite is this: they are creatures of habit. They are repeating a pattern of behaviour and, I might add, a pattern of unlawful behaviour. Isn’t that ironic in Victoria in 2026 that those opposite are exhibiting a pattern of unlawful behaviour? That is what they are doing.

We know this because the High Court struck down what they did as unlawful. That is the simple form – simple, no argument there. Silence from those opposite, because we know that to be true. We know it to be absolutely true that those opposite had such little regard for this nation’s constitution and were so poorly or ill advised – or they took the advice and they ignored it, whichever the case may be: incompetent or just plain old scallywags. I think perhaps the Premier would call them scallywags. What scallywags those opposite are. The cracks well and truly appeared in the previous legislation, so much so that they cracked apart. Here we are again doing exactly the same, and it is predictable that we will have exactly the same outcome. Really in one sense all this time, energy and effort spent today by all these members of Parliament and associated staff is a monumental waste because this government has rushed, there is no doubt about that.

There is also no doubt about the appetite of the crossbench – rightly, I think – to deal with the matter. I think they have got the right motivation. I think they are rightly motivated, rightly concerned. But for those on the government benches, here is the irony: if they were so concerned, like they were letting it be believed this morning, about foreign interference, so concerned about the foreign threat, they would have actually taken action in April. What is more, they would have taken action before that, because they knew the court judgement had to come down anyway.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: No-one is suggesting, Mr Batchelor, that we knew what the High Court was going to decide. But with all the lawyers you have on the government benches, and you throw a lot of them at the firies – you are spending millions of dollars fighting workers in this state, day after day, and trying to not only whittle away their conditions but whittle away their rights. That is what you are doing to the workers of this state, using millions of dollars to do so. Perhaps you could have used those lawyers to give you some better advice. Or is it that you did not take the advice? Whichever one of those two options it is, you look pretty silly, you old scallywags. It is not me saying that; it is the Premier. That is her word: ‘scallywags’. You are all scallywags over there because you chose not to take good advice, or you are incompetent because you took the wrong advice. Whichever it was, you cannot tell me you did not know that the High Court was going to have an outcome and you could not prepare for outcomes, plural.

Even, Mr Batchelor, if I forgive you for that act of wanton disregard, when the High Court decision did come down, what did you do? You took days – no, sorry, I am wrong. I correct the record. You took weeks – no, sorry, I am wrong. I correct the record. You took months to do anything about it – months now. In April, day one after the High Court judgement, if you were so concerned about foreign intervention, you could have recalled Parliament. But no, you did not want to do that. If you were really concerned, that is what you could have done from day one, and you would have got every person in this place unanimously supporting a singular motion that would have banned any political donations from international players, full stop, end of sentence. But no, you did not do that, because that would require sincere communication based on good faith negotiations.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr McGowan, please direct your remarks through the Chair rather than across the chamber.

Nick McGOWAN: I am only too pleased, Acting President, to direct my comments through you. Were the government genuinely concerned about any threat, not just the threat of foreign donations and therefore some kind of foreign interference – I am not quite sure what they mean by that, in actual fact.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I am glad to hear from the Minister for Health, because if the Minister for Health was so concerned, she too would have been at that cabinet table, stamping her fist down on the table, demanding that the day after the High Court decision they come back to this place: ‘Come on, Premier, let’s recall Parliament immediately and let’s stop anyone, much less the Liberals, from having any donations.’ But did you do that, Minister? Did any minister of this government do this? Did they sit at the cabinet table and say, ‘Let’s have a plan of action. We’re going to get this. We’re going to stop anyone. We’re going to do what’s right, goodness forbid’? No – silence.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: I was wondering whether there would be some silence.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: I am not going to accept the premise of that, but even if I did, then that would rest on your shoulders squarely, because who is running the show? If you do not want to run the show, that is fine. If those opposite do not want to run government, I am comfortable with that. In fact perhaps that is where we have found common ground today – all of us. We will simply assume government, and they can assume opposition, because clearly they are inept, incompetent or scallywags – that is a polite word for saying the word that I do not like to say, so I am not going to say it in this place, even though it is not unparliamentary. But they did not act; they did nothing. This is almost the hallmark of this government: if all else fails, just do nothing.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Seven weeks – you could have done it within days. If you were genuinely concerned, if there was genuinely a foreign threat – days if you were sufficiently concerned. But the truth here is it is mock rage. The public know it, the media know it, the people in this place know it and the staff here know it. I bet your bottom dollar, Chair, that if I were to ask some of the cleaners – we chat often – about whether they think this government is into mock rage, I am sure the answer would be yes. They are experts at it; they like to use these supercilious or other suggestions and comments, but when their actions belie their words, which is consistently the practice of this government, then it is only inevitable that those opposite will actually start to come unravelled.

This is what we have seen here. We have actually seen a government create laws in the first instance knowing full well that there was some contestability about those laws and not worrying about that at all. It is only public money. What is it to this side, that side? What is it to anyone? More public money.

Harriet Shing: What’s on your side? A million bucks from the UK.

Nick McGOWAN: Let us talk about $15 million bucks, Minister. I will take up your interjection.

Evan Mulholland: Billion.

Nick McGOWAN: Billion. Let us talk about $15 billion. Thank you very much for the correction, Mr Mulholland. You referred to $1 million, but I am talking about $15 billion, Minister. Let me take up your interjection.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: No, I am saying that if you want to talk about money, let us talk about $15 billion, because that could have got me in my constituency 15 Maroondah hospitals, and I am only asking for one.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! There is just a little bit too much noise in the chamber.

Nick McGOWAN: If it is a question of money – those opposite raised the issue of money – then I put it to those opposite that they have very little ground to stand on. Everyone in Victoria knows that. Everyone in Victoria is still probably looking for the $15 billion. I am looking for the $15 billion.

Harriet Shing: Geoffrey Watson’s not.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, I am looking for it. Do you know why I am looking for it, Minister? I am looking for it because I have got one hospital that I need to fund. It was a commitment by your side of politics. They stood out there one after the other – the member for Bayswater, the candidate for Croydon, the candidate for Geelong and so on and so forth. Just one teensy, tiny billion of the $15 billion – that is all we are asking for, so tiny compared to what this government has wasted. We talk about waste and money, Minister, and that is where you went with this. That is fine – we are happy to go there; that started off at an estimated $6.5 billion. If you look at the North East Link project, what are we up to now, Mr Mulholland? In the order of $27 billion to $29 billion for a 10 k stretch of –

Harriet Shing: Do you go on the trains, go on the West Gate, go on the Monash?

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, I have been on the West Gate recently, yes – and that tunnel.

Harriet Shing: They’re all projects funded by the state government. You don’t believe in investing in infrastructure.

Nick McGOWAN: I know you are disturbed by this. I know you do not like to hear the truth, but I am going to give you a dose of truth – through the Chair of course, respectfully. I come from a long line of governments that liked to invest in infrastructure. I would say the word ‘love’. I am going to use the l-word in this place in front of all these people: ‘love’. I love infrastructure – there, it is said. I have said it. And that includes – that is right – Citylink. Who built that? Let me cast my mind back.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: Sweetheart deals? I did go from ‘love’ to ‘sweetheart’, so I can understand the transition. But if those opposite wish to speak about sweetheart deals, then I think that is a matter that would take far longer than the 4½ minutes I have sadly got left, because those opposite have turned sweetheart deals into a standard operating procedure. They must have a manual they flip through every time – ‘In case of emergency, standard operating procedure, sweetheart deal’. Tolling company – done, sold. Tattersalls or a betting company – sold, done. Every time – it has become a go-to for those opposite.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGOWAN: To pick up on the minister’s interjection, yes, I have been on the West Gate Bridge, and I recall the days when we spent money on infrastructure, including CityLink, as I have mentioned. Which government was that? That is right. There is also the Melbourne exhibition centre. Which government was that?

Harriet Shing: Jeff’s Shed.

Nick McGOWAN: Minister, you can call it Jeff’s Shed, but I was being respectful. I called it the Melbourne exhibition centre. There was more infrastructure – yes, that was a Liberal government too. So the answer to the first question was ‘Liberal, Liberal’. It does not stop. Let us keep going. I could go at this all day. We will keep going. I am happy to keep going. We will add to it. What is another? I know another I can add: the museum of Melbourne. That is right, that is another one. I can keep adding to the infrastructure list all day long. I can go on to regional hospitals, it would surprise you. I recall the day – I was around long enough, and I have got enough grey hairs –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! I know that some speakers enjoy the parry, but we should listen to the member in silence.

Harriet Shing: We wanted to hear about building hospitals, though. You build hospitals, don’t you? Oh, no, that’s right – you don’t.

Nick McGOWAN: I will have to take the minister up on that interjection, because it is a subject that I love to talk about. She knows I love talking about it, particularly directly to the health minister herself, who I am hoping in the next couple of days is going to make a sensational announcement that rather than abandoning the Maroondah Hospital she is actually going to fund it. I did note today that those opposite came out with an announcement. They are not actually revealing the extent to which the state government is putting new funding into this, but it was said in the press release today put out by the health infrastructure minister that the federal government is putting $20 million into an emergency department for children. That sounds familiar. Where did I hear that before? Oh, that is right – in 2018 those opposite, in a press release, said there would be:

An emergency department Maroondah kids … can count on.

In 2018 they promised it and never delivered it. Then they promised a new hospital in 2022 – never delivered it. Now guess what – they are back, the same people. They have got about as much credibility as a used car salesman in Las Vegas. I tell you what, this lot opposite, they are the greatest –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I know Mr McGowan is really hitting his straps here and getting into waxing lyrical about Maroondah Hospital, but I do not know that that actually has anything to do with the bill that is before us at the moment, and I would ask that he be directed to come back to the substance of the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I ask Mr McGowan to stick to the substance of the bill, please.

Nick McGOWAN: I do try to stick to the bill, and I do try to be very disciplined – I am trying, in every respect – but when the minister goads me in such a way I can only possibly respond and defend my local community in Maroondah. It is somewhat disappointing that the point of order was taken from a fellow member that represents the same area, because I know that she genuinely cares about –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I refer to your ruling that you just made about 20 seconds ago, and I note that Mr McGowan is still not confining his comments to the substance of this bill. I would again ask that he come back to the bill but also please take note of your ruling and not disrespect the Chair.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Thank you. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Nick McGOWAN: I have almost run out of time, but for those here present today – through you, Chair – it is important to state the obvious, that in the first instance those opposite, this government, knew what they were doing in introducing a piece of legislation that either they should have had advice about or they did not take the advice about. Then when it went to court they should have been prepared for what was to follow, no matter what could have followed. We know this government’s love for lawyers, and there are any number of lawyers who could have advised them accordingly. From day one, back in April, they could have exercised themselves to either protect our state and protect our country or not.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:35): Just to recap on what this is all about, this is the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, which has a background taking us back to the issue of political donations and the framework that needs to be changed and needs to be looked at. We know that Labor legislated unconstitutional laws and, instead of fixing them properly, have engaged in a politically motivated attempt to stack the decks now in their own favour. That is what this particular bill is. It is being rushed through, and if we start with the whole issue that this is being rushed through, it has been called an ‘urgent bill’ that has to go through the Parliament. Let us have a look at what they did not consider to be urgent; things that they had to take their time to get right, like the Bail Amendment Act 2023, which came about as a result of a tragic death in custody three years prior. We had a tragic death in custody in 2020, and then they did not make the Bail Amendment Act until 2023. They certainly did not consider that to be rushed through or to be urgent. Now we have situations with bail reform. Well, let us take a look at what they have done with bail reform. It took them until 2023 to realise that they had not got it right. They passed it in October 2023 and then they had to look at commencing it in 2024. They brought out a bail amendment bill in 2025 and a further amendment bill in 2025. In fact they called that the ‘tough bail laws’ bill, which is just ridiculous given that they were not tough enough and had to be amended, and we told them that from the start. They were not considered to be very important – so important that they needed to be rushed through – and yet lives were at stake. People died, people were injured, people were harmed and people lost their lives back in 2020 under a Labor government – it took them three years. They were not so urgent, but this one is so urgent that the opposition does not even have enough time to really get its head across everything and put all the things in place that they need to to make sure that there is any genuine structure that is worth even looking at.

Let us consider not just your ‘tough bail laws’ bill that came through in August 2025 but also adult time for adult crime. Well, that is basically a situation where we have not seen the reform that we need and we are here looking at concerns – that was 2025–26. Let us consider what happened when 2000 children aged between six months to two years had to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. Well, that was not considered to be an urgent enough situation. We had to take some time to get that one right. They took time for that and in the meantime, children were in child care and people who were perpetrators were able to access those children because they did not have their systems in place. Those were not considered to be urgent enough, but this one has to be rushed through today. We have got to all stop, and in fact Labor is not going to have all its speakers because we have got to rush this one through. Well, not on our watch. We are going to take our time as best we can, because we know that this is not going to be a good law. It is not good legislation.

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: This is something that is being done to shut off money from Labor’s political opponents while continuing those rivers of gold from the CFMEU and the unions to the Labor Party. Labor has clearly been working with the crossbench to benefit themselves so they can hang on to power. Labor when they go to the polling booth are about winning at all costs. They do not care that they want to have such an advantage. They do not want democracy in this nation. They do not want justice and democracy for every Australian, every Victorian. They want to have the cash flow so that they can send out the messages that they want with all their propaganda and nobody can have a genuine alternative for the people to vote for or the money to run the campaigns that they need to vote for them or the messaging that they need to be able to overcome the propaganda. They want to make it that they can shut it all down by shutting down our democracy – that is what this is all about. This is all about a government that is in bed with unions like the CFMEU, which we know has the $15 billion at least that was just somehow funnelled out of taxpayers money on Big Build things that have been over-inflated with overtime that was unnecessary – a whole lot of lights that are on all the time and nobody hardly working and all sorts of ways to have cost delays. What do we see here? We see that this has to be rushed through because they need to advantage themselves going into this election. They know that the people out there are sick and tired of living under a Labor government that is not transparent, does not consider what integrity even is – in fact I do not even think it is in their vocabulary – and is not prepared to make it fair for every Victorian in an election.

In fact they just want to be able to have the whole advantage for themselves and for everybody else to be disadvantaged. This bill is going to be retrospective, and they went and put an operational date on it that suits them. The government argues that public statements were made following the High Court decision, but press releases are not legislation. The coalition has sought to engage with the government in good faith, but they have chosen instead to try to stitch up a deal, and we do not know what that deal is going to look like until we actually come to the time to vote.

We always need to fight this government in terms of issues of transparency and in terms of issues of accountability, because public confidence is down. This government has failed Victorians. It has failed Victorians with hard-earned taxpayers money. Let me tell you, I have visited the soup kitchens more than once, and I am telling you that there are people out there that are doing it tough, that have never done it this tough before. Just two doors down from my office there is some guy who has built his own shanty shack in order to have somewhere to live. Shame on you. And you want to have electoral decisions for electoral campaigns that are going to allow you to win and not allow anybody else, because you do not want democracy. You do not want to hear the words of the people. You do not want to –

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: On a point of order, Acting President, I cannot actually hear myself.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! Interjections should come from people in their place.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: The opposition has had to put together as fast as it could some amendments. One of the amendments will exclude trade unions from the definition of ‘associated entity’ in section 206.

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: It is not about hating workers. I have been a worker. I know what it is like to have to work hard for your money. I know what it is like to not be able to feed your family. I have got four kids. What do you think led me to go into politics in the first place? It was actually an economic situation where I was thinking to myself, ‘I’m an educated woman in a wealthy country and I can’t feed my kids.’ It is not good enough. And all I can say is this: do not talk to me. I am not against unions, but I am against union money going to advantage one party over everybody else so that we do not have democracy in this country, and we certainly will not have it in this state.

We also have a second amendment that is all about ensuring the constitutional validity of the new campaign finance regime. It will ensure that the amounts that need to be paid back to nominated entities apply to the period since the last election, which is a fair thing to do. If you are going to do things retrospectively, why do you pick certain dates? Why don’t we have it all the way through? Or we have to pick something that is fair and reasonable, not some arbitrary date that is actually going to benefit the Labor Party. Clearly it benefits them. Labor has chosen the arbitrary date of 1 July 2023. Why would they have chosen that date unless it benefited them? They told the coalition during negotiations that the July date was selected because it was after Labor received its last payment from Labor Services & Holdings. And yet we see that they are yelling in the chamber, telling us that that is not the case and that is not what this is all about.

Amendment 3 seeks to replace proposed sections 279 and 280 to require parties to disclose – that is, to tell the Victorian Electoral Commission – all amounts received from nominated entities to all parties since the 2022 election. Labor does not want transparency; the coalition does.

The amendment will open the books and shine a light on everyone’s campaign finance arrangements. If you are okay with that, then you should be voting for amendment 3. If you want to be transparent and you want to be accountable, you should be voting for our amendment 3. We are willing to commit to transparency, so why won’t the Labor Party? Well, let us look at the $15 billion with the CFMEU – and it could be more. Let us look at the fact that there are all sorts of things that have been going on. We have a fake community hospital in Cranbourne. They have just changed the definition of ‘hospital’ so that they can actually make it something else. It is an allied health service building that has somehow taken the people’s land and turned it into some sort of private –

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: On a point of order, Acting President –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Point of order, Mrs Hermans.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I am all for hospitals. My community needs a real hospital that has emergency services.

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: That is an allied health service, Mr Galea. Just because you put a sign out the front and build a surrounding that makes it look like a hospital does not make it a hospital. This is, again, how Labor cannot manage money. So do we want to give them a bill that is going to allow them to have more money for an election campaign than anybody else, with no accountability, with no proper transparency? Is that what we want to do? No, we do not. That is not democracy. I hear those on the other side use the word ‘democracy’, and every time I hear them say it, it makes me feel sick, because I know deep down they do not really want democracy. If they wanted democracy, they would have bills that are fair for everybody, and this is not fair for everybody. They talk a lot about fair: ‘Oh, all about fair. We want fair.’ no, this is not fair. This is not reasonable.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, we often get into robust debates, but those remarks are offensive. They are as offensive as they are bizarre, and I ask them to be withdrawn.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I ask the member to withdraw, please.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Fine, I will withdraw. Can I know what I am actually withdrawing? I just need to know, before I do that, what I am –

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Okay. let us get back to where we were. I am still really cheesed off with this government, still upset with the fact that they do not care about what is fair. This is not going to be fair for every Victorian. It is going to be unreasonably advantageous for Labor over every other party and over every other Victorian with their hard-earned taxes. As I said before, they are struggling to feed their families. The last thing they need to be doing is actually making life so much easier for those on the other side and the government, who are swanning around, not understanding what it is really like for every Victorian. If they did, they would care enough to have something that is fair and reasonable, that allows true democracy in this state. True democracy allows everybody to have that level playing field that allows us to have a true opposition and a true government, where we can have donations to be able to fund our campaigns, and it is done in a way that is fair and reasonable.

It is a big thing for the Labor Party to make sure that they can look after all their big union funds that they do not want to be transparent about. They do not want to have to declare and show us everything. Well, we need to be able to see what is going on in this state. And this state is constantly under the ‘I don’t recall’ mentality that was set up by their former leader Daniel Andrews, and it has continued on. They simply will not make this a democracy that every Victorian feels they can participate in and feels that their voice is heard in. They are taking that away by having legislation like this rushed through that has not being worked through with everybody, with all parties having enough time to have a say and to think it through. It is simply not good enough. It is simply not justice. It is simply not fair. I hope that we can stop some of these ridiculous things in this bill with our amendments, and I ask for everybody, please, to support our amendments.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:50): I rise to speak on the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, the latest bill that the government deems urgent. It is moments like this when I truly and genuinely realise that the values that I hold are so different from the values that the Labor Party hold. It is moments like this when I remember that to them it does not seem urgent to implement the reforms that were handed down by the stalking inquiry, regardless of the fact that every single year since that was handed down non–family violence stalking has increased. To them, regardless of the fact that violent crimes are up 74 per cent at train stations, they have not decided to come in and bring reforms for that. In fact the way they responded is by taking PSOs off 119 stations. One of the things that I keep thinking about is when there were gaps that began to come out in the working with children check system, after the most horrendous crimes were perpetrated against babies and children in this state and when the opposition were saying that we wanted to recall Parliament to deal with it, this government did not deem that as urgent and would not recall Parliament. To them it is not urgent when $15 billion is being siphoned off Big Build sites and projects, and it is not urgent to give IBAC the follow-the-money powers – apparently IBAC can wait until 2028 to have follow-the-money powers. It only seems to be urgent to Labor when their self-interest is at stake. There is a carve-out for the unions, Labor’s paymaster. That is nothing but corruption. It honestly makes me wonder why the Labor government is treating this bill as urgent while delaying the follow-the-money powers. It is dodgy, to say the least, to ram through a bill, calling it urgent when it is based on a court judgement handed down on 15 April. There has been no bill brief. There has not even been time to properly scrutinise this bill, and I do not think that that is a mistake. I believe it is by design.

This bill gives special treatment to those that give Labor money, special treatment for those that the Allan Labor government give taxpayer-funded projects to. It is a money merry-go-round. The Allan Labor government give dodgy contracts to their union mates with taxpayer dollars, and then those unions in turn donate money to their political wing, the Victorian Labor Party. That to me seems to be what is going on here. There are no two ways to look at it. These laws give unfair advantage to Labor. It is brazen, and it is a shameful attempt to rig elections in Labor’s favour. What Labor are doing here is shutting off money – funds – from their political opponents, and they are doing this by banning all big money other than the big money that is coming to them from the unions. And they are doing it six months out from the election. They are stacking the decks in their favour, and the cost of that is democracy.

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: It is so interesting, isn’t it, that people attack the man when they do not have an argument. That is all right.

Michael Galea interjected.

Renee HEATH: No, it is not. This is the argument. But anyway, you believe what you want. You are rushing through bad laws that the Premier herself said will be challenged.

Harriet Shing: Have you read the bill?

Renee HEATH: Yes. Why on earth would she say that if she had taken every step to make sure that they had gotten these laws right? Minister Shing this morning feigned outrage when during the debate she was saying that it was not rushed, that there had been plenty of opportunity to consult. I was actually going to ask about this, because she was saying all these things but failed to mention that we still were getting government amendments this morning while we were waiting in the party room to see what they were.

That is not a well-thought-out argument from the government. To send through an amendment on your own bill a few moments before the chamber is about to start does not seem like you have got everything organised. She could not explain the absence of a bill brief. She could not explain the lateness of the detail or the absence of it. What an insult to Parliament this is and what an insult to Victorians, and what an incredible insult this is to democracy. In order to maintain public trust in politics – which, by the way, is at an all-time low – there must be an even playing field when it comes to how elections are funded, but what this government is doing is once again bringing forward their extremely lopsided view of equality. Whenever they talk about equality, you can absolutely know for sure that it is not equal. There is no equality in this bill. Further proving that the Labor Party are all show, they even broke their own treaty laws. The First Peoples’ Assembly did not have time or an opportunity to comment on this bill, and to me, that just demonstrates quintessential Labor. It just demonstrates, quite frankly, staggering hypocrisy.

In the last term of Parliament, the government took $1.5 million from the CFMEU, and this bill protects their ability to still receive funds from unions. So we will bring forward some amendments to this bill. The first one is: if it is good enough to ban big business from donating unlimited money, then shouldn’t unions be banned from donating unlimited money?

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: It is so interesting, the touchiness – anyone who subscribes, or even pretends to subscribe, to the notion or the idea of fairness knows that. So our first amendment will exclude trade unions from the definition of ‘associated entity’ in section 206. The second one, and the reason that we are here, is because there was a High Court ruling that deemed the previous laws unconstitutional. The next amendment that we will bring forward ensures the constitutional validity. It ensures that money that needs to be paid back to nominated entities applies to the period since the last election. Labor have chosen a so-called random date – 1 July 2023 – when it is not random at all. They told the coalition that the date was selected because it was after the Labor Party received its last payment from Labor Services & Holdings. If this is the case, you are flirting extremely closely with the line of corruption; it is just about as close as it gets. If they have chosen a date despite the Solicitor-General giving advice that it must apply to the entire election period, and if that advice has been ignored, that could undermine the validity of this whole process.

