Developer donation ban anti-democratic

Dear ,

What is it about the modern era that free speech and democratic rights are at risk from so many directions?

The latest assault is via the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission's recommendation that Queensland ban donations to local government  candidates from property developers. This has been expanded by the Queensland government to include donations to state candidates and political parties.

We are adamantly opposed to this, and you can read my op-ed from this morning's Courier Mail explaining some of the reasons by clicking here.

Our opposition would not change if the ban were extended to trade unions, gaming or tobacco companies (as in NSW). In fact it would be even stronger.

Individuals, whether on their own behalf, or as members of a group, be it an unincorporated body, like a community association; a not-for-profit, like a trade union; or a for-profit, like a proprietary limited company, or a public company; have a right to support candidates and policies they agree with.

There are undoubtedly some corrupt councillors, and some corrupt developers. But I'd bet that most corruption in city councils happens in procurement where tenders are let, not town planning. Further, bribes are likely to be paid in cash and banked to the corrupt councillor's bank account  via his bookie, or some other means of laundry, and will be quite independent of campaign donations.

This will not be changed by preventing developers from donating to campaigns.

The CCC report notes that it currently has no evidence of developer corruption.

The CCC report also notes that CCC investigations on the allegations giving rise to the report are ongoing - in reality what we have is an interim report only.

(Breaking news: Paul Pisasale has been charged with corruptly receiving money from a developer. It is hard to tell from the reports, but it would appear that money was paid to him, and not donated to his campaign, distinguishing it from the issues dealt with in Operation Belcarra.)

Issues that arise from the CCC report include:

1. Given investigations are ongoing, and the next council elections are not due until March 2020, why was an interim report released now, in the lead-up to a state election, when it would inevitably become politicised?
2. Given that the only matter the report finds that needs investigation involves the CFMEU, why wasn't consideration given to banning union donations? (Afterall the CFMEU admitted they were after a direct benefit and wanted specific laws changed).
3. How is it that the commission allowed its technical advice to be hijacked by the Greens, so that it recommended the government look at ways of handicapping candidates who had natural advantages, such as being an incumbent, better known, or better resourced? (Oral technical advice on these issues was provided to the commission by Professors Gray and Orr - no complaints there - Dr Cameron Murray, a conspiracy theorist, and Andrew Bartlett and Anthony Pink from the Greens).
4. If there is serious and widespread corruption in Queensland Councils why has the CCC not uncovered it before this report?
5. If there is not serious and widespread corruption, why would the Commission put any weight on a "suspicion" that there is?
6. Denying a person a political right because they are an innocent member of an industry that has a few corrupt individuals is a major step, and reverses centuries of the common law tradition that regards individuals as innocent unless proven guilty on either a balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt, and on the basis of their own actions, not someone they are merely associated with. There would have to be evidence of massive malfeasance for that to be even potentially justifiable, but apparently there isn't (2 and 4).
7. Won't prohibiting donations from legitimate organisations and people tend to drive the donations underground, making them less transparent, and criminalising what most people regard as legitimate behaviour, as has been the case when alcohol, gambling and abortion have been prohibited?
8. Why should property developers be forbidden from soliciting donations from members of the community for a political purpose? Does the Commission realise that it may bar the current LNP President, as well as a number of former Liberal Party Presidents, from exercising a legitimate democratic right to solicit support for the party of their choice?
9. Why should someone have to choose between political involvement and a source of income, for example, in the case where they own real estate and decide, despite it not being their current occupation, to develop it? Perhaps as a result of inheriting an estate? Or owning surplus land attached to their principal place of residence? Under the proposed legislation they might have to forgo the legitimate right to maximise the benefit from their own possessions.

This is not an exhaustive list, and no doubt we will add to it over the next few weeks.

The potential legislation (it has yet to be drafted) will go through the normal parliamentary process, so more points are  bound to arise. In the meantime we will keep you updated.

This is an outrageous attack on an industry which represents 15% of state gross product, and it looks like an attempt to tilt the funding landscape in favour of the Labor Party.

We are particularly perplexed that the CCC would lend itself to this.

If you want to contact me, please use this email address, or call me on 0411 104 801.

Regards,

Graham Young
Executive Director