Bill Debate: Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026 – Council Amendments

BILL DEBATE:

‘ELECTORAL FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2026 – COUNCIL AMENDMENTS’.

Wednesday, 4 June 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (04:35):

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

We are here because the Government got it wrong. The Government got this legislation wrong. The Government said they got it right. Former Premier Daniel Andrews said he got the legislation right, didn’t he? Well, he got it wrong, just like he got it wrong many, many times before the High Court. This legislation was thrown out. The High Court said they were wrong. They were wrong. That is why we are here. That is why we are dealing with the Bill, and that is why we are dealing with the Amendments, because the Government drafted legislation that was wrong and based in politics, not good policy. It was found to be unconstitutional.

When the drafting began on the subject matter of this Bill, the first thing that the Coalition said was that the legislation needed to be based in a constitutionally valid set of policy matter. What did the Government say? ‘We don’t want to talk about anything relating to the constitutional matters in the Bill. We don’t want to deal with any of it.’ So, is it any surprise that the successful applicant who saw these laws get thrown out is already publicly talking about their next challenge? This Bill has not passed the Parliament, and the successful applicant is already filling out the form for the next challenge. What the coalition said was, ‘We don’t want to see a second challenge and a second challenge which sees these laws thrown out in the immediate lead-up to the election.’ But what did the Government say to that conversation? ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ Why, you would ask? Because the fundamental underpinning – all of the subject matter in the Bill that the Government does not want to talk about – is based in politics. We have a system that is being put to the house which blocks all big money out of the system except union money. How can it be that this Parliament could pass a bill that blocks big money out of the system, except from the unions? It is rank, and
it is obvious what the government is doing. It is absolutely rank and obvious what the Government is doing.

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

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

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Without the extras from Members, I do not uphold the Point of Order. However, I bring the Member back to the Amendments in front of us.

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

Jacinta Allan: You did!

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

Jacinta Allan: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Member for Brighton is misleading the House. He would not want me to start tendering evidence of his deep, desperate desire to reach agreement with the Labor Government.

Members interjecting.

Jacinta Allan: That is what I am just saying. His deep, desperate desire to reach agreement with the Government is why I am saying he is misleading the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a Point of Order.

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

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

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