The last amendment that we are bringing forward is one about transparency. It seeks to replace proposed sections 279 and 280, which will require parties to disclose to the Victorian Electoral Commission all amounts received from nominated entities since 2022. This will shine a light on exactly what has happened and where money has been coming from. It will shine a light on everybody’s financial campaign arrangements. We, the coalition, have sought to engage in good faith, but of course the government has been too busy doing deals to return that favour. Here we support transparency, we support accountability, and we want Victorians to have confidence in Victoria’s electoral system. What this bill does is undermine every bit of that. This bill stacks the decks in Labor’s favour, and it does not even hide the intention to do that for Labor and its union mates. I just think six months out from an election it is just staggering that we get something put forward like this that is so blatantly unfair.

Just before I close, I want to just share something that has been a genuine observation of mine. This is my first term in this Parliament. It has been a steep learning curve. I have sat in here and I have observed so many things. It is a whole new environment. It is my honest belief that when that $15 billion of corruption was uncovered something changed in my government colleagues.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Renee HEATH: This is my honest belief, that when that news was reported –

Harriet Shing interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order!

Members interjecting.

Renee HEATH: I will wait for Ms Shing to finish. Still going – I am just waiting. I do not want to talk over the top of Minister Shing. Are you finished or do you want more time?

This is my honest belief. This was what I was saying: something changed when there was all that corruption uncovered. Something changed, particularly in some members of the government. It was like it was so bad that the party that they believed in had failed the state so badly. I believe something changed, because I have the honest belief that people come to this Parliament, regardless of which party they are in, because they want to make this state a better place. I believe that people come here because they believe in fairness and they want people to rise out of the situation they are in, whether that is poverty or whether that is disadvantage, but there are different ways of getting there. But I honestly feel that I saw a change in Labor members when this was uncovered, because all of a sudden they thought, ‘I actually can’t honestly argue this anymore.’ Something changed, and since then there has been a disconnect.

There needs to be integrity restored to this Parliament. Every one of us has to rise up to a better standard – and I think better than what we have just seen here – because one of the biggest responsibilities anyone can have is to hold the purse strings of the taxpayers of Victoria. We have a responsibility to make sure that their hard work and what they contribute is worth something. That is why I believe that there is no way we could possibly support a bill that so blatantly tips the scales. I am looking forward to what we talk about in committee, because there are some serious questions that have to be asked. But regardless, I hope that the crossbench at least support the amendments that we are putting forward so we can begin to, bit by bit, restore integrity to this state. We will be opposing this bill.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:03): In the last 3½ years we have had in this session of the Parliament, we have heard some debates that have been pretty wideranging and pretty wild, but I think it is fair to say that there have been few that have been divorced from reality as much as some of the contributions that we have heard from the other side today. They appear to be living in an alternate reality, and they appear to be debating a set of arrangements that do not exist and are not proposed. I do not know whether their contributions are deliberate obfuscations of the truth or whether they just do not understand how the laws work and they just do not understand how the bill proposed would enact a replacement regime. It may well be the latter. It could well be the former. But whatever it is, it amounts to a series of contributions all day that simply misrepresent or do not understand what has existed and what is being proposed.

I think part of it is probably driven by the fact that members of the Liberal Party appear to have a Pavlovian response whenever someone mentions the words ‘trade union’.

I do not know whether they get taught it in their meetings or whether it is something they pick up from spending all of their time together, but every time anyone remotely says ‘trade union’ they immediately all start spouting the same things. We have heard it repeatedly, speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker on the other side using the same language, the same claims about what the trade union movement does. But what it comes down to and what this debate and what the amendments that have been circulated by the Liberal Party, by Mr Mulholland, in this debate demonstrate is that fundamentally the Liberal Party are trying yet again to silence trade unions from participating in meaningful debate. They want to silence, prevent, trade unions from being able to advocate on behalf of workers in this state. I think what it shows and what it gives you a glimpse of is a window into the minds of the Liberal Party – that whatever opportunity they get, whatever chance they get to talk about trade unions, it will be to try and silence them and shut them down, because the Liberal Party would prefer a world where workers were not represented, where workers had no-one standing up for their industrial interests, where workers had no-one standing up for their political interests, and they will take every opportunity that they have available to them to make sure that workers do not get a voice. They are doing it today – they have said it all afternoon – and it will be exactly the same thing that motivates everything that they do should they ever get a chance to form government in this state again, because what we have seen today is that nothing motivates the Liberal Party more than having the opportunity to denigrate workers and to denigrate the trade union movement. The amendments they are moving to this bill seek to silence them. That is what the Liberal Party are trying to do with their amendments to this bill.

What they are also trying to do through the way that they have tried to prevent this bill coming forward, the way that they have tried to prevent debate today on this legislation, is to perpetuate a black hole in electoral accountability, in disclosure, in transparency about our democracy that has existed since the High Court struck down parts of the Electoral Act 2002 here in Victoria in April. This bill, an urgent bill, is designed to make sure that Victoria and Victoria’s democracy have electoral funding, transparency and disclosure laws to support our democratic system of government. This bill is about transparency. This bill is about accountability. It is about ensuring that political donations are visible to the community. The Liberal Party may want to hide in the shadows. They may want to put a cloak of anonymity over their donors. The Labor Party, the government, wants to make sure that the people know who is putting money into election campaigns in the state of Victoria. We want to make sure that there are laws that exist to regulate political donations and to ensure transparency of our system. The Liberal Party, as they demonstrated today, are against that transparency. They are against that accountability. This bill is all about upholding public confidence in our electoral system and reducing undue influence that can and might exist. For example, at the moment, since the High Court in mid-April struck down parts of our previous Electoral Act, it has allowed unfettered donations. There is no ban on foreign actors donating to Victorian political parties and trying to influence Victorian democracy. That may be a scenario that the Liberal Party wants to perpetuate, because we know that the Liberal Party was the recipient of the largest ever overseas donation in Australian political history.

Maybe they are very happy for this black hole of transparency to continue, but we are not. We want to make sure that there are rules in place that are fair and transparent and require the disclosure of donations that limit the ability of individuals and corporations to make donations for campaigning purposes here in the state of Victoria and ban foreigners from interfering in our elections. That is what this bill does.

Following the High Court’s decision in Hopper and the state of Victoria there has been no lawful scheme governing how political money is raised and disclosed. This bill reintroduces caps on political donations, bans foreign donations, bans anonymous donations above a $1250 limit and requires the use of state campaign accounts to segregate funds between administrative purposes and campaigning purposes – a fact that all the speakers that have spoken so far seem to be politically ignorant of. But it is actually quite important, because the electoral funding regime that we had up to April and as proposed by this bill does make a distinction between funds that are raised and provided for the administration of a political party and funds that are raised for the campaigning for election of candidates representing a political party. That distinction is pretty important, and the Liberal speakers in this debate do not seem to have recognised that difference. We have, by interjection, tried to point it out repeatedly, but their I think wilful misrepresentation of the law that had existed and that we would propose to exist again is all about serving their interests of denigrating particularly the trade union movement, because we know they are not really interested in the truth. The Liberal Party are not really interested in articulating the truth.

What they are really interested in is perpetuating distrust, perpetuating and seeding misinformation about what exists. They are taking lessons, I think it is pretty obvious, from their friends in the United States and appear to be trying to import that kind of Republican–Trumpian political rhetoric into Victoria. We have seen it a little bit in the speeches in the course of this debate. We had yesterday in the conversation in the Assembly the member for Caulfield, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, talk about how this was an attempt to steal an election. They are words taken from the Donald Trump playbook. The Liberal Party are trying to import that rhetoric and import that style of politics into Victoria, and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so. That sort of language erodes our democracy. But it was not just once that it happened yesterday. We had yesterday the member for Malvern parroting Trump’s conspiracies about former President Biden in there. They are importing their rhetoric; they are importing their conspiracy theories. We have had speaker after speaker after speaker in here talking about how ensuring fairness and transparency and accountability for our electoral system would somehow mean that it was rigged, when the opposite is the case. These laws are about fixing our system so that it is transparent and there is accountability and the same laws apply across the board.

If we think that they have got a Pavlovian response to the concept of trade unionism, what we have seen is a wilful disregard of the facts, particularly when it comes to what has been happening with the CFMEU, because I think every single speaker has talked about how this bill is about ensuring that the CFMEU can continue to donate to the Labor Party. The facts are that under federal law the CFMEU is prohibited from being affiliated with the Labor Party or any other political party or making any other forms of affiliation.

The Fair Work Commission has made it very clear to the administrators of the CFMEU that they are not allowed to make any form of affiliation, payment or donation. Perhaps the Liberal Party are deliberately misleading when they talk about that, or perhaps they just do not know, but either way they are wrong and people should not believe a word that they say.

What this bill will do is set up a new replacement regime that allows regulation of political donations and caps, requires transparency and establishes regimes so that funding for the administration of political parties is set up in one account and funding for political campaigns is set up in another. I am sure that, particularly on the administration side, it will still facilitate the Liberal Party paying the legal bills as they sue each other in court. I do not think that they need to be worried about this bill stopping them paying their lawyers because they cannot stop suing each other. I think members of the administrative committee are still suing the Liberal Party. Nothing in this legislation is going to stop them from suing each other. They do not need to worry about that. The Liberal Party will be able to continue the vendetta they have got against themselves in the courts in the state of Victoria right now. They can go on their merry way.

This bill is all about ensuring that Victoria’s system of democracy has a set of electoral funding, disclosure and transparency rules that ensure that there is no influence of foreign money in our politics and no influence of dark money in our politics. All we see from the Liberal Party again and again and again is either a deliberate obfuscation of the truth or a complete misunderstanding about how these laws work. If the Liberal Party had their way, they would have no rules about who could donate in the state of Victoria, because clearly what they want is for foreign actors and foreign interests to be able to try and influence the Victorian electoral system. They want the capacity for unlimited donations for political purposes, for campaigning purposes. What they have demonstrated in the course of the debate today is that they have got no understanding about how our electoral funding laws used to work or would work under the amendments being proposed today. The only party that wants to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in our system is Labor.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:18): It is good to be speaking today on this very important bill that is before us. Indeed, in the situation that the state finds itself in with regard to electoral donation laws, there has been a very well known recent decision by the High Court which was handed down on 15 April this year, and in the seven or so weeks since that time this government has been working very earnestly to ensure that the gaps – or the chasms – that have opened as a result of this decision can be rectified and, importantly, can be rectified before the state election later this year. Victorians for a very long time have been advocating for political donation laws that are fair, that limit the undue influence of major outside players and that ensure that all of us as democrats in this Parliament are here to represent the voice of the people. I will not go into exhaustive detail on the previous laws and the establishment of them, but indeed at the time they were landmark reforms that had to be fought very, very hard for. Indeed genuine cross-party work was undertaken and adjustments were made on the basis of advice from parties from the crossbench and indeed on the advice of the coalition as well.

That work was done. Irrespective of the fact that the coalition ended up voting against those laws too, that work was done across the chambers to ensure genuine buy-in from all quarters. Here again, in the past seven weeks, that work has continued, whether it has been with opposition colleagues or crossbench colleagues. I know the Special Minister of State and others in government have been working very earnestly to ensure that we can get a robust set of legislation before this Parliament in a fast manner. Seven weeks is a very short period of time to be bringing this all back into place, but it is very important that we do so, and it is important that we do so properly. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this chamber tonight on these reforms.

We have had some interesting commentary from members across the aisle today, and I have had the fortune or misfortune of listening to a number of them. It is very hard to pinpoint any purpose behind what can only be described as completely wilful logical illiteracy or logical blindness that has been applied by some members. We have had some members grandstand and accuse the government of failing to consult with the opposition or discuss any such changes with them, which is simply and blatantly not true, and it is in fact contradicted by the statements of members, including Mr Newbury and others in the other place. Those consultations and those discussions have been occurring right across the Parliament. I believe even one earlier speaker from the other side was complaining that no-one was spoken to, misrepresenting the situation to claim that the Liberal Party had not been spoken to, only to then go on and refer to something that was allegedly said in discussions on this issue that happened between the government and the Liberal Party. It is something quite remarkable to come into this place and say both that no discussions had happened and then that ‘In those discussions this was said.’

Many people brought up many unrelated matters, but one of the speakers attacked the government most earnestly for refusing to act on this particular piece of policy, never mind the fact that Jess Wilson had herself ruled out acting on that piece of policy, in exactly the same way that the government did, just a few days ago in a radio interview. Whether it is wilful ideological blindness or whether it is just not bothering to engage or dive into the substance of the matters before us, we did see a very disturbing pattern from Liberal Party members – not all, I will make the point to emphasise, but some – who are prepared to launch into outrageous attacks on other members, government members and crossbench members, and accuse them of being fundamentally undemocratic.

We have many, many robust debates in this place. It is what makes it so special. Certainly we are blessed to be in the red chamber of this building, where we do get to have vigorous, feisty and fiery debates, but we also negotiate, we also talk and we also collaborate, because we know that this chamber represents a very big diversity of Victorians’ views. Through us coming together in our weird mix of people that we are, we get to – I apologise for looking at you while I said ‘weird mix of people’, Mr Bourman; it was not necessarily meant in your direction, but more for all of us as a whole, but it certainly includes you – represent very different parts of the Victorian community. The very magic and the very essence of us being in this place are that we are here to work, talk, negotiate, argue, yell and come to some sort of conclusion in the interests of the people who elected us. That is what we are here for. We often, usually, have very different ideas on how that is done. That is the point of this place.

To say that the entire other side is undemocratic is deeply unserious. It is also deeply dangerous. In reflecting on the remarks by my colleague Mr Batchelor, it is a trend that we have seen overseas as well in places such as Europe, including the UK.

Most egregiously we see it in the United States, where from an outsider’s perspective – I do not claim to be an expert – they have gone from being one country united by their love for their country to being two different countries fundamentally at war with each other, who think because of the colour of the party you vote for you are evil and everything you stand for I detest. That is not where we want to be in this country. There are many, many decent Victorians who vote in many different ways, ways I might not like, but that is the whole point: we are all Victorians first, we are all Australians first. To bring that into this place, or indeed into the other place, like just yesterday when a senior Liberal member accused the government of rigging an election, accused us of ‘stealing an election’, taking those words straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, is corrosive to our democracy. It does not matter if they are just trying to chase votes and stop them from going to One Nation – it does not matter. Those are the sacred cows for politicians as guardians of our state’s democracy and as the people entrusted to be here. To act in such bad faith damages all of us and damages Victoria.

Victorians have every right to feel confident in our system of politics and in our system of government. Many times they feel let down by politicians and the political system. Every single one of us in this place, I certainly hope and trust, came into this place to make a positive difference for Victorians. I regularly speak in this chamber about the many things that I am excited to do in my community, in my fields of passion or whatever else and on different policy issues. We have robust debates – we had them yesterday and we had them on Tuesday. We all come in with those perspectives. On this side we have a very positive story to tell when it comes to those investments we are making.

Acknowledging that this is wildly outside the scope of this bill, but it was raised already by a colleague across the chamber attacking a community hospital in my electorate, a community hospital that is already servicing my electorate, that is already treating people with allied and other health issues so that they do not need to go to a larger hospital or a larger medical service and they can get that care closer to home, in doing so taking pressure off a larger hospital. That community facility will soon be very much expanded with the urgent care clinic funded in this budget. Those are the things that we get excited about, certainly on this side of the chamber – the health care; the bus routes; the new schools; the policies and changes making retail workers’ workplaces safer; bringing in better protections for people going through the criminal justice system, especially victims; supporting children in care, providing the best start for young children. Those are the things that excite those of us on this side of the chamber. Whatever it is that we want to see our state become, none of that is served by the sort of base-level attacks that we have seen. It is not about attacking the other side when it comes to making those sorts of claims: it is an attack on Victorian democracy.

Victorians should have every right to hold us to a high standard, and they also have every right to have confidence in the system that we have – that includes having donation laws that are accountable and transparent. As a result of the High Court removing section 12 of the act, we are currently in a state where we have a gaping chasm where once we had protections, protections that were brought in by a Labor government. What we have today, in an urgent sense, is an opportunity to rectify that, to once again restore accountability, transparency, and yes, caps on donations that will mean one or two people cannot have a vastly undue influence on our elections. The reforms in this bill will ensure that we have a system that is accountable and transparent and indeed will restore us in many ways to a system that was in place, but in a way that ensures continued compliance with the parameters that the High Court has outlined for us.

It will, as my colleague Mr Batchelor said, ensure the nominated entities will continue as they are. In the case of Vapold, it means that the Liberal Party will still be able to sue each other into oblivion as their hearts may desire. That does not change. What does change is that we will return to a system where we have peace of mind.

It is also important that I pick up on the earlier remarks as well, because we have seen repeated derogatory attacks made on the broader trade union movement today. That is an attack on working nurses and working police officers, on retail workers, on truck drivers, on everyday people who expect a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, who contribute their wages to their families and to local economies and who support unions so that they can have their interests represented in a political movement. To suggest that those everyday working Victorians – the shop assistant at Woolies, the bus driver at Ventura – should not have their voices counted through the unions that they choose to join would indeed also be an affront to democracy. It is why the amendments put forward by those opposite cannot and should not be supported. When you conflate donations with affiliation fees, and when you talk about funding from unions that are not even affiliated with the Labor Party as part of some scare campaign, you are not doing yourselves any credit and you are not making yourselves look serious. Coming into this place and proudly boasting ‘I used to be a worker’ – great, good for you. Millions of Victorians are workers and they are proud of the work that they do, and they deserve a political system that represents them.

Given the outrageous attacks on unions, it is probably appropriate to talk about some of the many achievements that unions have brought to working Victorians’ lives. We could talk about the Victorian Labour Hire Authority. We could talk about reforms and improvements over decades to WorkSafe. We could talk about making Easter Sunday a public holiday in this state, which the previous government completely failed to do.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, I am just wondering what Easter Sunday has to do with the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): There is no point of order. I ask Mr Galea to continue for the last 18 seconds.

Michael GALEA: I am surprised that you of all people, Mr Mulholland, would attack workers getting an important Christian holiday off. I am disappointed to hear that. In concluding my remarks, this is an important bill, and it deserves to be supported by this house tonight.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:33): The opposition’s point of order just shows how ridiculous their position is on this whole thing. I think we have got every single member in this chamber, every party, coming and voting to support this legislation, yet the Liberals stand opposed.

Michael Galea: And the Nationals.

Tom McINTOSH: And the Nationals. I forgot about their junior partner, the Nationals, whom we deeply respect. I think they might be the lead partner; I should take my words back. We know that over the last 10 to 15 years of federal politics it has been the Nationals that have wagged the dog from Queensland. The Nationals have ruled the roost, so I apologise to the Nationals over there.

It is breathtaking that we have legislation here to ensure our democratic processes in Victoria and the Liberals are opposed. I do not know how many times I have stood in this place talking about values. When you can identify your values, then you can get on with policies that deliver good outcomes. The problem for the Liberals – as I think we have heard from a few people on this side today – is they do not know what they stand for, because they do not spend time understanding their shared values. I think the word ‘collectivism’ would send them into hyperbole or something.

I think when they were studying university student politics together, they were taught the word ‘collectivism’ was evil and wrong. But they cannot agree on their values because they do not like each other. We have seen a rotation of leaders, whether it is in this chamber, whether it is in their leadership positions, because they pick each other off one by one. And that is what they would like Victorian workers to have to do. They would like Victorian workers to have to compete against each other for the lowest common denominator – wages at work, conditions at work and security of employment – because that is what drives them, driving down Victorians’ conditions. That is why you have heard throughout their contributions today – even this morning, when we were simply debating whether or not this important legislation should be heard today – that most of their language is anti-union, anti-worker. That has been the focus. They were going on at full tilt, yelling at the room for no reason, when we were simply here debating whether we would debate the bill, and away they went. You can only imagine: if the Liberals had their way, you would not have licences in place, you would not have regulated industries, you would not have proper training pathways. Whether it is in aged care, whether it is getting someone around to do some work at home or whether it is in a whole variety of aspects of life, as consumers it would just be going out and picking someone out of the trading post and hoping they are going to do a good job. This side is committed to ensuring that we train people up from the start – get people trained and then make sure they are licensed and there is proper, appropriate regulation in place so the consumers know they are going to get a good product. All this anti-union, anti-worker language that has floated around what is actually really good legislation for our democracy today has been bizarre.

I think it is fantastic that a group of neighbours – two or three people – could get together and say, ‘You know what, we’re going to put some money into a jar every week,’ and they can match a corporate donation over the term of the year or four years. Isn’t that really good? Don’t we want more people to be able to actively participate in democracy? I would have thought that is a good thing, rather than having a number of big players who can have a maximum amount of input and influence. We know the Liberals want that. We know that is their MO and has been since they were a functional party probably 40 or 50 years ago. But I think it is really good that we are saying to people, ‘If there’s a donation, we’re going to know who it’s come from.’ Once it is over $1250, we are going to know who that donation has come from, and people can find that information. Over the term of a cycle it is going to be capped at $7500, so we know that certain organisations and corporates will not have bigger influence than others. It just keeps punters up in the same sort of ballpark. It just makes complete sense.

The ban on foreign donations – why on earth would you be against a ban on foreign donations? We heard Mr Limbrick here this morning. Mr Limbrick made a great contribution just outlining the hypocrisy. This sort of stuff all makes so little sense. It is because you would not come to the table to discuss it. It is the typical Liberals unwilling to come to the table, because, you know what, there is no-one to negotiate with, because what are you? You are 31 people in the Parliament. There are 31 individuals on that side, and they cannot come to the table and cannot negotiate as a group. We had a group from Gippsland in today, and I was talking about the importance of advocacy and advocating for your community. I was saying that it is important to be able to think strategically, to be able to identify what it is that you want to achieve to improve quality of life. It is that ability to identify that and then go and advocate, and advocate professionally.

Those are things that the Liberal Party lacks. It is that strategic vision and it is the professionalism. You can see in Liberal branches around the country that lack of professionalism. The fact is that you are opposing good legislation because of the lack of professionalism within your own organisation. I think stemming from that is this ‘just say no’ mentality. You are just saying no for the sake of saying no because you did not want to sit down and have the conversation, and that is just typical of so many policies. For so many policies, you just want to strike things off. I mean, the greatest example was just last week. We just had our committee and we tabled the report, but the Liberals had to table a minority report because they cannot work alongside others. That stems from them being unable to work with themselves.

Coming back to the banning of foreign donations, banning foreign donations just makes sense. We do not want foreign money in our elections – we do not want it in our elections. Capping the donations at $7500, as I said, enables a level playing field, and having the enforcement and compliance with the prescribed penalties is really important. It gives voters confidence and it just ensures that these rules are followed, because it is critically important. The other aspect is about taking a lot of the money out of the system from donations – the money that political parties and candidates or elected representatives can get upon election – which is a good thing. It is a good thing in our democracy and far better than what the Liberals would have, which would just be a complete and utter free-for-all.

I have talked to the caps on political donations. I have talked to the ban on foreign donations. I have talked to the anonymous donations equal to or above $1250. State campaign accounts will be used to segregate funds and assist with Victorian Electoral Commission Oversight. I talked about the enforcement and compliance mechanisms and the penalties that will be applied to ensure that that occurs, because it is vital that all of us have faith in our democracy and know where money comes from. At the moment, if the Liberals had their way, people would not know. The comments yesterday from the member for Caulfield in the other place, trying to talk about stealing an election and that sort of Trumpian language, just shows where the Liberals’ minds have been for a long time. All of a sudden you are looking in your rear-view mirror and there are others coming to take the space with the environment that you have created. Safeguarding transparency and integrity in the system, the political donation disclosure and reporting regime will inform the public about the financial dealings of registered political parties, independent candidates and others involved in the electoral process. It will make state funding available to the eligible electoral participants, including new entrants, as I said, to limit that influence of private donations in the political process. Prescribed reporting and disclosure obligations to the VEC – that will be clearly identified and empower the VEC to regulate compliance with the proposed regime. It will prescribe offences and penalties relating to noncompliance, including introducing criminal liability for failing to disclose and return political donations that are prohibited or above the old general cap.

