Changes to Queensland's political donation laws could increase corruption risks, experts say

Sweeping proposed changes to political donations in Queensland, including lifting a ban on developer payments, could increase the risk of corruption in government, experts say.

The Queensland government this week introduced legislation to lift a ban on property developers making donations at the state level.

The practice was banned in 2018 by the then Labor government.

The LNP long criticised that ban, saying it tipped the scales in favour of Labor, which is largely funded by unions.

The proposed laws would also effectively quadruple political donation caps to almost $50,000 by one donor over the four-year parliamentary term.

Transparency International Australia chief executive Clancy Moore said more private money in the political sphere, "can create a risk of corruption".

"It means there'll be more money sloshing about basically, whether it's property developers or rich individuals, which clearly creates a risk of undue influence and a quid pro quo situation.

The Australia Institute's Skye Predavec said property developers had a "particular vested interest" in government decision-making.

"There's a reason that New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory also have bans on donations from property developers, and why the High Court has upheld those bans several times."

Ban remains for local governments

The current ban was implemented following a recommendation from the Crime and Corruption Commission to prohibit property developer donations to local councils.

That ban would remain under the new legislation, with the government arguing local governments have greater sway over development approvals.

But Queensland University of Technology adjunct associate professor John Mickel, a former state Labor MP and speaker of parliament, disagreed with that argument.

"The state government sets the urban footprint legislation, for example, about areas that should be undergoing intense development," Mr Mickel said.

"Equally, the state government does resume land for the construction of highways, and they can interfere in processes that are taking too long, such as for hospitals or schools."

But he wasn't entirely convinced developers would be happy about the change.

"They might say, well, we're free from the exemption, but they're also free to be approached for donations."

South Australia's taxpayer-funded model

While the Sunshine State has proposed greater private political spending,  South Australia has moved to the other end of the spectrum.

South Australia last year banned politicians, candidates, and political parties from accepting financial donations and capped party spending on election campaigns.

Instead, taxpayers foot the bill for parties and candidates, based on a payment per vote system.

Mr Moore said while the model may reduce the risk of private influence, it entrenches the electoral position of the major parties.

"There's no silver bullet here," he said.

"Yes, it reduces the risk of big business funding political parties or candidates and wanting a return.

"But there's also an argument that it might disadvantage independents and minor candidates, with public funding based on primary votes at previous elections."

Optional preferential voting commitment

One change not included in the swathe of electoral reforms this week was scrapping compulsory preferential voting.

The system requires voters to number all the boxes of candidates when at the polling booth.

Attorney-General Deb Frecklington this week reiterated the government's commitment to legislate optional preferential voting in the future.

Mr Mickel is not sure it will benefit the government.

"They (the LNP) would have been three seats down if it had applied at the last election," he said.

"People who don't vote for the major parties are often indifferent to where their preferences go.

"It may well be for optional preferential voting, they vote for the person who is going to do, in their view, the least damage, and that's it, they voted."

He said ultimately, the voters historically ensured they got the result they wanted.

"If people have had enough of you, it doesn't matter what voting system you've got, the voters will find a way to get rid of you."