Electoral Legislation (Political Donations) Amendment Bill 2018

As the bill's sponsor, continued his reply speech arguing that the High Court's decision in Spence v Queensland supports the constitutional validity of banning corporate political donations, and that corporations should not be afforded the same rights as individuals under fundamental legislative principles.

“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

Opposed the bill as an attack on democracy, arguing that for-profit corporations should retain the fundamental right to donate to political parties, and criticised the exclusion of not-for-profits like GetUp from the ban.

“When did for-profit corporations stop becoming citizens of this country? This should be a fundamental right. There are already guidelines and disclosures around donations to political parties.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Introduced and moved the private member's bill to ban all corporate political donations, arguing that corporate money corrupts democracy and erodes public confidence in the political system.

“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

Introduced a private member's bill to ban all political donations from for-profit corporations in Queensland, arguing that corporate donations increase both actual and perceived risks of corruption and that the government's developer donation ban did not go far enough.

“Today I am introducing a bill that will ban political donations from for-profit corporations, the first of many steps I will propose to restore Queenslanders' faith in our democracy.”— 2018-05-16View Hansard

Opposed the bill, noting the Economics and Governance Committee recommended it not be passed. Stated the bill's aim to ban for-profit corporate donations went beyond the existing developer donation ban implemented following Operation Belcarra.

“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

Opposed the bill on constitutional grounds, arguing it lacked the evidentiary basis required by High Court precedent to justify restricting the implied freedom of political communication and would likely be struck down.

“We can say that is not relevant, but it is because we do not want to waste taxpayers' dollars trying to challenge or uphold a piece of legislation that we know from day one is constitutionally flawed.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill as a committee member, arguing it was likely unconstitutional as the CCC found insufficient evidence that corporate donations posed a corruption risk justifying a ban, and that it would impermissibly restrict the implied freedom of political communication.

“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

Opposed the bill as ideologically irrational, criticising the exemption for trade unions while banning corporate donations, and arguing no evidence of corrupting influence had been tendered.

“For a party that alleges it relies on evidence based decision-making, the Greens offered truly nothing in respect of this bill in terms of evidence.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill as repugnant to democracy, arguing it would hobble opposition parties' fundraising while unions could continue donating to Labor, and accused the Greens of seeking political advantage rather than genuine reform.

“What this bill misses is that the trade union movement is able to continue to donate to the party of its choice, the Labor Party, with relative impunity.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Opposed the bill as going one step too far, arguing it served no utility in providing positive engagement with the democratic process and outlining the existing Belcarra reforms already in place.

“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.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Supported the bill, citing plummeting public trust in government and arguing that corporate donations allow big business to exercise undue influence over government decision-making at the expense of ordinary citizens.

“It is unacceptable for any government to be perceived as an instrument or a tool of big business. Large corporations, by their very nature, are simply concerned with one thing—profit maximisation.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Opposed the bill as political grandstanding, arguing the member for Maiwar knew it was unenforceable through the High Court, and criticising the Greens' hypocrisy on 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

Did not support the bill in its current state, arguing that while reducing undue influence is desirable, targeting only one source of donations creates an uneven playing field and the evidence was insufficient to pass the Lange test.

“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

Opposed the bill as poorly thought out and almost certainly unconstitutional, describing it as grandstanding by amateur Greens rather than serious legislative reform.

“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 into democratic rights, arguing it sought to deny businesses the right to support political parties and was contrary to High Court precedent requiring evidence-based, proportionate restrictions on political communication.

“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

As a committee member, opposed the bill despite acknowledging the worthy aspiration of restoring public confidence, finding insufficient evidence to justify the restriction on political communication.

“The CCC is the body that has extraordinary powers and is in charge of public sector ethics, political accountability and in investigating corruption in this state and it found that it did not have any basis for this sort of legislative response.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill as a 'financial gerrymander' by the Greens, arguing donations should be regulated through disclosure rather than bans, and that the government's existing developer donation ban laid the groundwork for this overreach.

“In the end, it is not whether or not you should start focusing on one section of the community. It is about declarations. It is about people being prepared and forced to declare if they are making a contribution to whatever side of politics.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it would concentrate individual wealth and benefit people like Clive Palmer while pointing to large individual donations to the Greens.

“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 the bill's sponsor, argued the bill had successfully shifted the debate on electoral reform in Queensland, citing the government's subsequent adoption of donation caps. Defended the constitutionality of banning corporate donations and highlighted new AEC data showing corporate money flooding both major parties.

“Regular Queenslanders know that our system is broken. Every time the big parties feel threatened by the Greens, they start to listen to us and to what Queenslanders want. They follow our lead.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Opposed the bill as a committee member, arguing it treats political donations from different sources unequally by restricting corporations but allowing unlimited union donations.

“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.”— 2019-05-14View Hansard

As committee chair, opposed the bill, noting it was unanimously rejected by the committee due to constitutional concerns, and accused the member for Maiwar of cynical grandstanding.

“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