Clive Palmer faces electoral probe after secret mediation talks fail

Legal action will continue to determine whether he’s a property developer and a banned donor.

Clive Palmer handing out how-to-vote cards during the Queensland state election campaign. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

Secret mediation talks between Clive Palmer and the Electoral Commission of Queensland have been abandoned and the ECQ will continue with legal action to ­determine whether the businessman is a property developer and subsequently a banned political donor.

Negotiations between Mr Palmer and the ECQ took place over the past few weeks after a hearing last month in the ­Supreme Court of Queensland when a judge ruled the commission needed to proceed with its case by formal statement of claim.

Last year, the ECQ launched legal action asking the Supreme Court to determine if Mr Palmer’s company, Palmer Leisure, could be declared a property developer.

The matter will be a test of the Palaszczuk government’s laws banning property developers from donating to political parties.

The out-of-court talks followed an application by Mr Palmer’s lawyers for the case to be thrown out for an “abuse of process” or, alternatively, for the ECQ to be forced to state its case in a formal statement of claim.

In a hearing in the Supreme Court in Brisbane on February 16, judge Peter Callaghan agreed, saying the case would need to proceed via a statement of claim.

Justice Callaghan did not rule on whether Mr Palmer was a property developer but certain comments about the legal issues raised in its application led the ECQ to consider its case. “Following the procedural ruling, the ECQ undertook good-faith discussions with Palmer Leisure to resolve the matter,” it said in a statement on Thursday. “These negotiations proved unsuccessful and an agreement could not be reached. The court will now determine whether Palmer Leisure Australia is a ­property developer under the Electoral Act.”

Mr Palmer rejected the characterisation that he was a property developer, insisting his main business was mining, not real estate, and he had not lodged a new development application since the ban on developer donations became law.

“My companies have lodged one development application since 2015, that was six years ago,’’ Mr Palmer said in a statement.

“The relevant provision in the Act says that an entity or person who regularly lodges applications is deemed to be a developer.

“Everyone knows that my main business is mining, not development, and that neither myself nor my companies have lodged a new development application since the ban on developer donations became law.”

Mr Palmer said taxpayer money was being wasted on the case.

“Their case is hopeless and I’m sure we will see this matter struck out,’’ he said.

The ECQ’s application to the court followed an investigation by The Australian that revealed Palmer Leisure had submitted ­development applications to the Gold Coast council. It is principally concerned by a development application submitted in 2015 and amended twice in 2018.

Between August and November, the company, directed by Mr Palmer, made six donations to Mr Palmer’s United Australia Party, which ran 55 candidates at the ­October 31 state election. The party’s multi-million-dollar campaign was funded by Mr Palmer and his network of companies.

Following Palaszczuk government amendments in 2018, backdated to before the 2017 state election, the Electoral Act ­defines a property developer as “a corporation engaged in a business that regularly involves the making of relevant planning applications by or on behalf of the corporation”.