Electoral Legislation (Political Donations) Amendment Bill 2018

As the bill's sponsor, argued that corporate political donations amount to legalised corruption and that corporations, as fictional legal constructs, should not have the same rights as natural persons to participate in political funding.

“Corporations are not people and they do not deserve the right to buy access and influence in the political process in the way they are currently allowed and that this bill would put a stop to.”— 2020-02-18View Hansard

Argued the bill unfairly targets for-profit corporations while exempting not-for-profits like GetUp, and attacked it as an assault on democratic rights of businesses to participate in politics.

“When did for-profit corporations stop becoming citizens of this country? This should be a fundamental right.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

As the bill's sponsor, argued that corporate donations create actual and perceived corruption, erode public confidence in politics, and that both Labor and the LNP are beholden to corporate donors who receive favourable outcomes.

“You cannot serve two masters. Either you are working for the people of Queensland or you are working for the big corporations who pay your way through elections.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill noting the Economics and Governance Committee recommended it not be passed, and cited the existing Belcarra reforms as sufficient.

“The Economics and Governance Committee made only one recommendation in its report and that was that the bill not be passed.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Argued the bill lacks evidence to support a blanket corporate donation ban and would not survive High Court challenge, noting the CCC found insufficient evidence of corruption from corporate donations to justify such restrictions.

“It is the job of any member bringing a bill before the parliament to provide the supporting evidence in relation to that bill, not put the bill into the parliament and ask the committee or the government to go off and find the evidence to support it.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

As a committee member, argued the bill lacks evidence to justify banning corporate donations, is likely unconstitutional based on High Court precedent, and noted even the CCC did not support expanding the Belcarra reforms this far.

“I think that this bill is likely to be unconstitutional. For donations to be banned, the High Court has held that there needs to be a clearly identified corruption risk. Nowhere in this bill has that risk been identified.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Criticised the bill as ideologically irrational and hypocritical, noting it exempts trade unions while banning corporate donations, and that the Greens themselves received $1.6 million from corporate founder Graeme Wood.

“Two words missing from this bill are 'trade unions'. Clause 6 of the bill states that 'a company registered under the Corporations Act is a prohibited donor'. Expressly excluded are organisations registered as an organisation under the Industrial Relations Act 2016.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Criticised the bill as hypocritical for excluding trade union donations while targeting corporations, arguing it would skew the electoral landscape against the opposition.

“This bill, just like the Labor Party's bill, would see the further erosion of the potential for the opposition to have a sufficiently funded campaign to keep the government to account.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Argued the bill goes too far and serves no utility, emphasising that the Palaszczuk government has already implemented sensible Belcarra reforms and the bill would likely fail constitutional challenge under the Lange test.

“The best way I can describe this bill is that it is one step too far and serves no utility in providing the people of Queensland any positive engagement with the democratic process, either during campaigning or at election time.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Supported the bill citing collapsing public trust in government, with 85% of Australians believing politicians are corrupt, and argued corporate donations allow wealthy interests to capture government decision-making.

“We need to separate corporate power and money from government decision-making in order to go some way to restoring people's faith in the independence and integrity of government.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Accused the bill of political grandstanding and hypocrisy, noting that the High Court has established clear rules on donation bans and the CCC found no evidence of corruption from corporate donations.

“This legislation smells to high heaven of grandstanding and political hypocrisy in relation to what the member for Maiwar has tried to put into effect in law through this House.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Acknowledged community concerns about corporate influence but concluded the bill lacks sufficient evidence to pass constitutional tests and would create an uneven playing field by targeting only one source of donations.

“However, supporting it in its current state would not be appropriate, as targeting only one source of large donations could be seen as creating an uneven playing field and not addressing what is sought: reducing the risk of undue influence or corruption.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Described the bill as poorly thought out, certain to face High Court challenge, and an example of grandstanding rather than serious legislation, while highlighting the Palaszczuk government's genuine electoral reforms.

“I say to the member for Maiwar that the Queensland parliament is not a place for grandstanding; it is a place for serious business and serious reform in the interests of the citizens of Queensland.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill as an intrusion on democratic rights, arguing businesses that take risks and pay taxes should be free to donate to parties of their choice with proper disclosure, and accused the Greens of seeking political advantage.

“Those people have shown initiative, have shown enterprise, have been successful, have employed people and have paid taxes. They have sought a profit, as if seeking a profit is a bad thing.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Acknowledged public perception of politics is a problem but argued this bill would not address it, citing the CCC's finding of insufficient evidence and concerns about constitutional validity under the Lange test.

“We truly live in one of the best democracies in the world... This bill does have the very worthy aspiration of wanting to help restore the confidence of Queenslanders in their political system—and that is something every member of this House should be working hard to do—but this bill will certainly not achieve that.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Characterised the bill as a 'financial gerrymander' by the Greens seeking political advantage, and argued adequate disclosure laws are sufficient rather than banning donations from risk-taking businesses.

“I have a theory that when people make a donation to the political process they are attempting to buy good government rather than buy a government.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Argued the bill would concentrate political power in the hands of wealthy individuals rather than reducing it, citing examples of large individual donations to the Greens while corporations would be banned.

“This bill is about political donations and expenditure of political donations... This bill does not go to the small person, it goes to the likes of Clive Palmer and Professor Chilla Bulbeck. They want to concentrate individual wealth and hijack our political system.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

As bill sponsor, defended the legislation arguing corporate donations represent 'legalised corruption' where banks, fossil fuel companies and developers write cheques to politicians making decisions affecting them, and welcomed Labor adopting Greens policy on donation caps.

“The question is about bosses who are trying to underpay their workers, banks that are ripping off their customers and mining companies that are trying to dig up a dangerous product. Should those corporations be writing cheques to the same politicians who are making decisions?”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Argued the bill treats donations unequally by banning corporate donations while allowing unlimited union donations, and noted the CCC found no sufficient evidence to support such restrictions.

“A bill that bans political donations from corporations but continues to allow donations from unions demonstrates how one-sided and self-interested the Greens really are, particularly when the Australian Labor Party, including the Queensland branch, is the main beneficiary of large amounts of donations from unions.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

As committee chair, explained the unanimous committee recommendation against the bill due to constitutional concerns, arguing it would fail High Court challenge and criticising the member for Maiwar's misrepresentation of the committee's reasoning.

“We gave a good reason. It was because of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. We gave that as a good reason that this bill should not be passed.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard