THE CCC’S MOST VITAL PROPOSAL

THE long-awaited report issued by the Crime and Corruption Commission into issues surrounding last year’s local government elections makes a number of very important recommendations.

Possibly the most useful of the proposals is the suggestion that there be an expenditure cap for candidates.

Such a cap would benefit the democratic process by making it easier for ordinary citizens to put themselves forward as candidates.

When one reads that it costs a six-figure sum to fund a run for mayor of major cities in Queensland, including the Gold Coast, it is clear that the bar is set very high for anyone wanting to put themselves forward.

The need to raise the necessary money to fund a campaign for office is at the root of many of the questions the CCC was asked to probe.

To meet such a bill there are only two viable options: either spend a large portion of your own hard-earned money – as Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate has done – or find ways of raising the cash from donors.

Accepting donations, whether from unions, business interests, or any other source, inevitably exposes candidates to accusations of bias. The necessity of accepting donations makes the entire political process itself appear to be tainted, and driven by the interests of society’s most powerful figures.

It is unrealistic to expect that donations of all kinds can be eliminated – corflutes cannot be printed for free, driving around a constituency for weeks on end will rack up a sizeable fuel bill, advertising in media is not cheap.

But capping the amount candidates can spend would have the twin benefits of removing much of the debate surrounding donations from powerful interests, while providing a more level playing field for political hopefuls.

Ensuring what donations are still made are reported far more quickly than they are now would also greatly enhance the transparency of the process.

Such reforms would go a long way to ensuring the controversies of last year’s elections are not repeated.