It will make necessary consequential amendments to the Electoral Amendment Act 2026 and the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026. The bill will prescribe a general cap on political donations of $7500 made from the same source for each four-year election period, with an interim general cap of $5030 applying for the 2026 election period, and prescribe the election period for the 2026 November state election as the period commencing from 15 April to 28 November for the purposes of the donations cap. It will prohibit all foreign donations and set a cap on anonymous donations of $1250 and prescribe the small contributions amount as a political donation that is equal to or less than $100 or a higher amount provided in the regulations without subjecting this amount to indexation. These amounts are to be disregarded in determining whether the general cap or the disclosure threshold has been met, requiring real-time disclosure of donations and loans equal to $1250 and above and submissions of annual returns to the VEC. It will prescribe civil penalties and offences for noncompliance under the act and empower the VEC to regulate compliance with the proposed regime. It will require a state campaign account to be established by all electoral participants receiving political donations for state elections and public funding payments or incurring political expenditure, and state campaign accounts must be maintained in Australian dollars and associated reporting requirements to the VEC must be followed and provide state funding to eligible electoral participants, including increasing the current index rate of administrative funding for eligible registered political parties and independent elected members and the establishment of a new dedicated funding stream for new entrants. It will impose criminal liability on legacy registered political parties failing to return their nominated entities before the 2026 state election, with any funds received between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026.

The bill will reintroduce state funding and will also increase administrative expenditure funding, with benefits flowing to independents and smaller parties. Administrative expenditure funding is available to registered political parties based on the number of members they have in Parliament, up to a maximum of 45 members, which will probably never be a problem for the coalition. Its increases in administrative expenditure funding are in recognition of the general running costs and standard operation of elected members.

A member interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: I thought that was a good zinger.

It includes costs related to auditing returns and statements and managing funding and disclosure obligations under the act. It cannot be used for political or electoral expenditure. The rates will increase by 21 per cent for the first elected member and independents, 15 per cent for the second elected member and 26 per cent for the third to 45th member. Public funding will be reinstated to elected members and recontesting candidates who receive 4 per cent of the first-preference votes at the previous election.

I am going to leave my contribution there, but I will just finish by saying is nothing short of a disgrace that the coalition are not supporting this legislation, and it is true to form of decades of them looking for big money in politics.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:48): I also rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026, and we have been debating this bill for the better part of the day today. Before I move on to some comments that other people have spoken about in here today, I just want to underscore my contribution by starting with this comment: in Australian political history, the single largest private foreign political donation to the Liberal Party came from the British billionaire and Conservative Party peer Lord Michael Ashcroft. In September 2004, just before the federal election, the Australian Electoral Commission recorded that Lord Ashcroft, who listed his address as the House of Lords, Westminster, London, donated $1 million to the Liberal Party. At the time, it was the largest single private donation from an individual in Australian political history. So, there you go: this is why we need electoral donation reform and legislation that protects who is actually donating to political parties, because what we have talked about in here today, and what is very important, is that there does need to be transparency about who is donating to political parties, for obvious reasons.

There are lots of organisations or entities who have an interest in political outcomes, and we only have to look to America to see the sorts of organisations over there. I am going to get to America and Trump in a minute, and I know a number of my colleagues have touched on this as well. But look at what happens with the NRA over there, the National Rifle Association, and who they donate to. There needs to be transparency. People want to know who is donating to political parties because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. The bottom line is people are rightfully then making a conclusion that if somebody is making a donation like Lord Ashcroft did to the Liberal Party in the order of a million dollars, he may have an interest in the outcome, for example, or the Liberal Party at that time was going to deliver an outcome to that person that for whatever reason was favourable to them. This is why it is important that we have transparency in political donations, so that whoever is donating, there is transparency about it.

Again, we see today, and Mr McIntosh commented on this, that those opposite are going to vote against this bill. I have listened to the debate all day and the contributions from those opposite. I have heard lots of contributions that actually have nothing to do with this bill but a lot about their complete excitement – their utter excitement, they cannot contain themselves; they are measuring the curtains as we stand here right now – about how they think they are going to win. But what I have heard is nothing more than nasty attacking of government members and ministers and just a constant stream of ‘You guys are hopeless, you’re corrupt’ – all the usual tropes that get brought out – but very little on the substance of this bill and certainly what their proposal or policy is. What is their proposal or policy to do anything about this? Oh, wait, there is not one, because we know they do not want electoral reform and controls or transparency for the reason I just mentioned. Let me mention it again: the largest donation to the Liberal Party in political history was by Lord Ashcroft of the House of Lords – a million dollars to you guys over there on the opposition benches. No wonder you do not want to vote for this bill, and no wonder you do not want political transparency in donation reform, because it would be a very interesting trail of breadcrumbs, wouldn’t it, about who is donating and what they are donating. It would be a very interesting trail of breadcrumbs, absolutely.

We talk about funding bodies. Well, we can talk about what the Liberal Party does with the Cormack Foundation. But let us have a little look at the National Party for a moment. The National Party’s funding network seems to be slightly different and operates a little bit less centrally, but they have the National Building Foundation. Apparently this operates at a federal and New South Wales level as a primary vehicle for funneling commercial revenue investments and targeted contributions back into the party’s campaign apparatus. Isn’t that very interesting? Let us talk about the National Club, another longstanding fundraising entity used by the party to host corporate networking events and manage direct political donations. And then there are state-specific foundations. There is a very interesting and sophisticated network of ways that those opposite have to funnel political donations into their parties, and that is why they are voting against this bill. They do not want that. They do not want transparency. They want to hide where the dark money comes from.

At least I am making my contribution on the substance of the bill, about political donations. Over there for the whole day we have heard about everything other than what is in the bill. The usual tropes have come out – just a whole lot of absolute garbage – and it just shows that they could not manage anything. They could not govern, because they do not know how to. All they know how to do is be angry. It is just constant anger and rhetoric that comes from over there.

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Even as I am speaking I am getting yelled at from across the chamber, when I sat in silence today and listened to the contributions without yelling. So again, those opposite cannot handle any contribution that actually shines a light on them and how absolutely woeful they would be if they were ever given the gift of government.

The other thing I just want to comment on in terms of this bill – and this is lost on those opposite, because like I said, they are measuring the curtains; they think they are going to be in here in government – is this. Our electoral landscape is changing. If they have not noticed, there are lots of different political parties that are being registered and there will be lots of different political parties that will be running at the next election. The two-party system is actually coming to an end. I do not know whether you have realised it over there, but the fact is a lot of you will not be here because there will be a lot of One Nation seats over on that side of the aisle. There will be a lot of One Nation seats. The point is the two-party system is in decline, and we will see – whether they like it or not – lots of other parties coming in here. Look at the diversity we already have on the crossbench. The crossbench is getting bigger. We have the Greens, we have One Nation and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. There is going to be more of that – there is going to be absolutely more of that. That is why it absolutely makes sense to make sure that we have transparency in political donations.

I was actually just reading in the paper today – I did not get a full chance to read it, but I think it was in the Age – an article where Pauline Hanson was actually commenting and saying she had to fight off absolute weirdos and zealots coming into her party. I look at that statement and I think, wow, that just tells you – but if you are going to dog-whistle to extremists, you are going to get them knocking at your door. Nevertheless, what this shows is that people are viewing this as an opportunity to infiltrate politics and come into this place to get the particular outcomes that they want. That is why I keep repeating myself – we need to make sure that there is transparency in political donations. You only have to look at what the member for Caulfield was saying yesterday in the other place. He said:

This government should not be allowed to rig an election by taking union money to ensure that they can steal an election come November.

That is a direct quote of Trumpian language, and I wonder why the Liberal Party and its members are watching Trumpian politics and thinking that it is appropriate to make those comments here in Australia – that somehow that emboldens them and that somehow that is going to make people vote for them. It is actually a really weird and alternative universe that they must be living in, because people in Australia reject that kind of extremism. People here in Australia are mainstream, moderate people and they are centrists. Whether we like it or not, most people sit in the centre of the political spectrum. There are people who have different and diverse views, whether it is the far left, the left or the far right and everything in between. But the bottom line is when you are in this place making comments like that, which dog-whistle to extremists, that is always very, very concerning.

Again I go back to the point about why we need these sorts of reforms. The High Court case – yes, we have talked about that and the consequences of that decision, Hopper v Victoria. The decision was handed down on 15 April. Yes, it has put everything into a state of flux. But that is why we are doing this. That is why this is being treated as an urgent bill, because we have an election coming and Victorians want to know who is making donations to political parties. It is important, and those opposite will dismiss it. Again, the sum of the debate today that I have heard over there is all just about directing anger and criticism at the government, but I have heard nothing about what they would do, if they were ever in government, about this issue. There has been no policy response on this issue at all other than just complete rhetoric and anger. I did get the wind-up from the whip before I started my contribution. I think I will leave it there. I commend the bill to the house.

 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) (17:58): I want to thank all members for their contributions today. It has been a fascinating debate to follow, and I thank in particular the government members, who were a bit of a tonic at the end of the day as we heard them bring things back to what we are actually here about. And what we are here about is ensuring that Victoria’s elections are decided by Victorians, not by those who have the deepest pockets. That is what this bill will deliver. When the High Court struck down Victoria’s electoral integrity laws in April, it left our state exposed, with no limits, no disclosure and no oversight – an open door for dark money to flood into political campaigns. And we acted on the same day. We put every political participant on notice that every dollar raised from 15 April would be accounted for, and this bill makes good on that commitment. The Premier was unambiguous. She said:

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

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

Our legislation will make sure that every party and candidate is accountable for every dollar that they receive from this day forward, and that is why we are so determined to get this bill through.

I want to thank members of the Greens and the crossbench for recognising the urgency of this bill and the need to restore a regime for the disclosure of political donations. Their input has been vital to ensuring that we can move speedily but also to seeing that we have a comprehensive expert review of the act after the next state election. Integrity experts have also welcomed the fact that this bill will address the immediate problem of getting transparency back into our donation system. I am pleased that Transparency International Australia’s chief executive officer Clancy Moore welcomed the bill and the increase in public funding, and I am also glad to acknowledge that Catherine Williams of the Centre for Public Integrity said that the bill responds to the pressing issues of needing a disclosure system following the High Court decision. We have heeded the calls for a comprehensive expert review of the act after the election. There has been a lot of misinformation in the chamber today about this bill. It is very important to clear that up. That misinformation has been spread by those opposite, those who oppose the bill and very wealthy people, frankly, who want to give uncapped amounts to their own candidates.

There is no loophole in the bill for associated entities and third-party campaigners. Associated entities such as think tanks and trade unions and third-party campaigners are bound by the general donation cap, which we will strike at $7500 after the November election and $5030 between 15 April and 28 November this year. That means they cannot make uncapped political donations. Associated entities are permitted to pay subscriptions or affiliation fees to registered political parties, and that has been the case since 2018 and it is not specific to Labor. Other parties have associated entities, and it is a matter for those parties whether their associated entities pay such fees. I would like to also highlight that those affiliation fees cannot be paid into parties’ state campaign accounts and used for political campaigning; they can only be used for administrative expenses. There has been a lot of talk in here today about trade unions and their links to Labor. It is important to note that the entities connected to the Liberal Party have not been spoken about much at all today. The hypocrisy has been quite breathtaking, I have got to say. We have the big end of town – we have the Cormack Foundation with $90 million and with $40 million paid into their accounts, respectively – but somehow they want to take issue with working people through their trade unions participating in the political process. It is quite staggering. What this does show is the true colours of those opposite and their anti-union contempt for the rights of working people to participate fully in the political process, and they need to be called out for that.

Clause 12 of the bill includes a broad-ranging post-election review of the entire act by an expert panel. To ensure that review is informed by experts the bill provides that the review must not include more than one former member of the Council or the Assembly. After productive and constructive discussions with the Greens and others, we recognise that this should be amended to include ‘or a former member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or the Parliament of another state or territory’, and I ask that that particular amendment in my name be circulated now.

I will keep going while that is being distributed. As I said, there has also been a lot of misinformation about the bill put out in the second-reading debate today and yesterday in the other place. The coalition has circulated amendments to change the date regarding the refund mechanism in section 277 introduced by the bill. This currently provides an obligation in the bill on political parties to return money transferred from a nominated entity to a political party between 1 July 2023 and 14 April 2026 that was in a party’s state campaign account on 15 April 2026.

Those opposite have said there is something nefarious about this date of 1 July 2023, and a lot of accusations have been made, completely unfounded. In the interests of demonstrating that this is not the case, we are moving an amendment to provide that the specified period in the section commences from the day after the 2018 election. Accordingly, this will amend section 277(3)(a) to change the beginning of the specified period from 1 July 2023 to 25 November 2018. I ask that my amendments be circulated.

If I can talk now about the general donations cap, the bill provides that a higher amount can be prescribed for the general cap by regulations. Concerns have been raised with the government about the use of this regulation-making power and whether the government would seek to increase the general cap. We have no plans to increase the general donations cap after exhaustive negotiations to come up with a cap that everybody can live with – well, most people. Nonetheless, in the interests of assuaging any concerns, we will move amendments to amend the definition of ‘general cap’ in section 206(1), remove the ability to prescribe a higher amount and make any consequential changes, including to the table in section 267 and to section 288(1)(b) to remove the ability to prescribe a higher amount for the election period for the 2026 general election. I think those amendments are included in the amendments that have already been circulated.

This bill caps donations, it bans foreign money and it requires full, real-time transparency so no-one can buy an unfair advantage at the ballot box. There is a $7500 cap on political donations over four years – no more stacking funds from big vested interests – and an interim cap of $5030 for the 2026 election period, noting that that is a shorter timeframe. All donations are to be disclosed since 15 April 2026 and returned if above the cap. All foreign donations are banned, full stop. Anonymous donations above $1250 are banned; dark money has no place in Victorian elections. Real-time disclosure of donations of $1250 or more – Victorians have a right to know about that. New candidates and parties can receive double the cap, which gives them a genuine foothold without the big party machine behind them. Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals will each be required to return money transferred to their nominated entities between 25 November 2018 and 14 April 2026 above the interim cap of $5030 that remained in their state campaign accounts on 15 April 2026. The new refund provisions introduced as part of the bill are part of a suite of measures designed to ensure an electoral system that is as fair as possible for all electoral participants.

To reduce the barriers for new entrants, the bill introduces a new entrant general cap, recognising those who are ineligible for state public funding. Eligible participants include first-time independent candidates, recontesting independents who received less than 4 per cent of first preference votes at the previous election and newly registered political parties. Public funding is core to free and fair elections. That is why we are restoring it. Without public funding, elections become a contest between the biggest donors. Labor will not allow that. State funding is reinstated for eligible electoral participants, with increased administrative funding flowing to independents and smaller parties. The bill ends nominated entities. They will be regulated in the same way as any other associated entity, subject to the same donation caps and disclosure obligations as everyone else.

The Electoral Act 2002 is fundamental to the operation of our democracy in Victoria. Noting that significance, there will be a broad-ranging post-election review of the entire act. On that point, I would like to thank members from across the Parliament, including Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne, Ms Purcell, Mr Limbrick, Mr Bourman and the Greens, for working with us on a set of terms for the review that will be truly independent.

The terms of reference reflect input from stakeholders, including the Centre for Public Integrity. The government will also be moving an amendment to that component to confirm the intention that no former politician, state or federal, can be appointed to the panel, and those amendments have already been circulated.

The government will not be supporting the opposition’s amendments in relation to associated entities. The Electoral Act 2002 has always allowed parties to receive affiliation fees from associated entities. This is not specific to unions or Labor. Associated entities are still required to follow the donations cap. Specifically excluding certain organisations from being associated entities may risk the bill constitutionally.

The government will be moving the three amendments that I have already had circulated.

In conclusion, Victorians deserve elections that are fair, transparent and free from undue influence. These changes make sure the outcome is determined by voters, not big money. We know that the Liberal Party are perfectly comfortable having big money flowing into politics – they have made that abundantly clear today during this debate – but we are not. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (18:21)

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, the bill’s stated purpose includes limiting reliance on private donations and promoting fairness. Can the minister point to a single substantiated finding by IBAC, a court or this Parliament that a lawful disclosed political donation in Victoria actually changed a government policy, or is the bill built on an assumption of corruption that has never been demonstrated?

Ingrid STITT: Your question is not within the scope of the bill. Do you want to give me a reference to which part of the bill you are referring to? The objectives of the bill are quite clear. I am happy to go through them.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, go to clause 1, page 1, and you will find the reference. I repeat: can you point to a single substantiated finding by IBAC, a court or this Parliament that a lawful disclosed political donation in Victoria actually changed a government policy, or is this bill built on an assumption of corruption that has never been demonstrated?

Ingrid STITT: I completely reject the premise of your question. This bill is about making sure that we have a transparent electoral donations system in Victoria restored.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you have introduced a bill. You need to be able to demonstrate exactly why the bill has been introduced. You cannot just say it is all about transparency or integrity. You have got to be able to point to a substantiated finding by, as I said, IBAC, a court or this Parliament that a lawful disclosed political donation in Victoria has actually changed government policy. That is what you have to demonstrate, or else this bill is hopeless. You have got to be able to demonstrate that there is a reason for producing the bill.

Ingrid STITT: It is a matter of public record that the bill is being introduced to the Parliament to deal with the fact that the High Court decision invalidated a whole section of our electoral donation framework. That is the purpose of this bill: to restore that framework and restore integrity in our donation system and transparency, including the requirements around disclosing donations above a certain threshold.

There are many important reasons why this bill needs to be dealt with. I do not accept that any of the proposed motives that you are putting forward are even relevant. This is about reinstating a section of our donations act that the High Court invalidated.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, is this bill built on an assumption of corruption?

Ingrid STITT: It is just a ridiculous proposition, and I completely reject it.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, what evidence base, what modelling, what data, what consultation did the government rely on in setting the figures and thresholds in this bill, and will that material be tabled?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, you know that there have been ongoing discussions with all political parties, members of the Victorian Parliament across both chambers and also registered political parties about these matters for weeks. Those discussions were held in good faith by the government, and we have arrived at what we think is the right balance in bringing forward the bill before the house today.

Bev McARTHUR: The so-called consultations that you are referring to were totally disingenuous, from our point of view. None of us have had a bill briefing on this matter, for a start. But you must have modelling or data that sets the figures and the thresholds in this bill. How else can you arrive at them?

Ingrid STITT: We sought to have significant engagement with the Liberal Party, Mrs McArthur. It is a matter for you how much and how genuine your engagement in that process was. The government was certainly very consciously wanting to get bipartisanship for this bill. We had a number of very productive conversations with members of the Greens and the crossbench, who we have been able to negotiate a number of important amendments with. The total package that is before the house today represents those good-faith discussions, and you had every opportunity to be involved in them.

Bev McARTHUR: That is totally disingenuous, Minister. The Liberal Party negotiated absolutely in good faith. You did not. But you have arrived at some figures and you have arrived at thresholds in the bill, so inform this Parliament and inform the Victorian people exactly what modelling or what data you relied on to arrive at the figures within the bill.

Ingrid STITT: That is a fairly imprecise way to conduct this, so we might be here quite late, I think. Can I just point out to you that there are large elements of the old part 12 that are being reinstated without any change, and there are some elements of the bill that are being slightly changed, including the general cap for donations, which has increased modestly. For the election period post 2026 it will be capped at $7500. That is a pretty modest donation cap, and that is a good thing because that means that big money cannot buy election results.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you still cannot tell us how you got to $7500. Why not $7000? Why not $5000? How did you arrive at these figures and the thresholds? Surely you must have some information, data or research that has brought you to these conclusions about the figures and the thresholds that you are landing on us.

Ingrid STITT: Well, I could be cheeky and ask you how you came up with the $50,000 cap figure that you put to the government. But in good faith, we have landed on $7500 as a figure that represents a modest increase from the previous caps that were in the bill before the High Court invalidated section 12 of the act. We think that $7500 is the right balance and an appropriate cap to set going forward. I will note also that the election period, which is between 15 April and the election in November this year, has a slightly lower cap because of the shorter period of time.

Sitting suspended 6:31 pm until 7:32 pm.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just seeking leave to make a minor amendment to my amendment in good faith, given the government’s amendment, which we would like to support, backdating to 25 November 2018. We are just changing our amendment 3 to backdate the disclosure from the original date of 2022 to 25 November 2018. It also changes the section 280 disclosure of a nominated entity that gave an amount to a registered political party during the period beginning 25 November 2018 and ending on the day in which the Electoral Further Amendment Act 2026 receives royal assent. It is simply changing dates to align with the government amendments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

Ingrid STITT: No.

Bev McARTHUR: We were trying to establish on what basis the government had come up with all their figures and thresholds. I do not know whether the minister might have had an epiphany over the dinner break. We were hoping you might have been able to find the material on which it is all based and perhaps even table it for us.

Ingrid STITT: If I had an epiphany in the dinner break, Mrs McArthur, it was not about the bill. I cannot really add to much more to what I have already said to your previous questions about the cap other than to say that we have introduced the cap to restrict the potential influence and perception of influence of personal donations, and that is why it is set at a low threshold of $7500.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, we will just have to take it that it was based on no evidence at all. Will the minister now concede that not one dollar figure in this bill – not the $7500 cap, not the per vote funding rates or the administrative funding tiers – is supported by any published modelling tabled in this Parliament?

Ingrid STITT: No, I do not accept the premise of that question at all.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, then, minister, tell us on what basis you have arrived at it, if you do not accept the premise. Tell us how you have arrived at it.

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for your question, which I believe is the same question that you have been asking a number of times now, and I would refer you to my previous answer just now.

Bev McARTHUR: It is very unhelpful – not constructive at all, Minister – in this new era of transparency and integrity that you will not actually supply any published modelling to this Parliament that has caused you to arrive at these figures, per-vote funding rates or the administrative funding tiers. Why won’t you allow transparency in this operation so the Victorian public can be very clear exactly what is behind this bill and how you have come to these conclusions that these are the figures and the funding tiers that you feel appropriate but are not prepared to alert anybody – the public, this Parliament and the opposition particularly, because of course we did not have a bill briefing so we were not able to ask any questions in this regard. I will give you another chance, Minister, to please tell us how you have arrived at these figures, what modelling might have been used and on what basis you are doing this.

Ingrid STITT: I know the Liberals were advocating for a much higher cap, and we have been very up-front about the fact that we believe that the donation system should be one that has modest caps across the four-year electoral cycle each year. That is because big money should not dictate the outcome of elections in our state. The Victorian voters should be dictating the outcome of the election, so there is no secret to how our views have been formed. There is no secret to the discussions that we were having across all political parties in the development of this bill, and many conversations with the opposition were had. I cannot control what the Leader of the Opposition’s office did or did not share with you at the time, but we are satisfied that the bill strikes the right balance, including with the donations caps that have been set.

Bev McARTHUR: Let me inform you and this chamber that the opposition negotiated in very good faith and agreed on a number of aspects, none of which have now appeared in this bill, so your assertion that consultation and discussion with the leader’s office, or whatever, was done in good faith is disingenuous, and it is actually factually incorrect. There might have been a difference in the negotiation or the consultation between our party and the Labor Party office, but there seems to be a different approach from the Premier’s office to even your own administration. So you cannot claim that you negotiated in good faith, because you rejected absolutely everything that was put forward in good faith. Do you accept that?

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes.

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure there is a question in that download, Mrs McArthur. That is a statement.

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister, for no answer whatsoever. The previous part 12 was struck down weeks ago as an impermissible burden on the implied freedom of political communication. What legal advice does the government rely on that this replacement, this new bill, is valid, and will the minister table that advice or its conclusions?

Ingrid STITT: Obviously the government has had regard to legal advice in the development of this bill. We will not be releasing that advice to maintain legal professional privilege.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you have just told us that you are the upholders of transparency and integrity. This is critical information for not only this Parliament and the opposition but the people of Victoria. If you have had legal advice on this matter and the conclusions of it, you should in all honesty, transparency and good faith, Minister, table that advice. Can you consider releasing that advice in the best interests of this legislation?

