Queensland Labor joins calls to prevent 'corrosive' Australian political donations law
Queensland Labor has joined the federal crossbench in warning that a “corrosive” donations law could once again open the floodgates to a “deluge of donations from property developers” banned under state law.
In a submission to the electoral matters committee, Queensland Labor called for the government bill to be opposed because it would open loopholes such as prohibited donors paying for access to state ministers at functions.
The branch joins the Greens, independent MP Andrew Wilkie, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Get Up in raising concerns that the bill undermines states’ stricter donation disclosure regimes or could allow electoral officials to ask voters for identification as a form of voter suppression. Federal Labor is yet to state a position.
The electoral legislation (miscellaneous measures) bill provides that if a donation is made for a “federal purpose”, only federal donation law will apply to it.
It would also allow donations below the federal threshold of $14,300 to remain undisclosed despite the regimes in New South Wales and Queensland requiring disclosure for amounts above $1,000, or $1,040 in Victoria.
The bill seeks to clarify the law after the high court struck down a provision that federal law will apply to all untied donations, a move that would have allowed prohibited donors such as property developers to donate to the Queensland LNP.
But far from allaying concerns, the new bill has reopened the dispute at the heart of the court’s 2019 Spence decision, with the crossbench led by the Greens and Jacqui Lambie pushing Labor to refer the bill to an inquiry over its potential to open a back door for prohibited donations.
The Queensland state Labor secretary, Julia-Ann Campbell, submitted to the joint standing committee on electoral matters that the bill was the “latest salvo in the Coalition government’s war against electoral integrity and fairness”, citing the former LNP president’s lost case to prove laws banning developer donations are unconstitutional.
On the bill’s substance, Queensland Labor said a donor with “nefarious intent” could make a donation to gain access to state and local politicians with a donation “ostensibly” for federal purposes.
It gave the example of a property developer paying $10,000 to be seated with the state planning minister at a federal fundraiser, which it said would “likely be permissible” under the new law.
“Simply asserting a donation is for federal purposes does not insulate a state party, or the state candidates it endorses, from corruption risks.”
The Labor branch accused the Coalition
of attempting to “undermine [Queensland’s] nation-leading political integrity scheme” during a global pandemic in search of “ensuring partisan political advantage”.
Queensland Labor suggested that instead of authorising the state parties to take otherwise prohibited donations for federal purposes, donations should be made to federal secretariats.
University of Sydney professor Anne Twomey and honours student Giacomo Rotolo-Ross noted the law allows the political parties in receipt of funds themselves – rather than the donors – to earmark donations for federal purposes and gain immunity from state laws.
They said: “The consequence of this is that a prohibited donor could make unlawful donations to a political party … with the intention that they be used for state purposes … but the donations could still be validly received, kept and used by a political party, as long as this was done for federal purposes.”
They warned that state MPs could also solicit donations from prohibited donors, asking them to mark funds as for “federal purposes” but “reallocate other funds [the party] holds, to ensure that the equivalent amount was available for the use of the state MP to fund his or her election campaign or his or her party’s campaign”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation agreed that the new bill was likely to render state laws on prohibited donors “entirely ineffective” because the distinction between federal and state purposes was “somewhat arbitrary” and donations “have the same corruption risk no matter the stated purpose”.
The foundation said the provision overriding state disclosure regimes for donations for federal purposes was the “greatest concern” and noted the supreme court of Queensland had found there was “no inconsistency between state and commonwealth disclosure requirements” because donors could comply with both disclosure obligations.
Wilkie submitted it was “virtually impossible” to identify the purpose of money transferred between federal and state branches of a political party, so
the bill “risks creating a back door” that would benefit the major parties that contest both federal and state campaigns.
In addition to warning that prohibited donations could be “washed” through federal and state branches, Get Up objected to changes allowing Australian Electoral Commission officials to decide questions posed to voters at polling places.
“This amendment will allow poorly trained and-or ill-intentioned voter officials the license to ask voters for their identification,” it said, which would allow “voter ID laws by stealth and could be used as a form of voter suppression”.
The Greens suggested the bill be amended to specify officials could not ask voters for identification and to “introduce reporting requirements to trace intra-party transfers”.
Academic Graeme Orr said provisions applying federal law to federal donations were “unobjectionable” – despite the perception that New South Wales and Queensland state parties accepting developer donations “may go against the perceived spirit of those state’s schemes”.
But he said overriding the state disclosure thresholds “actively undermines disclosure” and was unnecessary.
A spokeswoman for the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said the bill “fully respects the principle that state laws should apply exclusively to state political donations and federal laws to federal political donations”.
“Our legislation does not in any way impact on any state or territory political integrity scheme that applies to state or territory elections.”
The Department of Finance, which administers electoral law, submitted the bill was designed to “clarify the relationship between federal and state and territory electoral donation and disclosure laws”. The changes would “improve certainty for all entities and individuals who participate in electoral events” about which law applied.