Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026

Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading
4 June 2026 

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

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.

[Council divided]

[Bill passed 23 votes – 12]