Ingrid STITT: You know that it is not the practice to table solicitor-general advice, and we have taken careful advice throughout the process of developing this bill for obvious reasons, given the need to make sure that we are introducing a bill that is legally sound. I have made it very clear what our position is on that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: To counter some of the claims you have made, the government was very happy to share advice from the solicitor-general on why certain proposals in consultation could not be pursued. Why would the government not be willing to table advice that the government is relying on for things like the third-party limit retrospective provisions?

Ingrid STITT: I understand that there was some advice provided in order for there to be discussions around why certain provisions would no longer be able to be part of the bill, including nominated entities. That is not the question that Mrs McArthur was asking me. She was asking me to table the legal advice provided to the government, and I have been clear in my answer on that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, it is only fair that if the government is willing to disclose and has set a principle to disclose solicitor-general advice as part of consultations in regard to this bill, the government publicly disclose. It is in the public interest to disclose the advice it is relying on in the formulation of this bill.

Ingrid STITT: I have been pretty clear that we will not be releasing the advice. We need to maintain legal professional privilege.

Georgie CROZIER: Just following on from Mrs McArthur’s and Mr Mulholland’s questioning, Minister, given the so-called urgency of this bill and given your commentary around what you have said – big money should not dictate the outcomes of elections – what legal advice did you get regarding so-called ‘big money’? What is the definition of ‘big money’?

Ingrid STITT: The legal advice went to the way in which the government has carefully developed the bill. We have set the caps as we have gone – I have gone to this question with Mrs McArthur a couple of times already – at a modest level, a slight increase on what the cap was in the previous part 12. The principles in the act clearly spell out the priorities for the donation transparency and framework, so I would point you to the principles in the bill.

Georgie CROZIER: No, Minister, I would like you to define what ‘big money’ is, please. You have said it multiple times, and I think the Victorian public deserves to understand that definition around what big money constitutes.

Ingrid STITT: Let us just call this for what it is. You do not agree with the caps that the government is bringing forward in the bill, so you are obviously trying to put an argument to me that your preferred approach and your preferred model is not big money. I think we just need to agree to disagree on that point. That is why we have come up with the caps that we have. It is about making sure that everybody has the opportunity to participate in the political process.

Georgie CROZIER: The minister has failed to fully articulate what ‘big money’ means. Does ‘big money’ mean 1 cent over the cap? What does the government mean by ‘big money’?

Ingrid STITT: Well, there are obviously caps set at a particular threshold for a reason, and if you go over that cap, then you are not complying with the legislation. But really, the question for you is: how high do you want the cap to be, Ms Crozier?

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I am not the minister at the table, you are, and this is a house of review. Your own minister, in her contribution, Ms Shing, said this is a house of review. You have a responsibility to answer the questions that we put to you. I ask you, what does ‘big money’ mean? Is it 1 cent over the cap that this legislation is referring to? Just answer the question. I want to understand. You said it:

Big money should not dictate the outcome of elections …

You said it 10 minutes ago. The Victorian public want to understand what the definition of ‘big money’ is.

Ingrid STITT: I think this is a strange line of questioning from you, Ms Crozier. I am going to answer it is this way: currently there are no laws in place to dictate the way in which donations are made in our state. There are absolutely no rules of engagement when it comes to actors, whether they are overseas or in Australia, having influence on our political process in the absence of any kind of framework or legislation to ensure that we have transparency and integrity. So the caps are in there to maintain that transparency and integrity and to ensure that our electoral system is fit for purpose. It is very similar to the previous part 12. It is a very modest increase from that cap. We could go round and round in circles about what big money is, but the reality is that we do not know at the moment what money is coming in to political parties. We do not know.

Georgie CROZIER: So, Minister, what is big money from a union?

Ingrid STITT: Well, there we go – that is what it was about. That was where we were going with this, because –

Georgie CROZIER: Don’t the Victorian public need to understand? Because the unions are exempt.

Ingrid STITT: I will take you, again, to what we have clearly said about associated entities and how this bill operates for associated entities. They must have separate state campaign accounts and submit annual returns to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) on their political donations and the money they pay to political parties. Political donations made by associated entities are subject to the general cap, so they cannot go over the $7500. Affiliation fees, which you have been conflating all day in the second-reading debate, are actually only used for administrative funding. They are not used for campaign funding. So our associated entities, whether they are unions or think tanks or other associated entities allowed for under the act, are restricted in the same way as any other donor when it comes to the general cap. Your whole line of questioning is based on your view about unions, basically.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, this bill that we are debating and reviewing in the house tonight is a result of your rorting of the system through the red shirts campaigning. That is why we are doing it. You do not like it, but that is why we are doing it.

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, I would ask that Ms Crozier withdraw that. It has got nothing to do with this bill before the house, and it is absolutely nonsense and inflammatory.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there further on the point of order?

Georgie CROZIER: On the point of order, Deputy President, the reason this bill is flawed and has been thrown out by the High Court is because of what the government brought in because of the red shirt rorts. That is the whole purpose. So my question to the minister is –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, I need to rule on the point of order. You did say ‘you’, as in the minister; I think you might have meant the government in that scenario. I do ask you to withdraw an allegation against the actual minister.

Georgie CROZIER: I withdraw any allegations against the minister, but certainly not against the Labor Party.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Move on.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, how many people working on the campaign for the Labor Party are paid for by big union money?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, it is nothing to do with the bill, but further to that –

Georgie Crozier: You said ‘big money’, and you just said ‘unions’.

Ingrid STITT: I know why you are going to use that phrase. We can go all night, really, but all it reveals is your views about working people having the right to participate in the political process. It exposes your bias.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, the minister has the call. Let the minister answer.

Ingrid STITT: It says to me a couple of things. It says that you are quite unhappy with the fact that the cap is low – you are quite unhappy with that as a political outfit; that is clear to everyone in this place. It also says to me that at every opportunity you want to imply that working people through their unions are somehow not participating –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, you are to answer the question.

Ingrid STITT: I am answering the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, you are interpreting what the member might be inferring, and that is not answering the question. It is not for you to put words in the mouths of the people asking the questions.

Ingrid STITT: Maybe the questions ought to be about the bill then.

Georgie CROZIER: If I can take up that ridiculous statement by the minister. We have this bill before us because of the mistakes made by the government. You have made the mistakes, not us. We have not done it, you have done it. Your government has done it, and that is why we are here. I would like to understand: can any other donor who is not a union give an uncapped donation for administrative purposes?

Ingrid STITT: A union cannot do that under this bill either – nobody can.

Georgie CROZIER: Can an everyday Victorian give a donation to any other party for administrative purposes?

Ingrid STITT: There are a couple of things that I need to say. Obviously you have a misunderstanding about not just the bill in the house today but how the previous part 12 of the act operated, because associated entities have been part of the donation legislation since 2018.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, you are misunderstanding the bill we are dealing with. Nominated entities are no longer part of the framework. Associated entities have always been part of the framework and will continue to be. It is open for any registered political party to have an associated entity arrangement – think tanks, club 500s. It is not just unions that are associated entities.

Georgie CROZIER: You still have not answered the question, Minister, or you have said that Victorians cannot give a donation to any other party for administrative purposes. Can you confirm therefore that unions are capped to at providing only the capped amount through their affiliation fees?

Ingrid STITT: Affiliation fees are not able to be utilised for political campaigning. This is the whole point. They are only allowed to go towards administrative funding. Your question is based on a false understanding of the bill before the house. No associated entity or any individual Victorian or any business, for that matter – I know you know all about that – can go over the $7500 cap, the end, full stop.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you tell us: is there any limit on the affiliation fee to a political party or to the union movement? I mean, an affiliation fee could be $10,000 or it could be $100,000, an affiliation fee as a membership. Is there any limit on that?

Ingrid STITT: It is open to any registered political party to set the fees that they see fit, whether that is the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the National Party or any party. You know, one day we might see another arrangement in place with other parties. The point is that that is a matter for the Australian Labor Party – the question you are directly asking me, how they set affiliation fees. But having been a union secretary for a number of years before coming to this place, I can tell you it is a very brave state secretary of the ALP that tries to increase affiliation fees.

Georgie CROZIER: We know you are all union members. That is the problem with this Parliament. Minister, why can’t an everyday Victorian provide administration funds in the same way a union can?

Ingrid STITT: I am sorry. Can you repeat that please?

Georgie CROZIER: I can. Why can’t an everyday Victorian provide administration funds in the same way a union can?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have already answered that in explaining how associated entities operate under this bill.

Georgie CROZIER: But it is in the context of the union movement and the way they are able to provide with their affiliations and what this bill allows them to do. You have got to admit there is a mismatch around what the bill is achieving with that. It is a very unlevel playing field in relation to what an everyday Victorian can actually provide as opposed to what a union and a union membership can provide.

Ingrid STITT: I think you are just demonstrating again that you either do not understand the bill – that is the best-case scenario – or worst-case scenario, you have got an absolute bias and you do not think that working people should participate in the political process but you are all okay with your Cormack Foundation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I think you should withdraw that.

Georgie CROZIER: Deputy President, please, I am not fussed if that is on the record, because it actually says everything about this minister and everything about this government. And this is the problem with this bill, because this bill is biased. It is actually not giving the everyday Victorian the same opportunity as what the minister just said. So Minister, how are affiliation fees set, and what does a union get for their fees?

Ingrid STITT: There is a long and proud history as to why unions are affiliated to the Australian Labor Party, and there are of course a number of reasons why unions are associated entities, including that they get voting rights in the party at conferences and the like. Affiliation fees – I will say it again for the 10th time – are not allowed under the legislation to be used for anything other than administrative funding. They are not allowed to be for the purposes of political campaigning. Unions are probably some of the most scrutinised and audited organisations in that they are required every year to provide a return, not just under this legislation but under other legislation as well, which must include details of affiliation fees that they pay to not just political parties but other organisations as well.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I made the point in my second-reading speech around the influence and power of the unions at conferences, what they do, who they put in this place, how they choose ministries and leaders. So are unions paying for voting rights to control the Labor Party in ways that others cannot, because you have just admitted that in what you just said then.

Ingrid STITT: You are conflating these issues, and I understand why you are, because you have a certain ideological view, but the reality is that the things that you are raising have got nothing to do with the government seeking to bring to the Parliament a donations framework that restores integrity and transparency to our state.

Georgie CROZIER: $4.92 million was provided to the Labor Party since the 2022–23 financial year. Is this big money?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to be drawn on figures that you are quoting me. I do not know where you are pulling those numbers from.

Georgie CROZIER: How much did the Labor Party receive, if you will not provide that? Surely the Victorian public have a right to know, given you have been talking about big money and, I quote again, ‘big money should not dictate the outcome of elections’. That is what you said, Minister. So how much have they received?

Ingrid STITT: I do believe the figure that you might be quoting is from the Labor Services & Holdings nominated entity, which of course will no longer be a feature of our legislation, given the High Court decision. I do note that the equivalent nominated entity for the Liberal Party holds $40 million. Again, you are asking questions to conflate and that are not relevant to the bill before us, and the fact is that every registered political party, as you well know, is required to report to the VEC annually, including all of the income received and from whom.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I would have thought that you would have been briefed enough to know that was from the VEC figures. I will ask another question: as a former union secretary, which you have admitted to, what did your union get from the affiliation fee, and how much did the union provide in that affiliation fee?

Ingrid STITT: Well, yes, it is not a state secret that I was a union official – proud of it. My union, which was and is dominated by women in low-paid industries, had the ability to participate in formulating the policies that the Australian Labor Party in Victoria took to successive elections. You can choose to present that as something untoward. I prefer to see that for what it is: working people having the right to be involved in their political party.

Georgie CROZIER: No-one is denying anybody the right to work; in fact we want people to be able to be employed in this state. I fear that too many people will sadly lose their jobs under your regime. Minister, what date did the Labor Party last receive a payment from Labor Services & Holdings?

Ingrid STITT: That is a matter for the party, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, that is a cop-out. The very reason we are debating this bill is around these issues. I will ask again. If you do not know, could you please find out and provide it to the committee? I think the Victorian public deserves to understand that.

Ingrid STITT: I could ask you the same question about the Cormack Foundation, but I think the –

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, I say again: this is the government’s bill. This is the government’s stuff-up. This legislation stuff-up is because of the government that the minister is representing. We are here to ask questions of her, not for her to be asking questions back to me. I would ask that the minister provide that information in the interest of transparency, given that you are talking about transparency. I say again: big money should not dictate the outcome of elections. You have talked about transparency and integrity, and I think Victorians need to understand exactly the date when the Labor Party last received a payment from Labor Services & Holdings, because if you do not, then it tells the Victorian public you are not fair dinkum about integrity and transparency.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We seem to have moved on from the point of order, but I will call the minister.

Ingrid STITT: Again, it is a matter for the party in terms of your question, but I would also point you to the fact that the government has brought a house amendment to ensure that any moneys received since 2018 are paid back.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, are you aware of that information, yes or no?

Ingrid STITT: It is a matter for the party.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, we are here debating this legislation around these very issues, and you are unwilling to provide transparency around this detail. You are bringing amendments in, you are talking about dates around entities, and you will not even tell the Victorian public when that last was. When was your last discussion with the state secretary in regard to this bill and the last time they took funding from Labor Services & Holdings? Is that a matter for the organisation, or have you had nothing to do with it?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, I think it is probably important to remind you that annual returns from registered political parties state the total amounts received and total debts of the party, and they will also cover donations and debts above $1250 that have been received after the election. The reason I raise this is because this is information that is provided on the public record as part of the bill before the house and indeed was the case before the High Court decision invalidated part 12.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, could I ask again: when was your last discussion with the state secretary in regard to this bill?

Ingrid STITT: I need to point out to you, Ms Crozier, that I have not been involved in the negotiations around this bill. If you go to the general order, you will see that the VEC and associated legislation sits with the Premier.

Georgie CROZIER: So when did the Premier last have a discussion with the state secretary regarding this bill? You are at the table; surely you would be aware of what is going on, given the Premier was doing the negotiations and you have got carriage of this bill.

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, as you well know, this is a government bill. The government has been, in good faith, holding discussions with all registered political parties and all members of the Parliament in terms of the opposition, the crossbench, the Greens and also the political parties of course in formulating this bill. There is no secret about that. There have been discussions across the board to try to reach an agreement about the bill being brought forward. For reasons that are yours to make and own, you did not agree with the approach that the government chose to take in relation to this, and so we have worked with the crossbench and the Greens in a constructive way, because I think they are very committed to making sure that we have a donation law legislative framework in this state that reinstates transparency and reinstates integrity.

Georgie CROZIER: Are you completely sure of that, Minister? Because I had a discussion with one of the crossbenchers just after lunchtime, sometime around 12 or 1 o’clock. They said they had had no discussion with the government – nothing – so I do not know what you are saying. They are not here. I do not want to put words into their mouth, but that is the discussion I had out in the corridor.

Ingrid STITT: I do not know who you are referring to.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I am just a bit concerned. I would actually believe the member that spoke to me over the government’s spin here, I must say. Nevertheless, as I said, I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth. But I am concerned regarding what you are saying, given we have only had this bill for a few hours and the level of discussion and what has gone on. You have had to amend the bill. It has not been a fulsome process, you would have to admit that.

Ingrid STITT: That is your opinion, and I do not agree with your opinion. Every step of the way we have sought to be constructive about the development of this bill. And I will note that every single party and independent member of this chamber voted for the second reading, other than yourselves.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you have mentioned several times that affiliation fees can only be used for administrative purposes. Can you define ‘administrative purposes’?

Ingrid STITT: The definitions are contained in the bill. I would draw your attention to the definitions in the bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will these laws and the regulations that sit under them prevent nominated entities registering as third-party campaigners and transferring the balance of their funds above the cap to run electoral advertising for candidates?

Ingrid STITT: The definition of ‘third-party campaigners’ does not include associated entities. Entities that were nominated entities under the old part 12 will be regulated in the new part 12 in the same manner as associated entities, and they will be subject to the same limitations and restrictions. The bill also includes an anti-circumvention offence, which is in the new section 272, which prohibits a person or corporate entity from entering into or carrying out a scheme with the intention of circumventing a prohibition or requirement under the new part 12.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will these laws require nominated entities to pay back any money they took from nominated entities after 14 April, even if it has already been spent?

Ingrid STITT: Yes. Funds received by a registered political party from a nominated entity from 15 April 2026 will need to be returned if they are above the general cap, even if they have already been spent, and returns must occur within 30 days after the day on which the bill receives royal assent. If a registered political party receives a transfer, including a specified gift from a nominated entity, between 15 April 2026 and the day this bill receives royal assent that is above the general cap, the bill requires the registered political party to disclose to the VEC under section 279 and return the amount to the nominated entity – and that provision is in section 282(1). And if the registered political party receives a specified gift that is not a monetary transfer, they must return an amount equal to the monetary value of a specified gift.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Will these laws prevent nominated entities from donating above the general cap to major political parties?

Ingrid STITT: Yes. Under the bill, former nominated entities will, as we have been discussing, fall into the definition of ‘associated entities’. New part 12 of the bill prohibits all donors, natural persons and corporate entities, from donating above the general cap, including donations made to major political parties.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have just one final question on this clause: can you confirm that all political parties, candidates and third-party campaigners, except new entrants, are subject to the same general cap, with no exceptions, so that all candidates are treated equally?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, Dr Mansfield. With the exception of new entrants, which is a different provision, all registered political parties, candidates, independent elected members, groups, third-party campaigners and associated entities will be subject to the same general cap.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you provide to the committee when the government met with all crossbench members on this bill?

Ingrid STITT: There have been discussions happening with various parties and MPs since 15 April – all parties, including your party, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: That was not the question, Minister. The question was: when did the government meet with MPs regarding this bill that we are debating today?

Ingrid STITT: My answer is that we have been meeting constantly with members across the Parliament since the High Court decision came down.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I do not know if you are struggling because you are sick, but you are actually not hearing the questions properly.

Ingrid STITT: No, I am hearing them.

Georgie CROZIER: I think you have misled the Parliament.

Ingrid STITT: Pardon?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, pardon, because you have not met with all members of Parliament on this bill like you said you did. You might have said you have had discussions, but this is about this bill we are debating today. I would like a confirmation about when the government met with all MPs regarding this bill.

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If it assists the committee, I think what Ms Crozier might be asking is: since the bill has become public and members of the crossbench and opposition have had the chance to see the bill, when have you met with them to brief them? Is that right, Ms Crozier?

Georgie CROZIER: It is pretty obvious, yes. I said the bill has only been in. We have not had it for very long. It was not about the discussions after the High Court decision. It was: when did the government meet with all MPs regarding this bill? I am completely unsatisfied with the minister’s answer. In fact I am very concerned about the minister’s answer, given it is not the truth.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now we have had a clarification, perhaps the minister might be able to give a better answer.

Ingrid STITT: Ask Ms Crozier to withdraw that statement, Deputy President.

Georgie CROZIER: I will withdraw about the truth, but I would like the truth, please, Minister. Could you please answer the question and provide to the committee when the government met with all MPs regarding this bill we are debating tonight?

Ingrid STITT: I do not know how many different ways you want me to say it, but we have been in constant conversations with the crossbench and the opposition about this bill – no different to any other bill.

Georgie CROZIER: I am going to move on, and other members can speak for themselves, but I think what you are providing to the house is very unsatisfactory, given this bill was provided to MPs with very little time to look at it in its entirety. I am not talking about the discussion since the High Court’s decision, which you keep twisting. It is about this bill we are debating today. I know you did not meet with all MPs like you said you did. Minister, I am going to ask you: did you only engage with the crossbench when you realised you could not explain the handpicked date of July 2023?

Ingrid STITT: We have been talking with both the opposition and other members of the Parliament, including the Greens and the crossbench, about all aspects of the bill. I do not know if you were around when I was doing my summing up, but the Premier has made it very clear from the day that the High Court decision came down that she wanted to work quickly across the Parliament to come up with legislation that could replace the fact that we have been in a vacuum for the last six or seven weeks and have had no integrity or transparency when it comes to our donation system here in Victoria.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, you just said the Premier wanted to work across the Parliament on this bill. You did not even meet with the crossbench on this very bill. You might have discussed it in general, but –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr McIntosh, you will get thrown out if you do not control yourself. You are not part of this questioning between the minister and the member, and your outburst was disorderly.

Georgie CROZIER: It is important because this bill has been rushed in as an urgent bill. We have had very little time to look at the bill in its entirety as presented by the government, and therefore that is what this is about. It is about what the government is saying and doing as well as the answers we are getting in here. Minister, what instructions did you receive from the Premier in relation to the handpicked date of July 2023?

Ingrid STITT: I have already indicated to you that I am representing the Premier in bringing the bill to the upper house, to the Legislative Council. The reality is, Ms Crozier, over there on the opposition benches you have spent all day carrying on about this date and trying to present some conspiracy theory about why the date was chosen. We have now brought a house amendment to the Council which backdates this provision to 2018. I just think your line of questioning – frankly, the world has moved on – is irrelevant.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, that answer is extraordinary. We quite rightly raised this issue according to the bill and the date backdating to July 2023, and it was only after the debate in this house that you then brought in house amendments to backdate it. For you to say that we have been carrying on about that date shows you do not seem to understand exactly what the purpose of this place is. It is about debate and questioning what you are doing, and you are now amending this bill because of what we said in debate around a date. You might smirk and you might laugh. But the Victorian public deserve better from this government, and this demonstrates that you have rushed this bill. You are putting house amendments in only after we put to you through debate how flawed this bill is.

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for that speech, Ms Crozier. You did spend all day trying to conflate issues, trying to imply that there was something to hide. We have nothing to hide, which is why we have brought the amendment to bring it back to 2018. You are the ones that are upset with this bill. Everybody else in this place voted for the second reading.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the committee stage is becoming a little bit unedifying. I would remind people that we already know this is going to go to a court challenge, and the judiciary are going to have to read all of this. I think it would be more edifying if we could get to having questions that are specific and answers that relate to the questions, not interpretation of what other people may think.

Tom McINTOSH: On a point of order, Deputy President, the minister was speaking and Ms Crozier was yelling comments and abuse from where she was sitting, not through the Chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Tom McINTOSH: You are asking me to respect the Chair and respect the chamber. I would ask you to ask Ms Crozier to do the same.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have asked everybody to make this more edifying.

David ETTERSHANK: Deputy President, I would endorse your comments about edification. It would be a highly desirable thing for the taxpayers, I am sure. Minister, I want to ask you a few questions. Obviously we have had the benefit of multiple meetings with the government, both individually and collectively. I cannot say why Ms Tyrrell did not attend, whether she was not invited or otherwise, nor do I seek that information from the minister. In asking these questions I would just like to confirm, Minister, that we are appreciative of the extent of the consultation that has occurred. Could I ask you about fundraising tickets, please. The bill retains the existing definition of ‘political donation’ in section 206, including the longstanding uncertainty surrounding fundraising events. It remains unclear whether the purchase price of a fundraising ticket is itself a political donation or whether only amounts donated at or beyond the event are captured. I think greater clarity would assist participants and improve compliance. Could you share your thoughts on that, please?

Ingrid STITT: A ticket to a fundraising event will be assessed against the definition of a political donation and treated accordingly; a ticket that simply covers the cost of an event would not be considered a donation. Cost recovery does not amount to a donation, but if the cost of a ticket does represent more than the cost of the event but is less than a hundred dollars, it will be considered a small contribution and exempt from the cap and real-time disclosure requirements. But if the cost of a ticket does represent more than the cost of the event and is more than a hundred dollars, the amount over cost recovery is likely to be a political donation and subject to the disclosure threshold. For tickets over $1250, that is the general cap.

David ETTERSHANK: I appreciate that response. I would also like to pick up on the question of affiliation fees as per section 206. The bill retains the existing treatment of affiliation fees within the definition of ‘political donation’. Affiliation fees are not appropriately accommodated within the political finance framework, and that their treatment continues to raise questions regarding consistency and transparency is obviously a concern. A preferable approach would be perhaps that of New South Wales, where fees are exempt from the definition of ‘donation’ up to a threshold. Could you share your thoughts on that question, please?

Ingrid STITT: The Electoral Act 2022 – I think we were talking about this earlier – has always allowed parties to receive affiliation fees from associated entities, and this is not specific to unions or Labor, and this can form part of the legislated post-election review, as can other terms of the legislation.

