Make it all in, or all out, for political donations

THE ban on political donations from property developers is a breach of democratic and legal principles – but if you’re going to do it, make sure the same standards are applied to unions, too, writes Graham Young.

• Premier stares down challenge on donations ban
• Developer donations ban hinges on unions
• First talks on banning donations
• ALP stops seeking developer gifts

THERE’S no way around using blanket categories like “property developers”, “unions” or “big end of town”.
You have to be able to generalise to discuss, but often the generalisations obscure the truth.

Take “property developer”.

Recently, the ABC highlighted the fact the LNP returned a $5000 donation to Brian Flannery because one of his companies is involved in property development.

Flannery had a low profile and had done nothing illegal, but suddenly he is cast in the role of villain – not just a property developer but possibly shady.

Why else would the LNP be returning his cheque? So who is Flannery?

He’s one of Queensland’s richest men with an estimated net worth in 2016 of $823 million, and chairman of the Mater Group Board.

He’s a miner, which is where most of his interests still lie, but he and his wife also own KTQ Developments, a property development company.

So his wife’s business makes him a property developer, which means he can vote but can’t donate. While $5000 may sound a lot, when you take into account in 2015/16 the net wealth of the average Australian family was $929,400, to Flannery, $5000 is like $5.65 to you and me.

Mining magnate, property developer and philanthropist Brian Flannery. Picture: Tara Croser

It is also paltry when compared to his charitable giving, which in 2015 amounted to $2.57 million. This then raises the question: If he gives $2.57 million because it is a good thing to do, is there any reason to suggest his $5000 is in anyway corrupt?

People like Flannery have a big stake in our community.

His wealth is invested in projects that employ Australians, and pays taxes.

It’s reasonable that with so much invested, he should want and be entitled to participate fully in Australian politics.

Flannery’s story is similar to other rich donors.

What they give is, in their terms, chump change, and is frequently dwarfed by their other charitable works.

The largest property developer donors tend to be large, well-respected companies – Springfield Land Corporation, Consolidated Properties, Lancini Group, Denmac Nominees, Meriton, Walker Corporation. They see it as part of their commitment to the community.

Property developers don’t donate much more than the average corporate donor.

On average, a property developer donates $6240.45 annually.

Not a lot different to Flannery’s $5000, or the average corporate donation of $5901.35. So despite what the public might suspect, there is little evidence to suggest corrupt motives in most donations.

The United Voice union is the ALP’s biggest campaign donor. Picture: Suzanne Lowe

Except when it comes to the union movement, who are untouched by this legislation.

The largest donor is United Voice, which contributed $303,631.77 between 2016 and 2017 – 8.6 per cent of the ALP’s income.

According to United Voice boss Gary Bullock, the union had “won some fantastic commitments from Labor” and now “want to see the new Palaszczuk Government restore their faith, just stick to their word”.

The ban on property developer donations is a breach of democratic and legal principles.

People like Flannery are being vilified because of what someone else in the same business might have possibly done.

There is a parliamentary committee currently examining this legislation.

Hopefully, there are some courageous government backbenchers who are prepared to stand up for principle.

At the very least it should be all in, or all out. Otherwise we don’t live in a democracy.

Graham Young is the executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress and a former vice-president of the Queensland Liberal Party