David ETTERSHANK: We do love the review provision. Could I ask, in terms of the low threshold for third-party campaigner registration, part 11. The bill retains the existing threshold for registration as a third-party campaigner. This threshold is set at a level that may capture relatively modest civic participation and advocacy activities. This issue clearly predates the present bill but remains unresolved. What is the government’s position in terms of clarifying this?

Ingrid STITT: Any not-for-profit or for-profit entity that incurs more than $10,000 of political expenditure in a financial year will be considered a third-party campaigner and therefore covered by the regime. This will mean the third-party campaigner will have to provide certain reports and avoid breaching the prohibitions on certain donations. An entity that is not associated with a political party that only spends money to raise awareness around an issue and the profile of issues and that does not spend more than $10,000 in a financial year on political expenditure will not be required to report under the regime. If a not-for-profit is associated with a political party or is incurring political expenditure of over $10,000 in a financial year, it will reasonably be required to report on its political spending but not on other expenditure.

David ETTERSHANK: If I could just move to the subject of wealthy, self-funded candidates, section 212(5) retains the existing exception that effectively permits candidates and elected members to spend effectively unlimited personal wealth on their own campaigns. This undermines the objective of promoting political equality and can create significant advantages for wealthy participants – perhaps an issue that Ms Crozier would be concerned about in terms of the relative financial power of different participants in the democratic process. I am wondering if you could clarify this for us, please.

Ingrid STITT: Obviously it was not possible to rewrite the entire part 12 of the act, but again, I think this can form part of the legislated post-election review.

David ETTERSHANK: It is good to know that that can fall within the terms of reference for the review. I would like to move on to policy development funding only being available to parties. Section 242 continues to provide policy development funding to registered political parties whilst excluding independent members and candidates. Given the High Court’s concerns regarding unequal treatment within Victoria’s political finance regime, the rationale for continuing this distinction is not immediately apparent. I am wondering if you could elaborate upon the rationale behind that, please?

Ingrid STITT: The bill, as you know, provides benefits for new entrants. A new entrant can receive donations which are double the general donation cap. Eligible electoral participants will include those that have not received state funding before, recontesting independent candidates who received less than 4 per cent of first preference votes in the previous election, and first-time independent candidates and registered political parties who have not been registered for a whole calendar year. I guess those are the opportunities there.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you, Minister, I appreciate that. I would actually like to talk a little bit about regulation-making powers and disclosure thresholds – sections 206(1) and 288(1)(b). 206(1) introduces a power for the disclosure threshold amount to be prescribed by regulation. Similarly, 288(1)(b) permits the applicable donation cap for the transitional period to be prescribed by regulation. Could you explain that to us, please?

Ingrid STITT: Actually, I think one of the house amendments goes to this issue. We brought an amendment, noting that there have been some concerns raised about the use of regulation-making power and whether the government would seek to increase any of the caps. We have got no plans to do that. In the interests of allaying any concerns that there might have been, we have moved an amendment to amend the definition of ‘general cap’ to remove the ability to prescribe a higher amount and make any consequential changes in the bill, which includes a couple of the sections and tables. So we have committed to not increasing the cap.

David ETTERSHANK: In terms of the question of the caps, I get that, and yes, you are quite right – I should have picked that up before. I appreciate the government’s sensitivity in recognising the inappropriateness of making changes here by regulation. I am wondering if you could comment on the degree to which that reticence to use regulation applies equally to disclosure thresholds, which are obviously, I think, not contained within that amendment but are probably equally politically sensitive.

Ingrid STITT: I am sorry for that. I just wanted to double-check that I have this right. Yes, the regulations do have that ability, but we have committed that we will not be increasing the caps.

David ETTERSHANK: I take that to mean by regulation, obviously?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, that is right.

David ETTERSHANK: Just one final question. I would just like to talk briefly about clause 206(3) in terms of expenditure benefiting others excluded from definitions of gifts. Clause 206(3) provides that a gift does not include electoral expenditure or political expenditure incurred by a person or entity for the benefit of another person or entity. This provision may create a pathway through which wealthy individuals or organisations can incur substantial expenditure benefiting candidates or parties without that support being treated as a political donation and therefore without being subject to the donation caps. This appears to extend to the logic of the existing self-funding exception beyond candidates themselves and, I would suggest, warrants further scrutiny, or at least some explanation, if you could assist.

Ingrid STITT: The purpose of this was to clarify that smaller NGOs will not be disadvantaged by the donations and disclosure regimes, and the examples make that clear.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you explain the distinction between political expenditure and electoral expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: That is already clearly articulated in the bill, Ms Crozier. Just bear with me one sec. Political expenditure is money spent:

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

the election of any candidate; or

a registered political party; or

an elected member …

Political expenditure will include the cost of items that promote a specific candidate or political party, such as political party internet and TV ads, telephone banks on behalf of political parties, how-to-vote cards and other material that tells people how to direct their preferences, including material that suggests that people should put certain political parties or candidates last. Money spent on general issues, advertising and awareness raising that does not promote or oppose a particular candidate or party will not be considered political expenditure, and this is to maintain the right of people and organisations to be active in political life and have a say and a position on issues that matter to them. Expenditure that promotes policy positions, including points of difference between parties, would not be considered political expenditure if it does not include a direction of who to vote for or not to vote for.

Georgie CROZIER: Does the minister accept that neither political expenditure nor electoral expenditure can be included in a claim for administrative expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: I can take you through what is claimable as administrative expenditure. It includes expenditure that is incurred directly or indirectly by a registered political party or an independent elected member for the administration or management of the activities of the electoral participant; conferences, meetings, seminars or similar functions at which the policies of an electoral participant are discussed or formulated; the audit of the financial accounts of or claims for payment or disclosures under the principal act of an electoral participant; remuneration of staff who engaged in the above activities; equipment or vehicles used by staff engaged in the above activities; expenditure on office accommodation for the staff and equipment in the above activities; and expenditure on interest payments on loans.

I can clarify what is not included as a claimable administrative expenditure: political expenditure, electoral expenditure, expenditure which an elected member has claimed as a parliamentary allowance as a member, expenditure incurred substantially in respect of operations or activities relating to the election of a member of a registered political party to a Parliament other than the Parliament of Victoria or an expenditure where the electoral participant is entitled to any credit, rebate, refund reimbursement or other kind of reduction in tax liability under any law.

Georgie CROZIER: Sure. Polling or research does not direct how a person should vote by promoting or opposing the election of any candidate or a registered political party or an elected member but is defined as electoral expenditure in paragraph (h) of the definition. Minister, are you aware that only political expenditure is required to be paid for out of the state campaign account and that electoral expenditure is not required to be paid for from that state campaign account? Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: That is correct.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, are you aware that this means that affiliation fees can in fact be used to fund electoral expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: Affiliation fees from associated entities can only be used for administrative funding, so the answer is no. I think I went through the list with you just a moment ago of what constitutes claimable administrative expenditure under the act.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay. I am just trying to think it through because there is a lot from the various aspects, from the administrative and electoral expenditure. Do you accept that by claiming that affiliation fees or levies and membership fees can only be spent on administrative expenditure you may have misled the Parliament, given that is the purpose these fees and levies can be used for?

Ingrid STITT: The VEC applies the act and oversees whether registered political parties as candidates and anybody participating in the political process have complied with the act, Ms Crozier.

Bev McARTHUR: Since we are talking about administrative funding here, let us go to the staff, the apportionment problem, para (a)(iv). A party’s state director spends an estimated 60 per cent of their time on internal administration and 40 per cent on campaign strategy. The bill funds their salary to the extent it relates to administrative matters. Who calculates that 60–40 split and what substantiates it? What stops a party simply asserting the administrative share is higher?

Ingrid STITT: It is a matter for the VEC, again, in similar terms to what I just answered Ms Crozier on.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you are saying the VEC is the arbiter of this. Is that what you are saying, or did I mishear you?

Ingrid STITT: The VEC has responsibility for monitoring and enforcement powers when it comes to this legislation and the disclosure and reporting regime.

Bev McARTHUR: So you are saying that the VEC will now be looking at time sheets of every staff member in a political party. But the time sheet of the state director, is there such a thing?

Ingrid STITT: The best way for me to answer this is that none of this has changed since 2018. The role of the VEC is exactly the same as it was under the previous act and the previous division 12. It does this work already.

Bev McARTHUR: We have learned that the union affiliation fees can fund administration, but you cannot define exactly what administration is when we are looking at salaries. A single staffer spends the morning processing membership renewals, which is administrative, and the afternoon writing campaign advertising material, which is electoral. Is their salary apportioned hour by hour or day by day? And are you saying the VEC is to administer that time sheet? What happens if there is no time sheet?

Ingrid STITT: Well, I do not know whether you mean to, but you are misrepresenting what I said in answer to Ms Crozier’s question, because I said that claimable administrative expenditure includes the remuneration of staff who are engaged in those activities that are defined as claimable administrative activities. I have gone through them, but for the purposes of clarifying your misunderstanding, I will do it again: the administration of management of the activities of the electoral participant; conferences, meetings, seminars or similar functions at which the policies of an electoral participant are discussed and formulated; the audit of the financial accounts of or claims for payment or disclosures under the principal act of an electoral participant; and as I indicated, remuneration of staff when engaged in those activities – those activities.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, what we are concluding from this is it is a very grey area. A party employs a policy officer whose work feeds directly into the party’s election platform. Conferences where policies are discussed or formulated are expressly claimable under paragraph (a)(ii). Is that officer’s salary administrative funding or political expenditure, and does the answer change in the six months before an election?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to answer your hypotheticals. These are matters for parties who are required under legislation to comply, and I have already outlined to you what the VEC’s compliance and enforcement activities are.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, this goes to the very heart of the problem of this legislation, because you cannot define these areas. It is a very grey area, what a staff member, what a policy adviser, what a state director might be doing which can be claimed under administration but in effect could be construed as electoral work. So that is where there is a lack of transparency in your whole proposal today, with affiliation fees being able to be used for administration but not campaigning. Yet what can we really define as ‘administration’? And you are saying that the VEC police officer is going to be on deck checking every time sheet, every activity of somebody working in head office. Is that how you propose for this to work?

Ingrid STITT: I just do not accept the premise of those many questions. These definitions have been in place since 2018 in the act. They are not being changed in this bill, and I do not accept the proposition that you are putting to me.

Bev McARTHUR: But these are critical matters. A party’s head office is used for both day-to-day administration and to run its election campaign. Administrative funding can pay for office accommodation for administrative staff. If the same building houses the campaign war room, what proportion of the rent is claimable, and who decides?

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure that I can add any more to what I have already said to you. Mrs McArthur, I am curious: how has the Liberal Party been managing these issues since 2018?

Bev McARTHUR: I think, as Ms Crozier said, you are here to answer our questions, not to direct questions to us. You are saying that you are producing legislation that is going to make the election process fairer, transparent and full of integrity, yet these detailed questions go to the heart of what affiliation fees could be spent on. They can be spent on administration, but what is administration? How do you define it? You are leaving it, you suggest, to the policeman of the VEC. We have got a situation where a vehicle is used by a staffer for administrative travel during the year and to ferry the leader, perhaps, between campaign events during the election. The bill funds the vehicle to the extent used for administrative matters. How is that extent measured – a logbook? Or is it audited? How do you propose to clarify this?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, you are making all sorts of claims about, in your words, the grey areas, and what I would put to you is that there is nothing grey about the definition of what is claimable administrative expenditure either in the previous act or in this bill. Really, it is up to individual parties and candidates to make sure that they are complying with the regime and with the provisions in the legislation. I have already outlined in detail what is included in admin funding and what can be claimed. You keep going around in circles and trying to imply that it is not clear. It is absolutely clear in the legislation and has been for some time – since 2018 in fact.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, there is also a degree of hypocrisy in this whole area, because you claim not to have had any discussions about the bill. You are the minister, but you claim not to have had any discussions about the bill. Yet you also seem to claim that you are abreast of the negotiations between the parties. You cannot have it both ways. Either you were involved in the negotiations, and therefore you should know what parties were discussing, or you were not.

Ingrid STITT: As is the practice in our chamber, we often, as ministers, represent other ministers in bringing bills to the Parliament. If you care to check the general order, you will see that the Premier is responsible for this bill. Again, I can only say to you that if parties are trying to get around the regime, there are strong penalties associated with trying to do so.

Bev McARTHUR: Since you did allude to the fact that you seem to know what the Leader of the Opposition had been proposing, how many of the proposals put by the Liberal Party to satisfy the issues around constitutionality have been adopted?

Ingrid STITT: We have had good faith discussions with all political parties and all members of parties and individual independent members of Parliament in formulating this bill, and we are satisfied that the bill before the house is the right balance when it comes to not only the appropriate donation caps but the transparency measures that are contained in the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, that is completely untrue, because the Liberal Party agreed in principle on a number of things for this bill, none of which are in the bill. So you cannot claim that you had negotiations in good faith with the Liberal Party or the Leader of the Opposition or any of the opposition that were involved in the negotiations, including our state director, can you?

Ingrid STITT: I just explained to you that I am representing the Premier in bringing this bill to the chamber.

Bev McARTHUR: But you did concede you knew how the negotiations had gone – you clearly did not. But let us find out. Has the government sought a constitutional opinion from the solicitor-general on the bill in its entirety – that is, the cap, the third-party limit, the foreign donations ban and the retrospective provisions? And will you table that constitutional advice promptly?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered this question, Mrs McArthur, but for the avoidance of any doubt, the government has had regard to legal advice in the development of this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: I think we are entitled to know what opinion the solicitor-general might have given on this bill. The solicitor-general – not other ancillary legal advice, but the solicitor-general.

Ingrid STITT: I have got nothing to add to my previous answers.

Bev McARTHUR: It is good that you put on the record that you are refusing to ensure that the Parliament and the people of Victoria are –

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think I have been accused of all sorts of things this evening, but I do not appreciate being verballed immediately after I have just made it clear that we –

Bev McArthur: But you’re refusing to answer.

Ingrid Stitt: No, I did not say that. I said I have already answered that question, Mrs McArthur. I ask you to withdraw that statement. Deputy President, I would ask you to ask Mrs McArthur to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister is offended, Mrs McArthur. Will you withdraw?

Bev McARTHUR: If the minister is offended, I will withdraw. But again, we place on record the fact that the people of Victoria and this Parliament are not entitled to know any –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am just going to leave the chair for 2 minutes. I will be back.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, are you confident that if this bill was to be struck down in likely legal proceedings – that is, in relation to foreign donations that would be left in abeyance – of course Victoria would once again be subject to this free-for-all, potentially in mid-cycle?

Ingrid STITT: I am not clear what the question is, Deputy President. There was a bit of a preamble.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, could you repeat the question?

Bev McARTHUR: I am terribly sorry, Minister, not to be clear. I can put it in a more technical way: why has the government not built a severability or fallback mechanism into the bill, given that that is exactly what has just happened, so that foreign donations, for example, which we all agree on, would not once again be left in abeyance?

Ingrid STITT: I think you are asking me to speculate on hypotheticals. I am certainly not in a position to predict what might be in the minds of other people who may seek to take legal proceedings. But I can only repeat that we have drafted the laws with regard to legal advice and drafted them in a way that best places them to withstand a challenge.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, just on that specific question – I will try to ask it so it is not hypothetical – was there a particular reason the government did not build a fallback mechanism into the bill?

Ingrid STITT: You would need to explain what you mean by fallback, but I assume what you mean is ‘should any part of the act be invalidated’ – is that what you mean? As I said, we have drafted the laws taking careful regard of the legal advice that we have received about how to put them in the best place possible to withstand any challenge.

Bev McARTHUR: The problem you have got, Minister, is if you did not build in a fallback mechanism or a severability mechanism, you are leaving the door open to the exact problem we have had and why the High Court ruled that previous bill unconstitutional. You have not covered off on matters – for instance, foreign donations would be left exposed again. Why didn’t you do that? That was a simple thing that could have been done.

Ingrid STITT: We believe that it was important to deal with the whole of the. bill and the implications of the High Court case. Mrs McArthur, I think this is a classic example of why the government sought to bring this bill as an urgent bill today, something that I note you opposed.

Bev McARTHUR: Urgent, Minister? You knew of the High Court case months ago. It was ruled on in April. You have had a very long time to produce legislation. You could have been doing it while the High Court was actually in operation in anticipation of what could have been the outcome. You cannot claim urgency in this matter. That is totally disingenuous. For how long was this bill open for public consultation? Which stakeholders were consulted? And will the minister table the consultation record or concede there was effectively none?

Ingrid STITT: Can I take you back to my summing-up and remind you of the government’s position on this from day one. It was certainly a complex decision, and we have worked quickly to get a piece of legislation that will stand up to any further challenge and address the court’s decision. We have consulted with the electoral commission, but I do want to just remind you that the Premier has been unambiguous from the day the High Court decision came down that we could not allow a situation where our longstanding electoral integrity laws were exposing the state to dark money in politics. We have taken into account the views of stakeholders, including the views of stakeholders on the need for a further independent review.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, what stakeholders?

Ingrid STITT: I have already indicated that we have had discussions with and consulted with the VEC, which is appropriate as the entity charged with overseeing this legislation. We also consulted with the Centre for Public Integrity, for one, who were seeking an independent review, and the proposed terms of reference reflect their views. And of course, as we have touched on a number of times this evening, we talked with political parties and members of the Parliament across both chambers.

Bev McARTHUR: Was the bill referred to any committee for inquiry before reaching this Council? If not, why is the Parliament being asked to pass a rewrite of electoral law of this length without any committee scrutiny?

Ingrid STITT: Well, that is clearly not the case, because we have already committed to an independent review of the legislation after the next election. I think we have clearly articulated publicly and in this place the reasons why it is urgent to reinstate our donation laws in this state. We had to get a system back in place to ensure that donations that would fall foul of legislation were not flowing into registered political parties’ and candidates’ coffers.

Bev McARTHUR: Now, your review is post the election; it is post this legislation. There has been no review prior to you introducing the bill yesterday. So the review post all this is irrelevant to this particular bill, isn’t it?

Ingrid STITT: Don’t you think it is important to have a donations framework in place well ahead of our state election in November? We need to have a system in place, is the simple answer to your strange line of questioning. I have got to say it is interesting that we are largely replacing what previously existed but you seem very exercised about these laws being put back in place, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: No, Minister, I just wanted you to correct the record. You said you have instituted a review, but it is not a review into this piece of legislation; it is a review into how the system might work post an election. That is not relevant to this piece of legislation. It is totally disingenuous to even suggest it is, isn’t it, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: I mean, you have seen the amendment in respect to the proposed review – the amendments have been circulated to the chamber. The bill requires an independent review of the proposed regime to be conducted by an expert panel, commencing within one month after the November 2026 election. What is so complicated for you to understand about that?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Answering questions with questions is not going to be helpful to anyone trying to interpret the government’s intent in this legislation, so I ask the minister to actually answer questions, not to pose questions back.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, yes, it would be far more helpful if you just answered the questions, not posed questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, no editorialising, please.

Bev McARTHUR: Okay. Thank you, Deputy President. Can I just say a review post this legislation might be a nice thing to think about and might be a cop-out to the general public, but there was no review or proper consultation with the wider public, let alone actually major political parties, to be fair, prior to this legislation being brought into this house. The review needed to be done prior to yesterday. It is nice having one post the election, but prior to yesterday is what is important if you want to be transparent and honest about how you are developing this legislation, which does seem to present to people an idea that you may well be developing the legislation in your own best interests. Isn’t that the case, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: No.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, will you agree that trade unions, which hold voting rights in the governing party, are associated entities under this bill and that their affiliation fees are exempt from the cap, so the bodies that help control the party may fund it without limit while ordinary Victorians cannot?

Ingrid STITT: I have already gone through in some detail this evening that, yes, unions are associated entities and they operate in the same way as any other associated entity. There are other examples of associated entities, including think tanks and fundraising entities, as well as those organisations that were previously nominated entities such as the Cormack Foundation, Pilliwinks and Labor Services & Holdings.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, will you concede that this bill punishes circumventing a donation rule with up to 10 years imprisonment, the same maximum Victoria sets for a threat to kill, and a corporate fine of $1.22 million, double the ceiling reserved for manslaughter, rape and armed robbery?

Ingrid STITT: Those are the penalties contained in the bill, Mrs McArthur. I am not sure that it is helpful to draw comparisons with other legislation, but these are penalties contained in the bill before the house. We will be dealing with them one way or another this evening.

Bev McARTHUR: I wonder if the Victorian public know that you think – because you have put this into the bill, that 10 years imprisonment, which is the same maximum, as I said, that Victoria sets for a threat to kill – these are equivalent. These crimes are extraordinary, and yet somebody circumventing a donation rule can hardly be comparable to a threat to kill or manslaughter or rape or armed robbery. Yet you countenanced that these penalties for somebody circumventing this bill will be treated like rapists, murderers and armed robbers – serious criminals, in fact.

Ingrid STITT: Are you arguing – I am not allowed to ask a question in response to a question, am I? There is no change to the penalties. They have been the same penalties since 2018. It is important that we have a robust scheme in place. We believe the penalties contained in the bill are appropriate.

Bev McARTHUR: That does not mean it is proportionate or right. Who set these penalties? You were just cutting and pasting from the last bill – is that what you are saying? You did not review them in any way, shape or form?

Ingrid STITT: They are the same penalties that were contained in the previous part 12 of the act, and we think they are appropriate. That is why we have brought them unchanged in this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Would you be suggesting that this is the sort of aspect that this expert review panel should look at in the future, that we are comparing probably common-day political volunteers circumventing a donation rule – they may do it inadvertently – as being the same as common criminals? Is that something this expert review panel should be looking at right now?

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: And why weren’t they reviewed? Quite right.

Ingrid STITT: It is one of the things that the panel could look at, yes. Assuming the amendment is passed and forms part of the bill, yes, it is certainly something that the independent review panel could include as part of their work.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, that goes to exactly why there should have been proper consultation and proper involvement of people long before yesterday, when this bill was introduced, so that a number of people and experts outside this Parliament could actually review these aspects. Just because it was there does not mean it was right in a previous piece of legislation, but it is there now because you have not bothered to change it and you have not consulted properly and allowed people the time to properly review this aspect of it. Minister, do you concede that an ordinary Victorian cannot read the definition of ‘third-party campaigner’ and know whether their own advocacy is lawful because the answer depends on an unreviewable VEC determination?

Ingrid STITT: We are getting into a bit of a pattern here where you make a long statement, make a number of assertions, leave them uncontested and then move on to the next question. Nobody for a minute should think that on this side of the chamber we agree with the assertions that you are making. When it comes to the penalties that are contained in the bill, they are the same as the previous act, because we say they are appropriate. It may or may not be the case that the independent review goes to these issues. When the independent reviewers look at the legislation, I think that it is up to any participant in the political process to make sure that they are cognisant of the laws that apply to political donations, and no-one is any different in that regard.

Georgie CROZIER: Can I just follow on from the line of questioning from Mrs McArthur. Did the government get any legal advice around this issue, around penalties regarding this bill? I mean, was it reviewed at all through that legal advice that was sought by the government?

Ingrid STITT: The government has had regard to the legal advice received in the development of the bill, all aspects of the bill, as a total package before the Parliament.

Georgie CROZIER: I take it, therefore, that – well, I am just curious about this. Was there any concern raised by the government, given the disproportionate penalties around this? If you say that the legal aspects of the bill were looked at in their entirety, were there any concerns raised by anyone from the Labor Party entities or the government in relation to those penalties?

Ingrid STITT: I just reiterate that the penalties are not changing from the previous act. The government has had regard to legal advice in the development of the bill, and the bill is the bill before the house.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, did the Labor Party provide legal advice to the Premier on this bill?

Ingrid STITT: The government has had regard to legal advice. The answer to that question is no.

Georgie CROZIER: So you are not aware that the Labor Party obtained independent legal advice that was provided to the Premier’s office?

Ingrid STITT: The advice I have is no, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: So you are saying that no independent legal advice was received by the Premier’s office. Is that correct, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: I am sorry, you just changed the question.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I will ask it again. Are you aware, or the advisers in the box or the government – is the government aware that the Labor Party obtained independent legal advice to the Premier’s office?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, advice received by the party is a matter for the party. I have been very clear with you that the government has had regard to their legal advice – our own legal advice – in the development of the bill.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, has the Premier received legal advice from the Labor Party regarding this bill?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered that. This will be the third time that I say no.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, you have got responsibility of carriage of this bill. What discussions have you had with the Premier’s office regarding legal advice?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, I do not know where you think you are going with this, but I have been very clear. You have asked four times now, and I have answered very clearly that the advice I have is that the answer to your question is no. Advice received by the party is a matter for the party.

Georgie CROZIER: No, that’s not what I asked.

Ingrid STITT: I might have carriage of this bill in the upper house. I have been briefed by the department in relation to the contents of the bill in order for me to be able to bring the bill through the upper house.

Georgie CROZIER: That is not what I asked, Minister. The question was: did the Premier receive legal advice from the Labor Party?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered already.

Georgie CROZIER: You are the responsible minister in relation to this bill. I need to get this because it is very important. Are you seriously saying that –

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, if you check the general order, I am not the responsible minister for this legislation.

Georgie Crozier: You are here in this house. You’ve got carriage.

Ingrid Stitt: I am representing the Premier in bringing this bill to the upper house. Be accurate. If you are going to ask me these questions, be accurate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think that is a point of order. You are the responsible minister in this house and should be briefed on the bill. If you are not fully briefed, we could always postpone the committee stage until you can get there.

Georgie CROZIER: I just find it incredible that you, as the responsible minister having carriage of this bill in this place, are not aware of any legal advice the Labor Party has obtained. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: You have just changed the question again, Ms Crozier. I have said very clearly that legal advice sought by the Labor Party is a matter for the Labor Party, and I have told you – you have asked me five times now whether legal advice was provided by the party to the Premier, and I have clearly and unequivocally said no.

Georgie CROZIER: It is an important issue that I am raising, Minister.

Ingrid Stitt: I have answered it.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I am not satisfied with your answers actually, because I am really concerned about the briefing that you have got and what happened in the Premier’s office. Did you ever ask your department or the Premier’s office if there was any advice sought by other legal entities from the Labor Party? Was that not a consideration, given we are talking about all of the entities here? We do not know the legal advice and you will not provide who has given that legal advice and how the government has come to form this bill, so I think it is very relevant that we ask. You as the representative, surely, would have that understanding.

Ingrid STITT: If it is easier for you to follow along: the Premier received advice from her department, which you would expect, and through the solicitor-general, advice was provided to the government.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you confirm: is that the only advice the Premier got – from the solicitor-general?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered that question very clearly.

Georgie Crozier: Is it a yes?

Ingrid STITT: Sorry?

Georgie Crozier: Is it a yes?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered the question six times now, Ms Crozier. Move on.

Georgie CROZIER: No, I am not going to move on, Minister, because we know the Premier’s office did get legal advice.

Ingrid STITT: The advice I have is that she did not receive –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, can you stand – it is easier for Hansard, sorry.

Ingrid STITT: The bill has had regard to the legal advice received by the government in its development. Any legal advice sought by the Labor Party is a matter for the party.

Georgie CROZIER: It is regarding the Premier, the Labor Party and the government – that is the point of these questions, Minister. The Labor Party sought independent legal advice, given to the Premier, and you are saying it has got nothing to do with this bill. Is that correct?

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think we are bordering on tedious repetition. I was watching this debate and seeing repeated questions – the same question asked – and in the time it has taken me to come here, we are still asking the same question. This is tedious repetition and an abuse of the committee process.

Georgie Crozier: Further on the point of order, Deputy President, this is a really important part of this process. I am sorry if Mr Galea does not like the line of questioning, but it is regarding this bill, and I think I have got every right to ask these questions to get some clarity out of the minister as she is representing the Premier in this house.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Crozier. I think we probably need to progress the committee.

Georgie CROZIER: I am happy to progress, but I do want to ask another question to the minister. Minister, did Labor’s legal advice go directly to the solicitor-general?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, there are considerable rulings that matters of party administration are not matters for which ministers are responsible. The member cannot ask questions about what the Labor Party did.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, I advise you to just focus on the government’s legal advice, not the party, so I do uphold that point of order.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, are you aware of the Premier receiving any briefing on the bill from the Labor Party?

Ingrid STITT: She did not.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, was the legal advice able to be paid as administrative expenditure? Could it have been paid for by affiliation fees that came from unions?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, if the member is asking about legal advice the Labor Party received, it is not within the competence of the minister to answer as a matter of government administration.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The minister is not responsible for the administration within the Labor Party, so can we move on to the next question, please.

Georgie CROZIER: There seems to be a lot of concern regarding Labor MPs, and I understand why, because we are debating this bill, and what we are trying to ascertain is what happened to get to the legal advice and how this bill has come about.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: No, it is not that, Mr Batchelor; it is actually a line of questioning that I think is important for the Victorian public, given where we are at. I think it is within the scope of this bill, given the Premier has carriage of this and you are responsible. What I am trying to ascertain is what was known by the Premier and what we are debating here in relation to the legal advice that was received in the Premier’s office and what the government has put forward here today. Can you confirm that affiliation fees paid for by unions could have funded legal advice given to the Premier’s office to help with this bill?

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, this is the same question that you just ruled out. In addition, Ms Crozier is seeking to reprosecute something that I have already answered clearly in my previous answers.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do think that the question goes to matters of party administration, so that is not within the scope of the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Let us see if we can manage this one, Minister. The Australia Institute’s own figures suggest that the governing party – that is, the Labor Party – raises more from levies on its MPs and staff than from the entire Victorian public, and this bill exempts exactly that money from the cap it imposes on everyone else.

Ingrid STITT: That is not a matter that is within the scope of this bill. Every party is covered by the same rules when it comes to the legislation, but that particular matter is a matter for individual political parties.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you concede, Minister, that the Victorian public would be interested to know that you can basically subvert the cap, because the Labor Party – the Victorian Labor Party, the governing party in this state, the party bringing in this legislation – raises more from levies on its own MP, such as you, and staff than from the entire Victorian public? Do you agree that is subverting this whole issue?

Ingrid STITT: I have already addressed this, but I will repeat that every party is covered by the same rules, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: Do you concede that this bill creates a taxpayer-funded per-vote payment worth tens of millions of dollars each election before annual administrative and policy funding, and that this will be charged to the Consolidated Fund and will add to Victoria’s debt?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, there is public funding in the bill – there was public funding in the previous bill – the rates of which are clearly outlined in part 12. I am unclear what difficulty you have with that, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, everybody in Victoria is concerned about your debt. After all, how many hours have we been here? We are paying over $1 million an hour for every hour we stay here. What are we up to, Ms Crozier? I do not know, we started about 6 o’clock – do the maths – so $4 million has gone down the gurgler in interest, and you want to add to the burden of taxpayers and debt by increasing the amount we are going to pay out of the public purse for political activity. Are you not concerned about the increase in the debt and the increased burden on taxpayers and future generations by adding to this burden?

Ingrid STITT: Again, I will make the point that public funding is not a new concept. It has been part of our system since 2018. I guess in some ways I am not surprised – I know that the Liberal Party has a very different philosophical view about how elections and donations ought to operate. The government takes the view that administrative funding, public funding, is an important part of the democratic process and helps ensure that it is not the deepest pockets that determine the outcome of elections, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: We on this side of the house are totally concerned about the pockets of Victorians, which are becoming emptier by the hour because of your waste and mismanagement and your $15 million abuse, given to the CFMEU. What on earth would their affiliation fees be if they could possibly join your political party? So we are concerned on this side of the house for how you abuse taxpayers, and we will stand up for them every day, every hour in this place and elsewhere. You are reaching into the pockets of Victorians with this piece of legislation. You have admitted you are not the least bit concerned about how this might add to the debt and the burden of taxpayers. Do you seriously want the taxpayers of Victoria to understand how little concern you have for them, hour by hour, day by day, in this place?

Ingrid STITT: This has nothing to do with the scope of the bill, Deputy President, and Mrs McArthur is really just giving a speech. The time for that was in the second-reading debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, if we can move on to the next question. Thank you.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, given the High Court struck down the predecessor scheme weeks ago as an impermissible burden on political communication, on what basis can the government maintain this near identical architecture is compatible with the charter’s freedom of expression?

Ingrid STITT: The new laws have been developed with a mind to the rights contained in the constitution, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and of course the concerns raised with other similar legislation. The new laws seek to strike the right balance between the rights of people to fund political parties and political campaigning and the desire to minimise the risk or perception of improper financial influence in decision-making. The new laws also address the unfair advantage of unequal financial resources between electoral participants, including new entrants, and seek to address some of the preferential risks by ensuring the bill does not introduce any nominated entity arrangements, including the former nominated entity exception. The new laws require registered political parties and nominated entities to disclose and return funds made and received between the Hopper judgement and the day the bill receives royal assent if those funds exceed the new general cap. The new laws also, as we have been discussing this evening, will require registered political parties to return to their former nominated entities any transfer of funds, noting of course that the government has introduced a house amendment to extend that period back to 2018.

Sitting suspended 9:48 pm until 9:53 pm.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, ‘claimable administrative expenditure’ is whatever the commission determines it will be. Will the minister confirm that no figure in this scheme is fixed by the act, that the VEC decides case by case what ‘taxpayer-funded administration’ means and that there is no merits review of these determinations?

Ingrid STITT: I am advised that the VEC determines the expenses and that parties have to put in the appropriate paperwork, including receipts. But I have already taken you, during committee stage, through what ‘claimable administrative expenditure’ covers in terms of what is in the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, if two parties claim identically and the commission allows one and refuses the other, what is the avenue of challenge and how is consistency guaranteed across the major parties, minor parties and independents? What avenue of challenge is there?

Ingrid STITT: The VEC has the power to monitor compliance against the donation laws, Mrs McArthur, but that is a very operational question that you are asking. That is something that would be a matter for the VEC to determine. You are giving me a bit of a hypothetical example of what might be presented to the VEC.

Bev McARTHUR: The point of this is surely in this bill you should have thought of the fact that if the commission appears to or is deemed to unfairly treat one party against the other, one independent against the other, what avenues are there to appeal the commission’s decision? What legal avenues are available?

Ingrid STITT: Leaving aside some of the assertions you are making, these provisions have been in place since 2018, but all VEC decisions can be reviewed by the courts.

Bev McARTHUR: Misuse of administrative funding carries a penalty of 200 per cent of the amount misused. Who detects misuse, given the apportionment judgements are made by the recipient in the first instance? Has the government estimated how many of these apportionment claims the VEC has the resources to actually audit each year?

Ingrid STITT: These are matters for the VEC, but I can indicate that they have powers to monitor and investigate possible contraventions of the disclosure and reporting regime. They monitor donations by reconciling the disclosures by donors and recipients so that they can compare that data. The VEC also has a range of other monitoring and enforcement powers, including issuing a notice requiring the production of evidence, documents or appearance of a person before a compliance officer of the commission to give evidence either orally or in writing and produce documents.

Bev McARTHUR: Going back to the charter, which provides for freedom of expression. Has the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) reported on this bill under section 30?

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Ingrid STITT: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

Ingrid STITT: Obviously, this bill came to the house as an urgent bill, but it is open to SARC to consider the bill when it is passed. Or indeed SARC may consider any act that was not considered when it was a bill under certain circumstances, so it is certainly open for SARC to look at these issues.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you would be aware that this is very unusual. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee provides to report on legislation, not after it is passed but beforehand, to advise all members of Parliament whether it is compatible with human rights et cetera and how the regulations affect Victorians.

If SARC has not had time to report on this bill, that is a real breach of how we conduct legislative programs in this place. How is it that you can justify progressing a bill without the mandatory scrutiny that is normally the case before we deal with legislation?

Ingrid STITT: I think I indicated to an earlier question that the bill is charter compliant. I have already indicated to you that by virtue of the government bringing in this bill as an urgent bill it has not been reviewed by SARC. However, SARC may consider any act that was not considered when it was a bill within whichever is the later – 10 sitting days after the act receives royal assent or 30 days immediately after the first appointment of members of the committee after the commencement of each Parliament. It is a matter for SARC as to whether they seek to undergo any of those options.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, this is extraordinary. You have just said this bill is charter compliant, yet you admit the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has not met to review the bill. You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be charter compliant if SARC have not met to review the bill. Whether they review it after the event is a completely different matter. You have totally breached this process in this Parliament in regard to legislation. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee have not met, yet you are telling us it is compliant. How can this be?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, I draw your attention to the statement of compatibility against the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities that was tabled.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Minister, how will the public know about moneys relevant to the refund mechanism for nominated entities in section 277 before 15 April and the money that may have gone from nominated entities to parties since 15 April in subsections 279 and 280?

Ingrid STITT: The VEC will monitor compliance with these provisions, and we commit to making transitional regulations to require public disclosure of these amounts.

Sarah MANSFIELD: If I can, I am just going to ask a question about the disclosure threshold. In clause 5 there is a description of the disclosure threshold, which means:

$1250 or, if a higher amount is prescribed by the regulations, the prescribed amount …

What assurances can you provide that this amount will not be increased from $1250?

Ingrid STITT: We can give a commitment that we will not be changing those thresholds, and we are happy to give that undertaking.

Georgie CROZIER: I just want to follow on from one question from Dr Mansfield, if I may, and then Dr Heath – I have got some other questions. Could I just seek some clarification, Minister. Dr Mansfield spoke of the monitoring compliance, and I think your answer to Dr Mansfield was that the VEC would be undertaking that monitoring compliance since the High Court decision in April. Has the VEC had to put on additional staff to undertake all of that compliance, and have there been any issues raised during this time period?

Ingrid STITT: Just one moment.

Ms Crozier, I am advised that the VEC have not asked for any additional staffing allocation or resourcing, but if they were to, we would give that consideration.

Georgie CROZIER: Could I move to back to where I was questioning earlier. Given you say that unions are exempt from the other requirements under the law, could a union give to any other political party?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, they could. Obviously they would need to comply with the various donation caps, but there would be nothing to stop them.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you for that clarification. I think we are aware that unions have given to some of the minor parties as well as the Labor Party. Is it the case that associated entities can only pay affiliation fees to the party with which they are associated and no other party?

Ingrid STITT: I think the answer would be: if they were an associated entity. But I will seek some clarification.

The advice I have from the box, Ms Crozier, is that they would only be able to be an associated entity of one political party.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, how is that fair and not a differential burden, about which the High Court noted its concern when it struck out the former laws put forward by the government?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have said a number of times that we have given careful regard to the legal advice in the development of the bill, and we have gone to those sorts of questions in a bit of detail this evening.

Renee HEATH: Minister, section 15 of the charter of rights and responsibilities protects freedom of expression. The cap, the third-party regime and the broadened political expenditure each restrict political communication. So how does the statement of compatibility justify each limit as reasonable under section 7(2), and what evidence is cited?

Ingrid STITT: We think we have the balance right with the bill before the house.

Renee HEATH: Section 16 protects freedom of association. New section 211 of this bill bars supporting more than six third-party campaigners. How is a numerical cap on whom a citizen can support compatible with section 16?

Ingrid STITT: The government believes, Dr Heath, that the number balances Victorians’ rights to engage in political life by giving to third-party campaigners with the need to prevent donors from subverting the regime through multiple third-party campaigners. We think we have got the balance right in restricting that number to six.

Renee HEATH: I do not know if that does answer the question, though, about how that protects freedom of expression.

Ingrid STITT: We want to make sure that we prevent donors from subverting the regime, as we have seen in other international examples, where you can give donations to multiple third-party campaigners. We believe we have got this number balanced right.

Renee HEATH: Thank you for your response, but I do not think you are really understanding my question. It is not about whether you have got the balance right. It is about whether or not people’s ability to express is inhibited. Why aren’t unions limited to the same caps?

Ingrid STITT: I already answered this question earlier.

Renee HEATH: You have not answered it, so could you please walk me through it again?

Ingrid STITT: I have, and we have gone through associated entities and their position within the regime at great length this evening.

Renee HEATH: So people associated with unions have more rights of expression than those that are just individual citizens. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: No, you are putting words in my mouth. That is not what I have said at all.

Renee HEATH: The government wants balance as long as it can continue to provide funds solely to the Labor Party. Minister, please detail and explain why you believe you have this balance right. I want to hear about your version of this balance.

Ingrid STITT: I will draw you to the statement of compatibility, for a start. I am assuming you have read it if you are asking me questions about it. Dr Heath, it would be more helpful if you were specific about what provisions of the bill you were asking me about over and above just general statements about thoughts and feelings about the bill.

Renee HEATH: I am not sure what you mean by that. Particularly given the union movement has provided more than $4.5 million solely to the Labor Party, how is this balanced by other political participants?

Ingrid STITT: Because, like some of your colleagues, you are conflating the rights and provisions of this bill that certain political players hold. I will go over it again for your benefit. Maybe you were not in the chamber or maybe you were not following along from home. Associated entities must have separate state campaign accounts. They must submit annual returns to the VEC on their political donations and the money they pay to political parties. Political donations made by associated entities are subject to the general cap. I do not accept the assertions you are making about certain – you say unions, but I do not accept your assertion that different political players have one advantage or another. It is also important to reiterate that affiliation fees from associated entities can only be used for administrative funding. They cannot be used for campaign funding.

I also want to just make it really clear again that associated entities do not just include trade unions; they include think tanks and fundraising entities as well as of course those entities that were previously nominated entities under the former part 12, including the Cormack Foundation, Pilliwinks and Labor Services & Holdings. This is not something that is just associated with trade unions, and there are a range of provisions in both the previous act and the bill before the house that set out quite clearly what the responsibilities are of associated entities to disclose their political activities.

Renee HEATH: Just for the record, I was listening along with that, because that is when Ms Crozier said you needed a lozenge and one materialised. So I have been following along very closely. An individual cannot provide $4.5 million to a political party. So can you explain to me how it is okay for a union to provide that amount to a political party?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for the lozenges. I did appreciate it, and everyone has been very kind with my germs this evening. You are conflating different sections of the bill. You are implying that trade unions are able to donate to a greater extent than any other political player. That is not the case. I will again repeat that political donations made by associated entities, which includes unions but does not only cover unions, are subject to the general cap, the general cap in the bill for the election period after the state election being $7500 over the four-year term and of course a lesser amount for the period between the High Court decision on 15 April and the state election in November.

Renee HEATH: To me it still seems that unions have more rights, and you must concede that under this bill unions will be able to donate a lot more money to the political party of their choice or to whom they are affiliated with, aka the Labor Party, than an individual or a business could to the political party of their choice – correct?

Ingrid STITT: No, Dr Heath. Incorrect. I do not know how much clearer I can be. Associated entities, including unions, are covered by the same donation caps as any other donor. I think if you were watching along, and I have got no reason to believe otherwise, then you know I have been answering these questions at length for – how long have we been going? – 4 hours. They have been answered. You are incorrect. I do not know how many times I have to say that, and I am not going to say it too many more.

Renee HEATH: So is there a cap on affiliation fees?

Ingrid STITT: Affiliation fees are set. It is a matter for any party to set those affiliation fees. But importantly, what you continue to, I think deliberately, conflate is that affiliation fees can only be used for administrative funding. I have already taken Mrs McArthur and Ms Crozier through the list of things that qualify for a claim of administrative funding. They are absolutely separate to campaign donations.

Renee HEATH: Is it the government’s view that funds provided outside of the campaign accounts cannot have a corrupting or undue influence on political parties?

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure what you are suggesting, Dr Heath. Do you want to be clear?

Renee HEATH: Unions have more rights, Minister. Please explain how this is conflating.

Ingrid STITT: I do not agree with your assertion. There is nothing in this bill that gives your assertion any credibility. I have answered these questions again and again, and I will not be answering any more of the same questions.

Renee HEATH: New section 265 is called ‘Payments into State campaign account’. Paragraph (3) prohibits membership fees, affiliation fees and levies from being paid into a state campaign account. New section 266 is called ‘Payments from State campaign account’. It requires participants to ensure no political expenditure is paid for unless the amount is paid for from the state campaign account. That provision does not mention electoral expenditure. So which provision prevents affiliation fees and levies from being used for electoral expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered this question.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, section 8 protects equality before the law. The bill caps an individual’s donation at $7500 while exempting salary levies, affiliation fees and volunteer labour. How is treating a citizen’s cash differently from a union’s affiliation fee compatible with section 8?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered these questions, Mrs McArthur. Affiliation fees have been covered in the committee stage exhaustively.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you have not answered those questions; this is completely separate. We will go to section 8, which protects equality before the law. The bill caps an individual’s donation while exempting salary levies, affiliation fees and volunteers. How is treating a citizen’s cash differently from a union’s affiliation fee compatible with section 8?

Ingrid STITT: Again, you are conflating the issues between associated entities and donors, and we have gone through this.

Renee HEATH: Just one more question, Minister, on the amount, the six numbers that you are allowed to support: why six? Why not five or why not 60? The High Court struck down the last version of this scheme eight weeks ago on the implied freedom of political communication, and now you have made it a crime for Victorians to back a seventh charity. I really do want you to communicate to us – and it is not about conflating things; I am just trying to understand. Can you tell us here: what is the evidence that supporting six community campaigns is democracy but supporting a seventh is corruption?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered this to you. I will do it again. The government believes that this number balances Victorians’ right to engage in political life by giving to third-party campaigners with the need to prevent donors from subverting the regime through potentially giving to multiple third-party campaigners. This was in the previous act. These are not new provisions. We believe we have got the balance right.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, we have talked a lot about affiliation fees. Perhaps you could give us your definition of an affiliation fee.

Ingrid STITT: The definition is in the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: For the committee’s sake here perhaps you could give us your definition.

Ingrid STITT: It is not for me to give my definition. The definitions are in the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Section 24 protects the right to a fair hearing. The bill makes obligations turn on unreviewable VEC determinations and provides only internal review. How is the absence of independent merits review compatible with section 24?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered this as well, Mrs McArthur. The statement of compatibility – I draw you to that. But I have also indicated that courts can always review VEC decisions.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I am advised that it is difficult to find this definition of ‘affiliation fee’. Perhaps you could help us by directing us to the clause or the page.

Ingrid STITT: Thanks to all of this I forgot to put my footy tips in. I am just getting the answer for you. Can we come back to that one?

The VEC provides guidance on coverage of the definitions. That is publicly available. By ‘affiliation fees’ if you are asking about political party affiliation fees, can you clarify?

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you clearly said it is in the bill. Please point to the exact page or clause where the definition of ‘affiliation fees’ is described in the bill – the exact definition, please, not on some VEC website or somewhere else, but in the bill.

Ingrid STITT: We will come back to that, Mrs McArthur.

Georgie CROZIER: On a point of order, Deputy President. Why do we have to come back, Minister, given –

Ingrid Stitt: In a minute.

Georgie CROZIER: But why? We have got the bill in front of us –

Ingrid Stitt: Because I have asked for clarity on it from the box, and I am getting it.

Georgie CROZIER: But I am concerned that you were very definitive in your answer a couple of times, and basically when Dr Heath was asking, you said it was in the bill. I mean, you were –

Renee Heath: Patronising.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, yes, it was actually rather patronising, Dr Heath. I think it is a real problem, given you have claimed that definition is in the bill – you were very firm about it – and clearly it is not. I think the committee deserves to have an explanation as to why –

Ingrid Stitt: And I am getting you the answer.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, from you, given that you have misled the Parliament on this one.

Ingrid STITT: Oh, turn it up.

Okay. The definition is in the bill because it is contained in the definition of a gift. That is section 265, and this has not changed from the previous act. Sorry –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Ingrid STITT: But there is a definition of ‘gift’ in the bill. Affiliation fees fall under that definition. This is section 206. And the clarification that the payments cannot go into a state campaign account is in section 265.

Renee HEATH: Given that it is under ‘gift’ and we can find that now, can you please explain the difference between a donation and an affiliation fee?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, I can. A donation is for the purposes of political campaigning, and I have already gone to the fact that associated entities are subject to the general cap, so it could not be above $7500 for a term post the November election. Affiliation fees can only be used for administrative funding, and I have also, on more than one occasion – on almost three occasions now – gone through all the administrative expenditures that can be claimable administrative expenditures that can be included by a registered political party.

Renee HEATH: Just for the record, will you confirm that an affiliation fee is a gift?

Ingrid STITT: It falls under the definition of a gift in the bill. That is no different to the previous act.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, the definition in the bill says gift:

means any disposition of property, otherwise than by a will, made by a person to another person or an entity without consideration in money or money’s worth or with inadequate consideration, including the following –

the provision of a service;

the payment of an amount in respect of a guarantee;

the making of a payment or contribution at a fundraising function;

the disposition of property from a registered political party, a branch of a registered political party or an associated entity …

So that is where the affiliation fee falls under in that definition within the bill, correct?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you.

Bev McARTHUR: Section 27 prohibits retrospective criminal laws. The bill carefully excludes retrospective criminal liability in sections 272(2) and 289. Is the government conceding by those carve outs that without them the bill would breach section 27?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have said on a number of occasions now that the government has had regard to not only legal advice but charter requirements in development of the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, we cannot be confident about anything you are telling us, because you will not provide any legal advice. We have to take you on face value that this stands up. Clearly the bill carefully excludes retrospective criminal liability, but without those carve outs the bill would breach section 27. What sort of legal advice has qualified that?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, the bill imposes prospective duties to disclose and repay. I am not sure where you are going with this.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have got a couple of questions for the minister just in response to Dr Mansfield’s question. You said that you would commit, by regulation, to having the VEC disclose payments from nominated entities to political parties. Can you confirm what date you will make that regulation from?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, the advice I have is that, subject to the bill passing and royal assent being received, we would be consulting with the VEC, but we would be seeking to be able to do this as quickly as possible.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That was not the question, Minister. Will it be the same dates as your amendment of the clawback period, or at least from the last election, so that the Victorian public can publicly see transparently what amounts have been donated from the nominated entities to registered political parties?

Ingrid STITT: I will just get some advice on that for you. One moment.

Mr Mulholland, as soon as the regulations are made.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Again, that was not my question, Minister. When you say, ‘As soon as the regulations are made,’ do you mean from when the regulations are made onwards?

Ingrid STITT: The VEC will publish on their website the disclosures and repayments details, but they will also be in the regs, and we will make the regs. As soon as the bill gets royal assent, that work will commence. Does that make sense?

Evan MULHOLLAND: What I am trying to specify is: from what date will the VEC disclose transparently the payments from nominated entities to registered political parties?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, apologies for that. I think we might have misunderstood what your original question was. Should the bill go through as the amendments propose, then all of the information that would be caught up in that disclosure and refund provision would be published on the VEC website back to 2018 if there were instances of that being in the returns.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would that also include if that expenditure was already spent?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, it would only be what was in the state campaign account on 15 April.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What was in the state campaign account from 15 April to royal assent?

Ingrid STITT: No, only what was in the state campaign account on 15 April.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So if the funds were already expended, the public will have no clarity over donations to registered political parties from nominated entities?

Ingrid STITT: The answer is no.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, is it not the case that all disclosure provisions for payments from nominated entities only require disclosure of payments received during the applicable period, which is the period from 15 April to royal assent, not any longer specified period?

Ingrid STITT: I think that you might be misunderstanding that provision.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am not misunderstanding the act provision. We have gone through that we might know what is in the state campaign account up until the day of the High Court decision. What I am asking is: is it not a fact that all the disclosure provisions for payments from nominated entities only require disclosure payments received during the applicable period, which is, again, 15 April to royal assent, not the specified period which you have now amended?

Ingrid STITT: I think what you are not taking account of is that associated entities are required to provide an annual return, which goes to –

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Deputy President, I did not go to associated entities in my question. I went to nominated entities.

Ingrid STITT: Can you repeat the question?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Is it not the case that all disclosure provisions for payments from nominated entities only require disclosure of payments received during the applicable period, which is from 15 April to royal assent, not the specified period which you have now amended to be from 2018?

Ingrid STITT: The amounts refunded will be disclosed and the amounts provided from the nominated entity to the registered political parties after 15 April will be disclosed.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I just want to get back to the regulation, given that we have asked what the difference is between state expenditure and electoral expenditure.

If there has already been money expended, will those specific differences be disclosed?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, it will be disclosed.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So the differences for both state expenditure and campaign expenditure will be disclosed separately?

Ingrid STITT: That is a different question. The term ‘state expenditure’ is not a term that is in the bill. Can you provide some clarity to me about what you are specifically referring to?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Electoral expenditure versus administration expenditure.

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, thank you for your patience. The advice I have is that what was in the state campaign account on 15 April will be disclosed and other forms of expenditure since 15 April will be disclosed. This is section 279 to 280.

Evan MULHOLLAND: When you say other forms of campaign expenditure will be disclosed, in what form does that take? Does that take into account the amounts and the dates on which they were received by registered political parties?

Ingrid STITT: The advice I have is that those matters will be dealt with in the transitional regulations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So there is no guarantee that we will ever see the dates and the amount disclosed from the two registered political parties from nominated entities prior to that?

Ingrid STITT: The disclosures will need to be made in accordance with the bill. I have already addressed this issue in previous answers.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Is it the government’s position that this bill will not force political parties to separately disclose payments received from nominated entities into the state campaign account received prior to 15 April this year?

Ingrid STITT: I have already addressed these matters, Mr Mulholland. I refer you to my previous answers.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, let me try in a different way. Will you separately disclose the payments received from nominated entities to registered political parties prior to 15 April in a way that differentiates dates and amounts and expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: It is actually the same question, and I have already addressed this. I have been very clear about the provisions in the bill and the fact that political parties will have to comply with those provisions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, you have said that it will be enacted by regulations but have given no specificity and no guarantee on what will be disclosed and how it will be disclosed, at least back to 2022 or perhaps 2018, when you want the clawback period to go back to. We have no qualms with that, but there are a lot of people in this chamber, including the crossbench, that are very confused by your answer on the disclosure amounts and what the government will seek to enact in regulation. Our amendment, for example, goes to some transparency about what was received. I could not be more confused about the government’s response, whether it is from the date of royal assent onwards, whether the VEC will monitor it and whether that disclosure will date back and how far it will date back. I will ask a different question: what date will those disclosures from two registered political parties from nominated entities be set from?

Ingrid STITT: These are, whether you want to accept it or not, questions that we have already dealt with this evening on more than one occasion, and I have been clear that they will be addressed in the regulations and, importantly, all disclosures since 15 April, including foreign donations, will be disclosed, not just from nominated entities but from all participants. The VEC will have an ongoing role in monitoring these things, and they will be in the regulations.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Ingrid STITT: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will parties assess what is in the state account on 15 April 2026?

Ingrid STITT: That will be a matter for parties, and they will need to ensure they are complying with the provisions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I understand the government has an amendment; given it is currently in the bill, I just want to go to the reasoning why the government chose a July 2023 date. Are you aware that the Labor Party received significant funds – millions of dollars – from its nominated entity in April of 2023?

Ingrid STITT: I have been clear about this, both in my summing-up in the second-reading debate and also in speaking briefly in that contribution to the government amendment: we have addressed this matter several times. I have got nothing further to add to the answers I gave earlier.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Are you aware of consultation between the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia’s Victorian division openly discussing the fact that Labor had received millions of dollars in April of 2023, and is this why the government came to the position of the July 2023 date?

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, these are questions that I cannot be expected to be able to answer. These are matters that relate to political parties outside of my responsibilities as a minister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry, could you just repeat the question, Mr Mulholland?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, the government set this date. We did not set this date. The government’s date in legislation is in this current bill. I understand there is an amendment, but the date the government has picked in the current bill is July 2023. I want to ask the minister and ascertain why this date in particular was chosen.

Ingrid STITT: As I said in my summing-up contribution and in committee stage a number of times, the opposition have spent most of today trying to offer up conspiracy theories about one thing or another. It is an irrelevant question, Mr Mulholland. It is also a question that you would be better to put to the political parties, although you appear to be saying that you know all about it anyway. We have put an amendment forward which actually takes the date back to the day after the 2018 election.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, it is hardly a conspiracy theory when it was freely offered up by the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. They received, I believe, $4 million in April 2023 from Labour’s nominated entity. I want to ask: in the regulations that you say the VEC will disclose, will it disclose the time and date that was received?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered these questions already. In addition to re-asking me similar questions and the same questions over and over again, you are now also asking me to speak for political parties, which I am not in a position to do. They are matters for the parties, and I am not commenting on those conversations you claim to know about.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I am going to the reasoning of the government for settling on a July 2023 date. I am of the belief – and in fact we know it is a fact – that the government chose this date because in April 2023 the Labor Party received millions of dollars from its associated entity to the Labor Party state campaign account.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Deputy President, I, like many others, have been following this line of questioning, which is at the very least circular but more appropriately described as tedious.

Renee Heath: What’s the point of order?

Harriet Shing: For someone with such an intimate knowledge of the standing orders, Dr Heath, have a listen.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we just keep to the point of order, please?

Harriet Shing: We are heading into the territory – in fact I think we are already there – of tedious repetition. The question has been asked and answered, and I have listened at least a dozen times in respect of the scope of the bill. I would seek that you draw the questions back to the substance of the matters at hand without a vulnerability to the sort of repetition that we are hearing now and have been hearing all afternoon.

Renee Heath: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, the minister is debating.

Bev McArthur: Deputy President, further to Ms Shing’s point of order, if the minister answered the questions, we would not have to repeat them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think that was quite helpful.

Michael Galea: On the point of order, we have been here repeatedly with tedious repetition, and members opposite have been repeatedly defying your rulings, Deputy President. We are now seeing the same pattern that we were seeing around an hour or two ago of tedious repetition of questions. The minister is giving an answer, explaining where it sits within or outside her responsibilities, and when it falls outside those responsibilities, members opposite are continuing to ask the same questions. It is tedious repetition.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We could have actually saved those 5 minutes of the point of order, because I was actually about to draw the member back to the substance of the bill, because I think he was straying into administration of party matters, which are not a matter for the minister. Could we just continue and come back to the bill, please.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, will you, in your so-called regulations, have the VEC disclose when the Labor Party last received a payment from its nominated entity? There will be claims of a conspiracy theory, Minister, but it is quite a clear question. Through your regulations, will the VEC disclose when the Labor Party last received a payment from its nominated entity?

Ingrid STITT: I refer you to my previous answer.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That was not actually answered in the previous answer, Minister.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, it was.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am trying to ascertain whether that transfer to the registered political party from the Labor Party’s nominated entity in April 2023 will be disclosed and published by the VEC.

Ingrid STITT: I did answer it, and I refer you to my previous answer to the question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I heard earlier that you were representing the Premier, yet you do not seem to have knowledge of the discussions with the political parties, while at the same time getting advice from a person in the advisers box who was in such discussions. Can you advise me on the donation received in April 2023 and donations received prior by the Australian Labor Party from its nominated entity, which you as the representative of the Premier and people in this chamber, with knowledge of discussions between parties, are fully aware of? Can you explain how and if they will be disclosed?

Ingrid STITT: All registered political parties will be required to comply with the new legislation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would I be correct in the belief that the transitional arrangements that you refer to and that the disclosures will work to do not allow those disclosures to go backwards?

Ingrid STITT: I do not know what you mean by ‘backwards’. Do you want to be a little bit more precise, Mr Mulholland? If it is what I think it is, I refer you to my previous answers about these questions. We have been going for about an hour and a half on the one topic.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just looking at the definitions of transitional regulations, and the definitions of transitional regulations point to:

Regulations made under this section may –

(a)   have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date that is not earlier than 15 April 2026 …

Would I be correct that what was received by the Australian Labor Party from its nominated entity will not be disclosed because you have pointed to the transitional regulations?

Ingrid STITT: The regulations will provide for this in accordance with the bill and when the legislation is passed.

Evan MULHOLLAND: When you say the regulations will provide for this, section 286(2) says:

Regulations made under this section may –

(a)   have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date that is not earlier than 15 April 2026 …

So what you are confirming in fact is that under your regulations we will not see that disclosure prior to 15 April 2026 because the bill literally says you cannot.

Ingrid STITT: No, I am not saying that, and I have answered this question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Sorry, Minister, you are the one that said that those arrangements will be made under regulation, under the transitional arrangements, which do not actually allow them to go backwards. They may have a retrospective effect, but only to a date that is not earlier than 15 April. What we are getting to is disclosure. What we are getting to is why the Labor Party is not keen to disclose the fact that it did receive money from its nominated entity in April.

Minister, you said earlier that parties will have to determine, themselves, what was remaining in the state campaign account from nominated entity payments on 15 April, and there is currently nothing requiring the disclosure of those payments prior to 15 April. How will we know whether parties have accurately self-assessed whether any amount remained in the state campaign account?

Ingrid STITT: It is a matter for the parties, and their responsibility is to comply with the legislation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Again, Minister, how will we know whether parties have accurately self-assessed whether any amount remained in the state campaign account in accordance with the bill?

Ingrid STITT: Consistent with the circular nature of this committee, as I have already said on countless occasions the VEC has the ability to require compliance actions, including requiring documents, and these matters will be addressed in the transitional regulations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, those are the same transitional arrangements which, literally in the transitional regulations in the bill, state that it cannot be retrospective prior to 15 April – that is what I am getting to. How will the parties know what their obligations are and what they are supposed to comply with in accordance with the bill?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered, multiple times.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, these questions have not been answered. We have gone to the transitional arrangements, and my colleague Ms Mansfield asked some sensible questions on this topic. And you went to the transitional regulations in regard to disclosure, and did, I think, make it seem like all those will be disclosed within the transitional arrangements, when we know that cannot be prior to 15 April. The crossbench were led to believe that the applicable period was the same as the specified period, which we know are completely different. The specified period, you have now changed back to 2018, and the applicable period is only from the High Court date to the date of royal assent. The minister might have liked to state and lead to a vibe that we are showing transparency through this bill, but the regulations that you are pointing to themselves do not point to that. Is the minister denying the existence of section 286(2)(a), and what does the minister believe is the effect of section 286(2)(a)?

Ingrid STITT: I refer you to the answer that I gave to Dr Mansfield, and I stand by that answer.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It was a good question from Dr Mansfield, because it went to some confusion within the non-government members in this place as to what the government was saying was in the bill and what was not. What we have since found out is the transitional arrangements are not actually the same as the clawback dates, which the government had claimed. So confusion seems to be running rife. I want to know under this bill how parties – all parties, Labor, Liberal, National and any other registered political party – will know what their obligations are and what they are supposed to comply with, given the transitional arrangements do not apply that retrospectivity prior to 15 April?

Ingrid STITT: I can understand why you would want to try and conflate and confuse, but I again draw you to the answer that I gave Dr Mansfield that the VEC will monitor compliance with these provisions and we have given a commitment that the making of transitional regulations will require public disclosure of these amounts.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, when you say that under the transitional arrangements you will require public disclosure of the amounts, given that we know that it cannot go backwards from 15 April I assume you are correct to mean under the transitional arrangements the VEC will ensure public disclosure of the amounts from 15 April onwards. Does that include past royal assent?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is going to a good point, because the government was seeking to deflect with the non-government members about our amendments, which seek to guide some transparency, at least backdating to 27 November 2022. Is the minister suggesting the VEC will violate regulations made under section 286(2)(a) in the bill to have that disclosure?

Ingrid STITT: No, I am not suggesting that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will the VEC ensure that disclosure of the payments received by political parties from nominated entities given that particular section 286(2)(a) under regulations that you have said that will happen under the transitional arrangements prevents them from doing so?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have had the benefit of listening to much of the questioning from Mr Mulholland on these matters this evening, and I am concerned that there is a lot of tedious repetition of the same questions. They have been asked multiple times by different members in this chamber. I would suggest that unless there is a new line of questioning, perhaps we could move on.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you just confirm an answer you gave previously –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry; I thought that was further to the point of order. Obviously I do not need to rule on the point of order because we are moving on, but I was going to suggest that I thought that that line of questioning had exhausted itself and we needed to move on.

Bev McARTHUR: I just want you to confirm that you previously said that the Premier received no legal advice on this matter. Do you want to just confirm that again?

Ingrid STITT: That is not actually what I said.

Bev McARTHUR: Did the Premier receive legal advice on this bill?

Ingrid STITT: We have been here. The government received legal advice, and we had regard to that legal advice in the development of the bill. This is something I have answered at least a dozen times, and I do not intend to answer it again.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, again I am listening to the questions coming from the opposition benches, and I am listening carefully to the minister’s responses. The minister is stating that she has answered the line of questioning that Mrs McArthur has raised multiple times this evening. I suggest that line of questioning is tedious and repetitive, and perhaps we should move on to a new line of questioning.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that the minister has made it clear that she answered these questions earlier. I think we should move on, and I will call Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The question I will try to ask you, as the Premier’s representative: did the Premier receive legal advice from the Australian Labor Party?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, this question was asked by Ms Crozier earlier today. This is tedious and repetitive.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have been down this line of questioning earlier, so I think we should move on to a new line of questioning.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the bill require parties to disclose gifts in kind or services provided by their nominated entities on behalf of their party at any point in the past?

Ingrid STITT: Parties must disclose political donations and specified gifts in accordance with the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: In accordance with the bill would be from 15 April onwards?

Ingrid STITT: In accordance with the bill, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: For those reading this committee stage – I know many will – I am just confirming that parties will only have to disclose gifts in kind or services provided by their nominated entities on behalf of their party from 15 April onwards, but not prior to that. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: I do not know that you get to provide my answers for me, but it is the same line of questioning that I have had almost all night, and I have asked and answered.

Melina BATH: In the statement of treaty compatibility at point 5, ‘Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly’, it says the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl was not given an opportunity to advise on the bill and the assembly did not otherwise make representations about the bill’s effect on the First Peoples. Why, Minister, was the First Peoples’ Assembly not consulted in accordance with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you, Ms Bath, for what is a new question. As the statement indicates, the 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, 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. If I can turn to the substance of your question around consulting with the First Peoples’ Assembly, it was not possible to do so because, as section 66 of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 commenced on 1 May 2026 and the assembly only became operational on 4 May, considering that timeframe, there was insufficient time to seek advice from the assembly prior to the introduction of the bill into Parliament.

Melina BATH: What steps were taken in that time period by the government to seek urgent or even preliminary input from the First Peoples’ Assembly once the bill had become operational? Indeed you would have had a draft of this bill prior to it coming into the house.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I would like to perhaps draw your attention to the standing orders and standing order 15.06, ‘Rules of debate in Committee of the whole’, particularly subsections (1), ‘Debate on clause 1 of the bill will be limited to the purposes of the bill’, and (2), ‘Debate will be strictly relevant to any other clause, schedule, preamble, amendment or new clause which is under consideration and no general debate will be permitted’. Whilst it is refreshing that we have had a new line of questioning, I cannot see that the matters that Ms Bath is raising are actually in accordance with the standing orders.

Ingrid STITT: What was the question again?

Melina BATH: The question went to the statement of treaty compatibility that is delivered with the bill, which is supposed to be on every bill forthwith, and the fact that there was no consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I dispute Ms Bath’s recollection. The question was around why there was no consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly. That was what the question was. You did not mention anything regarding –

A member interjected.

Sonja Terpstra: I am talking about the question that was just asked, not the one beforehand.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Ms Bath has now clarified what her question is.

Sonja Terpstra: The question I was relating to was the question that Ms Bath asked about why there was no consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly. That was the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath has now clarified what her question is, and we will move on.

Ingrid STITT: I have answered as to the reasons why there was insufficient time to seek advice directly from the assembly. I have given the reasons why – the timeframe being quite difficult when you consider the timing of the treaty act commencing, the new assembly being elected and the timing of this bill.

Melina BATH: In relation to this bill, has the First Peoples’ Assembly made any representations to the government about their concerns with the bill, as they are now established and have in the treaty legislation the very intent of active participation in legislation that comes before the house?

Ingrid STITT: Not to our knowledge, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: Has the offer been made by the government for further discussion on this bill with the First Peoples’ Assembly, as is the intent of the treaty act?

Ingrid STITT: We are always happy to meet with the assembly, Ms Bath, but I refer you to the statement and the answer I have already given.

Melina BATH: Will the government commit to undertaking a post-introduction or an ongoing consultation as a direct result of this bill, if it passes through, and indeed the new amendments, the amendments that are now before the house that the government has put that were not in play until this morning?

Ingrid STITT: I have given the explanation as to why it was not possible to consult with the First People’s Assembly.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, Aboriginal community controlled organisations could be captured as third-party campaigners if their advocacy is deemed political expenditure over the threshold. Did the government assess that effect? And was Gellung Warl asked for its view?

Ingrid STITT: I refer you to the statement.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, could you answer the question?

Ingrid STITT: It is not a question, it is a hypothetical, and I refer you to the statement.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, the new entrant and cap rules affect the ability of First People candidates and emerging Aboriginal-led movements to raise funds and compete. Did the government model that impact and seek Gellung Warl’s input?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: What do you mean, Minister, by ‘asked and answered’? Where was your answer?

Ingrid STITT: I have answered the principal question of why it was not possible on this occasion for this particular bill to consult with the First Peoples’ Assembly, so it is asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, that is better. Well done. So because you rushed this bill –

Ingrid STITT: On a point of order, Deputy President – what do you mean by that? And do we have to do this? We have been going for about 6 hours.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, as we have said before, it is up to us to ask you the questions, not you to ask us. Gellung Warl includes an accountability mechanism and Nginma Ngainga Wara to hold government to account on behalf of First Peoples. Has it been engaged in the bill? And will the government respond to any view it expresses?

Ingrid STITT: Again I refer you to the statement of treaty compatibility.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, it seems that there is one rule for everybody else and one rule when you want to declare something urgent, and therefore nobody should be consulted or involved. Will the minister commit to pausing the bill to allow Gellung Warl a proper opportunity to consider and respond, consistent with the government’s treaty obligations?

Ingrid STITT: I think the will of the chamber today has demonstrated that the vast majority of the chamber believe that this is an urgent bill and needs to be dealt with forthwith.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, why do you preference corrupt Labor officials over our First Nations people?

Ingrid STITT: I ask that you ask Mrs McArthur to withdraw that outrageous slur.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, can you please withdraw and rephrase?

Bev McARTHUR: Well, I withdraw, but we are getting very sensitive, I would have thought here –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, without editorial.

Bev McARTHUR: Without qualification.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Isn’t it the case that you had ample time to consult with the Labor Party secretary but not enough time to consult with the First People’s Assembly?

Ingrid STITT: I have already given the reasons why, and I refer you to the statement.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Is the Labor Party more important to the government than the First People’s Assembly, and can you explain the difference between why you had time for some and not for others?

Ingrid STITT: This is a ridiculous line of questioning. Deputy President, I would ask that you ask the opposition to ask me some new questions, if they see fit, about the substance of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would draw the members back to the substance of the bill, please.

Bev McARTHUR: Will the minister confirm that an annual levy paid to a party by its elected members and their staff is excluded from the definition of gift and therefore falls entirely outside the $7500 general cap?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, there were questions in the committee stage earlier this evening about levies, maybe at about 8:30. Further questions on this topic are tedious and repetitious.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It depends if there is new questioning or whether they are repetitive questions, so I just ask Mrs McArthur to repeat her question, please.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, will you confirm that an annual levy paid to a party by its elected members and their staff is excluded from the definition of gift and therefore falls entirely outside the $7500 general cap?

A member interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry – if we can do this without editorial.

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, if I could go back to your response to Ms Mansfield – and thankfully I have got a transcript – Ms Mansfield asks:

… how will the public know about moneys relevant to the refund mechanism for nominated entities in section 277 before 15 April and the money that may have gone from nominated entities to parties since 15 April in subsections 279 and 280?

Minister, you said:

The VEC will monitor compliance with these provisions, and we commit to making transitional regulations to require public disclosure of these amounts.

When you said that, Minister, isn’t it a fact that these transitional arrangements can only occur from 15 April onwards?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered,

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to ask a couple of questions. How many affiliated unions will be able to affiliate to the Victorian Labor Party?

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Deputy President, we are here to ask genuine questions about the bill. The Labor Party conference was a few weekends ago, and those sorts of questions are questions for that forum, not this one.

A member: It has been asked and answered. It is ridiculous.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think it has actually been answered, but I am going to rule that it is a matter for the organisation, not a matter for the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How many powers in the bill allow regulations, commission determinations or approved forms to change how the act operates?

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, can you repeat that question?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, how many powers in this bill allow regulations, commission determinations or approved forms to change how the act operates?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, regulations cannot change how the act operates.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Why has so much of the electoral finance scheme been left to regulations and regulation after the bill passes?

Ingrid STITT: I do not accept the premise of your question. It has not.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the minister accept that electoral law should be made by the Parliament, not by regulation after the bill passes?

Ingrid STITT: There is a bill before the Parliament now.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the minister agree to a schedule identifying each delegated power, its purpose, expected use and safeguards?

Ingrid STITT: There is a bill before the house now.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Can the minister identify any precedent in Victorian electoral law for a transitional regulation power as broad as presented in new section 286?

Ingrid STITT: That is outside the scope of the bill, that question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is not outside the scope of the bill. I am going to a section literally in the bill. What safeguards protect minor parties, independents and new entrants from executive-made changes after a campaign period has begun?

Ingrid STITT: We went through questions about new entrants earlier this evening, Mr Mulholland. I am not sure if you were in the chamber at that time, but the bill clearly sets out what the arrangements are for new entrants and the requirements to meet the new entrant definitions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That was not really my question, but I will ask a different question. Why should participants plan their campaigns when key rules can be altered by regulation?

Ingrid STITT: You are seeking to muddy the waters, which I know you love to do. Regulations have got to accord with the act, and regulations can be disallowed by the Parliament. There are a number of safeguards in place, and the bill clearly sets out what provisions apply to political participants, whether they are new entrants, whether they are donors or whether they are associated entities – the list goes on. It is all contained in the bill, very clearly. Most of the provisions are elements from the old part 12 reinstated into this bill, and I think that the opposition ought to just get on with the business of actually passing the bill so that we can have integrity and disclosure and transparency back in our donation system in Victoria, because right now there is a vacuum, the government is seeking to fill that, and all you have been about is frustrating that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, is the government aware of how many parties in Victoria received affiliation fees or levies under the equivalent provisions of the old part 12?

Ingrid STITT: No. I would point you to the fact that that is a matter for the VEC but also a matter for registered political parties and associated entities to comply with their reporting requirements.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, you said you are here representing the Premier, and as you said, the Premier is responsible for the VEC. Is the government aware of how many parties in Victoria received affiliation fees or levies under the old part 12? Is the government aware?

Ingrid STITT: That is a question you ought to put to the VEC.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I am asking you to tell us what they are and who they are. How many parties have received affiliation fees? I can guarantee it is only one, isn’t it?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You have not answered it, and it is, quite clearly, one. Minister, does a registered political party have to provide voting rights to an associated entity in order for that associated entity to pay an affiliation fee under the act?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, questions about the administration of political parties are not matters of government administration and are not in the scope of the minister’s responsibilities.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question actually goes to the definition of ‘associated entity’, so I think it is fair enough that Mr Mulholland asked that question.

Ingrid STITT: I can go to what constitutes an associated entity but I will, in doing so, note that I have answered these questions earlier this evening in relation to questions from both Mrs McArthur and Ms Crozier. These can include organisations that operate wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of a political party, which are associated by financial membership, voting rights, control or purpose. Associated entities include trade unions, think tanks and fundraising entities, as well as what were previously the nominated entities: the Cormack Foundation, Pilliwinks and Labor Services & Holdings.

Let us, just for the record, go over for probably the 20th time that associated entities must have a separate state campaign account and submit annual returns to the VEC on their political donations and the money they pay to political parties. Probably for the last 2 or 3 hours you have been trying to muddy the waters and conflate issues, but the fact is that I went through this detail with you at about 7:30 pm and again at about 8:30 pm.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Ingrid STITT: That is outrageous.

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Deputy President, members of this chamber know full well that they are not meant to refer to advisers in the box or anyone within the gallery either.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order.

Ingrid STITT: That concludes my answer about what constitutes an associated entity, something that those opposite will have to become very familiar with very soon when their nominated entity transitions into an associated entity.

Evan MULHOLLAND: With that last statement, are you suggesting that the Victorian government drafted this bill in a way that only an associated entity is allowed to affiliate to a political party?

Ingrid STITT: This has been asked and answered, but I think it is important to reiterate that these provisions have existed in the previous act.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, what does the bill require a political party to give an associated entity in order to receive an affiliation fee?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have been listening to the line of questioning that Mr Mulholland has been pursuing as well as the answers that the minister has been providing, and it is very clear that the line of questioning that Mr Mulholland is pursuing is tedious and repetitious. These questions have been asked on a number of occasions throughout the course of the evening. I suggest that if Mr Mulholland does not have any other questions in regard to these matters, he should move on.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, Deputy President, Mr Mulholland’s questions and the other questions are around the application of the law, and he has every right to be asking these questions to the minister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just think it is getting a bit tedious. I was going to rule on it. I was going to rule that I think the question has been asked before. That is the ruling you want, isn’t it?

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, I was going to point out that Ms Crozier is debating the point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We can go on all night with points of order if we like, but let us move on to the next question.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Ingrid STITT: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I move:

That the sitting be extended.

Motion agreed to.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, based on your answers, would I be of the understanding that your new laws were made without an understanding as to who received affiliation fees or levies?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This question was not asked and answered. It goes to the heart of the bill and what we are trying to get to. How could you possibly understand the differential burden if it is the case that the government gave no consideration to or has no understanding of who receives affiliation fees or who receives levies? I will ask the minister to define it for me. Under the act, what is an affiliation fee?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This was not answered.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, this question was actually answered earlier. The minister got advice from the box and said that an affiliation fee is defined by the definition of a gift.

Evan MULHOLLAND: To be clear, what is the requirement of a political party for an entity to be considered an associated entity? This has not been answered.

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, this has been answered on multiple occasions, Deputy President. I ask you to ask the opposition to cease wasting the chamber’s time. I know what they want to do here. They do not want to pass this bill. It is an outrageous abuse of the processes of our Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We do need to move on.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What is it that allows them to pay a fee?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered. Deputy President, I ask that you rule on my point of order earlier.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, what was your point of order? I thought that I ruled on that by asking them to move on.

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Deputy President, it is a long-held convention and tradition in this place that certainly for workplace practice reasons, and certainly when it comes to workplace safety, there is usually a supper at midnight. This has long been the case in this place. I would call upon you now to take that into consideration, notwithstanding that those opposite wish to expedite the process – I appreciate that. But workplace safety is a predominant concern from my perspective and for the staff. It is not just for members of Parliament. It is a long-term convention.

A member: We’ll make you a cup of tea.

Nick McGowan: It is not about a cup of tea. You can be as snide and sarcastic as you like, but if you were taking workplace safety seriously, you would agree with me that we should take a 30-minute break for supper, which has always been the practice in this place for a good part of three decades or four decades.

Ingrid STITT: Further to Mr McGowan’s point of order, if that was truly people’s motive, I would be home under my doona, having taken as many drugs as I could find in the cupboard – so please.

Nick McGowan: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, then we would be only too happy on this side to adjourn until tomorrow.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We no longer have a designated supper break. It is a thing that can be decided by the President. I did ask the minister if she needed a break just a few minutes ago, and she said that she will soldier on. So I think we just press ahead with the committee stage.

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Deputy President, notwithstanding that your point of order is based on one minister alone and their preparedness, there are many more people to consider in this place, not just that single minister, including the workforce. It is a reasonable request that we take a supper break in the order of 15 to 30 minutes, which has been the long-term custom and tradition in this place. For those opposite to sit there and for some very important ministers to argue otherwise, that we should not be having a break for our own mental health and fitness and to take the opportunity –

Members interjecting.

Nick McGowan: I have been watching you on television, Minister – watching you on television with glee, listening to every question. I will be back later on to ask further questions, but it is a reasonable request I make of this place in respect of workplace safety.

Sonja Terpstra: On the point of order, Deputy President, perhaps, Mr McGowan, if you would like to assist the chamber, could you point to where in the standing orders that it actually says that we need a supper break?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think that that was helpful. There is no-one who has been in this chamber longer than the minister and me and Mrs McArthur and perhaps Ms Crozier.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The clerks have been in and out during the evening; they filter through. There are opportunities for people like you, Mr McGowan, or other members who are asking questions to have breaks. You have not been in here all evening, so I think that if those of us who have been in here all evening are willing to push on, we will push on.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have ruled, so no further debate on it, please.

Nick McGowan interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have ruled on it. Mr McGowan, I have ruled on the supper break. We are not having a supper break.

Nick McGowan: It is a new point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It had better be a new a new topic then, Mr McGowan.

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Deputy President, further to your remarks, I have been watching this debate from beginning to end in my office, notwithstanding that I have not been physically here, and the request is not just for me but for the staff who do not have the choice or the luxury of being able to exit and come back in the chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr McGowan, you can have a 10-minute break.

Nick McGowan withdrew from chamber.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, Legalise Cannabis received $28,000 in public funding after the 2022 state election, equal to $1500 per candidate. The Animal Justice Party received $80,000 in public funding, equal to $770 per candidate. One Nation received $90,000, equal to $4300 per candidate. Because they received these small contributions, they are now banned from receiving the new entrant double donation cap. How is this imbalance justified?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for that question; it is good to get a new one. There are particular criteria for whether you qualify as a new entrant, and of course the VEC has a role in assessing any applications from candidates seeking new entrant public funding. You have to have been a new candidate or, if you have run in a previous election, received less than 4 per cent of the primary vote, or be a member of a newly formed political party. But the bill is a total package, so it should be read as a total package. There are obviously public funding levels for elected MPs and registered political parties, and those amounts are set out in the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: With the example I just stated, would you not agree that this goes to the very differential treatment that was called out by the High Court?

Ingrid STITT: As I have said on a number of occasions, we have had careful regard to the legal advice that we received in developing the bill. It was important to ensure that new entrants were not disadvantaged, and that is why the new entrant funding is double the general cap in recognition of the fact that they are new entrants. Of course in developing the bill as a package we had careful regard to the High Court decision.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It still seems like it goes exactly to what the High Court took issue with. For a party to receive the public funding to which they are entitled, they must be able to demonstrate that they spent that amount of money on the previous election. How does the government justify the differential burden this requirement places on minor parties in light of the low donation caps, which prevent participants from fundraising?

Ingrid STITT: The bill is a package, and you cannot just cherrypick elements of the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I am not cherrypicking elements of the bill, because it goes to specific differential burdens. Again, you have set different new entrant funding, you have set this, but in a way, going to the example I said before, parties like Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice Party and even One Nation are at a massive disadvantage, because they are neither a new entrant or a major political party. Don’t you agree that parties caught in the middle that might have members in this place, that might have received a very small amount, are now heavily burdened by the fact that they are tied to low donation amounts?

Ingrid STITT: You are presenting me with a number of opinions that you hold, and I stand by the answer I gave you that as a total package we have considered these matters carefully. We believe we have got the balance right.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Okay. Which element of the bill does the government believe alleviates this differential burden?

Ingrid STITT: Every political participant has the ability to fundraise within the caps that apply to them and also have access to public funding under the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: But in the example I used they have a very small amount of public funding, and they also are limited to lower caps to new entrants, which are able to fundraise significantly more than them. I am still trying to find which element of the bill alleviates this differential burden that is placed on parties like the Legalise Cannabis Party, the One Nation party and the Animal Justice Party.

Ingrid STITT: I would have thought they could speak for themselves, Mr Mulholland. But in relation to your question, asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, a candidate who runs as an independent for the first time can receive $15,000 in donations, while a candidate who runs for a minor party like Legalise Cannabis or Animal Justice must share a cap of $7500 after this term or the $5000 before this term with up to 128 candidates, equivalent to $58 per candidate. Why do some candidates get a $15,000 cap while others get effectively a $58 cap?

Ingrid STITT: I have already answered this question.

Evan MULHOLLAND: That was a completely different question.

Ingrid STITT: No, it was not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I cannot direct her how to answer a question.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, let us go to third-party campaigners. A community Facebook group spends $11,000 boosting posts criticising a council’s planning decisions, naming no candidate. Yes or no: is that a third-party campaigner?

Ingrid STITT: A third-party campaigner captures any person or entity other than a registered political party, candidate, group, elected member or associated entity – are you listening to the answer so I do not have to say ‘Asked and answered’ 10 times? – that incurs political expenditure in a financial year that exceeds $7500. A third-party campaigner could include a range of large or small activists or public groups or an individual. However, third-party campaigners, like associated entities, will have exemptions whereby if funds received are not used for political expenditure they will not be captured under the definition of a political donation. For example, if a gift is used to fund administrative costs, raising awareness on an issue or political campaigns in other states or nationally, the gift will not be a political donation. The recipient will be responsible for determining how the gift will be used. However, in practice we expect that third-party campaigners will make it clear when receiving a gift as to whether it will be used for political expenditure and therefore whether it will be a political donation. I hope that gives you some clarity around what is considered to be a third-party campaigner.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, no, Minister, it is not clear at all, because a local football club could spend $12,000, for example, opposing a freeway that some candidates support and some oppose. Could they be caught in the third-party campaigner scenario? How would a club know in advance that they could be caught up in this regulation?

Ingrid STITT: It will come down to whether or not it is a political campaign.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, who is going to decide? The VEC?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

Bev McARTHUR: So this unelected body is totally responsible for the whole determination of this bill, in effect. You have told the committee the VEC will decide. It will determine what is administrative. It will police the cap. It will judge what is political. But the VEC did not write this bill, you did. So I will ask you – not the VEC, I will ask you; I repeat, not the VEC: is there a single question about your own bill that you are prepared to answer in this chamber today, or is the VEC going to govern Victoria while you simply hand them the bill?

Ingrid STITT: That is another one of your speeches, Mrs McArthur. It has got nothing to do with the bill before us. It is a ridiculous question. I do think you are reflecting on the VEC, who are an independent organisation. I will just leave it at that, unless you want to ask me a serious question. I have been answering questions since 6 pm, so to suggest that somehow I have not been forthcoming and answering your questions in relation to this bill is pretty rich. Perhaps you ought to think more carefully about how you construct your questions so that they relate to something in the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I think that is quite insulting. We are here to try and explore the bill in its entirety, having had it for about 24 hours, and you are refusing to answer most of the questions. We are really trying to explore what is a third party, what is a designated entity, what is a cap –

Ingrid STITT: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think it is uncalled for, for Mrs McArthur to suggest that I have not been answering questions. She might not like the way in which I have answered them, but I have been answering questions and also pointing out when they are questions that I have already answered. I would ask you to ask her to come back to the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, come back to the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: I will. This goes to pages 20 to 22 in the bill. A church spends $20,000 advertising its position on assisted dying, an issue candidates are debating. Is the church a third-party campaigner, and does the answer change if it names a candidate?

Ingrid STITT: I was answering questions about this matter earlier today, Mrs McArthur. I have answered it. It is all contained in the bill, with respect to whether or not it constitutes political campaigning. But it has been asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, these are very important examples that go to exactly how this bill operates. So many people, individuals, groups will be caught up in this. A union, for example, might spend $500,000 attacking one party’s industrial relations policy. Is that a third-party campaign, an associated entity or both? If it is an associated entity, does it escape the third-party regime entirely?

Ingrid STITT: Aside from being asked and answered earlier, you are just making up hypothetical questions now without any clarity around what it is you are actually asking.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, these are worked examples of where this whole bill could fall down. Given that third-party campaigners could be any group and could end up in jail with criminal offences worse than if they attempted to murder somebody or rape somebody or whatever, we want to make sure exactly what is a third-party campaign. How are we going to define third-party campaigns?

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have been listening to the questions that Mrs McArthur has been asking. It is the same question just with a different organisation or entity inserted, whether it is a church, a football club or a union. It is the same question where the minister has referred to her answer earlier and consistently has said she has answered the question, and it is tedious and repetitious. I would suggest that if Mrs McArthur does not have any further questions to ask she should move on to a new line of questioning. This is tedious and repetitious, and it is abuse of the committee process.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was of the opinion that the minister was getting some advice from the box. Is that right?

Ingrid STITT: I was just going for a wander actually.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. All right. Sorry, I thought you had gone to the box. Mrs McArthur, I do not think that we are going to get any further with this line of questioning, so I think we should perhaps move on to a new question.

Bev McARTHUR: It is extremely hard to get definitions of how we are going to determine what a third-party campaigner or campaign is if we do not give examples to the house here, because all these entities could get caught up in it. A publisher might run editorials and paid content favouring one side – is the media commentary political expenditure? Where is the line between journalism and a regulated campaign, and who draws it? Is the media going to be caught up in this, Minister?

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Deputy President, we did cover this in really granular detail for about 50 minutes at about 7 pm this evening. We have been in this almost race-track circuit of questions that appear to be put, then put down, then come back to a hypothetical set of practical examples and are then put down again. I am not sure which ChatGPT or equivalent AI program is spewing out hundreds of pages of questions for you, but you might want to see if it can program some new material, because again, these questions have been asked so many times and answered so many times, and we are not getting anywhere by way of new material, as the Deputy President has repeatedly ruled.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, I did ask you to move on, and I think we got a question on the same subject. Perhaps we will go to Dr Heath.

Renee HEATH: Minister, my question is about the new section 227(3) around the 4 per cent threshold. Why is the funding threshold 4 per cent for election to Parliament?

Ingrid STITT: Are you referring to the new entrant provisions, Dr Heath?

Renee HEATH: New section 227(3).

Ingrid STITT: The 4 per cent threshold is a commonly used figure. It is also used in other jurisdictions.

Renee HEATH: Can you explain more, though? Why is it a 4 per cent threshold?

Ingrid STITT: It has been in place since 2018, Dr Heath.

Renee HEATH: Actually I will go with an application of this. Minister, Melissa Lowe received 8851 first preference votes in Hawthorn in 2022 – above 4 per cent. Under this section, does that produce a theoretical public funding entitlement of about $66,028 before the expenditure cap and audit proof?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to answer hypotheticals, Dr Heath, but there are requirements for new entrants to make application to the VEC, and the VEC will determine that application. The provisions that pertain to new entrants are clearly spelt out in the bill.

Renee HEATH: We are asking these questions because it is about the application of these proposed laws and what it means to the state of Victoria. There is another one: Kate Lardner received 9432 first preference votes in Mornington in 2022. That, again, is above the threshold. Would that produce a theoretical entitlement of about $70,000, subject to proof of expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to be answering your hypothetical case studies.

Bev McArthur: Minister, hypotheticals are actually very important, because it is quite clear from your answers that the government has not fully considered the application of the bill. The only way we can demonstrate –

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Deputy President, it is very clear in Rulings from the Chair that the committee stage is not an opportunity to further the second-reading debate, and that is what Mrs McArthur is doing right now. She either asks the question or she passes the call to someone else.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Members are able to make a statement during the committee stage, so I do not uphold the point of order.

Bev McArthur: Minister, we have rushed this bill through the chamber. We were not entitled to a briefing. We have had 24 hours to deal with this.

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Deputy President, I refer to:

Clause 1 debate not a continuation of second reading

Consideration of the purposes clause (typically clause 1) is not an opportunity to continue the second reading debate. While there is some latitude to canvass general matters, debate should be focused on the detail of the bill.

Several deputy presidents before you, Deputy President, have made that ruling.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that, but members are able to make a statement in framing their question. If we can just let Mrs McArthur get to her question, that would be good.

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you to everybody who has wanted to interject in this. Minister, can a church provide an affiliation fee?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I did not hear the minister’s answer either for all the chatter on the benches. Minister, if you could repeat that answer, please.

Ingrid STITT: My answer was: asked and answered.

Bev McARTHUR: With great respect, Minister, I do not believe you did answer the question whether a church could provide an affiliation fee. Please point me to where you answered the question about that specific example.

Ingrid STITT: I have given extensive answers in relation to associated entities.

Renee HEATH: Just further to my line of questioning before, Minister, is the entitlement for an independent candidate capped by actual political and electoral expenditure incurred, even where the voter-based entitlement is higher?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you hear that, Minister? Could you repeat it a little bit louder? We could not hear it over here.

Renee HEATH: Is the entitlement for an independent candidate capped by actual political and electoral expenditure incurred, even where the voter-based entitlement is higher?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we have some quiet in the chamber? Dr Heath, could you repeat that again, because it is really hard to hear you.

Renee HEATH: Is the entitlement for an independent candidate capped by actual political and electoral expenditure incurred, even when the voter-based entitlement is higher?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Dr Heath, can you explain what you mean?

Renee HEATH: If, for instance, a Teal independent’s voter entitlement is $70,000 but audited expenditure is $50,000, does the candidate receive $50,000? If the candidate spends $120,000, does the candidate receive only the vote-based amount?

Ingrid STITT: I am sorry, Dr Heath, your question makes absolutely no sense. What I would say is that any political candidate would need to ensure they were complying with the legislation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just going on to a different strand of questions, the minister said earlier that the definition of an affiliation fee was included in the definition of a gift. I refer you to the definition of a gift referred to on pages 13 and 14 of the bill. Aren’t affiliation fees explicitly ruled out in this definition?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Again, I refer you to this specific part in paragraph (b)(iv):

an annual affiliation fee paid to a registered political party by an associated entity …

Paragraph (b) is ‘does not include the following’. Isn’t it a fact that an affiliation fee cannot be a gift?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the government acknowledge that the bill as currently drafted fails to rectify the risk identified in several submissions and the final report of the 2023 Electoral Review Expert Panel’s inquiry into the Victorian donation laws that fundraising tickets purchased before an event are unlikely to be captured in the definition of a gift used in this bill and are therefore, if the law applied to the latter, not captured in the donation cap?

Ingrid STITT: I went to these questions with Mr Ettershank earlier. Asked and answered.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, again I urge you to please direct the chamber to cease this circular line of questioning. Questions have been asked and answered multiple times in this committee stage. Unless members opposite have any new lines of questioning, we should move on to other clauses of the bill, because this is an abuse of this committee stage.

Nick McGowan: On the point of order, Deputy President, Mr Mulholland is well within his rights to ask questions, and he is genuinely attempting to understand the consequences that flow from this bill. He has put a specific question to the minister, and he is entitled to do so.

Harriet Shing: On the point of order, it might assist, Deputy President, if perhaps we can turn our minds to the fact that members of the opposition are flouting repeated rulings of the Chair as they relate –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am ready to rule on the point of order.

Harriet Shing: Can I just finish, please, Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am ready to rule on it. There have been a number of questions that have been repetitive, and a number of times I have asked for people to move on. The question that Mr Mulholland has just asked and the one he asked before I have not found repetitive, but we do need to move on to new areas of the bill.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Deputy President, might it assist the chamber if we were to table Hansard from earlier this evening, which indicates very clearly that the minister has answered questions to Mr Ettershank, to Dr Mansfield, to Mr Mulholland, to Mrs McArthur, to Ms Bath, to Ms Crozier and to Dr Heath already, because, again, these are already on the record.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As the Deputy President was saying, my question went to a clarification. I would be very happy for Hansard to be tabled where the minister did point out that the definition of an affiliation fee was included in the definition of a gift.

In that specific section it says that a payment does not include the following, and then it says an affiliation fee paid to a registered political party by an associated entity must not be under the definition of a gift. This goes to the very heart of the application of the bill. The minister said something earlier. I attempted to clarify it. The minister said that she had answered it, but what the minister was saying went directly against what is in the actual bill. I think it is fair to seek clarifications on those questions without the minister saying that she has already answered it because she has not.

Ingrid STITT: Well, you might not like it, but it has been answered. You have actually just gone back two questions, because your last question to me was about fundraising and tickets, and I asked and answered that earlier as well.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, is the new entrant benefit only a double donation cap rather than any additional funding?

Ingrid STITT: Asked and answered, Mr Mulholland.